Why do we always get beat up?

The book review Ming Yi started with a book called Holocaust and Culture, which is very popular in the English-speaking world in recent years. The year before last, this book was translated into Chinese, Killing and Culture, which caused a lot of discussion. I'm not a military fan myself, and I'm a little shy about the history of war, so although I bought this book last year, I just spent an evening browsing it casually. It was not until one day that Brother David and I talked about this book in the reading punch group that we found many stories incredible and many thoughts thought-provoking. But also has a lot of inspiration and reference significance for people like us who are not good at military affairs on the battlefield. As for what it is, allow me to sell it first.

Many of us in China are no strangers to the famous stories in the history of western wars, but if we think about these stories carefully from the perspective of our understanding of the China war, we will often feel strange. I will list a few as follows:

First of all, in western wars, both sides often lose, and there is no strategy and no retreat.

In the history of China War, there are basically two kinds of wars-rout and siege. It seems that there has never been a western war, and people are cut step by step. Fu Jian went south with hundreds of thousands of people from the former Qin Dynasty. As soon as the confederate army came over, they immediately fled in defeat. Zhao Guangyi's northern expedition to the Liao country went smoothly at first, but then he suffered a little setback carelessly, and immediately he was in flight, with tens of thousands of corpses lying everywhere; The battle of Salhuhu is funnier. Li's Ming army heard that Nuerhachi was calling, but it broke up before entering the war. At the end of the Jin Dynasty, the enemy didn't see it, and thousands of our own people trampled to death.

In the history of China, there are countless such wars. This is also a logical necessity, because the essence of the army is to concentrate individual scattered forces, and the combat effectiveness of the army is the organizational strength of the army. Once the organizational strength of the army goes wrong, the army will inevitably disperse and everyone will be smart. If things go wrong, they will run away. The number of final losses cannot be counted, because the army as an organization is gone anyway. How many people were killed, how many people were injured and how many people ran home? I don't know! Like western wars, there is no war in the history of China. One person was killed on the battlefield until the last person was killed. The death toll can be accurate to single digits.

Secondly, in western wars, there is often a disparity in the proportion of people, and the party with fewer people can defeat the strong with the weak.

When we in China talk about defeating the strong with the weak, the first thing that comes to mind is Battle of Red Cliffs. But Battle of Red Cliffs and Cao Cao's army claimed to be 830,000, but it was actually 200,000. Although Sun Liu's joint forces are few, there are always 40,000 to 50,000. This difference in the proportion of people should be placed in western wars, and it is not called defeating the strong with the weak at all.

What is the experience of defeating the strong with the weak in the west? Let's say that in the famous marathon battle in the first Persian War, there were less than 10,000 Greek Coalition forces and more than 100,000 Persian Coalition forces, one to ten. What was the result? The two armies, starting from the massacre, began to kill each other. In the end, the Greek Coalition forces won a great victory. Greek Coalition forces were killed 192 people (please note that the statistics are accurate to everyone), and Persian Coalition forces were killed more than 4,500 people. Persian Allied Forces, cyrus the great, a powerful army, conquered India, Egypt and Babylon, a "civilized world known to all mankind". When recording, I met a little Greece and was beaten in a daze.

A few short years later, King Xue Xisi of Persia made a comeback. This time, the Persian Coalition forces of 600,000 are really beyond the reach. Greece has scraped together 7000 yuan, but it still can't be put in place at one time. Leonidas, king of Sparta, ran to the hot spring pass with 300 troops and fought 600,000 Persian troops. In these days of fighting, more than 300 people wiped out more than 20,000 Persian troops without any loss. On land, but at sea, the navy of Athens, another Greek city-state, wiped out the Persian Coalition 1000-ship fleet with 200 ships in just a few hours, which is known as the Salamis naval battle.

It is worth mentioning that in several battles of the Greek-Persian war mentioned here, the small Greek army never used any tricks. If there is a plan, it is that in the marathon, the Greek Coalition forces lined up on the plain between two swamps, so that they would not be attacked by the Persian Coalition forces. What was this plan in ancient China! ) is to rush up and cut each other. Let's see what Sun Tzu said in the Art of War. Ten encirclement, five attack, doubles, divide the enemy, and less escape. The Greek Coalition forces are only one-tenth of each other. Not only did they not run away, but they also lined up on the plain and killed each other. Isn't this great?

Finally, in western wars, an army can become stronger and weaker.

The Roman army fought three wars with the Carthaginian army, known as the Punic War in history. Carthage lost everything for the first time. It doesn't matter. A few years later, Carthage, led by Hannibal, made a comeback, bypassed the Alps and went to the hinterland of Rome, and launched a battle with the Roman Union Army, known as the Battle of Canny. The outnumbered Carthaginian army (38,000) defeated the Roman Federal Army, which numbered 80,000, and more than 70,000 people were killed or captured. More importantly, 80 former or current consuls, tribunes and Senate elders were killed or captured. In short, almost all the main armies in Rome and almost all the elites with administrative and organizational abilities were killed or captured in this battle.

Then Rome must surrender, right? No, the Romans said, come on, keep fighting. More than ten years later, Hannibal led Carthage's army across the Apennine Peninsula, winning almost every battle, but it was impossible to defeat Rome and surrender. Later, Hannibal couldn't fight. When he wanted to retreat, the Roman federal army drove him out and had a horse fight with Carthage's army. After a battle, the Roman Union army was killed by 2,000 and the Carthaginian army by 20,000, so Carthage was defeated again in the second Punic War. ...

Let's go back to the book Killing and Culture. The structure of this book is very simple and clear, that is, it writes nine classic examples in the history of ancient wars, and draws a bold conclusion: Western military forces are the most deadly and efficient military forces on this planet.

Isn't this nonsense when you listen? Over the past 200 years, western troops have swept the world with advanced technology, warships, artillery and aircraft missiles. The most efficient military force, of course. Since the Opium War 1840, we in China have been convinced of this force, in one word-service!

But that's not what the author meant. The author means that from the ancient Greek and Roman times, from the cold weapon era, the western army is the most powerful army on this earth.

While writing this book review, I read the comments on this book on Douban. In short, 80% of the comments are "head-on scolding", including a few days ago, brother David of Reading Group also wrote a book review of this book, which is generally refuted and ridiculed. Yes, if I were a military fan, I would fry the pot, too. Is your western army the most powerful army since ancient times? Have the ability to pull the Greek Coalition forces to fight against our Xiang Yu? Dare to call you the father of strategy and compare with Zhuge Liang?

I don't think we should do anything to Guan Gong and Qin Qiong. As a western scholar, the author's conclusion is probably biased, so we don't need to investigate it. The key is, from what angle did the author come to this conclusion? After reading this book, you will know that the author did not look at the problem from the angles of weapons and equipment, geography and tactics that military fans usually discuss, but returned to the bottom of the problem-from the perspective of culture and military organization style, to see the differences and advantages and disadvantages between the eastern and western armies.

This is what attracted me when I reread this book. As I said at the beginning, we have never been to the battlefield and are not good at military affairs. The confrontation between the two armies in ancient times has nothing to do with who is strong or weak, who wins or loses. However, today each of us will be in an organization, so we will be interested. How is the efficiency of an organization obtained? How did you lose it? This is what this book brings us. I think this book can inspire us no matter where we are in an organization today.

Let's go back to the strange things in the history of western wars mentioned before. First, why not use tricks and cut each other step by step; Second, why is there a huge difference in the number of people? Third, why can the western army become stronger and stronger?

To answer these questions, we must introduce the concept of "citizen soldier". (Note, not workers, peasants and soldiers) That is to say, a person is a "citizen" first, and then a "soldier".

So what is a "citizen"? It is the unity of people's property rights and political rights and obligations.

You don't understand, do you Too abstract, isn't it? I know it is really complicated to clarify this concept, because our culture evolved from farming civilization, and there is no concept of "citizen" in farming civilization. The vast majority of ancient human civilization was agricultural civilization, so the concept of "citizen" is really wonderful. We must understand it bit by bit, starting from ancient Greece, the origin of the concept of citizenship.

The biggest difference between ancient Greece and other civilizations is that it is an industrial and commercial civilization. Compared with agricultural civilization, the biggest difference is that people do not get survival resources from the same space, but from different spaces through trade. Such a civilization has one characteristic-it is unlikely to have centralized leadership. Everyone, every ship, is an independent business unit, and it is impossible to be managed by leaders in a unified way. Therefore, the political system of ancient Greece is very wonderful. It has few leaders. The Spartan king Leonidas mentioned just now is not the king we understand at all-each Spartan king only has a two-year term, and there are two kings at the same time. As for Athens, there is not even a king. The consuls and tribunes elected by the citizens' assembly have a term of office of only one year and cannot be re-elected. Major and minor events in Athens must be decided by the citizens' assembly.

It should be noted that the political system of ancient Greece we are talking about here only involves democracy. Never think that with democracy, there will be citizens. Democracy can only solve the problem of equality, and citizens, as we said earlier, are the unity of a person's property rights and political rights and obligations.

All human organizations will have such a problem, that is, the 28 th rule. In an organization, there must be elites and idiots. An elite, with the help of his intelligence and hard work, will become richer and richer, and his descendants will use their wealth to further consolidate their dominant position in the organization. So the gap between the rich and the poor will widen. But the 28 law also determines that the poor must be the majority, and the poor will say to the rich, share the money, right? Or I'll kill you! Then, the organization collapsed and rebuilt. This alternating cycle is full of the history of various civilizations.

So what is a bad political system? It is that the rich are increasingly insecure and the poor are increasingly hopeless. Accordingly, a good political system should make the rich feel safe and give the poor a head start.

Under the background of democratic politics in ancient Greece, to complete the political system design that makes the rich feel safe and the poor have hope, it depends on one person-Solon. In 594 BC, he initiated the Solon Reform. Solon's Reform: We have all studied history in high school (italics, no exams), so I won't go into details because of space limitations. In a word, Solon's reform has two important measures, which make the political system in ancient Greece make the rich feel safe and the poor have hope.

First of all, it is stipulated that the poor cannot sell themselves as slaves of creditors because of debts; Secondly, people are divided into four classes according to their wealth. The higher the level, the more they have the right to hold higher-level public offices and participate in higher-level arms on the battlefield.

To refine it again, the first one is not to let the poor be slaves, but to let the poor have a head start; Article 2 means that all political rights and obligations in this country should be equal to property rights.

Under such a political system, the ancient Greeks became "citizens".

The reason why it takes so much effort to clarify the concept of "citizen soldier" is because only by understanding the concept of "citizen soldier" can we understand where the killing efficiency of western troops comes from.

"Killing and Culture" compares many details of the combat effectiveness of the Greek Coalition forces and the Persian Coalition forces. Let's take a look at them together.

Article 1, property.

The Persian army, all the people, went to the battlefield with all their gold and silver treasures. Therefore, in the two Persian wars, every time the Persian Coalition forces were defeated, the Greeks made a fortune, and gold and silver were everywhere. Do you think the Persians are crazy?

Because it is not safe to leave property at home, Persia implements an autocratic system. Everyone's property rights are not unified with his political rights. Today, this house is my home, and this woman is my wife. If I go out to fight for a few years and then go home to see if it's mine, there may not be no one to protect my property rights. Everyone can only be responsible to the king, not to himself or others.

Therefore, under the autocratic system, a group of people are scattered, everyone is not responsible for each other, and no one can trust anyone. So when you go out to fight, you can only take gold and silver with you.

The Greek citizenship system has created a social network, in which a person's property, land and wife can be safely placed in his hometown, ignoring the battlefield. But at the same time, the social network in my hometown has also been brought to the battlefield by one person. If a person is timid on the battlefield, everyone in my hometown network will see that this person will be laughed at for life when he returns to his hometown! So everyone will go forward bravely on the battlefield, because everyone is responsible for their own civic relations!

Article 2, Rights

Persians have no political rights at all. All political rights are in the hands of the supreme king, and he can kill whoever he wants. This is the old saying "companion is like a tiger"!

Greeks, because they are in an equal civil system, everyone has their own dignity and political rights. For example, a general humiliated a soldier. I'm sorry, but you have to go to the civic assembly for trial. Yes, respecting everyone and making everyone have equal dignity is also the source of the fighting capacity of the western army.

Article 3, Obligations

In a country like Persia, everyone has an obligation only to the king, and the king has no obligation. So once the king finds that the situation on the battlefield is wrong, he can turn around and run away. When the king ran away, what did the rest of us fight for? Turned into the aforementioned rout! In the battle of Salamis, the Persian fleet was lost in this way. When Xue Xisi escaped, the Persian fleet collapsed.

Wouldn't it be better if the king was a brave, calm and indomitable man? It's no use! He will also drag down the fighting capacity of the whole army. There is an old saying in China, "Catch the thief first, and then you will be king". In the battlefield of the ancient East, there was such beheading logic. Once the leader of the other team is killed, the other team will lose the game.

There was no such logic in the ancient Greek army. Everyone's obligation is to the whole army, not to one person. Even if the general is killed, it doesn't matter Keep fighting! Because I am responsible for the whole army, as long as the army is still there, I will be in charge and I will fight on.

Then, can the ancient Greek organization, in which everyone was in charge of the army and performed their duties, be the same as Persia in organizational form and combat effectiveness?

If we understand the above discussion, we can see that the strange things mentioned at the beginning of the article in the history of western wars are actually logical necessity.

Let's talk about why the western army can become stronger and stronger.

This is because the basis of the western military's combat effectiveness is a social network composed of individual citizens and soldiers, rather than a centralized organization.

The Manchu Dynasty was able to annex all China with 200,000 people because the Ming Dynasty was a centralized organization. Emperor Chongzhen died, the prince could not be found, and the strength of the whole country could not be organized again. For ordinary people, they are not citizens. They have no political rights at all. Naturally, they have no obligation to anyone. Anyway, no matter who comes, you have to pay food tax. Why do you want to fight against Manchu?

But this situation was impossible in ancient Greece and Rome. Unless you kill every citizen soldier in ancient Greece and Rome, such a nation cannot be conquered at all.

The third Punic War, Rome won again. In order to completely destroy Carthage, they scattered salt on the ground, sold all the women as slaves, killed all the adult men and castrated all the boys. Behind this bloody genocide, the ancient Romans knew that if they didn't do this, the western army, mainly citizen soldiers, would be extremely resilient and likely to make a comeback.

By the same token, the organizational style of the army brought by citizen soldiers enables it to expand at any time, because civil rights themselves can be issued at any time. After the Battle of Carney, Rome turned foreigners into Roman citizens and incorporated them into its military system through universal citizenship. Roman citizenship is very valuable, so naturally Roman soldiers lost more and more, and the Roman army became stronger and stronger.

So unless you keep winning, you can't win. No matter how many battles you win, the failure of a battle may make you lose the game and completely withdraw from the historical stage.

A western army is just the opposite. Unless you kill my last citizen and exterminate me, I have not been completely defeated, and I may turn over at any time.

I have to feel that the difference between the advantages and disadvantages of these two military organizational styles is really too great.

What I said earlier is the advantages brought by the organizational style of the western army in the whole war. Let's take a look at why the western armies are moving step by step, and why the number of people in the history of western wars is very different. In other words, how did the western army gain the tactical advantage?

When we read China's ancient war stories, we will find that the "strategic system" relied on by China's ancient war was centered on generals, or more accurately, on their intelligence. We won because the generals were tactical, and lost because the generals were idiots. It is on this basis that an intricate "strategy system" has evolved.

But look at ancient Greece. The Romans fought with squares. Everyone stood together, dense, and this way of fighting continued until the American Civil War. Once the phalanx is used, the strategy is of little use. If there is a real fight, it is still necessary to kill the last person by soldiers. In such a battle, the role of the general is weakened, and the center of the war becomes the performance of every soldier.

This will discuss a question-what is war? The essence of war, isn't it? The scattered forces of a group of people are organized into a concentrated force. Therefore, the essential purpose of all tactical choices on the battlefield is to concentrate and disperse troops.

Why do China people have a "strategic system"? Because the forces of China's army are too scattered, as a general, it is necessary to "integrate resources" with these scattered forces. This is the strategy.

Why do western armies seldom use strategy? Due to the western citizen soldier system, the western army is essentially a comprehensive force. Every soldier does his duty by virtue of his sense of responsibility, honor and individual combat skills as a citizen, and trusts his comrades around him by virtue of his social network. This also explains why China's army can't fight with phalanx. Because China's army can't form such an honor system, every soldier can't completely trust his comrades around him!

Everyone trusts their comrades around them. What a powerful organizational force this is! Everyone has a strong sense of honor and responsibility to do their job well. Without the tradition of citizen soldiers, it is impossible.

In China's army, only with complex strategies can we integrate these scattered forces. But in the ancient battlefield, the speed of information transmission was slow and the means were limited. Except for talented generals like Han Xin, in most cases, the more people there are, the more chaotic it is, and the more difficult it is to "integrate resources". If you are not careful, you will be defeated, "get twice the result with half the effort." This is not surprising.

These two forces are at war. It looks silly to see the western troops, but they really want to fight. And we all saw it.

At this point, the book Killing and Culture has basically completed the discussion on the military organization style of the western army.

But as I said before, for us, it has nothing to do with who is strong and who is weak, who wins and who loses in ancient times. When we read this book, it is worth thinking about how to change the organizational style in our organization to achieve higher efficiency.

Very simple, transform every member of the organization into a "citizen member"!

For example, many enterprises, especially start-ups, will give employees options, which is a good way to make employees feel that the development of enterprises and personal success are closely linked, so that employees have real motivation to be responsible for their own enterprises and fulfill their obligations. However, the function of options is too weak after all. Even if you give an employee 1% option, that is, 1%, he can't put all his energy into the company!

A better organizational style is satellite CEO, that is, although an organization has leaders, every employee is a thing. The small CEO of a project, everyone, has complete initiative in the work and labor he undertakes. In their own acre of land, how much to do, how much to do, how to do it, how to do it, everyone has the final say. Everyone is responsible for himself. At the same time, under the integration of values, everyone is responsible for the whole company with a sense of honor and responsibility, and believes in every other colleague. This is the rebirth of "citizen soldiers" in modern organizations!

Sometimes, we have to feel that there is nothing new under the sun, and the wisdom of the ancients is enough, depending on whether we can read it!