If you ask almost anyone anywhere to name a single
book about strategy, I mean, or negotiation or
just how to win, one title always comes to mind.
The Art of War. Always. It's the first one. It's
this text that, you know, it just bridges millennia.
It's cited by everyone from generals to CEOs,
even football managers. It has this untouchable
reputation as the definitive guide to winning.
It is, without a doubt, a masterpiece of strategy.
But what's so fascinating here, and this is what
we're really getting into today, is that while
the book's influence is set in stone, the man
traditionally credited with writing it. Sun Tzu.
Sun Tzu. He's this complete enigma shrouded in
historical mystery. I mean, we're talking about
a text of monumental importance, allegedly written
by a man whose very existence is seriously disputed.
Okay, let's unpack this for you, the learner.
The source material we've gathered for this is
just incredible. It gives us that legendary narrative.
the one we all sort of thought we knew. Right,
the classic story. But then it immediately hits
us with centuries of scholarly doubt and, crucially,
a game -changing archaeological find that just
completely turns the whole timeline on its head.
Our mission today is to sift through all that,
the famous stories, the damning historical silences,
and the actual physical evidence from these ancient
bamboo slips. We want to figure out the true
genius behind this work and understand why its
legacy is just so unstoppable. So we're moving
way past the bedtime story of Master Sun and
his concubines. We're going to dig into the philosophical
core of the work, connecting the dots between
Han Dynasty history, Song Dynasty skepticism,
and a pivotal 1972 discovery in Shandong that
basically solved a 2 ,000 -year -old riddle.
Let's start where the history books used to,
with the legend. The traditional story places
Sun Tzu, whose birth name was supposedly Sun
Wu living during China's Eastern Tzu period.
Right. Specifically near the very chaotic end
of what's called the spring and autumn period.
That puts him historically somewhere around 544
to 496 BC. And that time frame, the spring and
autumn period, that's really important context,
isn't it? Oh, it's essential. This wasn't a unified
China. Not at all. The Zhu royal authority had
pretty much collapsed, and you had all these
smaller competing states just constantly battling
for control. Just constant warfare. Constant.
But the warfare of that era was often kind of
ritualistic, almost chivalrous in a way. That's
a really important detail to remember when we
compare it to what's actually in the art of war.
And you mentioned his name. Sun Tzu isn't a personal
name. It's more of a title. Exactly. It's an
honorific. It literally means Master Sun. We're
told his courtesy name was Chongqing. But for
historians, the entire foundation for his biography
rests almost exclusively on one single source,
written much, much later. And that's the key
problem. That's the key. For centuries, the primary,
and frankly, pretty much the only source confirming
his life, comes from the work of the Han Dynasty
historian Sima Qin. He wrote the Shiji, or Records
of the Grand Historian. And when was he writing
this? Around 97 BC. That's roughly four centuries
after the man he was describing supposedly lived.
400 years. That is a long time. It immediately
makes you wonder if C. McKean was writing pure
history or, you know, maybe incorporating some
well -known, maybe not entirely factual local
legends. Precisely. But it's C. McKean who gives
us the most dramatic story about Sun Wu, the
one everyone knows, the infamous harem anecdote.
Oh, yeah. This story, whether it's historically
true or not, is so important because it establishes
the whole philosophy of Sun Tzu right from the
get go. It's the perfect narrative device to
show that strategy and discipline, they trump
everything. Personal feelings, sentimentality,
all of it. So set the scene for us. Yeah. King
He Lu of Wu has this challenge for him. Right.
So King He Lu has heard about Sun Wu and his
manuscript on strategy and he summons him. But
he's skeptical. He basically says, OK, prove
it. Show me these theories of yours work in the
real world. And the task he gives him is impossible.
It's meant to be impossible. Take 180 of the
king's concubines and turn them into disciplined
soldiers who can follow orders instantly. A completely
non -traditional, you could say, soft target.
And Sun Wu just accepts. He accepts. He divides
the women into two companies. And in a really
bold move, he appoints the king's two absolute
favorite concubines as the company commanders.
Risky. Very. He gives them the first order, a
simple turn to the right. And, well, what happens
is exactly what you'd expect. They just ignore
him and start laughing. Laughing at the general.
A very bad move in Sun Wu's world. A fatal one.
Sun Wu pauses, and he spates this key principle.
If words of command are not clear and distinct,
if orders are not thoroughly understood, the
general is to blame. So he explains the commands
again perfectly clearly. He rings the gong for
the order. And they laugh again. They refuse
to obey a second time. And this is where the
story pivots. Sun Wu then says, but if the general's
orders are clear and the soldiers nevertheless
disobey, it is the fault of the officers. And
he immediately orders the execution of the two
company commanders. The king's two favorite concubines.
The king's favorites. And the king is freaking
out. He's rushing down from his viewing platform,
sending messengers saying, wait, stop. Those
are my favorites. I can't eat or sleep without
them. But Sun Wu doesn't back down. He holds
firm. He has the two women executed right there,
despite the king's protests. And he gives this
famous reply. Having once received his majesty's
commission to be general, there are certain commands
of the sovereign which I am unable to accept.
He's basically telling the king that when it
comes to military discipline, the general's authority
has to be absolute. Wow. That is such a brutal
and... incredibly effective display of leadership.
It just establishes right away that his strategy
isn't about being popular. It's not about personal
favors. It's just cold, hard results. And the
effect is instantaneous. Once the favorites are
gone, the rest of the concubines, they get it.
They understand the stakes now. They follow every
single command perfectly. So this display of
discipline works. It convinces King Helu, and
he makes Sun Wu his general. Exactly. And Sima
Qinian gives him this incredible military career.
Sun Wu supposedly leads the state of Wu to this
massive victory against the much larger state
of Chu at the Battle of Bogju in 506 BC. It's
the perfect biography for a military genius.
Right. He writes the theory, he proves it in
practice, gets the job, and wins the most important
war. It's a great story. It's a perfect story.
And that's the problem. This is where the legend
crashes into the wall of historical fact or lack
of fact. The skepticism really started brewing
back in the Song Dynasty around the 12th century.
A scholar named Yeshi was one of the first to
point out a really, really glaring problem. And
that's the problem of omission, right? If Sun
Wu was this brilliant, indispensable general
who won the Battle of Bozhu, you'd think an earlier,
more detailed history would. you know, mention
him. You would think. And we need to explain
to you, the listener, why this omission is so
absolutely damning. There's another historical
text called the Zuozuan. It was written centuries
before Sima Qian's records. And it's this incredibly
meticulous chronicle of the spring Anama period.
When it describes the Battle of Bozhu, it gives
you almost day by day accounts. It names the
generals. It details troop movements, strategic
decisions. So this isn't just an accidental slip
up. It's like finding a detailed history of D
-Day that somehow forgets to mention General
Eisenhower. That is the perfect analogy. The
most important figure who supposedly won the
war is just gone. The zoo is one never mentioned
Sun Tzu or Sun Wu at all. Not once. And that's
the foundation of this whole identity crisis.
It suggests the story was probably made up. later
or maybe merged with the stories of other people.
Exactly. So if the name isn't in the early records,
but it pops up 400 years later with Sima Qian,
how do we explain that? Was it just fabricated?
Well, some scholars have a really interesting
theory. They suggest the name Sun Wu itself might
not be a real name, but a kind of a descriptive
title, a cognomen. If you look at the characters,
they're pretty revealing. The character for Sun
can be related to a term meaning fugitive or
escapee. Wu, of course, means martial or valiant.
So wait, Sun Wu could literally mean the fugitive
warrior. It could. So the man we thought was
this singular historical person might actually
be more of a placeholder, an invented name for
the idea of strategic genius. Or maybe a description
for the many wandering strategists who were common
in the later warring states, period. That makes
so much sense. And it ties into another big problem
with the story, doesn't it? His rank. Yes, the
anachronism of him being a general. Like we said,
warfare in the spring and autumn period was mostly
run by nobles. It had these sort of chivalric
rules. There are really no records of professional
generals, the kind Sun Wu is described as being.
even existing back then. That kind of ruthless,
professional military leadership, the kind you
need to, you know, execute concubines without
flinching, that was really a feature of the next
era. Exactly. The Warring States period that
came after. So it casts serious doubt on the
rank and the whole story Semeikian told. It's
highly plausible that the figure of Sun Wu was
created through a process called euhemerism.
OK, that's a key term for you, the learner who
might not know it. Euhemerism. What does that
mean here? In simple terms, it's the idea that
a myth or a legend starts with a real historical
person, or in this case, a concept that gets
turned into a person over time. So instead of
a real person writing a book, you have a philosophical
idea, like the need for ruthless discipline and
strategic genius, and eventually people invent
a character, Sun Wu, to be the face of that idea.
He becomes the personification of the ideal general.
Precisely. It gives the text this powerful origin
story. The figure of Sun Wu is a magnificent
legend, but based on the silence of the Zuozhuan
and the historical context, he's very likely
not a historical fact. So the man is a myth,
but the text is real. And that's our pivot point.
If this legendary figure didn't write it, what
does that tell us about the actual strategies
in the book and when did they really emerge?
That's exactly the right question to ask. If
the man is a legend, then we have to shift our
investigation to the text itself. When was the
art of war actually put together? And the text
itself, this classical Chinese work with its
13 chapters, is now pretty firmly anchored by
scholars in the period that really fostered this
kind of thinking. The Warring States Period.
Absolutely. We're talking about the period from
roughly 475 to 221 BC. And the name says it all.
This was not the contained ritualized warfare
of the spring and autumn period. This was total
war. An incredibly unstable, high -stakes time
with constant conflicts among seven major states.
Zao. Yes, and this was existential warfare. Survival
itself depended on having superior strategy,
massive armies, and, frankly, ruthless deception.
The intensity of this competition is precisely
what drove the creation of these detailed strategic
and philosophical texts. They were literally
survival manuals. Which really highlights the
gap. If Sun Wu lived around 500 BC, but the text
is just steeped in the strategies and terminology
of the war in states period a century later.
You have a major chronological disconnect, and
that gap is decisive. Modern scholars now generally
place the text's composition in the early or
middle warring states period. I mean, the earliest
parts of the work likely date to at least a century,
maybe more, after Sun Wu was supposed to have
lived. But hold on. Couldn't you argue that scribes
just updated the text over time? Is it really
just the philosophical ideas that are enough
to throw out the whole traditional story? It's
a fair question, but it's not just ideas. It's
tangible, specific, historical markers, anachronisms,
things embedded in the text that a person living
in 500 B .C. just could not have known. Like
what? For example, several chapters of The Art
of War describe the use of the crossbow. The
crossbow, as a major piece of military technology,
was not widely available or used during the spring
and autumn period. It really only became a dominant
weapon, a force multiplier in the warring states
era. So you have a weapon. mention in the book
that hadn't really been invented or standardized
when the supposed author was alive. That's a
pretty powerful piece of evidence. It is. And
it's not the only one. The sheer scale of the
armies and the military organization described
in the book specialized units, complex signaling
systems, that all reflects the massive mobilized
forces of the warring states, not the smaller
chariot -based armies of Sun Wu's time. And this
is where our deep dive gets really exciting.
This is the moment it all moved from scholarly
debate to hard physical proof. The Yingquishan
Revelation of 1972. This is when history stopped
arguing and started listening to what was in
the ground. It was a huge and completely accidental
discovery. Construction workers in Shandong province
stumbled upon two Han Dynasty tombs at a place
called Yingquishan or Silver Sparrow Mountain.
And these tombs were sealed. Perfectly sealed
between 134 and 118 BC. So that gives us a hard
concrete date for everything inside. And what
they found was this incredible collection of
texts written on tightly bundled bamboo slips.
And what was so revolutionary about what they
found? Among those slips, they found an early
version of the art of war. Now, this version
was about a third the length of the modern version
we have today. But the core principles, the structure,
it matched very closely. So what did that tell
us? It proved the text existed by the second
century B .C. But what did it say about the timeline
of its creation? Critically, the archaeological
context, the dating of the tomb, it completely
backed up the scholarly conclusion that the text
was composed during the Warring States era, not
the earlier spring and autumn period. It physically
confirmed the redating that was based on all
those anachronisms. But that wasn't even the
biggest revelation, was it? You mentioned the
discovery included the second text. And that's
what really solved the mystery of who Master
Sun was. This is the real kicker. The tomb didn't
just have the art of war. It also contained a
previously lost work called Sun Bin's Military
Methods. Sun Bin. Sun Bin. Now, old historical
records had always mentioned the second work
and attributed it to a descendant of the legendary
Sun Wu, a man named Sun Bin. Ah, so suddenly
we have two master suns whose works were found
together. Exactly. And since both Sun Wu and
Sun Bin were just referred to by the honorific
Sun Tzu, Master Sun, in classical texts, for
centuries historians had basically gotten them
confused. They thought they were the same person
or that one book was just a later version of
the other. So a single archaeological dig in
1972 literally untangled centuries of confusion.
It all came down to a linguistic abbreviation.
It did. The discovery proved there were two distinct
but related texts and two different people. people
who were both called Master Sun. And what's more,
the material in Sun Bin's military methods overlapped
quite a bit with the art of war, suggesting they
came from a shared intellectual world. And Sun
Bin... unlike the mysterious Sun Wu, is considered
a real, verifiable, historical figure. Yes. Sun
Bin was a famous strategist who lived in the
middle of the Warring States period, around the
4th century BC. He was a genuine historical authority
on warfare. So that's the profound shift in understanding.
We go from believing in one single legendary
genius to recognizing a complex strategic tradition
represented by at least two masters, Sun Wu,
the archetype, and Sun Bin, the historical strategist.
And their ideas likely merged over time into
the one foundational document we know today.
It completely reframes the whole philosophy.
It's not the isolated insight of one man. It's
the distilled wisdom of generations of strategists
who were trying to survive the most brutal strategic
environment China had ever known. OK, so given
that background, the text came out of this hyper
competitive, philosophically rich. warring states
period it's not surprising that the art of war
is so much more than just a list of battle commands
Not at all. I mean, the true genius of the work
is that it argues for diplomacy, for intelligence,
for psychological warfare over just fighting.
It does outline theories of battle, of course,
but its central message is surprisingly nonviolent.
It's deeply strategic. It's all about cultivating
relationships with other nations, protecting
your own resources, things that are essential
to the long -term health of a state, not just
winning a single fight. Absolutely. And it was
recognized as such a foundational work that for
almost 1 ,500 years, it was the lead text in
an anthology called The Seven Military Classics.
Formalized in 1080 by the song Emperor Shenzong.
Right. And it's still the most influential strategy
text in East Asian warfare because its core principles
are just so universal. They apply whether you're
attacking a city or, you know, walking into a
difficult negotiation. Let's talk about the cost
of war because that's where this philosophy of
parsimony, of thriftiness really comes through.
Sun Tzu is obsessed with minimizing expense.
He's incredibly pragmatic. He's almost like an
economist looking at conflict. The book just
hammers home the prohibitive cost of long campaigns.
He warns, He actually quantifies it, right? He
does. He talks about thousands of ounces of silver
spent daily, the wear and tear on your equipment,
how far you have to drag food supplies. He argues
that the second you commit to a long siege, you've
already failed strategically. Because it's just
too expensive. too expensive. Sun Tzu says the
worst policy is to besiege cities. He calculates
that the resources you spend on a siege time,
materials, morale, are far better spent on clever
maneuvers that just avoid that kind of direct,
costly fight altogether. That's parsimonious
action. And this is where that intellectual context
of the Warring States period comes in, because
that philosophy isn't just common sense. It's
deeply connected to the philosophical tradition
of Taoism. That Taoist connection is so vital,
and it explains why the text has had such enduring
appeal. You can see distinct Taoist rhetoric
woven right into the military thinking. The core
of Taoism is the Tao, or the way, this cosmic
principle of flow and natural balance. So how
does the way translate into warfare? It doesn't
sound very Marshall. It translates through a
concept called wu -wei. It's often translated
as non -action or effortless action. In military
terms, it means you avoid using force until the
environment is perfectly aligned for your victory.
A general using wu -wei doesn't just charge into
battle. He waits. He waits for the enemy to expose
a weakness on their own, through their own mistakes
or impatience. So the goal isn't just to kill
the enemy, but to manipulate the environment
to get what you want. It's more like persuasion.
It's a battle for hearts. and minds, as the scholar
Stephen C. Combs put it. That's the core idea.
Combs argued that warfare in the book is actually
used as a metaphor for rhetoric. Both are arts
based in philosophy. The general's main job is
to master the mental battle space. And Combs
makes this really interesting distinction between
the Taoist rhetoric in the book. and classical
Western rhetoric. He does. Unlike the aggressive,
argumentative style of, say, Aristotle, the Taoist
rhetoric here is described as peaceful and passive,
favoring silence over speech. It's about being
subtle, flexible, indirect. That silence lets
you listen and observe so you never commit before
you have to. Which perfectly explains that famous
line, all warfare is based on deception. That's
the operationalization of wu -wei. You create
conditions where the enemy can't trust their
own eyes. If you are strong, you appear weak.
If you're ready to attack, you look unprepared.
This whole emphasis on minimal action and strategic
avoidance is pure Taoism. It's just amazing that
this text has been passed down and commented
on for thousands of years. It really shows how
it went from being a military guide to a political
one. And we have proof of that continuous textual
history. The earliest known commentary on the
art of war was written by the warlord Cao Cao
in the early third century CE. And Cao Cao was
in the middle of a massive war trying to unify
China. He desperately needed a good strategic
playbook. Exactly. And the sources tell us that
in his preface, Cao Cao makes it clear he edited
the text. He removed certain passages and added
his own spin. Why would he remove things? Probably
for practical reasons. He was likely streamlining
it for his officers, cutting out anything he
thought was outdated or just not relevant to
the huge scale of war he was fighting. But what
that tells us is that the text was never static.
It was a living document, being shaped by the
political needs of the current warlord. And that
scholarly interest just kept going for centuries.
Oh, absolutely. In the 12th century, a scholar
named Ji Tianbao compiled this huge collection
of commentaries from figures throughout history.
Du Mu, Li Kuan, Zhang Yu. This constant reinterpretation
proves the art of war was never just some dusty
old document. It was a living tradition of strategic
thought. So we have a legendary or merged historical
figure. A text written as... a century later
during a period of intense intellectual activity
and a core philosophy rooted in Taoist principles
of avoidance and persuasion. Now we need to see
how that idea went global and ended up on the
trading floors of New York. The immediate influence
of the art of war was, as you'd expect, felt
most strongly across East Asia. Its ideas were
so applicable, they pretty much became doctrine
in neighboring countries almost right away. The
sources say it was introduced into Nara, Japan
as early as 760 CE. That's an incredibly fast
transfer of knowledge from China. And it became
hugely popular among Japanese generals and the
samurai class. And its impact there was massive.
The text is credited with seriously affecting
the unification of Japan during its early modern
era. It influenced the three great unifiers of
the Sengoku period, Ura Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi,
and Tokugawa Ieyasu. And how did they actually
apply it? I mean, they were trying to violently
take over the country. They moved away from just
brute force battles and focused on strategic
leverage and deception. Hideyoshi, for example,
was a master of subduing the enemy without fighting.
He used economic pressure, political maneuvering,
and huge psychological displays of force to get
rivals to surrender without a costly battle or
siege. That is a classic Sun Tzu victory. And
even a thousand years after that, it's still
dominant. Admiral Tuka Hiachiru, who led Japan
to that stunning victory in the Russo -Japanese
War in 1905. A noted, avid reader, he used speed,
concentration of force, and unpredictability,
all classic Sun Tzu to just annihilate the supposedly
superior Russian fleet. And yet, for all its
dominance in Asia, the book took a very long
time to get to the West. A very long time. The
first translation into a European language was
into French, and that wasn't until 1772. A Jesuit
priest named Jean -Joseph Marie Amiot did it.
So Europe gets this text right around the Enlightenment,
but the English -speaking world was even later.
Much later, there was a partial and apparently
pretty bad translation in 1905 called The Book
of War. It wasn't until 1910 that the first really
solid annotated English translation was published
by Lionel Giles. And that's what finally gave
Western military thinkers a good version to study.
And that timing is so crucial. The book arrives
in the West. just as the 20th century is about
to explode into its biggest conflicts. Which
is why we see leaders all across the ideological
spectrum start drawing from it. The Chinese communist
leader Mao Zedong, for instance, partially credited
his 1949 victory over Chiang Kai -shek to the
principles in the art of war. How did Mao adapt
an ancient text for a 20th century peasant revolution?
He was all about maneuver and deception. He took
the principle that the army should be fluid,
formless like water, and turned it into the strategy
of guerrilla war. warfare. He stressed avoiding
big battles with stronger forces and making sure
you had the total support of the people. And
that influence just spread. Mao's writings were
in the Little Red Book, which influenced insurgencies
all over the world. Ho Chi Minh translated the
work for his officers in Vietnam and his top
general, Vuong Nguyen Giap. A noted student and
practitioner. His victories against the French
and the Americans were all about using the terrain,
being patient, and avoiding the enemy's strengths.
It's pure Sun Tzu. And like you said, it wasn't
just one side of the Cold War. The sources point
to American generals like Douglas MacArthur and
Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. being inspired by it.
Schwarzkopf, during the first Gulf War, used
massive deception. He faked a main attack on
Kuwait while secretly moving his main force way
out west for that famous Hail Mary maneuver.
That's a strategy ripped straight from the pages
of Sun Tzu. That universality just proves the
strategy is doctrine agnostic. It's about applied
psychology and leverage. And that's what has
pushed the text far beyond the battlefield into,
well, every competitive field you can imagine.
Business, sports, espionage. And especially modern
finance. Sources give us a perfect cinematic
example from the 1980s, the film Wall Street.
Gordon Gekko. He famously quotes The Art of War
as the guidebook for his aggressive trading and
his predatory corporate raids. How does Sun Tzu
justify insider trading? It's all about deception
and intelligence. Gekko's whole philosophy was
about getting perfect, secret information before
anyone else. Sun Tzu says, know the enemy and
know yourself. In a hundred battles, you will
never be in peril. Gekko's insider info was his
knowing the enemy. He knew exactly where to strike,
all while appearing disinterested. It was victory
through strategic maneuver, not brute force.
And this application goes way beyond Hollywood,
right into current geopolitics. Mark McNeely
argues that you absolutely have to understand
Sun Tzu to understand modern China's strategy.
This is probably the most relevant modern application
for you, the listener. Modern Chinese strategy,
whether it's in business, diplomacy, or the military,
is often analyzed through the lens of Sun Tzu.
They see a direct, unbroken line from the struggles
of the warring states to today's global challenges.
And this connects to the concept of unrestricted
warfare. Exactly. Unrestricted warfare is a concept
from the late 1990s developed by two Chinese
PLA colonels. The idea is that modern conflict
isn't just fought on battlefields anymore. It's
expanded into every domain. Financial war, cyber
attacks, legal battles, cultural influence, media
manipulation. Which is pure Sun Tzu. It's the
ultimate expression of the idea that the supreme
art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
It is. If you can achieve your national goals
by crashing a rival stock market, paralyzing
their power grid with a cyber attack, or dominating
key supply chains, you have won a Sun Tzu victory.
You've achieved your goal at low cost, avoiding
a direct catastrophic military fight. The teachings
of Master Sun, whether that was one person or
many, are a living doctrine for global competition
today. That's such a powerful point for you,
the listener. If you really want to understand
the forces shaping our world, you have to understand
the ancient playbook that's still very much in
use. So let's just synthesize this whole journey.
We started with the legend General Sun Wu and
that dramatic, though probably not true, story
about the concubines. And we quickly move past
that myth to the historical reality, a text written
much later during the philosophical pressure
cooker of the Warring States period. We solved
the mystery with those bamboo slips from Yingquishan,
realizing that the wisdom probably came from
a whole intellectual tradition involving at least
two master suns, Sun Wu, the archetype, and Sun
Bin, the real historical strategist. And the
true genius of the art of war isn't really in
its combat tactics. It's in its profound Taoist
-influenced philosophy. It's an instruction manual
for minimizing conflict and maximizing your results
through persuasion, intelligence, and strategic
avoidance. The takeaway, the principle that has
kept this book so relevant for 2 ,500 years,
is this. The greatest strategist wins without
ever having a direct confrontation. Victory is
secured before the fighting even starts by mastering
the mental battle space. We've seen how that
idea applies across all of time and every discipline.
The ultimate lesson is that the supreme art is
to subdue the enemy without fighting. Which brings
us to our final provocative thought for you,
the learner. If this ancient principle of strategic
avoidance and understanding your opposition is
the most valuable lesson, think about how it
applies to your own life. Think about a complex
negotiation you're facing, or a tough business
decision, or even just managing the flood of
information competing for your attention. What
specific conflict can you win today, not by fighting
harder or working longer, but by choosing silence,
strategic avoidance, or simply understanding
the environment so well that a direct fight becomes
unnecessary? What victory can you achieve through
that ancient art of parsimony? Think about that
until the next time we dive deep.