02.004 If troops lay siege to a walled city...

[sonshi]

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

[markb287]

"If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted."-Sun-tzu.

As it may be easier now to siege a walled city, it was very difficult during the time of Sun-tzu, although the principle still stands.

[BingFa]

If one interprets this excerpt to refer exclusively to Urban Warfare then there is no doubt in my mind that Sun Tzu's dictum is apropos in the 21st century.

I shake my head in disbelief when I read news accounts of the USA's so-called Inside-Out Strategy for storming Baghdad. I personally think that those stories are floated and are simply PSYOPS to keep Saddam guessing.

We know Saddam is not going to mass his troops in the desert and that he has chosen to hunker down in the cities in the hope of drawing the USA into an urban battle. Thus, I conclude that in the even that the USA does go to war with Iraq, we will largely bypass the cities and instead establish perimeters around same and wait them out. Slowly and purposefully closing the noose as time goes by.

-BingFa:cool:

[willatlasshrug]

Again, from a business perspective...

If you choose to focus on business markets that won't quickly accept your product, or companies that show little serious interest in what you are selling, you will exhaust valuable time, energy, money, etc. going after the wrong market.

[willatlasshrug]

Sometimes this can be just common sense.

Let's say you are about to go to lunch with a co-worker and you want pizza, but your co-worker doesn't like pizza. It's possible you could argue for 1/2 hour and convince them to go for pizza, but 2 things would happen 1) You've lost half your lunch our, and 2) You may have damaged a relationship you need or enjoy.

It would probably be better to just look for an alternative to pizza.

[Cardinal999]

Originally posted by sonshi
If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

The Wise Strategist believes that direct confrontation creates prolonged scenarios.

Prolonged scenarios creates insufficent amt. of resources.

It is all about [Cause & Effect].

[gonzo]

I believe that this message conveys that if a major obsticle is in the way, before you can attack your objective you need to make sure that there is nothing in the way.

Gonzo

[MonteChristo]

People need action. They need to be engaged in something to avoid boredom. If they are not then their motivation drops. Also they can not take advantage of the terrain. So in fact they are exposed and not protected. There is an example of nowadays war that is run against the Sun Tzu rules. This is Russian presence in Chechna. Although they do not lay siege to walled cities, they attack people in mountains, who can take advantage of terrain. Even worse, they are changing the position. This extends the campaign increasing costs and decreasing military potential of the attacking army.

[HALBLEU]

In ancent times, the Supreme Strategist General (SSG) forbid the direct attack to a walled city only as a diversion. ... Cao Cao was the master of waiting out the opponent. Very rarely did he went to a direct attack. He knew most houses crumble from within.

[SunZulu]

Sun Tzu said, "If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted."

A walled city is the place that consist of the most resistance. Laying siege to a walled city is the least efficient and the most dangerous way to achieve an objective.

[nightwolf]

"If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

A siege is a long, exhausting and difficult operation. It needs a lot of troops and resources, a wise general must avoid it if there are alternatives.

[Dan]

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

A siege lowers morale as they troops are doing nothing and, apparently are accomplishing nothing. This will lead to discontent, and a loss of morale. Better to win before the enemy get to their walls and defenses.

Attacking an enemy stronghold goes against the stuff we learned in Ch.1. Attack where the enemy is weak, not at their fortified postions. This will give you the advantage. While attaacking the enemies' fortified area gives them an advantage.

[dej2]

"If you attack cities, their strength will be exhausted"

Sun Tzu of course speaking of the strength of his own troops. Cities in general will have at least a garrison of troops protecting as well as thousands of conscripts if necessary, they will have enough supplies to last months, access to warehouses full of weapons. Cities may have a defensive perimeter armed with spike pits, moats, trenches, fortified walls and towers. The soldiers fighting will have an added incentive to protect their homes, families and loved ones.

What would the purpose be to lay siege to this city? What will this accomplish when it’s over? If the residents of the city are eventually to become subjugated, how productive will they be when you’ve destroyed their homes, killed their friends, family and loved ones. If the purpose is to pillage, how much energy and resources will be wasted while the siege drags on for months, how much will be gained when it’s all over? Total destruction of the city using fire, especially during the hot summer months, would be quicker, but again what would that accomplish, the people left alive would surely hate and despise you, and nothing would be left to plunder.

Remember Sun Tzu lived during the Spring and Autumn Period in China’s History. During this time battles were seen as a duel between gentlemen, just on a bigger scale. Only barbarians laid siege on innocent people. So laying siege on a city would put you in the same class as the Xiong-nu (the Huns).

[Equilibrium]

So then, when is it profitable to take the city?

A classical case of circumvention would be the Germans going around the Marginot Line and then later attacking it after taking most of France, but later in WWII the Germans thought it best to take cities (while not walled, but garrisoned) as they made their offensive in the Battle of the Bulge.

In today's modern warfare, does this really apply though? In our "Policing" activity, the city IS the objective. In this war, we saw the US make a straight line of Baghdad, pushing hard and mopping up (the British) as they went along.

[pawn11]

hmm....
Linear, logical (ha Ha) warfare would be predictable in relation to the principal of cause and effect ie: If my town is attacked in turn your city will be destroyed. I would surmise that surperior strategy would avoid unwinnable battles and focus on winning battles and wars that lead to total victory...Quite an order.

If it is true that most house crumble first from within then I would set about arranging favorable conditions in which this could naturally occure. I would also supplement this by removing an enemy means of defense before the battle occures. When the time would be right to call up strategic assests the enemy would be dismayed and humbled in their absence. I would also set forth clear rewards that in turn would be self motivating for said assets to do this mostly of their own self interest.

Unfortunately it seems that walled cities do have to be attacked at times. I understand the logic of the Sun Tzu.
It mostly speaks to my own immaturity as a strategist. In absence of a plan I tend to attack walled cities (objectives) and yes my results have been quite poor. I guess I'll just have to keep on studying and evaluating this fine manual.

Sincerely,

Pawn11

[Bushranger]

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

Continuing ...

Laying siege is a mighty undertaking. It is also dangerous, for the soldiers are idle much of the time and cannot exert their martial advantage over the walled enemy. They are stationary, which complicates issues both of sanitation and provisioning. Disease and moral confusion accompany seige engines.

Laying seige to a walled city magnifies the problems generally associated with a seige. It runs counter to the general principles of attacking the enemy where he is weakest and avoiding prolonged battles. One's strength will be wasted.

Once one has entered a siege situation it is very difficult to leave it without surrendering the moral advantage to the enemy. One thus surrenders control of the operational initiative once one lays seige to a walled city.

This is a bad thing, and should be avoided.

[waterbearer]

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.


In ancient times, to lay siege to an entire populace was an accepted practice. The rules of modern warfare disdain such practice, but Sun Tzu's teaching reminas as true now as then.

Remember Mogadishu; consider Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Truthseeker]

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

I believe this augments what ST says about avoid strength attack weakness. It looks as though the walled city is a place of strength, therefore to attack this place would exhaust our efforts. We should search for the weak areas and plan our attack there.

[pol0311]

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

To fight an enemy in a strong defensive position puts the offense at a disadvantage. Lets take urban combat for example: If the enemy is hold up in strong defensive positions in a large city, the task of clearing that city is very, very demanding on the mindset of your troops. The level of awareness is so high a level that your troops can only hold combat efectiveness for so long before becoming exhausted. This tasks your men and eventually lowers morale which we alll know is critical to successful operations. Avoid strong defenses and seek out weaknesses before attacking.

[maxx]

Warfare, smorefare, you crass idiots!
How foolish you are to interpret this as warfare.

The application of this is so simple-

If you seek to try to control a group of people, you risk a high likelyhood of failing.

If you do succeed many members of your group, your friends, will become emersed in the new group thus lossing the strength of you weapons.

[MitchB]

Attacking in areas where the opponent has great strength is inefficient, wasting valuable energy, drawing out the duration of the competition and otherwise lessening the chances of victory.

[Tao-Tzu Neix]

Siege drains the strength of men. Their comrades die at the hands of few enemies and their hearts are heavy. Their supplies run out and they starve after their defeat.

Tao-Tzu Neix

[Trinity]

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

A repeated theme by Master Sun. If he tells us something three times we need to pay attention.

[Kansuke]

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

Attack the empty and avoid the full; what could possibly be more full than a gated, guarded, walled castle?

Strongholds are named strongholds for a reason; they are strong, and therefore full. Attacking the full is a waste of time, effort, money, and soldiers.

[FlamingCorndogs]

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

The seige of a walled city seems to be emblematic of several warnings.

The beseiger of a walled city has not only pinned his own forces down, limiting their options, but is trying to crush what must presumably be a strong point that has been prepared to defend itself. Rushing water may roll (or grind away) a huge rock, but one needs vast quantities of water to do that. And, unlike a drop of the water in the analogy, a soldier whose life force is expended on one target will not strike the next.
One who beseiges a walled city has allowed the enemy to choose the ground and other advantages, while limiting his own advantages.
The beseiger here vastly simplifies the enemy's calculations, which itself has to cede an enormous advantage.
Laying seige indicates encirclement, allowing no entry or exit. Most people in a walled city are in their home turf.
Attacking people at home is attacking the heart of everything that drives a person to become a soldier, a soldier to become a warrior, a warrior to become a hero. It's stoking the enemy's fire.
From another angle, who can retreat from a beseiged, encircled city? The attacker has placed everyone in the city on desperate ground, where he will fight. The attacker has come between every citizen and his or her avenue of retreat. The attacker has cornered a nest full of rats.
Consider two equal soldiers. They both become tired, bored, frustrated, hungry, blunted. The beseiged one, however, sees increasing destruction "close to home" in the truest sense of the words and becomes more desperate to fight every day. His fire may be banked, but it's not dampened--it's ready to blaze forth at the first chance. Meanwhile the beseiger just becomes increasingly blunted, and starts thinking more and more of just going home.
All that having been said, the passage speaks to exhaustion. This seems to be a reiteration of the prior warnings on blunted weapons and dampened ardor. Laying seige is a drawn out process, the slowest kind of victory. The costliest kind of victory.

[SubRosa]

This verse seems to indicate to me that "all that glitters is not necessarily gold." For example, it may be tempting to go after the big target/city, where there is a great concentration of wealth/resources to be won. However, the cost is huge.

This also seems to apply to work projects. I have seen colleagues practically cannibalize each other for a place at the table of a "hot and sexy" project, only to see the project eventually grind to a painful (and expensive) halt because there are too many cooks in the kitchen (i.e., too many conflicting expectations). I am a big fan of the "Little Engine that Could" kind of projects (not so sexy, but low-cost, immediate pay-off and big morale builder).

[Saro]

I agree with several on this thread in that this is a reference to the wisdom of attacking weak points and avoiding strong points. That's why walled cities are mentioned specifically instead of simply cities. Walled cities were, by design, very difficult to penetrate and a great deal of effort was needed to capture them.

This ties together with the theme in the preceding sentences about keeping fights short and preserving resources. Attacking a strong point like a walled city will be resource-intensive, especially in manpower. The more time and effort spent trying to break through this strong point, the less you'll have remaining when it's over. This is very important when making long-range plans and preparing for future potential conflicts. It won't help your plans for tomorrow if you use all of your strength today.

If I'm remembering correctly, I once read somewhere that in Sun Tzu's day walled cities were strictly defensive structures and weren't the political or economic centers we consider modern cities to be. If that's true, it could very well be that he meant to caution against wasting time and effort on a fruitless undertaking. Capturing such a thing would be expensive and would do little in support of your goals compared to other, more vulnerable targets. You have to consider your particular situation to determine what's worthwhile to capture and what can be ignored in order to avoid exhausting yourself needlessly or beyond recovery.

[lozen]

My interpretation is that this passage is not about urban warfare, but about attacking a WALLED city. Why go after someone's strongest point? Strategically, you would not want to put a group up against a stronghold where they will be slaughtered. This is such an important point, I know a lot of people that try to do this in business or in their social lives. You want to sneak around the back, or go in from above, or something. Don't drain all of your energy and resources on a losing battle.

[Zatt]

It sounds like basic maneuver warfare. It is better to circumvent your enemy's strong points and maintain the initiative by attacking their weak points. Force the enemy to react to you, and they'll come out from behind their walls to engage you on your terms.

Continue to strike at the weak links and the chain will break.

[Kane]

I think Sun Tzu means here that if you directly lay siege to a walled city. But if you attack the supply depot or other advantageous spot outside the casle, they will probably open the gates for rescue. Hiding an ambush party nearby could easily take the city then.

[Uzume]

In Sun Tzu's time—and throughout most of recorded history—laying siege to a fortified city was to come up against the enemy where he could be expected to be heavily advantaged. The attacking army, meanwhile, would find itself drawn away from its own zone of optimal strength, stationary on the enemy's home ground. The invading force would also have to rely on precariously long supply chains and local predation to keep itself fed and equipped, all while trying to break down the enemy’s defenses and outlast its store of resources. Despite greatly altered technological and geopolitical conditions, the truth of this passage is still evident in the realities of urban combat and asymmetric warfare in our post-colonial era.

[Realist]

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.
I'm sure the entirety of this chapter is based upon protracted warfare; preserving and taking. Thus, laying seige to a walled city is the same as protracted warfare - it is protracted warfare. It prolongs victory more than need be; and might just precipitate defeat. Even Zhuge LIang, despite his strong apprehension of the art of war, forgot this and had attempted to seige a walled city... and, of course, it was futile. He only inflicted damage among his own ranks, and, once irritated, began only to try different methods of seige. Defend a walled city, exhaust the enemy troops. Lay siege on a walled city, and suffer defeat. As long as you do not engage in protracted warfare, one that brings prolonged suffering to your army, and thus preserve your provisions, there is always another strategy. Laying seige on a walled city puts you at a disadvantage - and the opposition has the advantage over you; that is not what Sun Tzu teaches us, at all. Know your enemy, know yourself; never suffer defeat!

[Vesting]

Originally posted by sonshi
If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

This statement still holds, although in another sense of its original meaning. A siege of a walled city, as those in ancient times, usually lasted a long time (at least a couple of months, sometimes years), and endangered both the besieged in the city and the besieger itself. Thats why Sun Tzu seriously warned against it.

A siege usually took the building of fortifications and a moat with a wooden fence around the city wall, to prevent a counter attack from the desperate city inhabitants or from its allies in the surrounding territories.

The besieger had to build the needed warfare apparatus to break the down wall, like catapults and a attacking tower with a battering-ram. Quite a great task to accomplish, logistically, with the risk of exhausting for the besieger itself.

Urban warfare in the big densely populated cities of today, is the ultimate nightmare of the contempory commander, as those places are highly unpredictable in their nature and tend to exhaust the troops. The problem is that such cities are the some of the best hiding places for guerilla fighters.

[Hazard]

Originally posted by sonshi
If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

Attacking fortified cities before the age of gunpowder was an exhausting task that sacrificed huge amounts of manpower. Instead draw your opponent out by forcing him to be uncomfortable where he is safest.

[Hephaestus]

Originally posted by sonshi
If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

As later stated, the lowest form of military operation is to lay siege to a city. This is the worst because taking a city takes time, equipment, funds, and results in many casualties; therefore, the skilled warrior induces his opponent to come to him, as opposed to striking on the enemy's terms.

[Bubishi]

Originally posted by sonshi
If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

Remember that force is manipulating the battle to your advantage.

When you lay siege to a walled city, you are attacking its greatest advantage.

You are also creating a huge weakness in your army. That weakness is the long battle that you have to fight.

Since the most succesfull way to engage in war is to attack your enemies weaknesses, attacking their strongest advantages should be avoided.

[Theophilite]

AoW 2:4

Lamb: "Now explain why we should cultivate strongholds of good qualities?"
Lion: "Well, that is because If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted."

Lion: "That is to mean, that if you maintain good qualities sin will exhaust itself trying to conquer you."

[Duncan]

Originally posted by sonshi
If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted. So don't do it. ;) Look at options such as drawing the enemy out or using sabotage, fire, subterfuge, and spies. One example of this is the siege of Troy. There is evidence that the Trojan Horse story may be true. The Greeks and Trojans had fought eachother to a standstill. The siege was unsuccesful. The Trojans had made sortis - but on their terms. The Greeks could not defeat them in the open because the Trojans could simply run back behind their walls. The Greeks were becoming frustrated and were exhausting themselves on a stalemate. So they used subterfuge - in the form of the Trojan Horse to circumvent the walls.

[Yin]

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

The water can wait for a hole to open up in the wall for a long period of time..

But not forever..

The water will evaporate.