08-29-2010, 07:57 PM
Quote:Reading the replies above, I get the impression that I do not recognize a shade of meaning in the English language (which is not my native tongue).
It's not really that clear cut anyway - 'sack' can mean various things, it seems. But it's probably best not to conflate the plunder of a fallen city, even including the massacre of its inhabitants (which must have happened fairly frequently, and may have been accepted as within the behest of the conqueror, so to speak, and needing no prior announcement) with the physical demolition we see in the case of Carthage and possibly the other examples cited in the first post. The latter may indeed have been regarded as unusually cruel and vindictive (ie punishing not only a people but also the genius loci, perhaps), and thus needing special debate, decision and announcement - turning the 'usual' destruction of a city into a sort of ritual or religious act.
Quote:I am really surprised that there are so few references to speeches. It must have been a great way to inspire your soldiers and terrorize the enemies.
I'm not sure it wouldn't have had the opposite effect. Besieged, with no way to escape, a force presented with no opportunity to surrender would certainly be 'terrorised', but would surely fight to the death, there being nothing to gain otherwise. Similarly, an attacking force would hardly be inspired by the thought that their enemy will fight to the last man, and that victory will only commence the very hard physical labour of a comprehensive slaughter. I don't know if any military writers, ancient or otherwise, provide hints on this, but i would think that such an announcement would effectively double the difficulties faced by a besieger.
- Nathan
Nathan Ross
