In war, regardless of the enemy having something of value tension rises to a level in which the opposition does not care to barter, understand they can take the object of value by force, live well without the object of value, or a combination of circumstances. When they only want to remove competition "Art of War" proves its benefit.
BOOK III: 111 The cause is that it is more important for one to guard against being hit than it is important to hit the enemy.
Generally true; however, later on in book seven there are several stories of how people in the Middle Ages perished because the enemy camped close enough no one would leave the castle, yet remained a distance so darts and arrows were unable to harm them. Therefore, a person has to determine whether defense or offense is better. When both sides employ the same strategy it becomes a waiting game. In addition, guarding against an enemy does not always maintain a defensive stance.
Taking advantage of starving people by setting food outside their door is low; however, it would be better to not starve. A company should never allow another company to limit resources when competitors have the ability to replenish without limitations. Sometimes people gain contacts to limit ability to grow. The struggling company must get what they need within the company (keep livestock in the castle), find another way to get resources (built an escape tunnel out of the castle), find new alliances (send carrier pigeons for help) or risk an offensive attack (release the soldiers while they can still fight).
BOOK III: 120, 127-8 And for [the same] cause for which I did not have it fire a second time, I was not going to let them fire the first, so that the enemy would be unable to fire even the first time…. There's nothing that makes greater confusion in an army than obstructing its view. Hence, many very hardy armies have been beaten by their sight having been obstructed either by dust or by the sun. And there's also nothing that obstructs the view more than the smoke that artillery makes in firing. Therefore, I would believe that there is more prudence in letting the enemy blind himself than for you, blind, wanting to go to find him.
Fear often blinds people. Deceit is a common method of creating a smoke screen. This deceit occurs internally and externally. People taut and bolster by appearing to be larger than they are. This is also systematic of fear. The action relieves tension caused by fear; however, it also creates a reason to be afraid.
Constant attacking blinds soldiers until they are useless in defending themselves against competitors. Reasons relate to how competitors prepare for a larger enemy, become defensive then offensive and confuse actual capabilities creating conceit. This is an impossible situation which could have been completely evaded by avoiding boasting and encouraging confrontation. Of course, it feels good to vent; therefore, an ongoing problem for most people.
BOOK IV: 118 I believe I have reasoned with some of you another time that he who stays in the country cannot flee the battle when he has an enemy who wishes to fight in any mode. He has only one remedy: placing himself with his army at least fifty miles distant from his adversary, so as to have time to get out of his way before he goes to find it.
This statement in itself is interesting, because if someone wishes to flee they must completely remove themselves from a battle. The armies in a foreign territory assume evaders only flee in order to attack again. I believe this statement suggests a tactical means to return to their own country where they are stronger, because Machiavelli also states an army who always pursues the enemy will eventually lose.
These appear to be opposing statements; however, even a fleeing encampment has a chance to rejuvenate, hunt, forage and plan an attack after gaining knowledge enemy tactics. Even when a treaty is secured, peacetime battles continue to fester. It is far less deadly, yet it is difficult to dismiss a fierce enemy as a company cannot go bankrupt or sell the business. Assuming they are reorganizing and planning a new strategy to re-enter competition is understandable. Who chooses death when realizing enemies are relentless?
While all of this is intriguing it is not so much a guide for how to live life or ultimate truth. It is a series of events and philosophies for planning strategies. If one could avoid all this chaos, I am sure they would. If unable to gain this luxury it helps to review different tactics to win or survive. As Friedrich Nietzsche stated, "That which does not kill us only makes us stronger."
Related Article
Acting as Friend or Foe
Being the Non-Stalker
Dispersing Risk
Strategic Referrals
Quirky Books
Art of War by Niccolo Machiavelli
