The Fractured Empire: Seeds of Conflict

The collapse of the Qin Dynasty in 206 BCE left a power vacuum that ignited one of history’s most dramatic power struggles. Xiang Yu, the charismatic but politically shortsighted warlord, attempted to stabilize China by dividing it among 18 feudal lords—a decision that backfired spectacularly. His exclusion of key figures like Tian Rong of Qi created immediate rebellions. Meanwhile, Liu Bang, the pragmatic former peasant official, quietly consolidated power in the resource-rich Guanzhong region (modern Shaanxi), setting the stage for their epic confrontation.

This was more than personal rivalry—it was a clash of governance philosophies. Xiang Yu preferred direct military control, personally leading campaigns like the brutal suppression of Qi’s rebellion. Liu Bang, in contrast, mastered delegation, empowering talents like Xiao He for administration and Han Xin for warfare. Their approaches mirrored the ancient debate between centralized authority and distributed leadership.

The Lightning Campaign: Liu Bang’s Bold Gamble

In winter 205 BCE, while Xiang Yu was mired in quelling Qi’s rebellion, Liu Bang launched a breathtaking multi-pronged offensive:

1. The Southern Route swept through Nanyang via Wuguan Pass
2. The Central Thrust advanced from the strategic Hangu Pass
3. The Northern Pincer moved through Henei (modern northern Henan)

Within eight months, Liu Bang’s 560,000-strong coalition captured Pengcheng (Xiang Yu’s capital near modern Xuzhou)—a feat comparable to Napoleon’s 1805 Ulm Campaign in speed and coordination. This success revealed Liu Bang’s mastery of coalition warfare, having co-opted former Qin generals and regional lords resentful of Xiang Yu’s heavy-handed rule.

The Tactical Reversal: Xiang Yu’s Brilliant Counterstrike

The Pengcheng victory proved fleeting. Demonstrating why historians compare him to Alexander the Great in battlefield prowess, Xiang Yu executed one of antiquity’s most spectacular comebacks:

– Racing 500 km from Qi with 30,000 elite cavalry
– Catching Liu Bang’s forces celebrating in Pengcheng
– Inflicting 200,000 casualties in three days of relentless attacks

This campaign showcased the paradox of their rivalry—Xiang Yu’s tactical genius versus Liu Bang’s strategic patience. Like Hannibal after Cannae, Xiang Yu won battles but lacked the political means to convert victories into lasting gains.

The War of Attrition: The Battle for Xingyang

The conflict’s fulcrum shifted to the Xingyang-Chenggao line (modern Zhengzhou region), where geography dictated strategy:

| Location | Strategic Value | Modern Equivalent |
|—————-|——————————————|————————-|
| Xingyang | Gateway between plains and western highlands | Zhengzhou western suburbs |
| Hangu Pass | Bottleneck protecting Guanzhong | Lingbao, Henan |
| Guangwu | Flanking fortress | Northwest of Xingyang |

Liu Bang’s forces transformed this corridor into a medieval Maginot Line, using:

– Chain Fortresses: Interlocking strongholds at Xingyang, Guangwu, Chenggao
– River Logistics: Secure supply lines via the Yellow River
– Scorched Earth: Denying crops to Xiang Yu’s cavalry

This stalemate lasted nearly three years (204-202 BCE), with the cities changing hands seven times—a testament to both leaders’ resilience.

The Grand Encirclement: Han Xin’s Northern Campaign

While the main armies deadlocked at Xingyang, Han Xin executed history’s most consequential flanking maneuver:

1. Wei Campaign (205 BCE): Feinting at Linjin while crossing at Xiayang, mirroring Normandy’s D-Day deception
2. Zhao Campaign (204 BCE): The legendary “Backwater Formation” at Jingxing Pass—violating Sun Tzu’s principles to achieve psychological shock
3. Qi Pacification (203 BCE): Defeating 200,000 Chu-Qi forces at Wei River

These campaigns turned northern China (modern Hebei, Shanxi, Shandong) into Han territory, economically strangling Xiang Yu’s base. The strategy echoed Prussia’s 1866 campaign against Austria—decisive peripheral victories isolating the core enemy.

The Peace That Wasn’t: The Hong Canal Divide

The 202 BCE Hong Canal demarcation revealed Xiang Yu’s strategic blindness. This artificial waterway (precursor to the Grand Canal) became China’s ancient Mason-Dixon Line:

– West: Mountainous terrain favoring defense (Liu Bang)
– East: Open plains vulnerable to attack (Xiang Yu)

When Xiang Yu withdrew eastward, Liu Bang immediately violated the truce—a move Machiavelli would later endorse as pragmatic statecraft. The final Gaixia Campaign (202 BCE) saw Xiang Yu surrounded by Han Xin’s “Mandarin Duck Formation,” culminating in his tragic suicide.

The Enduring Legacy: Why Liu Bang’s Victory Mattered

1. Administrative Innovation: Replaced feudalism with commanderies, creating China’s first centralized bureaucracy
2. Military Doctrine: Demonstrated the superiority of strategic depth over tactical brilliance
3. Cultural Impact: Established the “Mandate of Heaven” concept justifying dynastic transitions

The Chu-Han contention’s lessons still resonate:
– Coalition-building trumps individual heroism (Liu Bang’s network vs. Xiang Yu’s solo acts)
– Economic infrastructure wins prolonged wars (Guanzhong’s granaries vs. Chu’s plundered lands)
– Peripheral theaters decide core conflicts (Han Xin’s northern campaign)

From the Three Kingdoms to the Chinese Civil War, later conflicts would replay these dynamics—proving that while weapons evolve, the fundamentals of Chinese strategic thought remain rooted in this pivotal era. The chessboard may have expanded, but the game’s rules were set during those four decisive years when a peasant outmaneuvered a king.