As far as I know, there was no democracy in China over two thousand years ago and society was divided into priests, warriors, rulers and dominated. Among them traders and farmers. Better said, I would call the warriors soldiers. For at the time of the warriors there were not yet any great empires but rather smaller clans, where all male members of the clan had still been involved in fighting physical conflicts. While in larger civilizations the organizational structure was and is characterized by specialization.

There are no more warriors today.

War is one of the most difficult topics I can imagine and from my female point of view, I have the role of preserving and renewing as a mother. It is deeply reluctant to see lives killed and warfare seen as art. Although, of course, I know that's the way it is seen.

There's a lot of interest in the war. When I enter "war" and "strategy" in the search engine, I get countless results. If, on the other hand, I enter "mediation", I get meagre results. Nevertheless, I would regard mediation as the highest art form of human mediation to be aspired to. Conciliation between conflicting parties is one of the greatest human achievements that I can imagine when it comes to illuminating the apron in the context of war. Part of this is diplomacy. But while a diplomat can be hypocritical and manipulative, a mediator of his profession is beyond that. He is interested in the well-being of both parties, between whom he mediates in a moderating capacity. He's authentic, compassionate, all-party. The high dexterity that this requires and the absolute uncorrorrumpability demand a great deal of admiration from me. Unfortunately, there are almost no historical examples documenting this but only fictional stories describing this ideal.

Therefore, I would agree that probably the best warfare is one in which the opponents part without having killed each other. There are many who need killing as a traumatic experience in order to honor life afterwards more than they have done so far. PTSD is therefore very one-sided and the re-integration of what a person had to learn is a better approach. Instead of pity and hatred, the man so superficially applies.

Well, then. I think it's a book worth reading.