Sun Tzŭ said: There are five ways of attacking with fire. The first
is to burn soldiers in their camp;
So Tu Mu. Li Ch‘üan says: 焚其營殺其士卒也 “Set fire to the camp,
and kill the soldiers” (when they try to escape from the flames).
Pan Ch‘ao, sent on a diplomatic mission to the King of Shan-shan
[see XI. § 51, note], found himself placed in extreme peril by
the unexpected arrival of an envoy from the Hsiung-nu [the mortal
enemies of the Chinese]. In consultation with his officers, he
exclaimed: “‘Never venture, never win![183] The only course open
to us now is to make an assault by fire on the barbarians under
cover of night, when they will not be able to discern our numbers.
Profiting by their panic, we shall exterminate them completely;
this will cool the King’s courage and cover us with glory, besides
ensuring the success of our mission.’ The officers all replied
that it would be necessary to discuss the matter first with the
Intendant (從事). Pan Ch‘ao then fell into a passion: ‘It is
to-day,’ he cried, ‘that our fortunes must be decided! The
Intendant is only a humdrum civilian, who on hearing of our
project will certainly be afraid, and everything will be brought
to light. An inglorious death is no worthy fate for valiant
warriors.’ All then agreed to do as he wished. Accordingly, as
soon as night came on, he and his little band quickly made their
way to the barbarian camp. A strong gale was blowing at the time.
Pan Ch‘ao ordered ten of the party to take drums and hide behind
the enemy’s barracks, it being arranged that when they saw flames
shoot up, they should begin drumming and yelling with all their
might. The rest of his men, armed with bows and crossbows, he
posted in ambuscade at the gate of the camp. He then set fire to
the place from the windward side, whereupon a deafening noise of
drums and shouting arose on the front and rear of the Hsiung-nu,
who rushed out pell-mell in frantic disorder. Pan Ch‘ao slew three
of them with his own hand, while his companions cut off the heads
of the envoy and thirty of his suite. The remainder, more than a
hundred in all, perished in the flames. On the following day, Pan
Ch‘ao went back and informed 郭恂 Kuo Hsün [the Intendant] of what
he had done. The latter was greatly alarmed and turned pale.
But Pan Ch‘ao, divining his thoughts, said with uplifted hand:
‘Although you did not go with us last night, I should not think,
Sir, of taking sole credit for our exploit.’ This satisfied Kuo
Hsün, and Pan Ch‘ao, having sent for Kuang, King of Shan-shan,
showed him the head of the barbarian envoy. The whole kingdom was
seized with fear and trembling, which Pan Ch‘ao took steps to
allay by issuing a public proclamation. Then, taking the king’s
son as hostage, he returned to make his report to 竇固 Tou Ku.”
[_Hou Han Shu_, ch. 47, ff. 1, 2.]
the second is to burn stores;
Tu Mu says: 糧食薪芻 “Provisions, fuel and fodder.” In order to
subdue the rebellious population of Kiangnan, 高潁 Kao Kêng
recommended Wên Ti of the Sui dynasty to make periodical raids and
burn their stores of grain, a policy which in the long run proved
entirely successful. [隋書, ch. 41, fol. 2.]
the third is to burn baggage-trains;
An example given is the destruction of 袁紹 Yüan Shao’s waggons and
impedimenta by Ts‘ao Ts‘ao in 200 A.D.
the fourth is to burn arsenals and magazines;
Tu Mu says that the things contained in 輜 and 庫 are the same. He
specifies weapons and other implements, bullion and clothing. Cf.
VII. § 11.
the fifth is to hurl dropping fire amongst the enemy.
No fewer than four totally diverse explanations of this sentence
are given by the commentators, not one of which is quite
satisfactory. It is obvious, at any rate, that the ordinary
meaning of 隊 (“regiment” or “company”) is here inadmissible. In
spite of Tu Mu’s note, 焚其行伍因亂而擊之, I must regard “company
burning” (Capt. Calthrop’s rendering) as nonsense pure and simple.
We may also, I think, reject the very forced explanation given
by Li Ch‘üan, Mei Yao-ch‘ên and Chang Yü, of whom the last-named
says: 焚其隊仗使兵無戰具 “burning a regiment’s weapons, so that the
soldiers may have nothing to fight with.” That leaves only two
solutions open: one, favoured by Chia Lin and Ho Shih, is to take
隊 in the somewhat uncommon sense of “a road,” = 隧. The commentary
on a passage in the 穆天子傳, quoted in _K‘ang Hsi_, defines 隊
(read _sui_) as 谷中險阻道 “a difficult road leading through a
valley.” Here it would stand for the 糧道 “line of supplies,” which
might be effectually interrupted if the country roundabout was
laid waste with fire. Finally, the interpretation which I have
adopted is that given by Tu Yu in the _T‘ung Tien_. He reads 墜
(which is not absolutely necessary, 隊 _chui_ being sometimes used
in the same sense), with the following note: 以火墮敵營中也火墜之法
以鐵籠火着箭頭頸强弩射敵營中 “To drop fire into the enemy’s camp. The
method by which this may be done is to set the tips of arrows
alight by dipping them into a brazier, and then shoot them from
powerful crossbows into the enemy’s lines.”