The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided.
Another sound piece of military theory. Had the Boers acted upon
it in 1899, and refrained from dissipating their strength before
Kimberley, Mafeking, or even Ladysmith, it is more than probable
that they would have been masters of the situation before the
British were ready seriously to oppose them.
The preparation of mantlets, movable shelters, and various implements
of war, will take up three whole months;
It is not quite clear what 櫓 were. Ts‘ao Kung simply defines them
as 大楯 “large shields,” but we get a better idea of them from Li
Ch‘üan, who says they were to protect the heads of those who were
assaulting the city walls at close quarters. This seems to suggest
a sort of Roman _testudo_, ready made. Tu Mu says they were “what
are now termed 彭排” (wheeled vehicles used in repelling attacks,
according to K‘ang Hsi), but this is denied by Ch‘ên Hao. See
_supra_, II. 14. The name is also applied to turrets on city
walls. Of 轒轀 (_fên yün_) we get a fairly clear description from
several commentators. They were wooden missile-proof structures on
four wheels, propelled from within, covered over with raw hides,
and used in sieges to convey parties of men to and from the walls,
for the purpose of filling up the encircling moat with earth. Tu
Mu adds that they are now called 木驢 “wooden donkeys.” Capt.
Calthrop wrongly translates the term, “battering-rams.” I follow
Ts‘ao Kung in taking 具 as a verb, co-ordinate and synonymous with
修. Those commentators who regard 修 as an adjective equivalent to
長 “long,” make 具 presumably into a noun.
and the piling up of mounds over against the walls will take three
months more.
The 距闉 (or 堙, in the modern text) were great mounds or ramparts
of earth heaped up to the level of the enemy’s walls in order to
discover the weak points in the defence, and also to destroy the
樓櫓 fortified turrets mentioned in the preceding note. Tu Yu
quotes the Tso Chuan: 楚司馬子反乘堙而窺宋城也.