Strategic Patience (part 1 of 2)
The Conflict between Chu and Wu during the late Spring and Autumn Period
We also have joy with our troubles, because we know that these troubles produce patience. And patience produces character, and character produces hope. Romans 5: 3-5.
“Please, do remember the cyclical nature of life,” Sun Tzu admonished Wu Zixu.
The conflict among the states of Chu, Wu, and Yue, during the Spring and Autumn period (c. 770 - 481 BC), illustrated informative and instructive scenarios, as well as provided exemplary role models for the conduct of life. Its stories occupy my mind heavily in the past couple of years due to a confluence of world events. I would like to explore its lesson on strategic patience in this article, hoping that it would provide guidance to readers in today darkening and chaotic world.
Historical background
King Ping of Chu (r. 528 - 516 BC) requested a marriage alliance with the State of Qin, receiving a princess as a bride for his son, Crown Prince Jian. However, he decided to keep the princess for himself upon observing her beauty. Wu She, Grand Tutor to the crown prince, admonished the king for his indecent and licentious behavior. Wu She and his family were condemned to death. Both sons of Wu She were generals guarding the frontier, King Ping therefore had to request the former to write a letter, asking his sons to return to the capital. Wu She wrote the letter, voluntarily, saying, “I trade the lives of my family for the peace of the Chu state, hoping you would take this opportunity to repent.” Wu Shang, the older son of Wu She, willingly returned to the capital to die with his father out of filial duty. However, Wu Zixu, the younger son, decided to escape from Chu, swearing vengeance. Wu Zixu told his older brother, “You return to the capital to die out of filial duty. However, I escape from Chu to avenge father’s death for the same reason.”
Strategic context
The states of Wu and Yue located in the southeastern corner of the Zhou dynasty (c. 1046 - 256 BC). Those states were peripheral and isolated from the center of political, cultural, and economic power. They were even considered barbarian, in the view of some states in the central plain of China. Their fortunes changed drastically around the sixth century BC due to multiple reasons, most notably the appearance of many brilliant leaders at the time. In the following stories, I will concentrate on the qualities, characters, and talents of some of those interesting individuals.
Map of the Five Hegemons during the Spring and Autumn period of the Zhou dynasty
King Helu of Wu & Prime Minister Wu Zixu
Prince Guang was a son of the late King Yumei (r. c. 530 – 527 BC) and a nephew of King Liao of Wu (r. 526 – 515 BC).1 Accordingly, he reasonably felt entitled to be king in place of his uncle. Knowing that he wasn’t powerful and influential enough to overthrow his uncle, he bided his time and served the latter. In 522 BC, an opportunity seemed to present itself when a Chu fugitive named Wu Zixu arrived in Wu. The latter requested an audience with King Liao. In the presence of the king and his officials, Wu Zixu explained his unfortunate situation, claiming that his family members, including father and older brother, were wrongly executed by King Ping of Chu.
Ukiyo-e of Wu Zixu's escape, by Yoshitoshi
Wu Zixu further lamented, “On the way to Wu and near the state border, my beloved wife decided to commit suicide, hoping to ease the burden on me and quicken my escape. She believed her death would ensure me a safe and prompt departure. Her only wish was being together again in future lives.” Expressing his depressed and mournful mood, he, involuntarily, lowered his voice and mourned rhythmically, “This life to the next,
this generation to another,
it’s difficult to replace you.” Those were the last words, spoken between husband and wife, which presently echoing in the Wu court.
Tears rolling down his cheeks, uncontrollably, Wu Zixu began to kneel, pleading King Liao and his officials to honor her memory and provide him with assistance.
The Wu court began to be shrouded in silence. None in the audience dared to break the silence and ended up being the center of attention. Wu Zixu seemed to deserve a universal spotlight at that moment, as if his sufferings had the power to hypnotize all observers. Most of Wu officials looked at each other, unsure of what to say, and how to act. The tears on Wu Zixu’s face were duplicated on a few of those officials, whose countenances were naturally, and inherently serious. Some of those officials stared at the ground to avoid looking at each other, in an effort to hide their emotions.
Realizing that the audience had a hard time coping with his situation, Wu Zixu, forcibly, stood up, wiping away his tears, and proposed a plan for Wu to reform and strengthen itself. He estimated that Wu would be able to conquer Chu in about five years, by propounding on the weaknesses of Chu and extoling the strengths of Wu. Though sympathetic to Wu Zixu’s predicament, King Liao hesitated to approve of the former’s proposal.
Prince Guang, confidently and resolutely, stepped forward and exclaimed, “Your Majesty, I do have reservations about conducting a military invasion of the State of Chu for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the State of Chu has greater natural resources and manpower in comparison to us.” He then, slowly and deliberately, turned to Wu Zixu and said, “Secondly, I am also worried that our honored guest wants to use the State of Wu, only to punish Chu for personal satisfaction and vengeance. Therefore, his assessment of the situation is probably clouded, unreliable, and perhaps misleading, due to conflicting interests.” Turning to King Liao again, he articulated, “However, it’s morally right, and indeed, it’s an ethical duty, to provide a haven for our guest from Chu.”
After about another hour of heated and emotional discussion among the king and his various officials, weighing up the risks and opportunities of the situation, King Liao decided to adjourn the proceedings. He postponed making decision on the potential invasion of Chu. At the same time, he resolved to offer Wu Zixu a haven and protection from the State of Chu. He ordered an appropriate official to provide Wu Zixu with an official residence and necessary assistants, befitting a person of rank.
Wu Zixu was rather disappointed at the decision. However, he sensed an air of uneasiness and restlessness in the Wu court, especially in the speech and behavior of Prince Guang. “There might lie an opportunity,” he wisely reminded himself. He kowtowed to give gratitude to King Liao and all officials in attendance. He then followed a guide and retired to his residence.
Patiently, Wu Zixu passed the time in Wu, hoping to receive news about the potential invasion of Chu. There were times, however, he woke up in the dark of nights, turned back and forth on the bed, but couldn’t go back to sleep. He would get out of bed, light a candle, and sit by a window. Looking mournfully at the moon, he often mumbled the following lines,
“Who’s sitting alone by the window?
It’s me and a shadow.
By the time the candle burned out,
the shadow had already left.
There, I remained by the window,
alone and lonely.”
About six months later, Prince Guang, secretly and unexpectedly, visited Wu Zixu. He offered his regret and apologized for arguing against the invasion of Chu. Prince Guang then assured his guest that he himself would provide Wu Zixu an opportunity to avenge the deaths of his relatives, if he would become king in the future. Wu Zixu, suddenly, realized that the former had planned to usurp the throne of his uncle. Accordingly, he bowed and offered to aid in this endeavor. He promised to dedicate his time and energy to produce, formalize, and implement a plan to assist Prince Guang to claim the throne. In 515 BC, Prince Guang successfully overthrew King Liao, becoming King Helu of Wu (r. 515 - 496 BC), by following the advice of Wu Zixu. The new king then appointed Wu Zixu as prime minister. Wu Zixu proceeded to institute reforms in Wu. He also discovered and introduced Sun Tzu, an unknown at the time, to King Helu.2 He also recommended Bo Pi, another Chu exile, to King Helu. The king designated Sun Tzu to be commander in chief of the Wu army, tasking him with the duty to train and modernize this army. Meanwhile, Bo Pi was appointed as advisor. The State of Wu gradually grew in power as those reforms took place. In 506 BC, King Helu launched an offensive against the State of Chu and sacked its capital, Ying. During this invasion, the king personally led the Wu army, along with Sun Tzu, Wu Zixu, and Bo Pi at his side. In one of those battles in the campaign, Bo Pi, against the recommendation of Sun Tzu, rashly pursued Chu forces and fell into an ambush. Bo Pi was able to escape and returned to camp. There, Sun Tzu decided to execute the latter. However, Sun Tzu relented due to persistent entreaties from Wu Zixu and King Helu. Sun Tzu privately told Wu Zixu that Bo Pi was a selfish and corruptible man, liable to endanger the state in the future. Sun Tzu admitted that he wanted to execute Bo Pi to prevent future problems.
Upon his victorious entry into the Chu royal palace in Ying, King Helu felt proud and entitled, giving himself to a few sexual escapades. His unprincipled behavior was further encouraged by Bo Pi. Observing this behavior, Sun Tzu discussed the issue with his friend, Wu Zixu.
“Have you noted a change in the behavior of His Majesty?” Sun Tzu queried. “Of course, I do. But I don’t expect him to be perfect. He has sacrificed his personal life for the state in the past decade. So, what’s wrong with him enjoying life a little?” asserted Wu Zixu.
Sun Tzu looked at Wu Zixu, with some degree of astonishment and bewilderment. He realized that his friend had also changed. His thirst for revenge seemed to cloud his judgement. Later that month, Wu Zixu exhumed the remains of King Ping of Chu, who had died in 516 BC. Wu Zixu himself flagellated the remains of his enemy, the executor of his father and brother, and used the skull as receptacle for defecation and urination. Upon observing these events, Sun Tzu decided to retire from King Helu’s service and bid goodbye to Wu Zuxi.
“Farewell. I wouldn’t be able to achieve my goal of revenge, without you. You would always occupy a place in my heart and memory,” intoned Wu Zixu.
“It’s very hard for me to see the changes in you. Please, do remember the cyclical nature of life,” admonished Sun Tzu.
That was the last time Sun Tzu and Wu Zixu together.
The following year, Prince Fugai, brother of King Helu, staged a rebellion in Wu, taking advantage of the latter’s absence from Wu. At the same time, the State of Qin mobilized its army in support of the faltering Chu state, trying to prevent the latter from being integrated into Wu. King Helu subsequently had to withdraw from Chu to put down the Fugai rebellion.3
In 496 BC, King Helu, at the urging of Bo Pi but against the counsel of Wu Zixu, attacked the State of Yue while the latter was mourning the recent death of its king. However, Wu suffered a defeat and King Helu died from a battle wound. He passed the throne to his son, King Fuchai of Wu. On his death bed, King Helu asked Wu Zixu to serve his son. Turning to his son, he warned, “Don’t ever forget that King Goujian of Yue was responsible for my death.”
Wu Zixu Monument in Suzhou, China
Lessons on strategic patience from the lives of King Helu of Wu & Prime Minister Wu Zixu
Pick your timing, don’t let others dictate it. Prior to usurping the throne, Prince Guang patiently served his uncle for about ten years (from 526 - 515 BC). Likewise, Wu Zixu spent seven years (from 522 - 515 BC) to help Prince Guang to usurp the throne and then another nine years (from 515 - 506 BC) to achieve his goal of avenging the death of his relatives. Waiting is hard and difficult in the age of TikTok and YouTube Shorts. However, “I did not say it would be easy, I just said it would be the truth,” borrowing the words of Morpheus in The Matrix.
Life is complicated. Wu Shang chose to die with his father while Wu Zixu took a different path. Often, it’s reasonable for reasonable people to disagree on things. We need to accept this fact. Acceptance entails avoiding denial and realizing our inability to change reality. It’s about accepting the world as it is, people as they are, and you as yourself. It’s good, especially for safety reason, to assume that the concept ‘might makes right’ is operational, specifically if you’re on the weaker side.4 In Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus asserted, ‘Justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger.’ Socrates disputed Thrasymachus’s assertion. But astute readers know what happened to Socrates, so I won’t discuss any further.
Politics is an awful, cruel, and ruthless business, in which, ethically and morally incorruptible people, like Confucius, Socrates, Jesus, and Husayn ibn Ali, probably would not thrive or, even, survive. It’s important to recognize whether one’s willing to pay the price, prior to committing oneself to this profession. In the above story, Sun Tzu’s the only person who considered, recognized, and weighed this dilemma. On a more personal level, I, like many Christians, love to talk about how beautiful the Sermon on the Mount is:
Jesus said:
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
However, I’m not sure I would befriend, marry, or elect to public office someone who is poor, meek, or persecuted. On the other hand, I often observe that people choose someone who projects authority, power, and wealth. There’s nothing wrong with that; but let’s be honest with ourselves. Otherwise, we might end up like Pinky, my pet parrot.
All three main religions, rooted in the Middle East, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, promise the coming of a savior. My wife, Xuan Bui, in particular, looks forward to the return of Christ. But she often envisions Christ returning as a judge, a king, or a conqueror, similar to Wu Zixu returned to Chu as prime minister of the conquering Wu state. What if Jesus returned as a humble, meek, and poor person. She probably would ignore or, perhaps, hang him on a cross again. Belgian artist James Ensor beautifully expressed this dilemma in his painting Christ’s Entry into Brussels in 1889.
I will end on this somber note. Thank you for reading.
Christ’s Entry into Brussels in 1889 by James Ensor
I will release the second part of this series later this month. Please subscribe to receive it as soon as I publish it.
If you’re not familiar with Pinky, my pet parrot, please read Reciprocity in International Relations in which I introduced him.
Prince Guang might had been a cousin of King Liao, according to some sources. At the time, the line of succession in the State of Wu is an interesting subject. I might write about it in a separate article.
This Sun Tzu is the author of The Art of War.
King Helu’s inability to absorb the State of Chu reminds me of Proverbs 16: 18 “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” I think Sun Tzu wisely recognized this relationship.
In my opinion, the current news cycle provides proofs, showing the concept ‘might makes right’ is operational.
Thank you for the lesson in history, which I've been lacking in virtue to learn before the prompting of this new article of yours.
The following comments may sound like corrections. ... and being corrected tends to be intensely unpleasant. So let me add that, in consolation, this is just me citing others and talking far from my areas of expertise, rather than posturing as some kind of an authority over you, the reader.
Point One (out of three):
Quoting: ... In my opinion, the current news cycle provides proofs, showing the concept ‘might makes right’ is operational....
Scientists, at least some eminent ones, say that in science there is nothing that ever provides "proofs."
For example, the physicist Carlo Rovelli writes: "The very expression “scientifically proven” is a contradiction in terms. There’s nothing that is scientifically proven." Instead, there is only gathering of evidence that lends support to one thesis or another.
If scientists, which is to say people who study incomparably more than us in their fields, have that attitude toward proofs, what does it say for us who want to draw conclusions from the current news cycles that we follow in spare time?
Point Two:
Quoting: .....Pick your timing, don’t let others dictate it. Prior to usurping the throne, Prince Guang patiently served his uncle for about ten years (from 526 - 515 BC). Likewise, Wu Zixu spent seven years (from 522 - 515 BC) to help Prince Guang to usurp the throne and then another nine years (from 515 - 506 BC) to achieve his goal......
As sound as this lesson is, it actually understates the need for patience in politics. The German statesman Otto von Bismarck used to emphasize that politics, to be done any any decent way, can only be done multigenerationally. (Source: https://dominiccummings.substack.com/api/v1/file/733e1653-37bd-4059-9bb6-83c13dea7cc2.pdf) In other words, one has to give oneself without expecting to see the true or full results of the self-sacrifice in one's lifetime.
Compared to calling for people to have patience and bide their time(, it's a different league, a league above it.
On the light side: The cyclical nature of life suggests that the ever shorter attention spans will sooner or later be followed by a culture of patience, one that would be widespread and popular, leading to a new fruition....
Point Three:
In my rambling readings over the years, there was an encounter with this enigma:
Almost every authoritative translation of the Bible's Sermon of the Mount uses certain terms, that Biblical scholars, when pressed, generally agree are imprecise and misleading.
How can that be? It's a mystery to me. Here are the details:
/1/ The word used in the beatitude in Matthew 5:3, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Here, "poor" is translated from ptochos, which literally means "to crouch or cower as one helpless." It signifies the beggar, the pauper, one in abject poverty, totally dependent on others for help and destitute of even the necessities of life.
“To be poor in spirit is to acknowledge honestly and with understanding our spiritual poverty—indeed our spiritual bankruptcy—before God.”
/2/ If you read the original New Testament Greek you will see that Jesus never said that the meek shall inherit the earth. He said the gentle-hearted would inherit it. ….
1 and 2 are not my words, but quotations from people more learned than myself.
The implications are massive.
What are they, especially regarding the popularity of potential leaders: a topic for another time, perhaps.
Another excellent pick of subjects. I would like to echo point #2 stated by Dors above that good diplomatic policies take generations to achieve. I would like to add a little bit comments on top of that. I think in the old days the true strategic patience or any sound diplomatic policies required an authoritarian government, at least a government whose diplomatic policies are not subject to challenge by members of parliaments or any forms of civilian opinions. Such policies take time to shape, to take effect, and often make trade-off at the national level and hence may require uneven domestic treatments to domestic populations. If the policies need to last more than one generation, as in the case of Geman Empires, the rise of Qin kingdom to unifying China, or British effort to convince the French to switch from bitter foes into allies against Germany, then it takes either a good teaching from father to sons in a dynasty, or some national think-tanks or the equivalent, to carry the "torch". Or maybe both. But in a one-person-one-vote kind of democracy where the President and teh whole cabinet can change every four years, there will be no long-term vision. This means a deep-state HAS TO exist for a long term diplomatic strategy. Since diplomacy is only an extension of domestic politics (or vice versa, per your own judgment) the deep-state would have to dictate the domestic national strategy and policies as well. Just look at how post-WW2 successive USA governments flip flop in diplomatic approaches for example. Without a long-term vision, there surely is less chance for a long-term peace or prosperity.