The Philosophical Foundations of Military Strategy

The concept of “moving others without being moved” represents one of the most enduring principles in Chinese military philosophy. This strategic approach, distilled from centuries of battlefield experience, emphasizes the critical importance of maintaining initiative and controlling the terms of engagement. Ancient Chinese strategists recognized that true mastery in warfare came not from brute force alone, but from the ability to dictate the circumstances of conflict.

Sun Tzu’s Art of War provides the earliest systematic discussion of this principle, though the idea permeates all classical Chinese military thought. The strategic tradition viewed warfare as an extension of statecraft and philosophy, where psychological advantage often proved more decisive than numerical superiority. This mindset created a distinctive approach to conflict that valued subtlety, deception, and mental domination as much as physical combat.

Decoding the Principle: “Moving Others Without Being Moved”

At its core, this strategic concept contains two complementary components. “Moving others” refers to the ability to compel an opponent to act according to your designs, to make them come to you on your terms. “Not being moved” means maintaining your own freedom of action, avoiding situations where the enemy dictates your movements or responses.

Historical commentators have offered various interpretations of this principle. Zhang Yu, a Song Dynasty annotator of Sun Tzu, explained that by making the enemy come to you, their position becomes inherently weakened (empty), while by refusing to go to them, your position remains strong (full). This creates what strategists called the “empty-full” dynamic between opponents.

Du You, a Tang Dynasty scholar, provided additional insight: when two armies of comparable strength are separated by difficult terrain, it’s far better to induce the enemy to traverse those obstacles than to do so yourself. The 19th century statesman Zeng Guofan likened it to preferring the “home field advantage” in sports – always seeking to fight on your terms, in your chosen environment.

The Battle of Julu: A Textbook Example

The historical account of General Geng Yan’s campaign against the warlord Zhang Bu’s forces during the Later Han Dynasty (25-220 CE) perfectly illustrates this principle in action. Zhang Bu’s general Fei Yi had stationed his brother Fei Gan at Julu as part of their defensive arrangements. Geng Yan approached Julu and immediately began ostentatious preparations for siege warfare – cutting trees, loudly discussing plans to fill moats and storm the walls.

After several days of this performance, defectors from Julu informed Geng Yan that Fei Yi, learning of the siege preparations, was mobilizing to relieve his brother. Recognizing this as his opportunity, Geng Yan intensified the charade. He issued strict orders for accelerated preparation of siege equipment and announced plans to assault Julu in three days. Then, carefully orchestrating the escape of some prisoners, he allowed them to carry this information back to Fei Yi.

The ruse worked perfectly. Fei Yi marched his relief force right into Geng Yan’s trap. Leaving a modest contingent of 3,000 men to maintain the threat against Julu, Geng Yan positioned his main force along Fei Yi’s approach route. The ambush proved devastatingly effective, resulting in Fei Yi’s defeat and death.

This operation demonstrated classic “besiege the enemy to strike their reinforcements” tactics – making a show of threatening one position to draw enemy forces into vulnerable movement, then striking them at your chosen time and place. The brilliance lay not in the ambush itself, but in the psychological manipulation that made the ambush possible.

Psychological Warfare and Strategic Deception

The Julu campaign reveals several layers of sophisticated psychological manipulation. Geng Yan’s initial tree-cutting and siege preparations served multiple purposes: they convinced the Julu defenders of imminent attack (putting pressure on them to call for help), while simultaneously establishing a credible pattern of behavior that made his later “leaked” plans believable.

The carefully staged prisoner escape represents another masterstroke. Unlike modern generals who might rely on radio intercepts or aerial reconnaissance, ancient commanders had to create their own intelligence channels. By controlling what information reached the enemy and how it was delivered, Geng Yan essentially scripted Fei Yi’s decision-making process.

This case also highlights the importance of tempo control in ancient warfare. Geng Yan didn’t just trick Fei Yi into moving; he dictated when and where that movement would occur. The three-day timeline created urgency while allowing just enough time for the information to reach Fei Yi and for his forces to begin their predictable response.

Comparative Military Traditions

The Chinese approach to strategic control shows interesting parallels with and distinctions from Western military thought. Like Hannibal’s famous victories at Trebia and Lake Trasimene, Geng Yan’s success relied on understanding and manipulating enemy psychology. However, the Chinese tradition placed greater emphasis on the philosophical underpinnings of such tactics, seeing them as manifestations of broader cosmic principles like yin-yang dynamics.

Clausewitz’s concept of the “culminating point” – where an attacking force becomes overextended – bears resemblance to the “empty-full” dynamic described by Chinese commentators. However, the Chinese tradition focused more proactively on creating this imbalance rather than merely recognizing and exploiting it.

The Principle in Modern Contexts

While ancient in origin, this strategic concept retains remarkable relevance today. Modern business competition often mirrors these dynamics, where companies seek to draw competitors into disadvantageous market positions rather than directly attacking strongholds. The tech industry’s frequent “platform wars” demonstrate how making others respond to your innovations can prove more effective than responding to theirs.

In military terms, the development of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategies in contemporary geopolitics reflects similar thinking. By creating defensive systems that force potential adversaries to operate at a disadvantage, nations essentially attempt to “move others without being moved” on a grand strategic scale.

Even in personal development and career advancement, the principle holds value. Professionals who cultivate unique skills and create opportunities often find others coming to them with offers, rather than having to constantly pursue new positions. This represents the individual-scale application of maintaining strategic control over one’s circumstances.

Enduring Lessons from Ancient Strategy

The story of Geng Yan’s victory at Julu transcends its historical moment to offer timeless insights about power dynamics. At its heart, the principle teaches that true strength lies not in reaction but in creation – creating situations where others must respond to you, on terms that favor your strengths.

This requires deep understanding of both your own capabilities and your opponent’s psychology. Geng Yan succeeded because he knew exactly how Fei Yi would interpret the staged information and what response it would provoke. The same holds true for any competitive environment today – victory goes to those who can anticipate reactions while maintaining their own freedom of action.

As our world grows increasingly complex and interconnected, these ancient lessons about strategic control gain new relevance. Whether in international relations, business competition, or personal endeavors, the ability to “move others without being moved” remains a hallmark of true mastery in any field of conflict or competition.