DEFENCE OF THE WALLS.
The enclosing walls of the Kotla generally which have lost their crowning merlons [the solid part of an embattled parapet between two embrasures.] (kangura) and machicolations [(in medieval fortifications) an opening between the supporting corbels of a projecting parapet or the vault of a gate, through which stones or burning objects could be dropped on attackers.] (damoghar) are pierced towards the top with two rows of loopholes (jhirna) for the discharge of arrows. A curious point in this connection is that there is now no apparent means by which these loopholes could have been reached by the defenders inside the Kotla walls, for with the exception of the main entrance bay mentioned above, there is no masonry terrace at that level, nor are any holes left which would have served to bond the members of a possible wooden staging to the walls. Nevertheless it is probable that such a timber staging was used in this position.
It is also curious to note that in some cases (e.g., the bays flanking the western central entrance bay and, again, the dividing wall of the extreme south wing of the Kotla) these loopholes are so arranged as to permit of the discharge of arrows into the interior of the courts. It has been suggested that the reason for this was that the retainers of a visitor might be kept under guard while the visitor himself was received in the inner court of the citadel; but I think this feature results merely from the fact that the outer courts1 [The addition of these bays and the extension of the citadel to the south were probably effected during the troubled period following on Firoz Shah’s death in 1388 A.D.; a time when any inherent weakness of the fortifications would soon have been disclosed.] were a subsequent addition to the original citadel, the arrow slits in the walls of the latter not being interfered with in the extension. There is certainly a logical reason for this in the case of the west entrance bay, which, as originally constructed, formed a very narrow salient exposed to the concentrated converging fire in an attacker. And the widening of the salient to counter this disadvantage was doubtless felt to be as necessary in those days as it is in the military tactics of the 20th Century.
In the other instance quoted in parenthesis above, the fact that these southern bays were added later to the original citadel is very apparent when one examines the junction of its walls where they impinge on the bastions of the original structure; the total absence of any "bond" of the masonry between them seeming conclusive on this point. This extension to the south would also have the tactical advantage of securing this end of the vulnerable river front palaces from a flank attack.
The remains of the ascending ramp at the south end of the river front still exist, and serve as the basis of this feature as [size]restored in the perspective drawing[/size] (Plate III). A good deal of clearance of debris, from this end of the river front particularly has yet to be done before a better appreciation of its features can be obtained.
Plate III. Kotla FerozShah: Delhi. Perspective View of River Front. Reconstructed on the Existing Internal Evidence and on Analogous Contemporary Structure. November 1919.
A feature of the citadel are said to have been the three tunnels, one of which led to the river, and the others to the Kushak-i-Shikar on the Ridge and to the Qila Rai Pithora respectively. The tunnels which have been described by the Reverend Father Hosten, S.J. (Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. VII. No. 4, 1911) have yet to be discovered; and that they ever existed except as a tradition is extremely problematical.