The Chu-Han Contention (206–202 BCE) was a pivotal power struggle between Xiang Yu of Chu and Liu Bang of Han that shaped the future of imperial China. At the heart of this conflict was the protracted Battle of Xingyang, a 28-month campaign that exposed Xiang Yu’s tactical brilliance but also his fatal strategic shortcomings. This article explores how Liu Bang’s superior long-term planning ultimately triumphed over Xiang Yu’s battlefield dominance.

The Strategic Importance of Xingyang

Situated in modern-day Henan province, Xingyang was a linchpin connecting the eastern plains and western highlands. Its sister city, Chenggao, stood atop Mount Dawu, offering a commanding defensive position. Control of these twin fortresses meant access to the Guanzhong heartland—Liu Bang’s power base—making them indispensable for both sides.

Xiang Yu had previously demonstrated his military genius at the Battle of Julu (207 BCE), where he destroyed the Qin main army, and the Battle of Pengcheng (205 BCE), where his 30,000 troops routed Liu Bang’s 560,000-strong coalition. Yet Pengcheng marked a turning point: though victorious, Xiang Yu failed to deliver a knockout blow, allowing Liu Bang to regroup at Xingyang.

The Three Phases of the Xingyang Campaign

### Phase 1: The First Capture and Loss (205–204 BCE)

After pursuing Liu Bang from Pengcheng, Xiang Yu besieged Chenggao for a full year before capturing it in May 204 BCE. Liu Bang’s escape was dramatic: his general Ji Xin sacrificed himself by impersonating the Han ruler, allowing Liu Bang to flee west. This episode highlighted both the loyalty Liu Bang inspired and his ruthless pragmatism.

### Phase 2: The Northern Front and Guerrilla Warfare

While Xiang Yu focused on Xingyang, Liu Bang adopted a multi-theater strategy:
– Northern Campaign: Han Xin conquered Wei, Dai, Zhao, and Yan, encircling Chu from the north.
– Southern Diversion: Liu Bang lured Xiang Yu south to Wanye, buying time for his defenses.
– Logistics War: The guerrilla leader Peng Yue ravaged Chu’s supply lines, forcing Xiang Yu into exhausting counter-campaigns.

A critical moment came when Liu Bang seized Han Xin’s elite troops—an act of questionable ethics but strategic necessity. As historian Sima Qian noted, “The Han repeatedly took Han Xin’s best soldiers to reinforce Xingyang.”

### Phase 3: The Breaking Point (203 BCE)

By late 203 BCE, the strategic balance had shifted:
– Han Xin’s victory at Qixia eliminated Chu’s last major ally, Qi.
– Peng Yue’s raids left Xiang Yu’s army starving and isolated.
– The Battle of Guling saw Chu’s commander Cao Jiu commit suicide after a humiliating defeat.

Facing encirclement, Xiang Yu agreed to the Treaty of Hong Canal, dividing China along the canal’s east-west axis. The temporary peace—later immortalized in Chinese chess as “Chu River Han Border”—merely delayed his inevitable collapse.

Why Xiang Yu Lost: Tactics vs. Strategy

Xiang Yu’s failures were systemic:
1. Neglect of Grand Strategy: He fixated on battlefield victories while ignoring broader geopolitical shifts.
2. Logistical Blindness: Repeatedly abandoning campaigns to protect supply lines revealed poor prioritization.
3. Diplomatic Inflexibility: Only in desperation did he attempt diplomacy—like sending Wu She to sway Han Xin—but by then, it was too late.

In contrast, Liu Bang’s willingness to delegate (e.g., Han Xin in the north) and adapt (e.g., adopting Zheng Zhong’s defensive advice) proved decisive. As the Records of the Grand Historian concluded, “Xiang Yu won every battle but lost the war.”

Legacy: The Lessons of Xingyang

The Xingyang campaign redefined Chinese warfare:
– Multi-Front Operations: Liu Bang’s coordinated northern, southern, and guerrilla campaigns became a model for later dynasties.
– Psychological Warfare: The systematic demoralization of Chu officers (e.g., Cao Jiu) anticipated Sun Tzu’s axiom: “Supreme excellence lies in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”
– Enduring Symbolism: The Hong Canal’s division of “Chu and Han” remains a cultural metaphor for irreconcilable divides.

For modern readers, Xingyang offers a timeless lesson: short-term victories mean little without long-term vision—a principle as relevant to boardrooms as to battlefields.