Contents Contents Title Page Copyright About VANTAGES Vantages #1: Why and How Vantages #2: Below the Bar Vantages #3: Morality on the March Vantages #4: Ends, Means, and Blindspots Vantages #5: Mastery Anywhere Vantages #6: Crisis Vantages #7: Anticipation Vantages #8: Restraint Vantages #9: Classical and Romantic Play Vantages #10: Patience Vantages #11: Testament TEMPORAL CONTROL Temporal Control #1: Prelude Temporal Control #2: Unit of Account Temporal Control #3: Training and Hardening Temporal Control #4: Rational Accounting Temporal Control #5: The Intersubjective Temporal Control #6: The Heart of the Matter Temporal Control #7: Operations Temporal Control #8: Institutions Temporal Control #9: Machinations Temporal Control #10: Analysis and Power Temporal Control #11: Infinite Fronts DUBIOUS BATTLE Dubious Battle #1: Faith vs Works Dubious Battle #2: Ordinal and Cardinal Inclinations Dubious Battle #3: The Burden of Proof Dubious Battle #4: Rank Dubious Battle #5: Aristocracy Dubious Battle #6: The Legible and the Illegible Dubious Battle #7: The Three Paths to Power Stay in Touch Title Page MACHINA Sebastian Marshall Copyright Copyright © 2017 Sebastian Marshall All rights reserved. About ABOUT 21 January 2017 Dubai, United Arab Emirates “Once more unto the breach, dear friends! In peace, there’s nothing so becoming in a man as modest stillness and humility… but when the blast of war blows our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger.” Thank you for joining me once again, dear reader. I say “once again” because probably the majority of readers will have already found TSR or read Progression already. With this work, I pushed myself – aiming for more challenging topics than Progression took on. Machina is divided into three sections: Vantages, Temporal Control, and Dubious Battle. Vantages is by far the most accessible of the three, and also the first time that I’ve taken on a single historical era in-depth. It goes through the path of the Three Great Unifiers of Japan in their fight to end the multi-sided Japanese Sengoku Civil Wars, where all order disintegrated and dozens of warlords vied for control of the country. Temporal Control looks at the tools needed to navigate all of time and space – certainly an over-ambitious attempt which I did not succeed at, but which nonetheless dug up some gems. Temporal Control opens with World War I which was perhaps far less inevitable than is commonly thought, flashed back to the origins of modern money under King Croesus of Lydia, and Croesus’s overthrow by Cyrus the Great who founded the first modern empire. We then march forwards in history to Leonardo da Vinci’s roommate inventing modern accounting (it was indeed shocking for me to learn that the inventor of modern accounting lived and was friends with Da Vinci), to Mustafa Kemal founding modern Turkey and the whole concept of “Turkishness” in the aftermath of World War I, and ended on the opening of the Cold War when President Truman was trying to decipher why, exactly, Joseph Stalin had gone from being “closest friends” with the Americans to a dramatic breach the next winter after Nazi Berlin fell. Dubious Battle is the most challenging series I’ve written to date – instead of prescribing best practices as is typically how we explore topics, it looks at the long-ranging conflicts that rage back and forth through all of history. It opens with Faith vs Works with Martin Luther and Pope Leo X, Henry VIII, and the conquest of Africa by the British Empire – and traces how it happened in thought, philosophy, and action. From there, we discuss the types of conflicts that rage back and forth, and look to clarify our thinking on these wide-ranging matters. 2016 was hands-down the best year of my life; the backdrop of this work is that your humble author has been going up in the world tremendously fast. Years of toil have started to pay off across basically all the domains of my life – the nonprofit work at GiveGetWin is flourishing, the commercial company Ultraworking that I founded with Kai Zau at the start of 2016 is growing rapidly and get a dazzling reception from our customers, and The Strategic Review – where all these essays were originally published – grew through word of mouth almost every single week of 2016. I’m both sincerely grateful and honored that my work is seen as useful and helpful to you; I write partially to clarify my own thinking, but far more to be of use and service to those going up in the world. If the works I produce don’t fundamentally shape and shift your worldview and do not lead to large gains for you, dear reader, then I missed my mark. And yet, I seem to have to have hit that mark, or at least as evidenced by the hundreds to thousands of reader-letters I got last year (I read them all, and replied to most of them), and the constant spreading the word about what’s happening at TSR. The most popular pieces by original reader response were – Vantages #3: Morality on the March Vantages #5: Mastery Anywhere Vantages #8: Classical and Romantic Play Temporal Control #2: Unit of Account Temporal Control #4: The Intersubjective Dubious Battle #1: Faith vs Works Dubious Battle #7: The Three Paths to Power Both my personal favorite and the single most popular was Dubious Battle #1: Faith vs Works – I got dozens of messages about that one; it seemed to illuminate something very important for people. If you often start books and don’t finish them, or are busy and are only going to read a single thing here, I’d start with that one. I think the middle sections of Vantages outlining the rise and fall of Hideyoshi Toyotomi are the finest writing I ever did successively – Mastery Anywhere, Anticipation, Restraint, Classical and Romantic Play, and Patience – I’d stack that up any native English writing on Japanese history. I think you’ll greatly enjoy those sections and take an immense amount away from them. Of course, if you’re not subscribed to The Strategic Review, you can get a long-form essay of this type sent to you for free every Thursday at: http://www.thestrategicreview.net My favorite message this whole year wasn’t an email, but a Twitter message – “I signed my 50+ year old dad up for TSR awhile ago - he gave it a glowing review yesterday; mom signed up too!” – @HuanWin I’m glad to see the work is resonating. Incidentally, if you like the type of thing we cover here, you might also like a dose of hyper-productivity from the tech we’re working on at Ultraworking, particularly the Pentathlon – http://www.ultraworking.com/pentathlon And perhaps you’d like to point your expansive-thinking friends to TSR? (Or your parents?) Life is marvelous, is it not? Really, I’m so incredibly honored and grateful to be your chosen writer. There’s so many great works to choose from, and we’re all so incredibly busy… I’m moved and humbled by the fact that you and thousands across the world, from dozens of cultures, are reading and benefiting from this writing. But enough sappiness! As Shakespeare put it, in peace there’s nothing so becoming in a man as modest stillness and humility – but when the blast of war blows in your ears, then imitate the action of the tiger. And now, on with the show…! MARSHALL VANTAGES VANTAGES Vantages #1: Why and How Vantages #1: Why and How UNMINDFULNESS OF THE WAY Old Yamamoto-sama sits with his pen, arthritic knuckles aching, but mind sharp and alive; he writes the beginning of his masterpiece in elegant brushstrokes – “Although it stands to reason that a samurai should be mindful of the Way of the Samurai, it would seem that we are all negligent. Consequently, if someone were to ask, “What is the true meaning of the Way of the Samurai?” the person who would be able to answer promptly is rare. This is because it has not been established in one’s mind beforehand. From this, one’s unmindfulness of the Way can be known. Negligence is an extreme thing.” So begins the Hagakure. *** 28 JUNE 1575 – NAGASHINO, JAPAN “Lord Katsuyori! Their gunners are tearing us to pieces! Your orders?!” Rain fell in hot and heavy sheets, shimmering through the air like so-many mirages; completely there for a moment to dominate the landscape… and then, suddenly, vanished into the earth. Japanese summer rains move like this. It has a funny quality to it. As the wind would shift, those mirage-like sheets of rain would mask and unmask the sounds of the unfolding battle. The crack of gunfire, loud and then quiet. The whinnying of horses, in and out of earshot. The screams of the dead and dying. The veteran general, of perhaps the finest corps of officers ever assembled in Japanese history, spoke again to his dazed young lord. “Kaysuyori-sama! Kaysuyori-sama? Orders? Your orders?!” Another loud CRACK-BANG came into earshot as the wind swirled. Screams of the men rose and then fell. Just as soon as it was spilled, those large and hazily indifferent sheets of rain washed the blood away at Nagashino. *** VANTAGES #1: WHY AND HOW Why are we here? We’re here for a very practical reason: we want to extract vital lessons from history, and use them to build our lives more effectively. Vantages aims to be hyper-practical: looking at situations where you need to spot what’s going on in that situation, adjust rapidly, and take the right type of action. In this chapter, we will examine and lay down a framework for analyzing the Why and How of decisionmaking. It is, perhaps, of the utmost importance. *** FURINKAZAN Tengu. It’s called a tengu. You’ve seen it. You just didn’t know the word beforehand. It’s a tengu. That horrible Japanese war mask, ghoulish expression, long nose, bright red painted face. It’s a tengu. The Takeda Clan were among the fiercest war clan in Japanese history. They had an eye for optics. Ferocity. They struck awe in their opponents. Painted on the banner flag of the Takeda was a compound-word borrowed from the Chinese – Fu Rin Ka Zan (Wind Forest Fire Mountain) It echoed Sunzi’s Art of War – As swift as the wind As silent as the forest As fierce as fire As unshakeable as a mountain. Under Katsuyori’s father, Takeda Shingen, the Takeda Clan innovated and built the first modern cavalry in Japanese history, commanded by perhaps the finest officer corps in Japanese history. There are still Japanese stories and legends celebrating “The Twenty-Four Generals of Takeda Shingen.” These forces would lead powerful shock-cavalry charges, dispersing enemies and mopping them up with brutal efficiency. One of the strongest Samurai Lords in Japan, Takeda Shingen died mysteriously in 1572 at age 49. His son Katsuyori, still in his 20’s, inherited the clan’s leadership. The Takeda went into battle flying the FURINKAZAN banner, clad in horned helmets and fierce war masks. They’d often wear tengu masks, making themselves look like demons in the field; TENGU, the Japanese demon, the harbinger of war. These were the forces that Takeda Katsuyori brought to the battle of Nagashino. *** THE WAY OF THE SAMURAI The second paragraph of the Hagakure – “The Way of the Samurai is found in death. When it comes to either/or, there is only the quick choice of death. It is not particularly difficult. Be determined and advance. To say that dying without reaching one’s aim is to die a dog’s death is the frivolous way of sophisticates. When pressed with the choice of life or death, it is not necessary to gain one’s aim.” *** Definition: MOL, QOL, Means Three useful, compact concepts for you. We’ve adopted these in our social circle, and found them very useful in navigating events. MOL = Meaning of Life QOL = Quality of Life Means = Means to an End This is a very useful shorthand for analyzing Why and How we are doing things. At the highest and rarest of levels is “MOL,” the “meaning of life” type stuff. You do this because this is what matters to you. “QOL” also matters and you would be a fool to neglect it. “QOL” is quality-of-life; it is health, rest, relaxation, and so on. If you pursue luxury, it is luxury. We live in somewhat silly times; America has hegemony over the world and there has been no truly existential threat to American existence since the Fall of the Soviet Union two-and-a-half decades ago. Some people, who are probably very much missing out on having a magnificent life, have no MOL except QOL. That is, the only thing meaningful to them is having some pleasure, a fun time, a comfortable life. But this is, hopefully, a rarity. The mix of MOL and QOL, happily, encompass just about everything worth striving for. You strive for things that are deeply meaningful to you – perhaps science or art, helping people, making a difference on local and global scales – and you strive for some measure of health, wealth, wellness, well-being, and perhaps comfort if that’s a priority for you. Means are how you get to the desired MOL and QOL. Obviously, some amount of money is helpful in most endeavors. Good friends and companions are necessary for both MOL and QOL. Then, there’s a whole lot of universal and situational means – you might use an iPhone as a communication tool to advance a core mission you’re on (MOL), or you might use it for leisure and consumption (QOL). Either way, it’s a means to those ends. Finally, there a whole lot of highly-situational means to the end. The companies Uber and Lyft recruit and onboard drivers to their platform, to the end of making their companies successful. In the 1500’s, armies would train cavalry and gunners to rule the battlefield and expand their political and philosophical authority. *** BATTLE IN THE DRIVING RAIN “Your orders, my lord?!” Katsuyori comes out of his stupor: “Attack! Again! Attack!” A samurai was not supposed to question orders in a situation like this. Displeasure could only be signaled in a variety of subtle ways. The Takeda general pauses and hesitates, hoping that Katsuyori will read his unusual hesitation correctly. But the hint is missed. The (rapidly proving incorrect) assessment had been that Oda Nobunaga’s samurai-gunner corps would be ineffective in the rain. It was mistaken. Takeda cavalry were getting shot-down en masse, and the Oda gunner ranks were holding fast. The 3,000 samurai-gunners under the Oda had built a strong defensive position. The fearsome Takeda cavalry would have to charge through a small stream, and then uphill, to try to break the gunner corps. Using some mix of oil paper and carrying many extra fuses, the Oda continued firing strong. Against all expectations, the muddy wet conditions were working against the cavalry more than the gunners. The general surveyed the field, considered the reports. The Oda had further fortified their position with wooden stakes, inventing a new type of battlefield engineering – the few cavalry that survived the initial charge would not even be able to inflict mass damage on the gunner ranks. They were firing in three rounds of volleys, alternating. Gunfire continually came. Men and horses fell on the hillside, fell at the improvised wooden battlements, fell and thrashed dying in the shallow stream. The general, in the past so unyielding and fierce and as fast as the wind, he hesitated, but Katsuyori failed to notice this subtle attempt at expressing displeasure. Perhaps I can show him, the general thinks. “My Lord! I will lead the attack myself!” Katsuyori nodded dumbly as the veteran fastened his fierce war mask and called out to his troops. “I will lead the next charge!” A cheer went through his corps of riders. The general sighed as he mounted his horse. *** Lesson #1: Clear Separation between MOL, QOL, Means You must – MUST – separate out your goals for MOL, QOL, and Means. The battle of Nagashino was the largest disaster in Takeda history; they would never recover; afterwards, the way was clear for Nobunaga’s forces to unify Japan. There were MOL, QOL, and Means-based aspects to the battle – a more veteran commander than Katsuyori might have seen the larger picture, but the 29-year-old was gravely outmatched on the battlefield by the generalship of Oda Nobunaga. Yamamoto Tsunetomo would later record the spirit of the era, as it was coming to a close: “The way of the samurai is death.” Honor and service and ferocity combined Meaning-of-Life, Quality-of-Life, and Means for those Takeda soldiers. But was their goal to die on the battlefield, or to win? If their goal was to die honorably, if that was meaningful to them, then who could protest it? And perhaps retreat was too shameful, perhaps one’s quality of life would be forever blemished if they withdrew. Perhaps. But what of the Means? In your own life, you’ll get into a lot of trouble when you are unable to separate why you are doing things, and how you are doing things. What was the point of Nagashino? A display of fierce honor in unrelenting hostile conditions? Was the survival and prosperity of the Takeda clan more important, or less important, than conditions of honor? Did they undergo fierce cavalry charges towards a means of political and spiritual unification of Japan? Or was ferocity on the battlefield an end in itself, a meaning of life? One cannot say. We might ask the Takeda themselves, but we cannot; they have perished and there are minimal surviving records of the thoughts of their defeated leaders. *** Lesson #2: Accurate Assessment of Means You must accurately assess your current means in relation to the situation at hand, in relation to rivals, and in relation to the domain you choose to operate within. Very few things are quite as damaging as barely falling short. The culprit? Mis-assessment of one’s means, one’s capability. A few hundred years later, the economist Keynes would quip, “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” Yes, you might have a wonderful short-selling strategy in the market; what of it, if you run out of money and get a margin call against you, and need to trade in your shares at a huge loss? The Takeda had the best generals and a powerful cavalry. They were by no means obsolete in 1575, but firearms had changed the battlefield, and Oda Nobunaga was one of the greatest rapid innovators in Japanese history. The Takeda cavalry had won powerful victories – right up until Nagashino, where Nobunaga had deployed his battlefield engineering skill, setting a trap for the headstrong and inexperienced Takeda leader, which he charged into – again and again – until his forces were no more. *** Lesson #3: Regularly innovate QOL and Means improvements. Even if you are die-hard set on MOL, you cannot march relentlessly into adversity without breaking down. Nobunaga was often accused of acting dishonorably in pursuit of his goals. Firearms were somewhat disliked and seen as dishonorable by “true samurai” of the day; fighting with archery, spear, and sword was seen as more honorable. Battlefield engineering was rather new; the rapid improvised anti-cavalry engineering of Nobunaga was the end of the Takeda forces. You cannot march straight towards MOL without regularly seizing QOL and Means boosts to your cause. No matter how dedicated you are, you must constantly and neverendingly search for fundamental improvements in how you do things. *** THE END OF AN ERA He had resigned his heart to death, and hopefully Katsuyori would see. “Old friends! We die here. Make it a good death!” And he spurred his horse forwards in the driving rain. In the front of the pack, he did not even hear the loud CRACK from a hundred guns firing, unhorsing him, collapsing on the muddy bank, killed instantly. Wikipedia: Battle of Nagashino – “The horses slowed to cross the stream and were fired upon as they crested the streambed within 50 meters of the enemy. This was considered the optimum distance to penetrate the armor of the cavalry. In typical military strategy, the success of a cavalry charge depends on the infantry breaking ranks so that the cavalry can mow them down. If the infantry does not break, however, cavalry charges will often fail—with even trained warhorses refusing to advance into the solid ranks of opponents. “Between the continuous fire of the arquebusiers’ volleys and the rigid control of the horo-shu, the Oda forces stood their ground and were able to repel every charge. Ashigaru spearmen stabbed through or over the stockades at horses that made it past the initial volleys, and samurai, with swords and shorter spears, engaged in single combat with Takeda warriors who made it past the wooden barricades. Strong defenses on the ends of the lines prevented Takeda forces from flanking the stockades. By mid-afternoon, the Takeda broke and fled, and the Oda forces vigorously pursued. […] Eight of his famous 'Twenty-Four Generals' were killed in this battle, including Baba Nobuharu, Yamagata Masakage, and Naito Masatoyo.” It was the end of an era. The Takeda would fight defensive actions for the next few years, before being finally destroyed at Tenmokuzan in 1581. *** AND WHAT OF PHILOSOPHY? The Hagakure reads, “Among Takeda Shingen’s retainers there were men of matchless courage, but when Katsuyori was killed in the fight at Tenmokuzan, they all fled. Tsuchiya Sozo, a warrior who had been in disfavor for many years, came out alone, however, and said, “I wonder where all the men are who spoke so bravely every day? I shall return the master’s favors to me.” And he fell alone in battle.” And all that, for what? The brave deaths of so many Takeda cavalry would come to naught. At the end of the day, your philosophy is advanced only by skillfully managing your means. Philosophical soundness aside, history is unkind to the losing side. Do remember! – 1. You must be disciplined about your “Meaning of Life,” “Quality of Life,” and the “Means” of getting there – and define them separately; know why you are doing things and how you will do them; do not muddle them all together. 2. Accurately assess your Means in relation to everything happening around you: the situation at hand, rivals, the objectives, the landscape in general. Situations change and you must constantly reassess them. The Takeda went from having undisputed mastery of the battlefield to being weak against entrenched gunners, and realized it – far too late. 3. No matter how dedicated you are to MOL-type goals, you must constantly look to innovate and improve the QOL and Means of yourself and your allies. Mastery and excellence do not linger long without improvements. Nobunaga is said to have been particularly pleased when Katsuyori’s head was presented to him. If Takeda Shingen had been alive, perhaps all of Japanese history would have run differently – but then, things do change; it’s the nature of things. As for Nobunaga – well, we’ll start getting to know him next chapter. For now, do please start clarifying and carefully separating your goals in regards to Meaning of Life, Quality of Life, and Means. Vantages #2: Below the Bar Vantages #2: Below the Bar ODA HEADQUARTERS AT ZENSHOJI: JUNE 1560 There is a feeling of desperation in the air – except for their ostensible lord, the 26-year-old Oda Nobunaga, who is surprisingly calm. He is playing with a flower, twirling it around whimsically. Well – the young man was always something of an idiot. Here it is, likely nearing the end of the Oda clan, and he is carelessly twirling a flower around. If the Oda are lucky, they will be made vassals and servants. If they are unlucky, their leadership and high command will be executed or forced to commit ritual suicide. Their home province sits on one of the pivotal crossroads in central Japan, and Imagawa Yoshimoto is marching the largest army in Japan through their position. 40,000 Imagawa soldiers are on the march. The opposition force is not much to behold: the Oda have 2,000 soldiers. Bravery and defense of one’s home is worth some extra advantage, but nowhere near enough to overcome 20-to-1 odds. The veteran samurai generals and retainers all know it. Except, unfortunately, their idiot young lord, who is playing with a flower. One elder retainer speaks up: “Let’s just surrender. It is not so bad to be under Imagawa. They have treated the Matsudaira well enough – is it so bad to lose our independence but keep our lives?” There is some empty posturing and anger at the response, spirited discussion at headquarters. Another general speaks up: “Morishige and Genba have not returned yet! Perhaps some allies will intervene – to the east, there’s –” He’s interrupted rudely: “ – there’s what? They have forty thousand soldiers. What are the most that would come to our defense? Another ten thousand, perhaps? We are lost.” A grey-haired retainer speaks up: “We can dig in at Kiyosu… perhaps if some allied support comes… perhaps we could hold fast until the harvest season and winter… with a desperate fight, perhaps…” It is all fantasy. There is desperate blustering all around, a mix of resignation and prayers. Breathless messengers on horseback arrive from Morishige and Genba. Nobunaga glances up as they make their reports. Bad news, but not unexpected – The Imagawa have assailed their outer positions. No help is coming. Nobunaga doesn’t speak, smiles a little – stupidly – and twirls his flower. *** THEIR VERY WEAKNESS INVITES ATTACK “That is why, then, his language is a language of strong governments and weak governments. It is the same as speaking about strong persons and weak persons. Publius uses the same language later [...] when he says a weak government, even when not at war, is ever agitated by internal dissension; and internal agitations never fail to bring on fresh calamities from abroad. Their very weakness invites attack.” – The Federalist Papers: A Commentary, Allen and Cloonan "Power is difficult to assess, and the willingness to vindicate it too various, to permit treating it as a reliable guide to international order. Equilibrium works best if it is buttressed by agreement on common values. The balance of power inhibits the capacity to overthrow the international order; agreement on shared values inhibits the desire to overthrow the international order. Power without legitimacy tempts tests of strength; legitimacy without power tempts empty posturing.” – Diplomacy, Henry Kissinger *** THE SEVENTEEN-YEAR-OLD LORD We meet the young Oda Nobunaga today. Not the Oda Nobunaga who conquered and unified Japan, but the Oda Nobunaga who inherited control of his clan as a 17-year-old. He was known to be a frolicking idiot – all the texts agree; this is no later propaganda. Here, let’s have one of Japan’s foremost novelists paint the backstory for us. From Eiji Yoshikawa’s “Taiko”, Chapter: “The Idiot Lord” – "Be quiet," Otowaka said, looking hurt. "Since I don't think young men should have to spend their lives like me, I have something to say to them. After the coming-of-age ceremony, they're considered adults, but when they're seventeen, they have to be men already. It's a bit irreverent, maybe, but look at our master, Lord Nobunaga. How old do you think he is?" He started to tell her but then quickly changed the subject, perhaps for fear of getting into an argument with his wife. "Oh, yes, we'll probably go hunting with His Lordship again tomorrow. Then, on the way back, we'll practice fording the Shonai River on horseback and by swimming. Have my things ready—a cord for my armor, and my straw sandals." Hiyoshi, who had his head down, listening, raised it and said, "Excuse me, sir." "Being formal again?" "I don't mean to be. Does Lord Nobunaga go hunting and swimming that much?" "It's not my place to say it, but he's an awfully mischievous lad." "He's wild, is he?" "You'd think so, but then there are times he can be very well mannered." "He's got a bad reputation from one end of the country to the other." "Is that so? Well, I guess he's not very popular with his enemies." *** AN AWFULLY MISCHEVIOUS LAD There is now some debate as to just how intentional Nobunaga was being. He frolicked – hunting, swimming, falconing – and got into a whole lot of trouble. Before his father died, he was already behaving like a spoiled brat. Wikipedia: Oda Nobunaga – “Through his childhood and early teenage years, he was well known for his bizarre behavior and received the name of Owari no Ōutsuke (The Big Fool of Owari). He was known to run around with other youths from the area, without any regard to his own rank in society.” He behaved rudely at his father’s funeral and often seemed to neglect important duties. In retrospect, we must ask some questions. Was it all a ruse? We cannot say. Nobunaga was involved in a vicious dynastic dispute with his younger brother at first, and then he was surrounded by powerful enemies in the Imagawa and Takeda. Some people think the foolishness was all a ruse, Nobunaga to look stupider than he was – after all, Nobunaga was indisputably a genius, highly creative, and often used deception and misdirection to fool his enemies. Or perhaps he wanted to be “close to the people” – and breaking from formal court etiquette, which seemed so foreign and bizarre, allowed him to size up who could make the most excellent soldiers, officers, commandos, and compatriots. Nobunaga eventually did assemble a fine officer corps, excellent ninja, excellent scouts, excellent armorers, excellent gunsmiths, excellent advisors… well, excellent everything. So perhaps the bizarre behavior was cover for him wanting to break from his station and size up who on his side was reliable. Or perhaps he was just, in modern American parlance, a big dumb frat boy. And somehow he got away with it. Who can know someone’s mind? Was Oda Nobunaga reckless and crazy? Or crazy like a fox? We cannot say for sure. *** VANTAGES #2: BELOW THE BAR Our lessons this chapter is a very simple one, and a very powerful and important one – “You need to be able to perceive if things are above the bar (i.e., good enough) or below the bar (i.e., not good enough), and you need to make sure your people can as well.” – Principles, Ray Dalio It sounds simple, but is actually a rare ability that must be cultivated. I ask you, dear reader, not to just read for enjoyment while nodding and smiling, but to actually try to burn this lesson into your mind. Think, muse, ponder – it will be key to your own affairs. As Dalio says, you must be able to perceive if things are above the bar (good enough) or below the bar (not good enough). And you need to make sure your people can do so, as well. And what if things are below the bar? Well, this calls for action of some sort. *** “IS THERE ANY WHO IS BORN AND DOES NOT DIE? … BRING MY ARMOR” A bilingual blogger has translated some of the Shincho-Ko Ki, one of the primary sources of the life of Nobunaga. The situation against the Imagawa was desperate. The seeming weakness and foppishness of the Oda Clan had brought an invasion of overwhelming force down upon them. Here is a translation of the primary source, from the Japanese, emphasis added – "On May 17th, Imagawa Yoshimoto set up camp at Kutsukake. The night of the 18th, the Imagawa sent supplies to Odaka Castle with no Oda allies coming, the flow of the morning tide, and it was certain that the Oda forts will be attacked. Messengers from Sakuma Morishige and Oda Genba reported to Nobunaga. However, that evening Nobunaga and his retainers talked about various topics, but nothing on military matters. Then it was late and Nobunaga sent his retainers home. His retainers said, 'When luck runs out, the mirror of one's wisdom clouds up too.' As anticipated that night, more news from Sakuma Morishige and Oda Genba. "Both Fort Marune and Washizu are under attack by the Imagawa.' Then Nobunaga sang and danced to Atsumori. Man's life is fifty years. In the universe what is it but dream or illusion? Is there any who is born and does not die? Then Nobunaga shouted 'Blow the conch horn and bring my armor.' Nobunaga put on his armor and helmet, ate his meal standing, and went off to war.” *** THE DEATH POEM The Westerners here might miss a subtle nuance, that native Japanese would certainly not miss. Man's life is fifty years. In the universe what is it but dream or illusion? Is there any who is born and does not die? This is a Japanese death poem. Nobunaga was 26 years old. And then he says, blow the war horn to our troops – and bring my armor. *** NOBUNAGA’S ASSESSMENT Last chapter, “Vantages #1: Why and How,” we discussed the critical importance of separating out Meaning of Life, Quality of Life, and Means when you’re doing your assessments. We cannot know Nobunaga’s mind – we cannot say with certainty whether he was a desperate gambler who got very lucky, or whether he masterfully played a very dangerous situation he inherited to perfection. We can say, with certainty, that the Oda were one of the weaker clans in an era without much humanity, an era where weakness invited annihilation. Nobunaga apparently felt, on the deepest levels, that he had a duty to unify Japan. Submitting to Yoshimoto Imagawa and begging for mercy was not in the cards for him. Why? It may have been philosophy, Nobunaga’s meaning of life. Perhaps he just felt, deeply in his bones, that this path could not be walked. Or perhaps it was due to Means – perhaps his assessment was that he and his senior retainers would be jailed or killed by the Imagawa if he submitted to Yoshimoto. Regardless – Nobunaga’s assessment was that submitting to the Imagawa was an unacceptable option. It was "below the bar." *** LORD NOBUNAGA, THIS IS MADNESS Bravery and honor were, of course, of paramount importance to the samurai. Some of Nobunaga’s retainers wished surrender, but many were up for fighting – and yet, they failed to do the math of the battlefield. Digging in for a defensive fight would be fatal. And yet, it occurred to not a single one of his retainers to launch a counterattack. This story is famous in Japanese lore, here is one telling of it – “Imagawa Yoshimoto, leading an army said to hold 40,000 men, set forth to march on Kyoto. In doing this, he sent his men through Owari, Oda territory, and captured the border fortresses of Wahizu and Marune. Because of his sheer numbers, his army took them with relative ease. After those short battles, they set up camp in the wooded gorge Dengaku-Hazama. This was all reported to Oda Nobunaga, who sent troops to Zenshoji, a temple a short distance from the gorge. "Lord Nobunaga, this is madness!" Katsuie shouted. "We cannot attack. We must stay here and hold our ground. We can sit this out - a frontal assault is suicide!" Nobunaga looked from Katsuie to his advisers, contemplating his actions, though not yet speaking. "This entire battle is suicide, Katsuie," spoke Sado, one of Nobunaga's advisers. "Lord Nobunaga, you must realize that we cannot win this. Spare your men's lives, surrender here and now." And then there was quiet. Nobunaga stood before his men, weighing their options. But it would seem surrender was not a choice he was willing to make. [Nobunaga replies,] "Imagawa has 40,000 men marching toward this place? I don't believe that. He 'only' has 25,000 soldiers. Yes, that is still too many. So, Sado, you want me to surrender. What if we do surrender? Will you get content with losing your life that way? Or what if we hold on like Katsuie wants me to? What if we stay here in this castle, lock it up, and wait until the Imagawas lose appetite and stop the siege and go home? We will be able to prolong our lives for five or ten days, and what we cannot defend will still be undefendable. We are at the bottom of the pit, you know. And our fate is interesting. Of course the misery is too great, too. But this is how I see it: this is a chance in a lifetime. I can't afford to miss this. Do you really want to spend your entire lives praying for longevity? We were born in order to die! Whoever is with me, come to the battlefield tomorrow morning. Whoever is not, just stay wherever you are and watch me win it!"” *** WITH THAT, IT WAS SETTLED “With that, it was settled. Few of the men were reluctant to continue, and those who would stay behind would each be given a banner to make the Imagawa believe the temple still held the Oda's main force. With a main force of about 1,500 men, Nobunaga set out through the forest, heading to the rear of the Imagawa camps undetected. He had also dispatched couriers to the Takeda, as well as sent for help from the Chosokabe, and hire a band of mercenaries days before in preparation for this attack. Now was the perfect time to act, seeing as a storm was passing through, and their advance would be hidden by nature itself. "Brave warriors," Nobunaga would begin once his entire force was gathered, allies and all. "You make a bold statement here today to stand with a force seeking to defeat the Imagawa. And for that, I thank you. But, know this: we can afford no mistakes. The Imagawa could overrun us given the smallest chance, so we must do this carefully. A force will be dispatched to capture the Imagawa supply depot to the east, and from there you will move to the south to capture the entire eastern border of their camp. A second force will move to the west, taking an armory and securing their weapons. As soon as the storm settles, I will lead the main force and we will charge down the mountains straight for the commander's camp, and I will take Yoshimoto's head." Nobunaga clenched his fist tightly, a small puff of dark energy passing from his hand. "You must act in stealth, men. Remember this. If the Imagawa are alerted to our presence, this is a losing battle. The element of surprise is our most powerful weapon."” *** A VIOLENT STORM BREWS This is where we must, once again, ask whether Nobunaga was crazy and lucky – or crazy like a fox. Dave LaSpina recounts in “The Battle of Okehazama,” “The size of his army grew to about 2000 as [Nobunaga] rode along towards the Imagawa. They set camp around 10am at Zenshoji and Nobunaga ordered his men to raise high and display all their flags and banners and to construct straw men to make a dummy army. On the other side, Yoshimoto was contemptuous of Nobunaga’s army and allowed his men to enjoy themselves; they set to feasting and drinking to future victories and as a result didn’t keep a vigilant watch. Yoshimoto himself was enjoying Noh choruses while inspecting heads and declaring loudly that no one, not even God or Devil, could stop his army. Nobunaga knew the area well so he was able to avoid what few look-outs there were. His men found the Imagawa camp. Luck was on Nobunaga’s side in the form of the weather. The day had been stifling hot and just around noon the sky clouded, blackened, and let loose a giant, violent storm. This helped screen their movements as they gathered in the hills above the unsuspecting Imagawa force. As soon as the storm died down a little, the men rushed down the slope in a headlong charge.” And it concludes… “The storm, their drunkeness, and this sudden attack left the Imagawa men completely confused. They stampeded in all directions, leaving Yoshimoto unprotected. So sudden and unexpected was the attack, in fact, that Yoshimoto didn’t realize what was happening and thought the commotion was only a squabble among his men. He shouted an order at one of his retainers—little realizing it wasn’t one of his retainers. It was in fact one of Nobunaga’s men! The man, Hattori Kazutada, immediately recongized the lord of the Imagawa and was amazed to find him unprotected. He drew his spear and took aim. Yoshimoto was quick; he instantly drew his sword and sliced through the spear, cutting the shaft in two and continuing his swing so that it gashed his opponent’s knees. But that was the last thing he would ever do: as he prepared to deal the killing blow, a second of Nobunaga’s men, Mōri Shinsuke, came up behind him and took his head.” *** AFTERMATH Wikipedia: Battle of Okehazama – “Date: May–June, 1560 Location: Dengaku-hazama, Owari Province Result: Decisive Oda Victory (Imagawa killed in action) Territorial changes: Imagawa threat to Owari Province removed” The Oda troops rampaged through the Imagawa high command, killing Imagawa and his chief retainers before they could regroup. The Imagawa forces, confused and dismayed, surrendered… and accepted Oda Nobunaga as their Lord – “With their leader dead, and all but two of the senior officers killed, the remaining Imagawa officers joined Oda's army. Soon the Imagawa faction was no more and Oda Nobunaga was "in the front rank of military power."” *** MINOR LESSON There is a minor lesson here, and a major lesson. The minor lesson is somewhat of a throwaway, but interesting to muse upon – Was Oda Nobunaga’s foppish conduct a ruse? We cannot say for sure; I’m not advancing this position as a certainty, but rather as something worth thinking about. Nobunaga knew he was badly outnumbered, weak, and surrounded by enemies. Enemy scouts would constantly be sizing up positions, and the Oda position looked weak and pathetic. But then, the Imagawa forces took them lightly, thinking the battle would be a walkover. Nobunaga’s lax, laxadaisical, foppish, seemingly disinterested conduct had led him to be underestimated. Luck played a role. Without those blacked skies, likely the Oda’s daring counterattack raid would have failed. But certainly, with merely decent military discipline and appropriate placement of sentries and scouts, the raid would not have happened. Imagawa Yoshimoto lost his head for his overconfidence. *** MAJOR LESSON But that is the minor lesson. The major lesson, again, echoes Dalio’s Principles – “You need to be able to perceive if things are above the bar (i.e., good enough) or below the bar (i.e., not good enough), and you need to make sure your people can as well.” For all readers, this is easy enough to perceive in peacetime. You read the words on paper and they look correct. Yes, if things are below the bar, we need to know that. In crisis, this is much harder. People can so easily lose their mind in a crisis. But the hard implication of this lesson is what it means for naturally conservative and incremental-gain type people. Our readers are a mix, you know: some of them are playing high-stakes, do-or-die games in life; others are incrementally building a fantastic life. We will discuss this further in a couple chapters, when we investigate Classical and Romantic Play, but for now, this is important – Even if you are normally steadfastly incremental, if incrementalism will result in certain failure, you must make the best bold bet you can that gives a chance at success. Many otherwise outstanding people are uncomfortable with uncertainty, when even the best plan might lead to failure. This was the position of Nobunaga’s officers and retainers. Knowing that a raid would most likely fail, they advocated taking a defensive position of guaranteed failure. Of course, life is usually not so dramatic as Okehazama; it is also foolish and unwise to sell everything out for a desperate bet when you are not forced to take one. But from time to time, occasionally, any of us might be faced with a situation where the “sure thing” is… guaranteed failure. If all defensive, conservative, and incremental plans will produce a “below the bar” result – guaranteed failure – then you are forced into the unpleasant choice between guaranteed failure and taking a gamble and relying on the hands of luck and chance. You never want to be in a position where luck and chance will decide the outcome. But sometimes, you will wind up in that position. On those times, it is critical to assess and re-assess your options. If all steadfast courses lead to guaranteed failure, it is time to take the highest percentage of success with whatever is the best available bold action. *** MUSING AND MEDITATING ON THE TOPIC Muse and think some on your ability to assess “above the bar” and “below the bar” – and think, now in peacetime, how you will react if all conservative measures guarantee a “below the bar” result. It is well-worth meditating on. We will still be with Oda Nobunaga next chapter – he became the “First Great Unifier” of Japan; we will get to know him some more, good and bad. Sooner or later, his luck runs out – but not until he had achieved the first key part of his destiny. Oh, and David LaSpina finishes his piece on the Battle of Okehazama with an aside – By the way, remember his childhood nickname “The fool of Owari”? Later in life he was given a new nickname: “The Demon King”. Vantages #3: Morality on the March Vantages #3: Morality on the March YOU'RE BEING HEARTLESS, MY LORD "You're being heartless, my lord. It's not that we don't understand, but when you've given us an outrageous order—to burn down Mount Hiei, a place respected for hundreds of years as holy ground dedicated to the peace and preservation of the country—as your retainers—and precisely because we are your retainers—there is all the more reason why we should not obey you," Sakuma Nobumori said. A do-or-die expression showed clearly on Nobumori's face. If he had not been prepared to die on the spot, he could not have said this to Nobunaga. Especially the way Nobunaga was looking now. Although it was always rather difficult to speak frankly to their lord, today Nobunaga resembled a demon wielding a fiery sword. "Silence! Silence!" Nobunaga roared, quieting Takei Sekian and Akechi Mitsuhide, who were about to back up Nobumori. "Have you not felt indignation when you watched the insurrections and this disgraceful state of affairs? Monks transgress the Laws of the Buddha, stir up the common people, store wealth and weapons, and spread rumors; under the guise of religion, they are nothing more than self-serving agitators." "We do not object to punishing these excesses. But it is impossible, in a single day, to reform a religion in which all men fervently believe and which has been granted special authority," Nobumori argued. "What good is that kind of common sense?" Nobunaga exploded. "It's because we've had eight hundred years of common sense that no one has been able to change the situation, despite people's lamenting over the church's corruption and degeneracy. Even His Majesty the Emperor Shirakawa said that there were three things over which he had no control: dice, the waters of the Kamo River, and the warrior-monks of Mount Hiei. What role in the peace and preservation of the country did this mountain play during the years of civil war? Has it given peace of mind or strength to the common people?" Nobunaga suddenly waved his right hand to the side. "For hundreds of years, when disasters have occurred, the monks have done nothing more than protect their own privileges. With the money donated by the credulous masses, they build stone walls and gates that would befit a fortress and inside they hoard guns and spears. Worse, the monks flaunt their vows openly by eating meat and indulging in sexual intercourse. Let's not even speak of the decadence of Buddhist scholarship. Where is the sin in burning down something like that?" *** BUDDHISM’S MIGRATION NORTHWARDS The above excerpt is from one of the finest modern Japanese novelists, Eiji Yoshikawa, in his masterpiece Taiko, a historical fiction cataloguing the second-to-last act of the great drama that were the Japanese Sengoku Civil Wars. Some context is in order. Around 500 BC, two thousand years before the Sengoku Civil Wars in Japan, Prince Siddhartha of India founded Buddhism – a “middle way” between asceticism and sensualism. Around 1000 years later, in 500 AD – still 1000 years before the Civil Wars in Japan – the first patriarch of what would become Zen Buddhism migrated from India to China. This was the beginning of a split in Buddhism, what I (as an amateur historian and sometimes practitioner of Zen) call “Northern Buddhism” and “Southern Buddhism.” Prince Siddhartha – Buddha – laid down some very strict guidance for how monks and laymen ought to conduct themselves, to work towards enlightenment. But he left a lot of flexibility in practice, and Buddhism evolved in different directions in different regions, countries, and cultures. “Northern Buddhism” – Chinese, Korean, Mongolian, and eventually Japanese – fused with traditional Chinese culture, especially Laozi’s Taoism, and later Japanese Shinto. In working towards enlightenment, Northern Buddhists generally fixed their earthly focus on doing things. Wood carvings, paintings, temple-building, archery, martial arts. Whereas a Southern Buddhist – especially Indian or Thai – might meditate by a graveyard, funeral pyre, or trash heap, a Northern Buddhist would work towards harmony through building structures, serving the lay people, and working towards a perfect mastery of a craft or skill. This was, in theory, to be done in a non-self-aggrandizing way. “Doing / not-doing”, no duality, whatever. A full history of Buddhism and Buddhist doctrine is far beyond the scope of this piece, but a little context is needed to understand the world that Oda Nobunaga was born into, and the old order that he – quite literally – burned down. Chinese Buddhism – called Chan which became Zen in Japan – was always fused with purposefulness. This led to some of the finest artworks in history and some practitioners reaching the greatest heights of human mastery. A monk working to reach a non-self-aggrandizing, “non-doing” mastery was a powerful thing. *** ALAS, THOUGH… We all remain, however unfortunately, all too human. In the Wutang mountains of China, the Shaolin Monastery was founded to reach self-perfection of Taoist and Chan Buddhist practices through martial arts, intense and demanding physical training. The Shaolin Monastery, with its focus on the non-doing mastery of Chan Buddhism, produced some of China’s finest warriors. But the constant training towards a calm and joyful mastery led eventually to earthly power, and soon, the power-hungry came to inhabit and rule Shaolin Mountain. Soon enough, the monks were involved in political affairs and had drifted from the teachings of Buddha in favor of self-aggrandizement. Over hundreds of years of human affairs, it is nearly impossible to prevent these things from happening. Japanese Zen Buddhism was imported from China, reformed under the towering figure of Hakuin Ekaku (we’ll no doubt discuss Hakuin at some point in the future), and continued to fuse with Japanese culture, particularly Shinto – which believes that all things have a certain lifeforce to them – and with samurai culture, with its emphasis on bushido, fierceness, and honor. In Japanese, this led to two major forces of Buddhist warriors – the sōhei full-time professional warrior monks, and the ikkō-ikki irregular monk-led peasant insurgency. *** MONKS ON THE BATTLEFIELD Wikipedia: Ikko-ikki – “Ikkō-ikki (一向一揆?, "Ikkō-shū Uprising") were mobs of peasant farmers, Buddhist monks, Shinto priests and local nobles, who rose up against daimyo [samurai warlord] rule in 15th- and 16th-century Japan. They followed the beliefs of the Jōdo Shinshū (True Pure Land) sect of Buddhism, which taught that all believers are equally saved by Amida Buddha's grace.” The astute follower of religion and history might note that this is somewhat similar doctrine to Martin Luther – a doctrine of equal salvation for all leading to, incredibly counterintuitively, total war against authority. “Rennyo [semi-leader of Ikko-ikki] was a pacifist and taught pacifism. He advocated self-defense only as a guard against the particularly tumultuous times in which he lived. Daimyo, samurai warlords, fought one another for territory nearly constantly, across the entire country. Rennyo thus saw to it that the temples of his sect were fortified and defended from attackers. Though it was his charismatic leadership and populist teachings that inspired the fervor which powered the Ikkō-ikki uprisings, he never advocated or supported them. The uprisings continued nevertheless, past Rennyo's death in 1499, and the sub-sect of Jōdo Shinshū that he had founded spread as well. They established themselves in fortresses at Ishiyama Hongan-ji, just outside Osaka, and in Nagashima, on the borders of Owari and Ise Provinces and in a series of temples in Mikawa Province as well. Towards the end of the 16th century, however, their growing numbers and strength caught the attention and concern of the great samurai leaders of the time.” As you can see, what began with perhaps very pure intentions, eventually devolved into banditry, brutality, and chaos. Alas, we’re all too human — “The ikki attracted the ire of the likes of Tokugawa Ieyasu and Oda Nobunaga due to the economic and political threat they posed, more so than as a result of their military might. The Ishiyama Hongan-ji and other strongholds of the ikki lay across major trade routes and occupied the same areas that Nobunaga saw as his primary territorial objectives. Nearly every road to the capital from this western part of the country was controlled by the ikki or their allies, and the populist roots of the ikki movement gave them significant economic power as well. Nobunaga in particular sought the destruction of the Ikkō-ikki for these reasons, and because they allied themselves with nearly every one of his major enemies or rivals.” The ikko-ikki were semi-spontaneous uprising; they had their supporters and patrons, and were often funded covertly by a rival warlord who was all-too-pleased to see popular insurgent uprisings in an enemy province. Despite this, there was some organic nature to the uprisings. The sohei were another beast entirely. Wikipedia: Sōhei – “Sōhei (僧兵 literally "monk warriors";?, fighting monks) were Buddhist warrior monks of both medieval and feudal Japan. At certain points of history they held considerable power […] Following the Genpei War, the monasteries, to a large extent, turned their attention to rebuilding, first physically, and then politically. Their political influence grew stronger through peaceful means, and the warrior monks played only very minor roles in the wars of the 13th and 14th centuries. Violent conflict between the temples still occurred on occasion, once again over political and spiritual appointments, and related matters.” But alas, that accumulating political power attracted those who desire such power… “The Ōnin War, starting in 1467, was the prelude to over a century of civil war in Japan, and the stimulus for a reorganization of the warrior monks. Unlike the Jōkyū War and Mongol invasions of the 13th century, the Ōnin War was fought primarily in Kyoto, and thus the warrior monks could no longer remain non-violent and neutral. In addition, a new breed of warrior monks was forming in the countryside. Where the monks of Mount Hiei had subscribed to the teachings of the Tendai sect, these new groups, calling themselves Ikkō-ikki, followed the dictates of the Jōdo Shinshū sect of beliefs. They were essentially coalitions of religious fundamentalist priests, farmers, and families, who were willing to literally fight for their beliefs. Ikkō-ikki translates to something like "devoted league," but also had the connotation of "single-minded riots."” These professional warrior monks often led the countryside insurgencies, built powerful fortresses amidst their temples and monasteries, and would sally forth from them to raid, pillage, and plunder samurai lords they considered to be their enemies. Throughout all of human affairs, there is one particularly dangerous thing about people who believe themselves to be deeply moral independent of their actions: soon, they come to believe that any particular sins and transgressions they make are acceptable, since they are already in fact moral and “saved.” So it was with the sohei warrior monks. Rigorous non-self-aggrandizing Buddhist training built their power; their power attracted those who seek power, who gradually led them to relinquish the actual tenets of Buddhism. Soon, Buddhist sayings were invoked but no Buddhist practices were being followed followed – the lust for power alone remained among their leaders. *** VANTAGES #3: MORALITY ON THE MARCH In this chapter, we use the benefit of hindsight to observe morality on the march. Henry Kissinger’s seminal work, Diplomacy, repeatedly analyzes the relationship between “legitimacy” and “power.” It’s unsurprising that Kissinger, as one of the foremost practitioners of realpolitik in American history, has little respect for all-morality, no-substance policies... but he tends to rely on other authorities to make his point – “Nothing annoyed [Theodore] Roosevelt as much as high-sounding principles backed by neither the power nor the will to implement them.” *** LESSON #1: MORALITY AND FORCE AS CONFLICT-RESOLUTION STRATEGIES We come, then, to our first lesson for this chapter. To paraphrase Kissinger in my own words, both morality and force can be used as conflict-resolution strategies. A policy based on some type of morality attempts to convince potential rivals and belligerents to limit the scope or conduct or adjust the rules, in accordance with that type of morality. The Sohei warrior monks of Mount Hiei had asserted – on basis of morality – that they could intervene “defensively” into the political and military affairs of Sengoku Japan, but – due to tradition, custom, and morality – it was impermissible for anyone to assault the fortress-monasteries they built. After having assailed Nobunaga and being defeated, Nobunaga had demanded some (relatively minor) concessions, attempting to show the warrior-monks who was now in charge militarily. The effect was one of rage for violating their standard of morality. *** AN ASSAULT ON A SORT OF MORALITY From Yoshikawa’s Taiko – “The main temple of the Honganji had been built during a period of civil disorder and confusion. It had been constructed to withstand the disturbances of the day: outside its stone walls was a deep moat, spanned by a fortified bridge. Although the Honganji was a temple, its construction was that of a castle. To be a monk here meant to be a warrior, and this place had no fewer warrior-monks than Nara and Mount Hiei. Very likely there was not a single priest living in this ancient Buddhist fortress who did not hate the upstart Nobunaga. They accused him of being an enemy of Buddhism who flouted tradition, a destroyer of culture, and a devil who knew no bounds—a beast among men. When, instead of negotiating, Nobunaga had confronted the Honganji and forced them to cede some of their land to him, he had gone too far. The pride of the Buddhist fortress was strong, and the privileges it enjoyed were ancient. Reports from the west and other regions began to trickle in that the Honganji was arming itself. The temple had bought two thousand guns, the number of warrior-monks had increased manyfold, and new defensive moats were being dug around the fortress. Nobunaga had anticipated that they would ally themselves with the Miyoshi clan, and that the weak shogun would be seduced to their side. He had also expected that malicious propaganda would be spread among the common people, and that this would most likely set off a popular uprising against him.” *** LESSON #2: MORALITY AS A CLOAK VS GENUINE MORALITY Violating widely held morality in a land has disastrous consequences. It means everyone hates and distrusts you, potentially including your own people. Even in the most ferocious and violent of people, there is a need to justify one’s actions and a need for acceptance. No military that is even semi-modern can succeed when its soldiers believe themselves on the wrong side of morality, if a suitable alternative morality is not first registered amidst the people. The same applies to all organizations, from those as close-knit as a family, to those as large as a global multinational corporation. However, if one’s policy and actions are heavily reliant on morality, it’s critically important to not be seen as hypocritical and amoral. A policy driven heavily by morality… that’s not seen as moral… is like a combustion engine without gasoline. It is heavy, it may look impressive – but it gets you nowhere. *** THE BURNING RETREAT SEALS THE FATE OF THE WARRIOR MONKS When Nobunaga’s brother was killed in combat with the warrior-monks, he was enraged and marched on their position. The allied monk and samurai forces hostile to Nobunaga made a huge fatal mistake in their retreat – looking to deny Nobunaga’s men food and supplies, they burned peasant villages and fields en route. Yoshikawa – "Nobunaga is almost at Keage. The troops of Akechi Mitsuhide are in the vanguard, and they are smashing through with unstoppable force." The generals could hardly believe their ears. "Surely it's not Nobunaga in person! There's no way he could have withdrawn from the battlefield at Naniwa so quickly." "Two or three hundred of our men in Yamashina have already been killed. The enemy is on the rampage, and, as always, Nobunaga himself is giving the orders. He's riding like a mounted demon or god, and he's coming right this way!" Both Asai Nagamasa and Asakura Kagetake blanched. Nagamasa felt this especially keenly; Nobunaga was his wife's brother, a man who had formerly treated him kindly. The show of Nobunaga's fury made him shudder. "Retreat! Fall back to Mount Hiei!" Nagamasa blurted out. Asakura Kagetake picked up the urgent tone of his ally's voice. "Back to Mount Hiei!" At the same time, he screamed orders to his retainers. "Set fire to the peasants' houses along the road! No, wait until our vanguard has gone through. Then set the fires! Set the fires!" The hot wind scorched Nobunaga's brow. Sparks had ignited his horse's mane and the tassels on his saddle. From Yamashina to Otsu, the burning beams of the peasants' houses along the road and the flames that seemed to swirl through the air could not prevent him from reaching his destination. He had become the flames of a torch himself, and his men, as they galloped on, were a horde of fire. "This battle will be a memorial service for Lord Nobuharu." "Did they think we wouldn't avenge the spirits of our dead comrades?" But when they came to the Mii Temple, there was not an enemy soldier to be seen. They had climbed Mount Hiei with all the speed of flight.” The burning en route exposed their lack of compassion for the peasants of Japan – supposedly the people they were fighting to protect from Nobunaga. This sealed their fate. *** LESSON #3: CORRECT ASSESSMENT OF MEANS Kissinger – “Consensus on the nature of the equilibrium [of power] is usually established by periodic conflict.” The warrior-monks were seeing a readjustment of their power. They were fierce and unified warriors, but the new technology and tactics of the Oda forces were pushing them back. Then, they violated their own morality at a time when they desperately needed it, becoming seen as hypocrites. This meant they were solely dealing with balance of power issues. Kissinger – “[A policy of “National Interest”] depends above all on the ability to assess power relationships. Universal values are defined by their perception and are not in need of constant reinterpretation; indeed they are inconsistent with it. But determining the limits of power requires a blend of experience and insight, and constant adjustment to circumstance. In theory, of course, the balance of power should be quite calculable; in practice, it has proved extremely difficult to work out realistically.” The third lesson is that, when morality does not apply or has faded, you must correctly assess the balance of power when force or competitive is applied. *** NOBUNAGA’S RAGE Yoshikawa – “Nobunaga looked at the towering mountain and thought, It's here. It's not the mountain that is my enemy; it's the mountain's special privileges. He saw it in a new light now. From ancient times, through the reigns of successive emperors, how much had the tradition and special privileges of the mountain troubled and pained the country's rulers and the common people? Was there even the faintest glimmer of the real Buddha on the mountain? […] Was the lamp of the Law lit on this holy peak so that the monks could force their petitions on the Emperor in Kyoto? Was it so that they could interfere with government and grow ever more powerful with special privileges? Was it so they could ally themselves with warlords, conspire with laymen, and throw the country into confusion? Was the lamp lit so that the Law of Buddha might be accoutered with armor and helmet, and line the entire mountain with warriors' spears, guns, and war banners? Tears of rage ran from Nobunaga's eyes. It was clear to him that this was all blasphemy. Mount Hiei had been established to protect the nation, and so had been granted special privileges. But where was the original purpose of Mount Hiei now? The main temple building, the seven shrines, the monasteries of the eastern and the western pagodas were nothing more than the barracks of armed demons in monks' robes. All right! Nobunaga bit his lip so hard that his teeth became stained with blood. Let them call me a demon king who destroys Buddhism! The magnificent beauties of the mountain are nothing more than the false allures of an enchantress, and these armored monks are nothing more than fools. I'm going to burn them with the flames of war and let the true Buddha be called forth from these ashes! On the same day he gave the order for the entire mountain to be surrounded. Naturally, it took several days for his army to cross the lake, pass over the mountains, and join him. "The blood of my brother and Mori Yoshinari has not yet dried. Let their unswervingly loyal souls sleep in peace. Let their blood be like lanterns that will light up the world!"” *** LESSON #4: ADJUSTMENT AND COMPROMISE The fourth lesson is, you must know when to adjust your policy. When one’s moral force is seen as bankrupt, and one is in a physically weaker position, it must be time to reassess one’s position – and start making compromises. This might be compromise with an adversary in a negotiation, and it might be compromise by seeking a less ambitious and more scoped-down course. Did the warrior-monks of Mount Hiei run such a course? No. *** “DIDN’T YOU WANT TO SURRENDER TO US?” The last chance for the warrior-monks to save themselves was when the Abbot Sonrin sat down to negotiate with Nobunaga’s retainer Ittetsu. Unfortunately, Abbot Sonrin came with a high dose of haughty arrogance. Yoshikawa – “I’m not sure what your purpose was in coming here, but as a friend, I advise you not to carry this joke too far," Sonrin replied, shaking with laughter. "I agreed to meet you because I thought you had come to ask permission to surrender to us. How stupid to ask us to give up and leave! Don't you see that we are resolved to resist to the end? You must be mad to come here to talk such foolishness!" Excitement burned in the eyes of the other warrior-monks, and they glared at Ittetsu. Having allowed the abbot his say, Ittetsu began to speak deliberately. "Saint Dengyo established this temple for the peace and preservation of the Imperial House and the tranquillity of the nation. I suspect it is not the monks' most fervent prayer to put on armor, to marshal swords and spears, to involve themselves in political strife, to ally themselves with rebel armies, or to make the people of the Empire suffer. The monks should return to being monks! Drive the Asai and Asakura from the mountain, throw down your weapons, and return to your original roles as disciples of the Buddha!" He spoke this from the very depths of his body, not giving the priests a moment to put in a single word. “Moreover," he went on, "if you do not follow his orders, Lord Nobunaga is determined o burn down the main temple, the seven shrines, and the monasteries, and kill everyone on the mountain. Please give this careful thought, and put away your stubbornness. Will you turn this mountain into an inferno or sweep away the old evils and preserve the single lamp of this hallowed ground?" Suddenly the monks with Sonrin began to shout. "This is pointless!" "He's just wasting time!" "Silence!" Sonrin commanded them with a sardonic smile. "That was an extremely boring, worn-out sermon, but I'm going to answer it politely. Mount Hiei is an authority into itself, and has its own principles. You are just meddling unnecessarily. Master Ittetsu, it's getting late. Leave the mountain right away." "Sonrin, can you say this on your own authority? Why don't you meet with the men of great learning and the elders, and discuss the matter carefully?" "The mountain is of one mind and one body. Mine is the voice of all of the temples on Mount Hiei." "Then, no matter what—" "You fool! We'll resist military aggression to the very end. We'll protect the freedom of our traditions with our very blood! Get out of here!" "If that's the way you want it." Ittetsu made no move to get up. "This is such a shame. How are you going to protect the infinity of Buddha's light with your blood? Just what is this freedom you're going to protect? What are these traditions? Aren't they nothing more than deceptions, convenient for the temples' prosperity? Well, those charms have no currency in the world today. Take a good look at the times. It is inevitable that greedy men, who close their eyes and obstruct the tide of the times with their selfishness, will be burned up together with the fallen leaves." With that, Ittetsu returned to Nobunaga's camp. *** LESSON #5: HAUGTINESS HAS NO PLACE TO THE WEAKER FORCE This one is obvious, no? But the temptation is so very large when a side formerly enjoying prestige and power is confronted with their morality and charisma being bankrupt, and their force being depleted, to turn in its last breaths to – arrogance. If you find yourself getting haughty, you assuredly must double-check and triple-check that you are indeed the stronger force. The weaker side ought never act haughty and overbearing. *** STAKING SONRIN’S HEAD The fortress-mountain being surrounded, the monks realized – too late! – that Nobunaga was not bluffing. Sonrin hurried down to compromise. Yoshikawa – "I would like to speak with Lord Nobunaga," the emissary said. When Nobunaga appeared, he saw that it was Sonrin, the abbot who had previously met with Ittetsu. He brought the message that, because the views of the main temple had changed, he would like to plead for peace. Nobunaga refused. "What did you say to the envoy I sent before? Don't you know what shame is?" Nobunaga drew his sword. "This is an outrage!" the priest cried. He stood up and tottered sideways as Nobunaga's sword flashed horizontally. "Pick up his head and go back. That's my answer!" *** LESSON #6: CREDIBLITY Yoshikawa – "Hideyoshi! Hideyoshi!" Nobunaga called. "Yes! I'm here!" "Find Mitsuhide, and the two of you take this letter to Kyoto immediately." "To the shogun?" "Correct. In the letter, I've asked the shogun to mediate, but it would be better if he heard it from your mouth, too." "But then why did you just decapitate the messenger from Mount Hiei?" "Don't you understand? If I hadn't done that, do you think we could wrap up a peace conference? Even if we had succeeded in coming to terms, it's clear that they would tear up the treaty and come chasing right after us." Nobunaga wanted to show he would credibly destroy Mount Hiei if, after his withdrawal, the monks attacked again. Killing Sonrin was his attempt to show he was serious. Credibility matters – a lot. Especially when one breaks with precedence. Nobunaga had hoped that his action would show his credibility – and that the monks would then hold firm to a peace agreement. Alas, they had made and broken treaties so often – they could not reverse course. *** PENULTIMATE SCENE The Sohei of Mount Hiei, unfortunately, remained haughty and did not reassess the changed landscape. The next year, they attacked again. Nobunaga had expected they might. Yoshikawa – “After Nobunaga had lifted the siege of Mount Hiei and withdrawn to Gifu the previous winter, he had ordered the building of large troop ships capable of crossing the lake at a moment's notice. Now the soldiers finally understood his forethought, and the words he had spoken when he abandoned the attack on Nagashima and returned to Gifu. The flames of rebellion that burned all over the country were merely reflections of the real fire—the root of the evil—whose source was Mount Hiei. Nobunaga was again laying siege to the mountain with a great army. His face showed new resolve, and he spoke loudly enough to be heard from the curtained enclosure of his headquarters all the way to the barracks, almost as if he were addressing the enemy. "What! You're saying that you won't use fire because the flames might spread to the monasteries? What is war, anyway? Every one of you is a general, and you don't under-stand even that? How did you ever get this far?"” And we have come full circle, to where we opened this chapter – ""You're being heartless, my lord. It's not that we don't understand, but when you've given us an outrageous order—to burn down Mount Hiei…”" Nobunaga offers his own morality in turn. Yoshikawa – "No more 'common sense'! There speaks eight hundred years of 'common sense.' If we don't burn out the roots of the old, the buds of the new will never sprout. You keep talking about this one mountain, but I'm not concerned only with Mount Hiei; burning it down is going to save the church everywhere else. If by slaughtering all the men, women, and children on Mount Hiei, I can open the eyes of the imprudent in other provinces, then I will have done some good. The hottest and deepest hells are nothing to my eyes and ears. Who else can do this but me? I have heaven's mandate to do it." The three men, who believed that they, more than anyone else, knew Nobunaga's genius and methods, were appalled by this statement. Was their lord possessed by demons? Takei Sekian pleaded, "No, my lord. No matter what orders you give us, as your retainers we can do nothing but try to dissuade you. You cannot burn a place sacred since ancient times—" "That's enough! Shut up! In my heart I've received an Imperial decree to burn the place down. I'm giving you the order for this massacre because the mercy of the Founder, Saint Dengyo, is in my heart. Don't you understand?" "No, my lord." "If you don't understand, leave! Just don't get in the way." "I'm going to object until you kill me yourself." "You're already damned! Get out!" "Why should I leave? Rather than watch my lord's insanity and the destruction of his clan in my lifetime, I can try to obstruct this with my own death. Look back to the many examples given by antiquity. Not one man who made a hellfire of Buddhist temples and shrines, or who massacred priests, has come to a good end." "I'm different. I'm not going into battle for my own sake. In this battle, my role will be to destroy ancient evils and build a new world. I don't know whether this is the command of the gods, the people, or the times; all I know is that I'm going to obey the orders I've received. You are all timid, and your view is limited. Your cries are the sorrows of small-minded people. The profit and loss you talk about only concerns me as an individual. If my turning Mount Hiei into an inferno protects countless provinces and saves countless lives, then it will be a great achievement."” *** ENDGAME The monks made one final mistake – instead of negotiating, at the very end after breaching the last peace treaty, they then called on another ally, the Takeda (whose fall we learned of in Vantages #1: Why and How), attempting to force Nobunaga to retreat. This had the opposite effect: in those final moments, the warrior-monks had only two choices when facing down the ferocious and brutal Oda commander: First, they might fully disarm, surrender all their weapons, and tear down their fortresses and fortifications in favor of peace. Second, they could accept annihilation. The hastened the second course by forcing Nobunaga’s hand by calling for a Takeda assault on his rear position. (The Takeda would be destroyed shortly afterwards.) Yoshikawa, for the last time – “Nobunaga disappeared into the enclosure. Smoke rose from the cooking fires of the huge camp that encircled the foothills of Mount Hiei. As night fell, the wind freshened. The temple bell that was usually heard from the Mii Temple was silent. The sound of the conch shell reverberated on top of the hill, and the soldiers raised their battle cries in reply. The carnage lasted from that evening until dawn of the following day. The soldiers of the Oda army broke through the barricades the warrior-monks had built across the passes on the way to the summit. Black smoke filled the valley, and flames howled through the mountain. Looking up from the foothills, one could see huge pillars of fire everywhere on Mount Hiei. Even the lake glowed a fiery red. The location of the biggest fire showed that the main temple was burning, as well as the seven shrines, the great lecture hall, the bell tower, the library, the monasteries, the treasure pagoda, the great pagoda, and all the minor temples. By dawn the following day not one temple was left standing. The generals, who encouraged one another each time they looked up at the fearful sight, would recall Nobunaga's claim of having heaven's mandate and the blessing of Saint Dengyo, and urge themselves on. The apparent conviction of the generals inspired the troops. Making their way through the flames and black smoke, the attacking soldiers followed Nobunaga's orders to the letter. Eight thousand warrior-monks perished in an echo of the most horrible Buddhist hell. The monks who crawled through the valleys, hid in caves, or climbed trees trying to get away were hunted down and killed, like insects on rice plants. Around midnight, Nobunaga himself climbed the mountain to see what his iron will had wrought. The monks of Mount Hiei had miscalculated. Even though they had been surrounded by Nobunaga's army, they had made light of the situation, thinking the show of force a pretentious bluff. They had vowed to wait until the Oda started to retreat, and then they had planned to pursue and destroy them. And they had sat by idly, their minds at ease because they received frequent letters of encouragement and reassurance from nearby Kyoto—which meant, of course, from the shogun. For all the warrior-monks and their followers across the country, Mount Hiei had been the focal point of the opposition to Nobunaga. But the man who had incessantly supplied provisions and weapons to Mount Hiei and who had done his best to stir up the monks and urge them to fight was Shogun Yoshiaki. "[Takeda] Shingen is coming!" So had promised a dispatch from Kai to the shogun. Yoshiaki had held on to this great expectation and had passed it on to Mount Hiei. The warrior-monks, naturally enough, had faith that the [Takeda] army from Kai would attack Nobunaga's rear. When that happened, Nobunaga would have to retreat just as he had the year before at Nagashima. And there was one more thing. Because they had lived undisturbed for the past eight hundred years, the monks had underestimated the changes that had overtaken the country in recent years. The mountain was transformed into an earthly hell in only half a night. A little too late, at about midnight, when flames were leaping everywhere, representatives of Mount Hiei, consumed with fear and panic, came to Nobunaga's camp to sue for peace. "We'll give him whatever amount of money he wants, and we will agree to whatever conditions he sets." Nobunaga only flashed a smile and spoke to those around him, as though he were throwing bait to a hawk. "There's no need to give them an answer. Just cut them down on the spot." Once more messengers came from the priests, and this time begged before Nobunaga himself. Nobunaga turned his head and had the monks killed. Dawn broke. Mount Hiei was covered in the lingering smoke, ashes, and black withered trees, while everywhere corpses were frozen in the poses death had found them in.” *** RECAP, AND COULD THIS HAVE BEEN AVOIDED? What a dreadful scene; what an awful thing. Nobunaga was a man who forged his own morality – from nothing. He persuaded his followers to accept his morality, in place of the ancient respect and reverence for Buddhism. To recap our lessons, 1. Morality and force are both used as conflict-resolution strategies. You should know which one you are applying, which one any rivals and other parties are applying, and you must hew correctly to the precepts of your strategy. 2. Resolving conflicts based on morals requires consistency. Violating one’s own precepts – hypocrisy – and hurting the people or cause you are sworn to defend is the fastest way to turn genuine morality into the visage of a threadbare cloak which does not protect oneself from the elements. 3. When a contest has become one of force, you must correctly assess your means. 4. When you have fallen behind a rival – or are failing on your old course of action – you must make adjustments and compromises. 5. When you are the weaker party in a negotiation, haughtiness is bad on all levels. There is always the temptation to become haughty to people who perceive themselves as moral – but this is where you must correctly assess your means and whether you’re actually perceived as moral in the eyes of others. 6. You must have credibility. When you repeatedly break your word, no one can bargain and compromise with you effectively. If the warrior-monks of Mount Hiei had held to even one of the principles they violated, the events of September 1571 – the complete destruction of all the ancient monasteries and fortresses of Mount Hiei, with near total loss of life of inhabitants – would not have happened. Nobunaga was wrathful, brutal, perhaps even insane at times – but the whole course of action was preventable by the warrior-monks themselves. It is hoped you will learn from their example what not to do. Kissinger reflects, “Though privately religious, [Cardinal Richelieu of France] viewed his duties as minister in entirely secular terms. Salvation might be his personal objective, but to Richelieu, the statesman, it was irrelevant. “Man is immortal, his salvation is hereafter,” he once said. “The state has no immortality, its salvation is now or never.” In other words, states do not receive credit in any world for doing what is right; they are only rewarded for being strong enough to do what is necessary.”” *** WRAPPING UP You are highly encouraged to read Yoshikawa’s Taiko (though you might consider starting with his more-accessible masterpiece, Musashi, first, about the famous lone swordsman). Likewise, Kissinger’s work rapidly became my most-highlighted books of all time for all its insights. Now, you are no doubt curious how it ends up for Oda Nobunaga. From the reckless fool of Owari, to commander of the leading force, to the hellacious demon who slaughters Buddhist monks… … what is the end of his path? He’s called the “First Great Unifier of Japan” – so he must have succeeded to some extent, no? But, wait. First Great Unifier? What happens to him in the end? We will find out next chapter, in Vantages #4: Ends, Means, and Blindspots. Vantages #4: Ends, Means, and Blindspots Vantages #4: Ends, Means, and Blindspots AIN'T WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW... “Although Nobunaga rarely put too much trust in his retainers, he particularly trusted Shibata Katsuie, [Toyotomi] Hideyoshi, and Akechi Mitsuhide, who was the first subordinate to receive a castle from Nobunaga.” -- Wikipedia: Akechi Mitsuhide “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. “ -- Mark Twain *** AN UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT “In 1578 an unfortunate incident is said to have occurred involving the Hatano clan of Tamba. Eager to bring them over without further delay, Mitsuhide managed to convince Hatano Hideharu to submit. Unfortunately, Nobunaga later overturned Mitsuhide's promise of safe treatment and had Hideharu executed in 1579. The Hatano responded, as one might expect, by accusing Mitsuhide of treachery, and, the story goes, somehow got ahold of his mother in Omi and executed her in dreadful manner. Mitsuhide, needless to say, bore Nobunaga some ill will. This was enflamed by a series of public insults Nobunaga directed at Mitsuhide that drew even the attention of Western observers. Nonetheless, Mitsuhide was generally well regarded for his talents both on the battlefield and as an administrator.” -- The Samurai Archives: Akechi Mitsuhide *** THE NATION UNDER ONE SWORD It is June of 1582 in Japan. Oda Nobunaga will celebrate his 48th birthday in less than a week. His dream of Tenka Fubu – "The Nation Under One Sword" – has largely been realized. How far he has come! The young “fool from Owari” who was seen as a weak and frivolous leader had been attacked at age 26 by the overwhelming force of the Imagawa. Nobunaga led that daring raid that slew their leader, in one shocking moment becoming a major power in Japan (discussed in Vantages #2: Below the Bar). This was an era of treachery and chaos. The Sengoku Civil Wars, similar to the Italian Renaissance or World War I, were multi-sided. There was coordination and alliances, but there was no single constantly holding blocs in the Sengoku Civil Wars. It was a brutal time in Japanese history: warlords and bandits ran free; trade was widely disrupted; innocent people constantly suffered. The claims of local samurai leaders, a fragmented and disintegrating central Shogun, a weak and powerless Emperor, warrior-monks and peasant insurgents raiding the countryside… it was a lawless and brutal time in Japanese history. Nobunaga set his sights on changing that. He adopted the motto, Tenka Fubu: The Nation Under One Sword The Oda forces first conquered the powerful fortress of Inabayama Castle and re-naming it “Gifu” after the Legendary King Wu who unified China. The symbolism was very clear: Nobunaga’s ambition was to unify all of Japan, becoming the “King Wu of Japan,” a dream to end the multi-sided Civil War and bring peace and order to the realm. Over the next five years, Nobunaga launched attacks from his new base of Gifu Castle, eventually becoming powerful enough to successfully march on Kyoto and re-install the deposed Shogun Yoshiaki, whose brother had been murdered and a puppet installed on the Shogun’s throne. He entered Kyoto victorious in 1568, at the age of 34 years old. Seeing the local balance of power being disrupted, and despising the upstart young lord, neutrals declared war on the Oda Clan, allies turned on the young and rising Oda Nobunaga, and the warrior-monks led multiple rebellions and raids against his newfound authority. After the warrior-monks repeatedly refused to back down and broke peace treaties, he shocked the world by burning down the ancient Mount Hiei 3 years later, destroying temporal Buddhist-warrior power in Japan (discussed last chapter, in Vantages #3: Morality on the March). The next year, he routed and destroyed the Takeda Clan’s powerful cavalry at the Battle of Nagashino with the use of innovations in battlefield engineering and firearms (discussed in Vantages #1: Why and How). In 1574 was knighted by the Emperor; in 1577, he was given the third-highest formal rank in Japan, Udaijin. He was indisputably the most powerful man in Japan, now sanctioned by the Emperor on his mission to unify the nation. The last truly great rival to Nobunaga, Uesugi Kensin, died in 1578. There has been widespread dispute and debate of whether he died of cancer or was assassinated by one of Nobunaga’s men, perhaps the elite ninja Hattori Hanzo who led many such missions. With Kenshin’s death, the path to full unification of Japan was clear. Nobunaga’s best generals fanned out across Japan, laying siege to anyone who would not join the Oda coalition. Tenka Fubu – the Unification of Japan under Nobunaga’s Sword – was in sight. Nobunaga has been sanctioned by the Emperor in his mission. He has the best generals, the best gunsmiths, the best technology, and the best soldiers in the land. The chief rivals to Nobunaga’s mission of unification have died or been subdued. Shockingly, when you actually study the annals of history, it seems like the best half-dozen generals in Japan all served under Nobunaga at this time. Come, think of that – despite only controlling around half of the country, it is very likely that each of Oda Nobunaga himself, his son Oda Nobutada, Akechi Mitsuhide, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shibata Katsuie, and Tokugawa Ieyasu are each individually better than any remaining rival. Unification is very much in sight. But then, The Incident at Hanno Temple. *** DYING BY THE SWORD It is the very early morning of 21 June 1582. Kyoto is now firmly pacified and controlled by Oda forces. On his way westward, Oda Nobunaga takes some much-needed rest at a favorite tranquil spot of his, Hanno Temple in Kyoto. In two days, it will be Nobunaga’s 48th birthday. He will drink a little sake, perhaps write a little poetry, watch some dances, perhaps observe the flowers. Nobunaga was sound asleep on the cool Kyoto Temple pavilion, taking a much-needed rest. And then a war-horn blows. Nobunaga’s world is hazy and swirling in the pre-dawn: Am I dreaming? The loud-thumping of war drums begins. My mind is consumed by war. The clacking hooves of horses now come into earshot. Gunfire breaks out. Reality strikes and the dream is gone. We’re being attacked. The warlord is wide awake. Shouts and screams begin now, the peaceful Kyoto temple scene turning instantly into a battlefield. Nobunaga is on his feet now, shouting and giving orders. “What’s going on? Report!” One of his most loyal pages, Mori Ranmaru, speaks up: “We’re surrounded. Enemy unknown!” Nobunaga moves to an observation point, inaccurate gunfire peppering the area. Enemy battle-cries rise from beyond eyesight in the summer pre-dawn. “Teki wa Honnō-ji ni ari!” “The enemy is at Hanno Temple!” Nobunaga grimaces. That’s us. Nobunaga has a handful of personal attendants and a light bodyguard; they have no horses, not many guns, a few swords and spears. They had more of a ceremonial detachment than an actual fighting force while resting at Hanno-ji. “Ranmaru, have our men scout the west pavilion! I’m going to the east myself!” They run off in opposite directions to scout. The sight is demoralizing: they are completely surrounded. The enemy starts creeping forwards, and they see the war banners now – 明智氏 The flower of the AKECHI clan. Nobunaga ducks back into the Temple and runs into Ranmaru. Nobunaga bellows, “It’s Mitsuhide! He’s betrayed us!” Ranmaru cringes. “We’re completely surrounded. At least hundreds of men outside with guns and lances. The sentries are all dead... our men are fighting desperately, they’re breaking into the Temple!” Cries ring out from the darkness amidst horses’ hooves and gunfire. “Teki wa Honnō-ji ni ari!” “The enemy is at Hanno Temple!” And then, “Kill them all! Let none survive! For the AKECHI clan and LORD MITSUHIDE!” After a quick war counsel among his few attendants, it is clear that escape is impossible. Akechi soldiers are now forcing entry into Hanno Temple as the few defenders with improvised weapons and no armor are falling to the prepared full-scale assault. Ranmaru speaks up, “We’re defeated… there is no escape.” The young man looks like he is about to cry. Nobunaga nods. Decisive and defiant even to the end, Nobunaga gives his final orders – “The bastard. The bastard traitor. Well, let’s ensure he doesn’t get our heads. Ranmaru, let us burn the temple down! They can have our lives, but no trophies! Prepare fires and get your sword! I will die as I should, seppuku, you are to be my second.” Ranmaru flinches. Nobunaga chastens: “No time to cry! 50 years under Heaven, and then we all die! But let us deny them their crowning moment!” The last few disorganized defenders are fighting to the death even as Nobunaga, Ranmaru, and the attendants hurriedly set fire to the Temple. Nobunaga takes his short sword from its sheath, and kneels in front of the altar. “Ranmaru, be steady.” And two days before his 48th birthday, Nobunaga drives the short sword into his stomach and wrenches violently, spilling his vital organs in seppuku, ritual suicide. Ranmaru delivers the killing blow, taking Nobunaga’s head off in one clean stroke. Ranmaru follows his lord in death, and Hanno Temple goes up in flames. Their bodies are never recovered by the Akechi forces. *** VANTAGES #4: ENDS, MEANS, AND BLINDSPOTS Oda Nobunaga is still one of the most widely-discussed characters in Japanese history. People’s opinions run the full gamut – he is regarded as everything from a savior figure, to a brutal and heartless tyrant, and everything in between. The discussions continue to this day: Quora: “What if Oda Nobunaga was not assassinated in Honnoji? What effect would this have on Japanese history?” Historum Forum: "How Should Oda Nobunaga be remembered?" We are less interested in those points, though – we are looking for Vantages which we can intellectually stand upon, to survey the ground below us and see to the skies above. We are not so interested in whether Nobunaga was a good man or a bad man– though he almost certainly was both at various times – but instead we are interested in a much simpler question, “Could Nobunaga have prevented his assassination and death?” *** ENDS AND MEANS... In Vantages #1, we explored the Why and How of doing things. We put together a very simple framework to evaluate and understand why you are pursuing certain things – MOL = Meaning of Life QOL = Quality of Life Means = Means to an End Nobunaga was very clearly not particularly interested in Quality-of-Life. He was willing to accept all sorts of hatred against him, and all sorts of depredations of campaign life, in order to unify Japan. He drove relentless towards what he perceived as the meaning of his life – Tenka Fubu: The Nation Under One Sword He wished to end the chaos. Everything he did, drove at those ends. It is consistently the single and only operating philosophy he ran his entire life by. It is how he chose his soldiers, his generals, his alliances, his succession planning, his war methods, his usage of reconnaissance and ninja… everything. He was largely unshackled by tradition – he had no particular reverence for ancient Buddhist customs when those customs had culminated in a war-like philosophy opposed to his unification of the nation. Likewise, he adopted one of the greatest “soft technologies” in all of history – promotion by merit. He did not care particularly for lineage; if an officer could get the job done reliably, they would rapidly be promoted. Hideyoshi Toyotomi – who will we meet next chapter – is proof of that. He rose from being Nobunaga’s sandal-bearer to one of his closest confidants and most fearsome diplomats and generals. And, of course, Nobunaga felt no need to hew to old forms of warfare. He abandoned tradition in favor of battlefield engineering, firearms, non-traditional usages of sieges, offensive and defensive campaigns, etc. Everything was a means to the end of his philosophy of unifying Japan under one sword. *** MITSUHIDE’S MOTHER Could Nobunaga have avoided death at Hanno Temple? Not by conventional security alone, I don’t think. Remember that he did not distrust Akechi Mitsuhide; even if Nobunaga had been fanatic about security, it would have been at a different moment and in a different method. Perhaps poison, or perhaps a knife in the ribs at a war counsel. When Mitsuhide had made up his mind to betray Nobunaga, it was only a matter of time. So, I don’t think basic “temporal security” could have saved Nobunaga. Mitsuhide’s reasons for betraying Nobunaga are complex; a common theory is it was in response to Mitsuhide’s mother being executed. Wikipedia: Hatano Hideharu – “According to a record kept by Oda clan, Mitsuhide offered his mother as a hostage to allow to Hideharu surrender with dignity. Hideharu complied knowing that he could not hold out indefinitely. However, after arriving at Azuchi Castle to offer an apology, Hideharu was executed by Nobunaga. His troops in Yagami Castle, hearing that Hideharu had been executed, killed Mitsuhide's mother.” The exact sources are somewhat unclear and disputed, but clearly something along those lines happened, permanently embittering Akechi Mitsuhide against Nobunaga. *** QUESTION TO PONDER: PEOPLE AS ENDS-IN-THEMSELVES? Nobunaga constantly, relentlessly, and single-mindedly focused on his goals. He almost certainly had Hatano executed because he saw Hatano as in the way of his unification of the nation. In those times, the giving of hostages was a way to ensure treaties would be upheld. Thus, Nobunaga was seemingly able to advance his meaning of life goal by executing Hatano, but Akechi Mitsuhide bore the brunt of that decision when the Hatano clan retaliated. A couple hundred years later in Prussia, Immanuel Kant would propose the second formulation of his categorical imperative – Always treat humanity as an end and never as a mere means. We do not have time to go heavily into Kant here – to truly do the subject justice, we would need to look at Kant’s Prussian and Lutheran roots, which formed the core of his religio which his written philosophies were based upon, and that is a much lengthier topic than we have time for. But – it is worth considering. Are people a means to an end? For Nobunaga, the answer was: yes. Thus, executing Hatano Hideharu was a simple cost/benefit calculation en route to his meaning-of-life goal of unifying Japan and ending the Civil Wars. Nobunaga made many such decisions: last chapter, of course, we discussed the burning of Mount Hiei. It destroyed the power of the sohei warrior-monks once and for all, but many innocent and well-meaning people who lived amongst the warrior-monks lost their lives as well. Was it justified? Most people would think not, but it depends on one’s philosophy and morality. Nobunaga, obviously, thought it appropriate. And again, we are not here to say whether Nobunaga was a good man or a bad man; that is an interesting question and worthy of reading and thinking upon, but not what we are discussing. Instead, we can ask – if Nobunaga had been more careful about the humans as an end in themselves, would that have better-served him in completion of his meaning-of-life goal? Frankly, it's a hard subject to judge; you’ll have to form your own opinion on the matter. Clearly, Nobunaga’s disregard of tradition and sometimes heavy-handed ways were some part of his success, but they also led to his assassination at Hanno Temple. It is worth thinking upon – you will have to form your own opinion on the matter. *** ...AND BLINDSPOTS But here, I am comfortable speaking with much more certainty. “Historians of science have often noted that at any given time scholars in a particular field tend to share basic assumptions about their subject. Social scientists are no exception; they rely on a view of human nature that provides the background of most discussions of specific behaviors but is rarely questioned. Social scientists in the 1970s broadly accepted two ideas about human nature. First, people are generally rational and their thinking is normally sound. Second, emotions such as fear, affection, and hatred explain most of the occasions on which people depart from their rationality.” -- Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow Nobunaga had one gigantic blindspot that was a huge part in his undoing – despite shedding very many of the samurai and Japanese traditions of his era, he assumed his subordinates would stay loyal to his command. Treachery was the norm during Sengoku, but with the exception of dynastic disputes, there was almost never treachery within one’s own clan. Nobunaga apparently never even considered that one of his senior generals would betray him, let alone Mitsuhide who he had given a lot of favor to. You can argue whether Nobunaga’s using people as a means to an end – sometimes with great tragedy and horror as a result – made sense for him. People do argue about it, constantly. It is an ongoing debate that will likely never be settled, taking into account the era and customs of that time in Japan. But you cannot argue that Nobunaga had a gigantic blindspot in assuming the unswerving loyalty of his generals – which came to be his undoing. Nobunaga had a good eye for people, generally speaking. He developed some of the most talented people of an age. Indeed, two of his closest generals would become the Second and Third Great Unifiers of Japan, finally completing his life’s work after his death. But, despite his sometimes ruthlessness, Nobunaga never seemed to even consider that one of his senior officers might have betrayed him. It wasn’t that he was lax or negligently didn’t have security in place – rather, it never occurred to Nobunaga that that break from samurai tradition could even happen. And in the end, that was his unmaking. Or, said differently by the later American author – “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. “ *** NEXT UP: THE RISE OF HIDEYOSHI TOYOTOMI Less than two weeks after assassinating Nobunaga, Mitsuhide would die at the Battle of Yamazaki. He, too, had blindspots – he thought many allies would rally to his banner after Nobunaga’s slaying; instead, there was a frantic race among Nobunaga’s other generals to avenge their fallen commander. But with Nobunaga dead, who would claim his mantle? Conflict would break out immediately between his other two most trusted generals, Shibata Katsuie and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, for the right to succeed Oda Nobunaga. We will catch up with Mitsuhide in two chapters, but first we must meet Toyotomi Hideyoshi – who would rise from a Nobunaga’s sandal-bearing servant to becoming the Second Great Unifier of Japan. Before moving on, though, perhaps think a little on the extent to which the ends justify the means, and of course, please scrutinize your blindspots! Because, as always, “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. “ Vantages #5: Mastery Anywhere Vantages #5: Mastery Anywhere SO COMPLETELY OVER-THE-TOP INSANE... “Toyotomi Hideyoshi was a poor peasant's son who fought as a nose-in-the-trenches grunt in a strict, regimented, class-driven militaristic society that valued family honor and noble lineage above all things. Despite his inauspicious roots and lack of a recognizeable last name, this guy not only excelled at the art of war, but rose to the point where he became the de facto ruler of one of the most powerful industrialized military empires on the planet, the supreme commander of the Japanese army, and one of the most face-melting samurai warriors of all time. That's so completely over-the-top insane that I can't even think of an analogy absurd enough to compare it to.” -- Badass of the Week: Hideyoshi Toyotomi *** LORD TOYOTOMI Hideyoshi Toyotomi is one of the most fascinating people of all-time. Not just in Japanese history – anywhere. In all of history. He changed the course of Japanese history, and indeed, the history of all of East Asia. But that’s not what’s so fascinating about him. What’s fascinating about him is that he came from nothing in an era that prized pedigree and lineage. In times of great chaos and in times of great innovation, there is often a chance to out-shine one’s birth rank and the prejudices of one’s age. And yet, even with that slight advantage, it’s still remarkable how far Hideyoshi rose, in a time and place that was so rank-obsessed and lineage-obsessed. He went from being a servant from an unknown family to ruling all of Japan. The quote we opened the piece with didn’t exaggerate… 400 years later, it’s still shocking to comprehend. *** VANTAGES #5: MASTERY ANYWHERE In this chapter, we take a very simple and powerful vantage point. At the end of it, I want you to have a new motto burned into your mind – Mastery anywhere is mastery everywhere. *** HIDEYOSHI’S RISE: MASTERY THROUGH AND THROUGH That little motto encapsulates all of Hideyoshi’s rise of prominence. In everything he did, he focused on a perfect execution of the task at hand, focusing on even the most trivial and mundane matters, all the while building his skills, his allies, and coming into renown and rank as a result. He entered the service of Oda Nobunaga as a servant, and through a diligent and constant excellence in his duties, got promoted to the rank of personal servant to Nobunaga. This was an interesting choice – Oda Nobunaga was clearly not one of the major powers in the region. Throughout his life, Hideyoshi would show a great understanding of people. Did he see more talent in the young “fool from Owari” than most people would have seen? Perhaps so. There is no chance Hideyoshi would have been promoted quickly in the service of a major lord like the Takeda or Uesugi; instead, Hideyoshi happened to choose a weak-in-power but brilliant-in-mind commander in Nobunaga. At Okehazama – the battle that made Oda Nobunaga a major power in Japan (as covered in Vantages #2: Below the Bar) – Hideyoshi made his first appearance in the official Oda records. As a peasant, he could obviously not command samurai troops – but Nobunaga brought ashigaru peasant auxiliaries to the fight, and the young and diligent Hideyoshi most likely led a detachment of 30 peasant soldiers in the battle, in a sergeant-type role. After acquitting himself well at Okehazama, Hideyoshi was faced with a mixed blessing, a quasi-promotion – he was put in charge of the kitchens. *** LESSON #1: MASTERFUL EXECUTION ANYWHERE BECOMES WHO YOU ARE I had the good fortune some years ago, while in Japan, to meet some very serious Western martial artists who become black belts in their home countries, and then had migrated to Japan to continue their studies. One American, a 15th degree black belt in his school if I remember correctly, had been training in Japan for over ten years. There was a quote he said in passing to me in Tokyo, that always stuck with me. “What you are in one place, you are everywhere.” I personally believe this quote to be true, and it became a key personal operating philosophy for me. Many people are lax and excuse themselves for doing poor work “because they don’t care about it” in some aspect of their life. They intend to “turn on” a hard work ethic and excellence once they find something that “really matters” to them. I don’t believe that’s possible. On the contrary, I think the actions you take – from the smallest to the largest – become who you are. As Warren Buffet is known to often say, “The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken.” A habit of excellence and mastery anywhere become mastery everywhere. Toyotomi Hideyoshi was known across his whole rise to prominence for being relentlessly focused on getting any job he was assigned done, in the most excellent fashion, as quickly and inexpensively as possible. This is how he rose from common servant to personal attendant to footsoldier to sergeant before the age of 23. Question for you to reflect on: Are you masterfully executing on all of your current work and duties? *** LESSON #2: BITTERNESS AND NEGLECT LEAD TO A SMALL SOUL We mean “soul” metaphorically, of course. The next phase of Hideyoshi’s life is very instructive for us. In samurai times, martial valor and warriorship were a clear path upwards. The fastest way to rise in rank was excellence on the battlefield. Indeed, peasant ashigaru who performed well could and were promoted to samurai status. Meanwhile, the more forward-thinking samurai (such as Nobunaga and his senior officers) very much respected and revered excellent ashigaru peasant soldiers. Indeed, it was his ashigaru peasant-gunner corps that would destroy the Takeda Clan some years later. Hideyoshi had excelled on the battlefield, but there was clearly no honor and glory in mere kitchens. Indeed, the Japanese of the era often believed the kitchen to be “women’s work” – no doubt Hideyoshi was teased a little bit with the “promotion,” and no doubt it would be disappointing to almost soldiers to get. This brings us to our second lesson: many people neglect excellence because they feel bitter about their current level and station. The kitchens of a military lord were a very important thing – the Japanese cooking of the day was rather complicated, and turning out meals and preserved food for the march was very important. Inheriting Imagawa Yoshimoto’s army after the stunning result at Okehazama, Nobunaga suddenly had serious problems keeping everything organized and everyone fed. Trusting Hideyoshi, he asked him to get the job done – because it badly needed to be done. Had Hideyoshi protested and resented the work, he likely could have been reassigned back to the ashigaru soldier corps, but he would have failed to both demonstrate his expertise as well as build a critical skill. Napoleon Bonaparte, after all, said that “an army marches on its stomach.” Hideyoshi had already been trained in personal decorum around a samurai lord and thus observed the intricacies of command. He had become well-trained personally with weapons and learned to command peasant troops on the battlefield. Now, he was learning how kitchen operations ran, a key logistical skill in that day and age. Most of the samurai lords and generals that Hideyoshi would later oppose in combat, had never learned these “servant’s tasks” – they didn’t know personally how reliable or unreliable ashigaru troops were, didn’t have the first-hand observation of how an excellent commander led his war counsels, and they didn’t know personally how to run kitchens and food logistics and thus had to delegate it to an assistant. Hideyoshi was building a bottom-to-top understanding and mastery of warfare. As it turns out, Oda Nobunaga constantly needed resourceful people. Hideyoshi fired corrupt or incompetent kitchen officials, instilled discipline, renegotiated food purchasing contracts, rebuilt the kitchen schedule and warehousing – and once all this work was done and the kitchens were humming along, he was promoted again – becoming in charge of important construction works. Question for you to reflect on: Are you neglecting any of your work or duties because you believe they’re beneath you, or you’re resentful that you have to do them? *** LESSON #3: SMALL THINGS, ALL THINGS My good friend, the CEO and mountaineer Greg Nance, has made this a personal motto of his – Small Things, All Things Obviously, if you’re mountaineering and neglect to check the earth’s surface while climbing or neglect key supplies, you might be caught in a rockslide or freeze to death. Mountaineering forcibly instills discipline in a climber who wishes to stay alive. Hideyoshi was promoted from kitchen superintendent to a series of difficult construction jobs – some of which have legendary stories about them. Most notably is Sunomata Castle, nicknamed Ichiya-jo, the “One-Night Castle.” “The original castle was constructed in 1566 by Toyotomi Hideyoshi, one of the generals of the famous samurai warlord, Oda Nobunaga. The one night castle consisted of a wooden walled fortress with lookout towers and basic living quarters. In reality, the fortress would have taken two or three days to complete the basic defensive structures. Hideyoshi cleverly used pre-assembled sections to complete the fortress and it was constructed so quickly that it gave the illusion of being erected “overnight”. Nobunaga ordered the castle to be built on the edge of his enemy’s territory, to act as a bridgehead for his final attack on the Saito’s clan’s main castle located in Gifu (Inabayama Castle). The quick construction was meant to give his men a strong vantage point as well as to surprise and demoralize his nearby enemy.”– John Asano, “The One Night Castle" In Hideyoshi’s work in construction, he was reported to work around the clock to supervise the building and leaving nothing to chance. He offered generous bribes and create a feast of wonderful and sake, Japanese rice alcohol, for the laborers. He installed many building techniques that were new and innovative for the day – he seems to have independently discovered the technique of using three construction crews on rotating shifts, and using pre-fabricated building materials. In an era where a few days were the difference between success and failure, this feat did indeed strike fear into Saito Clan that were opposing the Oda. A quick note: in the Sengoku Era, Japanese changed their names very often after a major life event or promotion. Hideyoshi changed names multiple times during his promotions; I’ve been calling him “Toyotomi Hideyoshi” – his final pre-deity name (he was named a kami – a God – after his death by Shinto priests). But he won his final name, “Hideyoshi,” as well as the rank of samurai officer for rapidly building the One-Night Castle. Wikipedia: Siege of Inabayama Castle – “In 1566, in anticipation of the upcoming campaign, Kinoshita [Hideyoshi] proposed that a castle should be built somewhere near Inabayama Castle to serve as a staging point for the Oda forces. Nobunaga agreed and charged Kinoshita with the task. To this end Kinoshita built Sunomata Castle on the bank of the Sai River opposite Saitō territory. The advantage of the castle's proximity to the enemy was also a problem during construction. Until the castle was complete, Kinoshita's men and the construction site were vulnerable to an amphibious attack from across the river. According to legend, Kinoshita built the castle in one night; however it is more likely that it was the tower's skeleton with a facade that was seen from the opposite bank. The result of the hasty construction was meant to give his own men a vantage point and to surprise and impress the enemy. Stalled by the enemy's caution, Kinoshita's men were able to quickly transform the fragile framework into a functioning fortification, and then into a complete castle. Nobunaga then ordered Kinoshita to remain as steward of the castle, and bestowed upon him the name Hideyoshi.” He also became a castle lord for the first time – a shaky and hard-to-defend castle, to be sure, but nevertheless an incredible rise. We can see again how Hideyoshi’s mastery anywhere turns into mastery everywhere – by noting the location of a great forward-operating base for the campaign, and building it with almost miraculous rapidity, he was promoted and made lord of that castle. Most people neglect small details, and thus don’t get to achieve big things. By assessing where the fortress should be built, attending to all details large and small, and building it rapidly due to thorough preparedness, Hideyoshi rose far above his birth rank and became a samurai castle-lord – at the age of 29 years old. Question for you to reflect on: Do you take care of all the small details, or do you consider a “big picture thinker“ who might thus be neglecting many critical things? *** LESSON #4: SWEEP THE STREETS AS MICHAELANGELO PAINTED “If a man is called to be a streetsweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great streetsweeper who did his job well.” – Martin Luther King, Jr. Now turning 30 years old, Hideyoshi had won Nobunaga’s trust as an innovative thinker and someone who could actually get things done, reliably, without any excuses or failure. This is, obviously, one of the rarest abilities – and one of the abilities most prized by leaders in any age. With his promotion to castle-lord, Hideyoshi had finally become a warrior once again. But, instead of basking in his own glory and becoming arrogant, he continued pursuing a path of complete mastery. Knowing the Saito Clan would put up a fierce fight, Hideyoshi began to work as a negotiator and a mediator – breaking off allies to the Saito and having them declare neutrality, offering deals after victory which were taken up, sometimes bribing Saito allies to move slowly or become neutral. Meanwhile, he had the area put under complete reconnaissance – he wanted to know every single meter of the battlefield to come. Later, after the defeat of the Saito at Inabayama, many of the men that Hideyoshi had negotiated and petitioned with would join under his command, including the master strategist Takenaka Hanbei. Again, this could not have been predicted in advance, but a focus on mastery tends to produce constant good outcomes. When the final assault on Inabayama Castle began, did Hideyoshi stand on the castle ramparts and observe, his new status entitling him to do just that? No. In fact, he led a daring ninja raid against the castle, the one that would later be immortalized in the glorious Japanese painting, 100 Aspects of the Moon: Mount Inaba, which showed Hideyoshi scaling the mountains behind the castle itself. Wikipedia: Siege of Inabayama Castle – “It is uncertain exactly what happened on the battlefield between 14–25 September. Given what is known of Nobunaga's aggressive fighting style, the prevailing siege tactics of the day, the layout of the Japanese castle, and the events that followed, it can be inferred that Nobunaga's forces pressed their attack and probably breached the outer defenses of Inabayama Castle. It is known, however, that Kuroda Kanbei, considered a talented strategist, was charged with directing and coordinating the main attack. It is also certain that Kinoshita [Toyotomi] Hideyoshi devised a plan in which a small force would scale the north face of the mountain, enter the castle, and rush to open the gates for the besieging army. Nobunaga approved and charged Kinoshita with leading the raid. For his team Kinoshita selected Horio Yoshiharu, Hachisuka Koroku, and five or six other men to accompany him. On 26 September Nobunaga was so confident of [Hideyoshi’s] plan and the outcome of the battle that he had an heraldic partition erected on the battlefield where he held a meeting with his top officers and allotted tasks pertaining to the re-construction of the castle following the battle. […] On the night of 26 September [Hideyoshi] gathered his team and, concerned over the late summer heat and the exertions in store, provided them with gourds of fresh water. Horio Yoshiharu then guided Kinoshita Hideyoshi and the small assault force around to the back of the mountain, where they climbed the steep slopes by the light of a full moon. At dawn, while Kinoshita's mission was in progress, the main force under Kuroda Kanbei proceeded with its attack on the castle.” Again, we see “small things, all things” – leading the raid himself, yes, but also ensuring his men hat portable fresh water to bring with them to refresh themselves prior to the final assault. He was promoted to General shortly afterwards, and six years later, became a daimyo – the highest rank of samurai lord – after run of outstanding excellence leading troops and conquering enemy forces. He was given three full provinces to govern, and not yet 35 years old, was one of the most powerful men in Japan. Question for you: Are you doing work that you can do gloriously? If so, are you doing it gloriously? If not, what work should you be doing? *** LESSON #5: UNIVERSAL GENIUS ARISES FROM MECHANICS “Very strong chess players will rarely speak of the fundamentals, but these beacons are the building blocks of their mastery. Similarly, a great pianist or violinist does not think about individual notes, hut hits them all perfectly in a virtuoso performance. In fact, thinking about a "C" while playing Beethoven's 5th Symphony could be a real hitch because the flow might be lost. The problem is that if you want to write an instructional chess book for beginners, you have to dig up all the stuff that is buried in your unconscious […] I had to break down my chess knowledge incrementally, whereas for years I had been cultivating a seamless integration of the critical information. “The same pattern can be seen when the art of learning is analyzed: themes can be internalized, lived by, and forgotten. I figured out how to learn efficiently in the brutally competitive world of chess, where a moment without growth spells a front-row sear to rivals mercilessly passing you by. Then I intuitively applied my hard-earned lessons to the martial arts. I avoided the pitfalls and tempting divergences that a learner is confronted with, but I didn’t really think about them because the road map was deep inside me— just like the chess principles.” – Josh Waitzkin, The Art of Learning The term “universal genius” has become unfashionable – the concept is somewhat distasteful in our current culture, and furthermore, we live in an era when specialization produces gigantic gains and there is so much knowledge that it is difficult to learn it all. But I will lay my cards on the table – I believe in universal genius. I do not think everyone should seek after it – we cannot take every advantage in life, and for many if not most people, specialization and hyper-focus in their chosen field only will produce the best possible life and greatest contributions to civilization. And yet, I firmly believe that there is a very decipherable pattern to human affairs, to arts and sciences, to learning, to doing, to the nature of people and mankind. These principles can and have been successfully discovered and re-discovered over the ages. If anything, now is the easiest time to get to low levels of universal genius and mastery across disciplines. Wikipedia: Hideyoshi Toyotomi – “Hideyoshi led troops in the Battle of Anegawa in 1570 in which Oda Nobunaga allied with Tokugawa Ieyasu to lay siege to two fortresses of the Azai and Asakura clans. He participated in the 1573 Siege of Nagashima. In 1573, after victorious campaigns against the Azai and Asakura, Nobunaga appointed Hideyoshi daimyo of three districts in the northern part of Ōmi Province. Initially based at the former Azai headquarters in Odani, Hideyoshi moved to Kunitomo, and renamed the city Nagahama in tribute to Nobunaga. Hideyoshi later moved to the port at Imahama on Lake Biwa. From there he began work on Imahama Castle and took control of the nearby Kunitomo firearms factory that had been established some years previously by the Azai and Asakura. Under Hideyoshi's administration the factory's output of firearms increased dramatically. Nobunaga sent Hideyoshi to Himeji Castle to conquer the Chūgoku region from the Mori clan in 1576.” This is where mastery anywhere – as a servant, as a footsoldier, as a sergeant, as a kitchen superintendent, as a construction overseer, as a diplomat, as a ninja (!) – mastery in any single field is conducive to further mastery, because there are universal principles of learning, execution, and mastery. Toyotomi Hideyoshi, while perhaps not intentionally doing so, cultivated universal genius within himself. After having mastered a few fields, each successive field became easier to him. The principles translated, and – as you can see – Hideyoshi also succeeded in improving trade by constructing a port, continued to navigate diplomacy excellently, made sure to pay homage and outwardly demonstrate his loyalty to Nobunaga, and even made huge progress as a technocratic factory industrialist producing firearms (!). But the point is not that genius was something Toyotomi was, nor something he had, but something he cultivated. And he cultivated it through a constant focus on mastery, in everything he did from small to large. You might not – and probably shouldn’t – decide to master every single discipline on the planet. In 2016, it’s a non-starter anyways. Nevertheless, a commitment to mastery at anything you’re doing right now will undoubtedly translate to an easier and faster time mastering the next thing you work on. As we said in our opening lesson, I hope you are able to burn this motto into your mind – Mastery anywhere is mastery everywhere. Question for you: Do you agree? Is there anywhere you’re doing things haphazardly that you could commit to mastery of, thus leading upwards in the process of a mastery everywhere? *** RECAP OF OUR LESSONS LESSON #1: MASTERFUL EXECUTION ANYWHERE BECOMES WHO YOU ARE LESSON #2: BITTERNESS AND NEGLECT LEAD TO A SMALL SOUL LESSON #3: SMALL THINGS, ALL THINGS LESSON #4: SWEEP THE STREETS AS MICHAELANGELO PAINTED LESSON #5: UNIVERSAL GENIUS COMES FROM MECHANICS QUESTIONS FOR YOUR REFLECTION – 1. Are you masterfully executing on all of your current work and duties? 2. Are you neglecting any of your work or duties because you believe they’re beneath you, or you’re resentful that you have to do them? 3. Do you take care of all the small details, or do you consider a “big picture thinker“ who might thus be neglecting many critical things? 4. Are you doing work that you can do gloriously? If so, are you doing it gloriously? If not, what work should you be doing? 5. Is there anywhere you’re doing things haphazardly that you could commit to mastery of, thus leading upwards in the process of a mastery everywhere? Vantages #6: Crisis Vantages #6: Crisis A PLEASANTLY FLOODED BATTLEFIELD Despite the deprivations of the Siege of Takamatsu Castle, Hideyoshi’s forces were all in good cheer. It had been a masterstroke by commander Hideyoshi and his chief strategist, Kuroda Kanbei – seeing the castle was in a low-lying ground, they’d rapidly built solid watch towers for gunners and artillery and then, morbidly hilariously, they’d diverted the nearby river and completely flooded Takamatsu Castle. The defenders were still holding out in wet and miserable conditions, but there was no way into or out of the fortress. The watch-towers occasionally cracked with gunfire at any defender ominously manning the walls, or anyone foolhardy enough to attempt a water-logged counterattack or break out. Despite the fact that campaign life is hard, this was grimly hilarious to the forces under Hideyoshi. He would make rounds of the camp and inspect all the positions, neglecting nothing as was his norm, and occasionally Hideyoshi would crack a joke – “Those poor bastards in the castle, I bet they’d surrender now if we just offered them some dry blankets in exchange!” The men would laugh. “Alas, we have no dry blankets to trade! So we’ll just have to hold out for unconditional surrender.” And the men would laugh again. Ever diligent, Hideyoshi had requested reinforcements from Nobunaga in case one of the nearby neutral clans took a surprise initiative to break the siege, but the matter was well-in-hand. Meanwhile, Hideyoshi’s provinces were producing food, weapons, and income. His generals were well-trained and worked in constant harmony. The soldiers and servants were looked after well. Another Toyotomi victory was at hand, further raising the glory of the Oda Clan, and edging closer to the inevitable unification of Japan. Tenka Fubu, Hideyoshi thought. The nation under Nobunaga’s sword. Then – peace. And we are doing our part for the cause. It was a pleasant late June evening, and a number of Hideyoshi’s generals were dining with him, when a guard hastily burst into the commander’s tent. “My lord! I apologize for interrupting! Asai Nagamasa has arrived, he said he has an urgent message and must see you immediately!” Hideyoshi nods. “Well, send him in. And fetch him a plate and cup to eat and drink.” But when Nagamasa entered the room soaked in sweat, covered in travel dust, and looking half-dead from exhaustion, food and drink fell from their minds. “What’s the matter?” Hideyoshi asked. “I don’t know. I wasn’t told. I’m just told it’s a matter of life and death.” Nagamasa hands over a carefully sealed letter. Hideyoshi opens it, reads, stops – “… it can’t be…” The retainers have not ever seen Hideyoshi like this. “What is it, my lord?” “What’s the matter?” “Hideyoshi-sama, what is it?” Hideyoshi shakes his head, focuses his eyes, re-reads. “It can’t be…” He focuses, looking at the letter again, and then tears start streaming from his eyes. He starts coughing, nearly choking on his tears; the retainers are tense and exasperated. Hideyoshi composes himself, makes his first order – “Call Kanbei.” And he speaks the fateful words: “Lord Nobunaga is dead.” *** ONE DAY EARLIER The charred smell was in the air. You couldn’t see the source of it – the wood of Hanno Temple had burnt thoroughly, there was not much smoke rising from the ruins, but the acrid smell of burnt wood mixed with a meat-like smell of burnt flesh. Akechi Mitsuhide frowned. “We didn’t get his head?” The retainer shook his head. “No, Lord Akechi.” “Are we sure Nobunaga died?” The retainer nodded. “The forward guard saw Nobunaga inside organizing a last-minute fight, and then the Temple broke into flames. It was completely surrounded. They died, it is a certainty.” “And the son, Nobutada?” “We got his head.” Mitsuhide smiled for the first time in days. After Hanno Temple had burned down, Akechi Mitsuhide had been gripped by a feeling of emptiness, desolation, despair – the anger had driven him to assassinate Lord Nobunaga, but after Nobunaga’s death he felt… strange. Mitsuhide’s retainers had watched over him closely; the master general was in a sort of malaise stupor. They were worried about suicide – some worried out of personal loyalty to Mitsuhide, others because becoming a ronin immediately after killing the preeminent over-lord of the land, Oda Nobunaga, would be fatal to a man’s prospects. The younger samurai might desert and attempt to rebuild a life elsewhere, but the senior retainers would live or die with the Akechi Clan. Their names would be written in the history books as either conquerors or traitors – there was no middle ground. The fires had cooled enough for Akechi soldiers to claw through the ruins for Nobunaga’s remains, but it was burnt thoroughly – a highly aggravating anti-climax for the enraged Mitsuhide. No prize, no certainty. His hatred had melted back inwards; there were concerns Mitsuhide would commit seppuku – and the clan would be destroyed. But now he was smiling again for the first time since he set on his fateful course. “Nobutada’s head – bring it to me.” *** TOYOTOMI PATROL LINES, TAKAMATSU REGION; LATE EVENING The guard captain turned to his lieutenant: “You recognize that man? Something seems off about him.” They had been told be on high alert and to arrest anyone passing through that wasn’t known to live in the region. The reason for the high alert had not been told to the soldiers. Hideyoshi Toyotomi prided himself on being merciful and kind to the local population – many defeated enemies came willingly over to his banner due to his courtesy and concern – but he had countermanded his past orders. Anyone not known intimately to live in the region was to be arrested and brought to headquarters. If they resisted, rough them up to capture them; kill them if necessary; no one was to get through the checkpoints. A farmer with a hay cart was standing stupidly at the checkpoint. The situation seemed to be well-in-hand, but something was bothering the guard captain. “Hey, have two of our guys go around the bank and wait below the road; have another double around slowly and get behind the man.” Something about that farmer seemed off. The cart, the dress, all of that was normal for the region, but… The captain ambled over to the checkpoint slowly, calling out, “Who goes there?” The farmer starts to act like a fool: “Well sir, I’ma just pass through, I got my hay here, sell it the next town over, wanted to get started earlier but the ol’ horse was acting up, I don’t mean no trouble…” It clicked for the captain – He’s too tall… has too much muscle under that shabby clothing… “Arrest him!” No sooner did the words go out than the farmer darted to the left and dove off the road to the side bank. The captain shouted – “Runner! Runner! Breakthrough! Converge!” The two men who had been posted below the road tangled up with the farmer and all had fallen to the ground. The farmer – rather, the “farmer” – pulled a knife and stabbed out wildly when two more guards fell on him and started beating him senselessly. “Alive!” the guard yelled. “Alive! Take him alive!” The Toyotomi samurai overpowered the infiltrator, and it was only the guard captain’s timely personal intervention that stopped the enraged two guards from breaking his teeth. “Tie him up thoroughly! Search the hay cart. Bring both to headquarters.” Two samurai were physically sitting on top of the captured man; another was holding one of his arms down. A final order – “Oh, and make sure it’s not a distraction! Wake the third watch, have them reinforce the position!” *** VANTAGES #6: CRISIS Crisis brings out the best and worst in us. Some crises can be foreseen. Some crises can even be created intentionally, as we’ll see next chapter. And some crises come out of absolutely nowhere. In 1582, the assassination of Nobunaga was that latter type of crisis – no one would have predicted it. Akechi Mitsuhide may have been somewhat unhappy over a few issues, but he was nevertheless reasonably well-favored and with a bright future ahead of him. Nobunaga’s forces had conquered half of Japan and very little strong resistance was to be had. His dream to unify Japan – Tenka Fubu – seemed inevitable. And then, just like that, Nobunaga’s light disappeared from the world in a blaze of destruction at Hanno Temple. Hideyoshi Toyotomi was one of Nobunaga’s most talented generals, and was dug in to a deep siege against the Mori Clan, a stalwart Mori general refusing to surrender the surrounded and flooded Takamatsu Castle. Everything was going exactly as planned, better than planned, and then the news came – Nobunaga is dead… No one in the Toyotomi camp would have to say the obvious: …and the nation will now be thrown back into chaos. How do you navigate an unexpected crisis? That is the thrust of this chapter. *** TOYOTOMI HEADQUARTERS, TAKAMATSU REGION; EARLY NIGHTTIME Two infiltrators had been arrested: the Akechi samurai disguised as the farmer, and a sohei warrior monk disguised as a wandering preacher. Neither had talked, but both carried messages that they did not have time to destroy. Their contents were straightforward and ominous, but unsurprising – The traitor Akechi Mitsuhide offered an alliance to the Mori Clan against Hideyoshi, and told them to hold fast, not surrender or make peace, and his troops would come to relieve them. Together, they would destroy Toyotomi’s Oda loyalist forces, and split up the spoils. Hideyoshi, normally so light and playful even when at war, today wore a stern expression. They had limited the knowledge of Nobunaga’s death to Hideyoshi’s senior retainers, but even these hardened men had initially been demoralized. But Hideyoshi, with his great way with people, said – “Hey! If we act all somber and brood, everyone will know something is up. We need to avenge Lord Nobunaga, and we’re not going to do it by sulking!” He didn’t go as far as to try to be cheerful, but instead converted the mood of his senior counsel from one of mourning to a stern sense of vengeance. No one was smiling, but they were not dour either. Their eyes burned with hateful focus. Hideyoshi asked aloud, “Well, what are the odds one of those messengers got through?” Kanbei’s eyes turned upwards, calculating in his head. “I think it must be zero. We put reconnaissance on their forward camps, the castle, and the Mori headquarters – and we’ve seen no activity. They know Takamatsu could fall at any moment, we could probably take it by force, and they haven’t roused enough to counterattack if we move first…” Kanbei thinks a moment longer, and finishes the thought – “No, no, messengers haven’t gotten through yet; they’d be making counterattack preparations at least. Their kitchen fires aren’t burning hot and not a single horse has whinnied. No messengers have attempted to reach or signal Takamatsu Castle. The Mori don’t know yet. I’m sure of it.” Hideyoshi nodded. “How long do we have?” Kanbei frowns, sighs, thinks. “It really depends. It’s unlikely they get through our sentries, but the long way around our encampments is only a three or four day journey. It’s been a day since Lord Nobunaga’s death. We’ve got… two or three days, at most.” The siege had been going for months. Hideyoshi nods, thinks a moment as well, says: “This battlefield doesn’t matter, does it? We can’t fight the Mori with… who-knows-what happening behind us with Nobunaga’s death. And there’s not much gain to be had even if we do win. We have to get back to the center of the action.” The statement wasn’t directed at anyone in the senior war counsel in particular, but the other senior retainers largely looked on; during intense moments, often Hideyoshi and Kanbei would get in a dialog largely in front of them. The senior retainers were all very cordial and friendly with each other, but at times like these, no one wanted to interrupt the natural strategic genius of Kuroda Kanbei. Kanbei says, “Of course. We have to get out of here as soon as possible. But…” Hideyoshi finishes his thought, “…but the Mori will come after us if we retreat hastily.” Kanbei nods. “That’s my assessment. We probably don’t want to take Takamatsu Castle; we need all our soldiers and it’d be a nightmare to garrison in its flooded and nearly destroyed state.” Hideyoshi says, “So we need peace.” Kanbei nods. “Yes. We need peace.” *** CRISIS: INITIAL IMMEDIATE ACTION There are two dangers in an unexpected crisis – The first is that you can hastily, miss a key detail, and lead yourself downward into an unacceptably bad outcome. The second is that you move too slowly, get overtaken by the matter at hand, and reach an unacceptably bad outcome due to failure to act. These are, obviously, at tension. The first step in a crisis is immediate security, risk-mitigating, and assessment of the situation. Hideyoshi Toyotomi and Kuroda Kanbei acted immediately on hearing the news of Nobunaga’s death – placing as many sentries and patrols as possible. Likewise, Hideyoshi saw a risk of the news spreading out and demoralizing his besieging forces – thus, he limited knowledge of the news to only his inner circle, and ensured likewise that they converted malaise and stupor into grim determination. At the same time, Hideyoshi and Kanbei moved to assess the landscape – sending out reconnaissance to survey the area, and debating and thinking internally on what signs would trigger that the Mori Clan had heard the terrible news and could act on it. They acted promptly on these matters, with haste and immediacy, barely catching the infiltrators in time with their haste. *** WAR COUNSEL They’d sent for the Mori peace envoy immediately after realizing they needed peace, asking him to arrive in the morning. Then, they debated deep into the night on how to make a hasty peace. Hideyoshi summed up the views of everyone here – “As I understand it, no peace will be possible once the Mori hear the news. They will become implacable. Likewise, it will seem strange that we want to make peace suddenly, and will put them on guard, and they might stall. And if we do not make formal peace with them, they will likely pursue and harry us all the way back.” But then Hideyoshi cheered up, took on his usual lighthearted tone – “So how do we make the Mori want peace, then?” The group broke into spirited discussion. At first, there were some saying that the Mori would not want peace no matter what now that the Oda forces were leaderless, but Kanbei corrected that line of thinking – “Of course not. But once they know Nobunaga is dead, they won’t make peace under any circumstances. So we should act…” “…strong and belligerent?” Hideyoshi finished his sentence again. Hachisuka Hikoemon had been being quiet, but spoke up now: “If we’re too belligerent, they’ll tear up the treaty right away and come right after us when they hear the news.” Hideyoshi nods. “True. So the question is, how do we make the Mori want peace now, and want to keep the peace after they hear the news?” Kanbei’s eyes light up – “I think I’ve got it.” As he explains his plans, the mood relaxes quite a bit. Hideyoshi looks around, “Are we all agreed then? It’s a risky course, but all courses are risky.” *** THE PEACE CONFERENCE When the Mori envoy arrived, he was treated courteously – but couldn’t help but notice the whirlwind of action around the camp. The Toyotomi stoves burned hot, cooking battle rations. Horses were being prepared, temporary fortifications were being torn down, and the Toyotomi forces were mobilizing. Hikoemon had been negotiating with the Mori, but quickly reaching the same impasse that the Mori and Toyotomi had been at in all paste negotiations. Hikoemon stands up to excuse himself, says, “Lord Toyotomi said he’d like to speak with you personally. Please wait here.” “What, Hideyoshi himself is coming?” Hikoemon nods. “Well, you know how much he prides himself on being a man of mercy. He thinks it would be terrible if you left and he didn’t at least take the final opportunity to avert the bloodshed.” The envoy was shaken – as was intended – but he composed himself before Hideyoshi arrived with some cakes and sake, Japanese rice alcohol. Hideyoshi speaks first, “Well, I don’t see how peace is going to be made. Your General Muneharu and Lord Mori Terumoto are determined to fight until the end. It’s a tragedy that so many men should die here, but so it goes, eh? Let’s have some cake and sake, and drink to the bravery of the men on both sides who are about to die.” Hideyoshi pours a couple glasses, and then drinks one in a single gulp. The envoy sits there, stunned. Hideyoshi shivers and says, “Oh my, I’m not much of a drinker.” The envoy snaps out of it: “You’re attacking? Now? Why?” Hideyoshi shrugs. “Nobunaga’s orders. I told him Takamatsu Castle would fold soon from the siege, but he has 100,000 men on the march here and ordered that Takamatsu must fall before he arrives. And…” Hideyoshi shrugs again, “Well, I’m obedient. So there’s nothing left to do besides eat some cake.” “Nobunaga will lead the assault himself into the Mori lands? Not you, Lord Toyotomi?” Hideyoshi shrugs. “I just do what I’m told.” The envoy shudders. “We’re so very close to peace… can we not discuss the terms again?” Hideyoshi replies, “Hikoemon is far cleverer than me, I’m a dumb war horse. Did you know they used to call me ‘monkey’ when I was a servant of the Oda clan?” Hideyoshi chuckles, “They don’t call me monkey any more, not to my face at least. But I will simply follow Nobunaga’s orders. And he said there can be no peace without Takamatsu Castle defeated.” Hideyoshi let the word hang in the air. The envoy asked for permission to depart, and rode hard for the Mori headquarters, and was not long gone when he came riding hard back to the Toyotomi camp and asked for permission to communicate with General Muneharu in the besieged castle. *** A FRAMEWORK FOR NAVIGATING CRISIS After immediate security, de-risking, and assessing the landscape, you have to choose your moves in a crisis. I have found the following framework to be incredibly valuable in high-stakes situations; it has both a lot of simplicity and a lot of power. I have used it primarily in negotiations, where it is very useful, but it’s generally applicable to many sorts of crises. Separate your objectives into, MUST WANT NICE Must: Any term you mark a ‘must’ needs to happen or no deal. You literally won’t discuss or budge on a single ‘must.’ Want: These are the terms you haggle over and trade off. Whereas every Must needs to happen or no deal, your Wants are more flexible. You still, well, want most of them. But they’re not strictly necessary. Nice: Finally, you mark down all the things that would be nice-to-have. Niceties should never get in the way of Musts and Wants, which are far more important. Nevertheless, you should keep them in view and try to get them once the core points are settled. I always encourage people to list very few Musts; when you negotiate, you should know the terms you personally need unwaveringly. Many people overreach and lie to themselves, but then they don’t know when to stop compromising and hold the line. You need to know your Musts cold and work infinitely towards them. You should not have too many Musts, which is a rookie mistake that leads to failure. I consider a negotiation a success when you get all of your Musts (obviously, or you wouldn’t do the deal) as well as all of your Wants. I prefer to classify most things we want really badly as “Wants,” not “Musts.” You should also get whatever niceties you can, but this is obviously a lot less important. *** TREATY SEALED IN BLOOD General Muneharu rowed out to meet Hideyoshi’s envoy in the middle of the artificial lake surrounding Takamatsu Castle, created by Hideyoshi’s water attack. He was wearing his death kimono. As he was making preparations to commit seppuku, Hideyoshi’s envoy spoke up – “General Muneharu! Hideyoshi wished to present these to you.” He handed over a delicate wooden box along with a sealed letter. The letter commended Muneharu’s bravery, and lamented that such a wonderful man must die. Hideyoshi wrote that he wished he had known Muneharu in peacetime; perhaps they would be friends. As such, he hoped to celebrate his life ever-so-briefly before he departs the world. Inside the box was a flagon of the finest sake, as well as some choice sweets and delicacies. As Muneharu finished reading the letter, the envoy said, “Please take your time, General. Take as long as you please.” Muneharu, half-starved from the long castle siege, saw his hard-hearted determination shift ever so slightly into joy. He drank a little, ate a little, and wrote a death poem as well as instructions to his family. Finally, he stood on the makeshift boat, and saluted the castle defenders and sang a death song – before kneeling and falling on his sword in ritual seppuku. Hideyoshi and Kanbei had already drafted the letter to Lord Mori, and seeing the (relatively) happy end of General Muneharu, they finished the letter. Hideyoshi enclosed an account of Muneharu’s brave death and wrote that, seeing as how touched he was, he would not take possession of two of the provinces that the Mori were willing to cede to Hideyoshi as part of the treaty – instead only keeping claim on the ground they’d already occupied and garrisoned. The defenders of Takamatsu were fed and courteously escorted to the Mori lines, and the news of Muneharu’s heroism and Hideyoshi’s gracious concession to their forces spread rapidly. There was a mix of sadness and relief among the Mori as things returned to peace in a better way than they could possibly have hoped for. When they found out the next day that Oda Nobunaga was not marching with 100,000 troops and had in fact been assassinated, Mori Terumoto was enraged – but their forces had already been promised peace, there were no easy conquests to take short of starting a new full-scale war with Hideyoshi and whoever might succeed Lord Nobunaga, and the troops had already set their hearts on peace and rebuilding. Nonetheless, the Mori sent out reconnaissance to see where Hideyoshi’s forces were. The report back was mystifying: all of the Toyotomi forces had seemingly vanished instantly and broken the dikes and levees behind them, flooding any path of pursuit. The peace stood. *** AKECHI TEMPORARY HEADQUARTERS AT AZUCHI “Bastards! Why do they oppose us?” Akechi Mitsuhide cursed and wailed. Things were not going according to plan. The Akechi forces had marched from the assassination place at Kyoto’s Hanno Temple to one of Nobunaga’s main castles, Azuchi. Fancying himself the new lord of the nation, Mitsuhide called on the castle lord to surrender the castle. Instead, his messenger had been killed and the bridges into the region demolished – damaging both Akechi timetables and, more importantly, prestige. By the time the Akechi forces were able to reconstruct and enter Azuchi, it was deserted. More disconcertingly, most of the envoys that Mitsuhide sent out to other warlords came back with ambiguous replies – they were not rallying to his banner. Of course, Shibata Katsuie and Oda Nobutaka would be implacable and need to be defeated. Shibata was cousins with Nobunaga and the senior living Oda retainer; Nobutaka was the most talented surviving son of Nobunaga. Both had significant troops under their command. But there were so many neutrals that could go either way. Of course, Mitsuhide reasoned, Hideyoshi was also going to be an implacable enemy – the men hated each other. But Hideyoshi was tied down fighting the Mori at Takamatsu; he shouldn’t be able to enter the battle for another month, perhaps two. If a few more daimyo would join me, we could defeat Katsuie and Nobutaka before Hideyoshi is able to return… the war will be won… But they weren’t joining. There was demurring and excuses from would-be allies, even old friends, in the wake of the treachery at Hanno Temple. Just then, an Akechi Clan messenger arrived – “Lord Akechi, I have reports that Hideyoshi Toyotomi is at Oda Nobutaka’s camp swearing fealty.” Mitsuhide looked like a ghost walked over his grave. “Toyotomi? Impossible! He’s at least two weeks away, fighting the Mori!” *** FIELD CAMP OF ODA NOBUTAKA “Halt! Who goes there?” “Toyotomi Hideyoshi, vassal of the Oda!” “Lord Toyotomi! Impossible!” “Please, take me to Lord Nobutaka.” When he was shown into Nobutaka’s quarters, the young son of the assassinated warlord was surprised and flinched. Hideyoshi took the boy’s hand and kneeled. “Your faithful vassal is here, Lord Nobutaka. I have come to avenge our lord, your father.” Nobutaka pulled Hideyoshi to his feet, nearly weeping. As Hideyoshi took off his field armor and helmet, the room was shocked – Hideyoshi had shaven his head in the mark of a Buddhist priest, a sign of mourning and a predecessor to abdicating from the earthly world. *** AKECHI HEADQUARTERS, YAMAZAKI REGION Shouts of men and whinnying of horses filled the air. “My Lord, get back inside!” Akechi Mitsuhide was forced back into his command tent as armed soldiers surrounded it. “What’s going on? Report!” No one knew. Light and smoke began to fill the area, and guns began firing. Within an hour, the noise died down and someone gave a report to Akechi Mitsuhide. “Lord Mitsuhide, ninja broke into our camp. They killed many of our horses and set fire to ammunition stores and the supply train before breaking out.” Mitsuhide wasn’t even enraged any more. “Who is behind it? Toyotomi?” “We don’t know.” Toyotomi forces were converging rapidly on his position; the Akechi were outnumbered more than 2-to-1. It seemed like the Mandate of Heaven had gone against the Akechi. One senior retainer spoke, “Let’s withdraw and live to fight! We can regroup, and attack at –” Akechi Mitsuhide waved him off. “Things are getting worse for us with time, not better. This must be the battle; we need to destroy Toyotomi’s forces and take his life for any chance of success.” *** THE BATTLE OF YAMAZAKI As often happens, the battle broke out by accident – Toyotomi and Akechi forces were both marching for the high ground overseeing Yamazaki when they came into contact, and gunfire broke out. To their credit, the Akechi who stood fast fought like desperate men. But others, seeing the signs of the times, deserted en masse. Within only a few hours of fighting, there were 3000 Akechi soldiers dead to 3300 Toyotomi soldiers – but most of the remainder of the Akechi army had deserted. Toyotomi and Nobutaka now had over 20,000 soldiers facing less than a few thousand Akechi loyalists. Legends would say, later, tha Akechi Mitsuhide was captured fleeing the battle by bandits and killed by them. This seems, to this amateur historian, like a falsehood. Mitsuhide’s personal guard was elite; no bandit corps would have attacked, no matter how beleaguered they were. No doubt one of Hideyoshi’s men killed Mitsuhide, but Hideyoshi told the bandit story afterwards to not excessively glorify his achievement in killing the traitor – winning the battle was enough – and to further denigrate Mitsuhide’s character. What could be more shameful than be slain by bandits after more than half of your soldiers desert? Akechi Mitsuhide’s head was staked outside the ruins of Hanno Temple. *** NAVIGATING A CRISIS Hideyoshi Toyotomi was now indisputably one of the most powerful men in Japan, fighting in an unknown power vacuum after Nobunaga’s death. He followed the rules of handling an unexpected crisis perfectly – first, he set immediate security and mitigated immediate risks. Had his sentries not intercepted Mitsuhide’s messengers to the Mori, Hideyoshi Toyotomi might have been isolated while Akechi Mitsuhide could have consolidated. Simultaneously, Toyotomi and his generals assessed the situation, leading them to set their priorities – Their Musts included extracting themselves from battle with the Mori, making peace terms in a way that would not look like a defeat, and ensuring the Mori kept the peace. Once extracted, Toyotomi had another Must – legitimacy. By rallying to the banner of Nobutaka, and showing signs of mourning, fellow generals joined his pursuit of Mitsuhide at the Battle of Yamazaki without the need for extended war counsels, debate, or deliberation. Toyotomi had some significant Wants: most notably, he wanted to be the one that did Mitsuhide in without excessively exciting jealousy among potential rivals and undecided forces on who to join. There were probably some Nice-to-Have points that Toyotomi would have liked, but he rightfully ignored any that stood in the way of his Musts and his Wants for navigating the crisis. He ignored, in the short term, gold, treasure, and land. These shiny distractions might have delayed him a day or two, which might have made all the difference. You would do well to learn from his handling of the Crisis – it was some of the most skillful generalship in all of history. *** AND ANTICIPATION But there is still a power vacuum. What will happen? You already know that Hideyoshi Toyotomi is heralded as “The Second Great Unifier of Japan” after Nobunaga. How did he get there? Next chapter: Anticipation. Vantages #7: Anticipation Vantages #7: Anticipation UNDER A STARRY SUMMER SKY Sometimes it feels like I’m aging backwards. He had turned 45 years old the previous spring, but spring felt a long time ago. When I was younger, I was outwardly frivolous and inwardly determined. Now I’m outwardly determined, but I feel nothing so strongly as the desire to be frivolous. The night was, in fairness, beautiful. A perfect night to be frivolous, if ever there was such a night. Well, what’s the cost of a little indulgence in a little silliness? He took off his badges of rank and put on a plain kimono. Setting into the summer night air, he decided to go full-whimsical and took his sandals off too, letting the dirt-clay of the castle grounds mush in between his toes. Sleep is a strange thing. He walked, drifted, rambled through the castle grounds. I start the day with a blaze of energy. I get tired and want to sleep. But when I lay down, I feel full of restless energy. I want to get up. But once I’m standing again, I feel the tiredness in bones again. I’m 45 years old. Why do I feel ancient? A sentry cries out – “Halt! Identify yourself!” He replied playfully, “I’m merely a loyal samurai of the clan.” “No joking! I’ll run you through! Identify your –“ but then the samurai realized who he was barking at. He invoked the God of War in surprise – “By Hachiman’s Blade! Lord Toyotomi, my apologies!” He fell to the ground and prostrated himself. “No, get up, it’s a beautiful night. You’re doing your job well. When is the next watch taking over? Come have a drink with me on the night pavilion and look at moon, wouldn’t you?” “Y-yes, sir!” “Well, don’t neglect your duty; make sure the next man takes your place and then join me on the pavilion. You must be hungry from your rounds, I’ll have the kitchen make us something light and see you there.” The samurai moved off at a fast pace towards the guardhouse; deliberate and not-quite-running, and then was gone. Hideyoshi looped through the castle grounds, feeling the bare earth between his toes and soaking the feeling in, before checking in at the kitchen and asking them to stir up some rice and vegetables as well as a bottle of sake. The 45-year-old Lord waited for his companion to join him; it was good to occasionally mix in with the men. The night sky was alit with the stars and moon. What’s bothering me? And just then, a summer breeze shook the nearby trees gently, and caressed the general’s newly-shaven head. That. That’s it. That’s what’s bothering me. Two kitchen attendants hurriedly arrived first, before the young samurai patrolman Hideyoshi had bumped into and summoned. They set the food in a rustic yet elegant placement and hurried off. The wind is always blowing, but we can’t always feel it. And yet – is it not everything? Hideyoshi heard the double-marching fast-step of the young armored samurai patrolman coming to meet him. And that’s the question, no? Soon, he was lost in discussion with the young samurai, eating and drinking a little, getting to know him and inquiring about his family, and inquiring about the spirit of the men and the morale of the nearby castle town. After the light meal, the guard blushed at the honor and departed. Hideyoshi took his leave from the pavilion slowly, hoping that sleep would take him in its embrace shortly. But the question remained in his mind – Which way is the wind blowing? *** A NONCHALANTLY SIGNIFICANT LETTER Kanbei stood for a moment in the doorway, sizing up how long Hideyoshi would take to finish his letters. Hideyoshi was always incredibly courteous – except when he was deepest in political thought. Then he would pour all his energies into understanding the mind and spirit of whomever he was engaging. Hideyoshi was unusually successful in this, a born diplomat. Kanbei decided that Hideyoshi would be a little while, and edged courteously into the room, limping a little from the old leg wound, but moving delicately so as not to disturb those trains of deep thought. Hideyoshi would stare intently at the paper, frozen in time and thought, and then explode into action with his brush, putting down mandates and offers with surprising speed once he had found the core thought to drive at. After finishing three letters in rapid succession, he called for a messenger and only then noticed Kanbei sitting on the tatami floor. “Oh, Kanbei! Have you been waiting long?” “Not long, Hideyoshi. Are you finished with your letters?” A page arrived, and Hideyoshi gave rapid and precise instructions on who was to deliver them, what route they should take, and relevant details. The page flew off with great haste. “Well, letters are never really finished – how can we know we’ve won? The future is always uncertain, of course. All we can do is work as hard as we can to understand ourselves, our friends, and our…” Hideyoshi frowns, not wanting to continue that line of thought to its conclusion. Kanbei lightened the mood: “Our… not-friends, my lord?” “That’s it! Our not-friends. Yes, what do the Chinese say? ‘If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles’? But we don’t have enemies. We have ourselves, our friends, and our” – Hideyoshi laughed at Kanbei’s turn of words – “And our not-friends. So I have to write a lot, test and push slightly on the minds of the men of the age, and see who, in the end, will be our friends.” Kanbei nodded and waited. When something was urgent, Hideyoshi was as focused as a ray of sun piercing through a line of trees. Now, when things were less urgent, he was starting to laugh and joke a little again. But both men knew the stakes. Kanbei hadn’t waited long when Hideyoshi’s expression lit up in awareness, and he walked over to a sheaf of papers and took a particular letter out. Then the whimsical Hideyoshi was back, waving the letter at Kanbei and saying, “Here, Kanbei, read this.” Kanbei scanned the letter first before reading it, noted the SHIBATA seal at the bottom and the tone, took in the handwriting, and only then read it thoroughly. Kanbei nods slowly. “A conference, huh?” “So you can see why I’m writing so many letters.” Kanbei nods twice, slowly. “Indeed. The tone of the letter is meant to be formal and nonchalant at the same time; writing as if Buddha himself was transmitting enlightenment.” “You saw it too.” “It’s a scribe’s handwriting; Katsuie dictated it. But he didn’t write to you first.” Hideyoshi gestures for Kanbei to continue. Kanbei thinks, says: “Well, it’s practiced. The writing blends into itself; the writer has written nearly this same notice a few times already. It’s copied from an original, and was already figured out. It wasn’t taken in real time. So, Katsuie thought it through, dictated it, sat on it, and didn’t write to you first, which is… well, it’s not odd when you think about it, but it’s odd.” Hideyoshi sighs. “Kanbei, are you thinking what I’m thinking?” “I think we’re going to be at war again soon.” *** VANTAGES #7: ANTICIPATION Indeed, in Sunzi’s famous Art of War – which was well-known among the samurai and devotedly studied by the best generals – there are a variety of admonitions along those lines. “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” “What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.” “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” Sunzi’s famous treatise became somewhat fashionable in the West following the success of Mao’s forces in the Chinese Civil War, and the “Japanese economic miracle” in manufacturing. It probably hit peak popularity in the United States in the 1980’s, and is occasionally favorably invoked. That’s all well and good – it’s a good book – but it comes and goes in popularity. To apply the lessons of the book means reigning in one’s impulses, engaging in constant training and preparation, and – most difficult of all – cultivating foresight. This is, of course, hard work. Unfortunately, hard work is never very popular, and hard work to develop one’s character and restrain one’s natural inclinations is probably the least popular thing of all. Change being hard and unenjoyable for most, the book tends to only be read when it’s in fashion, people mistakenly think they’ve “got it” without operationalizing any of its lessons, and then move on the next book with which to entertain themselves and make cocktail party chatter about. It’s always hard to turn a mirror on oneself, and harder still to understand how one’s immediate present interacts with the near-future. And yet, the Vantage of Anticipation is one of the most valuable at all. Perhaps we can learn something of it, this chapter, from how Hideyoshi Toyotomi navigated the political and military situation in that monumental summer of 1582, which changed the destiny of the Japanese nation forever. *** MONARCHY’S SUCCESSION PROBLEMS It’s largely undisputed among non-ideological historians – across pretty much all of time and history; seriously, this isn’t just my personal assessment – that monarchy at its best outperforms democracy. Monarchy at its worst, however, gives up all of the gains… and then some. Succession is monarchy’s biggest problem – whenever an excellent monarch dies, very often a bloodbath follows. And thus, Augustus gave way to Tiberius who gave way to Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. Some time later, Marcus Aurelius’s wonderful reign gave way to Commodus’s whimsical brutality. Similarly, Kaiser Wilhelm I’s son died unexpectedly of cancer within mere weeks of inheriting the German Empire’s throne, putting the unprepared and rash Wilhelm II in power – who dismissed Bismarck, antagonized Britain, and started the First World War which led Germany down into flames. Oda Nobunaga – the First Great Unifier of Japan, who we got to know in Vantages #2: Below the Bar, #3: Morality on the March, and #4: Ends, Means, and Blindspots – was a cunning and strong ruler. He knew about succession problems and planned his succession well. His sudden death would have meant his eldest son, Oda Nobutada, would inherit leadership of the Oda Clan. Nobutada was a young man who was meritorious and had good enough relationships with all of the Oda’s generals, allies, and subordinate lords. Had the “Great Unifier” Nobunaga died suddenly of illness, poison, or a ninja assassination, the Oda Clan would have likely survived and continued fine under Nobutada. But it was completely unexpected for Nobunaga and Nobutada to be assassinated within one day of each other. Do note, though, that Nobunaga died before Nobutada – meaning, the eldest son Nobutada was technically in charge of the Oda Clan for around a day before dying. This seems like a small detail, but will be critically important in a moment. The naming conventions of the era can be somewhat confusing to Westerners trying to keep Japanese names and people from the same family in mind. There is nothing to be done about this; bear with me and I’ll try to make it as easy to understand as possible. The dead Nobutada had two surviving younger brothers – Oda Nobuo, the “second son,” who was a moron and easily manipulated, and Oda Nobutaka, the “third son,” who was generally well-regarded and competent. *** THE OTHER MAIN PLAYERS ON THE BOARD You already know Hideyoshi Toyotomi – later, the “Second Great Unifier of Japan” – we covered him extensively in Vantages #5 Mastery Anywhere and Vantages #6: Crisis. He was an excellent general and diplomat, and – to this point in his life – had succeeded at everything he tried to do. You already met Toyotomi’s right-hand man, the brilliant strategist Kuroda Kanbei, fiercely intelligent and fiercely loyal. You should now learn two more names. Shibata Katsuie: The eldest general of the Oda Clan. One of the two strongest surviving Oda Clan senior generals, along with Hideyoshi Toyotomi. Related to Nobunaga via marriage. Sakuma Genba: Shibata Katsuie’s nephew and right-hand man. Young, brave, fiery, incredibly headstrong, fierce, brutal, unyielding. Extremely talented on the battlefield, but an arrogant bully off the battlefield. There were around a half-dozen other important Oda generals and allies, who we’ll largely leave out of the story for simplicity’s sake, mentioning only a couple of them in the context of diplomacy and war. Additionally, there were still many strong neutrals like the Mori Clan and nominal allies like the Tokugawa Clan; again, there were involved in the upcoming actions and weighed heavily on the minds of Hideyoshi and Kanbei, but who we’ll leave out of this chapter for simplicity’s sake. *** ANALYSIS AND ANTICIPATION After Nobunaga’s assassination, the Oda Clan’s surviving generals scrambled to punish the assassin. With brilliant speed in navigating the crisis, Hideyoshi Toyotomi covered a great distance unimaginably fast, linked up with “third son” Oda Nobutaka – the best general among the assassinated lord’s sons – and destroyed the assassin, staking his head at the site of the assassination. Now Shibata Katsuie had called a conference at the Oda stronghold of Kiyosu Castle, with all senior generals and surviving sons attending. It would determine the succession and leadership of the Oda Clan, redistribute castles and lands and soldiers, and reorganize the clan militarily and politically. Hideyoshi and Kanbei were planning for this conference as thoroughly as any major battlefield; indeed, the events that would happen inside Kiyosu Castle would determine the future of the Oda Clan, and perhaps, the entire Japanese nation. Hideyoshi’s gentle whimsy had spread, and despite the momentous events to occur, all of Hideyoshi’s forces were smiling and happy. Kanbei was in an unusually good mood, musing out loud – “Katsuie must be feeling bitter that he was not at the battlefield to avenge our lord’s death.” The two men, though technically lord and senior retainer, were acting – as usual for them when in private – as old friends. They sipped tea and ate some light rice and fruit as they talked in the war room. Hideyoshi replied, “Of course he is. He sent a congratulatory letter after we avenged Lord Nobunaga, but it was curt; he didn’t seem truly happy.” “Of course not. As senior retainer, he should have been on that battlefield. Rumors are already starting that he was negligent in his duties.” Hideyoshi nods again. “I suppose we’re, umm, not discouraging those rumors, eh?” Both men laughed. Hideyoshi continued, “It’s really not his fault, to speak honestly. Katsuie is an excellent #2, but a poor #1. He doesn’t know when to stop scheming and take action.” Something registered with Kanbei and he stood up suddenly. He cried out happily, “I’ve got it!” “Oh?” Kanbei walked Hideyoshi through his premises: -- The useless Nobuo was technically “second son,” but he was actually a few weeks younger than the more talented “third son” Nobutaka. -- They were born to different mothers. Nobuo’s mother was high-ranking and Nobutaka’s mother was low-ranking, so officially, Nobutaka was named “third son” – much to the later chagrin of all generals and retainers when Nobutaka turned out to be an excellent warrior, and Nobuo a useless headstrong fop. -- Nobutaka was friends with Shibata Katsuie. Inevitably, Katsuie would want Nobutaka to inherit – Katsuie worked best under a strong #1… but Nobuo was technically the higher-ranking son. -- The issue of birth times might be raised and readjusted; it would never happen in normal times, but these weren’t normal times. Hideyoshi agreed with all of this assessment and beckoned to Kanbei to continue. Kanbei grins, “So here’s what we can to do…” *** A RISKY PLAN? Hideyoshi delights in the plan, and they tentatively agree on it and draft initial letters and supporting documents to put it into action at the Kiyosu Conference. The next day, Hideyoshi raises the obvious issue – “Do you think Katsuie will try to kill us if the plan succeeds?” Kanbei laughs. “Well, yes! Of course he will.” Hideyoshi laughs too. “I mean, you know what I meant.” Kanbei says, “Well, it’s just like you told me about your night on the pavilion – which way is the wind blowing?” Kanbei and Hideyoshi worked in great harmony; often, the start of a brilliant thought in one of the men immediately processed into implications in the other’s mind. With the reference to the wind, Hideyoshi immediately grasped all of the implications: “So you think, old friend, the question is not if Katsuie will try to kill us; the question is when; hence, we must be vigilant, but should strike first.” Kanbei half-bowed. “My Lord, our minds are one.” *** THE KIYOSU CONFERENCE: JULY 1582 Tension was written onto the faces of all the senior samurai of the Oda Clan. Oda Nobuo – the “idiot second son” – was particularly unhappy. His more talented half-brother, Oda Nobutaka, was seated closer to Shibata Katsuie, the most senior Oda Clan General. These small details burned permanently into the eyes of the samurai, with their culture of honor and status and insistence on rank. Everyone knew how the opening scene of the coming drama would unfold – Katsuie and Nobutaka were quite close and did not hide the fact. Nobutaka was better in combat, and had been at the battle avenging his father’s death. Katsuie would no doubt propose Nobutaka take the reins of the Oda Clan. But then – what? Would the technically-more-senior Nobuo accept or reject this settlement? Would he be paid off? More importantly, what would Hideyoshi Toyotomi do? Toyotomi was poorly understood by these men; rising from a peasant servant to a samurai lord was unheard-of; it was the late Nobunaga’s policy to promote on merit and not rank. These policies served the deceased Lord of the Oda Clan well in his rise, but there was lingering bitterness and jealousy towards he who had been promoted so far above the station of his birth. What were Hideyoshi’s motives now? He had been fiercely loyal to Nobunaga before his death, but what now? He was shrewd and cunning. It was known well-enough that Shibata Katsuie was not particularly fond of Hideyoshi; they were rivals for glory and favor to some extent. Hideyoshi always tried to downplay rivalrous behavior, but merit does shine through, and cuts bitterly into those who receive rank through the less-difficult mix of talent and birth position. What would Hideyoshi do? Who was he, really? Would he demand to be bought off with gold and castles? Would he back the idiot Nobuo for leverage to then bargain it away? The other samurai retainers filled into the hall, including a somewhat young captain who had served under the dead first son of Nobunaga, along with the only female in the room – a nurse holding a two-year-old child. Lord Nobunaga’s grandson by his first son, Prince Sanposhi. Katsuie frowned when Prince Sanposhi was brought into the room; this was unexpected and he had certainly not summoned the captain or nurse. Surely, they’d be at the funeral and receive a warm acknowledgement of the clan, but now the two-year-old was scurrying around, playing, crying. This was no place for a child. Hideyoshi came in right before the meeting was scheduled to start, smiled and bowed slightly, but did not apologize for being the last into the room. Notably, he sat nowhere near the positions of honor – leaving a number of lower-ranked retainers between him and Katsuie. Katsuie frowned. He feigns humility. But he and I have the most soldiers under our command. Any settlement needs him to sign off on it. Hideyoshi elbows one of the younger generals sitting next to him and whispers something, and the man can’t help but laugh – a horrible breach of decorum, really, manners more fitting of an unwashed commoner more than a daimyo of the Oda Clan. Katsuie, growing annoyed, calls out – “Well, then! We’re all here. Thank you for coming. Can we remove the child from the room so we can begin?” Hideyoshi clears his throat loudly but doesn’t speak. No one moves. Katsuie turns to the nurse and captain, and takes a breath, preparing to give an order, when just at that moment Hideyoshi preempts him – “Lord Katsuie, it seemed proper to have the eldest grandson of the bloodline in the room. After all, we fight for his life and lifeblood, the son of the beloved Nobutada, killed by the soldiers of the monstrous traitor Mitsuhide…” Hideyoshi, of course, did not say out loud, “… whom I hurried back from Takamatsu and killed to avenge our lord while you, Katsuie, were idle and dallying” – but he may as well have said it. Katsuie flashes with annoyance, composes himself, and is about to speak again when Hideyoshi preempts him again – “But it is very courteous to be worried about the young child’s well-being on such a hot day. Nurse, would you please take Prince Sanposhi to a cooler room? Captain, you may stay, of course.” Katsuie grits his teeth. Hideyoshi is trying to embarrass me. Katsuie, now firmly off his rhythm and authority, composes himself to speak again. He draws in a breath to speak, is about to speak, but then pauses and the room lingers in quiet tension. Hideyoshi does not speak, though, so Katsuie is forced to exhale, compose himself again, and then speaks – “Well, then. We’re here to determine the future of the Oda Clan.” No one speaks. Katsuie continues, “Does anyone have any suggestions?” Katsuie looks at Hideyoshi in particular. But no one speaks. The air lingers; moments are tense. The third son, Nobutaka, looks expectantly at Katsuie. Nobuo, largely ignored, glowers at both of them. A short time passes – it feels like a long time, but can’t have been more than a minute or two – and Katsuie speaks again, “Well, then. I propose Lord Nobutaka take command of the clan. He is Nobunaga’s son, has proven himself on the battlefield, and will be a worthy successor to the Oda Clan.” Nobutaka bows his head deferentially, politely, and prepares himself to speak the required modest words, when, just then, the wily ex-servant does it again. “No, that will not do!” says Hideyoshi. Everyone is startled at the bold declaration. In a complete breach of decorum, many of the generals in the room shift their position away from the seats of honor and turn towards the defiant Hideyoshi. There is an old folk expression among American lawyers – “When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table.” Katsuie has pounded the facts; now Hideyoshi pounds the law – “The law of the Oda Clan is succession from father-to-son. Lord Nobunaga has brought our clan from an insignificant one in a precarious position, to the stewards of the nation. Tenka Fubu! The nation under one sword!” There is stunned silence through the room. Nobutaka is looking enraged; Nobuo looks confused. Hideyoshi continues, “With Lord Nobunaga’s death, we humble Oda Clan retainers came under the banner of his chosen successor, Lord Nobutada! And with Lord Nobutada’s death, Prince Sanposhi becomes our liege lord! These are our laws, and they must be upheld!” Hideyoshi has argued the law – and there is some murmuring of agreement in the room. Katsuie argues the facts – “Hold on a moment! Prince Sanposhi is only two years old, and…” Hideyoshi interrupts – “It’s the law, Katsuie. And our duty. Besides, the whole nation has said the Oda Clan has the greatest generals in the land – with us loyal senior retainers here to defend his rightful place, Prince Sanposhi will be perfectly safe.” Shibata Katsuie was fuming, but couldn’t find a way to express the words. A few minutes later, before any real debate had happened, two generals allied to Hideyoshi both loudly proclaimed their support for the law and fulfilling their duty. The idiot Nobuo said he would support his nephew’s accession in accordance with the law. Before Katsuie’s bloc had a chance to recover from the surprising turn of events, Hideyoshi had demanded a roll call of who would support the young Prince – starting from where he was seated, among the lowest of the samurai generals – and when it came to Katsuie’s turn, everyone had acceded without reservation. Katsuie felt compelled to pledge his support, but internally, it took all his discipline to choke back his rage. *** NEUTRAL EYES AND THE VANTAGE OF ANTICIPATION How do you cultivate foresight? The biggest enemy is probably one’s own feelings – very rarely do we see the world with “neutral eyes” – purely objectively. Instead, we filter the world according to how optimistic or pessimistic we’re feeling. The easiest way to get more predictive skill is to delete all personal narrative, feelings, and trivial details from your analysis. Hideyoshi and Kanbei thus could have described the situation neutrally – “There is a senior general of a clan, embarrassed after moving slowly in a crisis. He technically has more rank, but the general right behind him in rank, and a few years younger, has more troops and has won more victories. They are not friends and there’s been some dislike. The senior general works best behind the scenes and does not like to be in charge or advocate his own policies – he prefers to do work behind the scenes under the guidance of another.” From there, you can infer Katsuie’s actions at the conference – he would support Nobutaka, since Katsuie preferred to scheme outside of the spotlight, and was somewhat slow and off-balance when in full command. Moreover, you could also deduce another set of moves out of Katsuie – if he consolidated his supporters and became “the power behind the throne” of Nobutaka, inevitably his jealousy of Hideyoshi and the threat of Hideyoshi’s superior resources and soldiers would eventually lead to Katsuie and his allies calling for Hideyoshi’s arrest and death. This might seem, on a quick look, like black magic. “You can’t really guess how people will act in six months or a year…” But it’s not black magic, and you absolutely can infer their intentions. Consider: 1. Hideyoshi was the single most powerful and prestigious general in Japan after avenging Nobunaga’s death. 2. Katsuie had been unhappy that Hideyoshi acted without him, upstaging him. 3. Katsuie and Hideyoshi had been somewhat rivalrous anyways before Nobunaga’s death. 4. Katsuie was terse and imperious towards Hideyoshi after the successful battle – Katsuie’s actions showed he mentally classified Hideyoshi as an enemy. The last point is critical for Analysis and Anticipation. Obviously, the second most powerful general in the land (Katsuie), if he was feeling anything between neutrality to friendliness towards the first most powerful general (Hideyoshi) would normally try to coordinate and negotiate the details behind the scenes and pre-agree on a settlement for Kiyosu. By trying to keep Hideyoshi at arm’s length, Katsuie signaled plainly that he was afraid and suspicious of Hideyoshi. Otherwise, the expected and correct course of action would be to coordinate and negotiate with Hideyoshi before the Conference, feeling out his preferences and what settlement he would agree to. Hideyoshi and Kanbei spotted these little “tells,” and prepared to both disrupt Katsuie’s plans for the Conference, and for war to break out afterwards. Thus, “So you think, old friend, the question is not if Katsuie will try to kill us; the question is when; hence, we must be vigilant, but should strike first.” Which way is the wind blowing? Indeed. *** POWER AND THE OTHER SETTLEMENTS There were remaining details to be negotiated and cleaned up at Kiyosu – a council of regents would rule and decide in Prince Sanposhi’s place. Nobuo and Nobutaka were logical to be on that council, as were Katsuie and Hideyoshi. Hideyoshi maneuvered to get one of the older generals favorable to his side to be the fifth regent, since he had been prepared for Sanposhi to take over and knew regents would be appointed, and Katsuie’s side had been surprised by Sanposhi’s accession whereas Hideyoshi had been prepared. The next question is who would inherit the new lands conquered from the Mori, and the distribution of the lands of the traitor Mitsuhide, and of the slain Oda Clan leaders who had died in the assassination. Hideyoshi perplexed Katsuie once again, though this is not so surprising once we have the lens of Anticipation for understanding. Katsuie would have expected Hideyoshi to claim the lands he conquered from the Mori Clan, but he instead pledged these lands to neutral Oda Clan members who had served at the Battle of Yamazaki – further shoring up his support among these neutrals, as well as keeping his outlying lands far away from the still-hostile and embarrassed Mori Clan. Hideyoshi, thinking ahead, had proposed the least grants of lands for both himself and Katsuie – surprising Katsuie, who relied more on legal authority than charisma and friendship. With Hideyoshi relinquishing nearly all of his possible claims, it made it impossible for Katsuie to ask for the lands he wanted without appearing to be greedy and power-crazed. Hideyoshi then, counterintuitively, suggested Nobutaka take the most powerful lands overseeing the Oda Clan, intentionally putting them into hostile hands; he asked for the idiot Nobuo to get richer, but safer lands away from the main action. Finally, Hideyoshi shocked and upstaged Katsuie by preemptively offering his most important castle bordering Shibata lands to one of Katsuie’s adopted sons… the son who Katsuie was most alienated from, incidentally. Hideyoshi made some noises about that young man being most meritorious and demanding that that young man was the only one acceptable to take his former castle over. He went on with a somewhat elegant speech about how the Shibata clan should have its sons raised to prominence to serve the land, something along those lines. In reality, Shibata Katsuie had a bad relationship with that son, but Hideyoshi’s words were elegant and – to the less critical observer – a very generous offering to the Shibata Clan. Hideyoshi, who had subdued the Mori and avenged Lord Nobunaga, was offering to have less lands and riches under his command than before the recent events transpired. This put neutral minds at ease, but also meant that Katsuie could not ask for any more than Hideyoshi. Meanwhile, Hideyoshi was giving up all the lands he could not reasonably defend, while ensuring he could consolidate all his soldiers for the upcoming war, and that the board was as favorable as possible when – not if – war broke out. All of these proposals were accepted, and Katsuie was once again furious at being outmaneuvered. *** POUNDING THE TABLE The Shibata rage boiled over. Katsuie’s soldiers were the primary guards and garrison of Kiyosu Castle; Hideyoshi was in the midst of hostile forces. At a banquet the next night following the settlements, Katsuie’s nephew and right-hand man Sakuma Genba starts drinking heavily and taunting Hideyoshi. “Hey you, monkey, you used to be a servant right?” Hideyoshi replied, “That’s right, Genba. I’ve been a proud servant of this Clan for a long time; I owe everything to Lord Nobunaga for raising me from a mere sandal-bearer to soldier…“ “Well monkey, why don’t you serve us then! Pour me a drink!” Genba, the headstrong and brave man in his late 20’s, did not quite understand Hideyoshi. He himself would have bristled at being talked to like this; if an argument broke out, he could challenge Hideyoshi to a duel or otherwise cut him down; they were surrounded by Shibata guards and soldiers, after all. And Genba was physically stronger, bigger, and more young and spry than the 45-year-old wiry Hideyoshi. “Lord Genba, it is a pleasure to serve the next generation. I am honored to pour you a drink.” Hideyoshi moves slowly, buying himself time to assess the developing situation. A single mis-step would be fatal. He took some sake and glasses from a nearby attendant, and poured, when Genba grabbed the cup from Hideyoshi – a terrible breach of etiquette – and downed it one go. “Too small! Get a bigger cup, monkey, we’re warriors here!” “Very well.” Hideyoshi got a large flagon and poured a large drink for Genba. “You drink it first, monkey! Drink to our dead lord’s memory!” “Oh, Genba, I’m not such a drinker. This old body is not as strong as yours. Please, go ahead.” “You won’t drink, then?” “I’m afraid I’ve already drank too much and the funeral service is tomorrow. As much as I’d like to enjoy myself with you and your company, it would be a breach of my duty to enjoy myself too much.” The young man snarled now – “You’re a coward, Hideyoshi!” Everyone was on full tension. No one could see them, but inevitably the guards waiting in the adjoining rooms would be at full tension. “I’m not as strong as you, Genba, and we’ve all been drinking. Actually, I feel a little sick. Please excuse me.” And without asking for permission, Hideyoshi withdrew from the room in one strong motion. The guards standing by the doorway were surprised to see Hideyoshi and flinched; they were poised to kill on an order from Genba, but had not expected Hideyoshi to simply… walk past them. He saw the guards, bowed deeply, and said: “Please look after Lord Genba; these are such trying times.” This, once again, gave him just the few seconds of confusion needed to walk down the hallway and out of sight, even as Genba was yelling after him. Usually calm and collected, Hideyoshi broke into a full sprint once out of sight, not stopping until he was back at his own lodging quarters outside of the castle. That night, Hideyoshi and Kanbei drafted a letter apologizing that, due to Hideyoshi having a sudden bout of extreme illness, he would have to depart Kiyosu immediately. Hideyoshi’s soldiers had already been prepared to move out, and they took an unexpected path home that was not guarded heavily by Shibata loyalists. By the time the order came to pursue and arrest Hideyoshi, he was already long gone. *** ANTICIPATION The war came the next year. Having read the situation correctly and worked his diplomatic art, Katsuie’s alienated adopted son defected to Hideyoshi’s side, and Hideyoshi reclaimed his most important castle bordering Shibata lands without any bloodshed. By the time the Shibata/Toyotomi war began, Hideyoshi had 3 soldiers for every 2 under the Shiabata command: better odds, but not decisive. The Shibata began the hostilities, and Hideyoshi – almost always an offensive general to this point in his life – dug in on the strategic defensive. Under Kanbei’s guidance, the Toyotomi forces made a very risky maneuver – nearly within gun range of Shibata forces, they refused to engage the Shibata and instead built forward bases, doing battlefield engineering within attack range of the Shibata. Kanbei and Hideyoshi had once again read Katsuie correctly – had the Shibata launched an all-out attack while the Toyotomi forces were in the midst of battlefield engineering, it might have been a disaster. But Katsuie was never quite comfortable in full command, and he hesitated again. Within a few weeks, the Toyotomi both outnumbered the Shibata and had dug into a strong defensive position that isolated the main Shibata forces away from Oda Nobutaka’s. Hideyoshi then started attritioning away at Oda Nobutaka – the Shibata had appeared, on a map, to hold a unified defensive terrain after the Kiyosu settlement. But the bloodless defection and return of Hideyoshi’s most strategic castle to him had cut the Shibata lines in half. Genba was raging. “Why do we let them whittle away at us! We have to attack!” It is, of course, very much against gunpowder-era military doctrine to all-out attack defensive fortifications when outnumbered. Hideyoshi had isolated Katsuie; he was forced to make decisions on his own. A strong #2 but ineffective and vacillating #1, Sakuma Genba became the loudest voice in the Shibata camp. There is an open question to me of whether Hideyoshi and Kanbei had intentionally left a few of the forts on their flanks poorly defended to invite attack – the period sources say the Toyotomi were surprised when some of their secondary fortresses were overrun by Genba in battle, but I don’t necessarily believe it’s true. It would very much suit later Toyotomi propaganda to both claim they were fighting a defensive war and to not allow future adversaries to know that they had intentionally left a weak point in their lines to bait an attack; indeed, it’s the same tactic they would try in their next major conflict. Regardless of whether it was an intentional strategic masterstroke, or a negligence that turned out fatefully happy, Genba overran some of the secondary Toyotomi forces. At this point, Katsuie liked their position and repeatedly sent orders to Genba to consolidate the gains and withdraw. Genba would not listen. He pushed deeper and deeper into the Toyotomi forces, until finding himself completely surrounded. And then, fatefully, his relief corps under Maeda Inuchiyo – a childhood friend of Hideyoshi’s – withdrew from the battlefield, leaving Genba completely surrounded. His forces were cut to pieces and Genba was captured. The battle had started with 50,000 men under Toyotomi’s command and 30,000 under Shibata’s. But with Genba’s defeat and Maeda’s withdrawal from the battlefield, suddenly the neutrals under Shibata saw the inevitable and defected. Shibata Katsuie’s right-hand man had been baited to out-run his lines and been destroyed; the entire Shibata coalition had now disintegrated. The Toyotomi defenders switched to the offensive and counterattacked, pushing Shibata Katsuie back to his main castle and besieging it. The war was over. *** ANTICIPATION AND A LACK OF ANTICIPATION You should cultivate the skill of Anticipation. In the battle’s aftermath, Nobuo demanded his half-brother Nobutaka’s suicide, and the “third son” of Nobunaga was thus killed in the aftermath. Genba was executed in a spectacle a week later in Kyoto. But these events did not happen until Katsuie, following Nobunaga’s example, had burned his own castle to the ground, refusing to allow Hideyoshi to take his head. As Sunzi wrote in Ancient China, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” The Toyotomi knew themselves… and knew their enemies. The Shibata knew neither, and succumbed in every battle. Toyotomi is known as the “Second Great Unifier” of Japan… after defeating Katsuie, he is now indisputably the paramount general in Japan, and his path to the unification of the nation is now clear. But why is there a third Great Unifier? Certainly, Hideyoshi must have made some mistake, no? Hideyoshi has not made any mistakes to this point; he seems supernaturally gifted. But as Katsuie’s castle burns, he makes the first significant mistake of his otherwise glorious life. Three princesses, Nobunaga’s nieces, are ferried out of the burning castle. The father of the three princesses had previously died in combat, and their mother Oichi had been remarried to Shibata Katsuie. And though Hideyoshi would surely have treated her well and given her safe conduct, Oichi now chose to die in the flames with her husband Katsuie. The younger two princesses were wailing and crying, watching their home castle burn as their mother died in flames. The older merely stood silently and stared at the burning castle. Hideyoshi had ordered the girls to be treated well and taken to safety, and then sat down to celebrate with his generals. After sharing stories of the victory and celebrating, he turned to Kanbei – “Kanbei, did you see the oldest girl, Princess Chacha? She’s a beauty, huh?” Kanbei frowned. “I don’t know, Lord Hideyoshi… I don’t like her.” Hideyoshi laughed. “Are you a monk?! How can you not appreciate her beauty?” “Well,” Kanbei says, “That’s true. The younger girls all seem so innocent, but she is so… composed… on seeing her mother and step-father’s death… I think there’s hatred in her heart and eyes.” Hideyoshi – making the first major mistake of his life – waves away Kanbei’s Anticipation. “You’re getting old, Kanbei! She’s a young beautiful girl. We’ll treat her well. Who knows what the future will bring with her?” Kanbei did not want to ruin the mood, and perhaps this whimsy would pass, too. “I suppose so, my Lord.” Vantages #8: Restraint Vantages #8: Restraint WHAT IF THE BIRD DOES NOT SING? The “Three Great Unifiers” of Japan all came from the same school of military thought – Hideyoshi Toyotomi and Tokugawa Ieyasu, indeed, both rose to prominence in the service of the “First Great Unifier,” Oda Nobunaga, a brilliant and ruthless man. There is a famous parable in Japan about these three men. In the parable, all three are in a tea garden, along with a Zen Buddhist monk. A bird lands on a nearby tree branch. The monk asks each man, “If you want the bird to sing, and the bird does not sing, what will you do?” Nobunaga speaks first – “If the bird does not sing, I will kill the bird.” Hideyoshi speaks second – “If the bird does not sing, I will make the bird want to sing.” Ieyasu is quiet. “And you, Ieyasu? What will you do if the bird doesn’t sing?” Ieyasu answers – “Wait.” *** UNHORSED The bullet hit with fateful impact, the explosive force lifting Ikeda Tsuneoki off his saddle. He clattered to the ground hard and a whooping shout rose from the Tokugawa defenders at Iwasuki Castle. I’ve never been shot, but I have shot heavy firearms before. Even a simple modern 9 millimeter handgun will break bones in your hand if you’re holding it wrong. Many modern marksmen, while learning, will fracture a collarbone if they improperly shoot something as heavy as a .30-06 rifle. Guns, obviously, produce a lot of force. So I can only imagine what it’s like to be on the receiving end of getting shot; General Ikeda was confused, disoriented, and enraged by this turn of fate. His personal attendants rushed to him, and were relieved to see his breastplate absorbed most of the damage. Ikeda snarls, his pride wounded, shouts the fateful order – “Take that damn castle!” One of his attendants tries to protest, “But, General Ikeda, Lord Toyotomi instructed us to leave the lesser fortresses and march on the Tokugawa headquarters.” In his rage and disorientation, Ikeda isn’t listening. He repeats the order – “I said, take that damn castle!” *** BEDROCK When he heard the news, the ninja chief immediately mounted his own horse and rode hard. Hattori Hanzo was always elegant in any landscape, but perhaps most elegant of all on horseback. He seemed to almost supernaturally fuse with the landscape. The weapons in his hands became part of his body; when he was mounted, his mind and the horse’s became one. With his great speed, he arrived at the Tokugawa forward camp. He navigated the sentries quickly with the relevant watch-words; all knew to look for the legendary Hanzo when he arrived, never to impede his progress. Tokugawa Ieyasu was sitting calmly in his war tent, reading and sending dispatches. He would look up slowly from his work at any messenger and news. Nothing excited him. Hanzo moved swiftly into the tent, and Ieyasu nodded at his chief, asks – “News?” “Good news! Ikeda Tsuneoki has gotten himself bogged down halfway between here and Mikawa – this our chance!” “A feint?” “No, he’s behaving foolishly. Apparently he was shot from the saddle and his pride was wounded. He’s stranded himself near Iwasuki Castle, he’s cut off from the advance guard and Hideyoshi’s main force.” Hanzo pauses only the briefest moment, then adds – “Hideyoshi’s nephew and heir is on the march with Ikeda.” Ieyasu nods. His emotions were unreadable. He closes his eyes for a moment, calculating and double-checking assumptions in his head, and then orders – “This is our chance. Full mobilization. Annihilate them.” Ieyasu waits a moment, then calls for his attendant – “Bring my horse! I will join the assault force.” *** PRIDE COMETH “Idiot!” Hideyoshi was in a rare furious mood. “Idiot! Idiot! Why did he stop at Iwasuki Castle? It doesn’t matter! The Tokugawa headquarters in Mikawa is exposed – if it falls, the war is over! Iwasuki doesn’t matter!” It is March of 1584; the year previous, Hideyoshi had defeated his main rival for leadership of the Oda Clan, Shibata Katsuie, and begun building a magnificent castle at Osaka with which to rule the nation. While technically the three-year-old Prince Sanposhi was ruler of the Oda Clan, the idiot “second son” Oda Nobuo had nevertheless just naively expected that Hideyoshi would now turn the new castle and leadership of the clan over to him. When Hideyoshi demanded an oath of loyalty from Nobuo, there was a breach between the two men. Hideyoshi attempted to get three of Nobuo’s senior retainers to defect; this detected, Nobuo executed the three men. Hideyoshi used it as a pretext for war. Tokugawa Ieyasu joined the anti-Toyotomi coalition, nominally under Oda Nobuo’s command, and the two strongest men in Japan were now at war. Hideyoshi’s forces struck first – Ikeda Tsuneoki had incited the very important Inuyama Castle at the crossroads of the battle to defect, and had taken it nearly bloodlessly. It was a perfect Toyotomi-style diplomatic coup. Tokugawa Ieyasu always moved slowly and deliberately – but would occasionally, seemingly unpredictably, very rarely, explode into fast-moving action. His forces mobilized and re-took Inuyama Castle quickly. This had led General Ikeda to be filled with shame. Meanwhile, the Tokugawa were outnumbered 2-to-1, and refused to do battle with the Toyotomi forces. They would skirmish and pick off loose Toyotomi units who wandered from the pack, but then would withdraw into strong fortifications at Inuyama and Mount Komaki. This stalemate was devastating to Hideyoshi Toyotomi – he was, after all, something of a usurper. Tokugawa was in the field under the banner of restoring and protecting the Oda Clan. His ninja and diplomats wrote many propaganda posters about Hideyoshi’s crimes and usurpations – most of which were true – and Hideyoshi was seeing his relative position decline. The plan to break the stalemate that Toyotomi Hideyoshi approved was known to be risky. Considerably outnumbered, the Tokugawa had forward-deployed almost all of their soldiers and left their home province unguarded. To reclaim his honor, General Ikeda had proposed – and Hideyoshi had accepted – a lightning strike to seize the relatively unguarded Tokugawa headquarters. The orders had been extremely clear – no small battles! Take whatever small losses skirmishers dealt to the Ikeda/Toyotomi forces en route to the Tokugawa home province of Mikawa. Leave a small detachment to pin down any castle, but keep moving. Take Mikawa before Tokugawa could rally to its defense. But now, in a mix of headstrong pride and terrible neglect, Ikeda Tsuneoki had defied all orders and was now dissipating his force – and precious time – fighting a useless battle to soothe his wounded feelings. Hideyoshi calms slightly and asks – “And my nephew?” The messenger froze and shuffled his feet for a moment, not wanting to answer, but then saying meekly, “We don’t know, sir. He’s with General Ikeda, but we’ve lost contact with them.” Hideyoshi has a surprise reaction to this even worse news – he calms down and speaks quietly. “I see. Well, perhaps we can turn this into a victory yet.” He raises his voice loudly enough for all outside attendants to hear – “Full mobilization! We’re marching to relieve Ikeda and destroy the Tokugawa!” *** THE LIGHTNING DISSIPATES Confusion and disorientation reigned supreme. With a lightning strike, troops march light and by the fastest routes. They do not have solid battle lines, reserves, defenses, and supplies. They often separate and spread out to reach the rallying point as fast as possible. If these lightning maneuvers work correctly, a large cohesive army seemingly just appears out of nowhere at its target, taking defenders off guard and giving a huge advantage to the lightning-fast army. But before that final rallying appearance, the fast-moving army’s battle lines are precariously spread long and communications are hampered – by design – by the speed of the rapid movement. It’s thus imperative that the separated units do not enter individual battle with the enemy’s main force. General Ikeda’s slight delay to soothe his wounded pride had given just enough time for Tokugawa’s main force to march and overtake them. Even though the overall Toyotomi forces outnumbered the Tokugawa 2:1, General Ikeda – along with with Hideyoshi’s 17-year-old heir, Hidetsugu, were now facing an onslaught and were outnumbered 4:1. Meanwhile, the Tokugawa fought like desperate men – fighting to prevent their homeland from falling. Not ready for combat and with the Tokugawa enemy arriving from the rear, many of the Ikeda/Toyotomi generals and officers were killing in the opening salvos, and their forces started to disintegrate. Despite having a 2:1 advantage in any full battle, each individual corps of the Toyotomi blitzkrieg was now being torn to pieces mid-march by furious, fast-moving Tokugawa forces that outnumbered them. The Tokugawa had known they were bringing desperate battle; the Toyotomi forces had been caught flat-footed and surprised. It was a massacre. General Ikeda sighed, knowing he was beaten. He turned to Hideyoshi’s heir and said, “Hidetsugu, please flee. Let Hideyoshi know that I was a fool, but I was loyal to the end. I’ll slow the pursuit.” And so, as Hidetsugu ran desperately for his life, the General placed his war banner on a small hill and bellowed a challenge, “Who dares come for the head of General Ikeda!” Gunfire lit the air, and many of the Ikeda’s most loyal senior officers died in the first volleys of this last stand. Soon, Tokugawa gunners, spear corps, and cavalry were assaulting the position. General Ikeda is said to have fought valiantly, killing or wounding many Tokugawa footsoldiers as they began to overrun his final standing position. He was defiant until the end, swinging his sword, calling out challenges and heaping abuse on the Tokugawa, but pride eventually demurred as he was ran through with a spear. His head was cut off and sent along with his commander’s banner to Lord Ieyasu as a prize. The Ikeda/Toyotomi forces completely disintegrated. *** TOKUGAWA FORWARD HEADQUARTERS NEAR NAGAKUTE The Tokugawa senior generals were in reverie – “We’ve beaten them!” “They’re falling apart!” Tokugawa Ieyasu had let the men voice their celebration, but it wearied him. They were getting lost in bloodlust. One of the Tokugawa general makes the bold suggestion, “Let’s pursue them and give the final battle!” Ieyasu speaks now, one word – “No.” The room sombers up rapidly. All eyes turn to Ieyasu. “We have an expression that we live and die by – ‘After victory, tighten the straps on your helmet!’ We’ve won the field, but this is the most dangerous moment. No pursuit. Immediate withdrawal!” Some of the Tokugawa generals begin to protest and Ieyasu holds his hand up to quiet them and speaks – “The orders are clear! Any man over-pursuing the enemy will be punished by execution. I don’t care if he comes back to camp with Hideyoshi’s head itself, no honor, execution for that! We’re the rock the water breaks upon, not the water! Don’t get carried away. Full withdrawal!” Hours later, Hideyoshi arrived at the scenes of the battle with 20,000 fresh reinforcements and surveyed the scene – it was a complete massacre; he’d lost many soldiers and senior generals. But the Tokugawa were nowhere to be found. Hideyoshi marched on a number of local castles, looking for an outlet for his rage, but no counterattack came. The Tokugawa had disappeared back into the earth. *** VANTAGES #8: RESTRAINT We will get to know Tokugawa Ieyasu much more in two chapters – he was the final stumbling block that Hideyoshi had to navigate to unify the nation under his command. Eventually, Hideyoshi would win the nation, but – due to a slowly escalating series of small and large blunders due to vanity – his heirs would be destroyed and the Tokugawa would rule Japan for the next 250 years. The Battles of Komaki and Nagakute were the only time that any of the “Three Great Unifiers” faced each other in combat, and here, you can see both the distinct talents and genius of both Hideyoshi and Ieyasu. You can also see how a single rash action can unmake the grandest of plans. After finally consolidating his reign some decades later, Ieyasu said one of the greatest quotes of all-time as guidance for his descendants – “The strong manly ones in life are those who understand the meaning of the word patience. Patience means restraining one's inclinations. There are seven emotions: joy, anger, anxiety, adoration, grief, fear, and hate, and if a man does not give way to these he can be called patient. I am not as strong as I might be, but I have long known and practiced patience. And if my descendants wish to be as I am, they must study patience.” We will talk about the totality of Ieyasu’s Patience later – but I would like to call attention to one particular part of that magnificent quote. Patience means restraining one's inclinations. Isn’t that an outstanding quote? Muse on it – this chapter shows us a great example of both success and failure at restraining one’s inclinations. General Ikeda let himself get distracted from a key plan when he was embarrassed and enraged by a war wound and wanted to avenge his pride. The end result is that he was killed, his son was killed, Hideyoshi’s nephew and heir was almost killed, the majority of the Ikeda clan soldiers on the campaign were killed, their forces disintegrated, and the campaign was a complete failure. He followed his inclinations – anger, anxiety, and hate – and it led him down. Meanwhile, the Tokugwa Generals, in their reverie at the decisive victory, were on the verge of giving way to joy, anger, and hate. Tokugawa said: no. Withdraw. But this does not mean paralysis – just the opposite. It means setting one’s sights on the mission of the day, and driving faithfully at that mission until it is complete. A man’s “inclinations” that get in the way of the mission must be restrained. But that includes fear, too. Do remember that Tokugawa Ieyasu forward-deployed the majority of his soldiers to be able to defend against the superior Toyotomi numbers, and then, in the moment of crisis, he moved almost the entirety of his forces to thwart the Toyotomi blitzkrieg. Burn this into your mind – Patience means restraining one's inclinations. *** A FOPPISH AFTERMATH Toyotomi won some small sieges with his large army, but at bad economy and further exhausting his troops. The token victories were hollow, and if anything, further weakened his position. Hideyoshi was puzzling his way through the situation in his mind – He will out-wait us, and time is on their side. We can’t have another Komaki Campaign happen; another set of battles like that and we’re done for. If we take even half of that amount of damage again, the whole nation will rally to Ieyasu’s banner, and we are finished. He’s alone and thinking on the puzzle that is Ieyasu. Ieyasu won’t overreach. He’s dug in. We can’t beat him with a forward assault. And every day we wait, his power grows and ours dims. Damn, that Ieyasu is intractable… Hideyoshi has already tried to navigate a diplomatic/political peace and work his machinations behind the scenes, but Tokugawa had seen through them and cut off all negotiations. Ieyasu is unbeatable. Where is the weak link? And his eyes lit up. Oh. Hideyoshi was smiling for the first time in weeks as he called for his best messengers and diplomats to assemble. *** HE DID WHAT? Ieyasu was rarely puzzled or emotional; his old friend and close confidant Hattori Hanzo had not seen him so frazzled since the near-run escape after the disaster of Mikatagihara over a decade before. Ieyasu yells – “He did what?” Hanzo, normally entirely stalwart and unemotional, could only shake his head. “I know. It’s inexcusable. It’s… who could have foreseen this?” Ieyasu sighs. The anger isn’t helping. “Well, I suppose we should send congratulations then.” Hanzo laughed. “Just like that?” Ieyasu nods. “Just like that. Undefeated in the field, defeated by god-forsaken foppery. So be it. Let’s start drafting that letter of congratulations. It will be more favorable if we acknowledge the peace before demands are sent.” Hanzo marvels at Lord Ieyasu. So much blood had been spilt, so much treasure had been spent, complete victory seemed within sight… and then, this. Ieyasu gives a final order – “Hanzo, we must as well enjoy this nonsense, as much as we can. Get your intelligence corps to find out exactly what every general on their side likes best in the world, and spare no expense at procuring gifts, luxuries, and treasures.” He thinks a moment longer, and takes a precious heirloom sword off his belt and hands it to Hanzo. “Send Hideyoshi my favorite sword with the letter of congratulations. He’ll understand what it means.” *** JUST LIKE THAT Hideyoshi was laughing riotously and slapping his knee. He was in a whimsical mood again. “His sword? Oh my, I already held Ieyasu in high esteem, but he really is something else. Perhaps he’s a kami or bodhisattva – certainly, he’s no mortal man!” Hideyoshi had arranged a secret conference with the idiot Oda Nobuo – the man he’d usurped and had been trying to kill at the start of the war – and got him drunk, lavishing gold and treasures on him, telling him stories about how terrible it is that someone spread rumors or innuendos that he was anything but loyal to Prince Sanposhi, Nobuo himself, and the Oda Clan. Hideyoshi had wanted to merely start opening a rift between Nobuo and Ieyasu, but he was shocked when his initial peace terms were accepted by Nobuo without checking with Ieyasu first – a complete breach of etiquette, but also a show of ferocious idiocy. Only a vain and small man could be wooed by an enemy for a bottle of liquor, a chest of gold, and some empty promises. Ieyasu heard the news from his own messengers, and then from Hideyoshi’s envoy, before Nobuo had even bothered to write him. The young imbecile must have been mightily embarrassed when his own senior retainers pointed out how foolishly he’d made peace – with such a stronger position, giving it all up for… nothing. For empty promises and a trivial amount of treasure. Ieyasu and Hideyoshi had perhaps been destined to fight in the aftermath of Nobunaga’s death – the nation of Japan seemed too small for these two giant men – and Ieyasu had bettered Hideyoshi on the battlefield. But Hideyoshi had outmaneuvered him with alcohol, gold, and flattery; with Nobuo unilaterally signing a peace treaty with Hideyoshi, Ieyasu’s legitimacy for war was destroyed… while simultaneously his troop strength was reduced by the defection. The senior leadership of both sides thought Nobuo was an idiot. Both sides debated having him assassinated. Hideyoshi decided against it, to not further risk his sullying his reputation. Ieyasu choked back his personal animosity, and figured that leaving the idiot Nobuo alive in Hideyoshi’s camp would be more of a liability for Hideyoshi than an asset over the long run. Hideyoshi had thus been surprised twice in short succession – first, by just how pliable and foolish Nobuo was; it was too easy. Second, by how rapidly Ieyasu had accepted the brutal stupidity and how he had responded perfectly. “His sword, Kanbei! What a remarkable man. Obviously, I’ve always respected him. But I didn’t want to like him. But I really can’t help myself, I like him. The Heavens poured into his tea cup a bitter mix of boiling mud and sand, and he just swallows it in one gulp!” “It’s a great victory, my lord,” Kanbei starts slowly, “But you know, he’s still the most dangerous man on the field.” “Oh, Kanbei, I know, but the day is ours. Let’s have a little party to celebrate. How old is Princess Chacha now? 18? We should invite her, she lights up any room she’s in.” Over the coming weeks, the Toyotomi celebrated while the Tokugawa demobilized, gave back most of the gains they’d won on the battlefield, and made further concessions besides. Hideyoshi was in a time of great revelry overseeing the finishing touches on his brilliant new castle in Osaka, and was spending more time with Princess Chacha, the girl he’d taken from the burning flames of Katsuie’s castle. More gifts and letters of goodwill came in from the Tokugawa – written remarkably poignantly and with seemingly sincerity, though no one in the Toyotomi high command really believed it – and the Toyotomi forces celebrated as they consolidated their gains. Kanbei, though, felt uneasy. The spring winds seemed unusually cold. Vantages #9: Classical and Romantic Play Vantages #9: Classical and Romantic Play A DIFFICULT TASK “Telling someone how to negotiate well is a difficult task. A person’s attitude toward life and toward the game have a strong, immeasurable, and probably unalterable effect on how, and how well, he or she negotiates in any wargame. Hundreds of essays have been written about this subject. Certain principles and common failings can be described, however, which no player should ignore.” – Dr. Lewis Pulsipher, “The Art of Negotiation in Diplomacy” *** THE LAST STAND OF THE HOJO CLAN Lord Hojo Ujimasa’s heart sinks into dismay at this final change in the state of affairs. When over 220,000 battle-hardened Toyotomi loyalists had besieged the 82,000 Hojo defenders spread between different castles and fortifications, there was no chance at counterattack. The Toyotomi forces were better trained, better equipped, with more modern weapons, and more experience. Lord Hojo had desperately hoped that someone – anyone – in Hideyoshi Toyotomi’s army would start feeling rash and foolishly try to force an attack of overwhelming force. The only hope for the Hojo was winning multiple decisive defensive engagements. But the latest “reinforcements” that arrived to Hideyoshi’s banner chilled his heart more than any weapons, warships, or soldiers could possibly have. Arriving just beyond the front lines of the siege were… entertainers, Kabuki actors, and courtesans. He tried to choke back tears, seeing Hideyoshi’s maneuver to keep his soldiers from getting restless. At the site of this morbid battlefield entertainment arriving, Lord Hojo sighs deeply. “We have lost.” *** THE SIEGE TO END ALL SIEGES “The massive army of Toyotomi Hideyoshi surrounded the castle in what has been called "the most unconventional siege lines in samurai history." The samurai were entertained by everything: from concubines, prostitutes and musicians to acrobats, fire-eaters, and jugglers. The defenders slept on the ramparts with their arquebuses and armor; despite their smaller numbers, they discouraged Hideyoshi from attacking. So, for the most part, this siege consisted of traditional starvation tactics.” – Wikipedia: Siege of Odawara It more resembled an evening revelry than a battlefield – dug-in with overwhelming force, Hideyoshi had called for a great spectacle to keep his men entertained during the long siege. It had been six years since diplomatically outmaneuvering Tokugawa Ieyasu after the Toyotomi had suffered those rare battlefield defeats at Komaki and Nagakute in 1584. In 1585, in the wake of Hideyoshi’s consolidation, the Imperial Court in Kyoto had named him to one of the highest ranks possible in the nation – Kampaku – “Grand Regent of the Nation.” Two years later, in 1587, Hideyoshi had destroyed all the scattered opposition in Japan, unifying the country. In the next two years, he passed the famous law that only samurai could carry swords and carried out a great “sword hunt” through the nation, disarming the various peasant insurgents and warrior monks which still had weapons. Seeing the rising power of Christianity in Japan, he banished missionaries and executed a number of particularly pious Christians as an example. After being outmaneuvered diplomatically in 1584, Tokugawa Ieyasu had quickly fallen into line and been on his very best behavior, supporting Hideyoshi with gifts and taxes. When the call came that the final battle of the era would be the subjugation of the Hojo Clan, Tokugawa mobilized his troops and marched under Hideyoshi’s banner. With Tokugawa Ieyasu brought to heel and falling into the new order, the Hojo Clan was the last major source of potential resistance to the Toyotomi. They carried an illustrious name – the original Hojo Clan had been rulers of Japan 300 years beforehand. Their power had been largely eliminated 200 years before, but one “Lord Ise” had married a princess descended from the Hojo line and had resurrected the name and line. This was perhaps a tentative connection to the past, but the name still carried great prestige and awe. Lord Hojo Ujimasa was married to the daughter of the extremely powerful late Takeda Shingen; their son and heir was married to Tokugawa Ieyasu’s beloved second daughter and thus was the son-in-law of Ieyasu. The Hojo had largely been neutral for much of the Sengoku Civil Wars, occasionally lightly fighting against the Oda and Tokugawa – the Hojo/Tokugawa marriage had been as a result of the peace treaty in the aftermath skirmishes following Nobunaga’s death. But this mostly-neutrality had not saved them once Hideyoshi had consolidated the rest of the Japan. Fearing their name and lineage, Hideyoshi had declared war on the Hojo – the last and final major threat to his power. After months of the siege, Lord Hojo Ujimatsu saw that his soldiers were weak and starving to death. The Toyotomi had won their final war of conquest with very little fighting at all. In the middle of August, 1590, Hojo Ujimasa made the orders for an orderly surrender to the Toyotomi forces, and composed his death poem – Autumn wind of eve Blow away the clouds that mass O'er the moon's pure light. And the mists that cloud our mind Do thou sweep away as well. Now we disappear Well, what must we think of it? From the sky we came Now we may go back again That's at least one point of view. He then fell on his sword in ritual seppuku. Toyotomi Hideyoshi had fully unified and pacified Japan. *** VANTAGES #9: CLASSICAL AND ROMANTIC PLAY “It is often surprising to new players to learn that not every player wants to accomplish the same thing. Some play for excitement, not caring if they win or lose as long as the game is full of wild incidents. Most play to win the game, but there the ways part. Many players (the “drawers”) believe that, failing to win, a draw is the next best result, while anything else is a loss. At the extreme, even a 7-way draw is better than second place. Others (the “placers”) believe that to survive in second place while someone else wins is better than a draw. At the extreme are those who would “rather die than draw.” Such fundamental differences in world view can have a decisive effect on a game.” – Pulsipher The universe is vast, vaster than all possible human comprehension. On any given day, you have nearly an unlimited set of options of what you can do and turn your attention to. It can thus be very hard to understand all possible options in business, in developing one’s career, in understanding people, in navigating the world and your life to make wonderful things happen. This is where games can be very useful. I don’t play games as much as I used to – these days, my roles and duties in the world don’t allow me the luxury of playing games for very long or very often. But I have loved and still do love games for the lessons they can teach us. (Heck, I wrote a whole book – Roguelike – on applied mathematics and behavioral models from video games.) Games are great because the mechanics are limited and bounded. In the American board game “Monopoly,” there are only a few options available to the player. On the first moves, you roll the dice to move your figure. If you land on an unowned property, you can buy it or not buy it. That’s the extent of your choices. Later in the game, the complexity and choices grow – when you own an entire set of properties in one area – a “monopoly” – you can choose to build houses or hotels on the property to get higher rents if another player lands on it. Additionally, once players own significant property, they can barter and trade properties between themselves. But it all starts very simply. You roll the dice. You buy or don’t buy the property you land on. Later, you get more options – build or don’t build? Build how much? Yet, even with the added decisions, the game is infinitely smaller and simpler than the vastness of all of reality. You can, if you want, mathematically model the chance of any given property on the board being landed upon. The high level competitive Monopoly players – there’s a whole highly competitive subculture devoted to the game – know the equations and frequency of landing on every single spot on the board. They can thus calculate mathematical yields and optimize which properties to buy and develop, in which order. This is obviously not possible in the entirety of reality. In reality, with real-world dollars and currency, you could buy anything, spend your money in nearly unlimited ways. In the board game Monopoly, there are only three things to do with your money: buy new property if you land on it, develop properties if you own enough of them, and barter and trade properties and cash with other players. Games, thus, make it a lot easier to study and understand life. In the real world, you can’t possibly math your way through every option; there’s nearly infinite options in the real world. I love this sort of applied mathematics and game theory, but the greatest lesson I got from games was not one of the mathematics lessons. Nor even the lessons about behavior and self-control that I wrote about in Roguelike. No, the greatest lesson I got from studying games and game design was about how other players act. Dr. Lewis Pulsipher is a master of the craft. He’s both a crafter of some very famous and popular board games, and additionally, a wonderful theorist of games. I’d really recommend reading anything he’s written; he’s always incredibly insightful. The single biggest takeaway I got from Dr. Pulsipher was that players play games in very different ways based on their outlook and orientation to life, and that these outlooks and orientations can be studied and understood. Indeed, we always bring our worldview, biases, and impulses with us everywhere we go. The most interesting classification of players is into Classical Play and Romantic Play. *** WHEN YOU BEGIN A GAME… Dr. Pulsipher – “When you begin a game, you must first learn something about each of your opponents. Sometimes you will know quite a bit to begin with, but you can also ask people who know the opponent better than you do. You want to know if your opponent is generally reliable or not, what his objective is, whether he is a classical or romantic player, and whether or not he is good at negotiation, strategy, and tactics… ”Whether a player’s style is “classical” or “romantic” is tricky to define. Briefly, the classical player carefully maximizes his minimum gain. He pays attention to detail and prefers to patiently let the other players lose by making mistakes, rather than trying to force them to make mistakes. He tends to like stable alliances and steady conflict in the game. He tends to be reliable and good at tactics. The romantic is more flamboyant, taking calculated risks to force his enemies into mistakes, trying to defeat them psychologically before they are defeated physically on the board. (Many players give up playable positions because they’re convinced that they’ve lost.) He [the romantic player] tries to maximize his maximum gain, at the cost of increasing potential loss.” If you skimmed the above two paragraphs, please immediately go re-read them carefully. I say without exaggeration – this is one of the single most insightful and important lessons I ever learned, in all of life. The classical player carefully maximizes his minimum gains. The romantic player tries to maximize his maximum gain, at the cost of increasing potential loss. *** UNDERSTANDING HOW CLASSICAL AND ROMANTIC PLAY OUT My closest friend and most frequent colleague, Kai Zau, we discuss “Classical and Romantic” all the time. Indeed, after learning and discussing this mental model together, I’ve found it so powerful that I often share it with anyone I have frequent close collaborations with. We all have different natural inclinations towards certain conservative gains or risky bets for larger gains, as well as how much we’re willing to risk and how much certainty we need. This can vary by domain – someone might be very classical in the gym, with a very careful and conservative training program, whereas they might be very romantic in investing, buying risky assets that they think can pay off large. Dropping out of university after one’s sophomore year to do a startup, especially if you were studying in a field that has largely good career outcomes (say, engineering or computer science), is a very Romantic move. Most startups fail, but the ones that succeed, succeed big. Dropping out to get into entrepreneurship increases both your chances of large failure and large success. Getting a degree in medicine or law, on the other end of the spectrum, would be highly Classical – you’re investing 7+ years of study to reasonably assure yourself of a good salary. It maximizes the minimum gain, nearly guaranteeing some floor of credibility, earning potential, and career outcomes. You can be Romantic in one field and Classical in another – the startup founder is almost always playing at least somewhat Romantic, but by being conservative with cash management, expenses, and burn rate, they can play more Classically than the norm in that field. It’s possible, through careful design, to make startups easily acquirable if they fail. This could be ensuring your team is the type a company would want to buy in an “acqui-hire” if the business doesn’t work, developing useful intellectual property like patents that a company would want to buy, and early-on cultivating good relationships with potential acquirers. This would be leaning towards Classical play. When Mark Zuckerberg famously turned down an offer for a billion dollars from Yahoo to buy Facebook, that’s more Romantic than accepting that acquisition. Yes, he was correct – sure, but it’s more Romantic. When Facebook bought Instagram for $1 billion some years later, Zuckerberg found his role reversed – it protected Facebook’s downside, since they weren’t doing as well on mobile as Instagram. Thus, it was more Classical for Zuckerberg to buy – even though he turned out to be correct again (with hindsight), at the time people largely were saying that Facebook overpaid to remove that risk from the landscape before Facebook’s IPO. Meanwhile, the Instagram founders made the opposite decision as Zuckerberg – they took the Classical route, choosing to take the guaranteed $1B instead of the more Romantic move of staying independent. *** TOYOTOMI FORWARD HEADQUARTERS, ODAWARA REGION As he was entering Hideyoshi’s war tent, Kuroda Kanbei bumped into the man who had largely replaced him, Ishida Mitsunari. Mitsunari scowled at Kanbei, said flippantly – “Hey Kanbei! How’s your God doing?” Now 43 years old, Kanbei had mentally slowed a little from his mental peak as grand strategist of the Toyotomi forces – but not so much that he would fall into this trap. “I believe all the Gods and Kami are doing equally well, smiling at our Lord Hideyoshi’s work being done. How are your gods, Mitsunari?” Mitsunari laughed derisively as he walked off past the man whom he had replaced as Hideyoshi’s most trusted retainer. The last major expedition Kanbei led for Hideyoshi had been to heavily Christianized Kyushu. After seeing how the natural Japanese fortitude blended into a beautiful pious ferocity with Christianity, he had converted himself. But that same year, Hideyoshi had come to fear the rising power of the Christians, and passed his famous anti-Christian laws. Rather than be executed, Kanbei had renounced his new religion and took on a Buddhist monk’s robes in deference. Nevertheless, Kanbei and Hideyoshi had their relationship strained and grew further apart. Meanwhile, Mitsunari had similar talents as Kanbei – he did not have the talent for master strategy nor the diplomatic skill, but with the Japanese Nation already under Hideyoshi’s banner, his skills as a treasurer and attention to detail – traits Kanbei also possessed – had caused Mitsunari to supplant Kanbei. But never mind Ishida Mitsunari now – we’ll catch up with him in the next two chapters when he’s leading the Toyotomi Western Army once the Civil War reignites; he will get his due with time. Now, instead, Kanbei walks past the spiteful treasurer into Hideyoshi’s tent. Hideyoshi is gleeful. “Kanbei!” Relations had become strained between them, and they were less close than before, but on such a glorious occasion, these things were forgotten and the men embraced like the old friends they once had been. “Kanbei, I don’t have anyone else who has the mind you have; I want your advice about one very tricky thing.” If Kanbei had felt any resentment internally, it melted away – at least for this moment, it was like old times between Grand Regent Hideyoshi and his former grand strategist. “My Lord, it’s an honor. What’s on your mind?” Hideyoshi nods to himself a few times before speaking, collecting himself. “Well, we’ve – umm – we’ve won. The Hojo are beaten. There’s just one thing that’s gnawing at me…” Despite the years apart, Kanbei could still finish Hideyoshi’s thoughts. “Tokugawa?” “Yes, that’s right.” Kanbei asks, “What were you thinking of doing?” Hideyoshi says, “Well, it’s a little crazy on a first look, but…” As Hideyoshi explains his plan, Kanbei laughs and shakes his head, marveling a final time at Hideyoshi’s diplomatic ingenuity. *** AN OFFER HE CAN’T REFUSE Tokugawa Ieyasu was laughing. “Well, this is something else, eh?” He’d called only a few of his most stalwart retainers to initially discuss the proposal. The famed ninja chief, Hattori Hanzo, had joined Ieyasu along with the fiercely loyal and stalwart Torii Mototada. Ieyasu hands around the letter for his two close confidants to read, and then there’s silence for a moment. The room is tense, but would be far more tense if Ieyasu was not seemingly so unworried by this crazy new development. General Mototada speaks first. “Frankly, I don’t like it at all.” Hanzo concurs: “Yes, I don’t like it either. What if it’s a trap? If we had a few weeks, I could scout the provinces and assess the loyalties and morale and resources, but we know very little of the Hojo lands. This could be our ruin.” Mototada pounds his fist into the ground. “Bastard Toyotomi!” Ieyasu laughs. “Shikata ga nai, eh? It can’t be helped.” Hanzo objects again, “Can we delay our answer? I can put scouts on the case immediately.” Ieyasu nods. “Yes, it would be a good time to deploy your scouts. But no, I’m afraid we cannot delay. Hideyoshi controls the nation, and we’re outnumbered 6-to-1 here if fighting breaks out. We cannot give him the slightest pretext. Do start scouting though.” Mototada stands and grabs his spear, “If your mind is set, I should depart immediately to the home castle in Mikawa to start transferring all the resources we can take.” Ieyasu nods. “Yes, that’s the way.” He then calls for a messenger and dictates an answer in brief and friendly terms – Your offer is accepted, Lord Toyotomi. Really, you do me too much honor. Thank you. – Ieyasu *** A CLASSICAL OFFER; A ROMANTIC ACCEPTANCE The Tokugawa’s native lands of Mikawa had two characteristics that were very disturbing to Hideyoshi Toyotomi: the first is that it was very close to the Imperial Capital of Kyoto, very close to the center of power in Japan of the day. The second is that sat at a crucial crossroads of Japan’s most important roadway, the Tokaido Road. With Tokugawa being on his best behavior for five years, and known as a fierce fighter and excellent diplomat, any attempt of Hideyoshi to kill him risked his entire position. Thus, he wanted to remove Tokugawa from near the seat of power – a very Classical move on Hideyoshi’s part. And thus, he offered Tokugawa a radical bargain. Wikipedia: Tokugawa Ieyasu – “In 1590, Hideyoshi attacked the last independent daimyo in Japan, Hojo Ujimasa. The Hojo clan ruled the eight provinces of the Kantō region in eastern Japan. Hideyoshi ordered them to submit to his authority and they refused. Ieyasu, though a friend and occasional ally of Ujimasa, joined his large force of 30,000 samurai with Hideyoshi's enormous army of some 160,000. Hideyoshi attacked several castles on the borders of the Hojo clan with most of his army laying siege to the castle at Odawara. […] During this siege, Hideyoshi offered Ieyasu a radical deal. He offered Ieyasu the eight Kantō provinces which they were about to take from the Hojo in return for the five provinces that Ieyasu currently controlled (including Ieyasu's home province of Mikawa). Ieyasu accepted this proposal. […] This was possibly the riskiest move Ieyasu ever made — to leave his home province and rely on the uncertain loyalty of the formerly Hojo samurai in Kanto.” This was the last great Classical consolidationary move of Hideyoshi’s career – he maximized his minimum gain and removed the risk of Tokugawa Ieyasu near the center of power. It was the most Romantic bargain Tokugawa Ieyasu was ever forced to accept – the Kanto provinces, including Edo (which became modern Tokyo), were of unknown quality. Potentially much richer, but not at all certain in quality. Tokugawa accepted, and re-based himself far away from the center of power. And thus, with the conquest of the Hojo, Hideyoshi Toyotomi had destroyed his last credible armed enemy, and placed the most dangerous potential insurgent far away from the sources of his power. *** HOW THE ROMANTIC PLAYER GETS ADDICTED TO ROMANCE I must confess – my natural inclinations were highly Romantic – my teens and 20’s were a set of unconsolidated rapid gains, bold actions, often spinning up one project before another completed. I feel like many people take some risks early in life, and for the people whose risks pay off huge at a young age, there is a natural tendency to become Romantic and to love the excitement of it. A great many of my young, potentially reckless moves paid off large – I became entrained thus, through osmosis and not necessarily intentionally, to love and embrace Romantic Play. I dropped out of a private high school my sophomore year, and spent my time learning computers and reading at the university. This didn’t stop me from getting into an excellent IB high school my junior year, and – really, with really not enough preparation – being part of the teams that won the Mock Trial and Model UN state championships. I dropped out of that high school, though, too, and yet was still able to – through a mix of a little cleverness and a lot of luck – rapidly take and pass my GED , and then convert that GED to a high school diploma at an adult school, and still get nearly a full scholarship to university, where, not surprisingly, I dropped out after three semesters. When you keep making risky bets, and good things happen while nothing very bad happens, you can get addicted to the thrill of bold action, risk-taking, and Romantic Play – this is fine, perhaps, for getting started, but the danger is in not realizing when things have changed. Until the age of 28 years old, or so, nearly everything I did was done Romantically. There were a lot of successes, but a lot of backsliding and failures and aggravations. Working with Kai began to change me – he’s hyper-classical. He has around a 99% success rate on his major projects… whereas my success rate had been around 30% when I took an honest look at it. To be sure, my 30% included some big successes, more than enough to keep going, but often I’d fail to consolidate the gains. Dr. Pulsipher notes that Romantic Players are often sloppy tacticians who cannot endure and grind out decent games if their big bets fail to pay off early, and this was me. Kai and I wrote Gateless together in 2014, our first very large collaboration together after years of friendship, and I started to see the value of his Classical style. But even then, I ran GiveGetWin Tour I in a way that really could have disintegrated (and only didn’t through force of will, some luck, and multiple all-nighters to force things to succeed). GiveGetWin Summer Camp I the next year, likewise, was highly Romantically played – it really could have failed; without Kai stabilizing both Tour I and Camp I, both would have failed, actually. To this point in my life, I’d had many abandoned – sometimes catastrophically failed – projects. My “mostly written books” in draft form that’ll stay forever unfinished list crept up every two years or so; frankly, I didn’t know how to guarantee that successes would happen if the Romantic “big bets” didn’t pay off on and get past the finish line on momentum. But these failures were a blessing for me, actually, forcing me to reexamine my premises. 12 years after starting university at age 17, I went back and took a couple boring classes to finish my undergraduate degree; after a severe illness and surgery, I sat down and slowly started focusing on one thing at a time. Laid up and recovering from surgery, Roguelike was the first book I fanatically hyper-focused on, and it was my first success running purely Classically from start to finish. Since then, I’ve nearly completely switched my orientations – these days, I have a “Doctrine” file that lists the only five things I’ll do: writing TSR, building GiveGetWin, building Ultraworking, training in one Impact Area, and the basic “stay sane” stuff like health, adherence, and spending whatever time I can with my closest friends. I still have the Romantic skillset in my toolbox – I can take bold actions to get going things going from scratch – but I was tempered and hardened by all the failure, and spent the last few years constantly training in operations, systems, consistency, habits, thoroughness, slowing down and doing everything as correctly as possible – deferring new projects until everything currently happening is guaranteed to succeed, and all the gains have been harvested. *** AN ACUTE STRIKE OF ROMANCE Hideyoshi Toyotomi, though, had experienced almost no failure on his rise to success. On his death bed, Tokugawa Ieyasu – the final Great Unifier of Japan – would collect a “testament” of guidance for his descendants. In it, one line sticks out to this amateur historian as having not been remarked enough through the ages – “If thou only knowest what it is to conquer, and knowest not what it is to be defeated; woe unto thee, it will fare ill with thee.” I’ve heard no one else say it, but I think Ieyasu must have been referring to Hideyoshi when he said it. Who else could he have been referring to? Toyotomi Hideyoshi had risen from peasant sandal-bearer, to soldier, to officer, to Oda Clan General, to samurai lord (daimyo), to de facto ruler of the Oda Clan in the aftermath of Nobunaga’s assassination, to ruler of all Japan – Kampaku, Grand Regent – through a mix of risky bets that had all paid off. All along, though, he had leaned on Kuroda Kanbei – who would take risks, but balanced them with a strong cautious Classical streak – and he successfully consolidated most of his gains. In full control of Japan, Hideyoshi had consolidated all of his gains. In January 1582, after Hideyoshi’s first son and half-brother had both died of natural causes, he named his nephew – his beloved sister’s son Hidetsugu – his heir. Hidetsugu was 23 years old, a seasoned battlefield commander, and well-respected by all the Toyotomi officers. Hideyoshi, correctly, officially retired as “Kampaku” and turned the title and official job of ruling Japan over to Hidetsugu; Hideyoshi took the title “Taiko” – Retired Grand Regent. Had Hideyoshi died in 1582, his family would almost certainly have gone on to rule Japan in the way that Tokugawa would later rule. But, in the year 1582, at the age of 56 years old, Hideyoshi still very much alive and feeling rather bored just a few months into retirement. Feeling restless, his Romantic Inclinations kicked in. *** WHAT RISK? And thus began the beginning of the end of the Toyotomi Clan. Wikipedia: Hideyoshi Toyotomi: Decline of Power – “With Hideyoshi's health beginning to falter, but still yearning for some accomplishment to solidify his legacy, he adopted Oda Nobunaga's dream of a Japanese conquest of China and launched the conquest of the Ming dynasty by way of Korea.” Hideyoshi Toyotomi had risen from an unknown peasant sandal-bearer, to soldier, to general, to samurai lord, to leader of the Oda Clan, to ruler of all of Japan – but it was not enough for him. When the Korean Kingdom refused to allow the Toyotomi forces safe passage through to fight China, Ishida Mitsunari was soon leading a 158,000 soldier invasion, taking many of the best and most loyal Toyotomi officers and soldiers with him. *** PRINCESS CHACHA’S REVENGE When Hideyoshi Toyotomi’s forces had defeated Shibata Katsuie 10 years earlier in 1583, Katsuie’s three step-daughters had been escorted from the castle and given safe passage to Hideyoshi’s camp. The oldest was Princess Chacha, 14 years old at the time. She watched her mother and step-father die in the flames of Katsuie’s castle. She was noted for her immense beauty right away, but many surviving sources noted Hideyoshi’s loyal retainers and his faithful first wife Nene taking an immediate dislike the princess. Something was… off… about her. Perhaps it’s understandable – seeing your parents die and your home burned to the ground at age 14 must be a scarring experience. Over the next 10 years, she became first the concubine, then the wife of Hideyoshi Toyotomi. More than anything else in the world, Hideyoshi had wanted a son of his own. He had been unable to conceive with his wife Nene or with any of his concubines. I’ve talked with many Japanese who know the history well, and it’s widely-agreed that Hideyoshi was almost certainly impotent; for whatever reason, he could not conceive a child with his first wife or any of his many consorts across the first 50 years of his life. But with the Hideyoshi at the age of 50, Princess Chacha was able to conceive. She gave birth to two sons over the next six years. The supposed first son died young, the second – Hideyori – was to be the ruin of the Toyotomi Clan. A Japanese professor’s take on Chacha and Hideyori – “"Toyotomi Hideyori was an illegitimate child," claims a Kyushu University professor. Toyotomi Hideyori (1593-1615) was not Hideyoshi's biological son…” “Hideyoshi, in spite of having many wives, was not blessed with an abundance of children. His relationship with the concubine Chacha, which he consummated when he was over 50 years old, was the only one that produced children - the prematurely born Tsurumatsu, followed by Hideyori.” “From the early Edo period theories abounded that Hideyori's father was Ono Harunaga, a retainer of the Toyotomi household […] It was at this stage that Professor Hattori, after calculating backwards from Hideyori's birthday on the 3rd day of the 8th month of Bunroku 2 (1593), examined whether Hideyoshi and Chacha could have shared the same bed on or around the 4th of the 11th month of the previous year…” The Professor constructed a number of diaries of the era. His conclusion? Hideyori could not, in fact, have been Hideyoshi’s son. *** HIDETSUGU’S END, AND THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE TOYOTOMI Princess Chacha is one of the most hated figures in Japanese history – Hideyoshi is seen as a nationally treasured figure in Japan for his miraculous rise, reforms, and brilliance through the first 50 years of his career… but the last decade of his life un-did the Toyotomi Clan entirely. Whereas the Japanese men I’ve met and discussed history with largely blame Hideyoshi for the failings at the end of his illustrious career, the Japanese women I’ve discussed history with universally revile Chacha as one of the worst people in Japanese history. In 1595, at Chacha’s urging, Hideyoshi ordered the execution of his sister’s son and his adult heir Hidetsugu, naming Chacha’s (likely illegitimate) son Hideyori as his heir instead. Perhaps he was slipping in old age, but earlier in his career, Hideyoshi had largely been merciful whenever possible to secondary figures and family members of the defeated. But with Hidetsugu’s death – and likely at Chacha’s urging – his whole household was butchered. Wikipedia: Toyotomi Hidetsugu – “Controversially, Hideyoshi ordered the execution of Hidetsugu's entire family, including children, wives and mistresses, at Sanjogawara. The harshness and brutality of executing 39 women and children shocked Japanese society and alienated many Daimyos from Toyotomi rule. Combined with the fact that Hidetsugu was the last adult member of the Toyotomi clan besides Hideyoshi himself, the whole incident is often seen to be one of the key causes of the Toyotomi downfall. In a particularly tragic case, Hideyoshi refused to spare the life of Mogami Yoshiaki's 15-year-old daughter, who had only just arrived in Kyoto to become Hidestugu's concubine and had not yet even met her husband-to-be. Her death caused the powerful Mogami clan to zealously support Tokugawa Ieyasu in the Battle of Sekigahara against Toyotomi loyalist forces, a mere 5 years later.” *** AS THE ROMANTIC UNMAKES THE CLASSICAL Well, this has ended on an unpleasant note, no? My apologies. Hideyoshi’s career was so brilliant and beautiful for the first 50 years of it, but in the end, he was unable to stop. But do note, this all actually happened. Those of us who strive and take risks should learn well these lessons – many brilliant world-building type people rise through taking Romantic risks at various times in their lives, but are unable to stop themselves and shift into Classical Play when risks are no longer called-for. The Invasion of Korea was certainly a Romantic type risk, and really quite foolish for the Toyotomi to dispatch from his newly unified Japan… … he might have even gotten away with that, though, if both himself and Princess Chacha had not behaved so romantically in pursuit of sole power for their young son – at least, Chacha’s son – at the expense of the talented and solid Hidetsugu. Remember – The classical player carefully maximizes his minimum gains. The romantic player tries to maximize his maximum gain, at the cost of increasing potential loss. Toyotomi Hideyoshi ruled the Nation of Japan, his succession was secure through his nephew, but he could not stop taking risks – he wanted maximum gain… even at the cost of increasing potential loss. And they would, indeed, lose everything. *** LEARNING WELL THE LESSONS OF CLASSICAL AND ROMANTIC PLAY The three main takeaways you should learn – 1. You should be able to identify Classical and Romantic Play in other people, and their natural motivations. It has immense predictive power. 2. You should be able to identify what situations you are playing Romantically, and what situations you are playing Classically. You should always know which is which. 3. If you’re playing Romantically, you absolutely must learn when to stop and shift gears to Classical. Contrast George Washington, Otto von Bismarck, Mustafa Kemal, Deng Xiaoping, and Tokugawa Ieyasu with Hideyoshi Toyotomi, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Alexander of Macedon, etc. Choosing “Romantic Play indefinitely” has, historically, a very predictable outcome. Please study this thoroughly. This concept is incredibly useful, and potentially life-changing. *** AUTUMN ARRIVES With the world at peace, messengers were not often hurrying at a gallop like they used to back in the day. In the summer of 1595, when one of Hanzo’s ninja arrived at a furious pace and requested immediately to meet Lord Tokugawa, it was of course granted immediately. When informed of Hidetsugu’s execution, Ieyasu simply replied – “Huh. Well, that’s a curious decision.” Shortly afterwards, Tokugawa Ieyasu was named to the “Council of Five Regents” to govern Japan if Hideyoshi died before his new child heir came of age. Three years later, in the Autumn of 1598, one of the Tokugawa ninja again came galloping at a furious pace. “Lord Hideyoshi has died.” Ieyasu nods and shows no expression on his face. The Civil War would shortly break out anew. Vantages #10: Patience Vantages #10: Patience A CONFUSING SCENE What’s going on here? The servants had come to leave dinner for Ishida Mitsunari in his jail cell, but hadn’t shut the door behind themselves, leaving it ajar. Mitsunari didn’t bother looking outside his cell for a couple hours, but eventually curiosity got the better of him and he walked outside carefully, mouthing, “Umm, I’ve finished, here’s the empty plates, thank you…” No reply. And no guards. What’s going on here? He walked a few paces into the open air in the castle grounds. There’s no one here. Is this a trick? Are they going to cut me down, or humiliate me in some way? Mitsunari walks a little further, still holding a dirty plate in his hand as though it would be his salvation if guards challenged him. Well, they said they were going to execute me anyways. They don’t need a pretense to cut me down. And so, Mitsunari drops the plate and runs towards the castle wall, scrambling up the ramparts. There’s no guards within sight here, either. Excited by this sudden reprieve from death, the uncaged bird does not think but instead flies over the side of the wall and tumbles into the moat, gets up, and runs for his life westwards. *** WELL, I SUPPOSE WE SHOULD PUNISH THIS NEGLIGENCE It is the year 1599 and Ieyasu’s old friend, the incomparable ninja chief Hattori Hanzo, had died three years prior. His eldest son Hattori Masanari was not as sharp as the father, but this mission was simple enough. Masanari and Ieyasu were alone, and knowing Masanari did not have the long decades with which to understand his tone of voice, Ieyasu made the orders very simple and plain – Ieyasu begins, “Since I suppose we really should punish this, umm, negligence… two things must be done.” Ieyasu continues, “The first is that we should send out patrols. I want you to direct them. Make sure the men look hurried and upset, but umm, don’t catch up with Mitsunari even if you can. Don’t send anyone who is reckless, innovative, or a glory-hunting type. The last thing we need is someone to cut him down and ruin the plan.” Masanari nods. Ieyasu finishes, “Secondly, technically someone ought to be punished. There’s two guards selected for the role, take them off to be “executed” but keep them safe in the mountains… but have your people watch over them – have them shave their heads and dress as monks at the temple, but always keep your ninja around. The men selected don’t have families and have agreed to the role, so it should be fine, but no letters and no wandering the mountain retreat – no one can know they’re alive until the aftermath. They’ll enjoy a nice rest in the mountains and be rewarded afterwards.” Masanari nods again. The Tokugawa patrols came scampering out the morning after Mitsunari’s escape, making a big show of looking very upset and searching nearby villages – villages that they already knew Mitsunari hadn’t passed through. The rumors spread thus – Tokugawa Ieyasu was furious at Ishida Mitsunari’s daring escape; people had been executed as a result. For a while, Ishida Mitsunari wondered how it had happened, but eventually he convinced himself it was due to his own bravery and brilliance. The proud General Ishida did not clarify or contradict the rumors of the daring near-run escape. *** FATHER, I DON’T UNDERSTAND In that year, Tokugawa Ieyasu was feeling strong at 56 years old. His third son and heir, Hidetada, had just turned 20 years old. Hidetada had been held hostage by Hideyoshi during the Siege of Odawara, at 11 years old, insurance against Tokugawa Ieyasu defecting to the Hojo Clan. Thus, though well-trained in scholarship and the theory of war, Hidetada had never seen his father in combat and not set foot on the battlefield himself. Some days after the “escape” of Ishida Mitsunari, father and son were walking outdoors together and talking. “Father, I don’t understand – he tried to have you assassinated! Why did you let Mitsunari escape?” “Shh, lower your voice. Our outrider-guards are loyal and far enough from earshot, but wars have been lost over smaller details leaking out.” Hidetada blushes. “Sorry!” he says quietly. Ieyasu replies quietly, “No, don’t be sorry, it’s a good question.” In no hurry to speak, Ieyasu takes his slow and steady steps and time passes. Hidetada knows better than to interrupt or interject, and walks alongside his father slowly. “Obviously, son, you know some of our history. But – again obviously – we don’t talk too much about the early days when I was a hostage at the Imagawa Court.” Ieyasu walks a little longer, mentally composing his sentences. “You were a hostage – technically – at 11 years old. But Hideyoshi always wanted to please and entertain his guests, and technically Hideyoshi and I were allies at that time, and there was not so much danger of a fight breaking out between us. When I was a hostage, it was a very different time.” Ieyasu walks a few steps more, composes the next sentence carefully – “You see, I was sent to be sent to the Imagawa when I was five years old…” – and now, something clicks in for the 56-year-old warlord, and he starts to relive those past memories to explain the roots of his thinking to his beloved son. *** VANTAGES #10: PATIENCE The Japanese have a whole host of witty sayings about The Three Great Unifiers of Japan. One that’s less flattering to Ieyasu than most – Nobunaga pounded the rice Hideyoshi baked the cake And Tokugawa Ieyasu ate it We have arrived at the final act of this epic and sweeping drama; Nobunaga hammered a new vision into the nation, but his assassination had cut off his life’s work halfway through. In fairness, Hideyoshi Toyotomi truly did usurp Nobunaga and his heirs – but despite that, Hideyoshi was a marvelous man with many splendid characteristics for the first 50 years of his life. He’s still well-loved by the Japanese for “baking the cake” of the peaceful era to follow. So in the end, why did Tokugawa Ieyasu wind up eating the cake? His family would rule Japan for the next 250 years. Ieyasu would answer you in one word, the single core virtue and operating principle that all of his life was based upon, and our Vantage for this chapter – Patience. *** BORN AT THE CROSSROADS “Hidetada, my son, my childhood was very different than yours. It can be hard to imagine at this time of ever-increasing authority and growing signs of peace and stability, but the whole of Japan was in war – war in every direction, many sides vying for power, total chaos and shifting alliances, with no overseer… Japan had been abandoned by the gods and kamis; there was no ability for the Emperor or the Shogun to enforce any sort of peace. “Born into that era, there was something special about the hostile lands that Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and I were born into – we were born not that far apart in time or space – those lands were a central battleground and time was always against us. We were forced to evolve and expand, or be boxed-in and die… it was always up-or-down, we could not choose sideways…” The Three Great Unifiers of Japan were all born in the same region – Oda Nobunaga had been born in Nagoya Castle of Owari in summer 1534; Hideyoshi was born 2 years later in a peasant hut in Owari in winter 1536; Ieyasu was born 7 years later in the neighboring Mikawa Province. These provinces were part of Japan’s “Tokaiko” – critical provinces that ran along the south coast of the center of the country. Anyone marching to or from the Imperial Capital of Kyoto into the eastern half of Japan has to at least consider taking the Tokaido Road; if your enemies control it, they can move troops and supplies faster than you. Even today, the Tokaido Road is the most heavily trafficked road in Japan – connecting Japan’s four largest cities of Tokyo, Yokohama, Nagoya, and Osaka with the ancient capital of Kyoto. It was, is, and remains a critical roadway. Thus, the Three Great Unifiers were born at a natural crossroads – and natural battlefield. Isolation and neutrality was not an option. In any conflict, there was the choice of “for or against” – across the larger arc of life, the two choices were “expansion or annihilation” – to fail to grow and expand, at those fateful crossroads, was to be destroyed. There was no other choice. *** FOR OR AGAINST: BETWEEN THE IMAGAWA AND ODA CLANS “Our old home province of Mikawa sat between two powerful and warlike clans – the Oda to the west, and the Imagawa to the east. In this conflict, each would send their armies directly through Mikawa to fight the other. We always had to choose who we were with; neutrality was to make an enemy of both clans…” In this lawless era of unrestrained conflict, Tokugawa Ieyasu’s grandfather – Hidetada’s great-grandfather – was murdered at the age of 25 years old, seven years before Ieyasu was born. Historically, Ieyasu’s clan – they were called the “Matsudaira Clan” at the time, but for simplicity I’ll just call them “Tokugawa” throughout the story to make it easier to follow as the Japanese changed names frequently in the era – historically, the Tokugawa Clan had been allied with the Oda. After the murder of Ieyasu’s grandfather, his father broke from this tradition and allied with the rising power of the Imagawa Clan to the east. This caused infighting among the Tokugawa Clan (still called “Matsudaira” at the time; again, we’ll simply refer to them as the Tokugawa for simplicity). There was internal infighting between secondary family members of the household. While the Tokugawa allying against them, the Oda Clan supported rebellion and made constant raids into Tokugawa lands. *** YOUNG PARENTS; NO PARENTS; HOSTAGE “Hidetada, it has been one of the greatest joys of my life to raise you into adulthood myself and to see you mature into a man. Your great-grandfather and your grandfather did not have such a luxury. Nobunaga and Hideyoshi had similar childhoods – we found ourselves alone in the world at a young age…” Ieyasu’s father Hirotada was 17 years old, and Ieyasu’s mother 15 years old, when he was born. Obviously, teenagers are not so worldly and do not know much about how to raise children. Making matters worse, Ieyasu’s father Hirotada had likewise lost his own father at age 10 when he had been murdered. In times of no law and order, people often are forced to create alternative ways of enforcing treaties and agreements. One of the most cruel of these, looking backwards, was the usage of family members and children as hostages and bargaining chips. The Oda Clan invaded Tokugawa lands once again when Ieyasu was five years old. The Imagawa agreed to push the Oda out, but demanded the young Ieyasu from his father as a hostage to seal the pact. The Oda heard that the young boy was being escorted to the Imagawa, and sent out a raiding party to capture him – and were successful. Wikipedia: Tokugawa Ieyasu – “[Oda Clan leader and Nobunaga’s father] Nobuhide threatened to execute [five-year-old] Ieyasu unless his father severed all ties with the Imagawa clan. Hirotada [Ieyasu’s father] replied that sacrificing his own son would show his seriousness in his pact with the Imagawa clan. Despite this refusal, Nobuhide chose not to kill Ieyasu, but instead held him for the next three years at the Mansho Temple in Nagoya.” *** FATHERLESS WARLORDS Having recounted the geopolitical landscape to Hidetada, Ieyasu now gets quiet for a moment, digging deep into painful memories he typically would not access or recall. After walking slowly for a time his son, Ieyasu composes himself and begins speaking again. Ieyasu’s father was assassinated the following year – he was alone in the world as a six-year-old. Two years later, Oda Nobuhide died from a sudden stroke or epileptic seize – most likely natural causes, but also possibly an assassin’s poison. Again, Nobunaga was nine years older than Ieyasu. There were now 17 years old and 8 years old, respectively, and both had lost their fathers. Hideyoshi Toyotomi would not appear in official histories and biographies until he was in his 20’s, and thus his origins were less clear, but it’s noteworthy that he, too, lost his father at a young age. It’s been remarked and noted, across all eras of history, that people who lose their parents young are often forced to mature faster and become hardened against worldly troubles. What, after all, can be more a poignant reminder of mortality than seeing one’s parents die young? All three Great Unifiers faced this exact situation, and constantly showed maturity beyond their years. When the Imagawa launched a successful invasion against the Oda and were about to seize a noteworthy castle, they offered a deal – they would lift the siege if the heir to the Tokugawa Clan, Ieyasu, was delivered to him. Thus, the nine-year-old fatherless Ieyasu was now delivered as a hostage to the other side of the war. *** THE EDUCATION OF A HOSTAGE “From the age of five to the age of thirteen, I was a hostage. If I spoke up or acted restlessly as a young boy, I was liable to be beaten. As I got older, the threat of death loomed over me. I did not play like the other boys – I learned to survive and bide my time.” As a boy, Ieyasu was noted to be constantly studying, almost “monk-like,” the works of Confucius and military histories of China. At the age of five, the Oda had threatened to execute him, and his own father had said – well, fine, the execution of my son only proves my loyalty to the Imagawa. Seeing no advantage thus in putting the young boy to death, the Oda had kept him as a bargaining chip, later trading him back to the Imagawa in exchange for keeping a castle they were about to lose. There’s a Japanese anecdote how, much later in life after consolidating his position, Ieyasu came across a samurai who had abused and tormented him as a boy. Spotting him while riding with retainers, now on the rise as one of the more powerful warlords of the era, he had the man arrested and executed. Maybe that story is true, and maybe it’s not, but it’s somewhat telling either way. Ieyasu learned to conceal his emotions, to not make shows of force or belligerence, to adopt a monk-like posture – but he remembered everything. Unable to play and enjoy himself like a normal boy, Ieyasu studied constantly and was certainly one of the most educated generals of the age. At the age of 13, the traditional year of coming-of-age for Japanese boys, the Imagawa married him to a daughter of a senor Imagawa Clan retainer, and then released him to return to Mikawa as its ruler. The 13-year-old Ieyasu had not been home since he was five years old. *** OUTLYING THE ODA/IMAGAWA WAR “Who could have predicted Oda Nobunaga’s daring raid at Okehazama? Certainly not Imagawa Yoshimoto, who lost his head there… to be frank, I was surprised too. But surprise indicates you had not thought things through well beforehand. Whenever you are surprised, you must learn from it – and never be surprised in the same way again.” Now released, Ieyasu joined the Imagawa war coalition against the Oda. After some initial skirmishes and maneuvers, in 1560 the warlord Imagawa Yoshimoto marched 25,000 troops into Oda lands. This was almost certainly going to be the end of the Oda Clan; they had less than 3,000 defenders, outnumbered at least 8-to-1. Meanwhile, Yoshimoto was strong and seasoned in the prime of his life at the age of 41. Oda Nobunaga was only 26-years-old, and still inexperienced and generally regarded as a fool. Well, there was a certainly a fool at the Battle of Okehazama – and it wasn’t Nobunaga. As described back in Vantages #2, the young Nobunaga marched around the Imagawa camp in the driving rain, and assaulted Yoshimoto’s headquarters directly, killing the man and many of his senior officers. In one of the most remarkable turns of fortune in history, the majority of the surviving Imagawa officers and soldiers swore allegiance to Nobunaga, instantly making him a major power in the region. Ieyasu had been besieging a lesser castle and was not present at the Battle of Okehazama. When he heard the news, he immediately brokered a secret truce with the Oda Clan. *** SPECIAL FORCES: HATTORI HANZO “Hidetada, it’s easy to see what’s plain to see. But greatness requires you seeing what’s unseen – you must read the motions of the world and the minds of men. You must also look forwards to what does not exist yet, but should exist, and create those things. In this ability to see and navigate the unseen, Hattori Hanzo was one of the greatest. Without Hanzo, we would have been defeated on at least a half-dozen occasions…” In the customs of the time, Ieyasu’s family was held hostage by the Imagawa even as he fought for them. If he had declared his new loyalty to the Oda publicly, his family would likely have been executed to make an example out of him. They were locked away in the Imagawa capital. This is type of ambiguous and dangerous situation is where the ninja chief Hattori Hanzo shined. Now, a quick word about ninja if you’re a Westerner – much of the Western movies and media about the samurai era are relatively accurate. Even the Tom Cruise movie is pretty good, and largely period accurate. With one notable exception – ninja. Ninja were not ultimate killer-warriors. A ninja facing a samurai in open combat would be cut to pieces. They had some skill with weapons, of course, but the samurai trained constantly in sword, bow, spear, and horsemanship. A ninja would never, ever willingly take the field in open battle against a samurai. The ninja were adequate with weapons, of course, but their true talents lay in getting intelligence to assess weak points, and to bring the best possible remedy for driving at the weak point. Ninja might assault a poorly-guarded caravan carrying supplies or ammunition, but they would never assault a well-defended caravan. They might set fire to the forest or fields adjacent to a castle to produce a distraction, but they would never directly assault a castle. They might assassinate a poorly guarded and complacent samurai lord, but they would never directly attack a well-guarded and alert samurai lord. Similar to modern-day special forces, ninja required a very rare set of natural talents, developed over years and decades, to flourish. They were highly secretive and very limited in number. The killed-in-action loss of a single excellent ninja was devastating to a clan; thus, movie scenes were 20 ninja drop down from the rafters and attack a group of armed samurai, a dozen ninja dying in the process, would be beyond foolish. It simply never happened. Hattori Hanzo came from an illustrious ninja line, the Iga Clan, which was loyal to the Tokugawa. Hanzo was only one year older than Ieyasu. By all accounts, they went beyond lord-and-vassal and were close friends and confidants. By some accounts, Hanzo – who had been correctly and intensely trained from birth – might have been sort of a mentor to Ieyasu, who learned his lessons of war and battle relatively late, due to the irregular development and training that came as a result of being a hostage for many of his formative years. In 1562, Hanzo and Ieyasu spotted an opportunity to break from the Imagawa without Ieyasu’s family being executed. Hanzo led the assault, using a famous Iga Ninja Clan technique called the bakemono-jutsu – the “ghost art” – of making paper lanterns carrying the Imagawa clan crest to gain entry into the Imagawa’s Kaminogo Castle. The Tokugawa forces having breached the outer defenses through ninja skill, the castle fell quickly and a number of important Imagawa family members were captured. These were traded back to the decimated surviving Imagawa Clan in exchange for Ieyasu’s family. Tokugawa Ieyasu was now publicly in Oda Nobunaga’s camp, where he would serve loyally until Nobunaga’s premature death due to assassination. *** SLOWLY AND STEADILY; LIGHTNING STRIKE; CONSOLIDATE “The history books ever and always celebrate the daring battles, but the wars are won before and after the battles, not during. Battles lead to defeat, not victory. Hidetada, you must learn this. Fighting desperately is not glorious; it means you have already made a mistake and taken an unnecessary gamble.” After establishing himself in Nobunaga’s camp, Ieyasu’s philosophy and operations were very consistent across his life. His surviving writings and quotes all echo the same themes. Many samurai warlords would give way to their emotions – greed, hate, love, lust, fear – they would rashly give battle to placate their own emotions, and not thinking of the larger picture. Ieyasu was different. He never moved rashly – his time as a hostage had hardened him; he learned to choke down emotions and make rational plans. When he decided on a course of action, it might take him two to three years to see it through faithfully until the moment was ripe. But when the time for action came, he would move into the action with the swiftness of a strike of lightning. And then, once again, return to quietude and consolidation. Ieyasu’s base was truly built and consolidated far before his most famous battles. From 1560 to 1567, he relentlessly and constantly upgraded and tweaked his soldiers’ armaments, the governance of his land, and reduced or eliminated hostile local opposition like the ikko-ikki insurgent monks. In this time, he did not do many “daring” things – this part of Ieyasu’s life tends to get glossed over in the history books – but he was able to use many small skirmishes and administrative missions to test which of his retainers were most competent. He rewarded and treated well the most loyal and diligent of his officers, and – perhaps due to having been estranged from the clan as a hostage for many years – he paid less attention to birth rank and seniority, and more to merit. He developed one of the finest corps of officers and retainers in all of Japan. *** BUYING RANK CHEAPLY “I’ve never cared personally for titles and honors, but I knew that in this era they mattered very much. I saw the motions of the waves and tides, son, and I recognized that sometimes we can acquire needed titles cheaply, and at other times they are devastatingly expensive. Though we did not need the name ‘Tokugawa’ in 1567, it was cheap to acquire that rank – and lo, where would be now without it?” The Imperial Court of Kyoto was technically in charge of all of Japan. Every warlord that took action would typically say they were doing it in defense of the Emperor. In reality, the Emperor had no power at this time, and would not have power again until the Meiji Restoration – revolution, really – over 250 years later in 1868. Yet, the Emperor could grant important ceremonial titles. In 1567, Ieyasu received the name he would use for the rest of his life – “Tokugawa Ieyasu” – changing his name from “Matsudaira Motoyasu.” In doing this, he claimed descent from legendary Minamoto nobility 750 years earlier, and claimed his bloodline lineage descended directly from the revered Emperor Seiwa (who had reigned from 858-876 AD). This was probably the only moment in his life that he could have gotten the title unchallenged – Nobunaga was now on the verge of being able to lead an invasion into Kyoto, and the Imperial Court wanted all the potential help it could get – diplomatically, militarily, politically… anything, really. Granting the title to Ieyasu was an inexpensive gamble at winning a potentially important ally. Meanwhile, Nobunaga had not consolidated power yet – having one of his most loyal senior allies be descended from an ancient bloodline suited him just fine at this moment. Tokugawa Ieyasu was defending the Oda Clan forces from assault from the east, and having a descendant of Seiwa nobility taking the field would both potentially be intimidating to enemy forces, potentially useful as a moral force, and would increase the prestige of their combined forces. A few years earlier or later, and this would not have been possible. The name and title did not do much for Tokugawa Ieyasu immediately – it didn’t make any practical difference in the short term – but it gave him greater legitimacy and prestige when he rose as the chief rival to Hideyoshi Toyotomi, and much later paved the way for him to being named Shogun (which was legally only possible to be granted to those of noble descent, which is why Toyotomi Hideyoshi only was able to take the second highest rank – Kampaku – and never Shogun). *** DRINKING FROM BITTER CUPS “Son, life is not constantly upwards. Most calamities are of our own making due to errors – and we must strive never to make errors – but sometimes, calamities are forced upon us by Heaven. I’ve been given some bitter cups to drink in my life – and, when it was Heaven’s Will, I drank them down in a gulp.” Hearing this saying from his father, Hidetada thought Ieyasu was going to talk about Hideyoshi’s outmaneuvering of him after the Battles of Komaki and Nagakute (as we discussed in Vantages #8: Restraint), or perhaps being forced to abandon Mikawa and accept the unknown Hojo lands in a dangerous bargain (as we discussed in Vantages #9: Classical and Romantic Play). But instead, Ieyasu told his son a story that Hidetada had only heard about in passing, one of the most shameful moments of the Tokugawa Clan, and one of the most painful memories of Ieyasu’s life. “Hidetada, your mother – Lady Saigo – was the great love of my life, the one closest to my heart and mind… she saw to a different part of the clan than Hanzo with his ninja, or Lord Honda on the battlefield, but was no less important for our foundation. She understood men and women perfectly; she was perfectly gentle and diplomatic in all situations, except where negligence occurred, and then she was as fierce as an avenging kami. But once the situation corrected, she was perfectly grateful and gentle again. “One of the few regrets in my life – I have few regrets; there’s no profit in regret – but one of my few regrets is not marrying her before illness took her away from us last year, too early. I miss her very much. Every time I look upon you, I saw her gentle and brilliant demeanor.” Ieyasu pauses for a moment, and – rare for him – sighs nostalgically. He pauses for a moment to collect himself, “But few people any more, for obvious reasons, talk about my first wife, Lady Tsukiyama…” Ieyasu then recounts the story, at times very slowly. In the year 1557, Ieyasu had been married to Lady Tsukiyama at the age of 13 to cement the alliance between the Imagawa and the Tokugawa. Two years later, in 1559, Tsukiyama gave birth to a son, Nobuyasu, who became Tokugawa Ieyasu’s heir. These two were held hostage by the Imagawa until Hattori Hanzo’s raid and capture of Imagawa hostages to trade in exchange for Ieyasu’s family. Firmly in the Oda camp now, Oda Nobunaga now married his daughter Tokuhime to Ieyasu’s son Nobuyasa in 1563. They were still children and would (obviously) not have consummated their marriage at this time, but this now made Nobunaga and Ieyasu into relatives. Over the next 16 years, though, Tokuhime and Nobuyasa grew together and became quite close, having two daughters together. For whatever reason, though, Lady Tsukiyama did not like Tokuhime, and arranged for Nobuyasa to take the daughter of a high-ranking Takeda samurai as concubine. Obviously, we saw the destruction of the Takeda Clan in Vantages #1: Why and How, but the Takeda had not been fully destroyed at this time, and the Takeda were still considered a preeminent clan on the scene. Nobunaga was at war with the Takeda, and they were still a major threat. Tokuhime wrote to her father, Nobunaga, telling him about Lady Tsukiyama’s potential treachery. Nobunaga was often brutal in times of stress, and he wrote to Ieyasu saying that Lady Tsukiyama should be executed. Ieyasu drank from this bitter cup, and Lady Tsukiyama was executed in 1579. Surprising Tokuhime, who by accounts loved her husband, Tokugawa Nobuyasa was instructed to commit seppuku. Historians have recorded that Tokugawa Ieyasu in later years felt very great remorse at this – he was known to love his children and grandchildren and feel far more attachment to them than was common for samurai lords in the era – but the thinking had been that, his mother executed, Nobuyasa might attempt something rash and attempt to take Nobunaga’s life, or defect to the Takeda or surviving Imagawa and raise rebellion. Thus, Ieyasu had been forced to see his first wife and eldest son killed under his watch. What cup could be more bitter to drink from? *** KARMA “Things tend to right themselves over time. I’ll say this about Hideyoshi: until the very closing chapters of his life when he started to lose his mind, he was incredibly merciful and far-sighted towards those he defeated. Nobunaga was not. Son, you should never make permanent enemies – not through spiting a man, nor through negligence. I never avenged my first wife and son against Nobunaga, and maybe I never would have, but karma tends to have its way with things. Nobunaga’s brutality and negligence, obviously, played some part in his end…” Ieyasu muses with Hidetada on why Nobunaga was betrayed and assassinated, and how it was a terrible karma that Nobunaga’s eldest son was killed the same day by the traitor Mitsuhide. Having opened some painful memories up to light, Ieyasu now drifts back and forth from various battles – the campaigns in the east before Nobunaga’s death, reflecting on Hideyoshi’s campaigns in the west and his rapid haste in returning to avenge Nobunaga’s death, reflecting that Mitsuhide also faced terrible karma. He walks Hidetada through the one major disaster of his life – his defeat to Takeda Shingen at Mikatagahara – and how it was only Hattori Hanzo’s close relationships with a former rival ninja clan that had allowed Ieyasu and Hanzo to escape with their lives. After admonishing the strictest secretary, he recounts how Hanzo assassinated Takeda Shingen – emphasizing again the points of patience, picking the right moment and spot for conflict, the cultivation of relationships, and the ability to “see the unseen” to shape affairs. *** PATIENCE “Which brings us to your first question – why did we let Ishida Mitsunari go?” Hidetada, who had been until now been largely quiet while simply listening, says: “Yes, father, I understand patience now much more. But I still don’t understand why we let Mitsunari go.” Ieyasu nods. “Do you understand how we defeated Hideyoshi on the battlefield at Komaki and Nagakute, and yet he won that war?” Hidetada says, “Well, Oda Nobuo was an idiot. I still can’t believe that. Yes, you said those points about swallowing the bitter cup, but our senior officers still rant occasionally when they’re drinking about what an idiot Nobuo was.” Ieyasu says, “Well, whose fault is it?” Hidetada is about to reply when he realizes it’s a trick question. He pauses, then replies – “… ours?” Ieyasu nods. “Why?” Hidetada thinks, thinks, and then connects the lines – “Because we were surprised?” Ieyasu nods. “And what do we do when we’re surprised?” Hidetada says, “We… well, surprise indicates we had not thought things through well beforehand… so we have to learn from it and never – oh, I see.” Ieyasu says, “Go on.” Hidetada says, “It’s like Hanzo’s ninja … we must drive at the weak spot. And a politically weak, rash, and foolish ally is a very weak spot.” The sun was now setting, and without Hidetada realizing it, father-and-son had looped back around from their long walk and were about to re-enter the castle grounds. They were silent on the rest of the walk, but Ieyasu was smiling as he crossed the threshold into the castle and the guards saluted. Ieyasu didn’t show emotion very often, but before heading back to their quarters, he embraced Hidetada and said, “I love you, son.” Hidetada chokes up a little as this rare emotion, tears almost coming to him unbidden. “Father…” But as he breaks off the embrace, Tokugawa Ieyasu’s face has returned to that unreadable neutral expression, as calm and sturdy as a mountain; his traces of nostalgia are gone. Before departing back to his own quarters, Tokugawa Ieyasu says – back in his normal stoic demeanor – “Now Hidetada, that’s probably enough emotion for this season. Get your armor. We’re going to war.” Vantages #11: Testament Vantages #11: Testament IN MEDIAS RES: THE SUN CLIMBS AT SEKIGAHARA The fighting had broken when the fog cleared at 8AM, and quickly, 100,000 Japanese soldiers from clans across the nation were locked in mortal combat. Guns and artillery exploded, men were slashed and stabbed, war cries of valor rose into the air – and sometimes stopped abruptly at the peak of their fervor. Ishida Mitsunari’s Western Army had less gunners, but superior numbers with 120,000 soldiers to only 75,000 for Tokugawa Ieyasu. Over 50,000 soldiers from each side were now committed to the battle. The Eastern Army's reinforcements have failed to arrive in time, and Ieyasu himself sat in the very center-rear of the Eastern Army lines. The Eastern Army begins falling back shortly as Mitsunari’s Western forces pursue in a frenzy of bloodlust. “We’re pushing them back!” Rallying cheers and shouts rose from the Western Army. As the news was reported to him on the northwestern slope of the battle, Ishida Mitsunari grinned broadly. “This will be the final battle! Rout them! Bring me Ieyasu’s head!” Two major Western Army detachments were uncommitted so far, most notably, Kobayakawa Hideaki sat with 15,000 strong gunner troops in a commanding position overlooking the battlefield in the southwestern corner. Mitsunari’s orders went out – full attack! Charge! Rout them! But Hideaki’s forces didn’t move to the sound of the war drums and conch shells. Mitsunari sent one messenger politely, then two more, gradually more forcefully giving the same simple order – Attack! Attack! Attack! As Hideaki sat underneath his commander’s standard observing the battle, two hours passed, and now messengers were announced as coming from two different directions. “My lord! Another messenger from General Ishida Mitsunari!” More quietly, another guard whispered to Kobayakawa Hideaki, “My lord! One of Tokugawa Ieyasu’s… messengers… has arrived.” Annoyed at being delayed from an audience with Hideaki, Mitsunari’s messenger simply shouted, “Kobayakawa forces! The battle is turning now! The time for the fight is now!” Hideaki frowned, sitting underneath his commander’s standard. On 21 October 1600 at Sekigahara, the Sun climbed to its highest height in the sky as the Western and Eastern Armies were locked in their bloody struggle. It was high noon as Sekigahara. *** VANTAGES, FINALE: TESTAMENT “I mean to do glorious deeds and I am ready for a long siege, with provisions and gold and silver in plenty, so as to return in triumph and leave a great name behind me. I desire you to understand this and to tell it to everybody.” – Hideyoshi Toyotomi, in a letter to his wife, shortly before consolidating power over all Japan Since ancient times, variants of a “last will and testament” have shaped human history. Of course, they often dispense personal property and real property – sometimes greatly shaping human affairs – but I think we should beyond mere things. What do our ancestors pass on to us? Surely, a vineyard or the claim to some iron mines might be valuable, but an heir untrained in management and economy is always quick to squander inheritance of mere things. No, the most precious thing that our ancestors bequeath most to us is their culture, their ethos, the memory of their animating force – that it might shape us and animate us in turn. Particularly sound testaments can certainly strengthen and fortify one’s culture, putting down permanent touchstones for future generations. But no mere document can ever override those deeper points, written in blood and sinew, not ink; while we come from dust and return to it, there is at least some chance that the most critical of ideas will live forever. *** THE TRUE TESTAMENT OF HIDEYOSHI TOYOTOMI At the time of his death, Hideyoshi Toyotomi had risen from being an obscure peasant sandal-bearer to being lord over all of Japan. But, perhaps due to misplaced and misguided lustful infatuation, perhaps due to mental illness, perhaps due to subtle defects of a character that could not simply enjoy the fruits of his labors after complete and total victory, he was unable to stop his expansionism. In 1592, only two years after unifying Japan, he sent his best soldiers to invade and subjugate Korea and China. Three years later, when an infant son was born to his treacherous wife Princess Chacha, he ordered the execution of his adult nephew and heir to the throne. With his best soldiers fighting, starving, and dying overseas, the successor to the Toyotomi Clan became a three-year-old boy. Three years later, Hideyoshi Toyotomi was on his deathbed. He called for a “Council of Five Elders” to be established and wrote a testament in ink – these men would hold the nation of Japan in trust for the child. But the ink from Toyotomi’s pen was not strong enough to overwrite the true compact he’d already written in blood. *** YEAR 1587 IN KOREA… With 133 warships and over 200 supply and transport ships, it was time for Hideyoshi’s fleet to finally destroy the Koreans at sea. Joseon Korea had turned out to be a far more fierce and menacing opponent than Toyotomi had believed – though the first invasion of Korea in 1582 had rapidly seen Toyotomi forces conquer Busan, Seoul, and Pyongyang, the Korean Navy under Admiral Yi Sun-Sin had repeatedly harassed and destroyed their resupply ships, leaving the Toyotomi land forces starving and under-equipped. But, through the use of spies and intrigue, the Japanese had convinced Admiral Yi’s enemies at court to have him arrested; later-known as one of Korea’s greatest heroes, remarkably, the Admiral had almost been executed for no reason. Admiral Yi’s successor had turned out to be rash and foolhardy, and 90% of the Korean Navy was sunk by Toyotomi’s fleet. There were rumors that Admiral Yi had been reinstated, but – so what? They had only 13 ships left. They gave pursuit to the depleted Korean Navy, attempting to control the seas once and for all. *** HASTE MAKES… “There they are! After them! Time to wipe the last remnants of their navy off the seas!” – and so Toyotomi’s hand-picked chief, Admiral Todo, gave the order for battle. The overwhelming force of the 133 Toyotomi warships under sailed for the sad baker’s dozen of Korean ships at the Myeongnyang Strait. Then suddenly, two of the first Japanese ships turned and crashed into the rocky coast as they caught an unexpectedly strong current. Suddenly, the foremost Toyotomi ship explodes from a direct hit from one of Yi’s cannon aboard his flagship. Seeing the Admiral’s flagship, Todo orders a full attack – but three of the first half-dozen ships converging on the position crash in the unpredictable currents and rocks, Yi’s canons make short work of two more ships, and the wreckage of Japanese warships are piling up. Admiral Todo is trying to rethink his orders when his own ship explodes in flames, himself getting seriously wounded and half of his officers on the flagship being killed. Too late, the currents begin to shift – slowing the Japanese retreat and aiding the Korean counterattack. 30 Japanese warships are destroyed without the loss of a single Korean ship. The battering of the Japanese Navy shows the Chinese how vulnerable they are, and the Korean fleet under Yi swells to overwhelming numbers. In 1598, Admiral Yi Sun-Shin dies in the final naval battle of the era – while 300 of the 500 ships in the Toyotomi fleet are annihilated. The Toyotomi forces had been defeated in Korea. *** DISEMBARKATION They had sailed out from Japan well-fed samurai, strong in body, supple in muscle, with glittering armament and adornments. They returned half-starved, many friends and allies dead, the sheen and shine worn off from their equipment. Nevertheless, even defeated, they breathed a sigh of relief at setting foot on home soil. But right away, Kuroda Kanbei – formerly the most trusted right-hand man of Toyotomi – had been called to account for cowardice and treason, along with Hideyoshi’s adopted son Kobayakawa Hideaki. Rumors swirled – Ishida Mitsunari, the harsh Inspector-General who had replaced Kuroda Kanbei as Hideyoshi’s most trusted confidant, had spread much poison about Kanbei and Hideaki. The fate of the two men was unclear, but they heard the news and gossip right away upon disembarking in their homeland – Mitsunari had tried to have the two tried for treason, and then finally succeeded in having Toyotomi Hideyoshi give an order confiscate their lands to marginalize them. It had been Tokugawa Ieyasu’s strong intervention on behalf of the two men that had those orders countermanded while preserving Kanbei and Hideaki – which had, of course, infuriated the vain Mitsunari at the crafty old Tokugawa (who had kept his own soldiers out of the Korean Invasion). As the Toytomi’s soldiers returned in dishonor from the ruinous Korean Campaign, harried and half-starved, many good men sent to their graves, they received a chilly welcome – and then were shocked to find that Lord Toyotomi had died, and it had been kept secret until the withdrawal. *** THE TESTAMENT OF IEYASU What you select as your religio, your ethos, that which animates you – this gets written into every facet of your deed, character, and legacy. That which is written in blood is ever infinitely more solid than that which is written in ink. We become our philosophy; not that which is stated, but that which is lived. Along the way, we make friends and allies, and build our family. Most of the people we attract to ourselves and bond with end up being people who are similar to ourselves in philosophy. Some might be different-but-complimentary, and yet – by definition – none who are in perfect harmony with ourselves can be antithetical to what we are. And Tokugawa Ieyasu was, perhaps, the antithesis of the final years of Hideyoshi Toyotomi. Three years after the Battle of Sekigahara, he was named Shogun – the highest military rank in all of Japan. The next year, he wrote The Testament of Tokugawa Ieyasu for his heirs – "Life is like walking along a long road shouldering a heavy load; there is no need to hurry. One who treats difficulties as the normal state of affairs will never be discontented. Patience is the source of eternal peace; treat anger as an enemy. Harm will befall one who knows only success and has never experienced failure. Blame yourself rather than others. It is better not to reach than to go too far." *** SIXTEEN YEARS AFTER SEKIGAHARA The year after writing his Testament, Ieyasu officially retired from power, naming his adult son Hidetada as Shogun, and went into heavy consolidation mode while reforming the domestic laws of Japan. Fifteen years after Sekighara, he wrote the Buke Shohatto, “Various Points of Law For Warriors Houses,” to govern samurai conduct – “1. The samurai class should devote itself to pursuits appropriate to the warrior aristocracy, such as archery, swordsmanship, horsemanship, and classical literature. 2. Amusements and entertainments are to be kept within reasonable bounds and expenses for such activities are not to be excessive. 3. The han (feudal domains) are not to harbor fugitives and outlaws. 4. Domains must expel rebels and murderers from their service and from their lands. 5. Daimyō are not to engage in social interactions with the people (neither samurai nor commoners) of other domains. 6. Castles may be repaired, but such activity must be reported to the shogunate. Structural innovations and expansions are forbidden. 7. The formation of cliques for scheming or conspiracy in neighboring domains must be reported to the shogunate without delay, as must the expansion of defenses, fortifications, or military forces. 8. Marriages among daimyō and related persons of power or importance must not be arranged privately. 9. Daimyō must present themselves at Edo for service to the shogunate. 10. Conventions regarding formal uniform must be followed. 11. Miscellaneous persons are not to ride in palanquins. 12. Samurai throughout the realm are to practice frugality. 13. Daimyō must select men of ability to serve as administrators and bureaucrats.” This mix of moral stricture and sheer pragmatism was the rock the Tokugawa Shogunate was built upon. *** SIXTEEN YEARS EARLIER: THE TESTAMENT OF ISHIDA MITSUNARI In the last years of his life, Hideyoshi Toyotomi went from being one of the greatest diplomats and generals in all of Japanese history – to one of the very worst. Cleverness and boldness had always hallmarked Hideyoshi, but so too had friendship and goodwill… at least, in his early years. But after Hideyoshi’s final total victory in Japan, these virtues faded. His oldest friends were alienated from him; a number of them were executed. The insane over-ambitious invasion of Korea was launched. His nephew, the loyal and faithful son of his beloved sister, was executed at the treacherous Chacha’s insistence. In the wake of an ethos like this, the good and the great began to leave the service of Hideyoshi Toytomi, first slowly, then quickly. In their place, a man with a comparable ethos settled in – whereas the genius Kuroda Kanbei had one been Hideyoshi’s right-hand man, now the irascible, cynical, and short-sighted Mitsunari took his place. In Korea, he alienated and denigrated many of Hideyoshi’s most loyal generals and vassals. After Hideyoshi’s death, he rose to be the leader of the Western Army. When Tokugawa Ieyasu’s forces captured him, Ieyasu himself ordered his guards to let Mitsunari escape – lest a more competent general take his place. *** INGENIUM EX MACHINA: THE SUN’S PEAK AT SEKIGAHARA Ishida Mitsunari had almost defeated the Eastern Army without needing to battle – two weeks earlier, they had been on the verge of taking hold of all of Central Japan. But then, the childhood friend of Ieyasu, Torii Mototada, held out at Fushimi Castle against overwhelming odds for nearly two weeks before finally dying in the flames – his has been called “the most beautiful death in history.” And so, at Sekigahara, one of the key crossroads of Japan, the Western and Eastern Armies formed up to battle. With Tokugawa’s reinforcements running late, by noon Ieyasu’s Eastern Army was on the verge of collapse. Perched above the battlefield, Kobayakawa Hideaki had been promised the title of “Kampaku” – Grand Regent – by Mitsunari prior to the battle. Mitsunari had known of Hideaki’s ill-will towards him, and had attempted to placate him in the weeks before with promised bribes of wealth and honors – wealth and honors that he had tried to strip away from the young man much earlier in life, unjustly and unprovoked. Kuroda Kanbei’s son Nagamasa had already joined Tokugawa’s Eastern Forces against Mitsunari, and now, Kuroda and Tokugawa sent ninja and messengers calling for Hideaki to defect. The young Hideaki was paralyzed with fear and indecision – he sat on the summit of the battlefield; the fate of Japan, it turned out, was in his hands. Across the battlefield, in the Eastern Army’s center, Tokugawa Ieyasu sees his lines giving way. “Well,” Ieyasu frowns, “I hate to gamble, but the time is now. Fire on Hideaki’s position.” *** ALEA IACTA EST: THE SUN’S DESCENT AT SEKIGHARA Eastern gunfire nearly misses the front lines of Kobayakawa Hideaki. “They’re firing on us!” one of his attendants yell out. “Who?!” shouts Hideaki. “Eastern Army! Your orders?” Hideaki frowns. He would have to choose. There was no sitting this one out. “Will Ieyasu withdraw successfully if he is defeated, or will he captured and killed?” One of his retainers nods, “I believe he might withdraw, Lord Kobayakawa. He has another 30,000 soldiers in reserve, and he’s wily. He probably gets away.” Hideaki lowers his voice: “And if we join the Eastern side?” “Well… probably a complete collapse. We overlook the whole southern part of the battlefield. Yes, Mitsunari will completely collapse.” Hideaki pauses. The first volleys from the Eastern Army had been warning shots. You can’t remain neutral. You must choose. “So be it! Raise the banner of revolt! We’re with Lord Tokugawa!” *** AB OVO USQUE AD MALA: SUNFALL AT SEKIGAHARA “WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?!?” Mitsunari was beyond frazzled. Victory had seemed within grasp, and then their entire battlelines had started disintegrating from the inside out. Smoke and gunfire, the screams of dying men filled the air, and triumphant shouts rose from the Eastern Army rang as they rallied from their formerly desperate position. “Lord Mitsnaru! Kobayakawa Hideaki has defected to the Eastern Army, a quarter of our forces are destroyed!” Shouts rang from the battlefield below as Tokugawa Ieyasu’s reserves mobilized and charged into combat. “Lord Mitsunari! Kikkawa Hiroie has defected to the Eastern Army!” The floodgates broke. Western Army soldiers began throwing away their weapons and running for their lives. “Lord Mitsunari! The Choshu Mori have withdrawn from the battlefield!” Tokugawa’s Eastern Army went from fighting desperately for its survival, to fierce conquering pursuit. The tide had turned. “Lord Mitsunari! Ogawa Suketada has defected to the Eastern Army!” Mitsunari shook his head and chuckled slightly. He didn’t know what else to do. And as footsoldiers rushed past him disarmed, fleeing the victorious pursuing Tokugawa forces, Mitsunari left his commander’s standard where it stood, and ran for his life. *** EX POST FACTO: ET ALII, ET HOC GENUS OMNE, ET CETERA Mitsunari died like he lived – Badly. His execution was particularly unpleasant. Two types of samurai had defected from the Western forces in the weeks preceding Sekigahara, or on the day of that desperate battle – The first were men who were honest and diligent enough, but who chafed at Mitsunari’s heavy-handedness and scheming, were disgusted by Hideyoshi’s overreaching invasions of Korea and execution of his nephew, and otherwise were good, decent, and loyal men who could not serve under the brazen cruelty that the late-Toyotomi and Mitsunari regimes had come to stood for. The second were always unreliable and treacherous – perhaps unsurprisingly, including former senior officers of Akechi Mitsunari who had fanned the flames of the civil wars by assassinating his own lord, Nobunaga – this type had been among those to defect to Tokugawa on that fateful day. While the unreliable and treacherous had been treated with extreme caution even after defecting, those who had come over to the Eastern side before the battle, out of goodwill and seeing the superior virtue of Tokugawa Ieyasu, were rewarded well and came into his service. The Kuroda Clan, led to power by the virtuous Kuroda Kanbei, had gone from the most loyal Toyotomi supporters, to drifting into the Tokugawa camp before the final battles. In a desperate struggle, it only takes a few men of great courage and ability switching sides, to re-shape an entire conflict. Mitsunari had alienated the best, behaved rashly, and held court only among the worst. In time, the forces attracted to Tokugawa Ieyasu’s stalwart virtue drifted into his camp, leaving Mitsunari with the most unreliable and inconsistent of men – who, in turn, led him down at the climactic moment. Mitsunari’s testament, too, was written in blood. All of ours are. *** IMPERIUM IN IMPERIO: VANTAGES CONCLUDES It’s been my great honor to share these chapters with you; this series was originally published in essay form from 8th September to 17th Novmber 2016. I received a huge amount of correpondance, replies, and thoughts from regular readers during that time – for which I’m incredibly grateful. Likewise, I’m very grateful you choose to read Machina and join us in learning life-long lessons from Japanese history. Thank you. Many of the battles covered, to the best of my knowledge, have never been covered in a fast-moving period-accurate historical fiction in English, ever. I took time to go through primary and secondary sources, sometimes working from (quite difficult to parse) Japanese translated into English by software. Obviously, we do not know the inner thoughts and private discussions of Hideyoshi and Kanbei, Ieyasu and Hanzo, and the other great generals of the age. But I’ve aimed to be as correct as possible in the known factual details, and for the other accounts to hew as closely to the known characters of the lords of this era. Any mistakes are, of course, my own, but I have tried to be accurate. I don’t want to end on the postscript of the treacherous Princess Chacha and her teenage son being forced to commit suicide in 1615, the year before Ieyasu’s death, so I will simply skip past it. But one can wonder, historically speaking, how things might have turned out if she had cultivated patience and reigned her husband’s bad traits in, instead of fanning them like flames, if perhaps her lineage would have survived and thrived. We’ll never know, of course, what would have happened. We do know what happened to the family of Tokugawa Ieyasu – they would rule Japan for the next 250 years. It was only the Industrial Revolution being exported to Japan, and adopted by the Boshin War revolutionaries that led to Imperial Japan. It was the 15th generation Tokugawa Shogun who finally abdicated in 1867, ending over 250 years of Tokugawa reign. Ieyasu’s descendants still live in Tokyo to this day, and are something of a respected curiosity to Japanese people, occasionally getting written up in the newspaper. That is something, is it not? To both build a system of government that can endure for over 250 years – and only ending with a massive foreign intervention and completely unknown disruptive technologies emerging – and likewise, laying down a testament for one’s ancestors to follow closely and learn by heart. I find much wisdom in Lord Ieyasu’s writings – he might be said to be the Marcus Aurelius of Japan… if only Marcus Aurelius had experienced a much more difficult and brutal struggle to survive, and had Commodus turned out to be a wise and peaceful ruler. Study these quotes again and again; Ieyasu wrote them in beautiful calligraphy, yes that’s true, but moreover, he wrote them in blood and spirit – "Life is like walking along a long road shouldering a heavy load; there is no need to hurry. One who treats difficulties as the normal state of affairs will never be discontented. Patience is the source of eternal peace; treat anger as an enemy. Harm will befall one who knows only success and has never experienced failure. Blame yourself rather than others. It is better not to reach than to go too far." Can we pass on such things to our children? Is the force that animates us merely the present, or can we think generations out, living our lives as exemplars of patience, fortitude, frugality, temperance, economy, friendship, and family. These were not words written with a pen; words, cheap words, paper to be discarded. No, these virtues were written with a much more permanent sort of ink. An alternative translation of those opening lines of Ieyasu’s Testament, after all those years of struggle through hardship, survival as a hostage, desperate struggles, life and death, virtue cultivated, patience embodied – “Life is like unto a long journey with a heavy burden. Let thy step be slow and steady, and thou will stumble not.” – Tokugawa Ieyasu, the Third Great Unifier of Japan, Founder of the Tokugawa Shogunate *** VALE, ET VALERE This closes our series on Vantages, but I can’t help but recount that story one more time for its wisdom – There is a famous parable in Japan about the three Great Unifiers of Japan. In the parable, all three are in a tea garden, along with a Zen Buddhist monk. A bird lands on a nearby tree branch. The monk asks each man, “If you want the bird to sing, and the bird does not sing, what will you do?” Nobunaga speaks first – “If the bird does not sing, I will kill the bird.” Hideyoshi speaks second – “If the bird does not sing, I will make the bird want to sing.” Ieyasu is quiet. “And you, Ieyasu? What will you do if the bird doesn’t sing?” Ieyasu answers – “Wait.” TEMPORAL CONTROL TEMPORAL CONTROL Temporal Control #1: Prelude Temporal Control #1: Prelude PRELUDE TO DISASTER, I: MAYORIAL RECEPTION “Mr. Mayor, I come here on a visit and I am greeted with bombs. It is outrageous.” The Archduke’s fury is understandable. It is almost 11 o’clock in the morning, and the Mayor did not adjust accordingly to the incident at hand. The visit to Sarajevo had been planned and announced in advance; now some unknown terrorist a mere half-hour earlier had thrown a grenade at the Archduke’s motorcade. Nobody is too worried; people are more offended than worried. The Mayor was apparently not the sharpest tool in the shed – despite the grenade incident a few minutes prior, he had begun to run through all the formalities of welcoming the Archduke into the city and began to give a prepared speech without acknowledging things. The Archduke is furious and begins shouting at the imbecilic Mayor. Duchess Sophie, the Archduke’s wife of 14 years, pulls her husband aside, whispers to him, soothes him, and the Archduke calms slightly. The Mayor finishes his hackneyed speech. The Archduke takes his speech from his attendant, and gives it, and follows up with some remarks thanking the people of Sarajevo for the warm reception and defense of the monarchy after the failed terrorist attack. The assembly breaks off with all its Viennese-style formalities, and there is some discussion among the Archduke’s retinue and security about what should be done. The Archduke – a courageous man across his life – does not want to go into hiding, instead saying that they should visit the Sarajevo hospital and see those wounded in the grenade attack. A number of the Archduke’s retainers suggest waiting for soldiers as an escort, but the local governor, Oskar Potiorek, thinks this is all silly and unnecessary. He shakes his head; encourages everyone to be practical, says – “Do you think Sarajevo is full of assassins?” *** PRELUDE TO DISASTER, II: A CHANCE SANDWICH Police and soldiers were scrambling through the area. Cowards! Idiots! Damn! Damn! Damn! Gavrilo Princip was eating a sandwich, trying to look inconspicuous, compose himself, and calm his nerves. He still had the .380 ACP semi-automatic pistol tucked under his clothing, but what good would it do? Of the six Yugoslavian nationalist “Black Hand” assassins stationed to grenade and shoot at the Archduke, only one had acted – the 19-year-old Nedeljko Cabrinovic had thrown the grenade which wounded two members of the motorcade and two dozen pedestrians. His suicide attempt had failed – he had taken a cyanide pill and jumped in a river, but he threw up the cyanide and a crowd dragged him from the river and beat him before he was arrested. The other assassins dispersed rapidly. The attempt was a failure. A manhunt would be on soon for the remainder of the crew. Princip is eating a sandwich. Damn. Damn. Damn. Damn. They were not much older than children, really – still teenagers, more brave than ready for their macabre mission. The young would-be assassins had been equipped with money, grenades, semi-automatic pistols, and forged access passes to get by guards into position along the motorcade’s route. But even though half of the band had opportunities to attack, they froze when the moment came. Now the mission was a failure, and the manhunt would be on. What to do? Princip no doubt considered dumping the handgun and incriminating evidence as he finished his sandwich at Schiller’s Deli, when – wait, what is that? The Archduke is en route to the hospital, but the driver was not told the route was to be modified. The driver brakes quickly and the primitive automobile stalls and comes to a halt… right in front of Schiller’s Deli. As Princip walks onto the street, immediately in front of him, the Archduke and the Duchess sit in the stalled car. Princip pulls the .380 semi-automatic from his clothes, and charges the car, firing wildly. A bullet grazes the Archduke’s neck; another round pierces into Duchess Sophie’s stomach. The car pulls away wildly as Princip tries to commit suicide; his cyanide fails, too, and the police tackle him and wrestle him to the ground, arresting him. As the car speeds away, the Archduke does not realize the glancing blow to his neck – not so painful, really – has severed an artery. He’s more concerned about his wife. He holds his wife in his arms, the wife he defied his father The Emperor to marry, for love; his wife of 14 years and mother of their three children. She’s bleeding badly, her eyes are rolling back into her head. Franz Ferdinand holds her closely, whispers, coaxes, begs, pleads – “Sophie! Sophie! Don’t die! Live for our children!” Ferdinand’s retinue ask the Archduke about his own wounds as Sophie is dying. He shakes his head, partially out of shock, not realizing how serious is the wound in his neck. He reassures the men in the car – “It is nothing… it is nothing… it is nothing…” But slowly, he starts gurgling his words, makes a low death moan, and the world would never be the same again. The couple are both dead within the hour. It is just before noon on the 28th of June, 1914, in Sarajevo. *** PRELUDE TO DISASTER, III: DECIDING BY THE SWORD Things move quickly. 1. Austria threatens war with Serbia. 2. Russia threatens war with Austria if the Austrians invade Serbia. 3. Austria inquires if Germany would attack Russia, if Russia attacked Austria as a result of Austria attacking Serbia. 4. Germany says they would fight Russia if Russia attacked Austria. 5. Germany asks France if they would defend Russia if Germany attacked Russia. 6. France says they would attack Germany if Germany attacked Russia. 7. Germany asks Belgium if their troops may pass through Belgium to attack France. 8. Belgium refuses to allow the Germans to attack France through Belgium. 9. Germany asks Britain if they will attack Germany, if Germany invades France through Belgium. 10. Britain says they will attack Germany if they attack France through Belgium. 11. Germany attacks France through Belgium. 12. All hell breaks loose. The British reaction to the violation of Belgium is well-understood through one of its newspapers. 22 August 1914, in The Spectator, emphasis added – “THE Times of Wednesday published a piece of news in regard to the final interview between Sir Edward Goschen, our Ambassador at Berlin, and the German Imperial Chancellor, Herr von Bethmann Hollweg, which is of the highest significance. If the report is true—and we feel confident that the Times would not have given it such prominence unless convinced of its truth—the Imperial Chancellor expressed with considerable irritation his inability to understand the attitude of England, and added: “Why should you make war upon us for a scrap of paper?” The Times goes on to tell us that “Sir Edward Goschen is reported to have replied that he understood the German statesman’s inability to comprehend British action, but that England attached importance to ‘the scrap of paper’ (the Treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality) because it bore her signature, as well as that of Germany.” Here we have in a nutshell the causes which produced the war—that essential difference of opinion and conflict of will which when they occur can only be decided by the sword, or by one or other of the nations concerned giving way, and through fear yielding to or adopting the view which it began by contesting. To put it in concrete form, we had either to adopt the German view that “scraps of paper“ —that is, the solemnly pledged words of nations—must be treated as mere shams of no binding force, or else endeavour to make our view that they are something more than ”scraps of paper” prevail by the supreme sacrifice of war. Thank God! the British Government and people did not hesitate, but were unanimous in resolving to keep their plighted word, though it might be to their own hurt, and not yield to the “scrap of paper” view of public morality.” *** PRELUDE TO DISASTER, IV: THE CONFISCATION The anecdote has largely been forgotten among the epic tragedy of the First World War, but it might be instructive to think for a moment about how Ottoman Captain Rauf Bey felt those days in August. Greece’s Navy had grown strong and they were implacable enemies in the decades prior to the First World War. They contracted to buy two battleships from the British Empire and had paid for them in full. They were to be delivered in August 1914. Captain Rauf Bey wrote of the incident, “We paid the last installment (700.000 Turkish liras). The manufacturer and we agreed on that the ships would be hand over on 2 August 1914. Nevertheless, after we made our payment and half an hour before the ceremony, the British declared that they have requisitioned the ships... Although we have protested, nobody paid attention.” The dreadnought to be named “Sultan Osman I” – after the Sultan who founded the Ottoman Empire – was renamed “HMS Agincourt” after the famous English battlefield victory. On 5 August 1914, the Ottoman Ambassador to London, Tevfik Pasa, telegraphs back to Istanbul – “When I was informed that the British government has seized two warships of ours and asked our officers to leave, I went to see the under-secretary of the Foreign Office. He said that these measures have been deemed necessary by the Admiralty. When I asked if it is a definitive seizure, he said that it was not an act that obliges the British government to buy the ships, and the government is free to buy them or to return them to us in the future. I tried to question the legitimacy of this arbitrary action, but he didn’t want to discuss and simply repeated what he said before.” In the grand scheme of things, the reactions of Rauf and Tevfik are not so significant. But, obviously, it would have had considerable impact on Ottoman opinion when they made their reports in Istanbul. Captain Rauf, in particular, must have felt rather bitter after overseeing construction for many months at the shipyards, making the final payment, and then being told his crew could not take the ships – right at the deadline. The Ottoman sailors considered simply trying to take the ships by force from the port. The First Lord of the Admiralty had considered the possibility, and ordered the British sentries to stop them by force if they tried. Oh, and that First Lord? You know him. It was a 39-year-old Winston Churchill. Almost exactly three months later, the British and Ottoman Empires would be at war. *** DISASTER AT GALLIPOLI, I: SLOWNESS AND FASTNESS 1914 is ending. The “Miracle of the Marne” turned back the German Imperial onslaught – barely – in early September. The Germans had been five miles from Paris at their closest. Trenches were dug. The short “war to end war” seems like it will take longer than expected. The British Admiralty, under Churchill, begins exploring plans to see if they can break open the war in the Mediterranean. In the East, the Russian Empire looks shaky; despite vast manpower, it is disorganized, the country’s economy is in ruins – it looks like it might collapse. The Russian monarchy appeals to Britain for help in January of 1915. The Ottoman Empire controls the water gateway between the Mediterranean Sea and Russia’s key warm-weather ports in the Black Sea. Istanbul was built right on top of those channels in the Dardanelles. The plan began to form. With Russia suffering and the Western Front a stalemate, the British might break open the war by conquering Istanbul and opening the Straits. *** DISASTER AT GALLIPOLI, II: OBSOLESCENCE AND SENTIMENT The weather is clearing. It is March 1915 in the Mediterranean. But Admiral Carden asks for his dismissal from the Navy on the 15th of March. This is concerning, because the so-called “Carden Plan” was approved two months ago on January 15th, and is to begin in two days. The objectives under the Carden Plan – “(a) Destroying the forts at the entrance of the straits; (b) Destroying the inner defences from the entrance of the straits until Kepez; (c) Silencing the batteries at the Narrows; (d) Cleaning the mines, destroying the defensive positions at the Narrows and entering the Sea of Marmara.” In two days, the British fleet is supposed to destroy the Ottoman forts guarding the approach and force the Dardanelles, but Carden’s mental and physical health are failing. It is never a good idea to change a commander immediately on the eve of a major operation, but Churchill has no choice; Carden is done. Vice-Admiral de Robeck replaces him on 17 March – the full naval attack is to happen the next day. The initial naval attack goes very well. By 2PM on 18 March, the Ottoman defenses look like they’re going to fall. The outer fortresses, artillery, and fire control systems are being systematically destroyed. The artillery from the shore has ceased to fire entirely; Ottoman morale is shattered. And then, a loud explosion and confusion. Within rapid seconds, the French battleship Bouvet is entirely under the water with all hands lost, shocking the combined British and French fleet. What happened? The Admiral does not realize at the time that they had missed hidden sea mines; the misunderstanding is that the French ship was torpedoed. Ottoman artillery is heartened and comes alive again with the sinking of the French warship. The critical defensive minesweeper ships, under civilian crews, panic and withdraw. A little after 4PM, the British HMS Inflexible hits a mine and begins to sink. Almost immediately, the HMS Irresistible hits a mine and must be evacuated. Admiral de Roebeck orders a withdrawal of the fleet. *** DISASTER AT GALLIPOLLI, III: THE ARMADA SAILS AWAY Hearing the news from British Admiralty HQ, Churchill is furious. He sends orders repeatedly to press on with the attack – the Ottomans are almost beaten. De Roebeck cannot do it; he did not prepare the campaign as commander and was not psychologically ready to see ships under his command sink. Later that summer, questioned about the losses, Churchill was irate: “That is not the point! They ought to have gone on. What did it matter if more ships were lost? The ships were old and useless!” The Admiralty had been willing to lose the obsolete ships – it had been a tactical price they were willing to pay, to potentially shorten the World War. The tactical price had already been paid nearly in full – the American Ambassador was in Istanbul and talking with Turkish and German officers about the attack. In the chapter in his memoir, “The Allied Armada Sails Away, Though On the Brink of Victory”, Ambassador Morgenthau would write – "I returned to Constantinople that evening, and two days afterward, on March 18th, the Allied fleet made its greatest attack. As all the world knows, that attack proved disastrous to the Allies. The outcome was the sinking of the Bouvet, the Ocean, and the Irresistible and the serious crippling of four other vessels. Of the sixteen ships engaged in this battle of the 18th, seven were thus put temporarily or permanently out of action. ... for days [the Ottomans and Germans] anxiously waited for the fleet to return. The high tension lasted for days and weeks after the repulse of the 18th. We were still momentarily expecting the renewal of the attack. But the great armada never returned. Should it have come back? Could the Allied ships really have captured Constantinople? I am constantly asked this question. As a layman my own opinion can have little value, but I have quoted the opinions of the German generals and admirals, and of the Turks---practically all of whom, except Enver, believed that the enterprise would succeed, and I am half inclined to believe that Enver's attitude was merely a case of graveyard whistling; in what I now have to say on this point, therefore, I wish it understood that I am giving not my own views, but merely those of the officials then in Turkey who were best qualified to judge. Enver had told me, in our talk on the deck of the Yuruk, that he had "plenty of guns---plenty of ammunition." But this statement was not true. A glimpse at the map will show why Turkey was not receiving munitions from Germany or Austria at that time. The fact was that Turkey was just as completely isolated from her allies then as was Russia. There were two railroad lines leading from Constantinople to Germany [which were not operating effectively]. [...] Let us suppose that the Allies had returned, say on the morning of the nineteenth, what would have happened? The one overwhelming fact is that the fortifications were very short of ammunition. They had almost reached the limit of their resisting power when the British fleet passed out on the afternoon of the 18th. [...] "We expect that the British will come back early tomorrow morning," he said, "and if they do, we may be able to hold out for a few hours." Once these defenses became helpless, the problem of the Allied fleet would have been a simple one. The only bar to their progress would have been the minefield, which stretched from a point about two miles north of Erenkeui to Kilid-ul-Bahr. But the Allied fleet had plenty of mine-sweepers, which could have made a channel in a few hours. North of Tchanak, as I have already explained, there were a few guns, but they were of the 1878 model, and could not discharge projectiles that could pierce modern armour plate. North of Point Nagara there were only two batteries, and both dated from 1835! Thus, once having silenced the outer straits, there was nothing to bar the passage to Constantinople except the German and Turkish warships. The Goeben was the only first-class fighting ship in either fleet, and it would not have lasted long against the Queen Elizabeth. The disproportion in the strength of the opposing fleets, indeed, was so enormous that it is doubtful whether there would ever have been an engagement. Thus the Allied fleet would have appeared before Constantinople on the morning of the twentieth. What would have happened then? We have heard much discussion as to whether this purely naval attack was justified. Enver, in his conversation with me, had laid much stress on the absurdity of sending a fleet to Constantinople, supported by no adequate landing force, and much of the criticism since passed upon the Dardanelles expedition has centred on that point. Yet it is my opinion that this exclusively naval attack was justified. I base this judgment purely upon the political situation which then existed in Turkey. Under ordinary circumstances such an enterprise would probably have been a foolish one, but the political conditions in Constantinople then were not ordinary. There was no solidly established government in Turkey at that time. A political committee, not exceeding forty members, headed by Talaat, Enver, and Djemal, controlled the Central Government, but their authority throughout the empire was exceedingly tenuous. As a matter of fact, the whole Ottoman state, on that eighteenth day of March, 1915, when the Allied fleet abandoned the attack, was on the brink of dissolution. All over Turkey ambitious chieftains had arisen, who were momentarily expecting its fall, and who were looking for the opportunity to seize their parts of the inheritance." The Ottomans re-arm and rebuild their defenses. Istanbul would never fall to sea or ground operations; the Ottomans would surrender with their capital intact – only 12 days before all of the First World War ended. And yet, if this naval half-measure had ended in March 1915, it would not have been particularly damaging to the Allied cause. But this was not to be. *** DISASTER AT GALLIPOLLI, IV: UNDER-COMMITMENT Was it now a sound strategy to attempt to take Istanbul by amphibious invasion? It can be debated. Probably: yes. It was doable. A total of 31,750 of combined British Mediterranean Expeditionary Force, Allied Entente Soldiers, and spearheaded by the now legendarily-renowned Australia and New Zealand Army Corps – ANZAC – landed on 25 April 1915. They were met in a desperate struggle by 16,700 Ottoman troops with no machine guns, poor road and resupply networks, and not enough ammunition. The Turks were on the verge of being overrun – “At Seddülbahir, 4,700 Turks faced 14,000 Allied troops and the number of casualties were 1,700 and 2,200 respectively. At Arıburnu, 8,500 Turks faced 14,500 Allied troops and the casualties were 2,500 to 2,000. Turkish casualty rate was highest in Kumkale; 3,500 troops saw action and the casualties were 1,735. For the French, this rate was 778 out of 3,250.” On the heights overlooking the beaches at Chunuk Bair, the Turkish defenders run out of ammunition. The 57th regiment was out of ammunition and down to only bayonets… the Ottoman capital is about to fall. In a moment to rival the Spartans at Thermopylae, a 34-year-old Lieutenant Colonel sees the war is about to be lost. He orders the 57th regiment – “I don’t order you to fight, I order you to die! By the time we die, other units and commanders will have up to take our place!” Remember his name, we'll return to him later in this series: this is Mustafa Kemal, who not too long from now, will radically alter the course of history in the Middle East. Nearly 100% of the soldiers of the 57th are wounded or killed. Yet the Turks hold. *** DISASTER AT GALLIPOLLI, V: HALF-COMMITMENT One-third of the Allied invasion force are casualties after the initial fighting. Not realizing that the Ottomans are almost beaten again, Major-General William Birdwood requests evacuation. General Sir Ian Hamilton denies evacuation and plays it halfway. In one of the single worst orders in British military history, he advises, “You have got through the difficult business, now you have only to dig, dig, dig, until you are safe.” The Ottoman Turks have minimal ammunition, insufficient transportation, reserves have not arrived – but they’re coming – and otherwise, are set to be overrun if high command will push for it. Alternatively, the British could have cut their losses there. Instead, they dig in – setting up camp trapped near to the waterline, the Turks holding the high ground above them, the sea-weather regularly making soldiers’ lives miserable. *** DISASTER AT GALLIPOLLI, VI: OVER-COMMITMENT The Allies – primarily British Empire forces – keep reinforcing Gallipoli. They tripled their initial troop commitment, but the greater number of troops just made the terrible positions on the beaches and coves even more unsanitary and inhospitable to human life. With an amount of troops that would have guaranteed an easy and early victory if deployed at the start of the campaign, Allied forces would too-late swell from 5 divisions to 15; eventually they would deploy 568,000 men to Gallipolli; 252,000 of them would become casualties. Meanwhile, all advantages of surprise were lost. The Central Powers shipped equipment and ammunition as fast as possible to the Turks, who roughly tripled their own strength to 16 divisions and 315,000 soldiers – more than enough when holding the high ground, with time to dig trenches, and fighting in their homeland with the friendly capital a few miles away for resupply and troop rotation. The British and French forces at Gallipoli become sicker, weaker, and more demoralized as time passes – while the bravery of the units stays strong, the toll of living pinned down close to the sea, in close quarters, with corpses and excrement around oneself… it takes its toll. The battle at Gallipoli was lost far before the final major offensive in August; Allied forces were finally fully evacuated from Gallipoli in January 1916. It was the worst single battlefront in British history. *** TEMPORAL CONTROL #1: PRELUDE The word “Temporal” is curious – and useful. It means “relating to time and space” but has also been commonly used to differentiate between the “temporal” and “spiritual” realms – back when these were more commonly believed things. There’s often been arguments in powerful mainstream religions of how much temporal authority they should have – laws, courts, jails, inquisitors, money, gold, artwork, buildings – as compared to merely their great spiritual authority over the next world. “Temporal condition” has often been used to remark on the fact that all humans live in time and space – we all die someday, of course. It’s a curious thing, when you stop and think on it – right now we are, some day we won’t be – at least in this temporal form. We exist as stuff, matter, but also in time. Whatever. We don’t need to think about this too much. This series – while hopefully being intensely thought-provoking and showing you some of the invisible lines that all our decisions follow from as try to navigate life – is nevertheless more interested in the practical dimensions of Temporal Control than the philosophical ones. Oh, yes – an important note. When you hear Temporal Control, think more like “Quality Control” and less like an upset 13-year-old hollering, “Stop controlling me, Dad! I hate you!” You, obviously, cannot control time. You can, however, study it – measure it – navigate it. You can choose your next actions and do them. If things don’t unfold the way you like, you can study why and make adjustments. This is a good thing. And we do this similar to Quality Control engineers. Most people are too caught up in current moment. They greatly overestimate what they can do now, and underestimate broad and grand arcs of time unfolding. Let’s imagine for a moment that you were completely unskilled; you had no career, trade, or profession at all. (Perhaps like the upset 13-year-old.) How fast can you successfully build a career? Very likely not in the next 30 minutes. Almost certainly over the next 10 years. And yet, we arrive 10 years to a terrific future only by stringing a lot of highly effective 30-minute blocks together. Here is a question we will explore in Temporal Control, but really, you ought to ask yourself the question pretty regularly anyways: “Is what I’m doing in this current 30-minute block serving to build the next 10 years of my life the way I want to?” Some readers are nodding. “Oh, yes, a familiar topic. This series sounds nice. Sebastian is going on to something I already know pretty well.” Other readers might perhaps be getting a little tiny bit anxious. Maybe saying something like, “Uhh, well, I can’t be doing the right thing all the time, can I?” Actually, I think you can and should do the right thing all the time. Really, at the risk of sounding a mix of grandiose and boring, I think taking life seriously makes a lot of sense. I think it also makes sense to be pragmatic and have self-awareness. You don’t have to (and probably shouldn’t) always follow whatever the definition of “mainstream responsibility” is constantly – if you think going to an electro-rave on Friday night is the right thing for you, then by all means, get to it. If you think it’s not the right thing for you, then... don’t go. If you want to go to it, that’s because you think it’s the right thing for you, right? No really, stop and reason through that. I know our readership tends to be much more sophisticated than the mainstream, and I know this might seem like basic stuff, but let’s linger here, for a moment, for just a couple paragraphs more. Most people are a conflicted bundle of mess. They have different competing urges and impulses, and instead of reconciling and owning them, they instead fight some sort of terrible internal struggle, a tug-of-war between competing objectives with rapid oscillation and lots of self-hatred in the process. If you’re doing that – and I understand because I used to do that – maybe you ought to ask yourself, is that serving you very well? Look, if you’re going to go to a rave, it’s presumably because you want to go rave, so acknowledge it and go rave and enjoy yourself. And if you don’t want to go, umm, don’t go. It’s really that simple. (And yet, it’s not. I know. We’ll cover it more thoroughly in this series.) *** THE BRIEFEST OF LESSONS FROM THE WORLD WAR It’s hard to appreciate just how complicated the First World War was. I was originally going to just cover Gallipoli from the British perspective, but the context makes it more useful. And I left a lot of relevant scenes out; on my cutting board, I’ve got another 10 outlined (not fully written) scenes: from Berlin, from Moscow, from Belgium, from commando movements, from London, from a lot of places. There are two reasons I recommend you study World War I more thoroughly: (1) It created the modern world. Most people know too little about it, and would do well to beef up their history muscle in this area. (2) It’s got many of the most ”wow that could have gone either way” moments in history. Slightly better planning, communication, security, decisionmaking, focus, speed, resources, diplomacy, phrasing of words, resources, etc – a tiny little bit more in any number of places could have made an overwhelming difference, affecting millions of lives and all of world history forevermore. Honestly, it makes my head spin a little to think about. Like, wow. Oh my goodness. That was close. Napoleon famously said, “All great events hang by a hair. The man of ability takes advantage of everything and neglects nothing that can give him a chance of success; whilst the less able man sometimes loses everything by neglecting a single one of those chances.” This is the stuff we’ll consider in Temporal Control, both looking for pragmatic guidance and smarter mental models for seeing and processing the world. Here are a few rapid lessons from World War I you can apply to your own life, to help not make errors in crises. These lessons don’t look at what people could have done 10 or 20 years earlier (different types of militaries, technology, infrastructure, diplomatic policies, etc) but instead just basic stuff that can and should have been done at any time, as well as better decisions in the moment. Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination – *If the Archduke had waited for soldiers to arrive, it would not have happened. Lesson: Do not act too hastily in a risky situation where there is no advantage to speed. *If Governor Potiorek had insisted the Archduke wait for soldiers to arrive instead of encouraging the bravado, it would not have happened. Lesson: Arrogance can be fatal. *If they’d had a better security protocol in place for emergencies, it might not have happened. Why were they even arguing over where to go once events unfolded? It should have been decided in advance. Lesson: Have contingency plans. *If they’d had better security at all, it might not have happened. Lesson: Take defensive measures with foresight. *IF SOMEONE HAD JUST TOLD THE DRIVER THE ROUTE WAS CHANGED, IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. Lesson: Don’t neglect obvious trivial details, especially during a crisis. … if any of those take place, perhaps World War I doesn’t start. Britain and Ottoman entrance into World War I – *With a less inflammatory entrance into the war by the Germans (cavalier “scrap of paper” remark), perhaps British public opinion is not so inflamed. Lesson: Use tact and be conciliatory when there’s no good reason to offend someone. *The British very likely could have gotten the Turks to join them against the Central Powers had they treated them well, and just asked outright which side of the war they want to join instead of starting by telling them the ships are confiscated. (There was a strong pro-British camp in Istanbul before that event.) Lesson: Don’t presume hostility and create enemies unnecessarily. *The British nevertheless still could have kept more diplomatic options open by being more conciliatory, promising to pay the Ottomans back the money with interest, potentially guaranteeing them against aggression from Greece as long as they stayed neutral/friendly (the main reason they wanted the ships)... or at the very least, not insulting the Turkish officers and diplomats so brazenly. Just a few minutes of courtesy might have delayed Ottoman entry into the war, helping Russia and allowing Russia to commit more resources to fighting Germany. Lesson: Think through your options before acting rashly. (With hindsight, you might think “it’s not a big deal” that the Ottoman Empire became an enemy power to the Allies. But consider, if Turkey joins the Allies, the war ends a lot faster, Russia probably does not collapse and go Soviet, and — if you look closely — there were at least two moments on the Western Front where the Central Powers almost won. If France had BARELY fallen, it would have looked mighty stupid getting the Ottomans into the war on the German side.) Lessons from Gallipoli – *If Churchill had been better-prepared for Sackville Carden’s resignation, they might have broken thorugh the Dardanelles on the first day of naval expeditions. Lesson: Have succession/transition plans in place for key roles in your life. *Once Carden resigned, Churchill should have ensured Vice-Admiral de Robeck knew the plan and triple-confirmed it, since it was counterintuitive. Lesson: Don’t assume people understand the plan. *De Robeck withdrawing on the verge of victory was disastrous. Lesson: Ensure your people know their relative priorities and context (a few ships sunk to save at least hundreds of thousands of lives, and maybe millions if the war ended earlier, would have been a good trade. De Robeck didn’t see the bigger picture and context.) *Significant problems in the chain of command, and too much improvisation lead to the wrong mix of over-conservatism in the moment while getting committed and over-investing in the failed endeavor. Lesson: Ensure you and your people focus and are on the same page with critical priorities. *Underinvestment into the first Dardanelles amphibious invasion meant barely losing. Lesson: The worst result is taking 99% of the cost and getting none of the gains; do not “barely underinvest.” *They played it halfway and didn’t evacuate or advance when they took casualties on the initial landing, thus being in the worst of all possible worlds. Lesson: Never play it halfway in anything that matters. *The British then doubled down and reinforced failure repeatedly, building up their reinforcements and commitment at a slower rate than Ottoman defenses were improving... even while the campaign was likely already lost. Lesson: Don’t do that. Temporal Control #2: Unit of Account Temporal Control #2: Unit of Account AN INFINITELY EXPANDABLE WAY OF STRUCTURING VALUE… “Humans have found many ways to bring order to the phenomenological flow of existence, and money is one of the most important. Money is strictly a human invention in that it is itself a metaphor; it stands for something else. It allows humans to structure life in incredibly complex ways that were not available to them before the invention of money. The metaphorical quality gives it a focal role in the organization of meaning in life. Money represents an infinitely expandable way of structuring value and social relationships – personal, political, and religious as well as commercial and economic.” -- Jack Weatherford's 1998 “History of Money” *** THE THREE MONEY THINGS Find yourself an economist and ask, “Economist, what is money?” The economist will then clear his or her throat, adjust his or her spectacles, and say, “What is money? It is three things – 1. A store of value, 2. A medium of exchange, and, 3. A unit of account.” Following this juicy tidbit of wisdom passed along, the economist may well then clear his or her throat a second time and smile knowingly, as if to say: dismal science? Indeed, no; truly, we are at the epoch of history. But, of course, he or she will not verbalize such bravado aloud; it goes contrary to the whole notion of being an economist these days. The first concept of money is simple enough – as a store of value. My last book before Machina was Progression. It is still selling nicely. It’s being sold for U.S. dollars. Those U.S. dollars will then sit in the bank without problems. If, instead, I’d traded each copy of Progression for a half-gallon bottle of milk, well, I’d have now have many half-gallons of milk that were about to go bad in my refrigerator. Never mind that it would be massively inconvenient to get all those bottles of milk shipped to Tallinn, Estonia where I’m spending the early summer with Kai. In the past, lots of things have been used as money. Tobacco was a common one; in Virginia, before the American Revolution, taxes were often paid in tobacco. The issue, again, is that tobacco still had to be re-sold reasonably quickly before it went bad. Gold doesn’t go bad. Gold, thus, make a better store of value than tobacco. (Both are better stores than bottles of milk.) Well, that’s easy enough to understand. Store of value. “Sorry, we won’t trade you copies of this book in exchange for bottles of milk, because we can’t drink it fast enough. We’ll take gold – or dollars – though, because we stack them in a pile and leave them there until we know what to do with them.” “Money as a store of value” – easy enough to understand! Money as a medium of exchange, well that sounds fancy at first, but is not so hard to understand. American economist Paul Samuelson said this about barter – “Unless a hungry tailor happens to find an undraped farmer, who has both food and a desire for a pair of pants, neither can make a trade.” In other words, without a single useful type of money that everyone wants, the tailor who wants food needs to go around searching for an undraped farmer with a surplus of food. This is, obviously, dreadfully inefficient. (The fancy economist term for this is “a double-coincidence of wants.”) “Money as a medium of exchange” – the tailor and farmer can transact in gold or dollars – easy enough to understand! But we are most interested in the third thing that money is, a unit of account. Now, what pray tell, is going on here? *** GYGES: ASSASSIN, THEN KING In 716 BC – or, almost exactly 2,700 years ago – Gyges kills King Candaules of Lydia, marries the assassinated monarch’s wife, and proclaims himself King. The new King Gyges now promptly makes his way to Delphi, to bribe the Oracle there with gold and treasure, to confirm him as rightful ruler; the Oracle duly makes the confirmation. If the name rings familiar to you, it’s likely from Plato. The “Ring of Gyges” is from that Gyges, the one who killed Candaules and took the dead Candaulus’s wife and kingdom as his own. There is some dispute as to Gyges’s rank and background pre-assassination/ascension – Plato allegorically names him a shepherd who discovers a magical ring, another tale has him as the head of Candaules’s security forces; another source names him a diplomat; perhaps one of these is true, or perhaps none of them have it right. Regardless, Gyges settles in and apparently governs quite well. The Kingdom of Lydia continues to get richer and richer. The geography is well-suited for it – Lydia overlapped with Western Anatolia, one of the key trade routes (and battlegrounds) of all of history. In modern times, Western Anatolia is Turkish; 2700 years ago, it was Lydian. The Lydian capital, Sardis, was nearly exactly due-South from modern Istanbul, and nearly exactly due-East from modern Izmir. If you drew a line on a map straight down from Istanbul, and another line straight east from Izmir, they’d meet around where Sardis was. The players in the region, those days, were the disunited and quarreling Greeks and Thracians to the West, and a mix of disunited chieftainates to the East: of them, the Medeans and Persians were notable, but not all that notable yet. They will be soon, but are not yet. The Phrygians reside within Lydia’s sphere of influence, and are most likely vassals of Lydia; or perhaps they are right on the outskirts of Lydian power. Regardless, the two kingdoms each nice relations. The most famous Phrygian you’ve no doubt heard of, King Midas (that King Midas), but Midas will play no part in the coming story. Simply note – the Kingdom that the Greeks would tell the “golden touch” fable about was most likely a vassal to Lydia; that’s how rich and powerful Lydia was. *** AS RICH AS CROESUS One of Gyges’s grandchildren, probably King Alyattes, struck the first modern coins in Lydia. The kingdom was already flourishing with its importance along the trade routes and good natural resources, but under Alyattes and his son Croesus, Lydia rapidly became the richest kingdom in the world. Despite few people these days remembering Lydia’s existence, “as rich as Croesus” is still an expression in a half-dozen languages across the world, including English. It’s hard to overstate just how big of a deal standardized coined money was in only a few words, but let’s try. Here’s Jack Weatherford’s “History of Money” again – “The emergence of the money system and its sibling, the public market, imposed a new kind of mental discipline upon human beings. Long before people needed to become literate, the market had made it necessary for them to be able to count and use numbers. People were forced to equate things that had never before been equated. It is often difficult for us to think back to the pre-monetary era, since we are so accustomed to thinking in terms of groups, sets, and categories of things.” Indeed, it was a really, really big deal. King Alyattes got a lot of things right: the coins had standardized weight and bore the seal of the royal mint – making them easier to trade with, and harder to counterfeit. He got the denominations correct. Weatherford – “The genius of the Lydian kings can be seen in their recognition of the need for very small and easily transported ingots worth no more than a few days' labor or a small part of a farmer's harvest. By making these small ingots in a standardized size and weight, and by stamping on them an emblem that verified their worth to even the illiterate, the kings of Lydia exponentially expanded the possibilities of commercial enterprise.” – thus avoiding the double-coincidence of needs problem; the tailor no longer needed to find a farmer with excess food and no pants. And, predictably with hindsight, this leads to the first retail selling in history – “The variety and abundance of commercial goods quickly led to another innovation: the retail market. Rather than leaving buyers to seek out the home of someone who might have oil or jewelry to sell, the kings of Sardis set up an innovative new system in which anyone, even a stranger, with something to sell could come to a central market. Numerous small shops lined the market, and each merchant specialized in particular goods. One sold meat, and another offered grain.” The final result of this will be an incredible spiral that leads to a standard unit of account for a whole lot of things (not everything, but a whole more than the first 200,000 years of human existence). Here’s a last big excerpt from Weatherford… it might seem kind of mundane, but given that almost all of modern society is built on these principles, I’d recommend you read it for comprehension (I also recommend reading the entire book, which is both terrifically informative and very readable) – “Money made possible the organization of society on a scale much greater and far more complex than either kinship or force could have achieved. Kinship-based communities tend to be quite small: bands of sixty to a hundred people tied through kinship and marriage to similar neighboring bands. The power of tributary systems and the state to organize humans proved far greater than mere kinship. A tributary system could easily include millions of people divided into provinces and classes and administered by a bureaucracy with a well-established system of keeping records. The use of money does not require the face-to-face interaction and the intense relationships of a kinship-based system. Nor does it require such extensive administrative, police, and military systems. Money became the social nexus connecting humans in many more social relationships, no matter how distant or how transitory, than had previously been possible. Money connected humans in a more extensive and more efficient way than any other known medium. It created more social ties, but in making them faster and more transitory, it weakened the traditional ties based on kinship and political power. “Money also became the medium for the expression of more values, making a great leap forward when its use was expanded from the realm of articles and commodities to something as abstract as work. A man or woman might be paid for cleaning out the stables, for a day's work at the spinning wheel, for help in chopping timber or in feeding the animals, or for a sexual act. Work and human labor itself became a commodity with a value that could be fixed in money according to its importance, the amount of skill or strength it required, and the time it took. As money became the standard value for work, it was also becoming the standard of value for time itself.” You can see, there, the cycle and spiral that made the Lydian Kings – Croesus the final of them – so very rich. Coined money let you trade with outsiders without a close relationship. Instead of needing to form bonds of trust and reciprocity over months and years, you could just pay a few coins to have someone help you muck out your stable. If you had a surplus of crops from this year’s harvest, you could sell them for coins, and use the coins in a future year if needed. Suddenly, the barrier to work is lower – you no longer need close kingship networks of trust and reciprocity. The barrier to trade is lower – for the same reasons, and now there's a one-size-fits-all thing to trade in the deal (coins) – and people start doing more “work” for coins, thus leading to an upward spiral of more buildings, more trade, more crafts, more investment, more cultivation, and so on. Before, a farmer would be very happy to grow enough crops to feed his immediate family. Maybe a little extra to trade to the blacksmith or toolmaker. But it didn’t make sense to try to grow as many crops as possible, because there was nothing you could trade it for easily that you wanted, once you’d covered the basics. But now, you could farm as much as you wanted, trade it for coins, and bank the coins for future usage, even if nothing was for sale that you currently wanted or needed. And again, I can’t emphasize this enough – this was the first time in 200,000 or so years of human history that this was true. *** TEMPORAL CONTROL #2: A UNIT OF ACCOUNT Aside from being interesting background on how modern money came into existence, it is my hope that this chapter triggers one obvious big takeaway, and one non-obvious big takeaway. The obvious one I’ve already beaten you over the head with. Obvious Big Takeaway: Before modern money, things ran much more messily. There was much less ability to trade and cooperate. There was nearly infinite less opportunity, with nearly infinitely more corruption, domination, and nepotism. The ability to work, to generate work, to measure work, to cooperate with strangers, to engage in complex projects, to save and invest for the future – really, a whole lot of aspects of civilization – were not possible. That’s the obvious one. We’ll get to it in a minute, but if you feel like challenging yourself, do you think you can guess what the non-obvious one is? *** CONSIDER: PRICE =/= VALUE We have readers from a variety of walks of life. And a common factor is that this readership is definitely a couple cuts above the mainstream. (And I don’t think that’s even such a cocky thing to say, what with much of the world falling prey to a constant bombardment of, “One Weird Trick, From An Unemployed Truck Driver, To Lose Belly Fat!”) And yet, some of us like math more than others. I like math. I’m not super math-y, but I use arithmetic to my advantage pretty well. I feel like most of using math well is just that – doing some quick adding, multiplying, and dividing when you want to get things done. The monetization of things gives them all a price, but price doesn’t always match value. For instance, oatmeal – you know, just plain ol’ fashioned oatmeal – is considerably cheaper than processed sugary cereals which are less satiating, more expensive on a per-calorie basis, have less fiber, and otherwise ruin your energy levels and make you fat. We’ve talked about this in the past, and will undoubtedly do so in the future, but there is much gain to be had from breaking things down into Component Parts, and buying the components at the best price you can find. For breakfast, you’ve got the three macronutrients (protein, carbohydrate, fat), you’ve got micronutrients, you’ve got fiber, you’ve got taste, you’ve got convenience., you might have some “enjoyment” separate from those other variables… and that’s about it. So now you can go optimize for each one of those. For breakfast, for the last six weeks I’ve been stirring boiling water into whole oats (takes under 60 seconds), then stirring in plain yogurt, one scoop of chocolate-flavored whey protein powder, a spoonful of spirulina (gives it an unpleasant swamp-like color, but tastes fine and good for you), and then one or two of cinnamon, dried raisins, frozen blueberries, or dark chocolate to keep it entertaining. This is not so expensive, has a good macro and micronutrient mix, etc. Monetized prices mean the cost of things and their value don’t necessarily match, at all. Oatmeal is much cheaper (price) than its components-gained for breakfast (value). Break down into component parts of what you want, and put things back together to get them as cost-effectively as possible. *** CONSIDER: SELF-SUFFICIENCY An approach to consider taking – one I don’t do myself, but is worth considering – is getting away from the standardized modern view of hyper-specialization and starting to produce, manufacture, and perform more of your services yourself. Jacob Lund Fisker was able to cut his costs to as close to zero as possible, and can do everything from mixing his own chemicals and repairing his own engines, to navigating the tax code and even doing basic dental work on himself. He called his website “Early Retirement Extreme” for a reason, and I’ll just say outright – it’s not for me. I have no inclination to learn how to make cleaning products from scratch to save a few dollars. But nevertheless, it’s inspiring. He’s offering a pre-modern alternative and greater self-sufficiency. And despite the fact that I’d rather specialize in my core skillsets and then deploy surplus time to nonprofit and creative work, I still periodically look back on Fisker’s book and website as inspiration and to not take reliance on consumer goods for granted. *** CONSIDER: THE BIG ONE Here’s the big one. Before money, there was gigantic amounts of friction, confusion, and inefficiency in everything. People could not coordinate work effectively without people who had deeply trusted kinship networks already. It was hard to store value for the long-term. There was a lot of oscillation between heavy toil and idle periods with nothing valuable to done. Ineffectiveness all around. The invention of modern money changed things immensely, almost overnight. Suddenly, more work could happen. More production could happen. More cooperation could happen. Lots of good things could happen. Here’s that Weatherford quote we opened with, again – “Humans have found many ways to bring order to the phenomenological flow of existence, and money is one of the most important. Money is strictly a human invention in that it is itself a metaphor; it stands for something else. It allows humans to structure life in incredibly complex ways that were not available to them before the invention of money. The metaphorical quality gives it a focal role in the organization of meaning in life. Money represents an infinitely expandable way of structuring value and social relationships – personal, political, and religious as well as commercial and economic.” So again, think back on the lack of rigor people had in kinship societies and dominance societies before money. Think, too, of the confusion on how to make things, store things, cooperate, even to accurately value the things you’re doing. Should the farmer grow more wheat or raise more chickens? How can he know? He couldn’t know, not really, pre-money. This is easy enough to understand. Now consider… has anything changed recently? *** WHAT’S YOUR UNIT OF ACCOUNT FOR EVERYTHING ELSE? I think – and I don’t think it’s too controversial – that “more money” is no longer perfectly tracking as the only unit of account for success and thriving any more. Consider that “throwing money at the problem” is not a solution if your competitors are in the caliber of Amazon or Toyota. Their ability to convert money into results is (1) no longer totally captured in monetary terms, and (2) means that other people can’t use raw monetary power to get the same results. We live in a time when there’s a lot of powerful intangible resources that have not been legible-ized, codified, and certainly non money-ized. There’s plenty of good stuff, right now, you simply can’t buy. And in the past, maybe you could kind of hand-wave that away, because increasing standards of living and increasing money at least pulled you in the right direction. As with any resource, diminishing returns kicks in. And yet, if you believe the ancient historians about how rich Lydia got, and how fast it got rich, you’d be pretty well-justified to wonder if you could get some huge gains if you could manage to figure out an alternative “unit of account” for things that don’t convert well into money. *** EXAMPLE: "CYCLES" AS A STANDARD UNIT OF ACCOUNT FOR WORK For years, things took me a variable amount of time. Projects would randomly stall out, fail, or take too long. I had no unit of account for project completion. Enter: the 30-minute Ultraworking Cycle. Kai and I developed these together for Ultraworking, and they worked far better than expected. Before every 30-minute block of work, you answer these questions on a spreadsheet – PLAN What am I trying to accomplish this cycle? How will I get started? Are there hazards present? (Yes/No) Energy/Morale (High/Medium/Low) These take under 30 seconds to answer if you know what you’re doing already. And if you don’t know, you really need to do it. You work for 30 minutes, and then fill out the closing tab – REVIEW Goal completed? Were there any distractions? Things to improve for next cycle? Energy/Morale (High/Medium/Low) This means, that at the start of a Cycle, you’re always clarifying and asking yourself, “What can I do in the next 30 minutes? What am I trying to accomplish?” A good question, too often neglected on ambiguous work. Okay. Just following that process – fill out those boxes before every 30-minute cycle, and take breaks – just that alone is highly effective. But the magic comes as your estimates of what you can do in 30 minutes eventually start correcting and matching reality. As you train in that method, you’ll eventually hit a level where you can reasonably accurately estimate how many of these cycles it will take to complete a project milestone. Here’s a few things I did last week – Project: Release Progression 4 3 Write Book intro. 3 1 Get 5x testimonials. 4 4 Other 80/20 "discovered work" minimum viable The first number is my estimate of how many deliberate cycles would take to complete. The second number is how many it actually took. When I thought about it, I budgeted 2 hours (4 focused 30-minute cycles) to get the Intro to Progression done. It actually took 3. I thought it’d take longer to get testimonials, but to my surprise, I had a good selection in a file I started a while ago. Budgeted 3 cycles, it took 1. I knew there’d be some “discovered work” – in my case, it was fighting with a formatting issue – and it actually took 4 cycles exactly. You can also do this for synthesizing little unrelated things – Project: Get Admin Under Control 10 9 TIZ Push (19 emails, a few are 1+ hour) 4 2 Sweep: Paper Notebooks 2 1 Clean up physical workspace, etc, much better. 2 1 80/20 clean up digital workspace When I looked at those 19 emails, if I hadn’t estimated beforehand, I never would have budgeted 5+ hours (10 cycles) to do them. I would have just started working at them until getting tired and annoyed that they weren't getting answered. Instead, I did the estimating, the estimates came out to 10 cycles (5 hours)... and then they took… 9 cycles, 4.5 hours, to complete. Instead of feeling like torture, I was mildly pleased they got done a little early. Most people are too optimistic, so I try to be slightly conservative/pessimistic about how long things will take when I do planning, so that I can pleasantly surprised instead of wind up in a “not enough time urgent urgent urgent!!!” situation. Like anyone else, though, complex things will often take longer than expected. For writing Temporal Control #1, I’d slotted 2 cycles for outlining, 12 cycles for writing a first draft, and 3 cycles of editing. It actually wound up being 19 cycles to write it. So, it took 12 hours total to get done and out, instead of 8.5 hours. That’s the type of under-estimating you can’t get away with doing too much. (It would have been fine for it to take that long, but I would have scheduled less other things to do during the week.) *** FOR TEMPORAL CONTROL, STANDARDIZE UNITS We’ve talked about and we’ve talked around it, but in plain English – In important areas, you need to standardize units. Money is the standard unit of account for everything that can be handled with money, and often for things that aren’t even well-served by handling with money. But there’s important points beyond money. I gave you a single example – using “cycles” as the unit of account for completing project milestones – which has been terrific for me. And that doesn’t even begin to fully cover it. Start thinking through what your units of account ought to be, for more “meaning” oriented things. How do you do that? Well, it’s hard. I personally believe that utilitarianism is a fatally flawed ideology for a number of obvious reasons, and most people’s conceptions of “happiness” in the modern sense are far more about pain avoidance than about doing things that matter. But it can be done. My friend Nick Winter, who wrote the terrific book The Motivation Hacker, tracks his experiential happiness every day on this scale – “Here is my happiness tracking scale: 1: Suicidally depressed. 2: Majorly depressed or in tons of pain. 3: Frustrated or annoyed or sad or hurting or generally unhappy. 4: A little down. 5: Okay, I guess. 6: Happy. 7: Happy to the point of smiling or rocking out. 8: Excitedly happy; awesome. 9: Everything is just perfect. 10: Contender for best moment of my life. I like to think of it as a logarithmic scale, or rather two logarithmic scales, where each point above five doubles my happiness and each point below five doubles my unhappiness. You can make your own scale with the bright lines that most clearly delineate different moods for you. The most useful one for me is that a 7 requires me to be smiling or rocking out or something like this--if I'm not physically reflecting the happiness, it's a 6 at best. My scale is nothing special, but having some sort of scale helps prevent drift.” – entry from the Beeminder blog Nick is a wonderful guy who has done a lot of terrific things in his life – and I think a big part of that is that he actually has a good unit of account for his happiness-over-time is. Seriously, think of that! Winter developed a scale that works for him to account for precisely how happy he is! It’s realistic, too – his “highly ambitious goal” during a summer project was to “…try to raise my average happiness from 6.3 to 7.3 out of 10.” Personally, experiential happiness isn’t very important for me – I keep it high enough that nothing starts breaking, look for equanimity regardless, and then keep directing my energy to raw output in terms of more “World Impact” in my nonprofit work, creative work, science-ish work, and commercial work. And yet, I marvel at how Winter thought this through. It gives him a compass and standardized way to ensure he's happy, and gives him guidance to become happier. Isn't that marvelous? *** GETTING STARTED So, I firmly believe you’ll be much more effective if you can find a “unit of account” that maps well to whatever is important in your life; it lets you really see the infinite tradeoffs and get what you want. Money is a unit of account for everything monetizable, but what besides? “Cycles” is a pretty good one for deploying your time. Life, after all, is just a long and constant passage of 30-minute blocks of time. You could try Nick’s happiness self-rating periodically through the day to capture the quality of passing time. For relationships, Kai and I explored it in Gateless pretty thoroughly – Relevancy and Intimacy being a quick way to assess where your current relationships are at and figure out which ones you want to develop. For standardized accounting, we’re missing a piece of the puzzle and talking around it, some, because we don’t have the mental models from double-entry accounting yet – but we’ll get there in a couple chapters. First, though, we need to find out what happens to old Croesus next chapter. Next chapter is also, umm, something of a warning against measuring and optimizing for the wrong things… The warning? Well, one of the greatest heroes of all time – Cyrus the Great, Founder of the Persian Empire – makes his first appearance next. Temporal Control #3: Training and Hardening Temporal Control #3: Training and Hardening CLOGS TO CLOGS IN THREE GENERATIONS The Dutch have an expression – “Clogs to clogs in three generations.” Clogs, of course, are all-wooden safety shoes. Worn by gardeners and hard laborers, they’d stop you from stepping on something sharp or dropping a heavy weight on your foot. The founder of a dynasty might start in clogs on a farm. Gathering resources with thrift and industry, the dynast would wind up in a pair of leather boots. The children would be wearing leather boots, and grow the family's wealth. Then, the grandchildren would neglect to grow the family's wealth, start wearing fancier-still velvet shoes with silver buckles… and lose everything, winding up back in wooden clogs. There’s variants of this expression across European languages, and indeed, have originated in countries that never would have heard the original Dutch. The Chinese say fu bu guo san dai – “wealth does not pass three generations.” *** CROESUS’S TREASURY In 1947, in the United States, an illustrator for the Walt Disney Company turned out a new character: Scrooge McDuck. McDuck is “the richest duck in the world” in his fictional universe. Having altogether more money than he could possibly use, he builds a “Money Bin” that’s filled with “three cubic acres” of money… a vast gigantic vault, bigger than an Olympic-sized swimming pool, filled with dollar bills and coins. And then, Mr. McDuck goes… swimming in the money. Well, it’s a cartoon. The animators can make McDuck do what they want him to do. The rich elderly McDuck loves to dive off a diving board into his swimming-pool full of money, splash around in it, throw the money up in the air and have it rain back down upon him. 27 centuries previous, King Croesus of Lydia did similar things. King Croesus did not have a literal money bin; or, if he did, the historians did not record it. But he did spend his time and energies celebrating and reveling in his immense wealth. Here is Jack Weatherford’s History of Money again – “Commerce created the fabulous riches of Croesus, but he and the elite families of Lydia squandered their wealth. They developed a great appetite for luxury goods, and they became mired in an escalating game of conspicuous consumption. Each family sought, for ex- ample, to build a larger tomb than the families around them. They decorated these tombs with ornate ivory and marble, and they held elaborate funerals, burying their deceased relatives with golden headbands, bracelets, and rings. Rather than generating more wealth, they were destroying the wealth that their ancestors had accumulated. The elite of Sardis used their new wealth for consumption instead of investing it in production. Ultimately, Croesus poured his wealth into the two bottomless wells of conspicuous consumption so common among kings: buildings and soldiers. He conquered and he built. Croesus used his vast wealth too conquer almost all of the Greek cities of Asia Minor, including the grand Ephesus, which he then rebuilt in even grander style.” Weatherford perhaps has his biases; I don’t not share all of them and do not perfectly agree with him. But indeed, it’s clear from the sources that Croesus reveled in the raw splendidness of his Kingdom. *** THE CUSTOMS THAT YOUNG CYRUS WAS BORN INTO “Most states permit their citizens to bring up their own children at their own discretion, and allow the grown men to regulate their own lives at their own will, and then they lay down certain prohibitions, for example, not to pick and steal, not to break into another man's house, not to strike a man unjustly, not to commit adultery, not to disobey the magistrate, and so forth; and on the transgressor they impose a penalty. But the Persian laws try, as it were, to steal a march on time, to make their citizens from the beginning incapable of setting their hearts on any wickedness or shameful conduct whatsoever. And this is how they set about their object.” -- Cyropaedia: The Education of Cyrus, Xenophon Xenophon, a contemporary of Plato’s, and a student of Socrates, was rightfully regarded as one of the greatest writers in the ancient world. The great generals and statesmen of the Roman Republic held him in much higher regard than Plato. He was popular during the Italian Renaissance and the English Enlightenment. The Founding Fathers of America held him in high regard. He’s taken a back seat to Plato’s mysticisms and theories for… well, no good reason as far as I can tell. Plato was genuinely the better poet; everything else about Xenophon is more favorable. More life experience, more pragmatism, genuine insight into all the good and bad in human character from his time as Greek mercenary cavalry commander in the failed Persian Civil War… Xenophon was no foolish drunken mystic. He would eventually renounce Athens and marry a Spartan woman. Xenophon’s Cyropaedia: The Education of Cyrus stands alongside Anabasis: The Calvary Commander as two of the greatest works of the ancient world. (Anbasis, being perhaps the greatest memoir of all-time, is a little better, but they’re both terrific.) Cyrus the Great took over the world. But more surprisingly still, his subjects from many different lands and customs seemed to truly love him. He’s the only non-Jew in the Hebrew scriptures to be listed as “an anointed one” by God; he would later unify the bands of rebellious and discontented tribes into the largest empire in the world; it was perhaps the first modern empire. The Macedonians under Alexander would eventually destroy Cyrus’s Empire, but to me, Cyrus is the more impressive – whereas Alexander’s death led to the immediate dissolution of his empire, Cyrus’s Persian Empire lasted 200 years – and laid the groundwork of a permanently thriving Persian culture. Nor did Cyrus inherit his armies as a teenager, the way Alexander did. No, Cyrus had a harder road to empire. Here is Xenophon on the Persian customs of the time – “The law requires all the citizens to present themselves at certain times and seasons in their appointed places. The lads and the grown men must be there at daybreak; the elders may, as a rule, choose their own time, except on certain fixed days, when they too are expected to present themselves like the rest. Moreover, the young men are bound to sleep at night round the public buildings, with their arms at their side; only the married men among them are exempt, and need not be on duty at night unless notice has been given, though even in their case frequent absence is thought unseemly.” “… the boys are instructed in temperance and self-restraint, and they find the utmost help towards the attainment of this virtue in the self-respecting behaviour of their elders, shown them day by day. Then they are taught to obey their rulers, and here again nothing is of greater value than the studied obedience to authority manifested by their elders everywhere. Continence in meat and drink is another branch of instruction, and they have no better aid in this than, first, the example of their elders, who never withdraw to satisfy their carnal cravings until those in authority dismiss them, and next, the rule that the boys must take their food, not with their mother but with their master, and not till the governor gives the sign. They bring from home the staple of their meal, dry bread with nasturtium for a relish, and to slake their thirst they bring a drinking-cup, to dip in the running stream. In addition, they are taught to shoot with the bow and to fling the javelin. The lads follow their studies till the age of sixteen or seventeen, and then they take their places as young men.” After reaching early adulthood, the young men begin to go hunting with the local king or magistrate and drilling with weapons. The strict discipline of the Persian system is to be observed, hardening the young Persians into being temperate and industrious. Going on hunting parties, early adulthood reached, begin to teach the young men provisioning, camping, sanitation, and cooperation and unit cohesion. “Moreover, these young men are also employed by the magistrates if garrison work needs to be done or if malefactors are to be tracked or robbers run down, or indeed on any errand which calls for strength of limb and fleetness of foot. Such is the life of the youth.” The young men are promoted again, around age 30, to their roles as soldiers or magistrates. At age 50, they become city elders and serve as judges and governors. *** CROESUS IS DELIGHTING IN HIS NEW TEMPLE A few hundred years later, Antipater would name The Temple of Artemis the marvelous thing in the world – “I have set eyes on the wall of lofty Babylon on which is a road for chariots, and the statue of Zeus by the Alpheus, and the hanging gardens, and the Colossus of the Sun, and the huge labour of the high pyramids, and the vast tomb of Mausolus; but when I saw the house of Artemis that mounted to the clouds, those other marvels lost their brilliancy, and I said, 'Lo, apart from Olympus, the Sun never looked on aught so grand.’” King Croesus is delighted. Now, 2700 years later, we cannot know precisely what mix of slave labor and monetary pay they used to get the temple built. Certainly – there must have been some mix of both. The gold, silver, and electrum from the Lydian treasury would have brought the best workmen and craftsmen to the site; the best architects, marble-workers, and finest sculptors of the day would have been employed. Many other building projects were occurring across the Lydian sphere of power – each Lydian King, descended from that first ascendant assassin Gyges, had built greater and greater tombs for after their deaths, replete with a beautiful sarcophagus and ornaments. King Croesus is outdoing them all – his buildings are some of the grandest and most splendid of all time. He is in near constant revelry, and rather pleased with himself. *** CYRUS IS HARDENING “Until he was twelve years old or more, Cyrus was brought up in the manner we have described, and showed himself to be above all his fellows in his aptitude for learning and in the noble and manly performance of every duty. But about this time, Astyages sent for his daughter and her son, desiring greatly to see him because he had heard how noble and fair he was.” – Xenophon Persia of the day was very much a junior power in the region; nay, not really a power at all. Media – the Medes – were more powerful than the Persians, and the Persians paid homage to the Medes. It was mostly, but not always, a friendly relationship. The homeland of the Persians was the southern coast of modern-day Iran. Across the Persian Gulf was the Arabian peninsula, still desolate in that time. Due west was the very powerful Assyrian Babylonia, northwest was the very rich and powerful Lydia, where King Croesus was undergoing his feasting and revelry. No, Persia was not at all a power in the region when Cyrus was born. He was the grandson of the Median King Astyages, who had given one of his daughters to the King of Persia in friendship. Astyages hears tales that his grandson is particularly talented, and recalls him to the more-powerful Media. Xenophon – “So it fell out that Mandane came to Astyages, bringing her son Cyrus with her. And as soon as they met, the boy, when he heard that Astyages was his mother's father, fell on his neck and kissed him without more ado, like the loving lad nature had made him, as though he had been brought up at his grandfather's side from the first and the two of them had been playmates of old. Then he looked closer and saw that the king's eyes were stencilled and his cheeks painted, and that he wore false curls after the fashion of the Medes in those days (for these adornments, and the purple robes, the tunics, the necklaces, and the bracelets, they are all Median first and last, not Persian; the Persian, as you find him at home even now-a-days, still keeps to his plainer dress and his plainer style of living.) The boy, seeing his grandfather's splendour, kept his eyes fixed on him, and cried, "Oh, mother, how beautiful my grandfather is!" Then his mother asked him which he thought the handsomer, his father or his grandfather, and he answered at once, "My father is the handsomest of all the Persians, but my grandfather much the handsomest of all the Medes I ever set eyes on, at home or abroad."” This raises an interesting question – was Cyrus’s nature so truly loving and expansive that this was just a purehearted expression of loving sentiment… or was the boy already a masterful diplomat? Perhaps both. What an incredibly tactful answer to a perhaps dangerous question, no? He is asked if his father or grandfather is the more beautiful, and he answers: “My father is the most handsome of the Persians, and my grandfather is the most handsome of the Medes.” Regardless if such sentiments came from merely his heart, or from a diplomatic sense, we can say clearly that even as a young boy, Cyrus’s mind was sharp and his thought was quick. Cyrus thoroughly charms everyone as the Median court, and is invited by his grandfather to stay with the Medes instead of returning to Persia. Xenophon – “Then his mother questioned the boy and asked him whether he would rather stay with his grandfather in Media, or go back home with her: and he said at once that he would rather stay. And when she went on to ask him the reason, he answered, so the story says, "Because at home I am thought to be the best of the lads at shooting and hurling the javelin, and so I think I am: but here I know I am the worst at riding, and that you may be sure, mother, annoys me exceedingly. Now if you leave me here and I learn to ride, when I am back in Persia you shall see, I promise you, that I will outdo all our gallant fellows on foot, and when I come to Media again I will try and show my grandfather that, for all his splendid cavalry, he will not have a stouter horseman than his grandson to fight his battles for him."” It was persuasive. “… at last his mother went home, and Cyrus stayed behind and was brought up in Media. He soon made friends with his companions and found his way to their hearts, and soon won their parents by the charm of his address and the true affection he bore their sons, so much so that when they wanted a favour from the king they bade their children ask Cyrus to arrange the matter for them. And whatever it might be, the kindliness of the lad's heart and the eagerness of his ambition made him set the greatest store on getting it done.” *** THE ARCHON’S VISIT IS DISPLEASING TO CROESUS King Croesus was at first delighted at the news. “The Athenian Archon? I have heard such nice things about him!” Solon of Athens had departed his home city after putting many of his legal reforms in place. He said some high-minded things about it, but the pragmatist viewing things from a distance must at least consider that Solon was trying to depart while his faction was in power and before things turned in the chaotic Athens. “Archon,” of course, is the Greek word for “Ruler” – it’s the root word in democracy (“demos” = people; “-archy” = rule), as well as monarchy, aristocracy, etc. Solon was known then for four things: for his rule as Archon, as a lawmaker, as a diplomat, and as a philosopher. Solon had spent 10 years traveling away of Athens, visiting Egypt, Sais, and Cyprus before coming to Croesus’s capital. Croesus is delighted. Solon is a veritable celebrity of the age. Croesus prepares a large banquet and a tour of all the splendid things from his reign, showing the craftsmanship and wealth and luxury he has accumulated. And, with an odd touch of insecurity and grandiosity mixed together, Croesus asks, “Truly, Solon, am I not the happiest man in the world?” The Athenian frowns, and says – well, he does not think so. “Who, then, is the happiest man in the world?” And Solon tells him about an unknown Athenian named Tellus. Tellus came from Athens, which was prosperous enough that he could fulfill his potential as a man and come into some prosperity himself. He raised a fine family, and fortune was with him – all of his children survived. His children had grandchildren, all of whom survived. Finally, when Athens was at war, Tellus took to defending Athens and died on the field of battle. A perfect life – the happiest life imaginable. Croesus frowns. “Well, then, who is the second happiest man in the world?” – so asks the Lydian King, fully expecting to be named second. But Solon, this time, tells the story of the two sons of an Athenian priestess who was to do ceremonial honors at a festival. When the oxen to pull her chariot did not arrive, the two brothers yoked themselves to her chariot and pulled her to the festival grounds. The people of Athens celebrated this piety, this feat of strength, and the men went into the Temple and fell asleep, dying – presumably of exertion – never waking again, but having died as a model of piety and in the throes of celebration of family and nation. Croesus is getting annoyed at all of this, and starts making points about his wealth and splendor and what not. And Solon says – “Count no man happy until he is dead.” Croesus is verily annoyed at all of this Athenian nonsense, and dismisses Solon, thoroughly displeased with his time with the Archon. Solon, Croesus figures, is vastly overrated; this man is no wise philosopher. *** CYRUS THE COMMANDER Cyrus was not content to play games in the Median parks, hunting tamed and fenced-off animals for sport. He repeatedly petitioned and petitioned his grandfather the king, and was eventually allowed to take to a wild hunt – and, despite severe risk to his life that might have ended that glorious career before it started, came home with many trophies. When the Assyrians send a raiding party and start looting the lands, the Median soldiers form up and begin to go out to meet them on horseback. Cyrus, though only 15 years old, sees this and gets into the action – “Now Cyrus, seeing that all the rest of the world was off to the rescue, boot and saddle, must needs ride out too, and so put on his armour for the first time, and could scarcely believe it was true, he had longed so often and so ardently to wear it all. And right beautiful it was, and right well it fitted the lad, the armour that his grandsire had had made for him. So he put on the whole accoutrement, mounted his charger, and galloped to the front. And Astyages, though he wondered who had sent the boy, bade him stay beside him, now that he had come. Cyrus, as he looked at the horsemen facing them, turned to his grandfather with the question, "Can those men yonder be our enemies, grandfather, those who are standing so quietly beside their horses?" "Enemies they are too for all that," said the king. "And are those enemies too?" the boy asked, "those who are riding over there?" "Yes, to be sure." "Well, grandfather, a sorry set they look, and sorry jades they ride to ravage our lands! It would be well for some of us to charge them!" "Not yet, my boy," answered his grandfather, "look at the mass of horsemen there. If we were to charge the others now, these friends of theirs would charge us, for our full strength is not yet on the field." "Yes, but," suggested the boy, "if you stay here yourself, ready to receive our supporters, those fellows will be afraid to stir either, and the cattle-lifters will drop their booty quick enough, as soon as they find they are attacked."” Cyrus’s plan is followed, and he leads the attack himself, dispersing the Assyrian raiders and putting them to flight – a great victory for Media. “The exploit of [King Astyages’s] cavalry pleased him beyond measure, but he did not know what he could say to Cyrus. It was he to whom the engagement was due, and the victory; but the boy's daring was on the verge of madness. Even during the return home his behaviour was strange; he could not forbear riding round alone to look into the faces of the slain, and those whose duty it was could hardly drag him away to lead him to Astyages: indeed, the youth was glad enough to keep them as a screen between himself and the king, for he saw that the countenance of his grandfather grew stern at the sight of him.“ It is soon time for Cyrus to return to Persia – “Thus Cyrus left his grandfather's court and came home to Persia, and there, so it is said, he spent one year more as a boy among boys. At first the lads were disposed to laugh at him, thinking he must have learnt luxurious ways in Media, but when they saw that he could take the simple Persian food as happily as themselves, and how, whenever they made good cheer at a festival, far from asking for any more himself he was ready to give his own share of the dainties away, when they saw and felt in this and in other things his inborn nobleness and superiority to themselves, then the tide turned and once more they were at his feet. And when this part of his training was over, and the time was come for him to join the younger men, it was the same tale once more. Once more he outdid all his fellows, alike in the fulfillment of his duty, in the endurance of hardship, in the reverence he showed to age, and the obedience he paid to authority.” He left a boy – he returned a nascent commander. *** CYRUS IS CALLED TO ARMS A messenger arrives at Croesus’s court, from the Assyrians, offering treasure and glory – if they will ally against the Medians. Xenophon recounts – “By this time the king of Assyria had subdued all the tribes of Syria, subjugated the king of Arabia, brought the Hyrcanians under his rule, and was holding the Bactrians in siege. Therefore he came to think that, if he could but weaken the power of the Medes, it would be easy for him to extend his empire over all the nations round him, since the Medes were, without doubt, the strongest of them all. Accordingly he sent his messengers to every part of his dominions: to Croesus, king of Lydia, to the king of Cappadocia, to both the Phrygias, to the Paphlagonians and the Indians, to the Carians and the Cilicians. ... So the nations listened to the messengers and made alliance with the king of Assyria: some were persuaded by what he said and others were won over by gifts and gold, for the riches of the Assyrian were great.” King Croesus begins gathering troops, readying to take his expeditions to the fight. The Medians begin gathering their forces to resist the onslaught, and call on the Persians to send troops – “… he sent to Cyrus also, begging him to come with all speed at the head of any force that might be furnished, if so be the Council of Persia would give him men-at-arms. For by this time Cyrus had accomplished his ten years among the youths and was now enrolled with the grown men. He was right willing to go, and the Council of Elders appointed him to command the force for Media. They bade him choose two hundred men among the Peers, each of them to choose four others from their fellows. Thus was formed a body of a thousand Peers: and each of the thousand had orders to raise thirty men from the commons--ten targeteers, ten slingers, and ten archers--and thus three regiments were levied, 10,000 archers, 10,000 slingers, and 10,000 targeteers, over and above the thousand Peers. The whole force was to be put under the command of Cyrus.” And Cyrus makes his first speech as Persian commander – “My friends, I have chosen you for this work, but this is not the first time that I have formed my opinion of your worth: from my boyhood I have watched your zeal for all that our country holds to be honourable and your abhorrence for all that she counts base. And I wish to tell you plainly why I accepted this office myself and why I ask your help. I have long felt sure that our forefathers were in their time as good men as we. For their lives were one long effort towards the self-same deeds of valour as are held in honour now; and still, for all their worth, I fail to see what good they gained either for the state or for themselves. Yet I cannot bring myself to believe that there is a single virtue practised among mankind merely in order that the brave and good should fare no better than the base ones of the earth. Men do not forego the pleasures of the moment to say good-bye to all joy for evermore--no, this self-control is a training, so that we may reap the fruits of a larger joy in the time to come…” And before they depart for battle, Cyrus makes sacrifices and follows the appropriate rituals for the day, and is advised by his father on discipline: economy in everything, always keeping the troops active and drilled and ready, sanitation and health as the first concern of keeping the army healthy and at war, ensure the soldiers under his command are neither under-fed due to lack of supplies, nor over-indulgent in extravagancies of food and drink, and to never keep the army idle, to find and promote good officers, to aim to always catch the enemy by surprise and in disarray, and to always cultivate wisdom first and foremost… *** CROESUS VISITS THE ORACLE King Croesus had joined the Assyrian alliance against the Medians, but Cyrus had broken-off a number of their allies through diplomacy, and then a lightning-quick strike while outnumbered had killed the King of the Assyrians. The enemy alliance had been shattered, and Croesus had withdrawn from his mobilization. As time passed, Cyrus became joint-ruler of the Medians and Persians. There are open questions as to how willingly control was ceded to him by Media; some sources have it that he defected and led an insurrection; other sources have it that, seeing his superiority in military matters and gathering Persian strength, the Medians willfully submitted, and married a Median princess to him. Regardless, either way, the Persian Empire began at this time with strong cohesion, and became a force in its area. King Croesus was not satisfied; his whole life had been one set of glories after another, but none were enough. The Persians, having conquered and subdued some of their neighbors, were now quite wealthy. Croesus wants that wealth. He travels to Delphi, to the famous Oracle, and asks what will happen if he attacks Cyrus and the Persians. The answer – “If Croesus made war on the Persians, he would destroy a mighty empire.” Croesus is well-pleased, arms for combat, and declares war on the Persians. *** THE BATTLE BETWEEN CROESUS AND CYRUS The Persians had gone from individually disciplined, to disciplined as a group, and then become battle-hardened veterans in their campaigns. Now they are drawing up to fight the Lydians. Cyrus makes his orders to his second-in command that, "[When] you see me close with the enemy on our right, then set upon those in front of you: take them in flank, where they are weakest, while you advance in line, at your full strength. Their lines, as you see, are closed by cavalry; hurl your camels at these, and you may be sure, even before the fighting begins, they will cut a comic figure." Thus, with all his dispositions made, Cyrus rode round the head of his right.” Croesus marches his forces into combat. His armies had overrun little weak cities near him and made him master of much of the world near Lydia. He figured he would now do the same to the Persians – “By this time Croesus, believing that the centre, where he himself was marching, must be nearer the enemy than the distant wings, had the signal raised for them to stop their advance, halt, and wheel round where they were. When they were in position opposite the Persian force, he signalled for them to charge, and thus three columns came at once against Cyrus, one facing his front and one on either flank. A tremor ran through the whole army; it was completely enclosed, like a little brick laid within a large, with the forces of the enemy all round it, on every side except the rear, cavalry and heavy infantry, targeteers, archers, and chariots. None the less, the instant Cyrus gave the word they swung round to confront the foe. There was deep silence through the ranks as they realised what they had to face, and then Cyrus, when the moment came, began the battle- hymn and it thundered through the host. And as it died away the war-cry rang out unto the God of Battles, and Cyrus swooped forward at the head of his cavalry, straight for the enemy's flank, and closed with them then and there, while the infantry behind him followed, swift and steady, wave on wave, sweeping out on either side, far out-flanking their opponents, for they attacked in line and the foe were in column, to the great gain of Cyrus. A short struggle, and the ranks broke and fled before him headlong.” *** THE ECHOES OF SOLON As Cyrus’s soldiers loot and pillage the fantastically wealthy Lydian capital, Croesus is tied to a stake, to be executed by being burned alive. Suddenly, Solon’s words echo to him – consider no man happy until he is dead. Croesus shudders and wails at the realization, crying out, “Solon! Solon! Solon!” *** TEMPORAL CONTROL #3: TRAINING AND HARDENING We are three chapters into our investigation of Temporal Control. Again, when you hear “Temporal Control,” think “Quality Control.” Time and space cannot be controlled any more than the laws of physics can be controlled – but, similar to how we can navigate physics to do engineering, we can navigate time to get what we want out of life. Chapter #2 gave us the first important mental model for Temporal Control: finding a standard “Unit of Account.“ The Lydian Kings built a regional power on the strength of one simple, now-taken-for-granted technology – standardized precious metal coins. We explored the implications of that concept a little last chapter, and suggested that perhaps it would be profitable to find a standard unit of account for completing the personals projects of our lives (I use 30-minute cycles for it). We explored how Nick Winter ranks his experiential happiness on a logarithmic scale, and how he set a “very ambitious target” of… going from 6.3 to 7.3 on the scale. Next chapter, we’ll work towards having even more precise measurements – but, and I cannot emphasize this enough, measuring and optimizing for the wrong thing is a sure path to doom. *** CONSIDER: CROESUS’S MERCENARIES VS CYRUS’S BATTLE-HARDENED LOYALISTS Machiavelli would, many centuries later, admonish a ruler never to rely on mercenaries. They take your money when times are good, but are not willing to risk laying down their lives when they are truly needed. This applies even to this day – peruse, if you will, the salary scales of companies who are the best in their field, and those who lag behind. Right now in 2016, Apple and Google both pay less than Yahoo for the same seniority and talent of people. Why? Because for Yahoo to attract people away from Apple or Google, they have to pay more. Bridgewater, the most successful hedge fund in the world, pays less guaranteed compensation than other hedge funds. Why? Because for other hedge funds to attract top talent, they have to pay more. This is, of course, a vicious spiral for a company that isn’t the market leader and an excellent company. If you’re not the market leader, you probably have worse margins, worse market share, and lower economies of scale (and thus, higher costs). Then, to try to fight your way out of that swamp, you need to pay more to the same type of people that your competitors are getting more cheaply. Cyrus’s loyalists shared generously in the rewards of Persian campaigns, but most likely received less pay in the short term than Croesus’s mercenaries – who turned out to be nearly useless against the Persians in combat. Think this through as you build teams, friendships, alliances. It is easy to fixate on easy numbers like troop count, and easy to focus on how much money you have in the treasury to hire mercenaries, but what are the quality of those people serving with you, what is their commitment, what is their ferocity, how steadfastly will they hold themselves during a crisis? These, these are harder points to measure. *** CONSIDER: CYRUS WAS HARD AND CROESUS WAS SOFT Be careful wanting too much in the ways of perfumes and elegancies… this is all well and good in luxurious peacetimes, but not what is needed in more ferocious times. Cyrus, from his time as a young boy, was becoming hardened. Despite royal blood in his veins, he trained ferociously. He slept outside. As soon as he mastered the basic skills of a Persian boy – the Persians were primarily infantry and projectile soldiers – he immediately pressed to continue training in Median cavalry skills. Having mastered those, he immediately started hunting in the wild. After succeeding at his first hunts, he joined his first defensive campaign against raiders as soon as it presented itself. I believe, and I don’t think this is controversial, that it would have been impossible for King Croesus to build the same quality of military as Cyrus had. Cyrus hardened himself into an exceptional commander. Croesus was probably more fit to lead a mercantile empire, but by the time Cyrus reached early adulthood, he was on pace to be one of the finest military commanders of all-time. Cyrus had hardened those aspects into himself. *** CONSIDER: MASTERY ORIENTATION You would do well to read The Education of Cyrus by Xenophon. It is a masterpiece. You can see the constant reverence for training in there, and the respect Xenophon and others have for Cyrus as someone who is never satisfied at his current level, and is going beyond. He’s not going beyond in vanity – he’s putting in hard work and staying obsessed with mastery. Hardness, solidness, mastery – these are very hard to measure, but undoubtedly part of gaining mastery and control over your world. We want to account for the things we can account for – and great power comes from having better measurements, indeed – but we must not neglect the things we can’t measure or easily account for. *** CONSIDER: TRAINING The world has obviously changed a little bit in 2,700 years. But while technology has changed tremendously, human nature has not changed very much. Learning about Cyrus can give good ideas for character and solid fundamentals, but there is more modern and better literature on training. You should of course read about “deliberate practice” – it’s currently en vogue and beyond the scope of this piece, but you should take the time to read up on James Clear and Cal Newport at least, who give popular and easily read takes on the state of practice and guidelines to getting started. One thing must be said about training, though, if you’re looking to get multiple people on the same page – Set a single canonical way of getting things done, and ensure everyone knows it. American Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman, after his retirement from active service, began a remarkable amount of research, studies, and real-world applied training for elite soldiers and law enforcement. In On Combat, he advises – “When learning skills and ingraining them as muscle memory or autopilot responses, it is important that only one way be taught. W.E. Hicks' 1952 study found that as the possible responses increased from one to two, reaction times increased by 58 percent. In other words, having to choose between options takes time, and the more options you have, the greater the reaction time. This is often referred to as "Hicks' Law," but Sun Tzu said the same thing many centuries ago: "The more possibilities you present an enemy, the more diffuse he is forced to become. The more diffuse he becomes, the more difficult it is for him to concentrate sufficiently to make a successful attack." We want to confuse the enemy with a variety of possibilities, but we do not want to do that to ourselves. Thus, a simple set of skills […] all extensively rehearsed, allows for extraordinary performance under stress." In Xenophon’s work, you can read about how the Persian forces learned to make the same set of supporting operations and fundamentals with every battle. They practiced these out on wild hunts, and practiced them against raiders, and brought those skills with them on perilously intense campaigns. If you’re leading or coordinating a diverse group of people, make sure they know a single way to default to doing things under stress. A “58% higher reaction time” translates to being 37% slower. 37% slower doesn’t seem like a big deal until you think about it – that’s the equivalent of only getting 3 days of work done from Monday to Friday, while a better-trained competitor would get 5 days of work done. That’s in peacetime. 37% slower in a crisis is perhaps life-and-death. On Combat is a terrific read and highly recommended; there’s lots of material about preparing yourself for stress and handling yourself under stress. Ensure you know a canonical way to do key actions under pressure, and if you’re leading a team, ensure they’re well-trained too. *** CONSIDER: A MAN’S GOT TO KNOW HIS LIMITATIONS My favorite Clint Eastwood quote is, “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it” – but “A man’s got to know his limitations” is a pretty good runner-up. Croesus, surrounded by wealth and opulence, came to overrate himself, not realizing the hardened young Persian was a drastically better commander. The Oracle at Delphi warned Croesus and advised him to bring strong allies if he faced Persia. Croesus had formed a tentative alliance with the Spartans, but really ought to have focused on having his own Lydian forces garrison and play defense only, and leave the heavy-lifting to the Spartans or similar better-trained warriors. Alas for Croesus, he did not know his limitations. You ought to know yours, and get help where you need it. *** CYRUS PULLS CROESUS DOWN FROM THE PYRE Cyrus was merciful across his life, allowing conquered subjects to keep their laws and customs, and winning over many disparate people to his cause. The legend might be wrong – perhaps Croesus did just burn to death – but the legend has is that Cyrus heard Croesus wailing about Solon, and inquired what he was talking about. Croesus told him the story, about fate and fortune, about the things Solon had warned him against. And as legend has it, Cyrus pulled halted his executioner and pulled the ex-King down from the pyre, turning him into an advisor to the Persians. Indeed, Persia adopted gold coins and many Lydian technologies after the conquest of the Lydian Empire. Cyrus finishes his conquest of much of the known-world, adding advisors and allies who flock to him, and rewarding them well. Xenophon tells one last anecdote worth noting – “It is not surprising, no doubt, that being the wealthiest of men, [Cyrus] could outdo the world in the splendour of his gifts. The remarkable thing was to find a king outstrip his courtiers in courtesy and kindness. [...] There was a noble illustration of his philosophy in the answer we are told he gave to Croesus, who had taken him to task, saying his lavish gifts would bring him to beggary, although he could lay by more treasures for himself than any man had ever had before. Cyrus, it is said, asked him in return, "How much wealth do you suppose I could have amassed already, had I collected gold, as you bid me, ever since I came into my empire?"” Croesus answers him, naming an enormous sum of gold. And Cyrus directs his main attendant to “go round to my friends and tell them that I need money for a certain enterprise--and that is true, I do need it. Bid each of them write down the amount he can give me, seal the letter, and hand it to the messenger of Croesus, who will bring it here." The messenger returns with sealed envelopes from all of Cyrus’s friends, allies, and clients. He first exclaims and thanks Cyrus – for in addition to the pledges in the sealed letters, all of these people from across the world also gave gifts for him, the messanger, and treated him so kindly. He hands the sealed messages to Croesus, who breaks them open and reads – “And Croesus counted, and found, so the story tells us, that the sum was far larger than the amount he had said would have been lying in the treasury if only Cyrus had made a hoard.” Cyrus nods, says: "You see, Croesus, I have my treasures too. Only you advise me to collect them and hide them, and be envied and hated because of them, and set mercenaries to guard them, putting my trust in hirelings. But I hold to it that if I make my friends rich they will be my treasures themselves, and far better guards too, for me and all we have, than if I set hired watchmen over my wealth. And I have somewhat else to say; I tell you, Croesus, there is something the gods have implanted in our souls, and there they have made us all beggars alike, something I can never overcome. I too, like all the rest, am insatiate of riches, only in one respect I fancy I am different. Most men when they have more wealth than they require bury some of it underground, and let some of it rot, and some they count and measure, and they guard it and they air it, and give themselves a world of trouble, and yet for all their wealth they cannot eat more than they have stomach for--they would burst asunder if they did--nor wear more clothes than they can carry--they would die of suffocation--and so their extra wealth means nothing but extra work. For my part, I serve the gods, and I stretch out my hands for more and more; only when I have got what is beyond my own requirements I piece out the wants of my friends, and so, helping my fellows, I purchase their love and their goodwill, and out of these I garner security and renown, fruits that can never rot, rich meats that can work no mischief; for glory, the more it grows, the grander it becomes, and the fairer, and the lighter to be borne; it even gives a lighter step to those who bear it. One thing more, Croesus, I would have you know; the happiest men, in my judgment, are not the holders of vast riches and the masters who have the most to guard; else the sentinels of our citadels would be the happiest of mortals, seeing they guard the whole wealth of the state. He, I hold, has won the crown of happiness who has had the skill to gain wealth by the paths of righteousness and use it for all that is honourable and fair." Was Cyrus not one of the most remarkable men of our species to ever live? I believe so. And Xenophon, too. Measure what you can! Manage what you can measure! But do not neglect to manage the immeasurable things! Temporal Control #4: Rational Accounting Temporal Control #4: Rational Accounting AMUSING OPENING PARAGRAPH “Accounting is hardly a glamorous activity; repetitious, detail oriented, and methodical, it is not a subject that quickens the pulse. Accounting, it seems, is as exciting as adding up a long column of numbers.” – so contends the July 1991 issue of the American Journal of Sociology, before continuing wryly, “Perhaps this image explains its neglect by sociologists.” *** WHERE ARE OUR BUILDINGS? This is not a rhetorical question – no one knew. The CEO didn’t know. The COO didn’t know. No single person knows. “Where are our buildings?” Nobody knows! This little anecdote is true – it happened to a friend of mine who I know well, who is not prone to exaggeration. She was a hot-shot consultant right out of graduating near the top of her class in university. On her first assignment, she and the other junior associates at the consulting firm got sent into a company that had become one of the largest companies in its industry by rapidly acquiring competitors. This is an old school industry, you know, 7% profit margins look amazing type industry, and somehow, the CEO of BigAcquisitionCorp had worked some charm on some bankers somehow, gotten a huge bankroll, and gone on a buying spree. With no clue exactly what and where he was buying. “Where are our buildings?” This became my friend’s job for the first year out of university – trying to figure out where this company’s buildings were. If I’m doing the math correctly, she was working on this assignment around 5 years ago. I checked the company’s stock recently – unsurprisingly, they lost a whole hell of a lot of money and are rumored to be on the verge of bankruptcy. “Where are our buildings?” Yes, that’s a good question. Wouldn't we all like to know where our buildings are? *** HISTORICAL ROOMS WORTH BEING IN It’s not uncommon, I think, for people who are into history to imagine rooms they’d like to be in at different exciting moments in time. Perhaps a particular speech was dramatic – what was it like to truly be there and hear it? Or, perhaps, there is some great controversy about what actually happened, and if you were there, you could get the real story. The later historians recounted that Julius Caesar was torn and vacillating constantly before finally crossing the Rubicon – “and so the die is cast!” – but I’ve always suspected this was propaganda. What would it have been like in Caesar’s tent the night, planning the night before the Civil War? But for all the more dramatic choices available, I think the room I’d most like to be in was in Milan in the 1490’s. I don’t think Christopher Columbus was doing the most interesting thing in the 1490’s. No, as dashing and daring as Columbus was trying to find a Western route to India and bumbling onto a new continent by accident, no, I think Milan held the most interesting room of the age. Sometimes Kai Zau and I are working in the same room – maybe in Tallinn, maybe in Las Vegas, or wherever else. We each tend to our work and mostly ignore each other except for our pre-scheduled meeting times – so much the better for concentration – but we do typically share at least one meal per day. I imagine the rooms of Luca de Pacioli and Leonardo da Vinci in Milan were much like Kai’s and mine, with them usually working ferociously, and on breaks, talking about mathematics and art, cooking and eating pasta and roasts and breaking bread, most likely deeply concentrating and not bothering each other, and sometimes having scheduled meeting times to collaborate. Yes, the discussions that sprang forth from those two men – both geniuses – would reshape the world. I very much would have liked to be in that room. *** DE PACIOLI AND DA VINCI Oh, you haven’t heard of Luca de Pacioli? You should have. He invented modern accounting. And yeah, it blows my mind too that the father of modern accounting was roommates with Leonardo da Vinci. Or, at first it was shocking, but then again, maybe not – they must have influenced each other quite a bit. Da Vinci illustrated a number of the geometry problems and diagrams for Pacioli over the years. As for Pacioli, his “Summa de arithmetica, geometria, proportioni et proportionalita” was a textbook in Italian covering the state of the art in all forms of math – with a few of his own inventions. It became one of the most important books for business of all time. Most noteworthy is laying out precisely how to do double-entry accounting. It’s not boring. He quotes Cicero, Dante, and the Bible, and kind of muses his way through explaining why everything is important – “Who can say what will happen to a businessman? Businessmen operate on land and sea, in peace and war, during boom and recession, in health and plague. During all these times, they need to know the right to make in markets at international industrial fairs. So, in this sense, the businessman, like the early bird, must remain on the lookout for change all year long.” – Pacioli, Summa – and that poetic sense is juxtaposed with very precise technical information on how to keep various types of accounts. Of course, Gutenberg had invented his famous metal printing press a few years earlier – Pacioli wrote for the press, and then copies of the textbook could be made en masse. Da Vinci, a student and friend of Pacioli’s, illustrated much of the sections on geometry. This fusion would be world-changing: Gutenberg’s invention meant that Pacioli’s book didn’t have to be laboriously hand-copied by monks or scribes repeatedly; it got to be stamped out repeatedly. How much did da Vinci’s prestige and beauty add to the uptake? Perhaps a bit. Eventually, the Duke of Milan recruited Pacioli and the book spread across the world, becoming – for the next few hundred years – the definitive text on accounting. Yes, if I could be in any room across all of history, certainly sitting around with da Vinci and de Pacioli eating pasta and talking math, innovation, and aesthetics would be one of the top contenders for the room I’d sit in. *** TEMPORAL CONTROL #4: RATIONAL ACCOUNTING CPA and Professor Jeremy Cripps rendered the world a fantastic service by doing a faithful and artistic translation of the Summa – http://jeremycripps.com/summa.html It’s short, and I think it’s worth reading. If you spend 30 minutes with it, you get a little smarter permanently. It’s a good use of half an hour. One of the great tragedies of being human is that “hard work which clearly works well and succeeds if you do it” tends to be unappealing to most people, whereas mystical promises of success without effort or work tend to be highly appealing. Said differently, “Accounting, it seems, is as exciting as adding up a long column of numbers.” *** A THEORY WHICH HELPS EXPLAIN WEALTH AND POVERTY I have a theory – it’s my own theory. I came up with it. I haven’t seen it anywhere else. I think it’s predictive of an immense amount of who has changes in their levels of wealth and poverty. I think it explains reasonably well why China went from one of the poorest countries in the world to a genuine superpower in only one and a half generations. I think it helps explain who gets out of the tough neighborhood and who doesn’t. And once again, it might be seem “stupidly ridiculously obvious” once I lay it out for you – but I contend it works, through and through, from an individual level to a national level, and yet it’s too-often neglected … *** … ECONOMIC WILDNESS Economic wildness, as I define it, is “knowing accurately your past, present, and future economics.” You can actually math it out perfectly. I know we’re all achievers here, but at some point in your life you knew some idiot hapless friend or acquaintance or cousin, right? Y’know, the kind of guy who can’t get out of his own way, everything is always screwing up, gets a good job for a while but then is randomly unemployed and broke again a few months later and nobody is sure exactly why? You got that person in mind? Okay, well, call the poor hapless fellow up mentally in your mind, and (mentally) ask him, “Hey, do you know where your money went last month?” And… I bet he can’t tell you. I mean, he might know the price of his rent, and maybe his car loan, if he has a car loan. But how much was his cellphone bill? Eating out? Groceries? He don’t know. *** BACKWARDS-LOOKING ECONOMIC WILDNESS So let’s say the guy made $2000 last month, spent $2000, and only knows for sure that he spent $600 on rent… and really has no clue where the rest of the money went. That person’s backwards-looking economic wildness for last month would be 1400/2000 = 70%. That’s pretty drastically bad. It's like if someone gets totally drunk, eat a bunch of kebabs, takes an expensive taxi, and then isn’t sure sure where their money went on Monday besides knowing vaguely that a hangover is present. A lot of people have only a vague idea of where their money went after the fact. A person who keeps precise accounts and knows exactly where their money went last month would have a backwards-looking economic wildness of… 0%. Not wild at all. They know exactly where all their money went. Good, right? Well, yes, but that’s less than half the battle. *** FORWARDS-LOOKING ECONOMIC WILDNESS So, next month, where’s your money going to go? I bet you could brainstorm on paper. Your hapless idiot cousin/acquaintance/whomever [*] will probably pay the rent ($600) and might estimate that he’ll spend $300 on food (he’ll be wrong; it’ll actually be $900), but the rest? He don’t know. [*] (I don’t actually dislike the guy. I wish he’d get his act together and succeed.) So, if he doesn’t save his pay at all, he’s already going to be at least 55% wild next month. He doesn’t know where 55% of his money is going. Well, that’s easy enough to understand. Most of us won’t make the same errors. Heck, let’s say you’ve got no savings – $0 – but are otherwise more responsible. You make $2000 and you’ve budgeted $1800 of it, and your budgets are actually good. You’ll use $200 however you please. If so, you’d have accounted and budgeted in advance for $1800 out of the $2000 you were going to spend, and you’d only be planning to be 10% economically wild next month. That’s pretty good, yeah? Knowing where 90% of your spending is going is pretty reasonable, right? But, wait a minute… … what’s the thing that breaks people who have no spare cash? Oh yeah, emergency expenses. So your car breaks down and you’re forced to pay $600 to get it repaired. Now you spent $2400… and had only planned for $1800. Your “economic wildness” relative to budget thus went up to 600/2400 = 25%. Or, 2.5x higher than you’d planned for. That one random expense might just put you in the debt spiral. If you fail to make plans to pay off the debt, it’ll start generating interest, and the downward spiral starts. *** COMPANIES, TOO You know, these days I don’t do consulting any more – I’ve got my writing, I’ve got my nonprofit work, and I’ve got my new company, Ultraworking – but I used to consult for a lot of growing companies, primarily in high tech and finance, that were growing and scaling. I’ll just say empirically – you’d be shocked at how little the median company knows about (1) where its money went last month and (2) where its money will go next month, and (3) all sorts of relevant facts and figures you’d think they should know. I have a variety of entrepreneurial friends and acquaintances. Some of them freelance, and live very boom and bust – and many of them don’t plan for their income very well, don’t plan how much to spend, and don’t plan their spending at all. Their economic wildness is high. Their companies and their professions often fail them, or at least, they get into periods of high stress fairly often. Actually, I find myself having less and less of these friends every year. The smart people grow out of it; the people who don’t grow out of it become increasingly irascible and stagnant. *** CURRENT ECONOMIC WILDNESS, I Quick – *How much money is in your checking account? *How much is in your savings account? *How much do you have in unpaid taxes? *How much have you invested in tax-advantaged accounts this year? *How much more will you invest this year? *If you have debt, when’s it going to be paid off and retired? *What did you spend less month? *What are you spending this month? *What are you spending next month? Don’t know? Isn’t that a little concerning? *** CURRENT ECONOMIC WILDNESS, II Yes, I think most people don’t know the current state of their affairs. The more accurately you could know those answers – either off the top of your head, or by quickly checking a spreadsheet or app that you periodically look at – the lower your economic wildness. Before Luca de Pacioli and modern accounting, basically every business had a much higher degree of economic wildness than the well-run companies do now. A baker making bread might have a reasonably good idea if he’s turning a profit on each loaf, but without accounting, he neglects things like how fast his oven is wearing out and needs to be replaced, the cost per day of staying in business (including property taxes, etc), might fail to adequately build reserves to pay off taxes if they’re not due immediately, and so on. That sociology journal we quoted earlier, they explained this about accounting – “For [pioneering sociologist Max] Weber, “rational capital accounting” involves “the valuation and certification of opportunities for profit and of the success of profit-making activity by means of a valuation of the total assets (goods and money) of the enterprise at the beginning of the profit-making venture, and the comparison of this with a similar valuation of the assets still present and newly acquired, at the end of the process”” Yeah, that quote hurts my head too. But it’s important. Accounting is one way to reduce wildness – it lets you value things right now, and track value changes over time, and so you can know if you’re actually profiting or not. And in fact, the closer your are to “the edge” – the less savings you have and the more you live paycheck to paycheck – the greater the chance that missing a single detail will sink you. If someone budgets and lives on 10% of their pay and banks 90%, even underestimating their expenses by half won’t sink them. The people that are most desperately struggling – the people who have the least reserves and buffer – are the ones who most need to minimize economic wildness. And I think this is true up and down the spectrum. I think it’s true for individuals, families, companies, institutions, cities, countries; from the micro up to the macro. While it’s obviously unfair and not perfectly informative to compare somewhere like Britain to a much younger country like Indonesia, among “apples to apples” countries like the Czech Republic and Slovakia, I contend the “less economically wild” country will more reliably get wealthy. That is, I think China has been less economically wild than Russia over the last 25 years, and that’s one of the biggest contributing factors for China’s rise vis-a-vis Russia. *** TEMPORAL CONTROL AND WILDNESS We’re in the midst of our explorations into “Temporal Control,” using our skills and abilities to manage time, space, and resources towards success. Two chapters ago, we covered a “Unit of Account” – then, last chapter we covered a warning against getting obsessed with measurements and neglecting something important. The same could be said here, of accounting. Accounting is very valuable, but it’s not the only thing that matters – a city with a wonderful culture and lots of advantages like San Francisco can get away with more wildness than a crummier city. Likewise, doing and keeping accounts takes work, and there’s always opportunity cost on work. I don’t know his accounts, but Kanye West seems to have a high degree of economic wildness – at least from his public statements – and perhaps it makes sense for him. And yet, here we are, examining how to navigate time and space effectively. That sociology paper is really hit-and-miss; it says some nearly nonsensical things, but also has some gems – “Weber: … from a purely technical point of view, money is the most ‘perfect’ means of economic calculation. That is, it is formally the most rational means of orienting economic activity.” “Accounting makes it possible for capitalists to evaluate rationally the consequences of their past decisions.” I mean, isn’t that marvelous? And incredibly powerful? “Accounting makes it possible for capitalists to evaluate rationally the consequences of their past decisions” – wow. It’s true, too. Now, I’m not here to worship the market; that’s really not the point. There’s some businesses that I think are terrible for mankind and which I think no one should buy what they sell. In particular, I think companies that make their profits nearly entirely from obese people selling bad foodstuffs that make them obese, I think these companies are morbidly awful, and the sooner they’re out of business, the better. And despite that, acknowledging that “accounting makes it possible to evaluate rationally the consequences of past decisions” is still a statement that’s poignant and true… and maybe even beautiful. Yes, I do think it’s beautiful. The math is so pure and elegant, and the ability to understand what happened last year, in business, from a sheet of figures in a ledger… this is remarkable. It also didn’t exist until five centuries ago. We went 200,000 years without money as a species, and didn’t get all that far. After money was created, we still went another 1,200 years before being able to fully numericize the entirety of our affairs. During that time, we couldn't really know the exact extent to which a business – or freelancer, or wage earner – was profiting or losing in a given year. Really, it’s a toss-up for me if Gutenberg’s printing press or Pacioli’s double-entry accounting was more valuable for human development. Literacy is probably more important than complete accountancy for our species, and yet, there were good books before Gutenberg’s press, but genuinely complex and technical businesses would have been impossible to create without accounting. I believe it would have been outright impossible to create combustion engines and personal computers and all that wonderful stuff without accounting. And I think the Internet has now begun to obsolete books created by printing-press… so maybe I’ve just talked myself into thinking that double-entry accounting is more important than the printing press. That digression aside, when I read, “Accounting makes it possible for capitalists to evaluate rationally the consequences of their past decisions” – we should start thinking of all the aspects of life where one can’t rationally evaluate the consequence of past decisions with the same rigor, and think through the practical applications. *** OBVIOUS IMPLICATION: LOWER YOUR ECONOMIC WILDNESS [*] [*] (Unless you have a damn good reason for not doing so. Which, if you're not Kanye West, you probably don’t.) You lower your economic wildness by, 1. Knowing more accurately how much money and monetary valuable things you have currently on-hand, 2. Knowing more accurately where your money went in the past, 3. Knowing more accurately where your money will go in the future. Now, wildness = 0% is both probably impossible and not worth aiming for. Some industries are naturally more economically wild. Those industries tend to be more dangerous to operate in. Some professions tend to be more economically wild. Some countries tend to be more economically wild. And so on. But you can lower your economic wildness. The original theory of health insurance was that everyone has a relatively low risk of any given health disaster, but it would absolutely sink both your finances and life if you got one. If you have a 1 in 100 chance of a $20,000 expense (or die if you can’t pay it), then it can make a whole lot of sense to buy $200 of insurance. In that case, you convert the variance and risk of a very large degree of economic wildness hitting you into a fixed known small cost. Having a huge amount of savings is sometimes called “self-insuring” – you can keep all your things maintained, but if something breaks, you just buy a new one. Thus, if you have $100,000 of savings and no fancy possessions, it probably doesn’t make sense to buy renter’s insurance. But if you have some expensive technical equipment or tools, no savings, and live in a high-crime neighborhood, that $20 per month lowers the chance of needing to outlay a huge amount of cash. Backwards-looking economic wildness can get reduced to basically zero by just tracking your income and expenses. You don’t even have to do it forever; doing it for 1-3 months gives you a much better picture of what you genuinely spend. It’s shocking to me that more people don’t do it. It doesn’t even take long. Likewise, doing a current accounting of your cash accounts and possessions (and the wear-and-tear on them, especially if you own a house or car) – well, this isn’t so hard to do, and more people should do it. Forgive me if this sounds stupidly obvious, but I do think life is easier if you know how much money you have. As for forwards-looking accounting, well, that is genuinely harder, given the lack of reliable crystal balls. And yet, there’s dozens of good methods that, even halfway-implemented, can go quite a ways. I personally use YouNeedABudget v3 for my finances. But any personal finance app, including just tracking your spending on a spreadsheet daily, works just fine. I read these sites somewhat regularly: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/ http://earlyretirementextreme.com/ https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/ Then, this guide by Ramit Sethi on Tim Ferriss's site is still quite relevant – setting up your accounts so your “landing account” gets pre-diverted to investments before withdrawing or paying cards off from it can make immense sense. Schwab Investor Checking is still the best checking account, though you’d probably want to use a credit union like Alliant over Capital One these days. If you’re in business, sooner or later you should learn accounting. Maybe you’d do well to learn it on a e-learning site, but I think it’s the perfect college course to take: it lends itself perfectly to university format. If you’re an undergraduate, I think accounting is a no-brainer course to take. If not, your local community college probably has it very affordably. It really does benefit from practice and being graded by the instructor, as opposed to self-grading. *** LESS OBVIOUS IMPLICATION: THE INVISIBLE LINES Now here is the more difficult implication; more difficult basically by definition. For 200,000 years, humans didn’t have quality money. For 1,200 years after quality money, we didn’t have modern accounting. What else are we missing? I’ll quote that remarkable line again – “Accounting makes it possible for capitalists to evaluate rationally the consequences of their past decisions.” You can gain a lot of Temporal Control by reducing your wildness and getting an accurate accounting of your finances. And you should do that, yes. But over and beyond that, how do you develop a more rigorous and rational thinking? This is what we really want; accounting is just one particular sub-skill of numeracy, rationality, measurement, and diligence. Greg Nance shared a very good post on mental models with me recently – https://medium.com/@yegg/mental-models-i-find-repeatedly-useful-936f1cc405d#.i2aj2ajkj Gabriel Weinberg, the author, is a terrific thinker and his old archives are worth reading, too. Whilst on the topic, you should probably also read “The Intelligent Investor” by Benjamin Graham if you want to understanding investing, and “One Up On Wall Street” by Peter Lynch if you want to hone investing skills more while understanding the handcuffs that public money-managing institutions face (a big part of why the Efficient Market Hypothesis is wrong). But, no, actually, the double-entry accounting itself isn’t the important piece of the puzzle. It’s a good – great – technical skill, that can serve to make one’s life much better. Going over and beyond that, though, “Accounting makes it possible for capitalists to evaluate rationally the consequences of their past decisions.” What other aspects of your life do you have a hard time objectively evaluating? If a business loses money, and the business kept records, you can put your fingers on why. Sales went down, margins were lower than expected, defect rate was too high, overhead was too high, interest to service debt was too high, seasonality and bad cash flow management meant bankruptcy, whatever. You can figure it out. Much of life – you can’t, unless you devise for yourself metrics and guidance. Yeah, as much as I’d have liked to know if Julius Caesar was really hesitating and vacillating before crossing the Rubicon in a despite gamble, or if it had been a long-held conspiratorial plan… I’d have preferred to break bread and olive oil with Luca de Pacioli and Leonardo da Vinci even more. I could imagine them laying some cheese, tomatoes, and olive on bread, digging in and eating, glancing over Leonardo’s latest sketches after their hands, and then Luca speaking up, “Hey, Leo, you ain’t going to believe this. I was just with talking with the Medici bankers and – hey, keep this to yourself – but get this – they don’t know where their buildings are!” “Mamma mia, Luca! You should use your math to do something about that.” “Hey, Leo, that’s not a bad idea…” Temporal Control #5: The Intersubjective Temporal Control #5: The Intersubjective HOW HAPPY IS WHOM... 29 October 1933 – Ankara, Turkey The crowd gathers, looking a mix of fierce and modern. Soldiers, industrial workers, government representatives, traders and financiers and businesspeople… it is a day of festive celebration; one decade after the founding of the Republic, its leader Mustafa Kemal stands in front of them. His speech is plain and simple, but it stirs the soul – not just of a Turk, but of any person who believes in valiance. Kemal begins, “The Turkish Nation! We are in the fifteenth year of the start of our way of liberation. This is the greatest day marking the tenth year of our Republic. May it be celebrated. At his moment, as a member of the great Turkish nation, I feel the deepest joy and excitement for having achieved this happy day. My citizens, We have accomplished many and great tasks in a short time. The greatest of these is the Turkish Republic, the basis of which is the Turkish valiancy and the great Turkish culture. We owe this achievement to the cooperative progress of the Turkish nation and its valuable army. However, we can never consider what we have achieved to be sufficient, because we must, and are determined to, accomplish even more and greater tasks. We shall raise our country to the level of the most prosperous and civilised nations of the world. We shall endow our nation with the broadest means and sources of welfare. We shall raise our national culture above the contemporary level of civilisation. Thus, we should judge the measure of time not according to the lax mentality of past centuries, but in terms of the concepts of speed and movement of our century. Compared to the past, we shall work harder. We shall perform greater tasks in a shorter time. I have no doubt that we shall succeed in this, because the Turkish nation is of excellent character. The Turkish nation is intelligent, because the Turkish nation is capable of overcoming difficulties of national unity, and because it holds the torch of positive sciences.” Kemal goes on in this vein for a while, plainly spoken but powerful, until coming to the end of his speech. It later becomes the Turkish national motto, and stood, even in a century of speeches, as one of the most remarkable closing lines of a speech in all of the 20th century. Kemal finishes – “Ne mutlu Türküm diyene!” “How happy is whom who says I am a Turk!” Tears well up in some eyes, and the crowd roars with approval and in celebration. *** HOLDING OUT 11 years earlier… Winter 1922-1923 – Lausanne, Switzerland Kemal’s instructions to the Turkish negotiators had been clear: zero concessions of Turkey’s independence. Kemal would repeat the principle again and again, never bowing to pressure to keep old Ottoman financial concessions, to allow the stationing of foreign troops or observers along the Turkish straits, or any such thing. Kemal sets the boundaries as complete independence, “... [and] by complete independence, we mean of course complete economic, financial, juridical, military, cultural independence and freedom in all matters. Being deprived of independence in any of these is equivalent to the nation and country being deprived of all its independence.” He had a terrific negotiator in Ismet Pasha at the Lausanne Conference. The Turks were seeking to have their revolutionary republican nation legitimized, but were simultaneously refusing to make any concessions against their independence. One of the more amusing anecdotes of the conference – and there were many – would come when the British Lord Kurzon would stand to make demands to the assembled Turkish negotiators. Ismet Pasha was partially deaf, and would turn his hearing aid off when Kurzon would speak. When Kurzon sat down, he would get up, turn his hearing aid back on, and blissfully repeat the Turkish stance – complete independence, and nothing less. *** THE FIELD BATTLE OF THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF One half-year earlier… 29 August 1922 – Kütahya Province, Turkey The Turkish guards were polite to the captured Greek General, Nikolaos Trikoupis. He had been fed and given and given strong coffee, and allowed to keep his full uniform, rank signia, and decorations on. The Turks brought him to their commander’s tent, Mustafa Kemal’s. Kemal smiles and hands Trikoupis a captured Greek telegram. Trikoupis reads and feels shattered. He’d been promoted to Commander-in-Chief of the Greek Army. The telegram lines to his headquarters had been cut, and he’d found out about this promotion only after being captured. The Turks would later semi-ironically name that engagement “The Battle of Dumlupınar” – the "Field Battle of the Commander-in-Chief." The next day, seeing the Greek disintegration at hand, Kemal would give a clear and crisp order of the day – “Armies, your first goal is the Mediterranean. Forward!” Three weeks later, the Greeks would completely evacuate; a month later, the armistice was signed. *** A TOO-LATE ARREST ORDER 3 years earlier… June 1919 – British Occupation of Istanbul Following the British tradition, Admiral Calthorpe is going over reports and paperwork. Transferring authority from the broken and defeated Ottoman Empire to the victorious Allies, the British were now installing loyal police and garrisons, detaining potential troublesome elements, and getting down to the business of Imperial governance – they were, of course, the best in the world at it. Looking through his list of papers, one name stands out to him – Mustafa Kemal, Inspector General for Disarmament Calthorpe scratches his head, thinks. Kemal… Kemal… where is that name from? Oh, damn. Gallipoli. He was the commander at Gallipoli. Calthrope immediately issues an arrest warrant for Kemal. It is too late – Kemal had anticipated this, and already melted away from his post in Istanbul – with his best officers and aides. *** MEN, I AM NOT ORDERING YOU TO ATTACK 4 years earlier… 25 April 1915 – Gallipoli, Ottoman Empire The British forces on the verge of breaking through at the Gallipoli invasion. The Turks are outnumbered, out of ammunition, nearly beaten. The young Colonel Kemal gives his order to the 57th – “Men, I don’t order you to fight, I order you to die! By the time we die, other units and commanders will have up to take our place!” Nearly 100% of the soldiers of the 57th are wounded or killed. But the Turks hold. It is their only major victory in the First World War, and the worst defeat of the British Empire since the loss of the American colonies. *** YOUNG TURKS Seven years earlier… 3 July 1908 – Resen, Macedonia, Ottoman Empire Major Ahmed Niyazi, with only 200 soldiers, declares he is in revolution against the Ottoman Sultan. At first, the whole thing is laughable. But then… no one in the army goes to clean up this little band. Niyazi’s little band just… sits there… in Macedonia… unopposed. Is there not a single division loyal to the Sultan to go arrest these men? It wouldn’t even be a battle; arresting them would work. No one does. Observing the indifference of their fellow soldiers to the Sultan’s command, the rebellion then spreads like wildfire. 20 days later, Sultan Abdul Hamid II signs over much of his authority to the Young Turk military officers. They would lead the Ottoman Empire into the disaster of the First World War. *** A NEW TYPE OF PEACE 260 years earlier… 15 May 1648 – Westphalia, Germany 194 states signed on to the treaty to end the wars. This “Peace of Westphalia” settled many of the disputes and answered many of the questions that had led to and came out of the Thirty Years’ War in Europe. Most of these are ephemeral, but one aspect of Westphalia laid the groundwork which eventually led to modern nations – the concept of Westphalian sovereignty. Before Westphalia, natural geographical borders would often be used to mark lines between nations – the Rhine River, or the Rubicon, or the Alps. Afterwards, lines on a map became (at least on paper) sacred and binding things, where the rulers of those states could set all the laws inside their territory. The modern nation state would eventually evolve out of this, replacing something like a “power through a radiating sphere of influence under largely personal rule” with a more legible-ized rational-ized state-based system. One European great power was not a signer of the treaty and thus did not adopt these internal conceptions of a state – the Ottoman Empire. *** ROXELANA, IMPERIAL CONSORT 115 years earlier… A.D. 1533 – Istanbul, Ottoman Empire Suleiman I, “Suleiman the Magnificent,” was the type of ruler who wrote and re-wrote tradition. The Ottoman Empire became the most powerful nation in Europe – and perhaps the world – under his rule. He re-wrote and modernized the law and the military, was personally engaged as an artist and scholar, and oversaw much simultaneous expansion and artful consolidation. To a man like that, what is law? He had already broken one critical Ottoman family tradition: he had more than one child with his favorite concubine, Roxelana. He now broke the 200-year taboo against marrying a concubine. Roxelana would take her place next to Suleiman as “Hürrem Sultan” – their descendants would take the throne; the monarchs of the Ottoman Empire would now be mixed-blood Eastern European and Oghuz Turk. *** THE FALL; THE RISE 80 years earlier… 29 May 1453 – Constantinople, Byzantium The 21-year old Sultan, Mehmed II, was at the gates. It looked like their forces might break through this morning. We call it the “Byzantine Empire” today to simplify things, but they still called themselves Romani – Greek-speaking Romans, yes, but nevertheless they saw themselves as the heirs of Augustus. And after this morning, the Roman Empire would finally be no more. Mehmed II had earlier offered the Byzantines their lives, if they would surrender. Emperor Constantine XI, in history’s last moment of that famous Roman ferocious defiance, replies – “To surrender the city to you is beyond my authority or anyone else's who lives in it, for all of us, after taking the mutual decision, shall die out of free will without sparing our lives.” As Mehmed’s forces breached the walls and streamed into the city, Constantine XI took off his imperial ornaments, his robes, his purple cloak. He borrowed a plain soldier’s uniform from one of his guards and dressed himself, unwilling to become a trophy to the conqueror. And then, he took a plain soldier’s sword, and lead his household guard into a final suicide charge against the conquering invaders. For three days, the Ottoman forces were allowed to pillage and loot one of the riches cities in the world. But on the third day, in a gesture that would be imitated by later Sultans, Mehmed II announced that all residents would be under his protection and may keep their profession and religion. The Ottoman State had become the Ottoman Empire. *** WESTWARDS 468 years earlier… A.D. 985 – Steppe lands near modern-day Kazakhstan Chief Seljuk withdrew to his own own camp. The schism meant they were exiled from the “Oghuz,” the community and alliance of the nine Turkic tribes. It would be unsafe to linger. Seljuk calls a war counsel. He invited ideas: should we stay and hope? Should we pursue diplomacy? Should we leave? If so, what direction? One advisor, his name lost to time, suggests moving west to the more fertile lands. There is debate among the advisors – certainly, they might face enemies to the west… but their horse archers were skilled and their people were hardy. Seljuk makes his decision and nods. “Yes. We will go west.” And so – the Seljuk Turks went west. *** TEMPORAL CONTROL #5: THE INTERSUBJECTIVE After the defeat and occupation of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War, Mustafa Kemal faced almost impossible odds. The Turkish War of Independence meant leading an under-equipped, under-modernized, already devastated internal force against well-funded victorious occupiers. The diplomacy in the aftermath of the First World War was also terrifically difficult – ensuring the British or French didn’t get a toe-hold in modern Turkey and that the nation could develop on its own lines took incredibly deft negotiation. And then, building the actual country domestically also had the deck stacked against him. Turkey’s institutions were many centuries old, and many of them were corrupt and defective. The Ottoman Empire had people of many different bloodlines, heritages, and languages who didn’t form into a cohesive whole. The old ruling family, the Sultanate, had conceived of themselves as of the House of Osman and emphatically not as part of the general population. These are the challenges that Mustafa Kemal had to navigate in building Turkey into a modern nation. How did he do it? He had a natural genius for organization, administration, open-mindedness, spotting talented people, seeing trends, efficiency, and bold strokes of action – but this, alone, was not enough. All of this was necessary, yes, but one thing more – he managed the intersubjective better than just about anyone in history. *** THE WORD INTERSUBJECTIVE My writings on history tend to be rather long and detailed. In this chapter, I wanted to set up the core backstory of the Turkish Republic – some of the relevant details across some 1,200 years of history. My two hopes are that (1) the reading is interesting and pleasurable and enjoyable for you, but also that (2) you get some immensely practical gains from it. Today comes an incredibly potent lesson. Even learning the word “intersubjective” gives an immense amount of power. *** IS AN APPLE A THING? IS A DOLLAR? IS A FLAG? IS A COUNTRY? Here it is, then – Is an apple an objective thing? Yes, sure. There’s different types of apples, different colors of them, different apples might be more or less sweet, larger or smaller, but an apple is basically an apple. It’s an objective sort of thing. The language around it, it maps to an objective thing. In Spanish, an apple is a “manzana” and it’s still an apple. In Japanese, it’s”林檎”. Same thing. An apple. On the far other side of equation is a “favorite color” – by nature, subjective. Saying “favorite color” – in any language – calls up a different color for each person who hears the term. (Much ado about nothing, but mine was green when I was a boy, was purple when I was a young man, and is now white – given that white light encompasses all other colors. Gold is my second favorite.) Okay. So an apple is a pretty objective thing and a “favorite color” is a subjective thing. Easy enough. Now, a harder question – is a U.S. Dollar an objective or subjective thing? *** … BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT… “It’s objective. Look, it’s green. George Washington’s portrait is on the front of it. It’s made out of paper.” Fine, I’ll grant you all that – but the most important and interesting thing about a U.S. Dollar is that you can spend it as money. Is that objective? Careful, now. If you say “yes,” I’m going to follow up and ask why Continental Dollars (“not worth a continental”) and Confederate Dollars and Soviet Rubles can’t be accepted as money. “Well, because no one accepts them as money.” True. Statistically speaking, sooner or later in the next 1000 years, U.S. Dollars won’t be money any more; they’ll just be scraps of paper and historical artifacts. The piece of paper in your wallet is objectively there, sure, but the fact that it’s worth anything is only driven by other people being willing to give you something for it. Okay, how about a flag? Is a flag objective or subjective? Again, we can lay out the objective specs of a flag – 13 stripes, red and white alternating, blue field in the corner, 50 white stars, American flag. “American flag” can objectively point at a certain pattern of colors and shapes. But how about the meaning of that flag? Is it completely subjective? Well, no. You can like America or dislike America, but in Seattle and London and Havana and Baghdad and Moscow, they all pretty much recognize that that’s the American flag. And, yet. Swastika – really bad, Nazi Germany, right? It’s consistently shocking to American travelers to South and Southeast Asia to see swastikas casually built into all sort of things. (It shocked me when I first saw it along the outer walls of a temple in Saigon, Vietnam.) Turns out, the Nazis co-opted a semi-sacred image from the East; it had originated from Hinduism and been adopted by Buddhists and other Eastern faiths for many centuries before Hitler was born. If the Nazis had been snuffed out earlier and were just a historical curiosity, the swastika probably would have reverted to being an Asian symbol instead of a symbol of hate and aggression. *** AND COUNTRIES? You get where we’re going. If everyone agrees on a border, and if trying to cross the border without permission gets you shot, then the border is real. Sure, it’s real. Surely too, there’s objective borders, like the Pacific Ocean. But the borders merely arbitrarily drawn nonetheless aren't subjective in most cases; we all pretty much know where the border is. There’s a few arguments in a few places, but by and large, most of the important borders of modern countries are settled. Borders are surely real – just as real as an apple – but they aren’t objective; like an apple, nor are they subjective like a favorite color. *** ENTER: THE INTERSUBJECTIVE Bryan Hernandez, a terrific deep-thinking man with a strong interest in philosophy, taught me this word a couple years ago. I dare say it was the most useful single word I ever learned. Wikipedia – “In its weakest sense, intersubjectivity refers to agreement. There is intersubjectivity between people if they agree on a given set of meanings or a definition of the situation. Similarly, Thomas Scheff defines intersubjectivity as "the sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals."” Intersubjective stuff acts a heck of a lot like objective stuff… until it doesn’t. The intersubjective is true by mutual agreement. A U.S. Dollar is worth something for a lot of reasons, but a foundation of all of it is that people want U.S. Dollars. Yes, you can invoke legal tender laws, public and private debt, the Federal Reserve managing the money supply, the stock market, money being a unit of account and medium of exchange, taxation being mandatorily paid in dollars (and pretty much never in-kind these days), foreign exchange, inflation, the historical precedents under Bretton Woods and the Gold Standard before the Nixon Shock… … yeah, you could invoke all of that – and certainly, that stuff matters too – but if people didn’t agree to use dollars and didn’t want to use dollars, none of that stuff would matter, and the dollar would collapse in its current form. (Statistically, actually, all currencies collapse eventually down to their commodity value, but that’s beyond the scope of what we’re talking about today.) Now, before we go any further, I want to make one thing extremely clear – I’m being descriptive here, not prescriptive. I’m doing my best to be neutral towards intersubjective stuff. I don’t have any political positions here. Please spare me from political emails about the good or evil of the federal reserve system, fiat currency, etc. (Actually, I’ll say – just to clear it up – that I’m largely in favor of the current system, though I could also potentially imagine there being a better one as technology develops.) So… this isn’t at all a political piece, but rather is trying to show the cracks around the edges of reality that most people are unaware of. And with that said – this is, indeed, one of the most important things in life. *** KEMAL’S TURKIFICATION The Ottoman Empire, as we said earlier, was a loose collection of peoples ruled by one family that considered themselves something different and apart from the people. Frankly, this is somewhat hard to explain to modern readers. I still find it hard to both understand and explain, because there is almost nothing comparable to it in the current day. Perhaps one of the few comparisons that would resonate, where the image hasn’t been forgotten or totally renounced, it that of the Japanese samurai and Japanese peasants. The samurai – the upright ones, anyways – understood the peasants to be the soil that the samurai tree was planted in. The peasants always had to be nurtured and taken care of. If you abused the soil, the tree would die. But they weren’t the same thing. Before Japan was unified in the Sengoku Civil Wars, individual Japanese might have had a few distinct set of loyalties. To their close family. To their clan. To others of their rank and designation. Maybe to the land they’re from. Maybe to the Emperor. Similarly to how people these days in the United States typically do not feel any affinity or allegiance to their county, but might to their state, city, or country, in feudal times, the allegiances and identity would be cut up differently. Under the Ottoman millet system, people of different religions and backgrounds had different courts and laws to follow, even when living in the same area. Thus, there might be Sharia, Canon Law, and Halahka courts in the same city for Muslims, Christians, and Jews respectively. The language you spoke didn’t matter; Muslims were under the jurisdiction of the Muslim Sharia court, the Caliph being the final authority of it. There was not a concept of “citizenship” or even non-citizenship… you just lived in lands governed by whoever governed the lands, and it wasn’t particularly a big deal. Similarly to how Americans typically feel about their county. You town might be significant, your state might be significant, but no one really identifies with what county they come from. Of course, the flame of nationalism was gradually ignited… Napoleon played a huge part of that, of course, and then the unifications of Germany and Italy were significant, and finally, the First World War was the height of nationalism. Meanwhile, governments with mixed legal systems in one location, where the courts were segmented by religion or race... these just tended to underperform governments with a more unified geographic-based judiciary. And this is the problem at Kemal inherited. In Istanbul alone, there were all sorts of mixes of Balkan people, Turkic people, Arabs, Persians, and many others. Even the Ottoman ruling family was mixed blood – the concept of ethnicity or ethnic purity or ethnic nationalism was just not very important to the Ottomans. Kemal saw fighting continually breaking out across the world along ethnic lines, and he foresaw that if he didn’t build a single “Turkish” identity, then people would get divided based on allegiance to their past ethnic homelands, and there would be constant strife. So he led a “Turkificaiton” of the people. Everyone had to learn Turkish. They created a Turkish alphabet. They translated all books and laws into Turkish. To register your name with the government, you had to translate it into Turkish. From Wikipedia, “Names ending with “yan, of, ef , viç, is, dis , poulos, aki, zade, shvili, madumu, veled, bin” (names that denote Armenian, Russian, Greek, Albanian, Arabic, Georgian, Kurdish, and other origins) could not be registered, they had to be replaced by “-oğlu.” To me, that’s fascinating. Is it so important to standardize surnames to build a national culture? But you think about it, and – yes, of course it is. I recognized “-shvili” right away as Georgian; my friend Stepan Parunashvili was born in the former USSR before his family immigrated to Canada. “-shvili” means “child of…” – so at some point, one of Stepan’s ancestors had a first name or Paru or Parun, and his child was named Parunashvili Similarly to how “ferrari” means blacksmith in Italian, but not all modern “Ferraris” are blacksmiths, eventually people kept one surname and stopped changing it based on each parental generation. In Turkey, any “shvili” would have to convert to the Turkish “-oğlu”… an Istanbul Parunashvili might have become Paroğlu, or similar. *** THE EMERGENCE OF TURKISHNESS The law was scaled back about 10 years ago with Turkey bidding to join the European Union, but for a number of decades it was illegal to “insult Turkishness.” This always struck foreigners as somewhat odd, and sometimes there were jokes about it – but if you know the history, it makes perfect sense. The whole concept of “Turkishness” was a somewhat fragile one. There were Turks who were ethnically Arab, ethnically East Asian, ethnically Stepppe-Turkic, Balkan-Caucasian, Slavic, Hellenic, and many more things. The whole concept of Turkishness was incredibly fragile when it was introduced – even a few charismatic people who mocked and defied Turkificaiton might just have been able to break the whole system down… and, it’s quite likely modern Turkey doesn’t survive if that happens. Kemal was trying to introduce a brand-new and entirely revolutionary intersubjective truth about a whole mass of people. As it was, Mustafa Kemal basically created the concept of a Turkish ethnicity, dissolving otherwise competing allegiances to pre-Turkish bloodlines and amalgamating them into just being Turkish and loving the Republic of Turkey. *** THE UPSIDE OF CREATING A NEW BLOODLINE FROM SCRATCH… … is that Kemal had a totally blank slate to define Turkish more-or-less however he wanted. You can read the speech I quoted from at the start of this piece – http://www.tur.freeservers.com/whats_new_3.html It starts to take on a new meaning. “The Turkish Nation!” is how it opens. Note well, there had been no Turkish Nation until they rose up in the Turkish War of Independence… the whole concept of a Turkish Nation was less than 15 years old. Then note – “My citizens, We have accomplished many and great tasks in a short time. The greatest of these is the Turkish Republic, the basis of which is the Turkish valiancy and the great Turkish culture.” Note both “my citizens” – a very new conception that would never have been heard 10-15 years previous – and then emphasizing Turkish valiancy and the great Turkish culture. It is, you know, a remarkable achievement what Kemal did. If you read the whole speech with a critical eye and the historical background, you can learn a lot from it that’s non-obvious. Here, let’s do one last paragraph on it – “We owe this achievement to the cooperative progress of the Turkish nation and its valuable army. However, we can never consider what we have achieved to be sufficient, because we must, and are determined to, accomplish even more and greater tasks. We shall raise our country to the level of the most prosperous and civilised nations of the world. We shall endow our nation with the broadest means and sources of welfare. We shall raise our national culture above the contemporary level of civilisation.” Note strongly, “the Turkish nation and its valuable army.” This is Kemal saying that army belongs to the people – not to the government or current ruler. It’s subtle, but important. Kemal’s conception of the people’s will is slightly different than George Washington’s and doesn’t have the same deference to civilian command… but note that even with all the coups that have happened in modern Turkey, all of the Generals involved eventually relinquished command instead of trying to install themselves and their family as a perpetual Caliph, dictator, or monarch. This is not at all obvious or guaranteed behavior. Also note how “We shall raise our country to the level of the most prosperous and civilized nations of the world” implies that Turkey isn’t current one of the most civilized nations in the world at the time of the speech. I think that’s incredibly remarkable, and this constant emphasis on hard work, valiancy, and setting ever higher marks in the arts, sciences, industry, and human development accounts for much of Turkey’s successes in a region where failure and devastation has been the norm since the British and French so wantonly cut up the Middle East’s borders in the aftermath of the Great War. If you read closely, you can see Kemal constantly building and reinforcing new intersubjective truths, building a grounded foundation of the Republic of Turkey as he went. *** INTERSUBJECTIVITY – ONE CAUTION AND THREE TAKEAWAYS The first caution is this – Just because intersubjectivity is by agreement doesn’t mean that mere discussion and thinking can get things done by themselves. This is the common idealist trap, which often leads to downgoing and destruction. At the end of the day, intersubjective agreement is typically built – in the final reckoning – on somewhat objective facts. Kemal armed and equipped his soldiers with rifles and artillery and boots and vehicles, and forcibly drove the occupying forces out of Turkey. Treaties are intersubjective, of course, but you get the treaty you want by having the weapons and economy you need to dictate that you get fair terms. (In the short run, you might get a magnanimous ally with guns and wealth to defend you; in the long run, historically, those have been unreliable and impermanent.) Again, the intersubjective is critically valuable, but you cannot rely on it solely. To quote two men from very different backgrounds that drive at the same idea, father of value investing, Benjamin Graham said, “In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run, it is a weighing machine”… whereas Mao noted that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” So – caution is warranted before getting too deep down the intersubjective rabbit hole; reality always has the final say in the matter. Now, on to takeaways – 1. Recognize the intersubjective everywhere, and thus be much smarter. How loud can you speak here? Should you wait in line or push your way to the front? How clean is an appropriately clean house? Why is money worth something? What’s the expected behavior at a dinner party? Why do we respect borders of countries? How much respect and deference should religious figures get? What should you spend your paycheck on? How fancy of clothing, cars, furniture, and other things should people like you buy to fit in? All of this is intersubjective. You now have a word for it. You can not fail to notice it now. Intersubjective stuff is real, certainly – subjective tastes and whims matter, sure, but are infinitely less important than objective things. Once something hardens into something intersubjective – the norms and expected behaviors and broad agreements – people often fail to note it’s not objective, but still lives by mutual agreement. Law – country – passport – credit – money – work – property – language itself – all of this is intersubjective. Just knowing the word is incredibly powerful. 2. Scrutinize and eliminate foolishly inherited intersubjective notions. I’m so anti-utopian it’s not even funny. Utopians are the most devastatingly destructive people in the world. Nothing leads you quite into hell and misery and downgoing like trumpets blaring with beautiful ideas that don’t actually work. Pragmatism is the midwife of all prosperity and goodness. Thus, the first thing to do after recognizing the intersubjective is not “start adding more intersubjective stuff,” but instead to start stripping the worst of it away. As Antoine de Saint Exupéry put it, “Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retrancher.” “Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away.” Or the Zen proverbs, “The Buddhist scriptures are nothing but scraps of paper for wiping up filth.” “If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him.” Zen practitioners throughout the ages tend to respect objective reality immensely – chop wood, carry water. They tend to respect subjective reality immensely – “When you’re hungry, eat. When you’re tired, sleep.” They tend to be strongly dismissive of intersubjective reality: language, words, traditions, scriptures, and so on. This might be wise counsel to emulate, first and foremost. Dumping the trash out of your mind is always going to produce more value than cramming more ideas into an otherwise cluttered and disoriented place. 3. Finally, the pragmatic and unopinionated person can shape the intersubjective to greatly benefit humanity. If you neglect pragmatism in favor of mere ideas – if you believe that 100 pacifists could really impose their moral authority and will on 100 of the Mongol General Subutai’s outriders, or Mao’s elite troops, or any such thing without outside intervention – well, good luck with that. So, take care of objective reality. Kemal needed armed, trained, well-equipped troops to expel the invaders from Turkish territory before negotiating a settlement and building the Republic of Turkey formally. And then, start by dumping the trash out of your own mind. It's a recipe for disaster to take a flawed and broken ideal that you inherited, but which doesn’t serve you, and then try to build on top of it. To quote one last Zen precept on the matter, “The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent everything becomes clear and undisguised.” But then, once all that is true, building better intersubjective norms might be one of the most powerful things at your command. There is nothing stopping you from importing Japanese-style courtesy into your home in another country, from building a social circle that’s incredibly uplifting, from completely defecting and embargoing from foolish norms that mandate eating junk and getting intoxicated with people you dislike without enjoying it… The world needs people who can think clearly about norms and institutions, and who can construct new ones when it’s called-for. But get on solid ground first! Eradicate foolish opinions first! Then, and only then, perhaps much ground can be covered intersubjectively. I marvel over Kemal; he is a hero to me. Turkey has its ups and downs, and yet, it is a magnificent place filled with magnificent people; Istanbul is one of the finest cities in the world, perhaps my favorite in all of my travels. I genuinely love and admire the Turks and what they built their civilization to be. But there was no “Turkey” before Kemal conceived of it, built it, reinforced it, defended it. In 1934, the Turkish parliament gave him an additional surname, and he became – Mustafa Kemal Atatürk It means “Father of the Turks.” Truly, a worthy designation for a man of such heroism and genius. Mind the intersubjective! It’s not real the way an apple or an AK-47 is real, but it’s pretty damn important just the same. Temporal Control #6: The Heart of the Matter Temporal Control #6: The Heart of the Matter THE KEYSTONE “A keystone is the wedge-shaped stone piece at the apex of a masonry arch, the generally round one at the apex of a vault. In both cases it is the final piece placed during construction and locks all the stones into position, allowing the arch or vault to bear weight. … Although a masonry arch or vault cannot be self-supporting until the keystone is placed, the keystone experiences the least stress of any of the voussoirs, due to its position at the apex.” – Wikipedia: Keystone_(architecture) *** 2 SEPTEMBER 1870 Surveying the scene of the debacle, you could be forgiven if you’d forgot that the French had declared this war. Drunk on past glories, the self-assessment of the French population and leadership was… mistaken. They felt ever and always superior to their opponents on the battlefield. Failing to see how the world had shifted in two generations, French Emperor Napoleon III (nephew of Napoleon I), had personally headed out to command the Imperial troops at Sedan. They were crushed. It was one of the most lopsided defeats between two modern powers in the gunpowder age. The Germans took 9,000 casualties; the French… 120,000. Napoleon III, having seen his armies at Sedan fully encircled, with no hope of breaking out, was forced to choose between a senseless bloodbath or capitulation. He chose the latter – “At six o'clock in the morning on 2 September, in the uniform of a general, and accompanied by four generals from his staff, Napoleon was taken to the German headquarters at Donchery. He expected to see King William, but instead he was met by Bismarck and the German commander, General von Moltke. They dictated the terms of the surrender to Napoleon. Napoleon asked that his army be disarmed and allowed to pass into Belgium, but Bismarck refused. […] The Emperor was then taken to the Chateau at Bellevue, where he was visited by the Prussian King. Napoleon told the King that he had not wanted the war, but had been forced into it by public opinion. The Prussian king politely agreed.” Five months later, in a glittering spectacle, the German Empire was proclaimed from within the Hall of Mirrors at the French Palace of Versailles. Chancellor Bismarck and General Moltke surveyed their work proudly, had cocktails and snacks, and listened with faint Prussian smiles to the German music playing in the French halls, as Wilhelm I was proclaimed German Emperor. *** A FLAW IN OUR COGNITION Humans are such wonderful and miraculous creatures, are we not? And yet, ask around to those who understand our psychology – perhaps asking Kahneman, who seems to know our species rather well – and you’ll hear that we routinely make some large and reasonably well-known errors. Most of these “cognitive biases” are well-proven... and baffling in how stupid they make us. Get shown a random number written on a piece of paper (say, 117) and then get asked how many countries are in Africa… and the number of countries you guess will be closer to 117 than if you were shown a lower number like "15". Well, this field is already being mapped rather well by Kahneman et al; we need not spend too much time on it. But there is another class of errors that humans make, that Kahneman and his colleagues are unfortunately not exploring as rapidly. Objectively, getting shown a random number – 117 – should not have any effect on the next estimate you make on a topic. And yet, it does. We know that. It’s a very big flaw. Yet Kahneman et al, for all the genius of the behavioral economists, tend not to venture into the boundary and borders where the subjective and objective meet. One of the larger flaws in human cognition, as I see it, is how much stories and narratives seem to dominate raw information. It makes sense, of course, on many levels. It’s not all bad. But in 2016, it is at least a potentially weak point. It would not be so bad, actually, if the stories that were most persuasive and appealing to us also helped us learn… … if the stories we were most attracted to weren’t stories of train wrecks. When there is a car crash on the road, an accident, most drivers cannot stop themselves from morbidly craning their neck to get a look at the carnage. Likewise, the tendency in historical studies is to look at the great spectacles and train wrecks – those who led their nation seemingly to the highest levels of glory, but who came crashing back down to earth in din and clatter, and who died badly – of course, you know the story of Alexander, of Napoleon I, of Hitler. Train wrecks. You know the names and stories of the great calamaties. But how many temperate and fundamentally solid names do you know? *** TEMPORAL CONTROL #6: THE HEART OF THE MATTER Helmuth von Moltke is certainly one of the most impressive Generals of all-time; paired with Otto von Bismarck, the two of them rapidly unified Germany from a disparate mix of little city-states and principalities into a powerful modern industrial state. We often overlook fundamentally solid commanders, modernizers, pragmatists… Moltke invented a lot of what runs modern armies, but people who are not military scholars do not know this name. Why? Moltke and Bismarck were not fanatic idealogues. They were flexible. Having reached their core aims in German Unification, they did something miraculous – they stopped. It’s a rare and precious ability, knowing when to quit and take your chips away from the table. One of the great strengths of those two Prussians is the focus of this chapter, and one of the most simple and profitable lessons to be had – Getting right at the heart of the matter. An arch is unstable until the keystone is placed in it. Likewise, there are oftentimes a single actions or a single factor that will determine and dominate all other factors at play. This is worth exploring and learning from. *** WORAUF? You might memorize the word “Worauf?” and start using it shorthand for, “Worauf kommt es eigentlich an?” In English, you might translate to something like: “What is the heart of the matter?” The phrase is explained in the good-but-not-great book, “Art of Action” by Stephen Bungay – “Watching the Prussians in 1870, General Woide thought that they had perfected a secret weapon. He was right, in that the most important things happening were going on in people’s heads. People […] who see themselves as functionaries, the servants of a process, or cogs in a machine, behave quite differently from those who understand themselves as independent agents bearing some responsibility for the achievement of a collective purpose and as part of a living organism. The ultimate test of how embedded the disciplines are is how individuals think. In his comparison of the US and German armies of the 1940s, van Creveld points to the difference succinctly: “A German officer, confronted by some task, would ask: worauf kommt es eigentlich an? (what is the core of the problem?). An American one, trained in the “engineering approach” to war, would inquire: what are the problem’s component parts?”” That paragraph is important, perhaps more important than it looks on a quick glance. Between the 1940’s and now, the American military learned this lesson the hard way – written in blood. But across our civilian world, it’s still far too common to see people take that “engineering approach” to things that matter…. and to fail spectacularly. *** BEYOND COMPONENT PARTS The astute long-term reader will say: “Wait! Marshall, I’ve read you specifically advocate for doing ‘component parts’ analyses multiple times!” Indeed, this is true. Do not neglect the details. The details are precious. But the idea of driving at the heart of the matter is that if there’s a single critical factor that will dominate success or failure, get that right first. Component Parts is fundamentally sound and ought to be done, yes – don’t neglect the details – but there’s a chance to get caught up in the trivial things and neglect the very big things. As a very simple example, let’s say you’re throwing a party. “Component parts” might suggest: --> Theme --> Music --> Guest list --> Parking --> Security --> Food and drink --> Venue --> Reminders --> RSVP list And many more things. Cleaners the next day, decorations potentially, etc. All of those matter. But until you’ve got (1) a great core confirmed guest list, and (2) a suitable venue, the other parts don’t matter much at all. You can have a great party without a theme, without music, without decorations, without food or drink – if there are great people there. That factor dominates all the others to start. Once you have assured you can have some terrific people coming, the next consideration that will most effect the experience is the venue. It is very possible to have a great RSVP system, theme, and music… and have no one come. You should not neglect the details, but making a complete list and not discerning which factors are overwhelmingly needed to be done first – this can lead downwards into folly. If one factor dominates all the others in success and failure, assuring success on that parameter must come first. This sounds so terribly and ridiculously obvious, and yet – what percentage of people actually do it? *** EXAMPLE I: PRUSSIAN RAILROADS “The speed of Prussian mobilization astonished the French, and the Prussian ability to concentrate power at specific points — reminiscent of Napoleon I's strategies seventy years earlier — overwhelmed French mobilization. Utilizing their efficiently laid rail grid, Prussian troops were delivered to battle areas rested and prepared to fight, whereas French troops had to march for considerable distances to reach combat zones. After a number of battles … the Prussians defeated the main French armies and advanced on the primary city of Metz and the French capital of Paris. They captured Napoleon III and took an entire army as prisoners at Sedan on 1 September 1870.” — Wikipedia: Unification_of_Germany#Military_operations Two generations earlier, Napoleon I’s victories had initially savaged all of Revolutionary France's enemies. It was only Napoleon’s own hubris that brought the French down – his betrayal and usurpation of Spain being the most significant blunder to me, but the slow-moving invasion ever-deeper into Russia being the more famous blunder. Nevertheless, scholars of war were baffled by Napoleon. How did he do it? And thus, entire schools of military thinking were formed to analyze this very question. Carl von Clauswitz, the brilliant military theorist, devoted his whole life to answering it; Vom Kriege – “On War” – was his answer to the question. By the time of Napoleon III, the Prussians had learned well the lessons of how Napoleon I had done it. Before the absolute debacle at Sedan, the French and German armies had looked at the results of 60 years earlier, and had taken almost dramatically different conclusions from it. The French employed many of the exact same tactics; the French Republican soldier’s fast-marching had been a huge advantage in the French Revolutionary Wars… but the time had passed for faster marching. The Prussians – Moltke, especially – had seen that correctly placed railroads were going to be critically important: “In 1840 Moltke had been appointed to the staff of the 4th Army Corps, stationed at Berlin and he published his maps of Constantinople, and, jointly with other German travellers, a new map of Asia Minor and a memoir on the geography of that country. He became fascinated by railroads and he was one of the first directors of the Hamburg-Berlin railway. In 1843 published an article “What Considerations should determine the Choice of the Course of Railways?” It’s interesting to contrast the French and the Prussians. The French, having been the fastest and most able soldiers in the world 60 years prior, still felt good about their speed and competence – but did not adequately take notice of the fact that railroads solved three critical military problems: movement at speed, supplies, and balancing action with adequate rest and recovery for soldiers. Moltke did take notice, co-evolved the Prussian armies and the new railroad construction, and the result was a shatteringly powerful advantage over adversaries. *** EXAMPLE II: “PRACTICAL CHRISTIANITY” Otto von Bismarck is rightfully known as one of the most skilled diplomats and politicians of all time. All of this can firmly be seen on display in his speeches pushing for workman’s compensation and social insurance in Germany. I’ll remind you that I’m largely apolitical; I reject left nor right; the only direction that appeals to me is – up. I do not think that expanded state programs are always correct, nor always incorrect. But in the circumstances facing the newly unified Germany in the 1880’s, Bismarck was absolutely correct. German wages at the time were considerably below American wages – in the aftermath of the US Civil War, under a unified federal policy, American industry was booming and was luring away many of the most industrious and hardest working young Germans. There was free land and the westward push in America meant lots of industry and higher wages than most of continental Europe. Bismarck saw this as a huge problem. From 1870 to 1890, over 2 million Germans immigrated to the United States – a devastating number, considering the German Empire’s population was only 40 million in 1870. Bismarck settled on a policy of advocating social insurance and workman’s comp to look to retain young potential emigrants. This policy was sound – once it was implemented, it worked, and German emigration out of the country fell rapidly each decade following the policy enactments – but Bismark faced two obstacles: the hardcore socialists did not want half-measures put in place that would lessen pain and misery and lower their popular support, and the arch-conservatives were opposed to anything like Bismarck’s programs. His speeches on the topic are poignant, insightful, occasionally hilarious. Note these excerpts from his 15 March 1884 speech to the Reichstag – “That the Social Democratic leaders wish no advantage for this law, that I understand; dissatisfied workers are just what they need. Their mission is to lead, to rule, and the necessary prerequisite for that is numerous dissatisfied classes. They must naturally oppose any attempt of the government, however well intentioned it may be, to remedy this situation, if they do not wish to lose control over the masses they mislead. Therefore, I place no value on the objections that come from the leaders of the Social Democrats; I would place a very high value on the objections that come from the workers in general. Our workers, thank God, are not all Social Democrats and are not to such a degree unresponsive to the efforts of the confederated governments to help them, perhaps also not to the difficulties that these efforts meet in the parliamentary arena. The parliament has indeed the right to prevent any progress on our legislation; you have the absolute veto with regard to legislation, and through the uncontrolled exercise of this veto you can certainly paralyze legislation, whether it be because you oppose the government on principle, or whether you do so only opportunely, but consistently in each individual case.” That addressed both the far-left and far-right objections and put them in context. “The whole problem is rooted in the question: does the state have the responsibility to care for its helpless fellow citizens, or does it not? I maintain that it does have this duty, and to be sure, not simply the Christian state, as I once permitted myself to allude to with the words “practical Christianity,” but rather every state by its very nature. It would be madness for a corporate body or a collectivity to take charge of those objectives that the individual can accomplish; those goals that the community can fulfill with justice and profit should be relinquished to the community. There are objectives that only the state in its totality can fulfill. Among the last mentioned objectives of the state belong national defense and the general system of transportation. To these belong also the help of persons in distress and the prevention of such justified complaints as in fact provide excellent material for exploitation by the Social Democrats. That is the responsibility of the state from which the state will not be able to withdraw in the long run.” He doesn’t mention realpolitik – he knew the speech would be disseminated widely. But you can see him allude to retaining population – comparing the problem of citizens’ welfare to national defense and transportation infrastructure. He likewise frames it as “practical Christianity” – in another speech, he famously laid out the fact that a worker could get injured or crippled permanently on the job through no fault of his own, and was not owed anything beyond standard poor relief – which seemed a sorry and unsound state of affairs. “Gentlemen, freedom is a vague concept; no one has a use for the freedom to starve. But here freedom is also in my opinion not at all limited and not in contradiction with itself. The proposal intends a freedom in the organization, but it makes the execution obligatory.” Likewise, you can see Bismarck directly address multiple times in the speech that anything that can be done by individuals should be done by individuals; anything that can be adequately done by joint-stock corporations should be; but these matters were not being handled well in those ways, and so intervention was necessary. I’ll remind you once again I’m apolitical – this was, retrospectively, clearly the correct answer for the German Empire, and Bismarck navigated treacherous political and social waters very skillfully. Bismarck had identified that emigration and unrest were huge problems; his way to drive at the “heart of the issue” was through guarantees and indirect wages (insurance, workman’s comp, etc – new inventions; Bismarck’s German Empire was the first nation with workman’s comp). He noticed that he had to deal with far-left objections, far-right objections, and centrist business objections. He took a different approach to each one and was able to get the legislation passed, which did indeed let Germany retain more of their talented industrious young people. *** EXAMPLE III: THE SEQUENCING OF THE WARS In wartime, modern Germany’s problem is ever and always that it is surrounded. If it can navigate that and isolate adversaries, the country generally wins; if it cannot, it loses. Bismarck and Moltke were remarkably able – due to appearing weaker than the country actually was – to have opposing sides expediently declare war on them. Thus, their wars often morally had a defensive character to them, and did not immediately generate expansionary fears the way Napoleon had, or the way Hitler later would. It’s hard to explain exactly how Bismarck and Moltke did it in 1866… the amount of context needed would far outstrip the value of the lessons. Briefly, let’s try – “The second episode in Bismarck's unification efforts occurred in 1866. In concert with the newly formed Italy, Bismarck created a diplomatic environment in which Austria declared war on Prussia. The dramatic prelude to the war occurred largely in Frankfurt, where the two powers claimed to speak for all the German states in the parliament. In April 1866, the Prussian representative in Florence signed a secret agreement with the Italian government, committing each state to assist the other in a war against Austria. The next day, the Prussian delegate to the Frankfurt assembly presented a plan calling for a national constitution, a directly elected national Diet, and universal suffrage.” This was before German Imperial Unification and Bismarck, basically, looked like he would be offering a very appealing set of political prerogatives to the Germans in the Austrian sphere of influence. Meanwhile, the Italians were acting somewhat rowdy near the Austrian border. Austria declares war… and Moltke – in the first major war under his command – swiftly defeats them, before any Austrian allied states could mobilized. After a few swift victories by Moltke over the Austrians, Bismarck gave them incredibly reasonable surrender terms – terms they accepted but which cleared the way for the Unification of Germany. They were able to do this before Russia mobilized and intervened in the war, which likely would have run for the Germans similarly to the one-generation-later disaster of World War I. France would make the same error – when Bismarck backed a German candidate to the Spanish throne, the French made a rash ultimatum. Bismarck immediately showed them up in a public way, and the French declared war rashly, and were likewise swiftly defeated by Moltke’s high command. *** WORAUF? Bismarck and Moltke might have had one of the most fruitful collaborations in all of history. The two men didn’t always get along perfectly; nonetheless, the amount they were able to achieve is astounding – in technological modernization, in industry, in legal reform, in national modernization, in reforming the constitution, in uniting into a modern state, in infrastructure and transportation, in the sciences, and many more things – very few collaborations have been as fruitful. Both men very keenly honed in on the most critical next step to their aims. “Worauf kommt es eigentlich an?” They would eventually spread that spirit throughout the ranks of their armed forces and of the various provincial legislators, bureaucrats, and judges – there’s a reason that very many modern legal systems across the world have adopted the German legal system, built in that era, as the foundation of their own. The key is to always hone in on the most critical issue, recognize it, and go from there. Once that aim is secure, the next most important issue. And so on. Do not neglect the details! Of course not. Bismarck and Moltke were both incredibly thorough men. But they never got swamped in individual details while neglecting the heart of the matter – fast movement of people and supplies during wartime, technological superiority, quickly decisive conflicts, manageable conflicts one-at-a-time, reducing unrest and retaining talent in peacetime. In business, the two key matters are typically product (broadly speaking) and revenue in normal circumstances; and perhaps product, growth, and financing for some class of startups. You can get all other details right, but if your customers do not want what you’re selling, or you’re not making money, you’re going out of business. This tends to be the heart of the matter in business. In productivity and habit change, I broadly think that checking in, monitoring, and making adjustments on a daily and weekly basis is the heart of sustaining the changes. It must become the keystone – the piece that is least stressful to keep up, and which allows the structure to stand on its own. The contrast to asking “Worauf?” is being scattered, diffused, and not knowing what is most important. What’s most important here? What’s the heart of the matter? Then drive the vast majority of your energies at that until solved. Temporal Control #7: Operations Temporal Control #7: Operations DISPUTED ROCKEFELLER QUOTATION “I have ways of making money you know nothing about!” Rockefeller would later say he didn’t say it. Maybe he didn’t say it exactly, but I reckon he said something like it. A competitor he’d driven out of business, Isaac Hewitt, was testifying to the New York Assembly about Standard Oil and John Rockefeller. Rockefeller did, indeed, have ways of making money that most people knew nothing about. *** A 4% SAVINGS ON THE COST OF SEALING A BARREL If you read into John Rockefeller’s life, the vast majority of his dealings are the exact opposite of what people tend to associate with extreme amounts of wealth: he had a fanatical eye for detail, extreme frugality, and typically went about in extraordinary modesty for his levels of wealth. “Grabowski tells a well-known tale of Rockefeller’s visit to the factory where his workers made barrels to ship kerosene. When Rockefeller noticed the employees used 22 drops of solder to seal each barrel, he asked if they could use 20 instead. When the new barrels leaked, he instructed them to use 21 drops of solder. Those barrels didn’t leak, and Rockefeller saved one drop of solder on every barrel made.” – The Rockefeller Legacy That anecdote says something right by itself – despite making incredibly high profits for every barrel of oil sold, Rockefeller wanted to economize every single aspect of his operation. Once he had ascertained that 21 drops of solder were enough to seal a barrel, he disseminated a memo to all refineries – each barrel was to be sealed with precisely 21 drops of solder. This amounted to a little more than a 4% cost savings on… well, really, a relatively trivial fraction of an expense of barreling oil, which was itself a relatively trivial expense in the grand scheme of things. But in this, you can see Rockefeller’s attitude to business firmly on display: everything was to be done correctly. *** TEMPORAL CONTROL #7: OPERATIONS Last chapter we talked about driving at The Heart of the Matter. Figuring out which item is the keystone – without which, your structure will not stand… or which is the keystone to destroying some obstacle in your way; take it out, and the whole thing collapses. It is, of course, a metaphor: outside of a particular type of architecture, there might not be a single keystone that holds everything together… and even if there is, it might not be obvious. The process of discovering the “most critical thing for success” in a particular domain – and then testing and iterating until you have a way to get that critical thing – is very, very expensive. We know this, of course: the most expensive version of a new product costs an astronomical amount of money to make. The first iPhone, perhaps, cost hundreds of millions of dollars of R&D to make. But the 700,000th iPhone… the only cost was raw materials and labor. The invention, the R&D, the failed paths, the new capital infrastructure… it had already been built and paid-for. The cost had come all the way down. In life, far too many people are going through all the trouble of “inventing the iPhone” – and then manufacturing only one or two of them. Once you discover a method that is very powerful and potent, you need to ensure it reliably happens all the time to get the relevant gains. This is operations. *** OPERATIONS, I: PRE-OPS My definition of Operations is “the coordination of tactics over time” – to summarize a very complicated issue, life seems to run like this: Philosophy --> Strategy --> Tactics 1. Philosophy is what’s consciously or unconsciously important to you. (Actually, I think Religio is more accurate… see “Toughness #4: Religio” in Progression for elaboration… but everyone knows the word philosophy and not everyone knows religio, so we’ll stay with that here.) Your philosophy might be individual greatness, self-expression, a desire to serve others… it might be a philosophy of hedonism and having as much pleasure as possible… it might be a love of beauty and a desire to be surrounded by beautiful things, or a desire to make the world more beautiful… it could be lots of things. This is where everything starts. 2. Based on what’s important to you, you pick broad Strategies to get those. If you want to serve others, one strategy would be becoming a medical doctor. A sub-strategy for that is getting into a great undergraduate pre-med program that reliably leads to get into a great medical school. Or you might become a social worker. Or you might join an organization like Rotary. Or you might just try to be as helpful as possible. Likewise, someone who is philosophically driven to beauty might try to build themselves very ornamental surroundings – fancy paintings and furniture and gilted and glittering everything – or they might opt for modern minimalism, clean lines, nothing unnecessary. There’s an infinite set of possible strategies to get what you want. 3. Based on the strategies you select, those imply Tactics. The high school student who wants to be a doctor start self-studying organic chemistry, knowing it’s a bottleneck class. The person who is drawn to power philosophically, and who wants to be wealthy strategically, might decide tactically to start looking for a first rental property to buy as soon as they get into the working world. All of this is very straightforward. You start with a rough and vague idea of what’s important to you (Philosophy/Religio), you decide on Strategies to get there; those become Tactics, individual actions you take. This is all rather straightforward and uncontroversial. You can certainly study and clarify your Philosophy better; you can pick better or worse Strategies; you can pick better or worse tactics, and execute better or worse on them. But it’s all straightforward stuff, no? *** OPERATIONS, II: OPS ENTERS THE PICTURE This is where Operations comes in. My definition of Operations: the coordination of tactics over time. I believe it’s very expensive to clarify one’s philosophy, find and test good strategies, and find working tactics to implement those strategies successfully. Frankly, most people don’t do too much “pure innovation” in their lives. But I think our readership here is the type of people who can innovate, who likes to innovate, and so on and so forth. The danger is that you do all the really, really hard and expensive work of “figuring out good solutions”… but then fail to operationalize them. It’d be like putting in all the work of inventing the iPhone, but then not manufacturing and selling many of them. This, then, would be the high school student who decides to go to med school to become a doctor, realizes organic chemistry would help them, identifies good online courses to learn it, gets started on the courses… … and then inexplicably fails to follow through, forgetting entirely the path they figured out. The missing link is operations. It could be as simple as clearing a three-hour block every Sunday afternoon to always study organic chemistry until it’s fully learned. That would do it. That ensures the tactic (studying an organic chemistry course) consistently happens over time. Getting things right once is rather expensive. It’s relatively inexpensive to then ensure that the right thing consistently happens. This is Operations. *** THEODORE VAIL AT AT&T The Effective Executive by Peter Drucker is one of my favorite books; I re-read it once or twice every year. It’s full of correct ideas. Originally written in 1967, Drucker talks about how Theodore Vail built AT&T into one of the most successful and innovative telecom companies of all-time: “The least-known of the great American business builders, Theodore Vail, was perhaps the most effective decision-maker in U.S. business history. As president of the Bell Telephone System from just before 1910 till the mid-twenties, Vail built the organization into the largest private business in the world and into one of the most prosperous growth companies.” Again, I’ll remind you this is from 1967, very much prior to deregulation – “That the telephone system is privately owned is taken for granted in the United States. But [the coverage of AT&T] is the only developed area in the world in which telecommunications are not owned by government. The Bell System is also the only public utility that has shown itself capable of risk-taking leadership and rapid growth, even though it has a monopoly in a vital area and has achieved saturation of its original market. The explanation is not luck, or "American conservatism." The explanation lies in four strategic decisions Vail made in the course of almost twenty years.” Drucker lists Vail’s four strategies: 1. An emphasis on constant service, back when this was an unusual way of thinking, 2. Working with regulators to create a framework of prices and coverage that served both public goals and made business sense, 3. Establishing Bell Labs as one of the top industrial labs in the world, in order to generate the “creative destruction” type of innovation despite monopoly status, 4. And ensuring AT&T was well-capitalized to keep expanding and growing via a brand new type and class of finance. All of them are interesting – you ought to read The Effective Executive, which is a terrific book – but the fourth is the most interesting operationally. The “heart of the matter,” as described last chapter, is that utilities got taken over by government when they lacked the capital to modernize – “Industries are more commonly taken over by government because they fail to attract the capital they need than because of socialism. Failure to attract the needed capital was a main reason why the European railroads were taken over by government between 1860 and 1920. Inability to attract the needed capital to modernize certainly played a big part in the nationalization of the coal mines and of the electric power industry in Great Britain. …. The electric power companies, unable to raise their rates to offset currency depreciation, could no longer attract capital for modernization and expansion.” Vail’s answer – “[Vail] saw that the Bell Telephone System needed tremendous sums of capital in a dependable, steady supply which could not be obtained from the then existing capital markets. The other public utilities, especially the electric power companies, tried to make investment in their securities attractive to the one and only mass participant visible in the twenties: the speculator. … Vail realized that this was not a sound capital foundation. The AT&T common stock, which he designed to solve his problem in the early twenties, had nothing in common with the speculative shares except legal form. It was to be a security for the general public, the "Aunt Sally's" of the emerging middle class, who could put something aside for investment, but had not enough capital to take much risk. Vail's AT&T common, with its almost-guaranteed dividend, was close enough to a fixed interest-bearing obligation for widows and orphans to buy it. At the same time, it was a common share so that it held out the promise of capital appreciation and of protection in inflation.” This is really remarkable; it’s hard to emphasize just how remarkable it was. Before Vail’s innovations at AT&T, there was traditional financing from banks and a couple other forms of debt – primarily bonds – but the debt market in bonds and bank financing would seemingly randomly wax and wane based on the economy, whereas AT&T could go bust if it needed capital at a bad time. Vail saw that, and saw an emerging middle class type investor who did not want to take a lot of risk. He designed the AT&T common stock to be as safe as a savings account, while also offering upside – “When Vail designed this financial instrument, the "Aunt Sally" type of investor did not, in effect, exist. The middle class that had enough money to buy any kind of common share had only recently emerged. It was still following older habits of investment in savings banks, insurance policies, and mortgages. Those who ventured further went into the speculative stock market of the twenties—where they had no business to be at all. Vail did not, of course, invent the "Aunt Sally's." But he made them into investors and mobilized their savings for their benefit as well as for that of the Bell System. This alone has enabled the Bell System to raise the hundreds of billions of dollars it has had to invest over the last half-century. All this time AT&T common has remained the foundation of investment planning for the middle classes in the United States and Canada. Vail again provided this idea with its own means of execution. Rather than depend on Wall Street, the Bell System has all these years been its own banker and underwriter.” *** VAIL’S OPERATIONALIZATION In the case of AT&T from the early 1900’s into the late 1960’s at the time of the writing – a damn fine run – Theodore Vail had solved the problem of capital operationally. We can see the full circuit once again: Philosophy: Vail believed that a private, non-government system could be better than a government system… but it needed to focus on service, work cooperatively with the government’s goals, and constantly innovate. Strategies: Vail (1) made the commitment to service come first over profits (very unusual in the era), (2) worked with regulators instead of being antagonistic to them and fighting delaying actions against them, (3) build Bell Labs for AT&T innovate and “compete with itself,” and (4) strategically needed to get independence from debt financing or highly speculative stock prices. Tactics: He implemented a number of tactics to serve those strategies… the most noteworthy one, in our case, was designing AT&T common stock with a reliable dividend as a safe security that offered a mix of nearly guaranteed returns with upside. Operations: Vail didn’t just “do a financing round” once… he set up AT&T so it could issue new common stock whenever needed to raise capital – eventually raising hundreds of billions. That last point is the critical one – AT&T wasn’t constantly scrambling to fix its financing; instead, Vail built a reliable vehicle for raising money whenever it was needed, that kept serving AT&T’s capital needs until deregulation 62 years after his death. Yeah, when you build Ops that successfully help your company navigate the world until even 60 years after your death… that’s pretty impressive. Vail didn’t try to solve AT&T’s capital needs once; he took an Operational approach to solve AT&T’s capital needs forever. *** FACEBOOK’S CODE IN THE WASHROOMS I had the privilege of touring Facebook a couple years ago. The most striking thing to me wasn’t the cool campus space, the free food, or the remarkable mix of how coders would be working an intense pace but with a calm and relaxed focus… … no, the most striking thing to me was the bathroom. On the inside of every toilet stall, when you close the door, you’ll see a piece of paper covering some recent Facebook news. It’s like a newsletter, sort of. One single page. On that page is two things: -- One business case of someone who had succeeded from Facebook Ads. -- One best practice for coding or new technical technique to implement. I was blown away when I saw this. It’s a serious challenge, once a company gets as large as Facebook, to keep disseminating details about little best practices, and success stories of people paying the company. A company can put out a newsletter – and most companies do – but what percentage of their employees read it? Instead, Facebook makes it easy to learn a single business lesson and a single technical lesson every time you to the men’s room or lady’s room. Again, we see the chain… Philosophy: Constant innovation technically and constantly focusing on the business case of the company. Strategy: Regularly disseminate information on both topics. But, the strategic challenge is – how do we get people to actually read it? Tactic: Place these loose newsletter on the inside of bathroom stalls. Operations: Constantly do this – not just once – and change them up roughly weekly, so people can always get a new lesson. They’re easy to read, pleasant, and insightful. I bet Facebook gets better dissemination of new coding best practices and business cases than 99% of companies anywhere near their size. *** SOME GUIDELINES FOR OPERATIONALIZATION 1. You probably want to start with working tactics, not “Platonic Ideals” of operations. There’s exceptions to this rule – I know a few people who can conceive of an operational system that just works right out of the gate – but if you don’t naturally think in Ops and Systems, I see this as a potentially treacherous path. Too many people design theoretical systems before they have working tactics, which… don’t actually work. On an individual level, and a small-company level, you probably want to find tactics that work really well, then operationalize them. 2. Document and legible-ize what you do. My friend Taylor Pearson is a terrific operationalist – I learned a lot of what I know from him. His approach to Ops is to open a Google Doc every time he’s doing a task that should be repeatable, alongside the work. Then, as he works, he writes down exactly what he’s doing in the Google Doc. It’s rough and messy at first, and it means completing the task takes 20% longer than if he just did it without documenting, but he winds up with the start of legible processes that can be improved directly or delegated. 3. Budget time and make space for operationalization. I learned this from Kai Zau – Kai hates doing the same type of project twice without dramatically improving between them. For years, I was too busy and had too much going on to actually step back and improve things. Kai budgets time into every project, and keeps his schedule loose enough, that before he initiates another round of a project, he makes dramatic improvements into how he does it. He actually schedules the time to make improvements before and after projects, rather than just “jumping into the next thing.” It’s a marvel to see. It’s hard, especially if you’re too busy, to make this type of time and space… but even a couple hours a week (and don’t be lame and say you don’t have two hours)… even a couple hours a week goes a long ways. 4. Regularly review and work on an Ops/Systems level instead of a task/tactical level. As I’ve become more effective, my ratio of planning-to-working has tilted in favor of more and more planning. Likewise, time I spend doing “Pure Ops” to working on a tactical/technician level also changes over time. These days, probably 10% of my time is spent in pure planning, and probably a third of my time is “pure ops” – this might sound luxurious, until you realize that it actually keeps net-saving time. It took me only about 3 hours (180 minutes) to save 20 minutes per week editing TSR, while also slightly improving quality. That paid for itself in nine weeks; it means a savings of 1040 minutes per year (17 hours) and made me more effective permanently. Which brings us to the next point – 5. Prioritize time reduction over quality improvement to start. For obvious reasons. The temptation to add brand new operational abilities is high… it’s fun and exciting. But sooner or later, time becomes the fundamental limit on everything you want to do. I stayed with Taylor in Saigon for a couple weeks a few years ago. It surprised me what he did to eat healthy – he cooked a huge amount of chicken, salad, and sweet potatoes one day per week. He designed his way of doing it, and then he spends a couple hours once per week in order to reduce his time on food prep for the rest of the week. I don’t know how long it took him to figure that method out, buy tupperware containers, test recipes and food choices that’ll last and work well for a week, but it can’t have been that long… and it’s a 5+ hour savings every single week. Reducing the time you spend on core business duties, personal habits and maintenance, basic things like grooming and food, and anything else you do – starting with the time reduction aspects means freeing up time to keep making improvements. If you do a few rounds of that, it gets addictive – and you never want to go back to working frantically and tactically. *** OPS AND TEMPORAL CONTROL We’ve been exploring Temporal Control in this series – Operations cuts just about as close as you can get to controlling time and space. The question to constantly ask yourself is – Once I get this working, how to ensure it keeps working well forever? The greatest successes of all-time are the people who can operationalize… well, everything. Steve Jobs was obviously fanatic about Ops; as was Rockefeller, who obsessed with ensuring everything was done perfectly everywhere. Theodore Vail built AT&T into a powerhouse by not solving problems once, but instead putting in place operational solutions that lasted two generations after his death. Facebook, likewise, is obsessed with Ops from top to bottom. You don’t need to have that level of fanaticism about it to get started… even a little bit of thinking about Operations goes a long way to making life more consistent, more thriving, more predictably excellent, and produces more gainswhile decreasing stress and costs over time. In short, Ops is one of the most glorious things in the world – take it seriously, and constantly ask yourself, Once I get this working, how to ensure it keeps working well forever? Temporal Control #8: Institutions Temporal Control #8: Institutions IN THE LAST OF THE REPUBLIC'S DAYS... “To raise new forces with which to set over to Africa, Marius now broke yet another tradition. Rather than to enlist from the landowning classes, Marius now offered the soldier's job to Rome's poor, promising them adventure, glory and booty. But most of all he offered them jobs, a means of making a living. Perhaps unwittingly Marius set in motion a revolution in Roman army affairs, and his action is a landmark in Roman history.” – The Roman Empire: Marius *** WHAT, PRAY TELL, IS A “ROMAN ARMY”?; I: FOUNDING Rome was founded as a monarchy by its first king, the semi-legendary Romulus; the date of Rome’s founding is traditionally given as 753 BC. In 510 BC, the Roman monarchic family – the Tarquins – had grown particularly corrupt and brutal. The first Brutus – his great-grandson would later assassinate Caesar – overthrew the monarchy and proclaimed a Republic. At the time of the Republic’s founding, it was a small and poor city-state, largely insignificant. In this period, Athens and Sparta to the southeast were far more significant; Rome during this era is merely a footnote; if not for the later gains and power of the Roman Republic, it would have been forgotten by history. Nevertheless, over the next 150 years, the country gradually grew in strength until becoming a significant regional power in 264 BC. At this point, Rome came into a death struggle with the naval trading empire Carthage, and 80 years of intense wars with Carthage. Rome had always had something of a strong military tradition – not as strong as the Spartan’s, say, but strong nonetheless. 80 years of constant warfare with the Carthaginians – most famously, Hannibal – led to Rome’s citizens becoming battle-hardened and their soldiers being the best trained in the world. After Scipio Africanus defeats Hannibal at Zama in 202 BC, Rome “swept through” the rest of the areas near them, leading to the powerful hegemonic Republic that Rome is most famously known as. After finally destroying Carthage in the Third Punic war, Rome had no standing adversaries; they were masters of the world in their region. *** WHAT, PRAY TELL, IS A “ROMAN ARMY”?; II: BEFORE MARIUS Looking backwards, we often fail to note how big history is. It’s hard to conceive of Rome like a little baby bird, being born from an egg in 510 BC… before becoming a fierce and rampaging dinosaur in 202 BC. That is, for the math-inclined, longer than the United States has been around. (America: 1776-2016 = 240 years. Roman Republic from founding to Zama: 510- 202 = 308 years.) Caius Marius, one of the greatest generals in Roman history, was born in 157 BC. Rome was still a republic at that stage, but already had much of the power and reach of what would later be called the Roman Empire. At this point, Rome’s possessions in the Mediterannean and surrounds were fast; with it, the ability to keep external and internal security were getting stretched thin by their old institutions. “Until the last decade of the 2nd century BC, the eligibility requirements to become a Roman soldier in the service of the Republic were very strict: • He had to be a member of the fifth census class or higher (the adsidui, or "tax-payers"). • He had to own property worth 3500 sesterces in value. • He had to supply his own armaments.” – Wikipedia: Marian Reforms The reasoning was straightforward enough: Rome was defended by the citizens were prosperous enough to defend the Republic. You bought your own equipment when you enlisted in military service. As such, the Roman soldier before Marius always wanted to go back home to his farm and land and family. *** WHAT, PRAY TELL, IS A “ROMAN ARMY”?; III: MARIAN REFORMS "The foremost of the Marian reforms was the inclusion of the Roman landless masses, the capite censi, men who had no property to be assessed in the census. Instead , they were "counted by the head". The men were now among the ranks of those who could be recruited even though they owned no significant property. Because the poor citizens could not afford to purchase their own weapons and armor, Marius arranged for the state to supply them with arms. He thus offered the disenfranchised masses permanent employment for pay as professional soldiers and the opportunity to gain spoils on campaign. With little hope of gaining status in other ways, the masses flocked to join Marius in his new army." It’s easy to understand why Rome did this. Threats would randomly crop up on Rome’s now many borders around 100 BC, and there was not always time to raise and equip volunteer armies. Marius created a permanent standing army – with 20 year enlistments and arms and equipment paid for by the state, and with the promise of land and money on retirement of surviving veterans. *** WHAT, PRAY TELL, IS A “ROMAN ARMY”?; IV: FROM SUCCESS TO CIVIL WAR Marius’s reforms worked. Marian-style troops defeated Numidian forces in Northern Africa, winning an important regional war needed to secure Rome’s “breadbasket” in Northern Africa. But what followed the Numidian wars was one of the greatest threats to Rome of all time: suddenly appearing on Rome’s northern frontiers were fierce invading German warbands, the Cimbri and Teutons. 80,000 Romans were killed by the Germans – the worst losses since Hannibal – until Marius arrived on the scene and defeated the threat. Marius was hailed as the “third founder” of Rome for his successes – after Romulus and Brutus – and the Marian reforms were here to stay. In 88 BC, Marius and his troops started the first Roman Civil War. 115 years later, after three disastrous large-scale civil wars, Augustus was proclaimed Emperor and the Republic was no more. *** TEMPORAL CONTROL #8: INSTITUTIONS In this chapter, we’re very interested in what an “institution” is. For instance, what’s a “Roman Army”? When you look at any moment in time, this is a rather stupid and obvious question. There’s a Roman commander and troops. They use the Roman battlefield engineering and extremely coordinated military discipline. The infantry fights in tight ranks with the “gladius”, the Roman short sword, and a large shield. They’re supported by equestrian cavalry and missile troops. Fine. But when you dive deeper, you can see great changes in what a “Roman Army” is from time to time. The interesting question about a Roman army is not so much what it is when a particular army is when on the march, but what happens to the Roman Army over time. You see, I think it’s very clear that the Roman Army is an “institution” – same as the Roman Senate or the Roman office of consul. Likewise, the U.S. Army is an institution, every university is an institution, the American Presidency is an institution, the U.S. Supreme Court is an institution, and so on. Clearly, President Barack Obama is inhabiting more-or-less the same institution that George Washington was the first holder of. And yet, you can see this change in American history, too. From 1776 to 1942, pretty much all of the major American wars were declared by Congress. Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says that only Congress may declare war. And yet, no formal declarations of war have been made since 1942. “The “war powers” are defined here and in Article 2, Section 2. Congress declares war, while the president wages war. However, presidents have committed U.S. forces leading to conflict without congressional declaration of war in Korea, Vietnam, and other places, provoking national argument over the meaning of these powers. Congress’ control of funding the military provides another check on the executive branch.” – http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm As such, you can see the evolving of the institution of the American Presidency from Washington’s time through to FDR’s… but with a significant break during the time of President Truman. That would be followed through by Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon… through to the most recent Presidents. We can clearly see the continuity from President Washington to President Franklin Roosevelt… changes around President Truman which carried through the Cold War, and the modern evolution after the fall of the Soviet Union, as exemplified by G.H.W Bush and Bill Clinton. You can see the office of the Presidency, in particular the role of Commander-in-Chief, evolve. It is largely continuous from President Washington, but there are noteworthy discontinuous breaks at Truman and the Cold War, and perhaps again at G.W. Bush and 9/11. Being able to understand what institutions are, how they evolve, and having a grasp of this over time – it is a preciously valuable way of seeing the world, with many practical implications. *** WHAT’S AN INSTITUTION?, I: INTERSUBJECTIVE We’re already got some of the tools needed to understand institutions. Our starting point must be Temporal Control #5: The Intersubjective. Similarly to money or language or a flag, institutions exist by common understanding and agreement. A rock is a rock is a rock; a piece of granite is a rather objective thing. You can argue about what to do with it, you can carry it around, you can use it to build a wall. But it’s a piece of granite, regardless of what people happen to think about it. On the other hand, there’s the purely subjective – “I like chocolate”, “I do not like chocolate” – this is subjective and personal, perhaps slightly different for every single person. In between the objective and subjective are “intersubjective” things. The U.S. President’s authority is constantly pseudo-negotiated between the President, Congress, Supreme Court, the American people, and various stakeholders. If the President overreaches his authority, he might be impeached or voted out of office. Eventually, the President’s role – in any given time period – will settle into an equilibrium that is more-or-less agreed, and he will act in that role. This is different than granite, which is what it is; nor is it subjective. *** WHAT’S AN INSTITUTION?, II: INTERSUBJECTIVE EVOLUTION Consider the 2011 intervention in Libya – “On June 24, the US House voted against Joint Resolution 68, which would have authorized continued US military involvement in the NATO campaign for up to one year. The majority of Republicans voted against the resolution, with some questioning US interests in Libya and others criticizing the White House for overstepping its authority by conducting a military expedition without Congressional backing. House Democrats were split on the issue, with 115 voting in favor of and 70 voting against. Despite the failure of the President to receive legal authorization from Congress, the Obama administration continued its military campaign, carrying out the bulk of NATO's operations until the overthrow of Gadaffi in October.” – Wikipedia: 2011 Military Intervention in Libya This is par for the course in recent years, at least since the end of the Cold War. The current President typically tries to get Congress to authorize military actions without a declaration of war, but even if Congress does not, the President broadly has the authority to engage in medium-sized operations without approval as a police action. There is a rough consensus among the American President, Congress, military commanders, diplomats, and so on – the President is more-or-less able to do “medium-sized” interventions and smaller without Congress’s approval these days. There’s likewise more-or-less a consensus that “large-sized” interventions – especially permanent ground troops – need to be authorized by Congress. If you feel curious to dig into history, you can actually trace through which conflicts and crises and demands of the moment, which personalities and compositions of Congress, and so on, led to the current rough consensus on the topic, and it’s interesting periodically to do so. The most significant in American history for the evolution of the President’s role to lead military interventions, of course, was the Korean War – “War broke out along the 38th parallel on June 25, 1950. On that day, North Korean troops coordinated an attack at several strategic points along the parallel and headed south toward Seoul. The United Nations Security Council responded to the attack by adopting (by a 9-0 vote) a resolution that condemned the invasion as a "breach of the peace." The Council did not have a Soviet delegate, since 6 months prior, the Soviet Union had left to protest the United Nation's refusal to seat a delegate from China. President Harry S. Truman quickly committed American forces to a combined United Nations military effort and named Gen. Douglas MacArthur Commander of the U.N. forces. Fifteen other nations also sent troops under the U.N. command. Truman did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress; officially, America's presence in Korea amounted to no more than a "police action."” – https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/korean-conflict/ (Scholars debate the legality and appropriateness of the action; under American law, treaties are in theory are equal to the Constitution but in practice American domestic law comes first… America joined the United Nations under treaty, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 84 authorized the war. The point would be mooted when the USA/USSR deadlock in the security council meant that the U.N. would not authorize any major Cold War military engagements again.) You can see here, thus, how intersubjective evolution happens – it’s a mix of the current demands of the circumstance being acted upon, and how people react. Had Congress immediately censored and tried to impeach President Truman, the Presidential war powers might or might not have been curtailed – or perhaps the Supreme Court might have been called to arbitrate if some other authority had engaged in a challenge – but the Korean War was more-or-less supported by the parties, who let it pass by unchallenged, and the precedent was set for the American President to lead “police actions” broadly related to a treaty or some international concern that was not a “full scale declaration of war”… … the details are less important here; the specific point is this – institutions evolve as there is intersubjective evolution: negotiations, test cases, people trying to make things happen and seeing how other people react. If everyone with a significant stake goes along with a new way of doing things, very quickly it becomes the old way of doing things. *** WHAT’S AN INSTITUTION?, III: OBJECTIVE FACTS The “objective facts” of an institution surely matter; if there are 10,000 well-armed Roman men massing to assault an enemy city, there’s 10,000 men there. There’s nothing subjective or intersubjective about that. If they have 9,500 swordsmen and 500 cavalry, that’s also pretty darn objective. Intersubjectivity – agreement between people – certainly matters between roughly equal stakeholders, but it plays less than objective facts when one side has objectively more committed strength. Modern world governments largely all consider the 1940 Soviet occupation of Estonia as criminal and illegitimate, but no one would commit soldiers to the cause and Estonia is a tiny little country compared to the vastness of Russia. No agreement on the topic could be made, when Stalin’s soldiers outnumbered the people who would fight at least 1,000:1. On the other side of the ledger, the Korean War command under MacArthur barely turned back Kim il-Sung’s after holding one final last permimeter in the southeast of Korea. It was barely not overrun, and the Allied counterattack almost destroyed North Korean forces entirely – until China intervened, and pushed the Allied command back to the line of demarcation. The fate of the countries of Estonia, North Korea, and South Korea were settled by force, which became objective facts. There was broadly no agreement between the belligerents until it was “judged by the sword” – largely objective facts. In less belligerent conditions, we can note things like literally how many people are members of a company, church, government bureau, university, and so on. How many students are enrolled on campus, money in the bank, and so on. Intersubjective agreement determines a lot of how an organization is run and flourishes or falls short, but objective facts are of paramount importance as well. *** WHAT’S AN INSTITUTION?, IV: OPERATIONS Last chapter, in Temporal Control #7: Operations, we discussed how ops coordinates tactics over time. Institutions have their intersubjective agreements and traditions holding them together, they have the objective facts about them, but then the operations ensures that there is regular turnover of new personnel, missions and projects are updated, and so on. This cuts close to “pure ops” which we thoroughly discussed last chapter, and need not have too much more elaboration, but consider the Marian reforms. Roman armies – operationally – were formerly raised from volunteers who owned a certain amount of property and they equipped themselves at their own expense. Marius made a huge operational shift in recruiting people without property, signing them up for two-decade professional terms of soldiering, equipping them at state expense, and promising them land and money upon retirement. This is close to pure Operations at this point: coordinating how armies are assembled, equipped, and discharged. The same applies to all other sorts of institutions. *** WHAT’S AN INSTITUTION?, V: SECONDARY EFFECTS And this brings us to the final piece of the puzzle. Intersubjective agreement and traditions tend to be the heart of an organization, which is then actualized through objective resources. Decisions about operations – how the resources are managed over time, and which types of agreements are re-negotiated or changed as circumstances change – greatly shape the life of the organization. This would all be well and good… until we consider the ever-dangerous secondary effects. I’m nearly certain that Marius was not trying to set off 100 years of Civil Wars in Rome that would result in the end of the Republic. But his military reforms – albeit badly needed – did just that. The secondary effects of the Marian reforms meant that soldiers came to rely on their commander for their entire life and property. Rather than be committed to a current campaign for service and glory, and then wanting to return home as happened prior to Marius, afterwards soldiers gave their entire young adult life to the army, and counted on their commander to get them land and money on discharge. Gradually, loyalty to the Republic became replaced by loyalty to the commander. And thus, Marius’s legions and Sulla’s legions came into conflict; and then Julius Caesar’s legions backed him in his fight against Pompey; on Caesar’s assassination, the Triumverate of Octavian, Anthony, and Lepidus fought the assassin’s forces, before breaking into their own Octavian/Anthony Civil War. Octavian was the last man standing. The Roman Senate, seeing no other way out, elected him imperator – supreme commander – and voted him unheard-of powers over all the legions. Before Marius, there were volunteer soldiers only under the Republic’s command. But Marius saw that the Republic had outgrown the ability to defend itself with temporary volunteer soldiers. Marius replaced this system – objectively, operationally, and intersubjectively – with a system of professional soldiers who had loyalty to their commander. After 100 years of Civil War, the Senate saw that that professional soldiers were still necessary and gave up on the concept of loyalty to the Republic, placing the professional soldiers solely under the command of the Imperator – the Emperor – Octavian, who became Caesar Augustus. And the Romans prayed that Augustus Caesar would become a representation and manifestation of the Roman State himself. And thus, the Roman Empire was born. *** SO WHAT, PRAY TELL, IS A “ROMAN ARMY”? In any snapshot in time, that’s an easy question to answer. But over longer timescales, things evolve. I contend any institution is a mix of, *Intersubjective agreement and tradition. *Intersubjective evolution and re-negotiation. *Objective facts and materials. *Operations: how things move and get done throughout the institution. *Secondary Effects: those oft-dreadful unpredictable consequences of intersubjective policies, objective facts, and operations. As a leader yourself, you should always study the bounds of tradition and what the current agreements are between stakeholders. Things change and move as time passes; how are they moving? Objective facts – more troops and better equipment in an army – are always important. Operations – how everything gets done – are important. But then – never, ever, ever neglect secondary effects. You can see institutions like Google evolving as their agreements change, their objective facts change, their operations change… but most importantly of all, the often unpredictable secondary effects of those changes. This happens at businesses, it happens at universities, it happens in governments, it happens… everywhere. You now have some tools to analyze institutions – both as they exist now, and to make predictions of how they’ll continue to move going forwards. Oh, and one last time – never, ever, ever neglect secondary effects. Temporal Control #9: Machinations Temporal Control #9: Machinations THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS NOT YET BEEN TOLD THE NEWS “Another doctor phoned first lady Eleanor Roosevelt in Washington D.C., informing her that FDR had fainted. She told the doctor she would travel to Georgia that evening after a scheduled speaking engagement. By 3:30 p.m., though, doctors in Warm Springs had pronounced the president dead. “Eleanor delivered her speech that afternoon and was listening to a piano performance when she was summoned back to the White House. In her memoirs, she recalled that ride to the White House as one of dread, as she knew in her heart that her husband had died. Once in her sitting room, aides told her of the president’s death. The couple’s daughter Anna arrived and the women changed into black dresses. Eleanor then phoned their four sons, who were all on active military duty. At 5:30 pm, she greeted Vice President Harry Truman, who had not yet been told the news. A calm and quiet Eleanor said, “Harry, the president is dead.” He asked if there was anything he could do for her, to which she replied, “Is there anything we can do for you? For you are the one in trouble now.” -- This Day In History: 12 April 1945 *** 82 DAYS The article continues, “Truman had rather large shoes to fill. FDR had presided over the Great Depression and most of World War II, leaving an indelible stamp on American politics for several decades. He also left Truman with the difficult decision of whether or not to continue to develop and, ultimately, use the atomic bomb. Shockingly, FDR had kept his vice president in the dark about the bomb’s development and it was not until Roosevelt died that Truman learned of the Manhattan Project.” This point is often stated – how is it possible that Truman did not know about the Atomic Bomb? Shocking! But, perhaps not so shocking. It’s often noted but perhaps not studied enough that Truman had only served as Vice President for 82 days. We should consider this situation thoroughly – there are many lessons here. We will get to know Truman more next chapter; this chapter, let us see the man who might have been President. Franklin Roosevelt’s health had been waning through the 1940’s; it was commonly thought he might die during his unprecedented fourth term in office. Wikipedia – “The Democratic Party's 1944 nomination for Vice President of the United States was determined at the 1944 Democratic National Convention, on July 21, 1944. United States Senator Harry S. Truman was nominated to be President Franklin D. Roosevelt's running-mate in his bid to be re-elected for a fourth term. How the nomination went to Harry S. Truman, who did not actively seek it, is, in the words of his biographer Robert H. Ferrell, "one of the great political stories of our century". The fundamental issue was that Roosevelt's health was seriously declining, and everyone who saw Roosevelt, including the leaders of the Democratic Party, realized it. If he died during his next term, the Vice President would become President, making the vice presidential nomination very important. Truman's predecessor as Vice President, the incumbent Henry A. Wallace, was unpopular with some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, who disliked his liberal politics and considered him unreliable and eccentric in general. Wallace was, however, the popular candidate, and favored by the Convention delegates. As the Convention began, Wallace had more than half the votes necessary to secure his re-nomination. By contrast, the Gallup poll said that 2% of those surveyed wanted then-Senator Truman to become the Vice President. To overcome this initial deficit, the leaders of the Democratic Party worked to influence the Convention delegates, such that Truman received the nomination.” Well, that’s the sanitized version of it. “Liberal policies” might not be an accurate description, though. Harry Truman had perfect liberal-democratic credentials; no, this is more complicated than that. It would likewise be unfair to say that President Roosevelt was indifferent to the Vice Presidential nomination in ’44 – but it clearly wasn’t his biggest priority. He was balancing the largest war effort in American history, the largest and longest foreign deployment of American troops in history, navigating two very different and distinct war fronts spanning at least five continents, while also leading the complete re-drawing of the domestic American landscape. This is before getting into the scientific and military advances – the Manhattan Project and Atomic Bomb being the most noteworthy – and trying to decipher the upcoming international postwar landscape. When there was inter-party opposition to Wallace, FDR largely let the Democratic Party sort it out amongst themselves while focusing on America’s war aims, trying to build a workable peaceful international system (and, though he wouldn’t see it, failing after being deceived by Stalin), while strengthening and finalizing his domestic reforms – the New Deal being the most famous, but also the full industrialization and development of modern American management of industry, war, and government. His hands were full. So – Truman comes onboard. I always hesitate to touch on current-day issues; they tend to excite passions and invite controversy in excess of universal lessons gained… but to relate it briefly to the current day, it might be reckoned to the Vice Presidential choices in the 2016 election. I think it would be generally uncontroversial to say that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump picked “solid party choices” for this current election, and that Democratic VP Candidate Tim Kaine and Republican VP Candidate Mike Pence are not as important to this election as some past Vice Presidents have been. You need look no further back than four years ago to see a different scenario: Vice President Biden and Republican VP Candidate Paul Ryan were both more politically significant choices, and perhaps we could say they were both portrayed as more “executive” than Kaine or Pence. Roosevelt’s ’44 VP choice was more like 2016 than 2012. Biden and Ryan both brought unique legislative talents and were significant parts of their respective campaigns; I think it’s uncontroversial to say that Kaine and Pence are portrayed as perhaps less executively significant than the 2012 Vice Presidential candidates. Enough of the current day! I try to stay out of modern politics; things shift quickly, and we’re looking for deeper lessons of history. But Truman, Harry Truman, was a very “safe choice” compared to Wallace. *** PRE-SHAKEUP INTERNATIONALLY A little more background is needed. During the ’44 Presidential election, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had already largely had their aggressive abilities defeated, and were now primarily fighting a crippled defensive effort. The Battle of Midway in 1942 had destroyed much of Japan’s Navy and Air Force, meaning the Allies could focus on a “Europe First” strategy. D-Day had quickly started rolling back Germany from the Western Front in June 1944; around the same time, Asian Allied Forces savaged the Japanese on land and broke through in Southeast Asia and China. The remainder of Japan’s Carrier Air Force operations had been destroyed in the Battle of the Philippine Sea. The Soviet and Russian forces had won the Battle of Stalingrad in 1943, and had finally been able to start an offensive program of strategic counterattacks. At the start of the war, superior German armaments had led to extremely lopsided casualty numbers: the Russians would have something around 12 soldiers killed for every single Nazi slain. This pattern held even until the final moments of the war, but it was turning in 1944. The Soviet Operation Bagration had somewhere between 1.6 and 2.3 million Soviet troops against somewhere between 880,000 and 1 million Nazis. The Nazis still took less casualties: 26,000 killed and around 300,000 more captured or missing. The Soviets had 180,000 killed or missing and a staggering 600,000 sick or wounded. The Soviet Russians had sustained an insane amount of casualties in World War II… and somehow had endured it intact. After Bagration, the Russians captured most of Poland from German hands; the end looked to be in sight. And, while it may be hard to imagine, all these far-flung land and sea battles happening on other continents were half of the trigger for the Democratic Vice President shakeup in the United States – that event that would so surprisingly shape the world. *** “IT IS NOT A COMMUNIST PARTY CAMPAIGN” In my research for this piece, I was looking for notes on Henry Wallace’s commentaries on the Morgenthau Plan for Germany. I found something far more interesting. “Henry Wallace: A Mind Divided” – from the Atlantic… … from 1948. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1948/08/henry-wallace-a-divided-mind/306029/ The whole thing is a series of gems; you read this Atlantic piece, and you feel like you’re there in the 1940’s. It’s really a remarkable magazine, The Atlantic, having been so sharp for so long – “Wallace became a hero and symbol for liberals when they were working in the government with him, when they were projecting their ideas into and through him—and when they were shielding his reputation from the tarnishing effects of his various sorties into the occult typified by the Roerich affair and his fascination with numerology and Navajo Indian medicine men. Only a handful of Wallace's former associates are with him in his present crusade. A majority of the others—though they are as deeply disturbed at the incredible mishandling of American foreign policy by the Truman administration as Wallace—have lost confidence in him. Their loss of confidence is not based on fear of risking their jobs and salaries if they should go with Wallace—a charge he made publicly when asked why so few of his former colleagues are in his camp. This callous accusation reveals either a complete lack of feeling for past relationships, or the exaltation of martyrdom, which persuades him that every former friend who now opposes him is animated by base motives. I believe it is a combination of both.” That, that is the adroit sort of slightly-left-of-center thinking that was so penetratingly interesting before it got replaced by more sloganeering in the 1970’s; The Atlantic stayed good, I enjoy it, but it does not pen that sort of judgment any more. This line might generate a laugh, though – “The central committee of the U.S.A. Communist Party at its October, 1947, meeting could have laid its most devious and high-powered plans for the campaign. It could have been assured of ample supplies of money with which to retain skilled artificers of screen, radio, and print. All would have availed little had the "confused liberal" not seen his destiny along a road paralleling the one charted by the Communist high command. At best a campaign without Wallace—with a less well known figure—would have been such a fizzle the newsprints would have relegated it to a few stickfuls in the back pages. The campaign, then, is a Wallace-seeking-his-destiny campaign. It is not a Communist Party campaign, despite the closeness with which he has hewn to the Kremlin's Party line and despite the number of Party members and Party-liners manning the machinery of the campaign.” “It is not a Communist Party campaign, despite the closeness with which he has hewn to the Kremlin’s Party Line” – well, it’s good they cleared that up, lest all that Russian Communist money, labor, and resources lead us to mistakenly think he was on the Moscow’s payroll, or something. (If you think the current election is a sign of the apocalypse, studying past elections might make you feel better. America typically functions pretty well, almost regardless of its President.) *** MAKING A WASTELAND AND CALL IT PEACE In Agricola, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote of a foreign chieftain raging against Rome, “Where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.” This was Henry Morgenthau’s Plan – it’s called the Morgenthau Plan, actually – for defeated Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan Morgenthau… well, you should try to understand him, sooner or later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau_Jr. The world was more interesting and the frontiers of government and politics less settled then. This is a man who believed passionately in social insurance and higher and more progressive taxes… while passionately opposing deficit spending. It’s a rare mix: in favor of socialized risk in old age and disability, in favor of high taxes, against deficit spending. I suppose I ought to put my cards on the table; people will try to infer my politics and opinions, so I might as well just state them outright. Henry Wallace strikes me as either a hypocritical barbarian, a naive tool, or a childishly emotional man; my past remarks aside, if he had been President of the United States, it might have been an unmitigated disaster. Meanwhile, the Wallace/Truman shakeup can partially be laid at the door of Henry Morgenthau. The Morgenthau Plan was a terrible idea in very many ways. And yet, I think Henry Morgenthau had a genius for administration, a great mind for finance, a good eye for talent and government, he was a strong humanitarian in many cases, and he had a great mind for diplomacy – his blundering on the Morgenthau Plan was the exception to the norm. “The original proposal outlined three steps: 1. Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states. 2. Germany's main centers of mining and industry, including the Saar Protectorate, the Ruhr and Upper Silesia were to be internationalized or annexed by neighboring nations. 3. All heavy industry was to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed.” The Plan was pretty brutal. “Reparations, in the form of recurrent payments and deliveries, should not be demanded. Restitution and reparation shall be effected by the transfer of existing German resources and territories, e.g. … by forced German labor outside Germany…” (That’s not a selective quotation; the whole thing is rather draconian.) The Plan leaked. Of course. Wikipedia – *Churchill was not inclined to support the proposal, saying "England would be chained to a dead body." *Anthony Eden expressed his strong opposition to the plan and, with the support of some others, was able to get the Morgenthau Plan set aside in Britain. *The Washington Post urged a stop to helping Dr. Goebbels: if the Germans suspect that nothing but complete destruction lies ahead, then they will fight on. *The Republican presidential candidate Thomas Dewey complained in his campaign that the Germans had been terrified by the plan into fanatical resistance, "Now they are fighting with the frenzy of despair." *General George Marshall complained to Morgenthau that German resistance had strengthened. *Hoping to get Morgenthau to relent on his plan for Germany, President Roosevelt's son-in-law Lt. Colonel John Boettiger who worked in the War Department explained to Morgenthau how the American troops who had had to fight for five weeks against fierce German resistance to capture the city of Aachen had complained to him that the Morgenthau Plan was "worth thirty divisions to the Germans." Morgenthau refused to relent. Indeed, when the war was lost for Germany, but before the country had fully surrendered, American leadership had debated whether the Germans needed to be given the “Carthaginian Solution” – named after how Rome destroyed Carthage in the Third Punic War, killing all the men, enslaving the women and children, and destroying all of the buildings. (Legend has it that the Romans then salted the earth so crops would never grow again, but this is almost certainly untrue. The Romans badly needed farmland in North Africa.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthaginian_peace#Modern_use *** CONVERGENCE So, it's an understatement to say that a lot was going on in the 1940's. At the end of the mess, Truman becomes VP, then President, and the world is radically different as a result. The causality is hard to put one’s finger on, at first, and certainly it's not so simple. But I think we can point to Truman getting the nod as VP – and eventually becoming one of the most important Presidents in shaping America as a world power, second only to perhaps FDR – as largely a result of two things. 1. The general impression that a President Wallace with Morgenthau as a top advisor would lead to a longer war struggle and directly or indirectly leading to many concessions and weakness towards the Russians, and, 2. Perhaps more importantly, the feeling that Wallace wasn’t “part of the club” with some very important stakeholders in the Democratic Party. One final quote from that 1948 Atlantic piece: “Dismissed by Roosevelt from the BEW [Board of Economic Warfare] post along with Jones at the climax of that battle, Wallace took on more than ever, in the eyes of many liberals, the aspect of a crusading Galahad. But the machine politicians of the Democratic Party, who gagged when Roosevelt forced Wallace down their throats as Vice-Presidential candidate in the 1940 convention, had by this time determined he was a political liability. With the approach of the 1944 convention it was clear they had persuaded the President of this also.” I find Wikipedia to be rather surprisingly reliable when it comes to dates, battles, casualty levels, basic timelines and so forth. But I find it to be very hit-or-miss on analysis. The Atlantic gets much closer to it. The idea that Wallace was “too liberal” does not ring at all true to me. Yes, he had good liberal credentials. So did Truman. But they had different liberal credentials. In the USSR, the Stalinists and Trotskyites duked it out for total control – Stalin’s side won, obviously, and Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico when one of Stalin’s NKVD agents drove a climber’s ice pick into Trotsky’s head. In the United States, the battle was between what The Atlantic calls the “machine politicians” and Wallace’s… umm... “… not a Communist Party … despite the closeness with which he has hewn to the Kremlin’s Party line…” Wallace might have been nuts – even his own close associates and fellow-travelers don’t have many good things to say about him – but this is probably not what did him in. It was not even necessarily his support for the Morgenthau Plan and the retributive pastoralization of Germany. While it’s largely uncontroversial that the leak of the Plan cost a lot of Allied lives and prolonged the war, the Axis were largely beaten already anyways. It’s possible they would have fought longer if Wallace had been President when FDR died, but they couldn’t have fought that much longer either way; it was over. No, the belligerent and conflicted personality of Wallace would not have done him in, nor necessarily his support for policies which caused the war to be prolonged… it was that he didn’t take or recognize some of the bosses in the Party. The convergence of these things is what did Wallace in – he was nearly nominated as Vice President multiple times, but fell a little short each time. Taking better care of a few more allies, being a little more courteous, being a little more flexible on foreign policy, or taking care of the interests of a big part of the core of the party that felt neglected by him and felt he favored the Moscow clique more than the local boys that made the Party up. *** NEXT CHAPTER: THE COLD WAR STARTS Why didn’t President Truman know about the Atomic Bomb? Because he was a consolation from FDR to the “machine bosses” – Truman was one of theirs. He turned out, shockingly, to be one of the greatest statesmen in American history. A calm and quiet Eleanor said, “Harry, the president is dead.” He asked if there was anything he could do for her, to which she replied, “Is there anything we can do for you? For you are the one in trouble now.” Temporal Control #10: Analysis and Power Temporal Control #10: Analysis and Power THIS MAN IS YOUR FRIEND. HE FIGHTS FOR FREEDOM. There is a famous series of American propaganda posters from the 1940’s: They all read the same – “This man is your FRIEND. He fights for FREEDOM.” In the center of the poster would be a picture of one of the American allies: one reads “Englishman” and he’s carrying a precision rifle. Another reads “Canadian” and the soldier is smiling while wearing a beret. The Chinese poster has a soldier wearing the traditional Nationalist Chinese uniform and hat; the “Dutch Sailor” looks a little bit sloppy and fat, but otherwise a nice guy. The Austrian looks almost American-ish in something like a cowboy hat. The Russian soldier is carrying a sniper rifle, wearing a metal helmet. On the metal helmet the Soviet red star is emblazoned with hammer and sickle. He’s smiling, too. But he’s one of very few of the poster photos where the soldier is not looking at the camera. He stares off into space. How long did it take to find that particular man and how many tries did it take to get that poster right? It probably took quite a while. Russians don’t smile like that. *** LONG LIVE GREAT STALIN, HURRAH! You can find the speech online at many Marxist sites. If you’re interested in Cold War history, it’s potentially worth reading – Google it if you want to read it. The USSR published an official version just four years after the speech was made; it’s easy to find. The official version opens: “SPEECH DELIVERED BY J. V. STALIN AT A MEETING OF VOTERS OF THE STALIN ELECTORAL DISTRICT, MOSCOW FEBRUARY 9, 1946” The full text – I’ve added nothing to it, the comments about cheering/etc were in the official version – here is how it begins. The bold at the end is mine – “The Chairman : Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin has the floor. (Comrade Stalin's appearance in the rostrum was greeted by the voters with loud cheers lasting several minutes. The entire audience in the Bolshoi Theatre rose to its feet to greet Comrade Stalin. There were continuous cries of "Cheers for great Stalin!" "Long live great Stalin, Hurrah!" "Cheers for our beloved Stalin!" ) Comrade Stalin : Comrades! Eight years have passed since the last elections to the Supreme Soviet. This has been a period replete with events of a decisive nature. The first four years were years of intense labour on the part of Soviet people in carrying out the Third Five-Year Plan. The second four years covered the events of the war against the German and Japanese aggressors -- the events of the Second World War. Undoubtedly, the war was the main event during the past period. It would be wrong to think that the Second World War broke out accidentally, or as a result of blunders committed by certain statesmen, although blunders were certainly committed. As a matter of fact, the war broke out as the inevitable result of the development of world economic and political forces on the basis of present-day monopolistic capitalism.” You are, of course, not living in 1946. You have hindsight. This speech is not so shocking to us now; of course, we know what would happen next. Our ancestors did not have such hindsight. You must remember – it’s very easy to forget, but critically important to remember that even in the final closing days of the war, General Secretary Joseph Stalin was promising a new world order to the Western Allies, a truly “United Nations” led by the moral force of the victorious Americans, British, French, Chinese, and Russians. “This man is your FRIEND. He fights for FREEDOM.” Franklin Roosevelt – that great titan of a man, almost superhuman in his mental powers most of the time – was in fading health when he met Stalin and Churchill for the Yalta Conference. Yalta had been only one year earlier, in February 1945. Various members of the German high command – fragmented and disintegrating – had begged and pleaded with the Americans and English to conditionally surrender to the Western Allies only. Stalin persuaded, cajoled, begged, pled, bluffed, threatened – and in the end, promised full cooperation in a new United Nations – if only the Western Allies would ensure that the Soviet share of the victory would be theirs; no mere conditional surrender of the Axis criminals. “This man is your FRIEND. He fights for FREEDOM.” Roosevelt agreed. In May 1945, in one of the most striking and powerful images of the war, the Soviet Red Banner flew over the Reichstag, Hitler and his closest cronies dead by suicide in a subterranean bunker, the ruins – literally ruins – of Berlin in flames below. The blood price had been high. 10 million Soviet soldiers had been killed in combat, over 10 million Soviet civilians had died… but perhaps, the brutal carnage complete, a world with peace and prosperity and cooperation would reign. And then, the speech. After a half-decade of loudly singing the praises of America and England, Stalin shifts course – “It would be wrong to think that the Second World War broke out accidentally, or as a result of blunders committed by certain statesmen, although blunders were certainly committed. As a matter of fact, the war broke out as the inevitable result of the development of world economic and political forces on the basis of present-day monopolistic capitalism.” It was a declaration of war. *** DIPLOMATIC CABLES George F. Kennan is the single most important American you’ve never heard of. And in that winter of ’46, a chill went through his spine. It’s happening again. Kennan had loved Russia. He had hated Germany. He had correctly hated Germany; he witnesses the German brutalities firsthand when stationed in Berlin… he had correctly hated Germany even before the Germans arrested him after declaring war on the United States, and held him for six months. He endorsed the Lend Lease agreement, but he had grown cautious of the Russians. Stalin’s Great Purges were the final nail in the coffin of Kennan’s unmitigated love for Russia. Kennan had studied the Tsar’s system of exile and the corruption of Russia, and learning these things, it had cooled him slightly… but he still believed, perhaps, until Stalin started killing his old friends and colleagues on trumped-up charges of sabotage, accusing Old Bolsheviks of collaborating with the Nazis, having his agents torture and rip out people’s teeth and fingernails until they’d confess in a show trial… … and those crimes had been defended, almost endorsed by the American Ambassador to the USSR, Joseph Davies, while they were happening. To understand how Franklin Roosevelt could mis-read the Soviet situation so badly, you need to understand Ambassador Joseph Davies. Wikipedia: Joseph E. Davies – “Davies was appointed Ambassador to the Soviet Union by Franklin D. Roosevelt and served from 1936 to 1938. His appointment was made in part based on his skills [ … and on] his longtime friendship with FDR since the Woodrow Wilson days and for his political loyalty to Roosevelt. Davies had been asked by FDR to evaluate the strength of the Soviet Army, its government and its industry and to find out if possible which side the Russians would be on in the "coming war.” While Davies' predecessor, William Christian Bullitt, Jr. had been an admirer of the Soviet Union who gradually came to loathe Stalin's brutality and repression, Davies remained unaffected by news of the disappearance of thousands of Russians and foreigners in the Soviet Union throughout his stay as U.S. Ambassador. His reports from the Soviet Union were pragmatic, optimistic, and usually devoid of criticism of Stalin and his policies. While he briefly noted the USSR's 'authoritarian' form of government, Davies praised the nation's boundless natural resources and the contentment of Soviet workers while 'building socialism'. He went on numerous sanitized tours of the country, carefully prearranged by Soviet officials. In one of his final memos from Moscow to Washington D.C., Davies assessed: "Communism holds no serious threat to the United States. Friendly relations in the future may be of great general value." Davies attended the Trial of the Twenty One, one of the Stalinist purge trials of the late 1930s. Despite widespread evidence to the contrary, he was convinced of the guilt of the accused, although he was a lawyer himself. According to Davies, "the Kremlin's fears [regarding treason in the Army and Party] were well justified". His opinions were at odds with most of the non-Stalinist press of the day, as well as those of his own staff, many of whom had been in the country far longer than Davies. The career diplomat Charles Bohlen, who served under Davies in Moscow, later wrote: "Ambassador Davies was not noted for an acute understanding of the Soviet system, and he had an unfortunate tendency to take what was presented at the trial as the honest and gospel truth. I still blush when I think of some of the telegrams he sent to the State Department about the trial." (p.51) "I can only guess at the motivation for his reporting. He ardently desired to make a success of a pro-Soviet line and was probably reflecting the views of some of Roosevelt's advisors to enhance his political standing at home."(p.52) Davies even claimed that communism was "protecting the Christian world of free men", and he urged all Christians "by the faith you have found at your mother's knee, in the name of the faith you have found in temples of worship" to embrace the Soviet Union.” Kennan worked briefly for Davies. Wikipedia: George F. Kennan – “Kennan found himself in strong disagreement with Joseph E. Davies, Bullitt's successor as ambassador to the Soviet Union, who defended the Great Purge and other aspects of Stalin's rule. Kennan did not have any influence on Davies's decisions, and the latter even suggested that Kennan be transferred out of Moscow for "his health". Kennan again contemplated resigning from the service, but instead decided to accept the Russian desk at the State Department in Washington.” Kennan was transferred back to Moscow near the end of World War II. Here, he would write one of the ten most important documents in American history. *** A NUTCRACKER ARMY, 1788-1945 “During the night, after everyone else has gone to bed, Clara returns to the parlor to check on her beloved nutcracker. As she reaches the little bed, the clock strikes midnight and she looks up to see Drosselmeyer perched atop it. Suddenly, mice begin to fill the room and the Christmas tree begins to grow to dizzying heights. The nutcracker also grows to life size. Clara finds herself in the midst of a battle between an army of gingerbread soldiers and the mice, led by their king. They begin to eat the soldiers. The nutcracker appears to lead the soldiers, who are joined by tin ones and dolls who serve as doctors to carry away the wounded. As the Mouse King advances on the still-wounded nutcracker, Clara throws her slipper at him, distracting him long enough for the nutcracker to stab him.” That famous ballet is not such a bad metaphor for the American Armed Forces from 1788 to 1945. The United States Constitution was ratified in 1788, replacing the ineffective Articles of Confederation. Not a lot of people realize that the Constitution created a permanent Navy, but no permanent professional Army. Article 1 Section 8 – “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; […] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress …” An idealistic system. The Roman Republic ran under a similar system – volunteers raised when needed – no professional full-time army. Militia. Minutemen. Under the control of individual states. After every major war in American history, there would be a demobilization afterwards. The government would recruit volunteers and draft conscripts for war service when a new major conflict broke out, but once the war ended, the soldiers would hammer their swords back into ploughshares and go back to the business of life. At the end of World War II, the expectation was the same – time to demobilize and go home again, and get back to the business of life. But then, February ’46. *** TWO IF BY SEA I’m trying to show you at least a few of the cards that the American officials – President Truman in particular – were looking at in 1946. The expectation was to go home. Roosevelt had cut a deal with Stalin; the Nazis were turned back; Stalin would leave occupied Eastern Europe; time to go back to life-as-it-was. Joseph Stalin had different ideas. Kennan – with that strange mix of love and hate and puzzlement towards Russia that those of us who love that country so often feel (I feel it, too) – Kennan, with his terrific Russian language skills and his deep understanding of the country, Kennan saw the coming storm. He sent one of the most important telegrams in American history; indeed, no single American message might have been as important since the ride of Paul Revere. On 22 February 1946, less than two weeks since Stalin’s speech and the supposed 99.7% voter turnout in the Soviet “elections” – unsurprisingly reelecting Stalin and company by wide margin – Kennan sent his famous “Long Telegram from Moscow” – “861.00/2 - 2246: Telegram The Charge in the Soviet Union (Kennan) to the Secretary of State SECRET Moscow, February 22, 1946--9 p.m. [Received February 22--3: 52 p.m.]” It has been long since declassified and entered into the public domain. You can read the whole thing here, it is extremely insightful: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm Officials in Washington DC were asking the Russian bureau what was happening in Moscow. Wasn’t Stalin our friend? What’s with this “we’re going to destroy capitalism” speech? Wasn’t he saying he’s our good friend, like, five minutes ago? This seems bad, no? What the hell is going on here? Kennan’s reply begins – “[The answer to that question] involves questions so intricate, so delicate, so strange to our form of thought, and so important to analysis of our international environment that I cannot compress answers into single brief message without yielding to what I feel would be dangerous degree of over-simplification. I hope, therefore, Dept will bear with me if I submit in answer to this question five parts, subjects of which will be roughly as follows: (1) Basic features of post-war Soviet outlook. (2) Background of this outlook (3) Its projection in practical policy on official level. (4) Its projection on unofficial level. (5) Practical deductions from standpoint of US policy. I apologize in advance for this burdening of telegraphic channel; but questions involved are of such urgent importance, particularly in view of recent events, that our answers to them, if they deserve attention at all, seem to me to deserve it at once.” Part 1 of the Long Telegram outlined the Communist Party’s 1946 doctrine, now that they were turning their back on the Western Allies. There is nothing so surprising in Part 1: it’s Stalin’s unique blend of hyper-ideology and pragmatic realpolitik. The Communist Party under Stalin was dedicated to the destruction of capitalism, but was pragmatic on timelines, shortages of material, quality of soldiering, training, weapons, etc. Stalin was looking for a fight, but a fight on his terms: he was seeking victory with patience, not ideological martyrdom immediately. Part 2 is fascinating – “Part 2: Background of Outlook Before examining ramifications of this party line in practice there are certain aspects of it to which I wish to draw attention. First, it does not represent natural outlook of Russian people. Latter are, by and large, friendly to outside world, eager for experience of it, eager to measure against it talents they are conscious of possessing, eager above all to live in peace and enjoy fruits of their own labor. Party line only represents thesis which official propaganda machine puts forward with great skill and persistence to a public often remarkably resistant in the stronghold of its innermost thoughts. But party line is binding for outlook and conduct of people who make up apparatus of power--party, secret police and Government--and it is exclusively with these that we have to deal. Second, please note that premises on which this party line is based are for most part simply not true. Experience has shown that peaceful and mutually profitable coexistence of capitalist and socialist states is entirely possible. Basic internal conflicts in advanced countries are no longer primarily those arising out of capitalist ownership of means of production, but are ones arising from advanced urbanism and industrialism as such, which Russia has thus far been spared not by socialism but only by her own backwardness.” This is why I always say to read primary source materials of this type, instead of reading summaries. I’ve read and re-read Kennan’s communications. They’re fascinating study. They changed the world – they re-shaped American thinking about everythingfrom 1946 to 1991 and beyond, fundamentally transforming America’s role in the world. And yet, almost no summaries of the Long Telegram mention this hyper-biting point: “Basic internal conflicts in advanced countries are no longer primarily those arising out of capitalist ownership of means of production, but are ones arising from advanced urbanism and industrialism as such, which Russia has thus far been spared not by socialism but only by her own backwardness.” I mean, isn’t that interesting, at least? Kennan was an odd sort of man, brilliantly clear-sighted yet very hopeful at the same time. Here, he is not saying that there are no problems in the West, nor is he adopting any particular faddish popular line of thinking. He’s arguing, simply, that conflicts arise from urbanism and industrialism – pollution, bad city living conditions, and so on. This seems to me, if ones looks into it, to be basically correct. When Marx and Engels were doing their investigations in England, they happened to pick one of the single worst decades to be an urban laborer in English history. This is basically uncontroversial; even most of the hardest of hard-left will admit it. It was considerably better 20 years earlier and 20 years later. Industrialism and urbanization come with problems, yes. But that didn’t represent an ideological death match to Kennan, so much as a series of practical problems regarding pollution, family life, working conditions, dependence on wages for living and insecurity from that, and so on. But the real biting point is hilarious – “… Russia has thus far been spared not by socialism but only by her own backwardness.” I mean, that’s legitimately funny. Kennan’s document is often described in dour and serious tones – and to be sure, it had gigantic effects on world history – but he’s got a wry and penetrating style that is downright funny to read. Unless you’re a Russian Communist, I suppose. Most people don’t like to laugh at themselves. And yet, Kennan’s most important points about Soviet psychology are almost never quoted in full, despite being the most important part of the whole piece. Kennan wrote the details about theoretical Marxist doctrine briefly and tersely, but then spent considerable time on the actual psychology and demands of the Soviet rulers. This is the heart of the document, since the American government was going to need to deal with the Soviet government. Kennan keeps making these biting observations – “Internal rivalries of capitalism do not always generate wars; and not all wars are attributable to this cause. To speak of possibility of intervention against USSR today, after elimination of Germany and Japan and after example of recent war, is sheerest nonsense. … Falseness of those premises, every one of which predates recent war, was amply demonstrated by that conflict itself. Anglo-American differences did not turn out to be major differences of Western World. Capitalist countries, other than those of Axis, showed no disposition to solve their differences by joining in crusade against USSR. Instead of imperialist war turning into civil wars and revolution, USSR found itself obliged to fight side by side with capitalist powers for an avowed community of aim.” I mean, that’s obvious, right? “Instead of imperialist war turning into civil wars and revolution, USSR found itself obliged to fight side by side with capitalist powers for an avowed community of aim.” *** TRAGIKOMEDIYA It wouldn’t be that much of an exaggeration to say it went like this – Soviet leaders: West, come help us! Brotherhood of man! American leaders: Okay. Are you going to be crazy and declare war on us afterwards? Soviet leaders: No! Be good friends! American leaders: Why are you mass-killing your own people? Are you going to go all crazy? Soviet leaders: They were working with Nazis! Sabotage! Bad! Judge finds guilty, so must be true! Guilty! Bad! Kill them for working with Nazis! American leaders: Umm, okay, yeah, the Nazis are bad. So what happens after we beat the Nazis if we work together on that? Soviet leaders: Peace and friendship! Be good friends! Elections, democracy! American leaders: Oh, that sounds good. Okay. Here’s a bunch of trucks, vehicles, war material. We’re leading an invasion of Normandy. We’re coming. Hold on. We’ll open a Western front to the war and smash the Nazis together. Soviet leaders: Thank you for the help. American leaders: No problem. Can you remove your occupying soldiers from Eastern Europe now, like you promised, and let them have free elections? American leaders: Nyet! Nyet! Nyet! You want to destroy us! All you capitalists will destroy us! Nyet! We fight you! Western leaders: What just happened? *** THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RUSSIAN LEADERS Again, you should read Kennan’s Long Telegram – http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm It is full of gems. “Nevertheless, all these theses, however baseless and disproven, are being boldly put forward again today. What does this indicate? It indicates that Soviet party line is not based on any objective analysis of situation beyond Russia's borders; that it has, indeed, little to do with conditions outside of Russia; that it arises mainly from basic inner-Russian necessities which existed before recent war and exist today.” By that, he means, Stalin needed an external enemy to justify holding complete power, not delivering on promises, and arresting/killing/assassinating all of his old colleagues and rivals. “At bottom of Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area. But this latter type of insecurity was one which afflicted rather Russian rulers than Russian people; for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western countries. For this reason they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within. And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it.” Of course, that point is one that the Russian Communists themselves would agree on – traditional Russian rule was archaic. That was their whole premise in overthrowing it and executing the Tsar and his family, purging anyone with ties to the old order, and so on. It also perfectly maps to what the Soviets actually did afterwards. “It was no coincidence that Marxism, which had smoldered ineffectively for half a century in Western Europe, caught hold and blazed for first time in Russia. Only in this land which had never known a friendly neighbor or indeed any tolerant equilibrium of separate powers, either internal or international, could a doctrine thrive which viewed economic conflicts of society as insoluble by peaceful means. After establishment of Bolshevist regime, Marxist dogma, rendered even more truculent and intolerant by Lenin's interpretation, became a perfect vehicle for sense of insecurity with which Bolsheviks, even more than previous Russian rulers, were afflicted. In this dogma, with its basic altruism of purpose, they found justification for their instinctive fear of outside world, for the dictatorship without which they did not know how to rule, for cruelties they did not dare not to inflict, for sacrifice they felt bound to demand. In the name of Marxism they sacrificed every single ethical value in their methods and tactics. Today they cannot dispense with it.” This is, of course, now agreed upon by all except a fringe handful of die-hard Stalinists. Hard-leftists the world over agree that Stalin did a bunch of terrible things for his own personal power, and due to his own paranoid personality. *** SOVIET POWER AND AIMS After outlining psychology, Kennan gets into practical matters. This is particularly fascinating – “We have now seen nature and background of Soviet program. What may we expect by way of its practical implementation? Soviet policy, as Department implies in its query under reference, is conducted on two planes: (1) official plane represented by actions undertaken officially in name of Soviet Government; and (2) subterranean plane of actions undertaken by agencies for which Soviet Government does not admit responsibility. Policy promulgated on both planes will be calculated to serve basic policies (a) to (d) outlined in part 1. Actions taken on different planes will differ considerably, but will dovetail into each other in purpose, timing and effect. On official plane we must look for following: (a) Internal policy devoted to increasing in every way strength and prestige of Soviet state: intensive military-industrialization; maximum development of armed forces; great displays to impress outsiders; continued secretiveness about internal matters, designed to conceal weaknesses and to keep opponents in dark. (b) Wherever it is considered timely and promising, efforts will be made to advance official limits of Soviet power. For the moment, these efforts are restricted to certain neighboring points conceived of here as being of immediate strategic necessity, such as Northern Iran, Turkey, possibly Bornholm. However, other points may at any time come into question, if and as concealed Soviet political power is extended to new areas. Thus a "friendly Persian Government might be asked to grant Russia a port on Persian Gulf. Should Spain fall under Communist control, question of Soviet base at Gibraltar Strait might be activated. But such claims will appear on official level only when unofficial preparation is complete.” This analysis is fascinating and penetrating – Soviet leaders, Stalin particularly, would only advance a goal publicly after it was nearly won privately. Until then, they would use covert agencies like NKVD and KGB to subvert enemies, weaken their systems, all the while denying their involvement until the matter was a fait accompli. Kennan thus answered this question – Western leaders: What just happened? Kennan: The Russian leaders are power-obsessed liars. Kennan goes on to list the Soviet strategy for infiltration, espionage, and subversion; emphasis added to make skimming easier– “Agencies utilized for promulgation of policies on this plane are following: 1. Inner central core of Communist Parties in other countries. While many of persons who compose this category may also appear and act in unrelated public capacities, they are in reality working closely together as an underground operating directorate of world communism, a concealed Comintern tightly coordinated and directed by Moscow. It is important to remember that this inner core is actually working on underground lines, despite legality of parties with which it is associated. 2. Rank and file of Communist Parties. Note distinction is drawn between those and persons defined in paragraph 1. This distinction has become much sharper in recent years. Whereas formerly foreign Communist Parties represented a curious (and from Moscow's standpoint often inconvenient) mixture of conspiracy and legitimate activity, now the conspiratorial element has been neatly concentrated in inner circle and ordered underground, while rank and file--no longer even taken into confidence about realities of movement--are thrust forward as bona fide internal partisans of certain political tendencies within their respective countries, genuinely innocent of conspiratorial connection with foreign states. Only in certain countries where communists are numerically strong do they now regularly appear and act as a body. As a rule they are used to penetrate, and to influence or dominate, as case may be, other organizations less likely to be suspected of being tools of Soviet Government, with a view to accomplishing their purposes through [apparent omission] organizations, rather than by direct action as a separate political party. 3. A wide variety of national associations or bodies which can be dominated or influenced by such penetration. These include: labor unions, youth leagues, women's organizations, racial societies, religious societies, social organizations, cultural groups, liberal magazines, publishing houses, etc. 4. International organizations which can be similarly penetrated through influence over various national components. Labor, youth and women's organizations are prominent among them. Particular, almost vital importance is attached in this connection to international labor movement. In this, Moscow sees possibility of sidetracking western governments in world affairs and building up international lobby capable of compelling governments to take actions favorable to Soviet interests in various countries and of paralyzing actions disagreeable to USSR 5. Russian Orthodox Church, with its foreign branches, and through it the Eastern Orthodox Church in general. 6. Pan-Slav movement and other movements (Azerbaijan, Armenian, Turcoman, etc.) based on racial groups within Soviet Union. 7. Governments or governing groups willing to lend themselves to Soviet purposes in one degree or another, such as present Bulgarian and Yugoslav Governments, North Persian regime, Chinese Communists, etc. Not only propaganda machines but actual policies of these regimes can be placed extensively at disposal of USSR” *** PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS In Kennan’s final section of the Long Telegram, he outlined the extremely pragmatic and flexible nature of the Soviet leaders and how they responded to pressure – “This is admittedly not a pleasant picture. Problem of how to cope with this force is undoubtedly greatest task our diplomacy has ever faced and probably greatest it will ever have to face. It should be point of departure from which our political general staff work at present juncture should proceed. It should be approached with same thoroughness and care as solution of major strategic problem in war, and if necessary, with no smaller outlay in planning effort. I cannot attempt to suggest all answers here. But I would like to record my conviction that problem is within our power to solve--and that without recourse to any general military conflict.. And in support of this conviction there are certain observations of a more encouraging nature I should like to make: (1) Soviet power, unlike that of Hitlerite Germany, is neither schematic nor adventunstic. It does not work by fixed plans. It does not take unnecessary risks. Impervious to logic of reason, and it is highly sensitive to logic of force. For this reason it can easily withdraw--and usually does when strong resistance is encountered at any point. Thus, if the adversary has sufficient force and makes clear his readiness to use it, he rarely has to do so. If situations are properly handled there need be no prestige-engaging showdowns. (2) Gauged against Western World as a whole, Soviets are still by far the weaker force. Thus, their success will really depend on degree of cohesion, firmness and vigor which Western World can muster. And this is factor which it is within our power to influence. (3) Success of Soviet system, as form of internal power, is not yet finally proven. It has yet to be demonstrated that it can survive supreme test of successive transfer of power from one individual or group to another. Lenin's death was first such transfer, and its effects wracked Soviet state for 15 years. After Stalin's death or retirement will be second. But even this will not be final test. Soviet internal system will now be subjected, by virtue of recent territorial expansions, to series of additional strains which once proved severe tax on Tsardom. We here are convinced that never since termination of civil war have mass of Russian people been emotionally farther removed from doctrines of Communist Party than they are today. In Russia, party has now become a great and--for the moment--highly successful apparatus of dictatorial administration, but it has ceased to be a source of emotional inspiration. Thus, internal soundness and permanence of movement need not yet be regarded as assured. (4) All Soviet propaganda beyond Soviet security sphere is basically negative and destructive. It should therefore be relatively easy to combat it by any intelligent and really constructive program.” The amazing thing about this document? It basically correctly predicted the next 50 years. *The Soviets were not as fanatic as the Nazis; they were flexible and opportunistic and would reverse and change course. This proved true in Greece and Turkey immediately, the Berlin Airlift when Stalin tried to blockade it, etc. *They were still the weaker force, and could be stopped if the West cooperated. Implications for: NATO, re-industrialization of Germany, Marshall Plan, rebuilding of Japan. *The Soviet Union faced potential collapse every time they had a transfer of power. This eventually proved true when Gorbachev tried to modernize and “finish” the Soviet system with true openness and elections… the whole system came crumbling down. *Genuine goodwill and world-building was the most effective way to counteract Soviet agitation and destruction. Kennan concludes on a cautiously hopeful note – “Our first step must be to apprehend, and recognize for what it is, the nature of the movement with which we are dealing. We must study it with same courage, detachment, objectivity, and same determination not to be emotionally provoked or unseated by it, with which doctor studies unruly and unreasonable individual.” And ends it: “Finally we must have courage and self-confidence to cling to our own methods and conceptions of human society. After Al, the greatest danger that can befall us in coping with this problem of Soviet communism, is that we shall allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are coping. KENNAN” *** THE SOURCES OF SOVIET CONDUCT The American State Department, and indeed, all of the government, was at perhaps its most important crossroads in history. As we have seen, there were certainly defenders of Communism – some out of opportunism, some out of idealism, some out of ideology, and some – indeed – bribed and paid off with Soviet loot. All the most easily found summaries of Kennan’s work online are… garbage. You should read the original stuff. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm In Foreign Affairs, Kennan published a longer essay version for the American public under the pseudonym “X”, though it was commonly known that Kennan wrote it. The title of the article was “The Sources of Soviet Conduct”, but it’s been relegated and trivialized under the heading “X Article” in the world’s archives – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Article (That summary is garbage and entirely misses the point, but it does have its own Wikipedia page.) Foreign Affairs is still alive and running as a publication; Kennan’s original article is still up, albeit behind a paywall – https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/1947-07-01/sources-soviet-conduct An unabridged full copy is here – http://www.historyguide.org/europe/kennan.html It elaborates on the situation in a more essay-like, less terse format. It would reshape American policy and thinking: it outlined containment, the internal and external pressures of the Soviet system, and the thinking and origins of the Soviet leaders’ sentiment. *** COLD WAR Next chapter, we will finish our series on Temporal Control with Infinite Fronts, dealing with how President Truman responded to infinite and infinitely flexible Soviet pressure. Last chapter, we outlined the domestic political forces that made Truman VP (and thus suddenly thrust into the spotlight as President after less than three months on the job, and completely in the dark on many key matters). Understanding these types of pressures and politicking is critically important – the Machinations behind the scenes, seemingly so trivial, that set the world in motion. In this chapter, we are learning about history, yes, but also abstractly about Power and Analysis – Kennan’s analysis was one of the most important in modern history. His Long Telegram from Moscow, and the subsequent Sources of Soviet Conduct essay, set the tone for the next 50 years of American history; we will deal with the actions the American leaders took from it next week, as well as key lessons for how to navigate large crises. *** THE NATURE OF ANALYSIS The world often makes little sense until you sit down and do analysis. Kennan nails a number of key points of good analysis: *Background *Context *Subject-Matter Expertise *Critical Thinking *Pragmatism *Drawing on a Variety of Sources *Elaborating where necessary *Being terse and brief where possible *Including practical takeaways *Organizing the material to be useful in decisionmaking The Long Telegram and subsequent Sources of Soviet Conduct essay were one of the finest pieces of analysis in American history; perhaps only the Federalist Papers advocating for the ratification of the Constitution had a similarly enormous impact. It’s hard intellectual work, to be sure, but our readership tends to be forward-thinking people. I can’t recommend enough that you actually go read Kennan’s Long Telegram and Sources of Soviet Conduct. These two pieces of writing changed world history. Next chapter, we’re going to go deep into what you should do once you know the problem. But how do you know the problem? Analysis. You need to analyze situations. Follow Kennan’s model. Don’t do naive or idealistic analysis, don’t blindly trust promises or casual surface-area facts. Great analysis shows strengths and weaknesses, shows where defense is required, where offense is called for, where patience prevails, where idleness is fatal. Ask yourself: how good are your skills of analysis? It is a learnable skill. Reflect on it, read Kennan once now, brush up on the Cold War a bit more, and then read him again. Reading his work makes you smarter. Just thinking about thinking goes a long way to improve one’s ability to read a situation correctly. And isn’t that a necessary precursor to making the best choices in complex and high-stakes situations? “This man is your FRIEND. He fights for FREEDOM.” That’s true. I would’ve broken bread with any Russian soldier fighting the Nazis. They were genuinely good men. But they were led by a cruel and brutal man, a bank robber and extortionist, who channeled all the skills he learned in his training to be an Orthodox priest (oh, you didn’t know Stalin trained in a seminary as a priest as a young man? it’s true, look it up)… he used his mix of religious skills, oratory, and criminality to lead the world down into chaos. “This man is your FRIEND. He fights for FREEDOM.” Yeah, the Russians are great – but their leaders weren’t. Read Kennan! And do analysis! Temporal Control #11: Infinite Fronts Temporal Control #11: Infinite Fronts THE BLOCKADE “At the end of the Second World War, U.S., British, and Soviet military forces divided and occupied Germany. […] Berlin was located far inside Soviet-controlled eastern Germany. […] The crisis started on June 24, 1948, when Soviet forces blockaded rail, road, and water access to Allied-controlled areas of Berlin.” -- Office of the Historian, U.S. State Department But… aren’t the Russians our friends? *** TEMPORAL CONTROL IS HARD When the individual chapters of Temporal Control were originally published in essay form in mid-2016, it got some rave reviews, and the number of subscribers to The Strategic Review grew every single week of it. And yet, despite the fun/praise/growth, I found myself slightly unsatisfied. Perhaps it could have been anticipated: with Temporal Control, I was attempting to lay out fundamental building blocks of how to navigate all of time and space in order to make outcomes happen. In retrospect, that was a somewhat ambitious project to take on! I have, no doubt, not fully succeeded. You do not, dear reader, know how to fully navigate all of time and space to make outcomes happen. In fact, upon brief reflection, I myself do not know how to navigate all of time and space in order to make outcomes happen. Alas! When does ambition turn to arrogance? But these are human words, too, as we covered in The Intersubjective. What’s a Turk, anyways? Before Kemal, there was no Turkishness. Words come and go. Thus – I can’t help but feel, a little bit, like we just tried to swim from California to Japan. Foolish! And yet, what are these sandy shores we’re standing upon? We have not drowned. We are very much alive. And this little island vantage we are standing upon looks, on a glance, like a paradise. *** NO PARADISE: PRESIDENT TRUMAN IN ‘46 “The first practice is to ask what needs to be done. Note that the question is not "What do I want to do?" Asking what has to be done, and taking the question seriously, is crucial for managerial success. Failure to ask this question will render even the ablest executive ineffectual. “When Truman became president in 1945, he knew exactly what he wanted to do: complete the economic and social reforms of Roosevelt's New Deal, which had been deferred by World War II. As soon as he asked what needed to be done, though, Truman realized that foreign affairs had absolute priority. He organized his working day so that it began with tutorials on foreign policy by the secretaries of state and defense. As a result, he became the most effective president in foreign affairs the United States has ever known. He contained Communism in both Europe and Asia and, with the Marshall Plan, triggered 50 years of worldwide economic growth.” -- Peter Drucker, The Effective Executive Well, it all looks fine now, looking backwards. Peter Drucker had the benefit of hindsight: he wrote his first edition of that classic work in 1967, when the immediate danger had largely passed. Harry Truman’s Presidency looks even better with more hindsight, now, in 2016. Truman did not have hindsight. Never, ever, ever forget that. If I could only impart one single non-obvious lesson to you, across all my writings, it would be that – those past great leaders didn’t have hindsight while they were living it. Truman. “At 5:30 pm, she greeted Vice President Harry Truman, who had not yet been told the news. A calm and quiet Eleanor said, “Harry, the president is dead.” He asked if there was anything he could do for her, to which she replied, “Is there anything we can do for you? For you are the one in trouble now.” *** A MUDDY ROAD We’re going to try to walk in Harry S. Truman’s shoes. Please, actually try to imagine you are the man in 1944. Some context will help. In Chapter #8, Machinations, we covered some of how the domestic and international scene had caused Harry Truman to be swapped in as Vice President for Franklin Roosevelt’s fourth term. Truman and Roosevelt were not close friends. Roosevelt did not seek Truman’s counsel. No, Truman was a concession during the 1944 Presidential elections. It was expected Roosevelt would win again, in a landslide. (He did.) The Vice President wasn’t not going to have much if any effect on that. Truman had been serving the Democratic Party for 44 years when that election came about – he had served as a page in the 1900 Democratic National Convention. Truman then commenced failing at almost everything he tried to do. Wikipedia: Harry S. Truman: Early Life and Career – “After graduating from Independence High School (now William Chrisman High School) in 1901, Truman enrolled in Spalding's Commercial College, a Kansas City business school, but left after one semester. He then worked as a timekeeper on the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway, sleeping in hobo camps near the rail lines. He worked at a series of clerical jobs, and was employed briefly in the mailroom of the Kansas City Star. Truman and his brother Vivian later worked as clerks at the National Bank of Commerce in Kansas City; one of their coworkers, who also lived at the same rooming house, was Arthur Eisenhower, the brother of Dwight and Milton. He returned to the Grandview farm in 1906, where he lived until entering the army in 1917 after the beginning of the Great War. During this period, he courted Bess Wallace; he proposed in 1911, but she turned him down. Truman later said that he intended to propose again, but when he did he wanted to be earning more money than a farmer did.” Truman keeps failing – “Truman is the most recent president who did not earn a college degree. In addition to having briefly attended business college, from 1923–25 he took night courses toward an LL.B. at the Kansas City Law School (now the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law), but dropped out after losing reelection as county judge.” And fails some more – “Truman had dreamed of going to the United States Military Academy at West Point, but he was refused an appointment because of poor eyesight” Before finally having some success as a soldier in World War I – “In mid-1918, about one million soldiers of the American Expeditionary Forces were in France. Truman was promoted to captain in July 1918 and became commander of Battery D, 129th Field Artillery, 60th Artillery Brigade, 35th Division. It was known for its discipline problems, and Truman was initially unpopular because of his efforts to restore order. Despite initial attempts by the men to intimidate him into quitting, Truman succeeded by making his corporals and sergeants accountable for discipline; he promised to back them up if they performed capably, and reduce them to private and return them to the ranks if they didn't. In an event memorialized in battery lore as the "Battle of Who Run", his soldiers began to flee during a sudden attack by the Germans in the Vosges Mountains; Truman succeeded at ordering his men to stay and fight, using profanity that he had first heard while working on the Santa Fe railroad. The men were so surprised to hear Truman use such language that they immediately obeyed.” A rare man, Truman. What a remarkable man. The military suited him – “In other action during the Meuse-Argonne fighting, Truman's battery provided support for George S. Patton's tank brigade, and his battery fired some of the last shots of the war on November 11, 1918. Battery D did not lose a single man while under Truman's command in France; to show their appreciation of his leadership, his men presented him with a large loving cup upon their return to the United States after the war.” But he then promptly gets back into the business of failing a lot – “Shortly before the wedding, [in 1919] Truman and Jacobson opened a haberdashery together at 104 West 12th Street in downtown Kansas City. After brief initial success, the store went bankrupt during the recession of 1921.[14] Truman did not pay off the last of the debts from that venture until 1934, when he did so with the aid of a political supporter.” This is the life of Harry Truman. Between his failures in business and education, he has some success in politics, he has a good mind for administration, but is unable to put it all together. Peter Drucker would later invoke him as an example of how you can be a successful leader without being charismatic – “An effective executive does not need to be a leader in the sense that the term is now most commonly used. Harry Truman did not have one ounce of charisma, for example, yet he was among the most effective chief executives in U.S. history.” Eventually Truman becomes Senator, almost despite himself – “After serving as a county judge, Truman wanted to run for Governor or Congress, but [Missouri Democratic Party Boss Tom] Pendergast rejected these ideas. Truman thought that he might serve out his career in some well-paying county sinecure, but circumstances changed when Pendergast reluctantly backed Truman as a Democratic candidate in the 1934 U.S. Senate election after four other potential candidates turned him down.” For this, Truman, the Senator from Missouri, got nicknamed “the Senator from Pendergast.” Obviously, he didn’t find it very flattering. But then, Truman did some good administrative work in the Senate, chairing the Truman Committee investigating waste and incompetence in the war effort. It won him some respect. By 1944, the Bosses like Pendergast were feeling let-down by Henry Wallace, and President Roosevelt was forced to choose a new running mate. “Roosevelt told party leaders that he would accept either Truman or Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. State and city party leaders strongly preferred Truman, and Roosevelt agreed. Truman did not campaign for the Vice-Presidential spot, though he welcomed the attention as evidence that he had become more than the "Senator from Pendergast". Truman's nomination was dubbed the "Second Missouri Compromise" and was well received. The Roosevelt–Truman ticket achieved a 432–99 electoral-vote victory in the election, defeating the Republican ticket of Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York and running mate Governor John Bricker of Ohio. Truman was sworn in as vice president on January 20, 1945.” 82 days later, Roosevelt dies on 12 April 1945. And Harry S. Truman becomes President of the most powerful country in the world. The whole thing seems insane in retrospect. *** SOUND AND FURY Events continue moving quickly in Europe, largely under their own power, set in force by the Roosevelt administration and not requiring much from Truman – On 2 May 1945, Berlin is taken and the Soviet flag flies over the Reichstag. Axis soldiers in Italy surrender. On 7 May 1945, the German Instrument of Surrender (unconditional) was signed. 8 May 1945 is celebrated as V-E Day, Victory in Europe Day. On 9 May 1945, Stalin announces victory on the radio (the speech is available on the Marxist Internet Archive, but doesn’t say much beyond this) – “COMRADES! Men and women compatriots! The great day of victory over Germany has come. Fascist Germany, forced to her knees by the Red Army and the troops of our Allies, has acknowledged herself defeated and declared unconditional surrender. […] Being aware of the wolfish habits of the German ringleaders, who regard treaties and agreements as empty scraps of paper, we have no reason to trust their words. However, this morning, in pursuance of the act of surrender, the German troops began to lay down their arms and surrender to our troops en masse. This is no longer an empty scrap of paper. This is actual surrender of Germany’s armed forces. True, one group of German troops in the area of Czechoslovakia is still evading surrender. But I trust that the Red Army will be able to bring it to its senses. […] Henceforth the great banner of the freedom of the peoples and peace among peoples will fly over Europe. […] Comrades! The Great Patriotic War has ended in our complete victory. The period of war in Europe is over. The period of peaceful development has begun.” The United Nations Charter is signed on 26 June 1945. The period of war in Europe is over! The period of peaceful development has begun! *** THAT IT IS REALITY AND NOT A SHAM Obviously, Truman authorized atomic weapons to be used against the Empire of Japan, and Japan surrendered on 2 September 1945. It looked like the world would be at peace. And then the winter comes. Stalin gives the famous speech – “It would be wrong to think that the Second World War broke out accidentally, or as a result of blunders committed by certain statesmen, although blunders were certainly committed. As a matter of fact, the war broke out as the inevitable result of the development of world economic and political forces on the basis of present-day monopolistic capitalism.” This set off, unsurprisingly, somewhat of a panic among the Western Allies. Wait, aren’t the Russians our friends? On 22 February 1946, George Kennan writes one of the most important documents in American history, the Long Telegram, outlining Soviet intentions – “At bottom of Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area. But this latter type of insecurity was one which afflicted rather Russian rulers than Russian people; for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western countries. For this reason they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within. And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it.” Again, I say – imagine you are Truman in ’46; you got here through a mix of some administrative talent, a series of odd coincidences, and a number of political favors… and now you are desperately trying to untangle what’s going on. The stakes? Well, not so high. Merely that all of the world hangs in the balance, and World War III looms if the board is misplayed. By the end of February, the hair was standing up on the back of Winston Churchill’s neck. 5 March 1946, he gives the “Sinews of Peace” speech. Churchill – “Our American military colleagues, after having proclaimed their "over-all strategic concept" and computed available resources, always proceed to the next step -- namely, the method. Here again there is widespread agreement. A world organization has already been erected for the prime purpose of preventing war. UNO -- "U-N-O" -- the successor of the League of Nations, with the decisive addition of the United States and all that that means, is already at work. We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words, that it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can some day be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel. Before we cast away the solid assurances of national armaments for self-preservation we must be certain that our temple is built, not upon shifting sands or quagmires, but upon the rock. […] Now I come to the second of the two marauders, to the second danger which threatens the cottage homes, and ordinary people -- namely, tyranny. We cannot be blind to the fact that the liberties enjoyed by individual citizens throughout the United States and throughout the British Empire are not valid in a considerable number of countries, some of which are very powerful. With these states control is enforced upon the common people by various kinds of all-embracing police governments to a degree which is overwhelming and contrary to every principle of democracy. The power of the state is exercised without restraint, either by dictators or by compact oligarchies operating through a privileged party and a political police. […] The dark ages may return, the Stone Age may return on the gleaming wings of science, and what might now shower immeasurable material blessings upon mankind, may even bring about its total destruction. Beware, I say; time may be short. Do not let us take the course of allowing events to drift along until it is too late. If there is to be a fraternal association of the kind of I have described, with all the express strength and security which both our countries can derive from it, let us make sure that that great fact is known to the world, and that it plays its part in steadying and stabilizing the foundations of peace. There is the path of wisdom. Prevention is better than the cure. A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lightened by the Allied victory. Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organization intends to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their expansive and proselytizing tendencies. I have a strong admiration and regard for the valiant Russian people and for my wartime comrade, Marshall Stalin. There is deep sympathy and goodwill in Britain -- and I doubt not here also -- towards the peoples of all the Russias and a resolve to persevere through many differences and rebuffs in establishing lasting friendships. We understand the Russian need to be secure on her western frontiers by the removal of all possibility of German aggression. We welcome Russia to her rightful place among the leading nations of the world. We welcome her flag upon the seas. Above all, we welcome, or should welcome, constant, frequent, and growing contacts between the Russian people and our own peoples on both sides of the Atlantic. It is my duty however, for I am sure you would not wish me to not misstate the facts as I see them to you. It is my duty to place before you certain facts about the present position in Europe. From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent…” In March, Stalin replied to the speech in Pravda – the words means “Truth” in Russian, if you didn’t know. The Marxist Internet Archive has this dialog, too, if you want to read it. This one is worth reading in full. Here is how it begins – “TOWARDS the middle of March, 1946, a “Pravda” correspondent requested J. V. Stalin to clarify a number of questions connected with Mr. Churchill’s speech at Fulton, U.S.A. Below are J. V. Stalin’s replies to the correspondent’s questions. Question [Pravda]: How do you appraise Mr. Churchill’s latest speech in the United States of America? Answer [Stalin]: I appraise it as a dangerous act, calculated to sow the seeds of dissension among the Allied States and impede their collaboration. Question [Pravda]: Can it be considered that Mr. Churchill’s speech is prejudicial to the cause of peace and security? Answer [Stalin]: Yes, unquestionably. As a matter of fact, Mr. Churchill now takes the stand of the warmongers, and in this Mr. Churchill is not alone. He has friends not only in Britain but in the United States of America as well. A point to be noted is that in this respect Mr. Churchill and his friends bear a striking resemblance to Hitler and his friends.” Stalin ends his interview, “I don’t know whether Mr. Churchill and his friends will succeed in organising a new armed campaign against Eastern Europe after the Second World War; but if they do succeed—which is not very probable because millions of plain people stand guard over the cause of peace—it may confidently be said that they will be thrashed, just as they were thrashed once before, 26 years ago.” The next day, newspapers across the world carried Stalin’s remarks. In Greece, the newspaper headline was, ‘Stalin calls Churchill a warmonger and accuses him of perpetuating Hitler’s racial theory.’ On 30 March 1946, the Greek tensions blow over into Civil War when members of the Greek People’s Liberation Army attack the police station in Litochoro. And in case it was unclear before, the Cold War had very much begun. *** AGREEMENTS… “INTERPRETED” What the hell is going on here? Aren’t the Russians our friends? The Wikipedia “Timeline of Events in the Cold War” shows the mix of confusion and violence breaking out across the world – 1946 January: Chinese Civil War resumed between Communist and Nationalist forces. January 7: The Republic of Austria is reconstituted, with its 1937 borders, but divided into four zones of control: American, British, French, and Soviet. January 11: Enver Hoxha declares the People's Republic of Albania, with himself as Prime Minister. February 9: Joseph Stalin makes his Election Speech, in which he states that capitalism and imperialism make future wars inevitable. February 22: George F. Kennan writes his Long Telegram, describing his interpretation of the objectives and intentions of the Soviet leadership. March: The Greek Civil War reignites between communists and the conservative Greek government. March 2: British soldiers withdraw from their zone of occupation in southern Iran. Soviet soldiers remain in their northern sector. March 6: Winston Churchill warns of the descent of an Iron Curtain across Europe. April 5: Soviet forces evacuate Iran after a crisis. July 4: The Philippines gains independence from the United States, and begins fighting communist Huk rebels (Hukbalahap Rebellion). September 6: In a speech known as the Restatement of Policy on Germany in Stuttgart, James F. Byrnes, United States Secretary of State repudiates the Morgenthau Plan. He states the US intention to keep troops in Europe indefinitely and expresses US approval of the territorial annexation of 29% of pre-war Germany, but does not condone further claims. September 8: In a referendum, Bulgaria votes for the establishment of a People's Republic, deposing King Simeon II. Western countries dismiss the vote as fundamentally flawed. September 24: Truman is presented with the Clifford-Elsey Report, a document which listed Soviet violations of agreements with the United States. September 27: Nikolai Vasilevich Novikov writes a response to Kennan's Long Telegram, known as the 'Novikov Telegram', in which he states that the United States are "striving for world supremacy". December 19: French landings in Indochina begin the First Indochina War. They are resisted by the Viet Minh communists who want national independence. So again – be Truman. Imagine you are Truman. It’s not clear you ever wanted the job of President, and certainly, as early as 5 years previously, it would be inconceivable to be President. 12 years previous, before being elected to the Senate, the idea of becoming President someday would be downright laughable. Your largest success in your professional life had been your service in World War I, which had broken up a run of constantly recurring failures and missteps. And now you control the only modern industrial nation that wasn’t devastated by the war, the Atomic bomb, you are a charter signee of the United Nations – which had already become a pale imitation of what it was meant to be, mere minutes after the signatures on the treaty paper were dry. You know, if you’d been paying closer attention, Stalin tipped his hand a little in his victory address the day after defeating Germany – “Being aware of the wolfish habits of the German ringleaders, who regard treaties and agreements as empty scraps of paper, we have no reason to trust their words. However, this morning, in pursuance of the act of surrender, the German troops began to lay down their arms and surrender to our troops en masse. This is no longer an empty scrap of paper. This is actual surrender of Germany’s armed forces. True, one group of German troops in the area of Czechoslovakia is still evading surrender. But I trust that the Red Army will be able to bring it to its senses.” I believe modern psychologists might call this “projection” – “Wolfish habits… regard treaties and agreements as empty scraps of paper… we have no reason to trust their words… lay down their arms and surrender [and it’s] no longer an empty scrap of paper… actual surrender… I trust that the Red Army will be able to bring it to its senses.” Oh, to be sure, the Nazis were terrible liars. But you can read Stalin’s whole psychology on display there – he cared not for agreements. Who has the guns? Who has the soldiers? Scraps of paper? Hah. Guns, not paper; long live Great Stalin, hurrah! I have one last Cold War document that I recommend as reading on the topic. Truman Virtual Library: "American Relations With The Soviet Union" (declassified) The stakes are high, obviously. The very first item of the Table of Contents, page 1, says – “INTRODUCTION . . . . Page 1 a. Our ability to resolve present conflict between Soviet and American foreign policies may determine whether there is a permanent peace or a third World War. b. U.S. policy towards U.S.S.R. will be greatly affected by our knowledge of Soviet policy and activities. A forecast of Soviet future policy towards this country can be based on the manner in which the U.S.S.R. has maintained her agreements with this country, and on recent Soviet activities which vitally affect the security of the United States.” That’s page 1 and 2. Heavy stuff, huh? (Spoiler alert: Stalin didn’t honor most of his agreements.) “Chapter III: Violations of Soviet Agreements with the United States . . . Page 27 a. Soviet-American agreements have been adhered to, “interpreted,” or violated as Soviet officials from time to time have considered it in the best interests of the Soviet Union in accordance with the Soviet policy of increasing their own power at the expense of other nations. b. A number of specific violations are described in detail. The principle violations concern Germany, Austria, the Balkan countries, Iran, Korea and Lend-Lease Agreements.” Page 27 begins, “The Soviet government will not admit that is has violated any of its international engagements. On the contrary, it usually argues vehemently, both at home and abroad, that it scrupulously fulfills its international obligations. It is very prone to charge other nations with violations while indignantly denying or completely ignoring charges that is has committed similar acts.” There’s a lot of examples, ranging from the trite to the outrageous. “The Soviet Union’s acquisition of Ruthenia and Bukowina and the dramatic readjustment of Poland’s eastern frontier cannot be reconciled with the Soviet Union’s statement that it desired no territorial changes which were not in accord with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned. Ruthless suppression of Anti-Soviet political parties in liberated countries of Eastern Europe is a direct violation of the Soviet Union’s promise to respect the right of all people to choose the form of government under which they will live.” That sort of thing. So, you're Truman. You’ve got this document in front of you. There’s a lot of bad stuff in it. The Russians are not our friends, and are doing a lot of bad stuff, and they’re now using the weapons we lent them, that they promised to return, to arm communist insurgents in liberated countries and suppressing political opposition. (It’s in the linked document.) So – you’re Truman. What do you do? *** TEMPORAL CONTROL, FINAL CHAPTER: INFINITE FRONTS Before I started writing the Temporal Control Series, I already knew how it would go: we would start with World War I, flash backwards in time to the people first figuring out seemingly trivial things like metal coinage, and gradually work our way through examples of key aspects of Temporal Control throughout history, eventually concluding with Truman at the start of the Cold War. The beginning of the Cold War was one of the most difficult leadership challenges of all time. Historically, if you had a “second front” open in a war, you were very, very likely to be lost. Napoleon rolled all his enemies, until the “Spanish ulcer” bled him of his best soldiers. He was unable to simultaneously perform against the combined might of Britain, Spain, and France. The two-front war drove both Imperial Germany’s and Nazi Germany’s actions in the World Wars, much to their detriment and eventual destruction. In the American Revolution, Washington’s revolutionary forces stayed in the war barely, just long enough to establish credibility and have Spain and France declare war on Britain. The British Empire likely sooner-or-later would have successfully dispatched Washington’s troops, but they could not contend simultaneously with the French and Spanish. Part of Lincoln’s genius for diplomacy was keeping the European powers out of invading in favor of the Confederacy. Had the Europeans intervened in the American Civil War, there would be no unified America. What was the Cold War, then? War on infinite fronts. The metaphorical term “home front” was first used during World War I to describe how domestic affairs – particularly industrial production – was just as critical to eventual victory as winning in actual combat on the (physical) Western or Eastern Fronts. The Cold War took the conflict to the highest of levels: everything would be mobilized and weaponized, anywhere and everywhere possible. Athletic competitions, newspapers and magazines, trade and labor unions (in America, there was a strong anti-Communist left among labor, key to victory in the Cold War)… not to mention backing civil wars covertly… overtly… sending training and material… diplomatic agreements… money… spies, espionage, defectors… using coup d’etats to take over governments… assassinations… film, media, and culture… suppressing competing political parties, legally and illegally… blockades and embargoes… not to mention the potential for the Red Army to send its massive army of tanks and troops across the border into Western Europe at any time. The way these challenges were navigated by President Truman, all of the American military and civil service, and the various leadership and staff of Allied nations… this is probably one of the most critical case studies and strongest vantage points of all time. *** INFINITE OPTIONS? FIRST FIGURE OUT WHAT’S ACTUALLY HAPPENING For Truman, the stakes for being too aggressive in response to the USSR was World War III breaking out – a brutally dreadful occurrence even if the conflict is won, let alone what happens if one is defeated… He took the time to do Analysis. Kennan’s documents set the tone for the State Department and White House; the classified “American Relations with the Soviet Union” document was a more thorough and analytical document laying out the recent history and synthesizing the Soviet actions. This step cannot be avoided. You must do analysis. If you have infinite things you could do, you can not successfully chart a good course of action without doing analysis. It is fairly simple to choose the best course of action if there is only one thing to do. It is a fairly simple tradeoff if there are only two or three things to optimize between. If there are infinite things, you will need to do some serious Analysis to even understand your options and the current situation. Sooner or later, you need to both accurately assess the current situation and what you want to have happen. You can start from either end of the spectrum. Sometimes you can set a goal and then research how to reach the goal. Other times, there is no goal; and you set guiding policies instead. Nevertheless, no matter what, you should inventory and do analysis if there are many things at stake that compete for limited resources. *** TELL ME, PLEASE, WHICH WAY I OUGHT TO GO FROM HERE “Alice: Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here? The Cheshire Cat: That depends a good deal on where you want to get to. Alice: I don't much care where. The Cheshire Cat: Then it doesn't much matter which way you go. Alice: ...So long as I get somewhere. The Cheshire Cat: Oh, you're sure to do that, if only you walk long enough.” You have done your analysis. Good. Now you must pick what to prioritize. You’re always prioritizing, whether you consciously do it or not. Your time goes somewhere. Whatever you’re doing first in the day, doing on your smartest and highest levels of energy, and whatever you’re spending most time on – that’s being prioritized. Again, it can’t be stated enough – you’re already prioritizing. If you’re not doing it consciously, and your life isn’t running marvelously, you probably ought to start doing it consciously. Quoting Drucker again, “The first practice is to ask what needs to be done. Note that the question is not "What do I want to do?" Asking what has to be done, and taking the question seriously, is crucial for managerial success. Failure to ask this question will render even the ablest executive ineffectual. “When Truman became president in 1945, he knew exactly what he wanted to do: complete the economic and social reforms of Roosevelt's New Deal, which had been deferred by World War II. As soon as he asked what needed to be done, though, Truman realized that foreign affairs had absolute priority. He organized his working day so that it began with tutorials on foreign policy by the secretaries of state and defense. As a result, he became the most effective president in foreign affairs the United States has ever known. He contained Communism in both Europe and Asia and, with the Marshall Plan, triggered 50 years of worldwide economic growth.” We in the West currently live in a “What do I want to do?” type of society. If that’s working for you, by all means keep doing it. If it’s not working well for you, consider asking “what needs to be done” – not necessarily by anyone else’s standards, but at least by your own. We won’t belabor this point too long, but do consider that there are alternatives to doing whatever your short term whims are. Setting a single target and then asking what needs to be done to achieve it is a good way to rise above whimsy. Nevertheless – remember – you are already prioritizing, consciously or not. Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here? That depends a good deal on where you want to get to. *** APPROPRIATE RESPONSE Knowing what to do isn’t enough – you must do it. Occasionally, these writings will be on pure philosophy, but the vast majority aim for practical effort and effectiveness. In Temporal Control #6, Heart of the Matter, we learned the cut right to the issue. What actually matters here? What gets it done? Contrast: Undercommitment. Contrast: Overcommitment. In Temporal Control #1, Prelude, we learned how the British began the disastrous Gallipoli campaign by undercommitting to it, followed by overcommitting after the battlefront had already gotten into a bad place and been lost. An appropriate response is the opposite of that. Appropriate response means understanding what the heart of the matter is, and having done good analysis. The Western Allies did not intervene strongly on Russia’s borders. It is a tragedy – the things that happened in the Baltic States and the Balkans and Central Asia were awful – but practically speaking, any intervention there would have invited more Soviet counterattacking and been harder to defend. Kennan’s analysis in the Long Telegram said this outright – “Soviet power, unlike that of Hitlerite Germany, is neither schematic nor adventunstic. It does not work by fixed plans. It does not take unnecessary risks. Impervious to logic of reason, and it is highly sensitive to logic of force. For this reason it can easily withdraw--and usually does when strong resistance is encountered at any point. Thus, if the adversary has sufficient force and makes clear his readiness to use it, he rarely has to do so. If situations are properly handled there need be no prestige-engaging showdowns.” Gallipoli went from bad to unmitigated disaster once the British had already taken high losses and then began to feel that their prestige was at stake. American and Western policy in the early stages of the Cold War, most of the time, was designed to “properly handle” things as they arose, using “strong resistance.” Please think through these words; there is a key lesson here. Strong resistance = preventative strong commitment. Undercommitment invites problems and failings. But likewise, undercommitting early often puts prestige on the line, leading to that “prestige-engaging showdown” Kennan warned against. *** BUILDING INSTITUTIONS In response to the Soviet aggression, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland began constructing and signed into force the North Atlantic Treaty in 1948 and 1949. One of the more curious and forgotten things about the early United Nations was that its acronym was originally to be “UNO” – United Nations Organization. Obviously, the UN has had some successes, but the Cold War was likely not what the original signers had in mind. NATO kept the “O” – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This organization is a smaller version of what the Western Allies had hoped the United Nations would become. Many of the NATO countries had previously been at war with each other; almost all of them had, in fact. But no NATO country has gone to war with each other since the signing. Note, though: treaties are often treated as “scraps of paper” – such was mentioned in Temporal Control #1: Prelude, and echoed by Stalin in his victory speech. “NATO” wasn’t just a treaty – it was an organization; an institution. The NATO military coordination was not to be done haphazardly if the Soviets attacked; it would be too late by then. Instead, the NATO armed forces began training, coordinating, and hardening together, working to get great cohesion and coordination in the event of a crisis. One of the harder things for me to personally get my mind around has been how to separate out institution-building from personal productivity. There are always secondary effects of institution-building, and institutions must evolve. Recommended to revisit Temporal Control #3 (Cyrus the Great), Temporal Control #5 (Mustafa Kemal), and Temporal Control #9 (evolution of the Roman Army) for more on the topic. We won’t linger on it, but note that NATO became a thing; not just a “scrap of paper.” Likewise, building your own institutions will be key to having reach behind yourself. Perhaps we will do an entire TSR series on Institutions someday, but until then, those three chapters should give more ideas. Institution-building beyond oneself is critical. *** INTERSUBJECTIVE IDEALS Henry Kissinger writes in his seminal work, Diplomacy, that justice without force gets crushed, but force without justice invites challenge, revolt, and attack. Truman reversed course on the more draconian parts of American policy as the Cold War began ramping up. America became more committed than it had ever previously been to rebuilding and securing both Germany and Japan, as well as treating its allies well in defense of common ideals. We need not linger on this too long, because “start with why” and “visionary leadership” is popular right now – you have heard a lot of it, perhaps even too much of it, already. It is critically important, though. Kennan advised meeting the Soviet threat with being genuinely constructive – “All Soviet propaganda beyond Soviet security sphere is basically negative and destructive. It should therefore be relatively easy to combat it by any intelligent and really constructive program.” *** RATIONAL ACCOUNTING Money matters; ideals are terrific, but money matters. One of Truman’s more impressive accomplishments was getting the Marshall Plan (no relation) approved by a Congress already feeling overtaxed. At the same time, it was not pure idealism. Having immediately been betrayed by the Soviets with sent weaponry, the American leaders were much smarter this time around. Intelligent and prudent investment, some of it military but primarily economic, went out to beleaguered countries in Europe. On the home front, millions of men would be coming home and the economy would likely be thrown into chaos – war demobilization has often wrecked economies in the past. The G.I. Bill was passed in 1944, still under Roosevelt’s Presidency, but I think it’s an understated point that the program was run so effectively under Truman’s tenure. Demobilizing veterans were to receive a baseline of pay for up to a year if needed, college tuition paid, and low-cost mortgages. Instead of having a bunch of unemployed young men, people came home, furthered their skills at university, and were able to buy houses and start families. All told, the economy boomed, unrest was extremely low, and America wound up with the best-trained workforce in the world – as well as a baby boom rapidly growing the number of the country’s citizens. Again, finding money for all of this was an under-heralded aspect of Truman’s Presidency. The domestic economy ramped up even stronger after demobilization, smart investments and grants were made in Europe, especially to the dangerously threated Greece and Turkey, and Truman was able to find the money to get it all done. *** MACHINATIONS NAVIGATED Also unheralded, America got four terms of Presidents that were nearly universally loved by workingmen and soldiers – Truman’s first term that he inherited from FDR, Truman’s second term, and Eisenhower’s two terms. We often do not see problems that never occurred, but had the American labor force gone pro-Soviet, perhaps the Cold War goes the other way. Truman worked with labor leaders and veterans effectively and kept domestic harmony. Just as impressively, he navigated an oft-hostile Congress to produce these outcomes, at a time when Americans were still very skeptical of being involved in world affairs. Truman was optimistic, but not an ideologue – when he could not advance his “Square Deal” policies and was getting Republican backlash after FDR’s death domestically, he was still able to preserve a good working relationship with Congress and get the most critical legislation passed. *** SMALL THINGS, ALL THINGS From my friend Greg Nance, I’ve taken an expression. He’ll often say, “Small things, all things.” And so it was, too, with President Truman. The Berlin Airlift is just one of the many interventions he led. On 24 June 1948, the Soviets began blocking food and fuel coming into American-controlled sector of Berlin, which was completely surrounded by the Soviet area. Seeing the blockade coming into force, the Western Allies immediately stockpiled months of food. It’s often easier to do something correctly now instead of waiting for it to become a problem. When the blockade came into full force, Stalin was testing Western resolve. In one of the more dramatic outplayings of the Soviet world, the Western Allies began air-freighting food and fuel into the city, plane after plane of it – “In response [to the blockade], the Western Allies organized the Berlin airlift to carry supplies to the people of West Berlin, a difficult feat given the city's population. Aircrews from the United States Air Force, the British Royal Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal New Zealand Air Force, and the South African Air Force flew over 200,000 flights in one year, providing to the West Berliners up to 8,893 tons of necessities each day, such as fuel and food. The Soviets did not disrupt the airlift for fear this might lead to open conflict. By the spring of 1949, the airlift was clearly succeeding, and by April it was delivering more cargo than had previously been transported into the city by rail. On 12 May 1949, the USSR lifted the blockade of West Berlin. The Berlin Blockade served to highlight the competing ideological and economic visions for postwar Europe.” And what do we see here? Operations, to be sure. Excellent coordination. Analysis. Resolve. Willpower. Goodwill. Care. Strength. Action – on one of the infinite fronts. The episode bolstered the prestige of the West, strengthened the resolve of the West Germans, showed the Western Allies would defy Soviet conquest attempts but not necessarily start World War III, and built – well, yes, a better ideological and economic vision for postwar Europe. 14 years later, in a death-knell for their pretenses to being a free and open system, the Soviets build the Berlin Wall to keep East Germans from escaping out of their zone of control. *** PARTING THOUGHTS It turns out the Cold War was more complex to write about than I anticipated. My gratitude for joining me through these explorations. And what marvelous lessons, no? This Series was, TEMPORAL CONTROL 1: Prelude 2: Unit of Account 3: Training and Hardening 4: Rational Accounting 5: The Intersubjective 6: Heart of the Matter 7: Operations 8: Institutions 9: Machinations 10: Analysis and Power 11: Infinite Fronts So what should we be taking from this? This final chapter looks at surveying the scene – Infinite Fronts. It is not a bad metaphor for life; life often has infinite potential things to do. To get going, do analysis, then prioritize (you’re already prioritizing, consciously or not), and drive right at the heart of the matter. To harmonize the short-term actions with longer-term gains, build operations to coordinate tactics over time, institutions that live outside and beyond you, and constantly ensure the people you care for (and yourself) are training and hardening yourselves. Resources and numbers matter – measure your goals by a unit of account (there’s a variety of KPI’s besides money you can use), and yeah, do rational accounting. Don’t neglect, nor overrate, intersubjective agreement; heed Churchill’s warning about “sham agreements” – Stalin cared not for treaties. Be aware of the machinations behind the scenes. And finally, as was so clearly evidenced in the Prelude a the start of World War I – Small things, all things. *** FULL CIRCLE We started here. We’ll end here – When you hear Temporal Control, think more like “Quality Control” and less like an upset 13-year-old hollering, “Stop controlling me, Dad! I hate you!” You, obviously, cannot control time. You can, however, study it – measure it – navigate it. You can choose your next actions and do them. If things don’t unfold the way you like, you can study why and make adjustments. This is a good thing. And we do this similar to Quality Control engineers. Most people are too caught up in current moment. They greatly overestimate what they can do now, and underestimate broad and grand arcs of time unfolding. Let’s imagine for a moment that you were completely unskilled; you had no career, trade, or profession at all. (Perhaps like the upset 13-year-old.) How fast can you successfully build a career? Very likely not in the next 30 minutes. Almost certainly over the next 10 years. And yet, we get to 10 years in the future by stringing a lot of highly effective 30-minute blocks together. This is a question we will explore in Temporal Control, but really, you ought to ask yourself the question pretty regularly anyways. “Is what I’m doing in this current 30-minute block serving to build the next 10 years of my life the way I want to?” Some readers are nodding. “Oh, yes, a familiar topic. This series sounds nice. Sebastian is going on to something I already know pretty well.” Other people are perhaps getting a little tiny bit anxious. Maybe saying something like, “Uhh, well, I can’t be doing the right thing all the time, can I?” Actually, I think you can and should do the right thing all the time. Really, at the risk of sounding a mix of grandiose and boring, I think taking life seriously makes a lot of sense. DUBIOUS BATTLE DUBIOUS BATTLE Dubious Battle #1: Faith vs Works Dubious Battle #1: Faith vs Works THE TRAVELER It is London in 1898, and the poem is an immediate sensation – “And why the natives were so meek; Until by chance we heard him speak, And then we clearly understood How great a Power for Social Good The African can be. He said with a determined air: "You are not what your fathers were; Liberians, you are Free! Of course, if you refuse to go" And here he made a gesture so. He also gave us good advice Concerning Labour and its Price. "In dealing wid de Native Scum, Yo' cannot pick an' choose; Yo' hab to promise um a sum Ob wages, paid in Cloth and Rum. But, Lordy ! that's a ruse ! Yo' get yo' well on de Adventure, And change de wages to Indenture." We did the thing that he projected, The Caravan grew disaffected, And Sin and I consulted; Blood understood the Native mind. He said : "We must be firm but kind." A Mutiny resulted. I never shall forget the way That Blood upon this awful day Preserved us all from death. He stood upon a little mound, Cast his lethargic eyes around, And said beneath his breath: “Whatever happens we have got The Maxim Gun, and they have not." He marked them in their rude advance, He hushed their rebel cheers; With one extremely vulgar glance He broke the Mutineers. (I have a picture in my book Of how he quelled them with a look.) We shot and hanged a few, and then The rest became devoted men. And here I wish to say a word Upon the way my heart was stirred By those pathetic faces. Surely our simple duty here Is both imperative and clear ; While they support us, we should lend Our every effort to defend, And from a higher point of view To give the full direction due To all the native races. And I, throughout the expedition, Insisted upon this position.“ -- Hilaire Beloc, “The Modern Traveler,” London 1898 You’ve heard that line before. It is very famous. “Whatever happens we have got The Maxim Gun, and they have not." Alas, though! The current understanding of what that line means – some long-lost British poet celebrating a grandiose overpowering superiority – is the exact opposite of what Belloc meant. The piece is about hypocrisy. But we will come back to this point in a moment. *** THE BATTLE Six years earlier. Shangani River, Zimbabwe. 25 October 1893. This sort of story had played across many times and places. Some minor scuffle and infraction, some petty thing, a police intervention that gives way to full-blown colonial war, justified in theory at first; shakier when looking at the grand arc of time. Well, there is King Lobengula of the Matabele. He is a descendent of the powerful Zulu Empire; he had punished one of his rival neighbors over some infraction or other. This rival of Lobengula had complained to the British, who arrived on the scene for a mix of stated reasons, many of them actually true. As the British forces marched on King Lobengula’s capital of Bulawayo, a force of 5,000 Matabele soldiers slept early and awoke around midnight, fast-marching to catch the encamped and sleeping 700 British forces. Perhaps half of the Matabele soldiers would have been armed with bolt-action rifles; the other half with a mix of assegai throwing and charging spears. A little after 2AM, cracks of bolt-action rifle fire filled the air, and the British sentries raised the alarm – “The bugles gave the alarm, the camp was all excitement in a moment, all noise with the opening of ammunition boxes and shouting of officers, the men were getting into their places... the scouts had hardly time to save themselves.” Being awoken from sleep to be surrounded and attacked is, of course, disorienting. Blares of British bugles and Matabele gunfire filled the air; the British were outnumbered over 7-to-1. But then the machine guns started. On elevated perimeter positions, the first auto-reloading machine gun in history could fire continuously without overheating and rarely jamming. Matabele skirmishers fired from the darkness under that clear night sky, attempting to lay covering fire as elite impi infantry soldiers led the charge with spears. But the machine gun, this they had not seen before. Yelling war shouts, rows and rows of Matabele charged with assegai spear and shield… and fell. The blood, it pooled on the riverbanks of Shangani River. The Maxim Gun matter-of-factly blasted on. The perimeter was soon strewn with dying Matabele soldiers. Eventually, impi infantry could no longer even charge quickly, with rows of the bodies of their colleagues lined up in front of them. A third of their forces dead, they withdrew. In the morning, the victorious British surveyed the carnage. 1,500 Matabele soldiers lay mangled by machine gun fire. Meanwhile… 4 British soldiers had died in the attack. Four. King Lobengula burned his capital and fled, dying the next year, perhaps of natural causes due to illness, or perhaps assassinated. The British South Africa Company incorporated the new territory as Rhodesia, named after its founder, Cecil Rhodes. 3,900 British settlers and mining prospectors moved into the ruins of Bulawayo, rebuilding it into the capital of Rhodesia. *** THE MONASTERIES 354 years earlier… Glastonbury Abby, England. 15 November 1539. “Aye, Richard, c’mon, we’ve got to go.” The bailiff can’t help but feel some pity for the old man as he helps him out of his cell and down the stairs. The 78-year-old man is frail, weak, and half-blind at this point. He had been held in the Tower of London since September. The former Abbot of Glastonbury, Richard Whiting, no longer resembles a member of the House of Lords who formerly oversaw one of the wealthiest of monastic lands in England. He looks like an old, tired man. But while the bailiff showed some final courtesy to the old man in private, the regular guards are altogether less kind as Richard Whiting leaves the Tower. They hitch the old Abbot to horses and he’s dragged through the streets; the loyal and faithful to the old cause are not to be seen, and he’s greeted with only jeers as he tries to make pace, occasionally stumbling and being dragged by the horses marching forwards. Whiting had been questioned personally by the Chief Minister to Henry VIII, Thomas Cromwell, and the night before he had undergone a fait accompli type of very brief trial. The gallows had been constructed hastily even as the trial was underway. There are no records of any grand speeches by the 78-year-old Abbot as he’s forced to ascend the gallows. The executioner hangs the elderly man, cuts the body down, and cuts his corpse into four pieces. His head is placed on top of the West Gate of the former Glastonbury Abbey. Over the coming decades, Glastonbury Abbey is reduced to a ruin, its stones and building materials being carted away for other Crown building projects. In one of those unsurprising-in-retrospect events that comes so often with revolutions, Thomas Cromwell – the chief architect of the breach with the Roman Catholic Church, architect of the founding of the Church of England, chief advocate of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, and Abbot Whiting’s condemner – was himself executed the following year. *** THE THESES 22 years earlier… Brandenburg, Germany, Holy Roman Empire. 31 October 1517. Archbishop Albert reads the letter from the 33-year-old priest. The letter is a standard enough discussion on theological matters even if a little bit… forwards… in its tone. The Archbishop then he turns to the attached Theses. The first thesis is simple and innocent enough – Thesis 1. “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ``Repent'', he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.” The first few are harmless enough, though they take some broad and sweeping language – Thesis 5. “The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.” The next thesis is a tautology, but a little more concerning – Thesis 6. “The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.” And then the theses start to grow more explosive – Thesis 32. “Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.” The Archbishop starts getting downright flummoxed as this tone continues – Thesis 86. “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?” Archbishop Abbot sighs and wipes the sweat from his brow, finishing the last of the theses of this Martin Luther – Thesis 92. “Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, ``Peace, peace,'' and there is no peace!” Thesis 93. “Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, ``Cross, cross,'' and there is no cross!” Thesis 94. “Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, death and hell.” Thesis 95. “And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations rather than through the false security of peace.” Well… this looks a lot more like a declaration of war than a simple theological argument. The Archbishop thinks, then sends messengers out to the local University and to Rome. The verdict soon comes – this man must be stopped from preaching, and perhaps… detained and… forced to justify himself… if not… The last such attempted reformer who was so-detained, of course, was Jan Huss – who, after being promised safe conduct in 1415, was arrested and burned alive, setting off the Hussite Wars between the Czech Hussite insurrectionaries and Papal Crusaders. The orders come soon enough – Luther is to be arrested. But with Gutenberg’s printing press invented some 50 years beforehand, the Theses spread widely. German Princes take to Luther, and shelter him from the Pope’s wrath. The Protestant Reformation has begun. 10 years hence, Europe would be at war. *** DUBIOUS BATTLE #1: FAITH VS WORKS We begin our final series of Machina, Dubious Battle. The reference is, of course, from Milton’s Paradise Lost – “His utmost power with adverse power opposed In dubious battle on the plains of Heaven, And shook his throne. What though the field be lost? All is not lost—the unconquerable will, And study of revenge, immortal hate, And courage never to submit or yield: And what is else not to be overcome.“ Now would be a good time, though, to revisit that question – What are we doing here? Why do I write this? Why do you read it? I started writing essays the essays that became Machina at The Strategic Review for a few reasons. The first is that I simply need to write, or I go crazy. It’s like going to the gym or getting on a decent sleep schedule. In the absence of writing regularly on meaningful things, I go nuts. I have to write. Okay. I need to write. But why this? To me, so much of today’s writing comes across trite, repetitive, safe, sanitized, patronizing and talking-down to the audience. Few writers want to explore truly deep and hard things. That’s the second reason – to go beyond the stagnation and over-caution in most of the current era’s writing. Of all the subject matter in the world, history is clearly one of the most important – it’s what actually happened; obviously, a lot can be learned from what has actually happened. My intention for readers here has been, has always been, not to just to be entertained, but to actually discern deep truths and patterns that can be used to improve one’s life and to actually do effective things out in the world. In past series we’ve covered – most recently, Vantages and Temporal Control; before that, Uncommon Virtues, Toughness, and Upstream Effects (now available in the book Progression) – I believe there are some fairly clear right and wrong answers on how to approach things. We can understand, for instance, the power of rational accounting – and use it. We can learn about how to make excellent friendships by studying great works on the topic, particularly Aristotle. We can learn, absorb, and train in toughness by studying those who did and do it so effectively. Dubious Battle is a little different. In Dubious Battle, there are less right and wrong answers, and more tradeoffs. Dubious Battle investigates a few of the long-running and never-ending conflicts across all of history. A business that doesn’t understand its numbers, operations, and accounting fails to a business that does; all else being equal, tougher athletes and soldiers defeat less tough athletes and soldiers on the playing field and the battlefield. But there are certain ideas and ways of seeing the world that constantly recur, that go back and forth, where there is no permanent right answer in those domains. These, these we explore in Dubious Battle. Our first battle to explore is that been Faith and Works. *** SOLA FIDE: BY FAITH ALONE Wikipedia: Sola Fide – “The doctrine of sola fide or "by faith alone" asserts God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith alone, excluding all "works". All mankind, it is asserted, is fallen and sinful, under the curse of God, and incapable of saving itself from God's wrath and curse. But God [… alone] grants sinners judicial pardon, or justification, which is received solely through faith. Faith is seen as passive, merely receiving Christ and all his benefits, among which benefits are the active and passive righteousness of Jesus Christ.” Perhaps you’re not religious. Probably, you’re not religious. Even if you’re religious, if it’s still 2016, you’re probably not very seriously doctrinally interested in your religion. That’s not a judgment; just a statistical fact. But please, dear reader, don’t skim too fast through these passages. This is not abstract theological hair-splitting – it’s actually one of the core foundations that 2016’s version of Western Civilization is built upon. It’s critically important to understand. At the time Luther was writing up his theological arguments, the Catholic Church was in the middle of the reign of Pope Leo X. Of course, “Leo X” was the name he ascended to the papal throne with; he was born Giovanni de Medici, son of Lorenzo de Medici. Yes, that Lorenzo Medici; “Lorenzo the Magnificent”; the most famous member of the wealthiest banking family in Europe; the man who funded the vast majority of Renaissance art – and who then put his second son at the head of the Roman Church. Almost all Protestants and probably even a majority of Catholics would agree the Catholic Church was a rather corrupt institution at this time, by any sort of standard. The famous “Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it” quote attributed to Leo X upon accession to Pope might or might not have actually been said, but it’s undoubtedly true that he lived very large, underwent great public works and art projects, and otherwise had tastes far more like a merchant prince than an austere monk. The Catholic conception of salvation required good works, but by Luther’s time, “good works” became a sort of sham cover for raising sums of money. Memberships in pious knightly orders were sold to high-bidders, indulgences and pardons for a variety of crimes could be purchased for gold. Luther didn’t merely rebuke this; he took a battleax to it. He’s typically called a reformer, but eventually he wound up with a revolutionary position rather than a position of mere reform. Wikipedia on sola fide again – “Protestants exclude all human works (except the works of Jesus Christ, which form the basis of justification) from the legal verdict (or pardon) of justification.” Luther position wasn’t just, “Stop selling indulgences and knighthoods for gold. It’s embarrassing.” Rather, he eventually settled on something like, “You don’t have to do anything except believe to be saved. And the Pope has basically nothing to do with that.” “Traditionally, Lutherans have taught forensic (or legal) justification, a divine verdict of acquittal pronounced on the believing sinner. God declares the sinner to be "not guilty" because Christ has taken his place, living a perfect life according to God's law and suffering for his sins. For Lutherans, justification is in no way dependent upon the thoughts, words, and deeds of those justified through faith alone in Christ.” *** WHITHER FAITH OR WORKS? The Wikipedia article on sola fide is rather good – it has a long list of Biblical citations both for and against the position. For – “Luke 18:10-14: Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God.” Against – “James 2:14-26: What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.” I, personally, do not believe that God intervenes in human affairs. I’m open to the idea of a Creator of the Universe, but I do not think prayer – at least in this day and age – calls down divine intervention that violates the laws of physics as we understand them. And though we’re taking the lens of Protestantism and Catholicism to understand this phenomenon, it’s not a Christian phenomenon only, nor is it a Western thing only. The fundamental tension between faith and works occurs and re-occurs in all sorts of societies, across many times and eras. My personal belief is that religions spread because they are successful at spreading; that might seem a tautology, but note what’s not said – I’m not saying the most correct theological position spreads, and I’m not saying that God is having any sort of direct interventionary hand in human affairs. (Long-time readers likely know or inferred this already; I state it clearly for new readers.) Looking to understand which of faith or works is the “correct” position to adopt – as an individual, the leader of an organization, or someone influencing and shaping society-at-large – thus becomes not a theological question for me, but rather a very practical one. Why does “salvation by faith alone” sometimes appeal and spread, and sometimes not? My answer: mobilization. But we’ll get to that in a moment. *** THE SUPERIORITY OF WORKS? If you’re enterprising and looking to build up the world, it’s very easy to be attracted to the “works” position. It’s easy to look at a line like this from the Bible – “By their fruit, you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a diseased tree bears bad fruit.” – and to say, “Well, that seems broadly correct.” The whole function of a fruit tree is to produce good fruit; if the fruit is rotten, the fruit tree is not good. The argument goes, then, that though variance can strike any one of us, it tends to even out over longer stretches. Over long periods of time, healthy and sane and upgoing philosophies of life lead to better outcomes. A consistent set of diseased outcomes is sign that something is fundamentally wrong. Thus, the excellence military commander is the one that wins battles; how could it be otherwise? Broadly applied, the “works” position rejects the “I tried” excuse. If you tried to build a building, but it fell over, it doesn’t matter what was in your mind or heart when you were failing to build a sturdy building. This is fundamentally appealing to very many people who build up the world. Broadly applied, works rejects the strain of thought that says “it’s the thought that counts” if someone picks out a gift displeasing to someone. Works rejects “I didn’t mean to do that” – works doesn’t care so much about intention. Works sees a criminal committing crimes, and hates it; that the criminal “really didn’t mean to” is rather besides the point. Works cares about results. And again, it’s very simple and intuitively appealing. On less grand levels, you don’t want a plumber that sincerely tries to fix your sink and fails; you don’t want a baker who really wants to make nice bread who burns the bread; you don’t want a deeply committed teacher who fails to teach mathematics, reading, or writing effectively to the children. The “faith” position, by definition, cares much less about production or results; people who adopt it tend to grow mentally weaker, make more excuses, claim justification and righteousness on behalf of mere thoughts rather than results… … and yet, the British Empire – a deeply Protestant and faith-based society – conquered the whole world, only to be superseded by the American Empire, which is even more intensely and devoutly faith-based. Perplexing, is it not? What gives? *** THE THREE FAILURE POINTS OF WORKS, I: RELIANCE ON AUTHORITY A subtle, but very important point – The doctrine of “by faith alone” means no one can be successfully judged on their relationship with God – it is an internal thing. Even one’s own thoughts and words can’t be judged! “Works”, on the other hand, can be judged. The doctor that cures more of his patients, the baker that doesn’t burn the bread, the military commander that wins battles instead of losing them, the builder whose houses don’t fall over – these are superior under a works-type view. But who is judging? This point is extremely subtle, but very important. I was never able to realize this about Protestantism and Catholicism until, interestingly enough, I saw the same phenomenon during among the warrior monks and Buddhist peasant insurgencies during the Japanese Sengoku Civil Wars, as we discussed in Vantages #3: Morality on the March. When a society broadly accepts that its people should be judged by their outward works, there becomes a standard for judging the worthiness and goodness of people. People being what we are, we tend to like to be useful and seen as good. Here then is the problem: who is assessing what counts as a “good work”? If the leadership judging the worthiness of people’s works is pragmatic, wise, cautious, thoughtful, and pro-social, then “good works” should actually be… well, good works. But if the leadership is decadent, shortsighted, and corrupt – but still in power – then they can claim that “good works” are just… giving them gold and soldiers for their private causes. This is a major failure case of Works; indeed, perhaps the failure case of it. But there are two more. *** THE THREE FAILURE POINTS OF WORKS, II: OBEDIENCE Bible – “Matthew 12:36-37: "I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter; For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."” Wikipedia: Sola Fide – “The Catholic position is best summed up in John 3:16, if one has the proper, contextual understanding of the word "believe". "Believe", in [the Catholic] context and in ancient Judaism, meant more than an intellectual assent. "To believe" also meant to obey, which is seen, in context, in Jn 3:36, 1 Jn 2:3ff, and 1 Jn 5:1ff. Without our positive response to grace offered, salvation is not possible.” This builds on our second failure point. When you have a known set doctrine of rules that must be followed, Obedience typically becomes the standard of whether one is doing Works or not. We look backwards in horror at Jan Huss being burned alive for trying to reform the Catholic Church. It is horrifying, there is no doubt about that. But it’s not surprising. You merely need to look at the line, “…by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Yes, yes, in theory Matthew was talking about that being on the day of divine judgment. But civil and ecclesiastical leaders and courts need some measures of how to judge, police, and govern society. When any sort of non-obedience becomes heresy, you wind up executing the majority of gentle and pro-social reformers. Sooner or later, thus, you wind up backwards – and prone to either an external enemy with stronger systems and technology displacing you, or vulnerable to internal dissent from a less pro-social and more belligerent revolutionary. This also has huge implications for technological growth – is it surprising at all that the vast majority of disruptive technology has been invented in faith alone type countries? Throwing “works” off the side of the boat has many downsides, but one upside that comes with it is implicitly throwing mandated obedience over the side of the boat – if judging is impossible, and if “good” is purely an internally-understood thing, the pathways to invention, innovation, and reform are much smoother. *** THE THREE FAILURE POINTS OF WORKS, III: STAGNATION Reality itself seems to be power-law distributed. If it’s still 2016, you probably already know all about Pareto’s 80/20 Law and all of that – it’s in vogue right now – if it’s in the far future, you might look it up. Likewise, if it’s still 2016, you probably know how compound interest and compounding gains lead to overwhelmingly large advantages and consolidations. If it’s the far future and people aren’t enamored with compound interest, do look it up. It’s fascinating stuff. It’s very easy under Works, thus, to have the top 1-2% of society producing the vast majority of Works. In such a case, a simple farmer – or even a feudal peasant or slave – could not produce much in the way of Works themselves. If we’re only judging solely by output, it’s easy both for people who don’t have power, prestige, education, and capital to get demoralized, to basically “give up” and fall into listless discontentment. Meanwhile, if you’re only judging by raw output, it’s easy to neglect investing in the development of people who can’t really “move the needle” in terms of raw output, as compared to those who are already in positions of wealth and power. Thus, the Church of Luther’s time was trending more-and-more towards investing time, resources, and attention into the nobles, monarchs, and merchants that could produce vast sums of gold and soldiers. The same phenomenon, of course, led to the French Revolution (in a Catholic “Works” country, mind you) and the Russian Revolution (in an Orthodox “Works” country, too). It’s very easy for people who aren’t already thriving at the highest levels to become completely discontent and alienated in pure “works” type societies. *** THE CONQUEST OF FAITH The doctrine of “by faith alone,” thus, has three advantages that are the opposite of the three failure cases of Works. 1. Mobilization: Since success and goodliness and salvation aren’t a result of actual tangible things, everyone who “gets the faith” thus matters intensely – this makes it very easy to recruit members of a cause, soldiers, and contributors big and small. “Faith” type societies raise more soldiers who fight harder. In “home front” terms, it’s easier to persuade people under a faith-based society to work harder and make more sacrifices for economic production. Everyone matters. Your contribution matters. If this is channeled through wise and responsible leadership, it can lead to huge gains. American faith could be seen firmly on display in the huge sacrifices needed to roll back Nazi Germany from Europe. Kennedy’s “We Will Go to the Moon” was also a faith-based appeal to make huge expenditures and sacrifices in order to show the world how serious America was about being serious; incidentally, it was also a very beneficial program – the faith channeled through Kennedy’s leadership produced large outcomes. 2. Invention: Unshackled from obedience or convention, inventors and artists and theorists can “follow their inner light” or some such – self-suppression and suppression-by-authorities are two of the leading reasons that inventions don’t happen. Unsurprisingly, almost all of the Industrial Revolution’s major achievements came from faith-based countries. Traditionally Catholic France also saw one of its greatest periods of innovation and reform under the very faith-based French Revolution, with the introduction of new technology, new weapons, new command structures, maneuver warfare, the metric system, and the codification of Civil Law across Europe under Napoleon. 3. Sanctification: Works-based societies are constantly forced to ask if their ideas “pay the rent” or not. Individuals in those societies are forced to ask the same questions. If the answer is “no”, disillusionment and listlessness can set in. Contrariwise, faith-based societies can repeatedly reaffirm their “inner light” – regardless of outcomes. The majority of us humans need to feel moral and justified in what we do, and faith provides its own and permanent justification. If you remain faithful, everything will work out. This also leads to one of faith’s largest problems, incidentally… *** FAITH’S SMALL FAILURE CASE: REINFORCING FAILURE Repeatedly charging the machine guns in World War I is something more prone to occur in a faith-based society than a works-based society. Failure, under faith, can always be spun as, “We weren’t faithful enough; we need to double-down on more faith.” Counterintuitively, this can lead to breakthroughs – oftentimes, initial failures are temporary and transitory, and staying faithful can lead to breaking through. But you always get situations like Soviet Communism, where it is clearly not producing the type of things it said it would, and the faith-machine keeps spitting the same answer back out: more Communism needed. It’s hit-or-miss – the American Revolution was perhaps the fullest and most successful expression of faith-based principles ever done in modern times. “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” – wait, why do you hold those truths to be self-evident? “We just do.” Faith! By the close of the American Revolution, the Continental Army had lost more battles than it had won – but it had won the war. The endurance and fighting in the name of inalienable rights, from the Creator, had sustained the American revolutionaries long enough to win over intervention from the French and Spanish who saw an opportunity to damage the British Empire. The American faith-based revolution succeeded despite all manner of blunders and backwardness early, and endured long enough to win. Of course, the French Revolution likewise tried to endure, with the end result of… well, you know the end result. Faith is a double-edged sword. *** FAITH’S LARGE FAILURE CASE: GROSS HYPOCRISY The ability to double-down repeatedly in the face of failure – “I don’t care what’s happening externally, I still feel this is right” style – can be good or bad. It can lead to runaway bad outcomes and repeatedly reinforcing failed policies. It can also lead to endurance during a long struggle and overcoming. But the biggest problem of by faith alone is its unique ability to promote cognitive dissonance and gross hypocrisy. Before the United States became a true global power, the British Empire was overwhelmingly the most successful case of a modern faith-based empire. Now, I should stop and say something – no one at the highest levels of power in a mature system is purely faith-based. You see genuinely sincere faith-based leaders early in movements, but almost never later in movements. Under normal times, pure sincerity does not allow for the type of coalition-building, alliance management, and resource allocation needed to reach the pinnacle of success in a mature and established field. Faith suffers similarly to Works, but with some minor differences. Whereas Works is terrific under wise and good leadership, and awful under degenerate and short-sighted leadership, Faith suffers similarly but in a slightly different fashion. Eventually, sooner or later, any faith-based society gets ruled by leaders who are capable of discerning the mechanics of rising – that is, they aren’t blinded by their faith – who are then ruling a people whose ethics and animating drives they do not hold and do not share. Unfortunately, I believe this is basically inevitable and nearly impossible to prevent. And thus we return to the British Empire of the 1890’s, when Hilaire Beloc wrote his famous poem. “Whatever happens we have got The Maxim Gun, and they have not." Yes, yes, that’s the most famous line from the poem… but it entirely misses the point. It’s the opposite of the point, even. Hilaire Beloc was born in France, to a French father and an English mother. Want to guess his religion? If you guessed “Catholic,” then we have a winner. Oh. Whereas the Maxim Gun line from his poem is generally interpreted as a swaggering British superiority, it’s exactly the opposite – and it’s also not the most important line. Note the faith aspects of the poem – “And why the natives were so meek; Until by chance we heard him speak, And then we clearly understood How great a Power for Social Good The African can be. He said with a determined air: "You are not what your fathers were; Liberians, you are Free! Of course, if you refuse to go" And here he made a gesture so. He also gave us good advice Concerning Labour and its Price. "In dealing wid de Native Scum, Yo' cannot pick an' choose; Yo' hab to promise um a sum Ob wages, paid in Cloth and Rum. But, Lordy ! that's a ruse ! Yo' get yo' well on de Adventure, And change de wages to Indenture." We did the thing that he projected, The Caravan grew disaffected, And Sin and I consulted; Blood understood the Native mind. He said : "We must be firm but kind." A Mutiny resulted. I never shall forget the way That Blood upon this awful day Preserved us all from death. He stood upon a little mound, Cast his lethargic eyes around, And said beneath his breath: “Whatever happens we have got The Maxim Gun, and they have not." He marked them in their rude advance, He hushed their rebel cheers; With one extremely vulgar glance He broke the Mutineers. (I have a picture in my book Of how he quelled them with a look.) We shot and hanged a few, and then The rest became devoted men. And here I wish to say a word Upon the way my heart was stirred By those pathetic faces. Surely our simple duty here Is both imperative and clear; While they support us, we should lend Our every effort to defend, And from a higher point of view To give the full direction due To all the native races. And I, throughout the expedition, Insisted upon this position.“ To quote that famous American movie, Whoa. To break it down a little more explicitly, “And why the natives were so meek; Until by chance we heard him speak, And then we clearly understood How great a Power for Social Good” The fictional narrator of the poem is serving on an expedition to Africa. He at first wonders why the natives were so meek, but then he listens to them and sees (implicitly, unstated) that they’re not very sophisticated. Is his inclination, then, to machine-gun them, take their lands, take their gold and resources, lie and trick them, and bring them into slavery? No, of course not! He “clearly understands” right away “how great a Power for Social Good the African can be.” Faith! Just the very next paragraph, while the narrator is still self-congratulating on what a great (faithful) person he is, he gets some advice from a Dutchman – "In dealing wid de Native Scum…” Oh, yeah, he doesn’t say he’s Dutch, but that’s the Dutch Afrikaner dialect right there. Dealing “wid” – Dutch. (Also Protestant, also faithful.) The jab-hook-knockout line comes next. Jab – “He said: "We must be firm but kind."” Faith! Hook – “A Mutiny resulted.” Knockout, eh? We must be firm but kind A Mutiny resulted The whole poem is a Catholic Works-based critique of the hypocrisy of the British and the Dutch in Africa, and illuminating the end result of the “civilizing mission” of the Protestants around the world. “We shot and hanged a few, and then The rest became devoted men.” They “became devoted men” – they got faith… after a number were shot and hanged. Faith! You would think that all this gross hypocrisy would turn the narrator off… but just the opposite, he moves into the Large Failure Case for Faith – “And here I wish to say a word Upon the way my heart was stirred By those pathetic faces. Surely our simple duty here Is both imperative and clear; While they support us, we should lend Our every effort to defend, And from a higher point of view To give the full direction due To all the native races. And I, throughout the expedition, Insisted upon this position.“ After seeing his own side lie, betray, and enslave a people, who then mutiny, who are then shot and hung, and when the natives are cowering and afraid afterwards – they “became devoted men” – after all this does he investigate the first principles of his faith and mission? No, of course not, no – he doubles down on it. “Upon the way my heart was stirred by those pathetic faces…” – he holds fast to his faith, and goes on to insist that he be given the position to uphold the “duty from a higher point of view to give full direction due to all the native races.” Of course, vast massacres ensue, and at the end of it, Cecil Rhodes owns the country. Faith! *** GUIDANCE In past series, we’ve focused as much as possible on best practices – how to do analysis, the value of rational accounting, managing one’s biochemistry intelligently, entraining good habits, making friends smartly and wisely, things of that nature. Dubious Battle lets us make no such easy prescriptions. Martin Luther was undoubtedly sincere – perhaps one of the sincerest people of all time. But the systems unleashed by his sincerity let the far-less-sincere Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell execute their rivals and confiscate their lands and wealth. But just when you’re recoiling in horror at faith, it also unleashes the types of invention and innovation that lead to modern chemistry, technology, transportation, antibiotics, refrigeration… hell, I don’t think it’d be incorrect to say that the faith-originating mindset built Wikipedia, which is certainly one of the most impressive achievements of mankind. It goes back and forth. Works is a very strong and stable ground to stand upon – as a Jewish friend of mine puts it, “Don’t tell me how hard you work. Tell me what you’ve got to show for it.” Or, with commentary, “Don’t tell me how hard you work [faith]. Tell me what you’ve got to show for it [works].” And yet, works so easily leads to stagnation and mindless obedience. By faith alone sees free creative and innovative minds, to follow their own inner light, and to bring forth what they can from it. I cannot wholeheartedly endorse either of these systems of thought, but I can recommend the following – 1. Understand your default position. If you were raised in America, it’s probably faith. America is a deeply faith-based country; it’s baked into America. If you were raised in China, it’s probably works. Through most of its history, China has been a deeply works-based society. By scrutinizing your default position towards morality and goodness, you can understand your blindspots and understand which failure cases you’re most likely to fall into. 2. Consider taking a hybrid faith/works position. Most people do not want to have conflicted and fragmented views unique to each particular domain, but faith and works both underperform in a variety of circumstances. Faith alone can be incredibly useful for mobilizing the potential in everyone; whereas works can demand results and refuse all excuses. Given that most people in the West are not religious in 2016, there’s no reason you have to stick with whatever position you inherited from your society and culture; nor would you have to flip entirely. You could come to a sort of hybrid. 3. Evolve your subtle language patterns away from the failure cases of your defaults. I got an immense out of mileage of dumping all faith-based defenses of stupidity. “It’s the thought that counts” is a very faith-based pronouncement; you’ll never hear me say it. Even if you’re faith-based to a large extent, that particular line can be very destructive. Likewise, people raised in works-based societies are probably subtly putting down any deviations from authority all the time, both in phrases and in tone of voice. Since stagnation and a lack of innovation is one of the biggest potential failings of being works-based, if you catch yourself saying, “Why are you wasting time on that?” when someone is innovating, you might want to catch that and inquire along other lines. 4. Consider adopting counter-cyclical viewpoints. In a stagnant works-based society, faith-based positions can be dangerous – especially if they challenge entrenched authority – but mild applications of faith, with its endurance and innovation and questioning, can lead to large overperformance. It can bring new people to your banner and help them realize their potential. Likewise, in a degenerate and grossly hypocritical faith-based society, there becomes immense power in adopting a more “show me the money” sort of attitude and ensuring you can actually produce successes and results. Dubious Battle #2: Ordinal and Cardinal Inclinations Dubious Battle #2: Ordinal and Cardinal Inclinations JULIUS CAESAR PASSES THROUGH “We are told that, as he was crossing the Alps and passing by a barbarian village which had very few inhabitants and was a sorry sight, his companions asked with mirth and laughter, "Can it be that here too there are ambitious strifes for office, struggles for primacy, and mutual jealousies of powerful men?" Whereupon Caesar said to them in all seriousness, "I would rather be first here than second at Rome.”” -- from Plutrach’s Parallel Lives; first century AD *** DUBIOUS BATTLE #2: ORDINAL AND CARDINAL INCLINATIONS Caesar’s remark is often paraphrased as, “I’d rather be first in a village than second in Rome.” This is a near-perfect example of ordinal inclinations. You see, there are two types of ways to see gains and losses numerically. The first is through Cardinal Numbers. Cardinal: One, two, three… The second is through Ordinal Numbers. Ordinal: First, second, third… This seems like a subtle point, but is actually critical to how you see the world, when you are pleased and displeased, how you relate to friends and rivals and – dreadfully – this accounts for an immense amount of all of the conflict across all of history. You see, if you have $10,000 (a cardinal number) in the bank and you gain $2,000 (cardinal) more, you now have $12,000 and are better off. But imagine if you had one roommate who has $20,000 the whole time. At first, you were in second place (ordinal) in net worth with $10,000; after gaining $2,000 more, you’re still in second place (ordinal)… the increase in raw dollars without passing your roommate means you’re still in second place in net worth in your home. This sounds so silly, stupid, and petty as to almost not be worth mentioning – let alone the subject of a whole TSR piece – but I think it’s critical to understand in yourself and others to have a successful life. *** ORDINALISTS, ORDINALISTS EVERYWHERE Spoiler alert: Most people are ordinalists. “Money only makes people happier if it improves their social rank, according to new research. The researchers found that simply being highly paid wasn't enough -- to be happy, people must perceive themselves as being more highly paid than their friends and work colleagues.” -- Science Daily: “Money only makes you happy if it makes you richer than your neighbors” Don’t you hate that headline? I hate it. The rest of the piece is rather predictable, my emphasis added – “The researchers were seeking to explain why people in rich nations have not become any happier on average over the last 40 years even though economic growth has led to substantial increases in average incomes. […] “Lead researcher on the paper Chris Boyce from the University of Warwick's Department of Psychology said: "Our study found that the ranked position of an individual's income best predicted general life satisfaction, while the actual amount of income and the average income of others appear to have no significant effect. Earning a million pounds a year appears to be not enough to make you happy if you know your friends all earn 2 million a year." “First they examined how life satisfaction was related to how much money each person earned. They found however that satisfaction was much more strongly related to the ranked position of the person's income (compared to people of the same gender, age, level of education, or from the same geographical area). “The results explain why making everybody in society richer will not necessarily increase overall happiness -- because it is only having a higher income than other people that matters.”” Ordanilists! *** CAN’T GET NO SATISFACTION This is, to be clear, not some fringe once-off result – almost all surveys and studies on the topic seem to find similarly. Here’s the abstract from a 1998 paper from the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, “Is more always better?: A survey on positional concerns” – “We use survey data to provide some empirical information about concerns regarding relative standing. Respondents chose between a world where they have more of a good than others and one where everyone's endowment of the good is higher, but the respondent has less than others. Questions asked about education, attractiveness and intelligence for one's child and oneself, income, vacation time, approval and disapproval from a supervisor, and papers to write. Half of the respondents preferred to have 50% less real income but high relative income. Concerns about position were strongest for attractiveness and supervisor's praise and weakest for vacation time.” The ordinally-inclined person would rather be “first in a village than second in Rome”; they would rather have 50% less real income as long as they’re earning more than others in their cohort; they are less concerted with how attractive they and their children are, but rather that they and their children are more attractive than those around them. *** ORDINAL ICONOCLASM, DESTRUCTION, AND OBFUSCATION Unfortunately – it gets worse. If you have $10,000 and feel very bitter and upset that your roommate has more than you at $20,000, there are two ways to flip your relative (ordinal) positions. You could gain $10,001 dollars – then you’d be in first place (ordinal) and they’d be in second. Or… you could sabotage and wreck your roommate, finding a way to do $10,001 of damage to them, dropping them down to $9,999 – then you’d be in first place. Of course, we know it’s easier to destroy than create – compare the difficulty of building a house with the relative ease of burning a house down – and so which option do most people choose? Do you think this is exaggeration? Perhaps it doesn’t really work like that? Well… *** FROM THE GRACCHI TO BISMARCK AND BACK AGAIN The Roman Republic ended and gave way to the Roman Empire after a disastrous series of civil wars. A big part of the problem in the Republic was that there were obvious, known problems – there was large unemployment, the military was under-equipped, threats were rising on the Roman borders – but no prominent men in Rome wanted someone else to get the credit for fixing the problems. The Gracchi brothers – Caius Gracchus and Tiberius Gracchus – were reformers from the Populare party between 150 BC and 120 BC. They proposed many policies and reforms to increase land ownership among the unemployed and discharged military veterans. Many of these policies were basically wise and sound, but the two men served as tribunes – a lower rank than the Senate – and the Senators did not want to have these two men seen as saviors and gain in relative political power as a result. Both Gracchi brothers were murdered as a result; eventually, peaceful reform became impossible, and eventually a fierce Populare military commander – Caesar – marched on Rome and took command of the city as dictator-for-life. The refusal, among the Senate, to have you Popularis tribunes gain in relative standing eventually lead to the complete subordination of both the tribunes and the senators under the Roman Empire system. This course happens again and again in history – when Chancellor Otto von Bismarck proposed the first workman’s compensation laws in case of injury and the first social insurance laws in Germany, the socialists vehemently opposed him – they did not want a conservative getting credit for solving the problems of the day. Bismarck railed on this point in his famous “Practical Christianity” speech in 1884 – “That the Social Democratic leaders wish no advantage for this law, that I understand; dissatisfied workers are just what they need. Their mission is to lead, to rule, and the necessary prerequisite for that is numerous dissatisfied classes. They must naturally oppose any attempt of the government, however well intentioned it may be, to remedy this situation, if they do not wish to lose control over the masses they mislead.” The more famous takeaway from that speech is that the socialists need dissatisfied workers – but look at the second sentence. “This mission is to lead, to rule…” – classical ordinal inclinations. Bismarck dealt with both fanatic radicals to his left and to his right – he reigned both of them in, forcing through social legislation to improve working conditions in Germany, and ensuring that the Prussian nobles wouldn’t be led down to a path to ruin with foolish and risky military adventures after the Unification of Germany. *** THE KAISER AND THE FUHRER WERE ORDINAL Alas, Bismarck was dismissed in 1890. In 1891, Kaiser Wilhelm II announced a new policy direction – he shifted from Bismarck’s policy of Realpolitik to the new (and eventually fatal) Weltpolitik – “The aim of Weltpolitik was to transform Germany into a global power through aggressive diplomacy, the acquisition of overseas colonies, and the development of a large navy. The origins of the policy can be traced to a Reichstag debate on 6 December 1897 during which German Foreign Secretary Bernhard von Bülow stated, "in one word: We wish to throw no one into the shade, but we demand our own place in the sun." ("Mit einem Worte: wir wollen niemand in den Schatten stellen, aber wir verlangen auch unseren Platz an der Sonne.") “Nancy Mitchell says that the creation of Weltpolitik was a change in the appliance of German foreign policy. Up until Wilhelm's dismissal of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Germany had concentrated its efforts on stopping the possibility of a two-front war in Europe. Prior to Weltpolitik, there was a greater focus on using its army and subtle diplomacy to maintain its status. In particular, Bismarck had been wary of acquiring overseas colonies and wished to reserve the role of Germany as honest broker in continental affairs. Under Weltpolitik, despite a two front war still being at the forefront of Germany's concerns as proven through the Schlieffen Plan, Kaiser Wilhelm II was far more ambitious.” Of course, this led to the complete destruction and ruin not just of the German Empire, but of the entirety of Europe in World War I. Germany got one last decent Prime Minister – Gustav Stresemann – who was flexible, moderate, cardinally-inclined, and who won the Noble Peace Prize in 1926 for reconciliation with France and Germany’s entrance into the League of Nations. Alas, he died at the age of 51 in 1929 from a stroke – Hitler rose to power shortly afterwards, adopting the max-ordinal position of “Deutschland Uber Alles” – henceforth, it would not be enough for Hitler’s Germany to thrive, but everyone else must suffer, be embarrassed, be conquered, be destroyed. Well, we know how that story ended. *** ORDANILISTS IN YOUR LIFE “Ordinal and Cardinal Inclinations” started first being talked about in my social circle a couple years ago; I’ve had noteworthy conversations on the topic with many terrific thinkers and doers. The opposite of ordinal inclinations might be a line often attributed to Harry Truman – “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” Obviously, the Roman Civil Wars, Bismarck’s reforms, the German Empire, the World Wars, Nazi Germany – these are large scale things that effect the whole arc of history. Ordinalists, it seems, account for much of the world’s problems. But on a much smaller scale, ordinally-inclined people often hold their friends and allies back from success. If you’ve ever had a friend, colleague, or family member who seemingly got distraught and even sabotaged you while you were doing things in the world, it might be due to some subconscious ordinal inclinations on their part. This is one of the chief reasons that people rising in the world are often forced to find new friends. If you ask around, the phenomenon is incredibly common – people can be good friends until one of them starts going up rapidly in the world. Then, the person who is doing “just okay” can start get very weird and freak out rather a lot at their former friend’s newfound success. There are some basic measures you can take to minimize the chances of falling-out – don’t get arrogant or showy, give lots of credit and appreciation and gratitude to the people who help you get there, things like that – but the phenomenon seems somewhat unavoidable for the majority of people who go up in the world. Interestingly, most people don’t seem to compare themselves to everyone – just people in their reference group. From that Science Daily piece quoted above, difference emphasis added – “They found however that satisfaction was much more strongly related to the ranked position of the person's income (compared to people of the same gender, age, level of education, or from the same geographical area).” You’re very likely to fall out with ordinally-inclined people who see you in their reference group, if you’re going up rapidly. It, literally, makes them unhappy and dissatisfied. *** CAN WE JUST SHOOT ALL THE ORDINALISTS? The case for it seems clear enough – people like Hitler do so much damage and are willing to wreck so much havoc to be “#1” (ordinal), as opposed to merely developing as best as they can without hurting others. The opposite end of the spectrum is much more appealing. One of the things I’m most personally proud of is my ability to remain friends with people who go through a period of huge growth and become incredibly successful; I’m naturally very strongly cardinally-inclined, as are some of my closest friends like Kai Zau and Stepan Parunashvili. The benefits are obvious – when a friend of mine goes through hyper-growth and has lots of success, often many of their old friends start getting weird. Me, on the other hand, I’m always incredibly pleased when my friends are succeeding, almost no matter what. I’ve never lost a friend because they became more successful, and I’m very proud of that. Meanwhile, you see people trying to get out of poverty and make a great life for themselves get held back, denigrated, even outright sabotaged by formerly good friends. You see ordinally-inclined people on the grandest stage adopt Hitlerian policies of not just trying to go up, but trying to destroy and put down everyone else. So, can we just shoot all the ordinalists? No. Aside from the fact that shooting people with bad beliefs is completely inappropriate in 2016, it would also be a rather empty world. It seems like both strongly introverted people and especially those who have mild to severe autism are more likely to be cardinal; they don’t relate with “normal human stuff” as much, and both don’t understand status games and typically eschew them. But this is not the norm – the vast majority of people have at least some ordinal inclinations, if not being outright dominated in their thinking by ordinalism. But while pure ordinalism is a recipe for disaster – both for the individual caught up in its spirals of misery, and for leaders who pursue destructive and sabotaging policies towards any other possible movement regardless of it being valuable – there are, actually, a few advantages to ordinalism and a few disadvantages to cardinalism. *** AUCTORITAS AND PRIMACY “Auctoritas is a Latin word and is the origin of English "authority” … In ancient Rome, Auctoritas referred to the general level of prestige a person had in Roman society, and, as a consequence, his clout, influence, and ability to rally support around his will. Auctoritas was not merely political, however [… it] symbolized the mysterious "power of command" of heroic Roman figures. […] The 19th-century classicist Theodor Mommsen describes the "force" of auctoritas as "more than advice and less than command, an advice which one may not safely ignore."” -- Wikipedia: Auctoritas “Among the senators with speaking rights, a strict order defining who could speak and when was established, with a patrician always preceding a plebeian of equal rank. The speaking order was similar to that of the seating arrangement, in which the princeps senatus held the first chair, followed by the consuls, censors, praetors, aediles, tribunes and finally, the quaestors.” -- UNRV: The Roman Senate You and your roommate are almost certainly not in direct competition. (If you are, you should probably move elsewhere. That would be dreadful.) In those circumstances, there is basically nothing concrete and valuable to be gained by your roommate having less money than you. Earning and saving more yourself is good for its own sake – cardinally, all else being equal, it makes sense to have larger amounts of money in the bank. How much your roommate has in the bank is largely irrelevant. In fact, actually, you should be happy and pleased when your roommate gets more money in the bank, as you should be when any of your friends, colleagues, or allies rise – it’s only a good thing for you if you’re not in direct competition. But this is not true in all things. The Cardinal Numbers run: One, two, three… The Ordinal Numbers run: First, second, third… In the era of the Roman Republic, as with today, whoever spoke first in a debate got to frame the terms of the whole debate. This was determined both by formal rank and informal auctoritas. Auctoritas is an interesting word – it’s worth studying sooner or later. Translating it purely as “authority” is incorrect; while formal types of authority (such as holding an office in the Republic) certainly increased auctoritas, so did doing brave and meritorious civic improvements, winning honor and serving nobly on the battlefield, building alliances and coalitions, and even just speaking in an elegant and polished way. Auctoritas, thus, might be translated as a mix of “prestige,” “formal power,” and “soft power.” A Roman Senator or Consul who made many achievements in the Senate or during their Consular term would likely be acknowledged with additional formal honors; equestrian knights who served well might be promoted to the Senate; and so on. This would effect what order a Senator got to speak in the Senate during debates, and whoever spoke first got to frame the terms of the entire debate. Thus, if the son of a family broadly hostile to your family won a major award like the Civic Crown, it meant a decrease in relative standing in the Senate, and it made it less likely you could get your laws and policies passed. It thus made a sort of morbid sense, in this system, to resist both adversaries and even neutral unaligned people receiving honors, prestige, or anything else that would increase their auctoritas – it made it less likely that your family and your children could make the achievements they wanted to make. *** WINNER-TAKE-ALL EFFECTS In Ries and Trout’s famous “22 Immutable Laws of Marketing,” the first law is listed as the “Law of Leadership: It’s better to be first than to be better.” “You can demonstrate the law of leadership by asking yourself two questions: 1) What’s the name of the first person to fly the Atlantic solo? Charles Lindberg, right? 2) What’s the name of the second person to fly the Atlantic solo? Not so easy to answer, is it? The second person to fly the Atlantic solo was Bert Hinkler. Bert was a better pilot than Charlie – he flew faster, he consumed less fuel. Yet who has ever heard of Bert Hinkler?” Ries and Trout list many examples along those lines – “After World War II, Heineken was the first imported beer to make a name for itself in America. So four decades later, what is the Number 1 imported beer? The one that tastes the best? Or Heineken? There are 425 brands of imported beer sold today in America. Surely one of those brands tastes better than Heineken, but does it really matter? Today, Heineken is still the Number 1 imported beer, with 30 percent of the market.” And those two marketing geniuses seem to think it applies to basically everything – “The law of leadership applies to any product, any brand, any category. Let’s say you didn’t know the name of the first college founded in America. You can always make a good guess by substituting leading for first. So what’s the name of the leading college in America? Most people would probably say Harvard, which is also the first college founded in America. (What’s the name of the second college? The College of William and Mary, which is only slightly more famous than Bert Hinkler.)” So – in the case of market share for companies, aiming for ordinal supremacy – being first – appears to also lead to cardinal success. Hmm. *** HUMAN POTENTIAL AND REFERENCE GROUPS Finally, for whatever strange reason, humans often have a hard time improving their performance against objective cardinal milestones if no one else is pushing them… and seeing another person succeed at a certain level also gives impetus to want to be better. Roger Bannister’s four-minute mile is often pointed to in this regard – it took nine years for the world record to fall from 4 minutes and 1.5 seconds to 3 minutes and 59.4 seconds… but the next record break happened less than two months later. There is, I suppose, a good reason to believe that if no one was ordinally inclined, human performance would not progress as fast in a variety of disciplines where everyone seeks to do better than the person that came before them. *** GUIDANCE I’m naturally cardinally inclined – and I’m grateful for that fact. Every time I see a friend, colleague, or ally advance, it makes me smile. I figure, my friends should be succeeding and it’s entirely appropriate and proper. But it’s not so simple as to say “cardinal is better” – neglecting auctoritas and primacy, winner-take-all effects, and the effect of reference groups on human potential – these things all point to take ordinalism seriously. And thus, we’re again at the point in Dubious Battle where we not make definitive statements about one being better or worse, and instead must look to general guidance of when each is appropriate. Guidance, then – 1. A default “cardinal” position is healthier and saner; train yourself to go cardinal in the absence of a good reason not to be. Being cardinally-inclined lets you focus on gaining at the best rate for yourself, and doesn’t make you miserable when others are succeeding. Highly ordinal people will get destructive and spiteful, “keep up with the Joneses,” and often make desperate gambles to be #1… often, with predictable outcomes. Being “ordinal everywhere” is a recipe for a miserable, unhappy, bitter, destructive life. Hitler was max-ordinal. If you find yourself comparing yourself to everyone in everything you do, that should be immediate cause to pause and reflect, and to gradually restrain and scrub those inclinations out of yourself. You can be great at many things, and perhaps the very best at a few things, but you can’t fight and conflict every single thing, in everything, everywhere. Aside from being a foolish dissipation of energy and highly destructive, it’s also a surefire way to be miserable. 2. Adopt “ordinal” positions instrumentally for clear reasons. In winner-take-all competitions, being first also leads to the most cardinal gains. But pick the areas you go ordinal very, very carefully. It’ll make you miserable, spiteful, and prone to all sorts of potentially dumb and destructive behavior… you should only adopt ordinal positions when they’re very clearly necessary or superior for getting results, you should know exactly why you’re adopting them, and you should regularly double-check your assumptions in those regards. It’s too easy to get bogged down in a foolish ordinal competition while neglecting a bunch of very cardinally valuable and important things. 3. Beware of max-ordinal people. One of the most damaging things in life comes when you assess a friend or colleague as trustworthy and they turn on you. This is well-proven by both common experience and the history books. People that need to be better at everything, who are unable to maintain friends and good relationships with people who go up in the world, who gossip and speak ill of those who are succeeding – this is a very reliable predictor that they’ll turn on you and start sabotaging you if you come into more success than them. The smart move is to slowly distance yourself from those people before the stuff hits the fan. 4. Pick your reference groups carefully. There’s probably some inbuilt ordinal tendencies in all of us – thus, pick your reference groups carefully. I’m not into rah-rah motivation very much, but it seems like one of the most correct things said by people in motivation and personal development is to “raise your standards” – it’s easy to compare yourself to people who are around you and to judge yourself against them. But I think it’s also a surefire way to underperform your theoretical cardinal potential, and to be miserable and a worse friend in the process. On a personal note, these days I don’t swagger as much as I used to, but I still compare myself as a writer and thinker and doer to people like Ben Franklin, Theodore Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill – as such, the inclination is to push myself in accord with historical figures; everyday things happening around me are mere blips on the radar. I don’t compare myself to any of my friends – I see their successes as entirely appropriate and correct, because if you want to make a huge impact on the world, of course you have to have friends that are performing at the highest levels. I’ll learn from my friends, emulate their successes, help them and ask for help in return – but I don’t compare myself to them. They’re not my reference group – the maximum human potential across historical lines is my reference group. It can be a little daunting, but in a strange way, it actually makes things much easier for me. You might not want to go that far – it comes with its own set of neuroses and tradeoffs – but you definitely shouldn’t compare yourself to someone nearby like a cousin, coworker, or roommate. C’mon, you really can’t find a better reference group than that? *** A FINAL NOTE As a final passing note, Milton made Lucifer an ordinalist in Paradise Lost – Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce To reign is worth ambition though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n. Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven? I believe the opposite. Cardinal, not ordinal! But that’s not universally true, either – ordinalism where appropriate. But in Hell, no, not so much. Reigning in Hell is not something to be so proud of, eh? Dubious Battle #3: The Burden of Proof Dubious Battle #3: The Burden of Proof NYET, COMPRADE PICASSO, THE CCCP APPROVES OF THIS NOT “Soon after Stalin’s death, the French poet Louis Aragon invited fellow communist Pablo Picasso to create a tribute to the late dictator. On 12 March [1953] a small charcoal drawing by the artist was featured on the front cover of the French communist publication, Les Lettres Francaises. The comical appearance of the youthful Stalin, with a bushy peasant-style moustache and thick, raised eyebrows which gave him a look of surprise, infuriated the leaders of the French Communist Party. They announced that they ‘categorically disapproved’ of the drawing, which was rebuked for failing to adhere to the heroic ideals of Socialist Realism.” -- “Stalin by Picasso (or Portrait of a Woman with Moustache)” *** TEMPORARY WOUNDS, PERMANENT SCARS: 36 YEARS EARLIER IN BELGIUM The campaign is officially listed as having lasted 3 months and 6 days, from 31 July 1917 to 10 November 1917. In my opinion, it was three of the most important months for the history of Western civilization. At the end of “the Great War,” the “War to End All War,” – at the final closing of this march of horror, over 17 million would be dead and 20 million would be wounded. The casualties of the Third Battle of Ypres – the Battle of Passchendale – were “only” between 200,000 and 450,00 for the Allies, and between 215,000 and 410,000 for the Germans. Under 3% of the World War I casualties happened at Passchendale. But with the sheer horror of how it happened, the legacy of that battle is far greater than blunt statistics could define. From “The Battle of 3rd Ypres (Passchendaele)” by Geoffrey Miller – “The Ypres salient occupied a lowlying, gently undulating pastureland, which had been reclaimed from marsh over the years by an elaborate drainage system. The water table was near the surface, even at the height of summer, and this reclaimed land was extremely vulnerable to shellfire that would destroy the drainage system and allow the land to flood. There was no layer of gravel and flooding would rapidly turn the whole battlefield into mud once the shelling started. […] “The Germans were well aware of the strategic importance of Flanders and that is why this was the most heavily fortified part of their line. British security was very poor and the Germans knew all about the forthcoming battle and had taken their countermeasures well in advance. “It was no coincidence that they four days before the battle was due to begin they had carried out a tactical retreat from their front line back to the Passchendaele ridge. This left a zone of real and potential marshland in the low lying land between their new front line and the British. “Their new positions, the Hindenburg line, were a defence in depth of three lines, the third being beyond the range of the British guns. Between these lines was barbed wire, scattered concrete pillboxes and machine gun nests. The barbed wire funnelled the attackers into killing zones swept by machine guns and carefully registered by the artillery so that the attackers could be annihilated by a crippling concentration of shells. […] “These effects of the geography and the weather were made many times worse by [General] Haig's insistence on a preliminary bombardment of the German lines, even though he had been warned about this. Many shells fell short and the result was to turn a very difficult battle ground into an absolutely impossible one because it created a quagmire of quicksand-like proportions!” All war is hell, to be sure – but there are differences in degree and kind. Throughout history, it’s generally regarded that defense in war is stronger than offense, but the balance goes back and forth over time. World War I was the absolute height of defensive warfare having superiority over offense. Defensive weapons – artillery, machine guns, trench warfare, barbed wire – were newly invented, and the offensive counters of tanks, radio, and modern aircraft had not been invented at the start of the war. On flat ground, infantry would be absolutely annihilated by machine gun and artillery positions. That same artillery, though, made huge explosive craters in the ground when it hit. The convention, if wounded during an artillery barrage, was to try to scramble or crawl into one of the craters the artillery had carved into the Earth. Being “below” the battlefield, thus, would allow a chance for a wounded man to recover, and for medics to get to them after the fighting stopped. A British volunteer private, A.M. Burrage, wrote of his experience during Passchendale – "Dawn reveals to us a sight which nobody could visualize without having actually seen it. We can stand up and see the round of the horizon. It is like being on the sea, but our sea is a sea of mud. There is not a blade of grass nor a spot of colour anywhere. Only the least undulations tend to relieve the monotony of complete flatness. In the middle distance there is something which might by exaggeration be called a 'hill'. We imagine that this must be the celebrated Passchendaele Ridge.” On such a flat landscape, the only place to take cover if wounded was in the craters formed by artillery. This flat muddy landscape would be hell enough for the men fighting on it… before it started to rain. Burrage – “Several of our men, most of whom had first been wounded, were drowned in the mud and water. One very religious lad with pale blue watery eyes died the most appalling death. He was shot through the lower entrails, tumbled into the water of a deep shell-hole, and drowned by inches while the coldness of the water added further torture to his wound... our C. of E. chaplain - who went over the top with us, the fine chap! - was killed while trying to haul him out.” Passchendale accounted for less than 3% of the casualties of the First World War, but there was a unique sort of horror in drowning in inches of rainwater as those artillery shell craters filled with rain and mud. British Captain Siegfried Sassoon wrote his poem, “Memorial Tablet,” covering the horror of the battle – “Squire nagged and bullied till I went to fight, (Under Lord Derby’s Scheme). I died in hell— (They called it Passchendaele). My wound was slight, And I was hobbling back; and then a shell Burst slick upon the duck-boards: so I fell Into the bottomless mud, and lost the light.” It might not be an exaggeration to say that Passchendale led to the destruction of classical Western civilization more than any other single event. *** DUBIOUS BATTLE #3: THE BURDEN OF PROOF In 1521, Magellan arrived in the Philippines; he died there at the Battle of Mactan. In 1565, the first Spanish colonies were established in the Philippines. Missionaries and military authorities encouraged the conversion to Roman Catholicism. The Philippines is still a Catholic country to this day. Islam spread slower through Southeast Asia – mostly through India. There’s evidence of early conversion of Southeast Asian monarchs to Islam in the 1100’s, and conversion via missionaries began in earnest in 1419. Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei are still Muslim countries to this day. As soon as a large body of people accept a particular set of societal organizing principles – a religion, a philosophy, a set of traditions – the “burden of proof” to switch to another set of organizing principles is very high. It usually only happens following a crisis or disaster. There’s a lot of important implications to this – any given set of organizing principles has strengths and weaknesses inherent to it. If a society’s organizing principles are fundamentally flawed in regards to technology, mobilization in wartime, economy, or transmission to future generations, it will die out. But oftentimes, a set of organizing principles has enough strength to keep going gradually, but with enough weakness to cripple various parts of development for the members of its society – typically leading to a slow decay and eventual collapse. In this chapter, we’re less interested in the macro trends of this, and more the implications for individuals coming from a particular society – and how that will generally effect us. *** 10x Better to Switch We start with a simpler, much lower-stakes mental model. Many people in innovative technology have written of the idea that any time a customer wants switch products or services, there’s a “switching cost.” Wikipedia – “Types of switching costs include exit fees, search costs, learning costs, cognitive effort, emotional costs, equipment costs, installation and start-up costs, financial risk, psychological risk, and social risk. In the marketing literature, customers face three types of switching costs: (1) financial switching costs (e.g., fees to break contract, lost reward points); (2) procedural switching costs (time, effort, and uncertainty in locating, adopting, and using a new brand/provider); and (3) relational switching costs (personal relationships and identification with brand and employees). “Some of these costs are easy to estimate. […] On the other hand, the psychological, emotional, and social costs of switching are often overlooked or underestimated by both buyers and sellers.” A general rule of thumb among technologists is that your new product or service can’t be merely twice as good or even three times as good to get a customer to switch; it must be 10 times better. This idea has been advanced by the founder of Intel, Andy Grove, and the founder of Opsware and venture capitalist Ben Horowitz. The site Agile Startup writes up the common wisdom on getting customers to switch to a new product or service – “When entering an established market, you have to worry about switching costs, or the costs required for a customer to switch from a competing product to yours. These costs vary based on the nature of the switch, whether they’re intangible (brand to generic) or tangible (cash spent to switch database vendors). When starting out, think about the switching costs you will ask customers to make, and why it makes sense for them to buy your solution despite the extra expense. Some companies go so far as to pay the switching costs to get customers to change. “When thinking about switching costs, one rule of thumb is that your value proposition needs to be at least ten times better than the competition. For example, if you introduce a new email program with better spam technologies, it needs to be 10x better at blocking spam. If you want to start a consulting business, you’ve got to be 10x in your area of expertise. “10x can be hard to quantify, so just make sure that your offering needs to be significantly better. If it’s marginally better, people won’t switch. Regardless of the product or service, don’t rest until your value proposition dwarfs your competition.” *** EMOTIONAL COSTS, COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, AND CONFIRMATION BIAS This line stands out to me as very important – “On the other hand, the psychological, emotional, and social costs of switching are often overlooked or underestimated by both buyers and sellers.” We should add two known failure cases of human thinking to the equation. Wikipedia: Cognitive dissonance – “In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time; performs an action that is contradictory to their beliefs, ideas, or values; or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas or values. “Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it.” And, Wikipedia: Confirmation bias – “Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.” *** THE SYNTHESIS OF TRAGEDY World War I did not live up to its promises. Hailed as “the war to end war” – or “the war to end all wars” – it was sold as both a glorious affair and something that would be over very quickly. No one was ready for the drownings in mud at Passchendale, the chemical warfare where a man’s lungs would rot from the inside out… no one was ready for the raw carnage on desolate landscapes, young men charging machine gun nests through high explosives across a chemical landscape; getting snagged in barbed wire and machine-gunned down by faceless and merciless enemies. Tragedies of this sort almost demand a rethinking of one’s core organizing principles and values. It is precisely this sort of apocalyptic level of tragedy that cause people to rethink their fundamental principles. *** VALUES AND ART DURING CRISIS In any given generation, there are always people who are both innovative and deeply discontent. The question becomes – what do those people do? During the Catholic Counter-Reformation against Protestantism, the Catholic Church was searching deeply for something that gave the same sort of iconoclastic power and meaning as the Protestants had unearthed. They found Caravaggio. Caravaggio is a master. For the record, I like his paintings. I think he is a genius. He was also a deeply disturbed man. Wikipedia: Caravaggio – “He gained attention in the art scene of Rome in 1600 with the success of his first public commissions, the Martyrdom of Saint Matthew and Calling of Saint Matthew. Thereafter he never lacked commissions or patrons, yet he handled his success poorly. He was jailed on several occasions, vandalized his own apartment, and ultimately had a death sentence pronounced against him by the Pope after killing a young man, possibly unintentionally, on May 29, 1606.” The only painting he ever signed his name to was the brilliant-but-horrific “Beheading of John the Baptist.” Then there’s “Salome with the Head of John the Baptist” showing Herod’s daughter receiving the decapitated head. And “David with the Head of Goliath” and – umm – you get the idea. The thing is, there are probably always people with the raw talent of Caravaggio and the accompanying internal torment – the question is, does society bless and support and patronize this sort of thing? During most times, no. During crisis, often yes. *** A BAD JOKE: THE NATURE OF ART AND THE ASCENT OF UGLINESS Pablo Picasso is one of the most skilled and industrious artists of all-time. He was also deeply tormented and a hell of a mess as a human being. I also, personally, think he’s incredibly overrated. (A common rebuttal to that from open-minded people: “Picasso overrated? How can you say that? He might be the most talented artist of all-time… oh wait, I see what you mean.”) Now, before getting into Picasso, I’ll throw my hat into the “What is art?” discussion. My definition is rather functional and broad – Art is anything designed to invoke emotion. We can judge art, then, on two primary factors – 1. How well is it succeeding at the type of emotion it’s intending to invoke? 2. Do we find worthwhile the emotions the art is invoking? (We can also evaluate for something like raw technical skill, if we want to, though that will largely be covered by #1.) Picasso, we must say, succeeds marvelously at #1 and in raw technical skill – he’s as skilled of an artist as you’ll ever come across. His less-ugly work is certainly very beautiful, and in a more sane age, he might have made a masterpiece more along the lines of the Sistine Chapel than what the type of thing he eventually put himself in the service of. Picasso painted his first major ugly breakthrough work before World War I – “The Brothel of Avignon.” Wikipedia – “The work portrays five nude female prostitutes from a brothel on Carrer d'Avinyó (Avinyó Street) in Barcelona. Each figure is depicted in a disconcerting confrontational manner and none are conventionally feminine. The women appear as slightly menacing and rendered with angular and disjointed body shapes. Three figures on the left exhibit facial features in the Iberian style of Picasso's native Spain, while the two on the right are shown with African mask-like features. The racial primitivism evoked in these masks, according to Picasso, moved him to "liberate an utterly original artistic style of compelling, even savage force." […] [The painting] was revolutionary and controversial, and led to widespread anger and disagreement, even amongst his closest associates and friends. Matisse considered the work something of a bad joke…” An innovative artist – Picasso – making an ugly and, umm, “revolutionary” painting… this is not such a strange thing, historically speaking. What is strange is how famous Picasso became. It was only in the aftermath of World War I that he became a celebrity in his own lifetime. After tragedies along the lines of Passchendale, people were looking for something – anything – to get themselves past it and through it. The Burden of Proof on Organizing Systems lowers tremendously following a large-scale crisis. In this era of confusion and after tragedy, people were open to something – anything – different than what got them into the mess. And hence, the “bad joke” style of art rose to prominence. *** TRUETT’S FOUR TYPOLOGICAL WORLDVIEWS Wikipedia: Postmodernism – “More recently, Walter Truett Anderson described postmodernism as belonging to one of four typological world views, which he identifies as either (a) Postmodern-ironist, which sees truth as socially constructed, (b) Scientific-rational, in which truth is found through methodical, disciplined inquiry, (c) Social-traditional, in which truth is found in the heritage of American and Western civilization, or (d) Neo-Romantic, in which truth is found through attaining harmony with nature and/or spiritual exploration of the inner self.” If you buy into Truett’s definition – I’m not sure I do, but it seems possibly insightful – then what he calls “postmodern-ironist” didn’t start in the 1970’s, but started in the very late 1800’s and really came to the forefront after World War I. Which brings us to Picasso and Stalin. The Soviet Union, for as hard as it worked to export and cultivate postmodernism as sort of a “cultural hand grenade” to throw into rival societies, ruthlessly suppressed the same sort of artwork in its own society. The Soviet commissars worked to cultivate hyper-traditional “socialist realist” art – grand, big, traditional paintings of heroic deeds of individual peasants and workers, and of course, of Lenin and Stalin. We can say of Picasso, to his credit, that he was at least not a hack. “The comical appearance of the youthful Stalin, with a bushy peasant-style moustache and thick, raised eyebrows which gave him a look of surprise, infuriated the leaders of the French Communist Party. They announced that they ‘categorically disapproved’ of the drawing, which was rebuked for failing to adhere to the heroic ideals of Socialist Realism.” Indeed. *** THERE AND BACK AGAIN John Tolkien was born only nine years after Pablo Picasso; they both died the same year in 1973. Similar culture forces and backdrops shaped their lives – Tolkien joined the British Expeditionary Force in 1916 to fight the Germans at The Somme. He came down with trench fever quickly, and was hospitalized – the serious illness probably saving his life, as most of the members of his battalion of the Lancashire Fusiliers were killed in action. Later, when critics were looking for parallels in his famous work between Mordor and Nazi Germany, he’d write that this was not true; that the First World War was far more of a formative experience for him – “One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead.” But after the Great War, he went in the opposite direction of Picasso – diving into scholarly work for the Oxford English Encyclopedia, and studying, translating, and giving commentary on the ancient epic poem Beowulf. In the coming decades, while Picasso is enjoying celebrity in the celebration of ugliness, Tolkien creates some of the most beautiful writing of the last hundred years – the children’s story, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again and, of course, The Lord of the Rings. Famously, Tolkien’s The Hobbit and Picasso’s horrific Guernica were released in the same year – 1937. It’s striking that there can be two such radically different ways to synthesize and respond to tragedy and evil – Picasso revels in it, highlights it, perhaps quite literally drowns in it – whereas Tolkien overcomes it. Picasso, of course, was the harbinger of that postmodern-ironist school, and Tolkien, perhaps the finest elaborator of the traditional and romantic ways of thinking and feeling. *** GUIDANCE Which brings us to guidance. Again, in the Dubious Battle series, there are less right and wrong answers – and more tradeoffs. Here a few statements that I believe are true – 1. Organizing principles of society are robust, do not get questioned, and do not change often in normal times. In order to change organizing principles in normal times, another set of organizing principles must be much better – perhaps 10x better – which is almost impossible to achieve, given the natural sets of tradeoffs between organizing principles. 2. Organizing principles are further reinforced by confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and the emotional switching costs of changing them. 3. During a crisis, or after a great tragedy, the landscape opens to new and different forms of organizing principles. Guidance, then – Every set of organizing principles has tradeoffs associated with them. The Tolkien-esque “good can overcome” philosophy might be naive or might not allow for enough questioning and forwards movement. The sheer ugliness and brutality of a Picasso-type philosophy has obvious disadvantages associated with them; need we even list them? But on the other side of the equation, a Guernica-style philosophy can lead to a constant questioning and reinforcement. To Picasso’s credit, he applied his irascible and hostile-interrogation style of painting to his own side; he was no hack. The real value as an individual, then, is to study the genealogy and the tradeoffs of the organizing principles you inherited. To emphasize – you inherited most of your organizing principles, the same way that most people of the Philippines inherited Catholicism, and most people in Indonesia inherited Islam. Likewise, there are certain blindspots and disadvantages in the inherited thinking of an average modern American, just the same as there were certain blindspots and disadvantages in thinking for an early 1900’s Brit; the same as there were for a mid-1900’s Russian or Frenchman. These are all different tradeoffs, but the natural inclination is to repeatedly reinforce and voice aggressively for the ones you already have – such is the way that cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias work. That’s even before even getting into the incredibly painful switching costs of changing how you see the world – it is, I assure you, no fun at all to think very differently from your core social circle, at least until you’re able to cultivate your own philosophy to a level of maturity and consistency that it outputs superior results, and becomes attractive to other people of good character. So as an exercise, if you think you like Picasso, I might challenge you to stop and ask yourself: is that really true? If you evaluated Picasso from scratch, with neutral eyes, would you like his work? I do not like it so much; I think Picasso is overrated, his work is ugly, and most of what he stands for is ugly. I admire some of his technical skill, and certainly admire his industriousness; I simply wish he’d put it better ends than he did. But that is just my opinion on the great Spanish artist. You ought to form your own. *** NEVERTHELESS, SOME VALUE IN EVERYTHING And even if you don’t love Picasso, or indeed any specific type of organizing principles and philosophy, it’s worth studying the times they are effective and the tradeoffs associated with them. Switching from blind partisan love-and-hate of one particular philosophy to another seems to miss some of the point, at least. Wikipedia: Guernica – “A tapestry copy of Picasso's Guernica was displayed on the wall of the United Nations Building in New York City at the entrance to the Security Council room from 1985 to 2009. […] On 5 February 2003 a large blue curtain was placed to cover this work at the UN, so that it would not be visible in the background when Colin Powell and John Negroponte gave press conferences at the United Nations. On the following day, it was claimed that the curtain was placed there at the request of television news crews, who had complained that the wild lines and screaming figures made for a bad backdrop, and that a horse's hindquarters appeared just above the faces of any speakers. Some diplomats, however, in talks with journalists claimed that the Bush Administration pressured UN officials to cover the tapestry, rather than have it in the background while Powell or other US diplomats argued for war on Iraq. In a critique of the covering, columnist Alejandro Escalona hypothesized that Guernica's "unappealing ménage of mutilated bodies and distorted faces proved to be too strong for articulating to the world why the US was going to war in Iraq", while referring to the work as "an inconvenient masterpiece.”” Yeah, that’s legitimately hilarious – which, I suppose, was Pablo’s point after all. Dubious Battle #4: Rank Dubious Battle #4: Rank EQUALITY IN RANK: A COMMUNIST PERSPECTIVE In 1903, even the most wildly optimistic attendees of Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party could not have possibly imagined how much of the world they would control in 1953. There was no hint at all that this ramshackle affair would eventually become the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Congress, with its 51 attendees, started in Brussels on 30 July 1903. A week into discussions, deliberations, and voting, the Belgium police threatened arrests, and they moved across the English Channel to the more tolerant London. The settings bore no resemblance to the later grandeur and splendor of future Congresses after the establishment of the Soviet Union. No, indeed not – “Their sessions were held in an angling club with fishing trophies on the walls and in rooms in pubs and cafes. The meetings were extremely fractious, with much violent argument, barracking and interminable hair-splitting as every tiny point was dissected and analysed.” The most charismatic and forceful personalities at the Second Congress were Vladimir Lenin and Julius Martov. You no doubt have heard of Lenin; Martov, perhaps not. Though the significance of it wasn’t recognized at the time, the largest thing to come out of the Second Congress was the split between Lenin and Martov over whether the RSDLP should be more inclusive or exclusive. Here, let’s quote Lenin’s own recap of the event so it doesn’t seem like we’re mis-summarizing – “The Congress was marked at the beginning by the peaceful and harmonious co-operation of all the [attendees]; there had always been different shades of opinion among them, of course, but they had never manifested themselves as political differences. Incidentally, let us state in advance that the split among the [Congress attendees] was one of the major political results of the Congress, and anyone who wants to acquaint himself with the matter should therefore pay special attention to all episodes even remotely connected with that split. “One rather important event at the very beginning of the Congress was the election of the Bureau, or Presidium. Martov was for electing nine persons, who would select three from their number to act as the Bureau at each sitting, and he even suggested a Bundist as one of the nine. I [Lenin] was for electing only three persons for the whole duration of the Congress, and three, moreover, who would “keep order”.” This minor trivial thing seems a harbinger of what’s to come. Lenin – “We [Lenin and allies] argued that the concept Party member must be narrowed so as to separate those who worked from those who merely talked, to eliminate organisational chaos, to eliminate the monstrous and absurd possibility of there being organisations which consisted of Party members but which were not Party organisations, and so on. Martov stood for broadening the Party and spoke of a broad class movement needing a broad—i.e., diffuse— organisation, and so forth.” Martov’s position was that anyone broadly under the “control and direction” of any of the RSDLP should be included in deliberations and votes. Lenin – ““Under the control and direction”, I [Lenin] said, would in practice mean nothing more nor less than without any control or direction.”” Originally, Lenin’s camp was in the minority – and the Congress attendees voted as such. But eventually, on somewhat unrelated questions, a number of delegates grew discontent and left the Congress. Eventually, Lenin called for a re-vote, and this time his side carried the day – the official line, according to those voting, would be for a more professionalized and exclusive revolutionary core. Lenin’s camp named themselves the “Bolsheviks” – it literally translates to “one of the majority” in Russian. Martov’s camp came to be called the “Mensheviks” – “one of the minority” – despite being actually the majority most of the time. In any event, Martov and the Menshiviks disliked Lenin’s attitudes and policies on the matter, and protested against the result. Lenin wrote – “Examining the behaviour of the Martovites since the Congress, their refusal to collaborate on the Central Organ (although officially invited by the editorial board to do so), their refusal to work on the Central Committee, and their propaganda of a boycott—all I can say is that this is an insensate attempt, unworthy of Party members, to disrupt the Party—and why? Only because they are dissatisfied with the composition of the central bodies; for, speaking objectively, it was only over this that our ways parted, while their subjective verdicts (insult, affront, slurs, ousting, shutting out, etc., etc.) are nothing but the fruits of offended vanity and a morbid imagination. […] “Anyone who values Party work and action in the interests of the Social-Democratic labour movement will refuse to tolerate such wretched sophistries as a “legitimate” and “loyal” boycott of the central bodies; he will not allow the cause to suffer and the work to be brought to a standstill because a dozen or so individuals are displeased that they and their friends were not elected to the central bodies; he will not allow Party officials to be subjected to private and secret pressure through threats of non-collaboration, through boycotts, through cutting off of funds, through scandal-mongering and lying tales.” *** RETROSPECTIVELY… History Today: The Bolshevik-Menshevik Split – “In his notes at the time Lenin called his group ‘hards’ and his opponents ‘softs’. When a delegate lamented that uncomradely attitudes were spoiling the congress, Lenin sharply replied that, on the contrary, he relished a good open fight instead of endless inconclusive talk. His attitude was attacked as elitist and tyrannical. The youthful Trotsky, now and for years to come a Menshevik, reportedly told Lenin at one point, ‘That’s dictatorship you’re advocating,’ to which Lenin replied, ‘There is no other way.’'” 14 years later, the Russian Empire disintegrated during World War I. Following his plans and programs to their logical conclusion, Lenin seized control of the Provisional Government from the more moderate Alexander Kerensky. Julius Martov sought a reconciliation and moderation with Lenin and the Bolsheviks, but failed to reach it. Wikipedia: Julius Martov – “At the Soviet, Martov's faction was however isolated. His view was denounced by Trotsky. This is best exemplified by Trotsky's comment to him and other party members as they left the first meeting of the council of Soviets after 25 October 1917 in disgust at the way in which the Bolsheviks had seized political power: "You are pitiful isolated individuals; you are bankrupts; your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on — into the dustbin of history!". To this Martov replied in a moment of rage, "Then we'll leave!", and then walked in silence away without looking back. He paused at the exit, seeing a young Bolshevik worker wearing a black shirt with a broad leather belt, standing in the shadow of the portico. The young man turned on Martov with unconcealed bitterness: 'And we amongst ourselves had thought, Martov would at least remain with us.' Martov stopped, and with a characteristic movement, tossed up his head to emphasize his reply: 'One day you will understand the crime in which you are taking part.' Waving his hand wearily, he left the hall.” What’s fascinating is that both Lenin and Martov seem fundamentally correct in their arguments. Lenin’s argument is that by having a maximally egalitarian and inclusive party, nothing would get done. Martov’s argument is that by centralizing authority, you’d wind up with a brutal dictatorship. Both arguments seem correct in retrospect. *** DUBIOUS BATTLE #4: RANK We continue our series on Dubious Battle – the long-running conflicts through all of history, that go back and forth, those with no single right answers – only tradeoffs. This chapter presented a particular challenge – what exactly is rank? Clearly, some societies place a greater premium on rank than others. Clearly, some organizations place a greater premium on rank than others. Clearly, there’s very different outcomes for societies that explicitly codify rank and those that do not. Clearly, there’s very different outcomes for societies that explicitly formalize policies against rank and those that do not. We all know much of this, more-or-less intuitively. But when it comes to actually discussing it in writing, some challenges arise. We all broadly get what rank is and what some of the implications are; we can point to two societies or two organizations and notice which puts more premium on rank; we can infer correctly many of the things that happen with a greater or lesser emphasis on rank. But when it comes to actually nailing down the definitions, guidelines, and tradeoffs for rank, things become murkier. Certainly, Lenin was arguing for an organization was more rank-based than Martov’s. This is basically inarguable. But rank – for both good reasons and bad – is often illusive, called different things, sometimes formal, sometimes informal… And of whether rank is appropriate and good, or inappropriate and bad, is one of the most recurring and longest-running in history; it goes back and forth, ever and ever, ad infinitum, and likely will until the end of time. This is what we will investigate this chapter. *** ON AUTHORITY There’s many great writings on rank, authority, and command – but the majority of these are written from a military or business perspective, and thus are often treated as automatically suspect by people who are not already amenable to their conclusions. For those people, the essay On Authority by Freidrich Engels might shine some light. Engles, of course, was Marx’s closest colleague and friend, the co-author of the Communist Manifesto, and the editor of Kapital. It’s worth noting that he was already 52-years-old when he wrote this essay; it was not an immature piece of writing. Engels – “A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned. This summary mode of procedure is being abused to such an extent that it has become necessary to look into the matter somewhat more closely. “Authority, in the sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. Now, since these two words sound bad, and the relationship which they represent is disagreeable to the subordinated party, the question is to ascertain whether there is any way of dispensing with it, whether — given the conditions of present-day society — we could not create another social system, in which this authority would be given no scope any longer, and would consequently have to disappear.” Spoiler: Engels answers no. Continuing, “Supposing a social revolution dethroned the capitalists, who now exercise their authority over the production and circulation of wealth. Supposing, to adopt entirely the point of view of the anti-authoritarians, that the land and the instruments of labour had become the collective property of the workers who use them. Will authority have disappeared, or will it only have changed its form? Let us see.” He gives first the example of a steam-powered cotton spinning mill, and notes the coordination needed to run it. Then he gives a striking example – “Let us take another example — the railway. Here too the co-operation of an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persona interested. In either case there is a very pronounced authority. Moreover, what would happen to the first train dispatched if the authority of the railway employees over the passengers were abolished? “But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.” Engels, is of course, correct on this point. The line “the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions” is the key one. If two people disagree on train timetables, how will it get settled? If they both depart the station at the same time, on the same rail line, the trains crash. It’s basically inarguably true. Engels continues – “When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that's true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.” It’s an argument that Laozi or Wittengenstein would nod at. The word authority bothers some people, but they do not dispute that some sort of authority-ish structure is needed to ensure the trains don’t crash. We are not speaking metaphorically here at all – this is literally true. You need a very clear chain of command on rail lines specifically to ensure trains do not crash into each other, are not ill-maintained, and so on. If one train falls behind its timetable leaving the station, there needs to be clear and enforced guidelines of how fast it can go, how to make up its new timetable so as not to crash into other trains, and so on. Engels, of course, did not come up with this – it recurs time and time again, in all sorts of writings and thinkings. It is basically true. *** THE ROOT OF RANK IN COMMISSIONED DUTIES Seemingly arbitrary authority bothers a great many people – and we’ll get to that in a moment – but we can see the roots of rank in commissioned duties. There are certainly risks and downsides to unchecked authority, but certain types of roles always evolutionarily result in a chain of command established in them – a failure to do so leads to being destroyed. In Roman Republican times, the highest ordinary-times office was “Consul” – it was something like a modern Presidency. Though, unlike a modern Presidency, two consuls were elected every year. This usually worked well – it meant that you didn’t have sole authority in a single person, with all the downsides that came with it. But in a situation that requires cohesion and coordination, it was potentially disastrous. When Hannibal invaded Rome, he quickly defeated many Roman consuls and commanders who rashly pursued him into ambushes and unfavorable terrain. Eventually, the Romans appointed Fabius Maximus as Dictator – rare sole authority. For his term as Dictator, Fabius refused to battle Hannibal. The Romans would pick off foraging bands of Hannibal’s Carthaginian invaders, but would flee from any direct confrontation. After a year had elapsed, Fabius laid down his dictatorship – and it was back to the Two Consul system. This would lead to the largest military disaster in Roman history. With their suspicion of kings and sole authority, Roman law and tradition mandated that when both Consuls were present at the head of a single army, they would alternate which day they led the army – “Consuls were each assigned two of the four legions to command, rarely employing all four legions at once to the same assignment, however, the Senate feared a real threat and not only employed all four legions into the field, but all eight, including allies. Ordinarily, each of the two consuls would command his own portion of the army, but since the two armies were combined into one, Roman law required them to alternate their command on a daily basis.” This led to a nearly farcical situation – “Varro, in command on the first day, is presented by contemporary sources as a man of reckless nature and hubris, who was determined to defeat Hannibal. While the Romans were approaching Cannae, a small portion of Hannibal's forces ambushed them. Varro successfully repelled the attack and continued on his way to Cannae. This victory, though essentially a mere skirmish with no lasting strategic value, greatly bolstered the confidence of the Roman army, perhaps to overconfidence on Varro's part. [The second Consul] Paullus, however, was opposed to the engagement as it was taking shape. Unlike Varro, he was prudent and cautious, and he believed it was foolish to fight on open ground, despite the Romans' numerical strength. This was especially true since Hannibal held the advantage in cavalry (both in quality and quantity). Despite these misgivings, Paullus thought it unwise to withdraw the army after the initial success, and camped two-thirds of the army east of the Aufidus River, sending the remainder to fortify a position on the opposite side. The purpose of this second camp was to cover the foraging parties from the main camp and harass those of the enemy.” Yes, farcical. The two military commanders, alternating who was in charge, had different opinions about how the battle should be conducted. Hannibal, understanding well his adversary’s political structure, took advantage of this – “The two armies stayed in their respective locations for two days. During the second day (August 1), Hannibal, aware that Varro would be in command the following day, left his camp and offered battle, but Paullus refused.” Hannibal went on to harass and skirmish on Paullus’s command day, knowing he would not give battle, and then set up his battlelines with one of the most famous military traps in history – one of the first instances of a double envelopement completely surrounding the Romans, and massacring them. Between 50,000 and 75,000 Romans were killed that day, and another 10,000 captured – a mind-boggling large number of people in a pre-modern society – it was the worst defeat in Roman military history. A policy of aggressive battle was foolhardy enough in light of the lessons that came before, but a policy of allowing the enemy to harass and harry you, and then giving battle at the time and place of his choosing, was the worst of all worlds. Divided military command in a crisis is usually fatal. *** FORMAL AND INFORMAL RANK After Cannae, Fabius was not recalled as Dictator – but he was made Consul mid-year with an old friend of his retiring the position to him; the next year, the two served as joint Consuls; the third year out, Fabius’s son was elected Consul. This gives us another building block to understand rank – it need not be formalized into an official office. Having shown prescience and having developed the only effective strategy against Hannibal, Fabius’s wisdom became accepted among the Romans. At that point, he did not need the formal office of dictator to have has policies enacted. Note well – the stronger one’s authority on the grounds of effectively discharging one’s duties, prestige, and a lack of opposition means less need for formal rank. Famously, some 250 years after Fabius’s time, Augustus Caesar reigned with only the title “Princeps” – First Citizen – more-or-less the same title Napoleon Bonaparte reigned with during his most stable years. Stalin, taking a page from the same playbook, was only “General Secretary of the Communist Party” for much of his reign – feeling no need to be formally elected. Deng Xiaoping, likewise, never held the officially-highest offices in the People’s Republic of China. But likewise, informal roles do not provide permanent cohesion or coordination– when Augustus’s best candidates for successor died before him, the less-capable Tiberius became his successor – with the constant threat of civil war in those days, less-divided authority was thought to be needed. Tiberius’s rank of Emperor was formalized into an official office, a formalization that Augustus had never needed. *** THE SHININING PRESTIGE OF FORMERLY DUTY-BASED OFFICES One of the great tragedies of rank is that any office that’s held by a very successful person will gain prestige; to claim the same office as any past highly successful leader is to become associated with them. American Presidents today still inherit much of the prestige and stateliness of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln; likewise, new powers are developed in an office through a mix of grants of formal legal authority, tradition forming when a past innovative activity worked well and no one objected to it, and unrescinded emergency powers. Perhaps the greatest tragedy of effective officeholders is that they create prestige and attract people to an office, people who do not necessarily wish to adopt the duties of the office to discharge effectively, but rather who wish the prestige and power coming with the office. This leads to one of the great failures of formal rank: the longer an office goes on successfully and with good officeholders, the more prestigious it becomes – which then attracts people who wish prestige rather than discharging duties. *** THE FOSSILIZATION OF PRESTIGE It’s a strange thing – it’s counterintuitive – but all the prestige of an office is almost always out of date relative to actual power. As we have said, -- The origin of rank is in the discharge of duties. Societies and organizations that need cohesion and coordination (all militaries, most businesses, etc) either centralize enough rank in the relevant office for coordination and cohesion, or are defeated and overthrown by adversaries with a better organizational structure. -- Rank can be formal – an office like Dictator in Rome – or informal and based on one’s skill and ability to discharge duties being accepted, personal prestige, and a lack of adversaries. -- Rank formalized into an office benefits from the association with past personal prestige of those who formerly held the office. Likewise, successful officeholders generally result in an office getting endowed with more power, both from prestige and from people happily allowing the successful officeholder to increase their power and duties when they are already discharging their duties well. And thus, formalized offices always have prestige and power that are backwards-looking… it is often true that an occupation, organization, or office at the height of its seeming prestige and power has already passed into (often unseen) decline. *** FORMAL RANK OVER TIME: SAINT PETER AND LEO X Saint Peter is regarded as the first Pope of the Catholic Church, but you must remember that the Christians were a very small minority sect in Rome at the time. One of the Pope’s modern titles is Pontifex Maximus. This was an ancient Roman office for high priest which only (much later) became part of the papal titles when Christianity became the official religion of Rome. Both Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar had served as Pontifex Maximus in Pagan Rome. Our minds tend to naturally fill in the blanks of Peter’s role as Bishop of Rome and as Pope with what would happen later, but this is of course inaccurate. There were no great Christian basilicas, palaces, or regalia at this time. It would have been a very humble office, with a lot of work to be done, and very little formal mainstream prestige attached to it. You can see this in quoted sayings of Peter – “Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation.” “Let your beauty be not just the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on fine clothing, but in the hidden person of the heart, in the incorruptible adornment of a gentle and quiet spirit…” Read this next quote carefully and slowly. When Peter was executed in Rome, here is what he’s recorded as saying – “But it is time for you, Peter, to surrender your body to those who are taking it. Take it, then, you whose duty it is. I must request you therefore, executioners, to crucify me head-downwards in this way and no other.” You see in the first officeholder of the Bishop of Rome, the first Papa of the Church, a celebration of duty. He is not abusive to those who execute him – he sees it as their duty to do so; their commission as executioners. Likewise, he understands it as his duty and commission to be executed. He asks to be crucified upside-down in a display of piety. (It would be a much more painful and awkward way to die, and the type of thing a Roman executioner might just grant a prisoner – you want to die awkwardly and more painfully? Okay.) Contrast this against the words of Pope Leo X, who we first discussed in Dubious Battle #1: Faith vs Works, the Pope who Martin Luther rebelled against. As we have said, Pope Leo X was not born Pope Leo X; he was born Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici, the second son of the wealthiest man in the world, son of Lorenzo the Magnificent. Whereas Peter was born as a fisherman in the poor village of Bethsaida, Leo X was raised as a merchant prince in Florence. While Leo X is famed for saying, “Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it,” that quote is disputed. But certainly, you can see a very different type of character and orientation in Leo X than Peter in non-disputed writings of Leo X. In June 1520, he published a papal bull – a formal and official communication bearing the Pope’s seal, which of course did not exist in Peter’s time. The first papal bull proclamations only originated some 500 years after Peter, and didn’t become commonplace until 1000 years later. In “Exsurge Domine: Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther,” Leo X began – “Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause. Remember your reproaches to those who are filled with foolishness all through the day. Listen to our prayers, for foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod.” Leo X’s core metaphor against the rise of heresy is a vineyard being destroyed. The core metaphor is about the destruction of resources and wealth. Leo X then lists 41 errors that are destructive to the Church. Leo X writes, “In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:” And a selection of the 41 errors – Error #10: “Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.” Error #23: “Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.” Error #25: “The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.” Error #27: “It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.” Error #29: “A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.” Error #33: “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” Error #34: “To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.” Error #41: “Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.” He follows up by saying, “No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience.” Note well! Leo X does not write about his duties in this papal bull. When Peter went to his execution, he said: “But it is time for you, Peter, to surrender your body to those who are taking it." When Leo X was challenged by Luther, he rebuked it thusly, “In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor…” To clarify, that’s the “royal we” that Leo X is using – he means “my” when he says “our” and “me” when he says “us.” “In virtue of [my] pastoral office committed to [me] by the divine favor…” A radical departure from Peter, no? *** FROM RANK’S ORIGINATION IN COMMISSIONS TO RANK-AS-A-RESOURCE The first Papas of the Church were signing up for a set of roles and duties that were incredibly unpleasant on earth. They would be hated by many in authority, and perhaps crucified, decapitated, thrown to wild beasts, or drowned alive. These duties and commissions they discharged with a certain stoicism and a certain type of nobility and dignity, which over time won over many converts, eventually becoming the official Roman state religion in 380 AD. When Leo X became Pope one thousand years later, the office had inherited all the prestige, legal authority, and informal authority that had been built by past officeholders. Indeed, he ranked one of Luther’s errors as saying that – “The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.” Note how Leo X simply invokes Peter and even “Christ Himself” in explaining his authority. “In virtue of [my] pastoral office committed to [me] by the divine favor…”– indeed. This is, unfortunately, a common pattern – a pattern that I believe is largely inevitable. Rank begins in commissioned duties, but eventually becomes formalized. When anyone who holds an office with formal rank does an excellent job in that office, the office gains prestige and power. Over time, the commissioned duties of the office start to pale in comparison to the resource of that rank. The Papacy in 1513 commanded great formal legal authority and great informal authority, and immense amounts of wealth. Over time, any role that requires coordination and cohesion will tend to get formalized into an office; if initial officeholders do an excellent job discharging their duties and commissions, it becomes prestigious and gain in power; eventually, people begin to seek that office for the power and prestige rather than the now-fading-in-importance duties and commissions that the role was once based upon. “Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it” – indeed, alas, yes. *** GUIDANCE We are exploring the long-running conflicts across all of history. These dubious battles have less “right answers” and more tradeoffs. When looking at rank that’s being used only as a resource, and not to discharge duties, it becomes very possible to become hateful towards rank. This risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Some guidance, then – 1. Recognize the origins of rank and trace the genealogy of formally-ranked offices. You can gain in wisdom by not looking hatefully at people abusing rank, but instead starting with a neutral position and examining why the office was formalized in the first person, and then tracing the history of the people who held the office, how well they discharged their duties, and how formal and informal powers and prestige accrued over time. In this way, you can make more rational assessments of what the office used to do, what perhaps it could be doing, and how it got here from there. Hatred, in general, is a foolish thing – even towards one’s enemies. It blinds you towards effectiveness. If you see foolish and abusive uses of rank, it’s of course very easy to become blindly hateful – but this is not the path to wisdom. Instead, diligent study why the rank and office came to be in the first place; look for the coordination and cohesion problems that the office was formalized to solve, and study the history of the rank or office to understand how it got to its current state. 2. If you have immense natural talent and effectiveness, it’s very likely you underestimate the importance and necessity of formal rank. Men like George Washington are a rarity – if they were commonplace and we could find and select such people for commissioned duties every generation, there would perhaps not be need for formalized rank and offices. But as organizations and societies grow larger and more complex, they simultaneously become harder to manage and it becomes harder to discern the motives of those who would seek to hold the offices of management and authority. Naturally talented and consistently effective people tend to underestimate the importance of formal rank, not realizing how rare they themselves are. 3. If you come to hold informal rank, consider succession thoroughly. Informal rank – due only to effectiveness and thorough discharging of one’s duties – is harder to pass along to one’s successor. If you’re young and not currently holding any rank or commissioned on any significant duties, you might not need to think of succession yet. But if you do come into those roles, you might want to begin to formalize your rank into an office intentionally. George Washington did so with the Presidency, which is one of the reasons the office survived and thrived even despite many with lesser talent and less duty-orientation than him holding it. When you formalize an office, of course, you can also (at least for a time) both define and limit its authority. 4. Become aware of your natural inclinations towards prestige, and then think through those positions carefully. We all have natural feelings towards prestige – either being attracted to it, hating or, or being indifferent to it to a greater or lesser extent. Prestige is both very real and very important; you should sit and think about how you feel about it. Prestige is dangerous in that it’s always backwards-looking – in any given moment, the bottom might just be about to fall out on any given form of prestige. But likewise, prestige smooths the path to coordination without constant conflict and politicking; it has very real value. Everyone has different natural inclinations towards prestige; you should introspect on your natural inclinations, and then through those positions through carefully. 5. Adopt an instrumental view towards rank and prestige; seek duties. Finally – and I admit I’m biased – I believe that you’re best-served by looking at rank and prestige instrumentally. Meaning, you ask, “What do I want to do?” and then cultivate the appropriate mix of formal and informal rank, offices, and prestige that you need to get those things done. Prestige is shiny; often, people are attracted to it and want it – but they cannot articulate clearly why. This is like that old yarn about the poor dog chasing the car – it doesn’t know what to do if it catches it. A much more solid ground to build upon is seeking duties – looking for what commissions you want to discharge, what work you want to get done – and then only instrumentally seeking the rank and prestige needed to get that work done. Dubious Battle #5: Aristocracy Dubious Battle #5: Aristocracy LAUDABLE ENOUGH: THE SOCIETY OF THE CINCINNATI “With the war drawing to a close, Henry Knox spearheaded the formation of a fraternal order of army officers called the Society of the Cincinnati. Its aims seemed laudable enough: to succor the families of needy officers, to preserve the union and liberties for which they had fought, and to maintain a social network among the officers. Its very name paid homage to George Washington: Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was a Roman consul who had rescued Rome in war, then relinquished power. Little dreaming how controversial the organization would become, Washington agreed to serve as president and was duly elected on June 19, 1783. Something of an honorary president, he was fuzzy about his actual duties and asked Knox that September to tell him “in precise terms what is expected from the President of the Cincinnati previous to the general meeting in May next. As I never was present at any of your meetings and have never seen the proceedings of the last, I may, for want of information . . . neglect some essential duty.” -- “Washingon: A Life” by Ron Chernow “Laudable enough” seems a good way to lay out the intentions of Major General Henry Knox, one of Washington’s most loyal and effective officers during the Revolutionary War. His mix of jovial personality with strong sense of duty made him loved by his soldiers and fellow officers; later, he’d be America’s first Secretary of War and have Fort Knox named after him. Throughout history, soldiers are often neglected after wars end – and the American Continental Army were certainly a group that suffered intense deprivations and made immense sacrifices. With the war coming to a close in 1783, Knox and some other members decided to set up a relief organization for the families of killed-in-action American soldiers, along with some basic fraternal order stuff – friendship, meetings, commemoration type stuff. American and French who met certain criteria were eligible to join. They named it “The Society of the Cincinnati” – a homage to George Washington, who was already being lauded as the “American Cincinnatus” – after the famously modest Roman who took supreme command of the Roman Republic in crisis, won the war, and then laid down all his arms and honors to go back to his farm. Wikipedia: Society of the Cincinnati – “The Society is named after Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, who left his farm to accept a term as Roman Consul and served as Magister Populi (with temporary powers similar to that of a modern-era dictator). He assumed lawful dictatorial control of Rome to meet a war emergency. When the battle was won, he returned power to the Senate and went back to plowing his fields. The Society's motto reflects that ethic of selfless service: Omnia reliquit servare rempublicam ("He relinquished everything to save the Republic"). The Society has had three goals: "To preserve the rights so dearly won; to promote the continuing union of the states; and to assist members in need, their widows, and their orphans. “Within 12 months of the founding, a constituent Society had been organized in each of the 13 states and in France. Of about 5,500 men originally eligible for membership, 2,150 had joined within a year. King Louis XVI ordained the French Society of the Cincinnati, which was organized on July 4, 1784 (Independence Day). Up to that time, the King of France had not allowed his officers to wear any foreign decorations, but he made an exception in favor of the badge of the Cincinnati.” George Washington was, of course, invited to be the first President of the Society. It would become a major controversy. *** MR. FRANKLIN DISAPPROVES OF HEREDITARY KNIGHTS Chernow – “When Washington consented in 1783 to serve as first president of the Order of the Cincinnati, he imagined himself signing on to a fraternal organization that was charitable in intent and incontrovertibly good. So convinced was he of its virtue that he did not agonize over becoming president the way he mulled over comparable decisions in his life. Though not a founder of the group, he felt a fraternal camaraderie with his fellow officers and cottoned to the idea of perpetuating their comradeship. He even offered a five-hundred-dollar gift to invigorate the Cincinnati. Distracted by other matters, he didn’t heed at first the rancorous debates brewing over the organization’s character.” The issue that luminous thinkers like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would dislike about the Society is that membership could be inherited through primogeniture – every member’s eldest son would subsequently become a member of the Society. Wikipedia – “Benjamin Franklin was among the Society's earliest critics. He was concerned about the creation of a quasi-noble order, and of the Society's use of the eagle in its emblem, as evoking the traditions of heraldry and the English aristocracy. In a letter to his daughter Sarah Bache written on January 26, 1784, Franklin commented on the ramifications of the Cincinnati: “I only wonder that, when the united Wisdom of our Nation had, in the Articles of Confederation, manifested their Dislike of establishing Ranks of Nobility, by Authority either of the Congress or of any particular State, a Number of private persons should think proper to distinguish themselves and their Posterity, from their fellow Citizens, and form an Order of hereditary Knights, in direct Opposition to the solemnly declared Sense of their Country.”” Chernow notes that Washington asked Jefferson for his opinion once the controversy started. Jefferson’s reply is unsurprising – he was worried about a group that relied on ““preeminence by birth” and also worried that some future president of the Cincinnati might “adopt a more mistaken road to glory.” Washington, who had worked so hard to be beyond political squabbles, found himself squarely in the middle of one – and one that divided many of his closest supporters in two different camps they felt extremely strongly about. *** DUBIOUS BATTLE #5: ARISTOCRACY Well, I suppose we’re taking a stroll through a minefield with this chapter. The word “aristocracy” has good enough origins – it’s a Greek word. “Aristos” was the word for excellence of all sorts – a military commander, a horse, a building, anything could be “excellent” – aristos – in the general sense. The Greek “-kratos” is the word for “dominion” or “power.” Democracy – demos kratos – is thus demos (people) kratos (dominion of)… or something like “the people in power.” Monarchy – monos kratos – monos means “one.” One in power, or solely one with dominion. Once you paying attention to some of the common Greek and Latin root words, you start seeing thing everywhere. “Hierarchy,” “bureaucracy,” and so on. Aristocracy thus could, perhaps should, be a nice word – “excellence in power.” In actuality, it’s often used like how Wikipedia describes it – “Aristocracy (Greek aristos "excellent," and kratos "power") is a form of government that places power in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class. The term derives from the Greek aristokratia, meaning "rule of the best".” Isn’t that an almost laughably hilarious mashup of two sentences? The Greek meaning second, “rule of the best,” the modern usage before it – “power in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class.” Robespierre would undoubtedly nod in agreement – as well as likely have some morbid suggestions as to what to do with that “small, privileged ruling class.” We are in the midst of our Dubious Battle series, analyzing the conflicts that run through all of history never-endingly. Aristocracy is particularly challenging, because there are at least three ways the word can be used that are all radically different meanings: 1. A general assessment of what is superior and what is not, 2. As a form of government, typically in its most recent (last 500 years or so) forms, 3. As an informal designation of a class or group of people. This chapter, let’s try to untangle some of this mess – and see if we can learn anything thereby. Watch where you step! *** ARISTOTLE’S GOVERNMENT THING We’re less concerned in Machina and at The Strategic Review with stuff you could just look up in the encyclopedia, but we should touch briefly on what Aristotle thought about government. In his Politics, he made two very simple observations – First, a government could be ruled by one person, a few people, or many people. Second, a government could work for the general good of the people, or could result in the rulers using the power of the government for their own selfish ends. He then made a simple classification: One Ruler, Good = Monarchy One Ruler, Bad = Tyranny A Few Rulers, Good = Aristocracy A Few Rulers, Bad = Oligarchy Many Rulers, Good = Polity Many Rulers, Bad = Democracy Of course, by "democracy" he meant direct democracy which tended to devolve into mob rule. Modern-style republican democracy with checks-and-balances and certain elevated offices is more like what he talks about he says polity. Aristotle also noted that across governments there sometimes virtuous sole rulers who work for the good of all in the state, and he calls that monarchy. A sole ruler who brutalized and oppressed the state for their own gain would be classified as a tyrant. Which brings us to the most interesting classification – aristocracy and oligarchy. In modern English in 2016, both of these are seen as bad things. An oligarchy might be worse, but the modern usage of “aristocracy” doesn’t mean “rule by the best” so much as, well, that editor at Wikipedia summed it up as “the hands of a small, privileged ruling class.” I mean, doesn’t that just sound like the aristocracy is going to oppress and brutalize you for their own gain? Under Aristotle’s definition, a “brutal aristocracy” is a contradiction. It’s impossible. There’s brutal oligarchies, but any aristocracy that got arbitrarily brutal and oppressive by definition wouldn’t be an aristocracy any more. So how did we get to a world where “rule of the best in the interests of all” came to be synonymous with degeneracy and brutality? And indeed, we can see “true aristocracies” degenerate into oligarchies at a high enough rate as to consider just throwing both of them off the side of the boat. But isn’t this… curious, at least? Why does this happen? *** THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY The German sociologist Robert Michels was a relative latecomer to political theory, but he made some enormous contributions. The most quotable one was the “iron law of oligarchy.” Wikipedia – “Michels' theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise. “Using anecdotes from political parties and trade unions struggling to operate democratically to build his argument in 1911, Michels addressed the application of this law to representative democracy, and stated: "Who says organization, says oligarchy." He went on to state that "Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy." “According to Michels all organizations eventually come to be run by a "leadership class", who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons, political strategists, organizers, etc. for the organization. Far from being "servants of the masses", Michels argues this "leadership class," rather than the organization's membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization's power structures. By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank-and-file members have in relation to their organization's decision-making processes. Michels argues that democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty, the ability to control information about the organization, and the ability to control what procedures the organization follows when making decisions. All of these mechanisms can be used to strongly influence the outcome of any decisions made 'democratically' by members.” The most important line in there – “democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty…” Note well, Michels was saying that all organizations become oligarchic – he’s not focused on aristocracies per se; he’s focused on democracies and trade unions. But the general principle holds, and is very important. Note it down mentally; we’ll come back to it shortly. *** NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL ARISTOCRACY Perhaps surprisingly – or perhaps not – Thomas Jefferson believed in a “natural aristocracy” and thought it a good thing, but considered “artificial aristocracy” to be a very bad thing. From an 1813 Letter from Jefferson to John Adams – “For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi [Greek military commanders]. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy.” It’s an interesting position – one you don’t hear so much any more. Jefferson was of course one of the most committed of the Founding Fathers to liberalism. He was the author of, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” And yet, Jefferson did believe in better and worse – he believed there was a “natural aristocracy among men” – “The grounds of this are virtue and talents.” This line too is staggering – “May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi [those with virtue and talents] into the offices of government?” But he also believes in that “artificial aristocracy” exists – “founded on wealth and birth.” Unsurprisingly, he thinks it’s a problem to be warded against – a mischievous ingredient in government, and they should work to prevent its ascendancy. Jefferson lays out some practical guidelines for achieving the ascent of the natural aristocracy – free and universal primary education, scholarships to higher education for the most talented students, religious liberty, land available for anyone who wants to own land and farm, and the American Constitution. He notes that many of these characteristics are uniquely American, and then sighs a little bit at the direction the French Revolution went in before proclaiming nevertheless his optimism for the rest of the world – “But even in Europe a change has sensibly taken place in the mind of Man. Science had liberated the ideas of those who read and reflect, and the American example had kindled feelings of right in the people. An insurrection has consequently begun, of science, talents and courage against rank and birth, which have fallen into contempt. It has failed in it's first effort, because the mobs of the cities, the instrument used for it's accomplishment, debased by ignorance, poverty and vice, could not be restrained to rational action. But the world will recover from the panic of this first catastrophe.” *** ARTIFICIAL ARISTOCRACY, LOVE, AND FOSSILIZED RANK Last chapter, we discussed how natural rank emerges from commissioned duties, and that it can be formal or informal. Rank that gets formalized into an office then goes through an inevitable cycle – the more excellent each early officeholder does, the more prestige and power becomes attached to the office, until finally, people become attracted to holding that office for the prestige, power, and resources instead of to discharge duties effectively. We see this cycle often take hold with formal aristocracies. It doesn’t always work badly – John Churchill became the 1st Duke of Marlborough for leading Queen Anne’s armies so effectively; the 7th Duke of Marlborough was the grandfather to an even-more-famous Churchill – Winston. Janet Daniels of the International Churchill Society put it like this before going into Winston's genealogy – "... no matter who you are, there are bound to be skeletons in the cupboard because our predecessors were not always honourable. Personally I find it adds spice to a family history, but I know there are some who resist digging up the past if they get so much as a whiff of anything unsavoury in their antecedents. […] I make this preamble because Sir Winston Churchill was no exception. Obviously there were rogues and blackguards in his ancestral past and it is as well to study all aspects of his background to be able to truly assess him for what he was: a great man, yes; perfect, no. It is the complexity of our genes inherited from the beginning of mankind that makes us what we are today, and accounts for the very nature of our being. Thus all Sir Winston’s ancestors played a part in fashioning his looks, character, thoughts, etc: each and every one contributed in some way to the make-up of this remarkable man.” This quote by Daniels sums it up well enough – but beyond that, why do we so often get bad aristocrats eventually, over time? I believe the answer is straightforward – love. People naturally love their children, and attempt to set them up with formalized offices to better their chances in the world. Whereas informal rank is difficult to pass from generation to generation, formal rank in the form of hereditary titles and offices is much easier. And certainly, the direct child or grandchild of someone particularly wise and sound-minded will likely be educated well, receive excellent tutors, be trained in excellent habits and patterns of action, and socialize with generally virtuous people. Three or four generations hence, though, there is no guarantee that the original penchant for virtue and wisdom is there any more. At that point, you have fossilized rank – people lacking virtue, who do not care for discharging duties, who are not effective, inheriting offices and ranks where they are incapable of doing a good job. *** THE OTTOMON CURIOSITY: FIGHT-TO-THE-DEATH SUCCESSION The Ottoman Empire lasted over 600 years in some of the most hostile and fraught geography in any place of the world. The Ottomans were surrounded by potential enemies, and yet, their empire went six centuries. A large part of it was that the Ottoman style of succession wasn’t based on primogeniture, but based on, quite literally, a fight to the death – “In the early period (from the 14th through the late 16th centuries), the Ottomans practiced open succession, or what historian Donald Quataert has described as "survival of the fittest, not eldest, son." During their father's lifetime, all of the adult sons of the reigning sultan obtained provincial governorships. Accompanied and mentored by their mothers, they would gather supporters while ostensibly following a Ghazi ethos. Upon the death of their father, the sons would fight among themselves until one emerged triumphant. How remote a province the son governed was of great significance. The closer the region that a particular son was in charge of the better the chances were of that son's succeeding, simply because he would be told of the news of his father's death and be able to get to Constantinople first and declare himself Sultan. Thus a father could hint at whom he preferred by giving his favourite son a closer governorship.” To be clear, this unsurprisingly sometimes went poorly – “Occasionally, the half-brothers would even begin the struggle before the death of their father. During the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566), strife among his sons Selim and Mustafa caused enough internal turmoil that Suleiman ordered the death of Mustafa and Bayezid, leaving Selim II the sole heir.” And yet, in one of the harshest and most perilous areas of the world, at the crossroads of a half-dozen powerful and warlike civilizations, the Ottoman Empire lasted over 600 years. The Ottoman style of succession certainly had its own flaws and pitfalls, but it avoided the fossilization of rank and it largely avoided selecting Sultans were slow-witted, slow-footed, naive, or disorganized. *** A STROLL THROUGH THE MINEFIELD: SUPERIORITY There is one last complicated point to be made about aristocracy, one that would be normally be very complicated to untangle – but which we have the tools to understand after our past chapters in Dubious Battle. “Excellent” and “superior” aren’t synonyms – there can be something average that is superior to something downright bad. But excellence is usually contrasted against not excellent. If, in 2016, Apple makes excellent computers and HP makes not excellent computers, you could say that Apple makes superior computers. The leap from that to Apple is a superior company is not automatic – but many people will make the leap. But, oh! This depends on the value system you live under. In Dubious Battle #3: The Burden of Proof, we talked about the different organzing principles of society. In most societies across history, there was a concept of superior – and it wasn’t a particularly big deal, nor particularly controversial. But in that chapter, we noted Walter Truett Anderon’s idea that there’s four typical worldviews – “(a) Postmodern-ironist, which sees truth as socially constructed, (b) Scientific-rational, in which truth is found through methodical, disciplined inquiry, (c) Social-traditional, in which truth is found in the heritage of American and Western civilization, or (d) Neo-Romantic, in which truth is found through attaining harmony with nature and/or spiritual exploration of the inner self.” In Dubious Battle #2: Ordinal and Cardinal Inclinations, we discussed how most people are ordinally inclined – they see the world in terms of first, second, third, fourth… they measure themselves against their reference group, and want to be doing better than those in their reference group. A society that adopts a postmodern-ironist outlook becomes hyper-sensitive to a bunch of things. Particularly, that society might fail to notice that rank begins in commissioned duties (as we discussed last chapter, in Dubious Battle #4: Rank). Instead, they see only the fossilized prestige and officeholders failing to discharge their duties, and they say – “hey, this is all just constructed, and it is garbage.” This also often results in throwing the baby out with the bathwater by not acknowledging there are real needs for cohesion and coordination which is the origin of rank… the problem is self-correcting eventually, albeit in a painful way – the society that does it is almost always ruined in the process. Which brings us back to superiority – and some pretty odd things in language. *** WHITHER SUPERIORITY? Most Americans will rank Abraham Lincoln as one of the greatest American Presidents – in the most common rankings of American Presidents, people will rank George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt as #1-3 in some order. If I said Abraham Lincoln was a more effective President than James Buchanan, most people would not disagree. But if I said Abraham Lincoln was a superior President to James Buchanan, the gears of cognitive dissonance might just grind in the listener’s head. “Wait! How can you say he’s superior? What’s superior, anyways?” “Well, he was more effective, wasn’t he?” “Yes, but does that make him superior?” “You agree that Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest American Presidents, and Buchanan was not?” “Well, okay, yes.” “Thus, Lincoln was superior to Buchanan, no?” Bzzt, short-circuit. The mental gears grind to a halt. Due to the default American worldview, the word superior is vaguely unpalatable. This comes from both the postmodern outlook that’s been on the ascent since World War I, and the Faith-based view that goodness and betterness only come from one’s faith and “inner world” (as we discussed in Dubious Battle #1: Faith vs Works). We enter into a strange sort of world where there can be universal agreement that someone was more effective, more far-sighted, even that someone was truly great and the other wasn’t, and yet, the near-synonym of superiority is rejected. This has immense implications. *** ON SUPERIORITY, OR NOT Aristocracy literally translates to “rule of the best” – but a faith-based worldview rejects the concept of being able to know what’s best; ordinal inclinations make people hate to see anyone as better than them; and a default postmodern-ironist worldview sees everything as “socially constructed” – perhaps missing the origins of rank in necessary commissioned duties and effective discharge of those duties. Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias take us the rest of the way – someone steeped in these worldviews, the default worldviews of most of the Western world in 2016, reject the concept of “best” and “superior” entirely. Which makes any and all aristocracy a hateful thing. There remains a problem, though – there certainly are more effective leaders, governors, inventors, bakers, plumbers, and so forth. We become unable to say that they are superior leaders, governors, inventors, bakers, or plumbers, despite discharging their duties more effectively – which, after all, is the point of the whole thing. At the end of the day, complex organizations will need coordination and cohesion, and the world is getting more complex all the time. The need for coordination and cohesion rises and falls across various disciplines and organizations, but some measure of it will always be needed. We need to ensure that two trains do not collide at the train station, which means someone needs to be given the clear and unambiguous authority and the relevant formal rank in order to tell train conductors which order to move into the station on the tracks, lest the trains collide. Who should receive that formal rank? I think it’s not so dramatic of a statement to say whoever can discharge the duties most effectively, or perhaps, in a superior way. Which brings us back to a problem. *** STASIS AND MOVEMENT This brings us to our final point on Aristocracy, the last one we need to put it together. It’s possible to believe that superiority is either an innate attribute of a person, or comes as a result of their actions over time. Stasis would look something like this – Abraham Lincoln is superior to James Buchanan. Movement would look something like this – Abraham Lincoln selected military commanders, promulgated laws, resolved crisis, and built a strong government in a superior way to James Buchanan. If you’re unwilling to say “superior” at all, you could use a euphimism – but it might be worth reflecting on a potential gap in your thinking. If you want to say that a keeper of a train station who causes no crashes is not superior to one who does cause crashes, not much more can be said to you on the topic. But most people would grant that no crashes is superior to trainwrecks, even if the word superior is a little awkward under their worldview. But asking where that superiority comes from becomes very important. If you see it as a result of daily doing the things needed to run the trains well, then movement creates superiority; if you think the keeper of the trains is just superior as a person then you’re believing in stasis, or superiority as an attribute. *** STASIS AND DEGENERATE ARISTOCRACY A degenerate aristocracy, then, sees itself as superior… but without actually doing anything superior. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche noted about the French aristocracy – “When, for instance, an aristocracy like that of France at the beginning of the Revolution, flung away its privileges with sublime disgust and sacrificed itself to an excess of its moral sentiments, it was corruption:--it was really only the closing act of the corruption which had existed for centuries, by virtue of which that aristocracy had abdicated step by step its lordly prerogatives and lowered itself to a FUNCTION of royalty (in the end even to its decoration and parade-dress).” Well, Nietzsche is hard-core; he has valuable things to say, but he’s like a medicine where the minimum effective dosage is only 10% lower than the level of fatal poison; he’s to be read very, very carefully if at all. A more mainstream-recognized source is Thorstein Veblen, who wrote The Theory of the Leisure Class – “In a stratified society, the division of labour inherent to the barbarian culture of conquest, domination, and exploitation featured labour-intensive occupations for the conquered people, and light-labour occupations for the conquerors, who thus became the leisure class. Moreover, it was socially unimportant that low-status, productive occupations (tinker, tailor, chandler) were of greater economic value to society than were high-status, unproductive occupations (the profession of arms, the clergy, banking, etc.); nonetheless, for the sake of social cohesion, the leisure class occasionally performed productive work that contributed to the functioning of society, yet, such work was more symbolic participation in the economy, than it was practical economic production.” The leisure class would then engage in conspicuous consumption to show off how great they are – “The term conspicuous consumption denotes the act of buying many things, especially expensive things, that are not necessary to one's life, done in a way that makes people notice the buyer's having bought the merchandise.” In short, a degenerated aristocracy feels they have “made it” and begin to progressively start spending more time, income, and energy on increasing their ordinal position vis-a-vis others who have “made it,” showing off with ostentation while not discharging commissioned duties. *** IS… ISN’T The verb “to be” is useful – I just used it – but might also might result in more confusion and damaged thought than any other word. Wikiedia: E-Prime – “E-Prime (short for English-Prime) is a version of the English language that excludes all forms of the verb to be, including all conjugations, contractions and archaic forms. “Some scholars advocate using E-Prime as a device to clarify thinking and strengthen writing. For example, the sentence "the film was good" could not be expressed under the rules of E-Prime, and the speaker might instead say "I liked the film", "the film made me laugh”…” “To be” can mean many different things in English – “In the English language, the verb 'to be' (also known as the copula) has several distinct functions: *identity, of the form "noun copula definite-noun" [The cat is my only pet]; [The cat is Garfield] *class membership, of the form "definite-noun copula noun" [Garfield is a cat] *class inclusion, of the form "noun copula noun" [A cat is an animal] *predication, of the form "noun copula adjective" [The cat is furry] *auxiliary, of the form "noun copula verb" [The cat is sleeping]; [The cat is being bitten by the dog]. The examples illustrate two different uses of 'be' as an auxiliary. In the first, 'be' is part of the progressive aspect, used with "-ing" on the verb; in the second, it is part of the passive, as indicated by the perfect participle of a transitive verb. *existence, of the form "there copula noun" [There is a cat] *location, of the form "noun copula place-phrase" [The cat is on the mat]; [The cat is here] “Bourland sees specifically the "identity" and "predication" functions as pernicious, but advocates eliminating all forms for the sake of simplicity. In the case of the "existence" form (and less idiomatically, the "location" form), one might (for example) simply substitute the verb "exists".” And, hilariously – “Kellogg and Bourland use the term "Deity mode of speech" to refer to misuse of the verb to be, which "allows even the most ignorant to transform their opinions magically into god-like pronouncements on the nature of things".” We can see how this ties in with a stasis-view of superiority – Something like, “I am an aristocrat. I am better than you.” The contrasted movement-view of superiority would be like, “I hold the office of keeper of the trains; every day, I work to ensure the trains run smoothly.” *** STASIS SUPERIORITY, ARISTOCRACY, OLIGARCHY, EQUILIBRIUM On 16 April 1784, Jefferson wrote to Washington about the Society of the Cincinnati. Feel free to skim it, I’ll bold the relevant parts – “The objections of those opposed to the institution shall be briefly sketched; you will readily fill them up. They urge that it is against the Confederation; against the letter of some of our constitutions; against the spirit of them all, that the foundation, on which all these are built, is the natural equality of man, the denial of every preeminence but that annexed to legal office, and particularly the denial of a preeminence by birth;--that however, in their present dispositions, citizens might decline accepting honorary instalments into the order, a time may come when a change of dispositions would render these flattering; when a well directed distribution of them might draw into the order all the men of talents, of office and wealth; and in this case would probably procure an ingraftment into the government; that in this they will be supported by their foreign members, and the wishes and influence of foreign courts; that experience has shewn that the hereditary branches of modern governments are the patrons of privilege and prerogative, and not of the natural rights of the people, whose oppressors they generally are; that besides these evils which are remote, others may take place more immediately; that a distinction is kept up between the civil and military which it is for the happiness of both to obliterate; that when the members assemble they will be proposing to do something, and what that something may be will depend on actual circumstances; that being an organized body, under habits of subordination, the first obstructions to enterprize will be already surmounted; that the moderation and virtue of a single character has probably prevented this revolution from being closed as most others have been by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish; that he [Washington] is not immortal, and his successor or some one of his successors at the head of this institution may adopt a more mistaken road to glory.” Jefferson, with a natural intuition for this sort of thing, was warning Washington that the Society of the Cincinnati could easily create an aristocracy which readily devolves into a damaging oligarchy. As Michels noted about the Iron Law of Oligarchy, “democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty…” Jefferson makes the same argument – that preeminence should only be attached to a formal offices (with commissions and duties to discharge), not to birth (stasis superiority). Further, it becomes very easy to corrupt institutions of the sort the Society of the Cincinnati was becoming – Jefferson notes that both wealthy people and people generally uninterested in the American government would seek to become honorary members if the organization was prestigious, paying in money to do so, and then expecting to get a return on their money – “in this case would probably procure an ingraftment into the government” – you know, graft, corruption, receiving paid roles and monies without doing anything effectively. Jefferson also notes that Washington isn’t immortal, and regardless if his good intentions, the society being built was capable of being usurped after Washington’s death to produce that sort of corruption and degenerachy. And thus, George Washington was persuaded. Chernow – “In his inaugural speech, [Washington] stated categorically that the Society of the Cincinnati must mend its ways. In notes prepared for the speech, he listed his reform agenda: “Strike out every word, sentence, and clause which has a political tendency. Discontinue the hereditary part in all its connections . . . Admit no more honorary members into the society. Reject subscriptions or donations from every person who is not a citizen of the United States.” Delivering this blunt message, the ordinarily circumspect Washington was fiery and outspoken.” *** GUIDANCE You know, it’s funny being a writer – here I set out to write on the potential value of aristocracy as contrasted against its downsides, and I wound up writing a piece almost entirely against aristocracy. Perhaps I shall take another crack at this subject from another angle in a year or two. For all his liberality, Jefferson did acknowledge that there was some heridatary aspect to inheriting morality and effectiveness; in his letter to Adams, he wrote – “For experience proves that the moral and physical qualities of man, whether good or evil, are transmissible in a certain degree from father to son.” And there were a number of points form Nietzsche about superiority that did not fit into the each as-such; I have only painted a very small piece of this picture here. Well, so it goes. As is the case with all of our series on Dubious Battle, the guidance is murky and ambiguous; there are less right answers and more tradeoffs. A few things to consider – 1. Whither superiority? Is anything better or worse? You might think on this. I’ll say resoundingly “yes” – the discharge of commissioned duties, and discharging them more effectively, is superior to neglecting one’s duties or discharging them shoddily. I am comfortable saying that those who do good work, in their domain, are superior to those who shirk their work or do shoddy work. But you should think on this and form your opinion; mine is not the mainstream in 2016. 2. To the extent anything is better or worse, does it come from stasis or movement? Are things better because they’re better? Or are things better because of movement, action, effectiveness? This is actually worth thinking through, though after wrestling with this chapter for many days and with it growing in word length, I eventually gave up and wrapped it up without doing adequate justice to the “innate superiority” position. I lean towards movement, of course, but I haven’t adequately and fairly covered the “stasis” position. Nietzsche often does so, incidentally, you might read him if you don’t mind your brain rattling around inside your skull for a while afterwards. 3. Regardless, gradually remove abusive uses of the verb “to be” from your language and thinking. E-Prime – English without the word to be – can be profitable to study. While saying “Lincoln is superior” might trigger a natural resistance to it, oddly enough “the Republicans are evil and hateful” does not necessarily trigger the same. Abuses of the word “is” (are, be, been, etc) might more naturally apply to insults than positive characteristics in 2016, but both can lead to shoddy thinking. Does saying, “X is good” or “X is bad” serve you? This can be sneaky, and time spent studying it is worthwhile. 4. Consider very well the Iron Law of Oligarchy in all endeavors. In any distributed power structure, there is always a chance to ask for support to receive more formal rank and then pay off one’s supporters for doing so – hence, the natural tendency in power structures is towards oligarchy. If you are running an organization or influential in society, and you’re generally acting virtuously and discharging your duties, you might miss the chance that a successor of yours rises to power through promises of resources to those who support them politically, as opposed to those who likewise wish to discharge duties effectively. This is one of the great challenges and tragedies as organizations and societies mature – if you find yourself in a leadership position where you will be succeeded down the road, it’s worth thinking through what structures and safeguards can be put into place to mitigate this. 5. To the extent you’re trying to show off how great you are through consumption, consider reducing and eliminating that. Formal rank without effectively discharging duties is an unstable equilibrium – it prompts hatred; perhaps French Revolutions are inevitable when it happens. Conspicuous consumption is a dreadful thing; it’s an unwinnable game. It makes sense to decorate a space or adorn yourself in certain ways instrumentally from time to time; wearing a nicely-tailored business suit might help you in some circumstances to land a job or grant slightly more perceived authority with which you can discharge your duties – but beware of that path in general; seeking to consume to show what you are is a sucker’s game and a path to ruin. Do things; don’t be things. Dubious Battle #6: The Legible and the Illegible Dubious Battle #6: The Legible and the Illegible A SCENE FROM A FILM A scene from a film: The entire screen with racing columns of numbers. Shimmering like green-electric rivers, they rush at a 10-digit phone number in the top corner. CYPHER (MANV.O.) You weren't supposed to relieve me. TRINITY (V.O.) I know but I felt like taking a shift. The area code is identified. The first three numbers suddenly fixed, leaving only seven flowing columns. CYPHER (V.O.) You like him, don't you? You like watching him? We begin MOVING TOWARD the screen, CLOSING IN as each digit is matched, one by one, snapping into place like the wheels of a slot machine. TRINITY (V.O.) Don't be ridiculous. CYPHER (V.O.) We're going to kill him. Do you understand that? He's going to die just like the others. TRINITY (V.O.) Morpheus believes he is the One. Only two thin digits left. CYPHER (V.O.) Do you? TRINITY (V.O.) I... it doesn't matter what I believe. CYPHER (V.O.) You don't, do you? TRINITY (V.O.) If you have something to say, I suggest you say it to Morpheus. CYPHER (V.O.) I intend to, believe me. Someone has to. The final NUMBER POPS into place -- TRINITY (V.O.) Did you hear that? CYPHER (V.O.) Hear what? On screen: "Trace complete. Call origin: #312-555-0690. TRINITY (V.O.) Are you sure this line is clean? CYPHER (V.O.) Yeah, 'course I'm sure. We MOVE STILL CLOSER, the ELECTRIC HUM of the green NUMBERS GROWING into an ominous ROAR. TRINITY (V.O.) I better go. She hangs up as we PASS THROUGH the numbers, entering the nether world of the computer screen. Suddenly, a flashlight cuts open the darkness and we find ourselves in -- 2 INT. HEART O' THE CITY HOTEL - NIGHT 2 The hotel was abandoned after a fire licked its way across the polyester carpeting, destroying several rooms as it spooled soot up the walls and ceiling, leaving patterns of permanent shadow. We FOLLOW four armed POLICE OFFICERS using flashlights as they creep down the blackened hall and ready themselves on either side of Room 303. The biggest of them violently kicks in the door. The other cops pour in behind him, guns thrust before them. BIG COP Police! Freeze! The room is almost devoid of furniture. There is a foldup table and chair with a phone, a modem, and a powerbook computer. The only light in the room is the glow of the computer. Sitting there, her hands still on the keyboard, is TRINITY; a woman in black leather. BIG COP Hands behind your head! Now! Do it! She slowly puts her hands behind her head. 3 EXT. HEART O' THE CITY HOTEL - NIGHT 3 A black sedan with tinted windows glides in through the police cruisers. AGENT SMITH, AGENT BROWN, and AGENT JONES get out of the car. They wear dark suits and sunglasses even at night. They are also always hardwired; small Secret Service earphones in one ear, the cord coiling back into their shirt collars. AGENT SMITH Lieutenant? LIEUTENANT Oh shit. AGENT SMITH Lieutenant, you were given specific orders -- LIEUTENANT I'm just doing my job. You gimme that Juris-my dick-tion and you can cram it up your ass. AGENT SMITH The orders were for your protection. The Lieutenant laughs. LIEUTENANT I think we can handle one little girl. Agent Smith nods to Agent Brown as they start toward the hotel. LIEUTENANT I sent two units. They're bringing her down now. AGENT SMITH No, Lieutenant, your men are already dead. *** DUBIOUS BATTLE #6: THE LEGIBLE AND THE ILLEGIBLE “Legibility: A system is legible if it is comprehensible to a calculative-rational observer looking to optimize the system from the point of view of narrow utilitarian concerns and eliminate other phenomenology. It is illegible if it serves many functions and purposes in complex ways, such that no single participant can easily comprehend the whole. The terms were coined by James Scott in Seeing Like a State. Illegible systems are generally more robust than legible ones, and Scott’s model is mainly about the failures caused by imposing legibility on an initially illegible reality.” – Venkat Rao, Glossary: Legibility “Calculative rationality: The classical approach to decision-making, based on goals, plans, utilities and means-end reasoning methods. Calculative rationality does not usually encompass mental models, background narratives or situational tempo.” – Vekat Rao, Glossary: Calculative rationality Legibility was one of the most important concepts I came across in the last half-decade. Right away, it helps you identify failure cases in your thinking – as well as the world at large. It’s simple enough on the surface – given that the world is vast and complex, we humans often look to both simplify the world and impose structure on it, so that we can understand it, manage it, govern it. From Rao’s seminal piece on it – “High-modernist aesthetics necessarily lead to simplification, since a reality that serves many purposes presents itself as illegible to a vision informed by a singular purpose. Any elements that are non-functional with respect to the singular purpose tend to confuse, and are therefore eliminated during the attempt to “rationalize.” The deep failure in thinking lies is the mistaken assumption that thriving, successful and functional realities must necessarily be legible. Or at least more legible to the all-seeing statist eye in the sky (many of the pictures in the book are literally aerial views) than to the local, embedded, eye on the ground. “Complex realities turn this logic on its head; it is easier to comprehend the whole by walking among the trees, absorbing the gestalt, and becoming a holographic/fractal part of the forest, than by hovering above it.” It’s very, very likely you have some natural inherent biases in favor of legibility and against illegibility – that are very likely holding you back. Of course, there are times when more legibility thrives – and missing those cases can lead to underperforming too. We’ll dive into legibility in this chapter. *** WORLD OF WARCRAFT IN CHINA “The prohibition on foreign companies, which includes foreign-invested companies that are incorporated in the PRC, from operating online games is not unusual for China. In fact, the country’s entire corporate legal regime is based upon this very clear distinction between domestic companies and foreign companies, with detailed rules indicating which segments of the economy are open or closed for each type of company. For the purpose of foreign investment restrictions, China’s entire economy is divided into four categories: encouraged, permitted, restricted and prohibited. “The online game business, like most internet related businesses, is regarded as a part of the telecommunications industry, which is an area where foreign investment is restricted. The online game business is, however, also regarded as an internet cultural activity and a form of internet publishing, both of which fall into the prohibited category where foreign investment is not allowed. As a result, foreign investment in an online game business is not permitted in any form.” -- Pillar Legal: Regulation of China's Video Game Industry, 2015 We have a number of readers who are attorneys or involved in government; I’m sure they will find the legal and regulatory parts of this at least mildly interesting. For the rest of us, though, there’s a lot of value in understanding how China and the Chinese government differs significantly from the West and Western government. Of course, it’s interesting in a historical and legal context, but more importantly, it provides an excellent mental model for legibility. “In recognition of China’s powerful government authorities, before discussing any specific laws, we first introduce the two primary regulators of the game industry – the Ministry of Culture (文化部) (“MOC”) and the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (新闻出版广电总局) (“SAPPRFT”). In the past, these regulators have clashed in their attempts to assert a dominate role in regulating this very lucrative industry, which is an important fact to consider when interpreting rules issued by MOC or SAPPRFT.” In 2005, World of Warcraft came to China by partnering with a domestic Chinese company. In 2009, they wanted to switch which domestic company they worked with on the game. When a new online game is to be released in China, it needs a few different government licenses approved before doing so – “In practice, this prohibition is carried out through a licensing regime. As noted in the section entitled “Online Game Operator Licenses” below, each operator of online games in China must obtain three licenses, including the internet culture operating license issued by MOC and the internet publishing license issued by SAPPRFT.” This leads to some things are frankly puzzling to Westerners – “Although MOC and SAPPRFT are the primary regulators for China’s online game industry, their powers and responsibilities are not clearly defined and the two authorities have frequently clashed when attempting to assert regulatory control over the lucrative video game industry. Some regulatory actions in recent years, such as the anti-fatigue rules issued by SAPPRFT in 2007 and the virtual currency rules championed by MOC in 2009, are easier to understand when viewed in this competing regulator context.” This is, again, incredibly strange for Westerners to try to understand. Consider – “MOC’s interpretation of SAPPRFT’s pre-publication approval authority for online games, as confirmed during our 2012 informal interview with MOC personnel, is that this authority is limited to the elements of the game distributed in physical form, such as CDs and DVDs. Accordingly, MOC argues that SAPPRFT’s approval authority will diminish as use of physical media decreases and more games are distributed exclusively in digital format over the internet without the use of any client side software provided on physical discs. "SAPPRFT, however, interprets its approval authority broadly, extending not only to publication in physical form but also to online publication in purely digital form. In addition, SAPPRFT believes that its approval is required whenever there is any change to the content of a previously approved game and whenever the domestic online game service for an imported game is switched from one operator to another. This position, however, appears to conflict with the statement from the SCOPSR circular noted below, that once a game is available online MOC shall assume full regulatory authority.” In case you missed it, the Ministry of Culture (MOC) believes that the State Administration of Press, Publication, Ratio, Film, and Television (SAPPRFT) only has authority over physical forms of content like CDs and DVDs, and no ongoing authority after initial approval. SAPRFT disagrees, and thinks it has a lot of other powers besides those. Activision – the owner of World of Warcraft – thus ran into sort of a buzzsaw when changing providers – “Notwithstanding the fact that the World of Warcraft had been operated in China for four years at the time Activision Blizzard and NetEase announced the new license, shortly after that announcement, both MOC and SAPPRFT indicated that the game would need to apply for a new approval, undergoing another content censorship review, prior to the commencement of commercial operation by the new domestic operator. Although there was no rational basis to require a second round of censorship for a game with four years of operating history inside the country, the requirement for a new censorship review of any foreign game when transferring from one domestic operator to another is now the law in China. “On July 21, 2009, MOC reapproved the World of Warcraft for commercial operation. By mid-September, three months after the term of the original license [in China] ended and commercial operation of the game ceased, SAPPRFT had not yet reapproved the game.” So – World of Warcraft had shut down in China and was trying to get restarted. “One interpretation of this circular [clarifying regulatory authority] is that SAPPRFT’s approval was not required for the commercial relaunch of the World of Warcraft since the game had previously been available online and thus should fall under the regulatory authority of MOC. On September 19, 2009, apparently in reliance upon this interpretation, NetEase relaunched the World of Warcraft without having first received the approval of SAPPRFT. On November 2, 2009, however, SAPPRFT declared the relaunch of the game illegal and demanded a halt to its commercial operation. Nonetheless, on February 12, 2010, SAPPRFT approved the commercial relaunch of the World of Warcraft, apparently after NetEase reached a negotiated settlement with SAPPRFT that included issuing a self-criticism for its prior actions.” *** LIEUTENANT, YOU WERE GIVEN SPECIFIC ORDERS AGENT SMITH Lieutenant, you were given specific orders -- LIEUTENANT I'm just doing my job. You gimme that Juris-my dick-tion and you can cram it up your ass. AGENT SMITH The orders were for your protection. Agent Smith is, obviously, the bad guy in The Matrix. Did you realize, though, that when he spoke the Police Lieutenant that he was right? I sent two units. They're bringing her down now. No, Lieutenant, your men are already dead. The various overlapping American government, police, and regulatory agencies work rather hard towards legibility; it’s a common hook in cop movies that the federal agents show up, who take precedence over local police, and then get it wrong. Typically, the local cop on the scene is the good guy – the feds are from out of town and “don’t get it.” Though, not quite in The Matrix. That’s the tradeoff when there’s high legibility – you know who reports to whom, the structure all be managed and governed. When federal agents and the local police are on the scene, the feds are in charge. Why? Because someone has to be, and it’s the feds. People, of course, sometimes chafe at this. Thus, you get the common cop movie plot where the local police officer stays on the case even after the federal agents tell him to get lost, and he solves the crime. You also get situations where the local officer doesn’t listen to the typical command chain, says “You gimme that Juris-my dick-tion…” and – well, it didn’t work out so well in that movie. But perhaps what’s most noteworthy about all this is that the movie The Matrix just takes it for granted that you get what’s going on. The flippant remark about jurisdiction – the writers figured you just knew about it already. It’s so common. American government officials, generally speaking, work rather hard to clarify chains of command, to neatly and clearly divide authority lines into specific boxes, and to assign them to specific jurisdictions, with clear precedence for who defers to whom if multiple agencies are involved. China works a little differently. *** FORMLESSNESS “Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt. “ – Sunzi, The Art of War, 5th Century BC It should be noted that illegibility is the default position in just about everything. Organically evolved systems are typically not easily legible; organically evolved governance likewise trends towards an illegible patchwork. The Chinese are much more comfortable with illegibility and ambiguity than Western powers, and we should note – their system has successfully produced one of the largest and greatest transformations of a nation over a single generation in basically all of history. Legibility has some significant advantages, but is by no means universally better; in fact, both Rao and I believe it’s the cause of many problems in the West. We can see both the advantages and disadvantages in illegibility in display in how Activision had to navigate the regulatory agencies of China when re-launching World of Warcraft – “Notwithstanding the contradictory position of MOC and SAPPRFT regarding their respective regulatory authority, both the text of the various Three Determination Regulations and the actual resolution of the World of Warcraft relaunch approval discussed below, suggest that both MOC and SAPPRFT will continue to have significant regulatory authority over the industry. Accordingly, most game companies work hard to maintain positive relations with both MOC and SAPPRFT, regarding each authority as a primary regulator for the industry.” *** I CAN’T UNDERSTAND THIS, THEREFORE IT MUST BE FLAWED The discussion around legibility spread through our social circle when Venkat Rao wrote A Little Big Idea Called Legibility in 2010 – “The book begins with an early example, “scientific” forestry. The early modern state, Germany in this case, was only interested in maximizing tax revenues from forestry. This meant that the acreage, yield and market value of a forest had to be measured, and only these obviously relevant variables were comprehended by the statist mental model. Traditional wild and unruly forests were literally illegible to the state surveyor’s eyes, and this gave birth to “scientific” forestry: the gradual transformation of forests with a rich diversity of species growing wildly and randomly into orderly stands of the highest-yielding varieties. The resulting catastrophes — better recognized these days as the problems of monoculture — were inevitable.” There’s a lot of failures of this type. Rao – “Scott calls the thinking style behind the failure mode “authoritarian high modernism,” but as we’ll see, the failure mode is not limited to the brief intellectual reign of high modernism (roughly, the first half of the twentieth century). Here is the recipe: *Look at a complex and confusing reality, such as the social dynamics of an old city *Fail to understand all the subtleties of how the complex reality works *Attribute that failure to the irrationality of what you are looking at, rather than your own limitations *Come up with an idealized blank-slate vision of what that reality ought to look like *Argue that the relative simplicity and platonic orderliness of the vision represents rationality *Use authoritarian power to impose that vision, by demolishing the old reality if necessary *Watch your rational Utopia fail horribly The big mistake in this pattern of failure is projecting your subjective lack of comprehension onto the object you are looking at, as “irrationality.” We make this mistake because we are tempted by a desire for legibility.” In the rest of the piece, Rao explores why legibility became such a popular idea and fashion – his best guess is that it arises from a mix of governments needing to rationalize and simplify the resources within their domain to manage and tax them, and psychologically, as a defense against chaos and seeming randomness. Rao notes that legibility doesn’t always go poorly – standardizing time into timezones allowed railroads to operate across continents; the metric system might have been a little worse at a lot of things, but was broadly better once diffused across Europe by Napoleon. But there are downsides, and foolish attempts to legible-ize otherwise illegible systems produce many of them. The final reason it occurs? Rao names pseudo-scientific naive utopianism, which is, well, at least as funny as it is insightful – “In all these cases, you could argue that the formula merely replaced a set of locally optimal modes of social organization with a globally optimal one. But that would be missing the point. The reason the formula is generally dangerous, and a formula for failure, is that it does not operate by a thoughtful consideration of local/global tradeoffs, but through the imposition of a singular view as “best for all” in a pseudo-scientific sense. The high-modernist reformer does not acknowledge (and often genuinely does not understand) that he/she is engineering a shift in optima and power, with costs as well as benefits. Instead, the process is driven by a naive “best for everybody” paternalism, that genuinely intends to improve the lives of the people it affects. The high-modernist reformer is driven by a naive-scientific Utopian vision that does not tolerate dissent, because it believes it is dealing in scientific truths.” *** ILLEGIBILITY: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Rao – “The application of these ideas in the personal/corporate domains actually interests me the most. Though Scott’s book is set within the context of public policy and governance, you can find exactly the same pattern in individual and corporate behavior. Individuals lacking the capacity for rich introspection apply dumb 12-step formulas to their lives and fail.” I’m probably less hostile to legibility than Rao – I think it has also led to some major gains – but there are certainly a legion of tradeoffs between legibility and illegibility; it’s an incredibly powerful mental model to take into account when designing personal operating structures, organizations, and for seeing and making sense of the world-at-large. Advantages of Illegibility – 1. Diffuse authority and “plausible deniability” are incredibly valuable for members of an organization to have in some instances (though this is also one of the major downsides). You’ll often find sophisticated Chief Executive Officers saying “I have to check with my board” and the Board saying “I’ll lean towards following the CEO’s call on the decision” – as such, outsiders cannot infer much about the actual decisionmaking authority of the Board or CEO, whereas those inside the company can and do understand it well. This is very common and is a genuine advantage for those inside a power structure who understand how things actually happen. 2. Flexibility: when the American Congress passes a law about exactly who will report to whom in what situations, it often takes a second Act of Congress to change the structure, which is slow and expensive. By having illegibly distributed authority, the relative power and decisionmaking can shift more seamlessly over time without the need for a formal ruling or adjustment. 3. The “best man for the job” can step up from a variety of places. If you have a Head of Marketing and a Head of Sales on the same level in a company, the relative distribution of decisionmaking power between them can flow towards whoever is doing the best job on a particular matter. Sometimes, formalizing this with one reporting to the other, or a Chief Revenue Officer above both, can lead to putting decisionmaking and power in the hands of someone less capable. Neutral aspects of illegibility – 1. Lack of transparency: while transparency is a buzzword in the West right now, we class this as a neutral and not a negative because there are at times significant advantages to not being transparent. If you’re a military commander, you want your troop strength and levels of training and equipment to be invisible to the enemy. If you’ve got some nearly magical trade secrets working in your company, it might be useful to diffuse those through unexpected areas so a rival company cannot easily scout a single division of your company to pick them up. Illegible structures tend to be less transparent, which can be bad in a lot of situations – maybe most situations, since most corruption requires a lack of transparency – but it can be advantageous in certain cases. 2. Rivalry: as noted in the MOC and SAPPRFT example, there might be something of a rivalry between these organizations. This is again not entirely good or bad – rivalrous behavior can result in many downsides, yes, but it can also keep people on their toes, having them fight to out-innovative and out-shine the department they’re in rivalry with. Disadvantages of illegibility – 1. Harder to understand, measure, manage, and so on – of course, this is the main reason that the trend towards forced legibility started. 2. Lack of predictability: both internally and externally, it’s easier to do good and consistent business with any organization that acts predictably. Unpredictability can occasionally have some advantages – especially in direct conflict – but the majority of the time, it’s far more damaging for one’s own side in that it becomes unclear how to get things done, as the same types of actions generate very different responses. 3. Destructive power struggles: ambiguity is one of the primary drivers of any sort of direct conflict – if you know that starting a war means you’re going to lose and have terrible things happen to you, you don’t start a war and try to avoid it. It’s when it’s unclear who will win a war that the most destructive wars happen. Likewise, ambiguous and diffused authority can lead to friendly rivalry, but also to outright destructive power struggles. 4. No clear decisionmaker or responsible party: Ray Dalio, in Principles, wrote: “The most important decision you can make is who you choose as your responsible party” for generating a result. It’s generally accepted wisdom at this point that “two responsible parties = no responsibly party at all”… when you have a single clear final decisionmaker on an issue, they’re responsible for the entire outcome, and it becomes clear how to get things done. The lack of an RP can often happen in diffuse and illegible structures. *** GUIDANCE The rise of the drive towards legibility only arose relatively recently – sometime in the last few hundred years, likely hitting its peak in the generation after World War II. As in all cases in Dubious Battle, there are less right and wrong answers here, and more tradeoffs. Let’s look at Rao’s definitions one more time – “Legibility: A system is legible if it is comprehensible to a calculative-rational observer looking to optimize the system from the point of view of narrow utilitarian concerns and eliminate other phenomenology. It is illegible if it serves many functions and purposes in complex ways, such that no single participant can easily comprehend the whole. [...] Illegible systems are generally more robust than legible ones, and Scott’s model is mainly about the failures caused by imposing legibility on an initially illegible reality.” And, “Calculative rationality: The classical approach to decision-making, based on goals, plans, utilities and means-end reasoning methods. Calculative rationality does not usually encompass mental models, background narratives or situational tempo.” Guidance, then – 1. Recognize that smart people in the modern West might be drawn to legibility even when it’s harmful; be aware of this and mitigate it over time. Legibility sometimes helps one gain control and management, but often it only creates an illusion of control while simultaneously making a system more fragile and making it perform less well. If you have a natural inclination towards legibility, it’s imperative to study the topic and its failures at least a bit so you don’t dive headlong into them. 2. Make hypotheses of what will happen if you attempt to legible-ize a system beforehand. Mandatory topical meetings in a company drives towards legibility in communications – if done well, this can result in regular knowledge sharing and a net decrease in the amount of communication needed. But before you set mandatory meetings, you might study how things are happening informally, get the best data you can on that (which is admittedly hard to get), and then predict whether the new meetings will increase or decrease the amount of communication, increase or decrease quality, and speed up or slow down work happening. It’s critical to approach these as hypotheses and then check to see if you were correct. If mandatory meetings automatically invite a large number of people, it’s very possible that nothing gets done except busywork in them – and that people still have smaller ad hoc meetings to actually get things done, while silmultaneously feeling less responsibility for final outcomes. Or perhaps it’ll work marvelously and things will run more efficiently and better. Make predictions – hypotheses – before putting enforced legality and attempts at rationalization in place, and ensure you double-check they’re working afterwards. 3. Recognize the tradeoffs and advantages of illegibility and informality. It can be harder to map, manage, and communicate – but it just might work better. For people of certain Western management traditions, this can be very hard to get your mind around. You might consider looking at how some non-Western companies or pre-Industrial Western governments did things for inspiration. It can genuinely work much better in many cases. 4. Recognize when illegibility is killing you. Perhaps differing from Rao, I think legibility can be very valuable in the right circumstances. The failure cases are numerous and potentially disastrous, that’s true. But after a certain point of scale in many domains, it becomes impossible to do quality control or get predictable results without some enforced legibility. Toyota has done of the best work in this regard, by simultaneously having a number of informal and illegible processes around respect and culture and information flow, and having highly legible flowcharts of how Toyota automobiles are made and relentlessly working to improve all the components of them. Since at least Roman times, organizations, societies, and individuals swing back and forth between more legibility and more illegibility in how they do things. If anything, the opposing forces of legibility and illegibility will cycle even after with today’s technology and entrepreneurship cycles. You should study and understand the roots and instincts of both, the advantages and disadvantages of both, and harness and utilize both appropriately to reach your goals. Dubious Battle #7: The Three Paths to Power Dubious Battle #7: The Three Paths to Power JAPAN'S MASTER SWORDSMAN ON HIS DEATHBED The calligraphy is still beautiful, but if you look at the 370-year-old scroll, you can tell it was written by the hand of a dying man. 21 precepts are written vertically top-to-bottom along the ancient scroll. Each starts with strong and bold brushstrokes, but each fades as it gets towards the bottom. The last of the precepts – Never stray from the Way – is written in the lightest ink of all, the most erratic in the brushstrokes… this great man, undefeated in over 60 duels, the heralded master artist, the founder of the Niten Ichi-Ryu school of swordsmanship, he is dying. The wisdom and power in those hands is still visible today, nearly four centuries later, but studying the original handwriting brings to heart a mix of sadness and reverence. Ah, but were he alive, he would chastise one for feeling sadness! The first precept – Accept everything just the way it is. The second precept – Do not seek pleasure for its own sake. The third precept – Do not give preference to anything among all things. The fourth precept – Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world. Within a week of writing The Way of Walking Alone, Miyamoto Musashi would die at 61 years old. It was his final testament. *** A SHARP LIGHTNING ROD AS A POLITICAL STATEMENT He would have been 40 or 41 years old when he first came across electrical experiments in 1746. Right away, he became obsessed by them, and within four years, he would theorize that electrical batteries were possible, that electricity was lightning, and – most importantly – developed potential experiments for testing the idea. In 1752, Benjamin Franklin tested the idea himself – looking to see if a kite could draw lightning into a Leyden jar, a primitive sort of battery. It worked. He also drew up specifications for a lightning rod to protect buildings from damage by lightning. Hilariously – and this is telling of this final chapter to come – the issue became politicized when the King of England advocated a blunt-tipped lightning rod, and Franklin and the Americans disagreed. From Idea Finder: The History of the Lightning Rod – “Franklin began to advocate lightning rods that had sharp points. His English colleagues favored blunt-tipped lightning rods, reasoning that sharp ones attracted lightning and increased the risk of strikes; they thought blunt rods were less likely to be struck. King George III had his palace equipped with a blunt lightning rod. When it came time to equip the colonies' buildings with lightning rods, the decision became a political statement. The favored pointed lightning rod expressed support for Franklin's theories of protecting public buildings and the rejection of theories supported by the King. The English thought this was just another way for the flourishing colonies to be disobedient to them. “Franklin's lightning rods could soon be found protecting many buildings and homes. The lightning rod constructed on the dome of the State House in Maryland was the largest "Franklin" lightning rod ever attached to a public or private building in Ben's lifetime. It was built in accord with his recommendations and has had only one recorded instance of lightning damage. The pointed lightning rod placed on the State House and other buildings became a symbol of the ingenuity and independence of a young, thriving nation, as well as the intellect and inventiveness of Benjamin Franklin.” *** THE BETRAYAL He was 29 years old when he left to accompany the expedition. 10,000 Greek mercenaries had joined Cyrus the Younger’s side side of the Persian Civil War against his brother, serving under the command of Clearchus the Spartan. The Greek mercenaries overpowered and wrought havoc on the Persians in the key opening battle of the campaign, but Cyrus had lead a desperate – perhaps foolish – heroic charge against his brother’s position, and had been cut down by his brother’s bodyguards. 10,000 Greeks thus found themselves stranded in the middle of Persia. Rejecting calls for surrender, they began to fight their way out of Persia – and won their first engagements after Cyrus’s death as well. Seeing they could not defeat the Greeks by direct force, the Persians offered a truce and to peacefully escort the Greeks out of Persia. Some weeks into the march out of Persia, all seemed peaceful and the Persians were friendly enough. When an invitation came to the senior officers of a banquet helped by the Persian satrap Tissaphernes, they accepted. “After this conversation Tissaphernes, with kindliest expression, invited Clearchus to remain with him at the time, and entertained him at dinner. Next day Clearchus returned to the camp, and made no secret of his persuasion that he at any rate stood high in the affections of Tissaphernes, and he reported what he had said, insisting that those invited ought to go to Tissaphernes… […] Some of the soldiers protested: the captains and generals had better not all go; it was better not to put too much confidence in Tissaphernes. But Clearchus insisted so strongly that finally it was arranged for five generals to go and twenty captains. These were accompanied by about two hundred of the other soldiers…” It was a trap. “On arrival at the doors of Tissaphernes's quarters the generals were summoned inside. They were Proxenus the Boeotian, Menon the Thessalian, Agias the Arcadian, Clearchus the Laconian, and Socrates the Achaean; while the captains remained at the doors. Not long after that, at one and the same signal, those within were seized and those without cut down; after which some of the barbarian horsemen galloped over the plain, killing every Hellene [Greek] they encountered, bond or free. The Hellenes, as they looked from the camp, viewed that strange horsemanship with surprise, and could not explain to themselves what it all meant, until Nicarchus the Arcadian came tearing along for bare life with a wound in the belly, and clutching his protruding entrails in his hands. He told them all that had happened. Instantly the Hellenes ran to their arms, one and all, in utter consternation, and fully expecting that the enemy would instantly be down upon the camp.” “The generals who were thus seized were taken up to the king and there decapitated.” *** THE AWAKENING The 29-year-old continues, “After the generals had been seized, and the captains and soldiers who formed their escort had been killed, the Hellenes [Greeks] lay in deep perplexity—a prey to painful reflections. Here were they at the [Persian] king's gates, and on every side environing them were many hostile cities and tribes of men. Who was there now to furnish them with a market? Separated from Hellas by more than a thousand miles, they had not even a guide to point the way. Impassable rivers lay athwart their homeward route, and hemmed them in. Betrayed even by the Asiatics, at whose side they had marched with Cyrus to the attack, they were left in isolation. Without a single mounted trooper to aid them in pursuit: was it not perfectly plain that if they won a battle, their enemies would escape to a man, but if they were beaten themselves, not one soul of them would survive? “Haunted by such thoughts, and with hearts full of despair, but few of them tasted food that evening; but few of them kindled even a fire, and many never came into camp at all that night, but took their rest where each chanced to be. They could not close their eyes for very pain and yearning after their fatherlands or their parents, the wife or child whom they never expected to look upon again. Such was the plight in which each and all tried to seek repose.” And then, for the first time in this most famous work – The Anabasis – we meet our narrator: “Now there was in that host a certain man, an Athenian, Xenophon, who had accompanied Cyrus, neither as a general, nor as an officer, nor yet as a private soldier, but simply on the invitation of an old friend…” Xenophon, too, lay in a confused and broken state. They were paralyzed – surrounded – facing hopeless odds. Their veteran generals and captains had been seized and killed by treachery, and everyone was feeling bad for themselves. Xenophon was trying to sleep, and failing to do so, until a dream comes to him – “And now in this season of perplexity, he too, with the rest, was in sore distress, and could not sleep; but anon, getting a snatch of sleep, he had a dream. It seemed to him in a vision that there was a storm of thunder and lightning, and a bolt fell on his father's house, and thereupon the house was all in a blaze. He sprung up in terror, and pondering the matter, decided that in part the dream was good: in that he had seen a great light from Zeus, whilst in the midst of toil and danger. But partly too he feared it, for evidently it had come from Zeus the king. And the fire kindled all around—what could that mean but that he was hemmed in by various perplexities, and so could not escape from the country of the king? The full meaning, however, is to be discovered from what happened after the dream.” And something clicks inside the 29-year-old Xenophon; death is hand unless something is done. He rouses awake and moves – “This is what took place. As soon as he was fully awake, the first clear thought which came into his head was, Why am I lying here? The night advances; with the day, it is like enough, the enemy will be upon us. If we are to fall into the hands of the king, what is left us but to face the most horrible of sights, and to suffer the most fearful pains, and then to die, insulted, an ignominious death? To defend ourselves—to ward off that fate—not a hand stirs: no one is preparing, none cares; but here we lie, as though it were time to rest and take our ease. I too! what am I waiting for? a general to undertake the work? and from what city? am I waiting till I am older myself and of riper age? older I shall never be, if to-day I betray myself to my enemies. “Thereupon he got up, and called together first Proxenus's officers; and when they were met, he said: "Sleep, sirs, I cannot, nor can you, I fancy, nor lie here longer, when I see in what straits we are. Our enemy, we may be sure, did not open war upon us till he felt he had everything amply ready; yet none of us shows a corresponding anxiety to enter the lists of battle in the bravest style. “"And yet, if we yield ourselves and fall into the king's power, need we ask what our fate will be? This man, who, when his own brother, the son of the same parents, was dead, was not content with that, but severed head and hand from the body, and nailed them to a cross. We, then, who have not even the tie of blood in our favour, but who marched against him, meaning to make a slave of him instead of a king—and to slay him if we could: what is likely to be our fate at his hands? Will he not go all lengths so that, by inflicting on us the extreme of ignominy and torture, he may rouse in the rest of mankind a terror of ever marching against him any more? There is no question but that our business is to avoid by all means getting into his clutches. “"For my part, all the while the truce lasted, I never ceased pitying ourselves and congratulating the king and those with him, as, like a helpless spectator, I surveyed the extent and quality of their territory, the plenteousness of their provisions, the multitude of their dependants, their cattle, their gold, and their apparel. And then to turn and ponder the condition of our soldiers, without part or lot in these good things, except we bought it; few, I knew, had any longer the wherewithal to buy, and yet our oath held us down, so that we could not provide ourselves otherwise than by purchase. I say, as I reasoned thus, there were times when I dreaded the truce more than I now dread war. “"Now, however, that they have abruptly ended the truce, there is an end also to their own insolence and to our suspicion. All these good things of theirs are now set as prizes for the combatants. To whichsoever of us shall prove the better men, will they fall as guerdons; and the gods themselves are the judges of the strife. The gods, who full surely will be on our side, seeing it is our enemies who have taken their names falsely; whilst we, with much to lure us, yet for our oath's sake, and the gods who were our witnesses, sternly held aloof. So that, it seems to me, we have a right to enter upon this contest with much more heart than our foes; and further, we are possessed of bodies more capable than theirs of bearing cold and heat and labour; souls too we have, by the help of heaven, better and braver; nay, the men themselves are more vulnerable, more mortal, than ourselves, if so be the gods vouchsafe to give us victory once again. “"Howbeit, for I doubt not elsewhere similar reflections are being made, whatsoever betide, let us not, in heaven's name, wait for others to come and challenge us to noble deeds; let us rather take the lead in stimulating the rest to valour. Show yourselves to be the bravest of officers, and among generals, the worthiest to command. For myself, if you choose to start forwards on this quest, I will follow; or, if you bid me lead you, my age shall be no excuse to stand between me and your orders. At least I am of full age, I take it, to avert misfortune from my own head." Such were the speaker's words; and the officers, when they heard, all, with one exception, called upon him to put himself at their head.” *** THE RETURN It was over a year of a desperate fighting march out of Persia. The Persians had cavalry, and the Greeks had none; it was a repeated source of misery. And thus, the Greek mercenaries re-formed under Xenophon, and converted their pack animals and footsoldiers trained their own cavalry troops. This is how he received the title The Cavalary Commander which he is so often-called. The Persians had missile weapons, and the Greeks none; thus, they were forced to innovate, invent, and train with new types of weapons so they could fire back from a distance. There was a mix of diplomacy, ambushes, raiding, diplomacy, politics, leadership – it was constant strife and struggle to escape from Persia. It took over a year. You can imagine, then, Xenophon’s reaction when reaching the home gates of Athens in 399 BC. Blood-soaked, battle-hardened, a much older 31-year-old than the fresh-faced boy who left to accompany a friend on an adventure, the news must have shocked him – Your teacher, Socrates, has been executed earlier this year by Hemlock. What? Why? He was charged with corrupting the youth and being impious to the Gods. *** DUBIOUS BATTLE, FINALE: THE THREE PATHS TO POWER And here we close our series on Dubious Battle . This series was a different type of series than past ones we’ve covered in Progression, Machina, and at The Strategic Review – in the past, we’ve looked primarily at best practices, looking for concrete answers on how to do better, how to live better, timeless lessons we can apply to our lives. Dubious Battle took a different approach – we looked at the long-running and never-ending conflicts across history, those without right or wrong answers; those that recur because of the various tradeoffs between them. In this final chapter, we look at the Three Paths to Power – mastery over self, mastery over environment, and mastery over others. The relative importance and emphasis of each of these three paths upwards oscillates between time and place – though, thankfully, there are some universally applicable lessons here. The exact mix you’ll select in your own life, what you choose to emphasize and what you potentially choose to neglect, will be one of the most determining factors in what type of life you live – and how far you go. *** ETERNAL PEACE A DREAM? One of the greatest military generals of all-time, Helmuth von Moltke, is sometimes quoted as saying, “Eternal peace is a dream – and not even a beautiful dream.” This sounds, out of context and on the surface, like just so much more idiotic German belligerism. Perhaps, we grant, eternal peace isn’t possible – but to say it’s not even a beautiful dream to strive for – is this not horrible? Well. The context of the statement matters. Moltke was writing to a Swiss professor of international law, from a veteran soldier’s perspective. In context, you’ll see Moltke is saying something much more nuanced than a rah-rah cheering for warfare – “First, I find the humanitarian striving to lessen the sufferings that come with war completely worthy. Eternal peace is a dream --and not even a beautiful one. War is part of God's world-order. Within it unfold the noblest virtues of men, courage and renunciation, loyalty to duty and readiness for sacrifice--at the hazzard of one's life. Without war the world would sink into a swamp of materialism. Further, I wholly agree with the principle stated in the preface that the gradual progress in morality must also be reflected in the waging of war. But I go farther and believe that [waging war] in and of itself--not a codification of the law of war--may attain this goal. “Every law requires an authority to oversee and administer its execution, and just this force is lacking for the observation of international agreements. What third state would take up arms because one or both of two warring powers had violated the law of war? An earthly judge is lacking. In this matter success is to be expected only from the religious and moral education, the sense of honor and respect for law, of individual leaders who make the law and act according to it, so far as this is generally possible to do in the abnormal conditions of war.” *** A HARSH TEST OF CORRECTNESS Of all the things that happen upon the Earth, war is the one that most tests the correctness and effectiveness of the participants of it. It’s a brutal, dreadful, and horrible thing. And yet, it has the characteristics of requiring self-mastery, mastery of the environment, and mastery of other people directly attached into it. You need a keen and trained sense of how you act as a human to survive in war, you need to navigate the laws of physics and biology, and you need to understand the psychology and action of friends and enemies. And alas, when it comes to you, you cannot truly abstain from it. As Trotsky said, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” As such, strategy and philosophy coming from veteran soldiers and warriors has a certain grounded quality to it – a quality that can be learned from and emulated in times of great crisis yes, but also in peacetime. *** MASTERY OF SELF One of the classics of strategy is Musashi’s manual on swordmanship, Go Rin No Sho – the Book of Five Rings. Wikipedia – “Musashi establishes a "no-nonsense" theme throughout the text. For instance, he repeatedly remarks that technical flourishes are excessive, and contrasts worrying about such things with the principle that all technique is simply a method of cutting down one's opponent. He also continually makes the point that the understandings expressed in the book are important for combat on any scale, whether a one-on-one duel or a massive battle. Descriptions of principles are often followed by admonitions to "investigate this thoroughly" through practice rather than trying to learn them by merely reading.” What typically strikes readers of The Book of Five Rings is how Musashi spends only around half of the time actually talking about swordsmanship, in a manual about swordsmanship. He spends a lot of time talking about carpentry, farming, and the various crafts and ways among mankind, about leadership, about selecting the right materials to build a house with, and things of that nature. In the book, he mentions techniques worth studying and appropriate situations to deploy them, but more than that, he constantly emphasizes training and conditioning oneself. From “The Water Book: Spiriual Bearing in Strategy” – “In strategy your spiritual bearing must not be any different from normal. Both in fighting and in everyday life you should be determined though calm. Meet the situation without tenseness yet not recklessly, your spirit settled yet unbiased. Even when your spirit is calm do not let your body relax, and when your body is relaxed do not let your spirit slacken. Do not let your spirit be influenced by your body, or your body influenced by your spirit. Be neither insufficiently spirited nor over spirited. An elevated spirit is weak and a low spirit is weak. Do not let the enemy see your spirit. “Small people must be completely familiar with the spirit of large people, and large people must be familiar with the spirit of small people. Whatever your size, do not be misled by the reactions of your own body. With your spirit open and unconstricted, look at things from a high point of view. You must cultivate your wisdom and spirit. Polish your wisdom: learn public justice, distinguish between good and evil, study the Ways of different arts one by one. When you cannot be deceived by men you will have realised the wisdom of strategy. “The wisdom of strategy is different from other things. On the battlefield, even when you are hard-pressed, you should ceaselessly research the principles of strategy so that you can develop a steady spirit.” *** A MASTERY OF SELF If you read enough, and if you read the right works, and if you test the ideas in your readings and see if they convert into practice effectively, you will gradually start to see patterns. Some writing is true, nearly universally true; most writing is not. Most people, including and not excepting most writers, do not know themselves and have not worked to master themselves. Likewise, most people – including and not excepting most writers – do not know the world and do not seek to master the environment. Instead, most people naturally operate in the domain of trying to persuade others first and foremost – they might not realize they are doing this, of course, but the man who goes into great debt, with unsteady career prospects, to buy a new wardrobe and a new car – if he is not trying to persuade others by that action, rather than what he believes he is doing? War affords no such luxuries – whimsical and fantastical ideas fail on the battlefield. The battlefield, though, is not the only way to get there. Benjamin Franklin, to the best of my knowledge, never took the battlefield; he was never involved in mortal combat. Yet he worked ceaselessly towards self-perfection. Chapter 9 of Franklin’s Autobiography is titled “Plan for Attaining Moral Perfection”; he opens it – “It was about this time I conceived the bold and arduous project of arriving at moral perfection. I wish'd to live without committing any fault at any time; I would conquer all that either natural inclination, custom, or company might lead me into. As I knew, or thought I knew, what was right and wrong, I did not see why I might not always do the one and avoid the other. But I soon found I had undertaken a task of more difficulty than I had imagined. While my care was employ'd in guarding against one fault, I was often surprised by another; habit took the advantage of inattention; inclination was sometimes too strong for reason. I concluded, at length, that the mere speculative conviction that it was our interest to be completely virtuous, was not sufficient to prevent our slipping; and that the contrary habits must be broken, and good ones acquired and established, before we can have any dependence on a steady, uniform rectitude of conduct.For this purpose I therefore contrived the following method…” Franklin then listed out 13 virtues that he would actively train himself in – Temperance, Silence, Order, Resolution, Frugality, Industry, Sincerity, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Tranquility, Chastity, and Humility. He drew this all up in a workbook, and decided to rotate through practicing each of these virtues for a week before moving on to the next – “I determined to give a week's strict attention to each of the virtues successively. Thus, in the first week, my great guard was to avoid every the least offense against Temperance, leaving the other virtues to their ordinary chance, only marking every evening the faults of the day. Thus, if in the first week I could keep my first line, marked T, clear of spots, I suppos'd the habit of that virtue so much strengthen'd, and its opposite weaken'd, that I might venture extending my attention to include the next, and for the following week keep both lines clear of spots. Proceeding thus to the last, I could go thro' a course compleat in thirteen weeks, and four courses in a year. And like him who, having a garden to weed, does not attempt to eradicate all the bad herbs at once, which would exceed his reach and his strength, but works on one of the beds at a time, and, having accomplish'd the first, proceeds to a second, so I should have, I hoped, the encouraging pleasure of seeing on my pages the progress I made in virtue, by clearing successively my lines of their spots, till in the end, by a number of courses, I should be happy in viewing a clean book, after a thirteen weeks' daily examination.” For training in “Order,” he drew up his famous schedule – “The precept of Order requiring that every part of my business should have its allotted time, one page in my little book contain'd the following scheme of employment for the twenty-four hours of a natural day.” From 5AM to 7AM, he would “Rise, wash, and address Powerfull Goodness! Contrive day's business, and take the resolution of the day: prosecute the present study, and breakfast.” He would ask himself at the start of the day, “What good shall I do this day?” He would work from 8AM to 12PM. From 12PM to 2PM, “Read, or overlook my accounts, and dine.” From 2PM to 6PM, work. At 6PM, he would ask himself, “What good have I done to-day?” And then, from 6PM to 10PM, “Put things in their places. Supper. Music or diversion, or conversation. Examination of the day.” Of course, he was imperfect at this system – Franklin was human, after all – but over time, “I enter'd upon the execution of this plan for self-examination, and continu'd it with occasional intermissions for some time. I was surpris'd to find myself so much fuller of faults than I had imagined; but I had the satisfaction of seeing them diminish.” *** A MASTERY OF ENVIRONMENT AND UNIVERSAL TRUTHFULNESS There is a certain universal truthfulness in the writings and lives of people who fought to master themselves and to master the environment around them. Mastering the external environment actually tests ones ideas and sees if they’re viable. It’s no surprise, to me, that most of the greatest thinkers of the ages often use metaphors to farming (as Franklin did above), to carpentry, to the building of buildings. To do construction, you need to master physics and engineering, you need to understand materials, you need to work steady – and in the final account, the wind and rain and elements will test your work. In Xenophon’s Anabasis, the Greek mercenary leaders realized that the Persians had cavalry and missile troops, and thus could chase them down or shoot at them from a distance. This was a physics problem and an engineering problem. There were human components, too, as you’ll see – but this was less about persuasion and more about solving the environment. Read the next passage closely, particularly the bolded parts; there’s lots of subtle wisdom here – “The dearth of cavalry told against the Hellenes [Greeks]; nor were their infantry able to overhaul the enemy's infantry, with the long start they had, and considering the shortness of the race, for it was out of the question to pursue them far from the main body of the army. On the other hand, the [Persian] Asiatic cavalry, even while fleeing, poured volleys of arrows behind their backs, and wounded the pursuers; while the Hellenes must fall back fighting every step of the way they had measured in the pursuit; so that by the end of that day they had not gone much more than three miles; but in the late afternoon they reached the villages.” In other words, the Persians could safely harass, injure, and kill the Greeks from a distance, and the Greeks had no ability to fight back. Note how Xenophon deals with this – “Here there was a return of the old despondency. Cheirisophus and the eldest of the generals blamed Xenophon for leaving the main body to give chase and endangering himself thereby, while he could not damage the enemy one whit the more. Xenophon admitted that they were right in blaming him: no better proof of that was wanted than the result. "The fact is," he added, "I was driven to pursue; it was too trying to look on and see our men suffer so badly, and be unable to retaliate. However, when we did charge, there is no denying the truth of what you say; we were not a whit more able to injure the enemy, while we had considerable difficulty in beating a retreat ourselves. Thank heaven they did not come upon us in any great force, but were only a handful of men; so that the injury they did us was not large, as it might have been; and at least it has served to show us what we need. At present the enemy shoot and sling beyond our range, so that our Cretan archers are no match for them; our hand-throwers cannot reach as far; and when we pursue, it is not possible to push the pursuit to any great distance from the main body, and within the short distance no foot-soldier, however fleet of foot, could overtake another foot-soldier who has a bow-shot the start of him. If, then, we are to exclude them from all possibility of injuring us as we march, we must get slingers as soon as possible and cavalry. I am told there are in the army some Rhodians, most of whom, they say, know how to sling, and their missile will reach even twice as far as the Persian slings (which, on account of their being loaded with stones as big as one's fist, have a comparatively short range; but the Rhodians are skilled in the use of leaden bullets). Suppose, then, we investigate and find out first of all who among them possess slings, and for these slings offer the owner the money value; and to another, who will plait some more, hand over the money price; and for a third, who will volunteer to be enrolled as a slinger, invent some other sort of privilege, I think we shall soon find people to come forward capable of helping us. There are horses in the army I know; some few with myself, others belonging to Clearchus's stud, and a good many others captured from the enemy, used for carrying baggage. Let us take the pick of these, supplying their places by ordinary baggage animals, and equipping the horses for cavalry. I should not wonder if our troopers gave some annoyance to these fugitives." You see two things straightaway. First, when Xenophon is rebuked for poor command, he accepts it – “Xenophon admitted that they were right in blaming him: no better proof of that was wanted than the result.” The result showed that he was in error; note that. Second, he immediately starts looking to solve the problem on a physics and engineering level, and yes, on a human level too. The final result – “[The Persian commander] had grown contemptuous since his late attack, when, with so small a detachment, he had done, as he thought, a good deal of mischief, without the slightest loss to himself. When the Hellenes were not only right across, but had got about a mile from the ravine, [Persian commander] Mithridates also crossed with his forces. An order had been passed down the lines, what light infantry and what heavy infantry were to take part in the pursuit; and the cavalry were instructed to follow up the pursuit with confidence, as a considerable support was in their rear. So, when Mithridates had come up with them, and they were well within arrow and sling shot, the bugle sounded the signal to the Hellenes; and immediately the detachment under orders rushed to close quarters, and the cavalry charged. There the enemy preferred not to wait, but fled towards the ravine. In this pursuit the Asiatics lost several of their infantry killed, and of their cavalry as many as eighteen were taken prisoners in the ravine.” Xenophon and his fellow officers kept developing these types of weapons and soldiers throughout the journey, developing better missiles and more cavalry – without which, they would surely have perished in Persia. *** MEMORABILIA: AFTER THE EXECUTION OF SOCRATES You can imagine the shock of Xenophon, who left Athens as a very young man – not much older than a boy – returning to Athens as a battle-hardened and blood-soaked commander. As soon as he arrives, he is told that his teacher Socrates has been executed. Plato and Xenophon were contemporaries; they were both students of Socrates. Both, in the wake of the trial and execution of Socrates, wrote an Apologia explaining how the court case went, what the charges were, and how Socrates replied. Xenophon, though, grew disgusted with Athens – eventually leaving and joining the city-state of Sparta, marrying a Spartan woman, and eventually fighting for Sparta in the Corinthian War against the Athenians, a group of Greek Athenian allies, and the Persians who were then allied with Athens. Growing late in years, in his 50’s at the time, Xenophon wanted to revisit what happened with Socrates in Athens, the charges against him, and the hearsay and discussion that happened after the fact. This led to him writing another of his great works, the Memorabilia. Xenophon begins, “I have often wondered by what arguments those who indicted Socrates could have persuaded the Athenians that his life was justly forfeit to the state. The indictment was to this effect: "Socrates is guilty of crime in refusing to recognise the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young."” He first takes on the charges that Socrates didn’t honor the Gods. But Xenophon notes that Socrates did the customary sacrifices and followed tradition, except in practical matters where doing so would be foolishness – “"No one," [Socrates] would say, "who wishes to manage a house or city with success: no one aspiring to guide the helm of state aright, can afford to dipense with aid from above. Doubtless, skill in carpentering, building, smithying, farming, of the art of governing men, together with the theory of these processes, and the sciences of arithmetic, economy, strategy, are affairs of study, and within the grasp of human intelligence. Yet there is a side even of these, and that not the least important, which the gods reserve to themselves, the bearing of which is hidden from mortal vision. Thus, let a man sow a field or plant a farm never so well, yet he cannot foretell who will gather in the fruits: another may build him a house of fairest proportion, yet he knows not who will inhabit it. Neither can a general foresee whether it will profit him to conduct a campaign, nor a politician be certain whether his leadership will turn to evil or good. Nor can the man who weds a fair wife, looking forward to joy, know whether through her he shall not reap sorrow. Neither can he who has built up a powerful connection in the state know whether he shall not by means of it be cast out of his city. To suppose that all these matters lay within the scope of human judgment, to the exclusion of the preternatural, was preternatural folly. Nor was it less extravagant to go and consult the will of Heaven on any questions which it is given to us to decide by dint of learning. As though a man should inquire, "Am I to choose an expert driver as my coachman, or one who has never handled the reins?" "Shall I appoint a mariner to be skipper of my vessel, or a landsman?" And so with respect to all we may know by numbering, weighing, and measuring. To seek advice from Heaven on such points was a sort of profanity.” Written like a true soldier! “To seek advice from Heaven on practical matters is a sort of profanity.” There is so much wisdom there, if you muse on it. Xenophon has Socrates saying that the realm of the mystical has no bearing on practical matters of navigating the environment. Such things are above the Gods – and since the priesthood was a political role, of course, Xenophon is implicitly arguing that these matters are above politics too. *** WRETCHED SOCRATES Later in Memorabilia, he addresses various criticisms levied at the old philosopher by sophists. This one is striking – “In this context some discussions with Antiphon the sophist deserve record. Antiphon approaches Socrates in hope of drawing away his associates, and in their presence thus accosts him. “Antiphon: “Why, Socrates, I always thought it was expected of students of philosophy to grow in happiness daily; but you seem to have reaped other fruits from your philosophy. At any rate, you exist, I do not say live, in a style such as no slave serving under a master would put up with. Your meat and your drink are of the cheapest sort, and as to clothes, you cling to one wretched cloak which serves you for summer and winter alike; and so you go the whole year round, without shoes to your feet or a shirt to your back. Then again, you are not for taking or making money, the mere seeking of which is a pleasure, even as the possession of it adds to the sweetness and independence of existence. I do not know whether you follow the common rule of teachers, who try to fashion their pupils in imitation of themselves, and propose to mould the characters of your companions; but if you do you ought to dub yourself professor of the art of wretchedness.” Thus challenged, Socrates replied: “One thing to me is certain, Antiphon; you have conceived so vivid an idea of my life of misery that for yourself you would choose death sooner than live as I do. Suppose now we turn and consider what it is you find so hard in my life. Is it that he who takes payment must as a matter of contract finish the work for which he is paid, whereas I, who do not take it, lie under no constraint to discourse except with whom I choose? Do you despise my dietary on the ground that the food which I eat is less wholesome and less stengthening than yours, or that the articles of my consumption are so scarce and so much costlier to procure than yours? Or have the fruits of your marketing a flavour denied to mine? Do you not know the sharper the appetite the less the need of sauces, the keener the thirst the less the desire for out-of-the-way drinks? And as to raiment, clothes, you know, are changed on account of cold or else of heat. People only wear boots and shoes in order not to gall their feet and be prevented walking. Now I ask you, have you ever noticed that I keep more within doors than others on account of the cold? Have you ever seen me battling with any one for shade on account of the heat? Do you not know that even a weakling by nature may, by dint of exercise and practice, come to outdo a giant who neglects his body? He will beat him in the particular point of training, and bear the strain more easily. But you apparently will not have it that I, who am for ever training myself to endure this, that, and the other thing which may befall the body, can brave all hardships more easily than yourself for instance, who perhaps are not so practised. And to escape slavery to the belly or to sleep or lechery, can you suggest more effective means than the possession of some powerful attraction, some counter-charm which shall gladden not only in the using, but by the hope enkindled of its lasting usefulness? And yet this you do know; joy is not to him who feels that he is doing well in nothing—it belongs to one who is persuaded that things are progressing with him, be it tillage or the working of a vessel, or any of the thousand and one things on which a man may chance to be employed. To him it is given to rejoice as he reflects, "I am doing well." But is the pleasured derived from all these put together half as joyous as the consciousness of becoming better oneself, of acquiring better and better friends? That, for my part, is the belief I continue to cherish.” “[Socrates]: “Again, if it be a question of helping one's friends or country, which of the two will have the larger leisure to devote to these objects—he who leads the life which I lead to-day, or he who lives in the style which you deem so fortunate? Which of the two will adopt a soldier's life more easily—the man who cannot get on without expensive living, or he to whom whatever comes to hand suffices? Which will be the readier to capitulate and cry "mercy" in a siege—the man of elaborate wants, or he who can get along happily with the readiest things to hand? You, Antiphon, would seem to suggest that happiness consists of luxury and extravagance; I hold a different creed. To have no wants at all is, to my mind, an attribute of Godhead; to have as few wants as possible the nearest approach to Godhead; and as that which is divine is mightiest, so that is next mightiest which comes closest to the divine.”” We see there, again – Socrates is advocating mastery of self first. When it comes to being useful, he is saying that the man with self-mastery is also more useful out in the environment. *** WISDOM FOR GOLD Antiphon’s final charge against Socrates, and how Socrates replied, is also worth recording – “Returning to the charge at another time, this same Antiphon engaged Socrates in conversation thus. “Antiphon: “Socrates, for my part, I believe you to be a good and upright man; but for your wisdom I cannot say much. I fancy you would hardly dispute the verdict yourself, since, as I remark, you do not ask a money payment for your society; and yet if it were your cloak now, or your house, or any other of your possessions, you would set some value upon it, and never dream, I will not say of parting with it gratis, but of exchanging it for less than its worth. A plain proof, to my mind, that if you thought your society worth anything, you would ask for it not less than its equivalent in gold. Hence the conclusion to which I have come, as already stated: good and upright you may be, since you do not cheat people from pure selfishness; but wise you cannot be, since your knowledge is not worth a cent.”” “To this onslaught Socrates: “Antiphon, it is a tenet which we cling to that beauty and wisdom have this in common, that there is a fair way and a foul way in which to dispose of them. The vendor of beauty purchases an evil name, but supposing the same person has discerned a soul of beauty in his lover and makes that man his friend, we regard his choice as sensible. So is it with wisdom; he who sells it for money to the first bidder we name a sophist, as though one should say a man who prostitutes his wisdom; but if the same man, discerning the noble nature of another, shall teach that other every good thing, and make him his friend, of such a one we say he does that which it is the duty of every good citizen of gentle soul to do.”” We see patterns in Antiphon and Socrates, thus – Antiphon is weighing everything in terms of the value he can exchange things for in gold, for luxuries. Socrates is valuing things for the development of self-mastery (wisdom, strength, temperance, etc) and for their use in mastering the environment. Though not explicitly stated, you can see how Antiphon is infinitely more concerned with appearances in front of others as the value of things. *** THE POLITICAL FRANKLIN We turn then from self-mastery and mastery of environment, to gaining influence and mastery over our fellow humans. This path, I’m afraid, is the most popular one at the moment, the one that most people choose to tread down, whether realizing it or not. Benjamin Franklin’s political path was different – he was already 30-years-old and had largely committed to self-mastery and mastery over the environment before seeking to greatly influence and coordinate his fellow colonial Americans. But more importantly, his first major foray into public life was about uniting people to master the environment together – he formed the Union Firefighting Company in Philadelphia, organizing volunteers to fight fires. In the 1740’s and 1750’s, he help found the University of Pennsylvania, founded the first modern hospital in the colonies, and the American Philosophical Society. It was only in the 1760’s – with Franklin already in his 50’s – that he began to advocate first for stronger rights for the colonies, and later for the separation from England. It’s commonly asked why the American Revolution went as well as we it did, while the French Revolution went as poor as it did. Well, there’s a lot of reasons – but perhaps none so striking as that Maximilien Robespierre was 25-years-old when the French Revolution broke out, and became one of its most important thought leaders, whereas Franklin was 59-years-old when the American Revolution broke out, and he became one of its most important thought leaders. Wheras Franklin was born poor and had to develop a tremendous mastery over the environment, Robespierre was born to a noble family, and then became a lawyer – a profession that is paid through influencing people largely independently of the environment. Franklin was 84-years-old when he died in 1790 – obviously the work he’d put into temperance and good health had paid off; the last major act of Franklin’s life was overseeing the writing and ratifying of the United States Constitution from 1787-1789. Robespierre, of course, was executed in 1794 in the French Terror that he himself had started – at the age of 36. His mastery of self was far less than Franklin’s; his mastery of the environment was virtually nil; he tried to master people alone, unmaking France and himself in the process. The last major act of his life – aside from overseeing the denunciation and execution of so many people in the Terror – was almost unilaterally creating a “Cult of the Supreme Being” and having it named as the official religion of France. The Cult, of course, faded rapidly from view after Robespierre’s execution until being officially banned by Napoleon Bonparte in 1804. The United States, meanwhile, is still organized under the American Constitution some 227 years later. *** NATURAL PHILOSOPHY “A false man found a religion? Why, a false man cannot build a brick house! If he do not know and follow truly the properties of mortar, burnt clay and what else be works in, it is no house that he makes, but a rubbish-heap. It will not stand for twelve centuries, to lodge a hundred and eighty millions; it will fall straightway. A man must conform himself to Nature's laws, be verily in communion with Nature and the truth of things, or Nature will answer him, No, not at all! Speciosities are specious—ah me!—a Cagliostro, many Cagliostros, prominent world-leaders, do prosper by their quackery, for a day. It is like a forged bank-note; they get it passed out of their worthless hands: others, not they, have to smart for it. Nature bursts up in fire-flames, French Revolutions and such like, proclaiming with terrible veracity that forged notes are forged.” – Thomas Carlyle, On Heroes A final thought before our guidance. Few people realize that science grew out of philosophy – originally, science lived within philosophy; it was called “natural philosophy.” Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher, his famous Principia’s long title was “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica” – "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy." Benjamin Franklin, likewise, was a natural philosopher. To him, there was no huge difference in studying electricity and studying working forms of government and constitutions. Almost all of the greatest philosophers – those who have sound theories, which lead to a better life individually and can organize society effectively – are also philosophers who studied the-world-as-it-is. Aristotle, of course, studied physics and did experiments in biology in addition to what are thought of (now) as his “philosophical” works; there was not much difference to Aristotle in studying the biology of an island and the nature of governments. The only truly great philosopher of the last 100 years, Wittgenstein, was trained as an engineer and wrote his Tractatus while serving on a patrol ship and in the extremely dangerous artillery observer’s post during World War I. Science began to leave philosophy in the 1800’s. I find the following random internet comment to be insightful – “The [word] scientist was coined in 1836 by William Whewell by merging the terms science and artist. Making people that practice it "artists of knowledge" maybe this is just a fancy term for sophist.” Perhaps harsh, but there is something there. Wikipedia: Sophist – “From the word σοφός (sophos) is derived the verb σοφίζω (sophizo), which means "to instruct or make learned," but which in the passive voice means "to become or be wise," or "to be clever or skilled in a thing." In turn, from this verb is derived the noun σοφιστής (sophistes), which originally meant "a master of one's craft" but later came to mean "a prudent man" or "wise man." The word for "sophist" in various languages comes from sophistes.” Philosopher has the same root word in it, Sophia – wisdom – but treads down very different lines. “Philosopher” came from “Philo Sophos” – love of wisdom. It was a characteristic of loving wisdom, and actively seeking it, whereas a sophist was someone who wished to appear as a “wise man.” Robespierre was, by almost any commonly understood definition, a sophist. When “natural philosophy” became “science,” it did huge damage to philosophy. Henceforth, the aspect of philosophy concerned with mastery over the environment no longer belonged to the same school of thought. Almost all professional philosophers these days are sophists, they are concerned with persuading humans first and foremost. To the extent that any good philosophy is happening these days, it’s happening among computer scientists like Paul Graham, financiers like Ray Dalio and Charlie Munger, and soldiers like John Boyd. These fields require one to master the environment and to master oneself to some extent to thrive in them, and provide the crucial rejection and hardship needed to develop one’s mind, become tougher and more sound, and to actually develop one’s philosophy – in the old sense of the word. *** GUIDANCE In fairness, I’ve been more partisan in this final chapter – but also in fairness, I do believe that this is the rare Dubious Battle type concept with right and wrong answers. We haven’t given adequate coverage to the virtues of seeking mastery over humans, nor to the failure cases when you neglect doing so. The Byzantine General Belisarius was one of the greatest commanders in history, but neglecting politics, he was tried in Constantinople on trumped-up corruption charges and deposed. A similar fate happened to Scipio Africanus, who defeated Hannibal on the battlefield for Rome, before likewise having trumped-up charges brought against him by a skilled orator in the Roman Senate. Really, the full arc of this particular conflict could be a book of its own – and perhaps we’ll delve into it again more thoroughly at some point – but I think that the majority of Western culture these days, and the majority of Western thought, and the majority of what is prestigious these days focuses far more on mastery over others first and foremost, and largely neglects mastery over self and mastery over the environment. Well! This is worth thinking on. Some guidance – Mastery over self can be cultivated through self-reflection, studying people who have lead highly effective lives, doing incremental training to develop virtues in oneself like Franklin, undergoing rigorous training such as Zen Buddhists undergo, training in martial arts (either traditional, like karate, or modern like marksmanship), athletic training, journaling, actively seeking to identify and mitigate flaws in one’s natural demeanor, and becoming tougher and more solid over time. A lack of mastery of self is damaging at all times, but least damaging during stable peacetimes. A society with a long run of prosperity and peacefulness will trend towards people seeking mastery over others through influence, persuasion, rhetoric, argumentation, marketing, and suchlike. Even those items are not so bad to train in, and have value. The damaging aspects of seeking mastery over others is by doing foolish things to try to appear better; Moltke said that “without war the world would sink into a swamp of materialism” – but that’s not necessarily true… hmm, I was about to write that Socrates never served as a soldier as a counterexample, but upon checking, it turns out that Socrates did serve as a soldier during the Pelopennesian War and fought in multiple battles bravely. Hmm! Well, Franklin wasn’t a soldier; it’s very possible to cultivate a mastery of self outside of the context of war, but some sort of conflict or struggle is probably needed and beneficial. Mastery over the environment can be cultivated in any field requiring mathematics, the natural sciences, and applied sciences like farming, engineering, and construction. The economic value of many of these disciplines have fallen over time, but computer science and programming show much of these lines of nature, as well as doing a fundamentals-first and deep investigations of value-investing based finance. I’ve also found many of the most insightful people to be those who engage in side projects in construction – Kai Zau, my close friend and colleague, bought and renovated a house last year; a former army officer friend of mine who now works at the Pentagon is always doing small construction projects such as building a koi pond for fish in his backyard, which requires a mix of irrigation, construction, managing the materials, and creating a healthy biological environment for the fish to live and thrive. This was, in truth, an area that I neglected for too long. But it’s dangerous to only operate in the realm of ideas – the day of reckoning can be postponed for a long time if one only has grand ideas, whereas shoddy construction is exposed much faster. I do not believe it would be an exaggeration to say that Benjamin Franklin’s patient work fiddling with the intricacies and materials of 1700’s printing contributed to a more successful American Constitution; certainly, his work in firefighting and electrical experiments also sharpened his mind, led him to see where initial inclinations might be incorrect or need refinement, and otherwise gave his “grand ideas” a much more stable grounding. Influence and mastery over other humans is perhaps best cultivated in service and perhaps worst cultivated in luxuries. Organizing a construction crew or a relief effort has environmental components to it that “fight back” – there is clear work to be done to master nature and help others. It is, of course, easier to attempt to buy prestige and respect through possessions and empty honors, but what use is it to be respected by others if you cannot master yourself and you cannot master the environment around you? It’s a house of cards; it’s a “Cult of the Supreme Being”; it’s a path to a metaphorical guillotine. I don’t want to put this path down too much, because anything done excellently and consistently enough means you’ll draw other people to you, and then the elements of cooperation and coordination and cohesion come into play; neglecting an understanding of other people and how to influence and persuade and lead is certainly also a foolish thing. But, you know, the conflict will rage on this area for all time – during peace and stability, influence and power over other humans typically becomes the fastest way to gain wealth, prestige, and things in life. But on what ground is it built? A mastery of self is perhaps the hardest thing to cultivate, but the most enduring and worthwhile. A mastery of environment leads you to check all grand ideas and force them to conform with the laws of nature. A mastery of others, in absence of these, might be a dangerous thing indeed. *** FAREWELL, DUBIOUS BATTLE; NEVER STRAY FROM THE WAY It’s been my great pleasure to explore these series with you; Dubious Battle was one of the most challenging series I’ve taken on to date. I hope you’ve enjoyed and benefited from your reading here at least half as much as I have from writing it. The last thing I’ll leave you with to meditate on, as we bid farewell, are Musashi’s precepts from his Way of Walking Alone – 1. Accept everything just the way it is. 2. Do not seek pleasure for its own sake. 3. Do not give preference to anything among all things. 4. Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world. 5. Be detached from desire your whole life. 6. Do not regret what you have done. 7. Never be jealous. 8. Never let yourself be saddened by a separation. 9. Resentment and complaint are appropriate neither for oneself nor others. 10. Do not let yourself be guided by the feeling of lust or love. 11. Do not seek elegance and beauty in all things. 12. Be indifferent to where you live. 13. Do not pursue the taste of good food. 14. Do not hold on to possessions you no longer need. 15. Do not act following customary beliefs. 16. Do not collect weapons or practice with weapons beyond what is useful. 17. Do not fear death. 18. Do not seek to possess either goods or fiefs for your old age. 19. Respect Buddha and the gods without counting on their help. 20. You may abandon your own body but you must preserve your honor. 21. Never stray from the Way. Never stray from the Way! Stay in Touch STAY IN TOUCH 1. I’d love your feedback. You can write to me at editor@thestrategicreview.net Reviews are also highly appreciated. 2. Enjoyed Machina? Get one essay of this caliber per week, for free, every Thursday. All essays here were originally published in The Strategic Review, a free weekly newsletter – http://www.thestrategicreview.net It’s 100% free to sign up. And, have you told your friends yet? They’d probably enjoy it. (And heck, have you told your parents?) 3. Final Passing Thought A last passage by that famous swordsman, from Musashi’s Book of Five Rings – “This is the Way for men who want to learn my strategy: • Do not think dishonestly. • The Way is in training. • Become acquainted with every art. • Know the Ways of all professions. • Distinguish between gain and loss in worldly matters. • Develop intuitive judgment and understanding for everything. • Perceive those things which cannot be seen. • Pay attention even to trifles. • Do nothing which is of no use. It is important to start by setting these broad principles in your heart, and train in the Way of strategy. If you do not look at things on a large scale it will be difficult for you to master strategy. If you learn and attain this strategy you will never lose even to twenty or thirty enemies. More than anything to start with you must set your heart on strategy and earnestly stick to the Way. You will come to be able to actually beat men in fights, and to be able to win with your eye. Also by training you will be able to freely control your own body, conquer men with your body, and with sufficient training you will be able to beat ten men with your spirit. When you have reached this point, will it not mean that you are invincible?” I find it rather remarkable – worth remarking on – that his first key point is: Do not think dishonestly. Be honest first in your mind, the Way is in training, mind all the details, do nothing which is of use… train to control your body and mind and spirit… and when you have reached this point, will it not mean you are invincible? Hubris? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But do not, dear friend, do not ever stray from the Way. My gratitude for the shared time together as author and reader, salutations on the journey, and for now, aideu, – Marshall