The aim of a siege is, usually, to
seize a city, not to destroy it. Yet, Censorinus announces precisely that in his speech to the Carthaginians (
Appian, Punic Wars 81).
But are there parallels? I cannot think of anything else, except for the Melian Dialog and
2 Kings 18.28. Anyone else? There must be more.
Probably was quite limited to cases where city was to be formally destroyed/ravaged for some reason, treason could be that (hey, it almost rhymes...).
Maybe there are something similar about Capua during Second Punic War, some cities during Social War and maybe Corinth?
Quote:Yet, Censorinus announces precisely that in his speech to the Carthaginians (Appian, Punic Wars 81).
Wasn't Carthage a special case, though?
Usually, it was sufficient to slight the defences of captured towns. But the Romans (
some Romans) were paranoid that, if left intact, Carthage would rise again. I can't think of any other towns or cities that embodied the same psychological threat to the Romans.
Quote:I can't think of any other towns or cities that embodied the same psychological threat to the Romans.
Jerusalem, maybe?
Quote:Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and Temple [...] that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind.
Josephus, Jewish War VI.1.1
- Nathan
Pre-announcing a sack may have been psychological warfare to demoralize the defenders. And, maybe to encourage, your troops with visions of rape, pillage and plunder. :twisted:
Quote:Pre-announcing a sack may have been psychological warfare to demoralize the defenders. And, maybe to encourage, your troops with visions of rape, pillage and plunder. :twisted:
So, how come that I can think of only three examples?
Quote:Jerusalem, maybe?
I don't believe that Jerusalem was actually destroyed. Certainly not systematically, in the way that Carthage seems to have been erased. (There are archaeological signs of destruction, of course, as a result of the siege operations, but the city continued in occupation.)
I can only assume that it was extreme vindictiveness against Carthage (the same vindictiveness can be heard in the Melian dialogue) that caused the town to be blotted out. Normally, as far as I can see, the Romans were content to slight the defences of enemy towns.
Quote:... and 2 Kings 18.28.
What a splendid resource -- the Greek of the Septuagint and the Latin of Jerome (I presume). Thanks for that!
Quote:Jona Lendering:31ytday6 Wrote:... and 2 Kings 18.28.
What a splendid resource -- the Greek of the Septuagint and the Latin of Jerome (I presume). Thanks for that!
Honor to whom honor is due: a discovery of Bill's (
this Bill).
But to return to my question: are there more parallels of announced destruction?
I know Caesar's sack of Avaricum was pretty brutal, but in de Bello Gallico it's hard to tell if this was spontaneous or not.
And there's Deuteronomy 20:16-17, but that isn't in reference to one specific city.
What about Troy? It's been a while since I've read the Iliad, but if I remember correctly didn't Agamemnon make it pretty clear that he intended to wipe out the city, not just capture it?
Duncan wrote:
Quote:I can only assume that it was extreme vindictiveness against Carthage (the same vindictiveness can be heard in the Melian dialogue) that caused the town to be blotted out. Normally, as far as I can see, the Romans were content to slight the defences of enemy towns.
I think you will find that the Romans 'blotted out' many towns and settlements on a regular basis - e.g. in Spain, Gaul and Britain.
In terms of 'major cities' the Romans "nuked"/levelled several - Carthage and Corinth, both in the same year (146 BC), and the city of Numantia in Spain (141-140 BC), and if Jerusalem wasn't completely destroyed in 63 BC by Pompey, or 79 AD by Titus (though Josephus tells us Titus had the whole city and Temple sanctuary "razed to the ground" and the entire population killed or enslaved, not to mention other towns and cities of Judaea), it certainly seems to have been in 135 AD by Hadrian, when the city was destroyed and all Jews banned from the area and a new city "Aelia Capitolina" built in it's place........then there's Aemilius Paullus ( victor of Pydna) who destroyed almost all the towns and cities of Epirus (over 70!), and deported almost the entire population of over 100,000 as slaves,Sulla's destruction of Athens - though he spared temples and great buildings,Trajan's destruction of Sarmizegetusa and Ctesiphon....the list goes on.
"Extreme vindictiveness" seems to have been not that uncommon with the Romans, indeed can be viewed as an act of Policy, and certainly 'Sacking' and Terror seems to have been more typical of Rome than mere 'slighting' of defences.......
Quote:I think you will find that the Romans 'blotted out' many towns and settlements on a regular basis - e.g. in Spain, Gaul and Britain.
I know - but was it
announced? it is odd that I can find only three instances, all three presented as excesses. But as we have seen above, it would have encouraged the attackers and demoralized the besieged. So why didn't people announce it more often? Why are Sennacherib, the Athenians and Romans presented as extremists? Is the Homeric epithete "sacker of cities" unambigious? There must be more examples.
I keep thinking there must be more Roman examples, but I can't find any either. I assumed they would either involve Republican-era wars with the advanced East, or perhaps Imperial-era wars with Parthia. I glanced through the Mithridatic Wars and didn't find anything.
Quote:I keep thinking there must be more Roman examples, but I can't find any either.
Amazing, isn't it? I am really stupéfait.
Nope, I can't find another pre-announced sacking.
Quote:Paullus Scipio:2mnzllem Wrote:I think you will find that the Romans 'blotted out' many towns and settlements on a regular basis - e.g. in Spain, Gaul and Britain.
I know - but was it announced? it is odd that I can find only three instances, all three presented as excesses. But as we have seen above, it would have encouraged the attackers and demoralized the besieged. So why didn't people announce it more often? Why are Sennacherib, the Athenians and Romans presented as extremists? Is the Homeric epithete "sacker of cities" unambigious? There must be more examples.
I think you'll find that once a certain point was reached - I have read somewhere that "once the ram touched the wall....." it was understood that a town/village/city under siege could expect no mercy, and that this convention was well understood in the ancient world. Announcements were therefore largely superfluous, and hence the exception rather than the rule....... similar conventions existed down to the twentieth century......