Machiavelli and Sun Tzu: Comparisons on their Art of War

By Lucas Baur

Both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu’s versions of The Art of War were influential works of their
time and are still widely read and used today. To compare and contrast their works, I will
identified several key themes throughout Machiavelli’s work. In particular we will be
referring to The Art of War, with some reference to The Prince. These themes are Human
Nature and The Fundamental Nature of war, Specific Causes of War’ and ‘Kinds of War,
Model Commander, Psychology of War, Money in War, Deception and Waging War. Sun
Tzu’s work will be directly compared to these themes. This analysis will also draw reference
from the context they were living in, in terms of culture and time period. Their history and
background will be looked at first.

Niccolo Machiavelli was born on 3 May 1469 and grew up in Florence. His political career
started when he joined the civil service under the republican regime of Piero Soderini in
1498. Throughout his career he performed a number of roles including a series of
diplomatic missions and posts in France, Germany, and Rome.[1] This immersed him in
the center of political affairs in Florence giving him an intimate perspective on Italian
politics during the renaissance. Machiavelli was responsible for raising and maintaining
the Florentine militia. He distrusted mercenaries preferring a politically invested citizen-
militia.[2] His militia proved itself in the defense of Pisa from 1496 to 1509. Machiavelli’s
militia were subsequently defeated at Prato by the Medici’s Spanish mercenaries. The
Medici removed Machiavelli from office accusing him of conspiracy. Machiavelli was
then imprisoned and despite being subjected to torture, he maintained his innocence
and was eventually released. Upon his release he retired to his estate at Sant’ Andrea in
Percussina and devoted himself to study and writing political treatises.[3] It was these
political treatises that earned him his intellectual place in the development of political
philosophy and political conduct during the renaissance. Two of his most notable works
included The Prince, 1513, and The Art of War, 1517 – 1520. He also wrote comedies,
carnival songs and poetry.[4]

Sun Tzu was a Chinese military general and philosopher born in the late Spring and
Autumn Period of China (722–481 BC) which corresponds to the first half of the Eastern
Zhou Dynasty.[5] Whilst there is consensus as to when Sun Tzu was born, there are
conflicting references as to where he was born. The ancient Shiji document records that
Sun Tzu was born in the state of Wu. However, this is challenged by the Spring and Autumn
Annals which record that Sun Tzu was born in the state of Qi. Sun Tzu served under the
king of Wu, King Helü, as a strategist and general in the late sixth century BC, beginning
around 512 BC. Sun Tzu’s early victories prompted him to write The Art of War.[6] This was
later regarded as the most famous of China’s Seven Military Classics. The Shiji document
goes on to claim that Sun Tzu proved his theories on the battlefield. A well-documented
example of this is the battle of Boju where Sun Tzu was able to successfully out manoeuvre
the much larger Chu forces and ultimately defeat them. Sun Tzu’s The Art of War was one
of the most widely read military texts in the Warring States Period (475–221 BC).

Human Nature and The Fundamental Nature of war

Throughout Machiavelli’s military theory there are a series of key themes which emerge.
We will examine these themes individually and draw correlations between them and
those of Sun Tzu. First we will look at ‘Human Nature’ and ‘The Fundamental Nature of
war’. Machiavelli had a fundamental belief that mankind is dominated by its passions.
He believed that people were inherently short-sighted, greedy and were constantly
driven by desires that were unrealistic and unachievable.[7] He believed that this
combination of selfish traits creates conflict between those who wish to dominate and
those who desire to be free from domination.[8] Based on the assumption that selfishness
is inherent he believed that conflict is inevitable. Therefore, it was essential that the Prince
(political leader) put military matters before all others.[9] Machiavelli believed that war
and politics were enmeshed – while war was a political instrument, politics itself was a
warlike activity. He believed that politics was war conducted by other, less violent means.

Sun Tzu shared Machiavelli’s belief with regard to the importance of war to the state. In
The Art of War Sun Tzu stated that, “The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is
a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry
which can on no account be neglected.”[10] Like Machiavelli, Sun Tzu also believed that
war and politics were enmeshed; however, Sun Tzu had a different belief on the
relationship between politics and warfare. Unlike Machiavelli, he believed that warfare
was politics by violent means. Sun Tzu does not believe that human nature is innately
selfish. He believed that you should only wage war through necessity as a last resort.[11]
This philosophical concept comes from Taoist doctrine which was influential during Sun
Tzu’s time. In the Tao Te Ching the philosopher, Lao Tzu, stated that “Weapons are
instruments of ill omen and not instruments of the superior man, until he has no choice
but to employ him.”[12]

Specific Causes of War’ and ‘Kinds of War

The second theme relates to the ‘Specific Causes of War’ and ‘Kinds of War’. Machiavelli
understands there are many specific motivations of war but he believes they all can be
attributed to two principle causes. In his Art of War he stated that “There are but two
motives for making war against a republic, one, the desire to subjugate her, the other,
the apprehension of being subjugated by her.”[13] According to Machiavelli the various
causes of war give rise to two different kinds of war. One of these kinds of war is caused
by the ambition of the prince or state. The other type of war is caused when the entire
people desire to overthrow the society of another people. The key difference between
these kinds of wars is that the former has a limited objective whilst the latter an unlimited
objective.[14] The limited political objectives involve the seizure of some territory and or
domination of another group or the unseating of a particular ruler. In total war the
objective is the complete destruction of the opposing social and political order.

Sun Tzu has a contrary view on the kinds of warfare. Whilst he would agree that some
wars have both limited and unlimited objectives, it is the conduct of these wars that Sun
Tzu would disagree with. Sun Tzu does not view the destruction of a society as an
objective in itself. He believed in waging war with minimal cost of life to yourself and to
your enemy.[15] He stated that “Generally in war the best thing of all is to take the
enemy’s state whole and intact, to ruin it is inferior to this. To capture the enemy’s army
entire is better than to destroy it.”[16]

Model Commander

The third theme is what the theorists see as a ‘Model Commander’. Machiavelli believed
that a commander must be strong and capable in order to successfully lead politically
and militarily. To Machiavelli the ideal leader is that of a virtuous hero who should
command both the military and the state. This leader must be humble and seek the
common good of the nation but at the same time must also pursue glory.[17] He further
believed that the ideal leader must prefer a short glorious life over a long mediocre life.
Machiavelli appears to romanticize the classical leaders such as Romulus, Theseus, Solon,
Cyrus and Alexander and cites them as model commanders to be aspired to. This is a
clear reflection of the time that Machiavelli was writing as the renaissance marked a time
of cultural change inspired by a resurgence of learning based on classical sources.[18]

Machiavelli recognized that the world is in a constant state of change and that there will
always be events that cannot be predicted. He refers to this as fate or fortuna. A
commander must be flexible and calculating in order to mitigate any harmful fortuna
and similarly to maximize any advantageous fortuna. The commander must be able to
channel events to further his own design.[19] Machiavelli saw deception as an effective
means to this end and advocated the use of deception in both warfare and politics.[20]
Machiavelli saw the importance of a commander as being heroic and virtuous as well as
cunning and flexible. He describes this metaphorically in chapter 17 of The Prince where
he stated, “A prince being thus obliged to know well how to act as a beast must imitate
the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from snares, and the fox cannot
defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize snares, and a lion
to frighten wolves.”[21]

According to Sun Tzu the political leader did not have to be the military leader. It was not
necessarily that Sun Tzu opposed this, but more the fact that at the time there was a clear
separation of military and civil leadership.[22] Sun Tzu does, however, remark on the
relationship between military and civil leadership. He believed that it was not the place
of civil leadership to make decisions for the armed forces that would be detrimental to
them.[23] The biggest difference between Machiavelli and Sun Tzu’s model commander
is the significance of “glory”. According to Sun Tzu there is no glory in warfare. Sun Tzu
viewed glory as an emotion and to him emotion has no place in generalship.[24] Sun Tzu
makes this clear by stating the following: “There are five dangerous faults which may
affect a general: If reckless, he can be killed; if cowardly, captured; if quick-tempered,
he can be provoked to rage and make a fool of himself; if he has to delicate a sense of
honor, he is liable to fall into a trap because of an insult; if he is of a compassionate
nature, he may get bothered and upset.”[25] In fact, Sun Tzu saw glory as a hindrance
to generalship. He stated that “Hence, the general who advances without coveting
fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only purpose is to protect his people
and promote the best interests of the sovereign, is the precious jewel of the state.”

Sun Tzu’s ideal commander is one who has a cool calculating nature. Sun Tzu does,
however, concur with Machiavelli with regard to having a cunning leader who has the
ability to manipulate events to his own design. Much of Sun Tzu’s philosophy is about
being flexible, adaptable and calculating. Sun Tzu also placed heavy emphasis on the
skilful use of deception. He illustrates this in the The Art of War when he states: “All warfare
is based on deception. Therefore, common, when able to attack, we must pretend to
be unable; when employing our force we must seem inactive; when we are near, we
must make the enemy believe we are far away; when we are far away, we must make
him believe we are near.”[26]

Psychology of War

The fourth theme is the ‘Psychology of War’ which Machiavelli frequently refers to
throughout his works. As noted previously, Machiavelli believed men were driven by their
self-serving goals of acquiring money, power and glory. However, he recognized that
these desires would not overcome the greater fear of death.[27] He believed that in the
face of battle men would quickly abandon their desires for money and power over self
preservation. Therefore, he believed it was essential to employ different means to
motivate one’s armed forces. These may include music, oratory or rewards.[28] However,
one of the principle motivators he cited was religion. Machiavelli saw the importance of
religion as a utility for motivating men to fight. He observed that religion had been
effectively used as a motivator by the Romans. Prophesying victory in battle instilled
confidence in men. Conversely, the threat of divine retribution would discourage
cowardice. Religion could be used to indoctrinate troops with ideals such as the love of
one’s country and dedication to serving one’s country.[29] Another principle motivator
that Machiavelli cited was appearance. He believed that a heroic virtuous commander
would be able to inspire his men.[30] However, Machiavelli believed that the most
effective motivator was necessity. Necessity could be the difference between life and
death. Defeat could result in the destruction of one’s home and or state.[31] It is noted
that all these ideals endorse Machiavelli’s belief that civilian militias were preferable over
paid mercenaries.

Sun Tzu also makes frequent references to the psychology of war throughout his works.
Sun Tzu not only talks about the psychology of motivating one’s men but also about the
psychology of the general and the enemy. Unlike Machiavelli, Sun Tzu makes no
reference to religion in his works. In respect of motivators, Sun Tzu cited the importance
of appearance. He believed that rather than being a virtuous hero, a general must
always be vigilant in masking his emotions and intentions.[32] This is clear to see in the
following quote: “It is the business of the general to be quiet and thus ensure depth in
deliberation; impartial and upright, and thus keep a good management. He should be
able to mystify his officers and men by false reports and appearances, and thus keep
them in total ignorance.”[33] In spite of the detached non-emotive facade that Sun Tzu
advocated for a general, he also believed that the general should maintain a
fundamental love and respect for his men which should be balanced with discipline and
duty.[34] In The Art of War he stated: “If a general regards his men as infants, then they
will march with him into the deepest valleys. He treats them as his own beloved sons and
they will stand by him until death. If, however, a general is indulgent towards his men but
cannot employ them, cherishes them but cannot command them or inflict punishment
on them when they violate regulations, then they may be compared to spoiled children,
and are useless for any practical purpose.”[35] Sun Tzu, like Machiavelli, saw the
importance “necessity” played in motivating troops. He believed people could
overcome the fear of death if they had no choice but to face it. This concept is known
as ‘Death Ground/Desperate Ground’. Essentially this meant that if soldiers were
positioned in a manner in which there was no escape with no choice but to fight, they
would give their upmost to survive.[36]

Money in War

The fifth theme relates to relevance of ‘Money in War’. Machiavelli did not see money as
the sinew of war. He believed that if the troops had an ideological stake in the war i.e.
protection of the nation, then money or payment would be an afterthought. He also
believed that payment could be substituted with loot. This concept comes from
Machiavelli’s dislike and distrust of mercenaries. Machiavelli also understood that war
was a costly affair and should not be engaged in lightly.[37]

Sun Tzu firmly believed that money had an important role to play in war. However, he
may have been referring to this as resources rather than currency. He understood the
importance of seizing enemy resources, weaponry and manpower to strengthen his own
force.[38] Sun Tzu states in The Art of War that, “Hence a wise general is sure of getting
provisions from the enemy countries. One zhong of grains obtained from a local area is
equal to 20 zhong shipped from the home country.”[39] Sun Tzu also understood that war
was expensive citing provisioning as the greatest cost to be covered.

Deception

The sixth theme discussed in Machiavelli’s work is ‘Deception’. Machiavelli understood

the importance of deception and cited its use in ancient warfare. He believed that
people’s short-sightedness made them inclined to believe what they wanted to which in
turn, meant that people could be easily deceived.[40] Machiavelli made reference to
this in The Prince when he stated: “Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey
immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions.”[41]
Machiavelli advocated the use of deception in both military and political affairs. In order
to discourage enemies he believed the leader should make his army appear to be the
stronger and the better than it is.[42]

As mentioned before Sun Tzu puts heavy emphasis on the use of deception. Whilst he
does not give any indication that he believes that people are inherently short-sighted, he
does believe that you can use people’s weaknesses against them to deceive them. [43]
Sun Tzu stated in The Art of War that: “If he is powerful in action, evade him. If he is angry,
seek to discourage him. If he appears humble, make him arrogant.”[44] Like Machiavelli,
Sun Tzu also believed in posturing but emphasized the need for strict discipline when
attempting deception. He has indicated this in the following quote: “Apparent disorder
is born of order; apparent cowardice, of courage; apparent weakness, of strength. Order
or disorder depends on organization and direction; courage or cowardice on postures;
strength or weakness on dispositions.”[45]

Waging War

The seventh and final theme relates to ‘Waging War’. Waging War encompasses both
the prior calculation and execution. Machiavelli viewed both politics and warfare as a
science, full of rules and conditions.[46] He understood the need for comprehensive
calculation and thorough planning prior to battle. He developed a list of elements to
consider when making prior calculations. These calculations were to be made in respect
of variables such as the enemy, own forces, terrain and weather.[47] Machiavelli also
understood the element of emotion in warfare when making calculations. He believed
that a prince must be both human and beast, and as beast he must be both lion and
fox. He must embrace the contradictions of humanity; he must rely on both thought and
action; he must look to the past as he heads toward the future.[48]

Machiavelli believed that the execution of war should be “short and sharp”. Machiavelli
saw the importance of quick decisive wars. He believed that you should never engage
the enemy forces until it was absolutely necessary to do so.[49] He believed it was better
to defeat the enemy by destroying their will to fight. He recognized that this could be
achieved through the use of psychological warfare and peace campaigns.[50] This
seems to contradict Machiavelli’s idea that a commander should seek glory; however,
he did not believe that the commander should seek war for the sake of it.

Sun Tzu placed a heavier emphasis on making calculations before an engagement. He

saw warfare as a mental battle before a physical one and believed that you must attack
the mind of the enemy commander.[51] Sun Tzu understood in order to do this you must
“know yourself and know your enemy”.[52] In order to know your enemy he stressed the
importance of intelligence which Sun Tzu relied heavily on the use of spies to obtain.[53]
Like Machiavelli, Sun Tzu also developed a list of factors in calculating conflict. Sun Tzu
stated: “To make assessment of the outcome of war, one must compare the various
conditions of the antagonistic sides in terms of five constant factors: the first is moral
influence; the second, weather; the third, terrain; the fourth, the commander; and the
fifth, doctrine.”

Sun Tzu like Machiavelli preferred speed and decisiveness when executing a plan.[54]
Because he saw violence as a disruption to cosmic harmony, Sun Tzu believed violence
should always be kept to a minimum. Sun Tzu further believed that if force was to be used
it must be employed in carefully measured doses, neither more nor less than necessary,
and in short, sharp bursts.[55] Sun Tzu concurred with Machiavelli that it is better to attack
the enemy’s will to fight rather than resort to physical violence. Sun Tzu advocated a clear
protocol in respect of settling disputes. He believed that the best way to settle disputes
was through diplomacy and if this failed the next best method was the employment of
“dirty tricks” such as assassinating the enemy commander or bribing his officers. The third
option was to engage in manoeuvre and the fourth to fight a battle. The final option was
to lay siege.[56]

Conclusion

Machiavelli and Sun Tzu both agree and disagree on many aspects relating to strategy.
The biggest contrast between their two works is their realist and idealist philosophies.
Some theorists believe that many of Machiavelli’s realist ideas resulted from him being
tortured. Machiavelli believed that everyone was essentially a psychological egoist.[57]
Because of this Machiavelli believed that people would fight wars through a desire to
dominate. In contrast, Sun Tzu believed that wars should only be fought out of necessity.
Machiavelli and Sun Tzu prescribed many of the same approaches to warfare. They both
believed in thorough planning, prior calculations and a swift execution. Many of their
technical aspects of fighting were similar too. They shared many other principles such as
flexibility and deception. Machiavelli saw the importance of emotion in warfare
believing a commander should be bold and reckless and seek glory. However, he
appears to somewhat contradict himself by also claiming that one should always be
extremely calculating. Sun Tzu believed that emotion was a hindrance to effective
generalship as the display of emotion could be taken advantage of by the enemy. Both
theorists are heavily influenced by the time they were writing and the cultures in which
they lived. Machiavelli lived in Europe during the renaissance and was heavily influenced
by a resurgence of the classics. Sun Tzu lived in China during the warring states period
when fighting was prevalent and required a lot a thought.