|
Post by seven stars on Jan 14, 2005 13:33:07 GMT -5
My hope with this type of thread is that we can debate the strategies utilized by military leaders in combat situations. Although debate could certainly extend to the political arena as well. My interest in discussing this with you all was peaked as I reviewed the traditional 36 stratagems of China. If you're interested and/or unfamiliar with them, here's one link : afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/wengu.php?l=36jiMy thought is that many of the battles we've witnessed in AOW follow AT LEAST one of the 36 strategies. Hopefully someone else here has at least a marginal interest in this, and can discuss it with me. GENERAL CHO'S REBELLION: When Cho Won Jung attempted rebellion after being stripped of his rank by Myung Jong, he was driven purely by rage. (This was actually only a few weeks ago here in Philly). Quite honestly, he did not seem to think through his actions very deeply, and though he did employ a strategy, neither he, nor his forces were very capable of carrying it out effectively. General Cho attempted a head on attack of the imperial city, in full view of the Archfiend, with Choi Choong Su defending the rear. Due to his very limited influence on the military, he was ill equipped to carry out a coup, particularly when matched up against the superior force under the command of Yi Ui-Min. On top of that, Choi Choong Su had only just come to his side a short time before the attempted rebellion took place. Therefore Cho, like a fool, trusted someone he barely knew with the important task of protecting his blind side. (At moments like this I wish I were Skinz so that I could tell the story better, and with pictures. Actually, I think I'm the only one who can't do that. ) To Cho's credit, he did attempt to weaken the imperial force before attacking. He did this by calling on the commanders of the army to join him in fighting. This would be his failed attempt to "Replace the Beams with Rotten Timbers", because the commanders refused to come to his aid. On top of that, Suhk Lyn was ultimately the only General who would aid him. However, General Cho saw fit to continue with his planned rebellion nonetheless. In response, the Archfiend employed a strategy of trapping Cho's force between his detatchment, and that of General Choi Bu who laid in ambush on Cho's escape route. Ironically enough, this was the Archfiend's implementation of "Toss out a Brick to Attract Jade". I say that it's ironic because of Cho's roots as the son of a jade cutter. The Archfiend's trap works because of Cho's unyielding desire to regain the power he had been stripped of, which served as the bait for his trap. The success of this ploy can also be attributed to Cho's unbelievable foolishness, manifested in trusting Choi Choong Su who would betray the rebellion that very night. This battle clearly demonstrates the Archfiend's thorough strategic superiority over Cho Won Jung. (Not that it was ever in question.) My question is, is there a strategy or strategies that would have better served either General Cho, or the Archfiend in this instance? By better for the Archfiend I mean a similar outcome involving less loss of human life, prevention of Cho's escape and an even more complete victory. For Cho, I suppose the better outcome would have been victory itself, so is there a strategy that could have provided this for him?
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Jan 14, 2005 16:54:24 GMT -5
I suppose I should explain the strategies that I previously alluded to.
"Replace the Beams with Rotten Timbers" is the twenty fifth of the thirty six stratagems. It refers to weakening the opposition by disrupting the common link that unifies that force. In this case, General Cho's disruption of the Imperial Force would have come with the defection of the army commanders. Even had this strategy worked, however, it may not have been enough for Cho to have achieved success.
"Toss Out a Brick to Attract Jade" refers to setting a trap for your enemy using bait, almost like an animal snare. In this case the snare was the two detatchments of Archfiend an Choi Bu, while the bait was the Imperial Palace. This worked especially well due to Choi Choong Su's retreat.
I am interested to hear strategies from among the 36, or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Maalii on Jan 14, 2005 21:28:39 GMT -5
I have not read the 36 strategies, but your post has given me incentive to do so. My personal impression of AOW is that, for the most part, strategy took a back seat. Compared to RTK , the strategies evolved in AOW were rather rudimentary. Only CCH seemed relatively deep in this regard and before him only Du Kyung Seung really seemed to use much strategy on the battlefield. But nowhere in AOW did we see strategic genius approaching the likes of Zhou Yu, Cao Cao, Kongming, Sima Yi, or Lu Xun. Some of this may actually be a function of military "culture" and tradition. I am not very familiar with Korean history, but I am aware that in Japanese history, strategy of the level played out in RTK and expressed in various Chinese classics was rarely displayed in the medieval era--it was as if there was some macho code that subsumed strategy. Consequently, it seems that one practically count medieval Japanese warriors who used good strategy on one hand (let's see, Hideyoshi, Ieyasu, Mori Motanari, arguably Minamoto (need to mess with this or the language editor will) Yos--tsune, with Hideyoshi being the real stand out).
Returning to Cho Won Jung's coup. I don't think he had very many, if any, options that could have helped him. He was so hopelessly outmanned. He didn't have a strong enough base and he really didn't have the means/charisma/respect to build one. He might try to undermine the power of enemies, but he would not have been able to build support for himself. As you noted, he was not a good judge of people, a critical ingredient for a leader, and hence he vastly overestimated his potential support.
|
|
|
Post by skinz on Jan 15, 2005 3:58:38 GMT -5
A really tough answer, Seven Stars(Thanks also for the plug .) Well, in my opinion, Cho never had a legit reign. Cho was more a transitional character at the most. However, Cho did hold a position that could have easily made him one of the big powerful leaders in AOW. Remember, Chung-Bu gave Cho the command of the military during his reign. In a flash, Cho had a strong base with the imperial army and support from generals that were in the same unit alongside him under Yi Ui Bang. Also, when KDS reported his intentions on bringing back the days of pre-1170 rebellion, Cho had the opportunity to gain some more allies towards him. When KDS was in power, Cho reluctantly showed his muscle with his higher status. But when KDS passed away, we saw a new side of Cho that wanted the world at his feet. Cho’s other downfall came when the Archfiend name surrounded the halls of the imperial palace. When Cho heard of the arrival of a new rival, he ran to gain alliances that were already lost. In conclusion, Cho’s timid attitude towards rivalry and lack of judgment caused him greatly. If Cho were to use any of the 36 strategies, I would recommend these: “Hide Your Dagger Behind a Smile”This would’ve been useful for Cho if he used it against KDS. As KDS grew very passionate with the “save the people” ideal, Cho could have joined the KDS movement to put KDS at ease. While bringing KDS guard down, Cho would then secure his position with the generals in the Central Committee by agreeing with the elimination of KDS and his plans for the warriors. (not so detailed, but you get the point) “Loot the Burning House”Instead of worrying about the arrival of Yi Ui Min, Cho could have used the friction between Lt. Kim and KDS to eliminate Dobang and KDS faster. With the removal of KDS, Cho would later establish himself as true threat and gain support fom the easily manipulated Central Committee. Or “Fool the Emperor to Cross the Sea”Just like Choi Choong Hon did to Ui Min, Cho should have played the dummy role and sat back to observe the situation surrounding him. Then when all his enemies got comfortable he can launch his studden atttack. I haven’t read the 36 strategies in a while, so I hope my explanation is correct. And I know you asked for a solution to Cho's bad rebellion efforts, but I forgot what happened during those episodes. So I just concentrated on the overall picture of Cho's three year rule and how he could've made a bigger impact.
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Jan 17, 2005 0:52:57 GMT -5
Thanks for the replies! I'm very glad that this topic interests a few of us. Maallii, I'm glad that you pointed that out. Ideally this discussion would take place in an ROTK forum. However, we are in the AOW Tangents page. Having said that, it was my hope that you would take an interest in this topic, and respond with such points. That desire was rooted in the fact that I share your sentiments and do see ROTK as a superior strategy discussion piece. I cannot recall whether or not you have seen Emperor Wang Guhn. If not, I think you would find that series to be far more strategically oriented, albeit not to the same measure of ROTK. Forgive me for my lack of background in Japanese military history. I will to discuss it, although my knowledge of it is embarassingly thin, and my approach will be that of a student (as usual ). Skinz... I'll start by agreeing with you that the Seven Samurai one of the greatest pieces of film ever created. Certainly it is a very enjoyable film for a strategy enthusiast as well. I chose General Cho's rebellion, simply because it is among the most recent events that we have watched here in Philly. To be honest I simply want to open the door to this type of discussion on the tangent page. There are certainly more important scenarios that we could discuss. Glad to see that you've read the strategies. I agree with the three strategies that you've outlined for Cho Won Jung. However, I do not believe that he was particularly adept at carrying out tactics, therefore I feel that his attempt at Hide the Dagger behind a Smile, and Fool the Emperor to Cross the Sea would have failed because of his unfortunately weak interpersonal capabilities. Of the three that you mentioned, I feel that Loot the Burning House would have been his best opportunity at success. His problem in applying this strategy to the Huh Seung vs KDS situation would have been the survival of the Archfiend. Perhaps applying this strategy during the Imperial Dragon rebellion conflict with KDS would have been a better choice. His problem here would have been Du Kyungsung's protection of the Archfiend, as well as the loyalty displayed by his own soldiers to Kyung Dae Sung. In the end, I suppose I see Cho Won Jung as a tragic figure who was incapable of seizing his great opportunities due to his own shortcomings. I know that you alluded to this, however, stating that those three strategies were perhaps Cho's best chances and not necessarily true paths to his ultimate success. So I guess I've just written a long winded summary of your previous post.
|
|
|
Post by FrederickII on Feb 26, 2005 3:05:43 GMT -5
Wow, I still remember that ep.
THe archfiend was my favorite character in AOW.
As for the the tactical skill of the archfiend, I cant say he has much there unfortunately. I think this guy lost 3 entire armies (West Capitol Rebellion, Empress Dowagers invote to attack the imperial city, KDS ambush of t he Imperial Dragon army).
But his skill as a warrior is unquestionable. Search for his name and you will find his name on Tae Kwan Do websites. He and General Du were well respected for their skills in Subak.
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Mar 22, 2005 12:17:43 GMT -5
Not to mention his destruction of his own army in the Kim Sami uprising.
Let's face it, the guy could fight and he had charisma, but the Archfiend was as dumb as a doornail. It wasn't his fault, afterall he wasn't raised to be a scholar.
|
|
|
Post by geesehoward4life on Apr 16, 2005 1:35:41 GMT -5
Hello from Philadelphia. I am new here but I have every episode of AOW on tape and with that said I have read Sun Tzu's Art of War and I'd have to agree that AOW does not apply too much strategy, but it does have more than one would think. General Cho is actually quite competant but his lack of virtue is really what gets him killed in the end (much like the Archfiend). Remember that Gen Cho suppressed Kim Bo-Dang's rebellion and did so with the help of the two generals Kyung and Jin (I believe Jin was the other general, but I know that KDS dad was one General because he made fun of Cho after Kim Bo-Dang had shot Cho with an arrow). Gen Cho feigned defeat after trying to storm the fort and retreated luring Kim Bo-Dang out. Cho then led his army to a deadend riverbank and then turned and faced Kim's. While Kim was in pursuit Jin and Kyung moved in across the river with archers and before Kim could engage Cho they pelted him with fire arrows and then the armies attacked with Cho defeating Kim in a one pass duel. This shows that Cho understood military tactics but before any of that can be discussed it is Cho's lack of virtue (much like Yi Kwang-Jung) that really has to be looked at. Remember that Cho was initially Che Won's right hand man and when Che Won decided that he would take his troops and go to the Nomad's Land he is surprised by Chung Kyun's brother-in-law (his name escapes me but he married into the Chung's to escape Yi Ko) and his army gets wiped out while he tries to escape. Cho's unit catches Che Won trying to cross the river and Che Won talks about the fact that he was the reason why Cho had anything anyway, but Cho ultimately calls in the archers after he realizes that his foot soldiers don't stand a chance against Che Won. Cho chooses to have the archers kill Che Won instead of letting him escape (side note; When I saw this episode Yi Ui-Bang had the excuse to finally kill Chung Jung-Bu because he DID NOT tell him to send aid while he was trying to resolve things with Che Won, this fact is proven later when Chung Jung-Bu reminds his son-in-law NOT to mention the fact that he supposedly saved Ui-Bang from Che Won cause he knew that Ui-Bang might realize that he did NOT have to kill Che Won if Chung Jung-Bu doesn't interfere). If Cho stops at this point and remains loyal to Sir Yi after that sneaky bastard Chung Kyun ( I never liked him but he was VERY WELL PLAYED!) assassinates Sir Yi then I personally think that Cho would have gone on to bigger and better things, BUT Cho listens to Kyun and sells out. Then when KDS rises to power and the Chungs are killed he sells out again! I make these points to show one of the unspoken reasons why the Combatant Commanders would not aid him. Cho was loyal to himself and himself alone. Why risk life and limb for someone with a proven track record of opportunism. At least the Archfiend stayed true to Sir Yi and sought revenge and endured banishment while Chung Bu and Suhk Lyn stabbed him in the back as well as the memory of Sir Yi by allying with Chung Jung-Bu, etc. To me these things led to Cho's demise because those nameless foot soldiers during Ui-Bang's time eventually became the ranking officers and combatant commanders and saw what kind of "loyalty" Cho had. So with this as a backdrop what strategy could Cho have used... None. His prior actions had sealed his fate long before that. Cho ended up in the mess he was in because the Archfiend, while practicing restraint, gathered information on all of Cho's illegal activity. When Cho is impeached it is because of Minister Moon and Du Kyung-Seung and the Central Commitee and the Emperor agrees so the only thing that Cho could use was his own personal integrity as a rallying point to get others to join him, but who would join someone who spent his time kowtowing and hoarding bribes against the will of the Archfiend, the Central Commitee, the Royal Court AND (very last) the weak Emperor. His best bet was to accept his defeat and realize that he still had his son's and that it was up to him to make sure that they (as a Clan) had a future, leave the Imperial City and prepare for possibilities that clearly didn't exist at that time. As for the Archfiend's strategy it was perfect. He understood how arrogant and vain Cho was so he attacked his pride by attacking his postion because that was all Cho really had. A position. Cho had no Great Cause accept and no real purpose and the Archfiend knew Cho had a very limited amount of loyal followers because Cho himself was disloyal. Not only that but anyone could do what Cho was doing for his supporters (paying them off). Cho also only had two quality Commanders; Suhk Lyn and Chong-Su. Ui-Min had Gen. Choi, Master Ja-sun, Ui-Min's sons and Minister Du. General Cho should have seen the situation for what it was and simply accepted defeat and lived for a better opportunity from what I saw.
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Apr 18, 2005 9:32:17 GMT -5
Excellent post geesehoward4life. Nice memory, remembering the Chung Jung Bu detail regarding Che Won and Yi Ui-Bang. I did not remember that at all. It certainly stirs memories of the degree to which the other officials "walked on eggshells" any time Yi Ui-Bang was involved in the conversation.
The only question I have is this: Was not Yi Ui-Min serving under Cho Won Jung when the Kim Bo Dang rebellion was supressed? If he was, Cho benefitted from having the strongest right arm in the military (in that particular instance). If he was not, Cho still benefitted from the ability to act freely against the Kim detachment, with confidence in Yi Ui-Min's ability to neutralize the force accompanying the deposed Ui Jong.
Cho's success, in this instance, can be atributed at least in part to the personnel underneath him.
|
|
|
Post by ID on Apr 18, 2005 18:25:55 GMT -5
In the show {which alters history} Yi Ui Min was sent by Yi Ui Bang with 1,000 Yong-Ho Guards, in order to dispose of Ui-Jong. In real history, Chung Jung Bu ordered two of his men to dispose of the deposed emperor, by getting him drunk, rolling him up in a straw mat, and drowning him.
I believe that Yi Ui Min was not under Cho's direct command. In fact, I believe that they were at equal footing at that point {Cho was Ung-Yang, Yi was Yong-Ho}
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Apr 19, 2005 9:15:06 GMT -5
Interesting, so in actuality Yi Ui-Min didn't have anything to do with the deposed emperor's death? That was some serious artistic liberty. Never the less, Cho benefitted from the Archfiend's involvement in this case.
Where did you find the actual historical account ID?
|
|
|
Post by skinz on Apr 19, 2005 10:14:22 GMT -5
The only question I have is this: Was not Yi Ui-Min serving under Cho Won Jung when the Kim Bo Dang rebellion was supressed? If he was, Cho benefitted from having the strongest right arm in the military (in that particular instance). If he was not, Cho still benefitted from the ability to act freely against the Kim detachment, with confidence in Yi Ui-Min's ability to neutralize the force accompanying the deposed Ui Jong. No, Yi Ui Min was only under Yi Ui bang command. Cho was also under Yi Ui Bang until he decided to jump on the most powerful leader at the moment. Yes, Cho did show some sign of military tatics in the Kim Bo-Dang rebellion. But you also have to know that Kim was a civil official that served under Ui Jong and was no soldier. If you want to know the historical accounts on this period here: AOW HistoryBEWARE!! It contain some spoilers for future episodes.
|
|
|
Post by geesehoward4life on Apr 26, 2005 3:23:06 GMT -5
True enough that Kim Bo-Dang was no military man but it did show that Cho understood military strategies and that was what was most important to why I said that he actually had no shot at winning his attempt to see the Emperor. He should've just accepted defeat and lived to fight another day. I found it interesting that when he went to sneak out of the Imperial City and General Choi gave him the chance to leave or admit his identity as a warrior that Cho chooses to admit who he is? The reason why I find it interesting is because he leaped from the bridge to escape after the coup failed but then falls for (essentially) the same ploy of pride and arrogance that got him into the mess in the first place. So he jumped and escaped capture only to reach freedom and then turn around when essentially taunted by Gen. Choi at the city gate... Weird sense of honor if you ask me and the main reason why the Archfiend was (more likely than not) perturbed at hearing that Cho was "runnin things" now that Kyung Dae-Seung was dead. I really still can't stand how Cho sold out Ui-Bang not once, not TWICE, but THREE TIMES when he could've done something to either save him or at least honor his memory. 1st time he accepts an Invitation to ole Chung Jung-Bu's while Chung's cowardly, face-twitching son is hunting for Ui-Bang (and how much of a loser was he that he couldn't even ambush and kill a man right that was off-guard). Mind you Cho KNEW that Chung Jung-Bu and Ui-Bang were always at odds in some way or another but he went anyway and then when ole Chung starts talking fast he gets NONE the WISER that something is up. 2nd time he finds out from Ui-Bangs brother that he's in trouble and then he lets weak Emperor convince him NOT to leave the Palace (Another glaring difference between Cho and Ui-Min which ole Chung Jung-Bu found out when Ui-Min came for revenge... Slick talking does not stop the Archfiend... It would have been interesting if Gen. Du did NOT make it back to the Imperial City in time especially since Cho sent men to kill Ui-Min and they failed and he intended to wipe everyone out THEN and THERE, but Gen. Du arrives and then Duduel and that stops yet another violent bloodbath) 3rd time was the last straw for me... When he goes into Coward Kyun's office and "asks him" if he assassinated Ui-Bang and Kyun (in all his Smug Glory) says yes and then claims he "Killed him." He should've chopped Kyun's head clean off AND believe it or not he could've gotten away with it too! Instead he listens to Kyun's BS and sells out Ironically the 2nd time with the weak Emperor would do him in years later for it would be the weak Emperor who would get him, as well as Ui-Min with his weak willed edicts. Last thing... I will NEVER understand how Ui-Min could have allowed those two LOSERS of sons survive Time after TIME. Kyun Hyun had the same weakness where he just let Shingum constantly mess up and commit one FOUL UP after another till they finally DESTROY everything that was worked for. Poor judgment can ruin the Grand Enterprise everytime!
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on May 31, 2005 9:31:30 GMT -5
Hi Geese,
Sorry it took me so long to reply to this post. I know that it has been weeks.
I agree with you about General Cho.
With regard to Kyun Hwon and Shin Guhm/Ui Min and his sons, it seemed to me that the sons bore a greater allegiance to their mothers than they did to their fathers. This seemed to be the reason Geum Kang was favored over the three scions and the same is true for Yi Ji Soon. But, I think that it's easy to forget that they loved their sons. In spite of the fact that their relationships were entirely disfunctional and totally lacking effective communication, I'm sure that they cared about deeply.
Having said that, you're absolutely right. In both Kyun Hwon and Yi Ui Mins cases, their lack of attention to order in their own households led to their respective downfalls.
|
|
|
Post by geesehoward4ever on Jun 7, 2007 7:07:33 GMT -5
Well it is two years later and I finally reply!?!?!? Ha-HA-hah!
I would have to say that the fact that they did not keep matters in order within their households, caused many big problems and ultimately doomed their efforts. I believe that people underestimate that without peace and stability at home, then no great deeds or large enterprises can be either achieved or maintained.
Internal stability is an absolute necessity when it comes to trying to achieve anything of lasting worth.
|
|