Question I. Are there, properly [speaking], ambushes in war?

Abulensis (q. 6, at the 2nd argument) says: if we should wish to speak properly, the setting of ambushes is not against enemies. For ambushes are [set] against those who ought not to beware of ambushes. But surely this notion of Ambushes is too narrow and novel, against the Grammarians, Rhetoricians, and all Philosophers — nay, against Abulensis himself. For if, as he says, enemies ought always to fear ambushes — the properly-called [ambushes], namely, of which he treats — then [ambushes] can be against them; or, if his reasoning [be] firm, there will nowhere in the nature of things be ambushes. For who ought not to beware of them? Who does not receive from God prudence, that he may decline whatever things might harm him? For “to use reason too,” says Cicero (bk. 1 On Duties), “and speech prudently, and to do what thou doest considerately, and to see in every matter what is true, and to guard [it], befits [a man]: but on the contrary, to be deceived, to err, to slip, to be beguiled, as ill befits [a man] as to rave and to be out of [one’s] mind.”