One Sword, Ten Thousand Men
Is swordsmanship a skill against one man, beneath anyone who leads? The Preface refuses the old saying and argues that the principle of a sword fight holds on a field of armies.
An ancient general held that the sword is a match for one man and that one should learn instead to defeat ten thousand; the Preface calls that narrow too. To someone who holds the principle, victory and rout among ranks of thousands are as plain as the palm of a hand, and the question of small or large falls away. Nor is the rule tied to one weapon: if the long sword falls short, go in with the short, and if that fails, with bare hands. A fathom can be too little and an inch enough, so the student prefers nothing and holds the middle.
- military theory
- martial strategy
- practical knowledge
- adaptability
Enter a dialogue
- Told that a small skill never matters where the real decisions are made, how should a person weigh the one they have?
- An ancient general said the sword beats only one man, so learn to beat ten thousand. Why do you call even that wish narrow?
- A fighter who has grasped the principle of strategy sees victory and rout among thousands as plainly as his own palm. What does he see that others miss?
- Losing the long sword, a fighter goes in with the short one, then bare-handed, and still wins. Is that a principle or a boast?
- Some schools trust in force and others cling to softness. You prefer neither and hold the middle. Why is a fighter who favours either one already beaten?