Tactical Formations

[summercomfort]

Jono and I are having an off-and-on argument about the practicality of various Chinese 阵法. It all started with me watching the trailer for the November release of 赤壁, where I saw the following:




And I was like: OMG!! These are the 阵 that I read about in my youth!!

And then Jono comes over and was like "That's stupid, you just have a concentrated force go in right here." And I'm like "nuh uh, you don't go around dissing a 阵 like that!"

My main argument is that back then, China had a fuckton of people (much of it serf/slave labor), low weapons technology (uh... spears), and a very complex world philosophy that is both actions and locations (易经-I Ching and the trigrams). So it would make sense to train your massive army into complex formations to better engage each others' low tech army. 《孙膑兵法》describes 方,圆,锥行,雁行,钩行,玄襄,疏阵,数阵,及火阵,水阵 8 basic formations. Most of them are pretty straight-forward -- the wedge for offense, the circle for defense, the square for when you can't decide. Back then they also battled with carts. But when you read the text on that page, it actually talks about a 阵法 based on the 8 trigrams. This is what 诸葛亮 adapted, which is I think what we see in the clip. (The diagram links to a long description)
.

It's all in good fun, but it has made me realize that my childhood literature is very different from mainstream. For example, my childhood reading of 西游记, 三国 and 岳飞 made me totally unimpressed with the Lord of the Rings. Big fights as the underdog? Political intrigue? The pathos of the fate of history? Yeah, got that covered. A small band of people wandering into dangerous places and experiencing various trials and tribulations? Yeah, got that covered. (Although 唐僧 is about as whiny as Frodo). And yet there are few people around my age who shares this common geekery, whereas LotR is something that everyone can tap into. Maybe the 赤壁 movie will help.

Comments

[yeloson.livejournal.com]

One thing I always got from reading chinese warring states stuff- half the strategy is all human resources decisions about the quality of troops and leadership.

Despite having stuff like flags and drums, odds are good communication is terrible on the battlefield. So you have to rely on your commanders to make smart decisions in the heat of the moment.

You have a complex seeming array, but what it is, is that you've got to put commanders who know and support each other (and, don't hate each other) next to each other to react and make decisions. As far as the other side is concerned, when multiple sections reaction locally, they imagine you've got some complex strategy, when what you have is actually a simple, but flexible one.

You've also got specific gaps, assuming someone's going to try to play hero, and walk their force right into a pincer. (Unless you run into a Lu Bu type of guy, at which point you're screwed, but you're kinda screwed no matter what when someone like that shows up).

Anyway, that looks worth watching! I love movies with the big battles!

[illuminatedwax.livejournal.com]

I mean, I appreciate the idea of increasing discipline and formation in place of not having much technology, but I'm with Jono in thinking the the idea of a "maze" is ridiculous. Why would an enemy ever let itself be surrounded on purpose??

There are a couple explanations (rationalizations) I can think of: First is that the formation could fool under-disciplined armies into thinking their ranks had a hole in them -- if you're standing in the battlefield on the front lines, you might not be able to see that they have a big maze and attempt to split the two formations you see in front of you and fall into their trap.

The second (more plausible, imo) is that they used complex formations like you see there, but not to lure their enemies into their malevolent murder maze, but instead just as regular formations, like the Greek phalanx. Then some writer or artist saw the battle from afar and got confused or creative and made up the (far more fascinating) idea of trapping your enemy in a maze.

[summercomfort]

Yeah, novelization is definitely a possibility, and then the director makes it even more flashy... but a lot of these are also documented in proper war manuals -- Sun Tzu and otherwise. If you look at the diagram, it makes some sense as a way to organize your army -- after all, each of the shapes doesn't look too outrageous. Each of the circles represents 1 cart unit. It forms a giant 8x8 square, but some parts of it move as a "wedge", and other parts are more defensive. The central command is in the middle, and there's cavalry in the back.

[illuminatedwax.livejournal.com]

That makes sense, but the idea of some how creating a "maze" that the opposition is "trapped" in is kinda ridiculous.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

My hunch is that this didn't see a lot of actual use, simply because it's hard to march in. Thus, an opponent could just stand back and send volley after volley of crossbow fire into your wheel, and there's not a lot you could do about it.

But it's still really cool.

[summercomfort]

Yeah. The 8 trigram zhen makes more sense, because it is a big square of 8x8 units, but each 6 units also clump into a larger unit that is in 1 of the cardinal directions. The page talks about how the benefits are its multi-directionality and the ability for the "corner" mega-units to help the sides and the centrality of command. But a major detraction is that in order to maintain the zhen, they have to walk -- can't charge, and can't beat a hasty retreat.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Do you know, off-hand, what parts of Sunzi reference these formations? I'd like to read what he's got to say about them.

English sources is yay.
古文 sources is double yay!

yrs--
--Ben

[summercomfort]

Well, the 古文 is pretty easy to find online, but it seems that the 阵 stuff is falsely attributed to him. There's a sentence "善胜者不阵，善阵者不战，善战者不败，善败者终胜" that is attributed, but isn't in any of the "full text" Sun Tzus. 孙膑 talks a lot more about 阵, and he is known as the 齐孙子, which might have led to some of the confusion...