Announcing the sack of a city

[Nathan Ross]

Is the Homeric epithete "sacker of cities" unambigious? There must be more examples.

I think perhaps the terminology here is confusing. I have always considered 'sack' to mean plunder, rob, rape etc - but what you're talking about appears to be a total destruction. For a victorious army to plunder ('sack') a captured city appears to have been quite normal in ancient warfare, and as Paul says there may have been conventions governing when it was allowed or otherwise. Consider the Roman force which captured Jerusalem for their ally Herod in c.35bc - they went on a rampage of plunder and murder until Herod himself paid them off from his treasury.

Totally destroying or razing a city - as in the case of Carthage etc - was rather different, and a much more serious (not to mention time consuming!) undertaking. It's not surprising it happened so rarely.

- Nathan

[D B Campbell]

... but was it announced?

You make an interesting point, which I had misunderstood at the start of this thread.

Again, the articulation of such a threat may be linked with extreme vindictiveness, as in Alexander's promise to destroy Thebes (reported by Diodorus 17.9). It usually suited a besieger's purpose much better to arrive unannounced at the town walls, so that the townsfolk had no opportunity to prepare.

[Jona Lendering]

I think perhaps the terminology here is confusing. I have always considered 'sack' to mean plunder, rob, rape etc - but what you're talking about appears to be a total destruction.

Yes, that is what I meant, destruction.

On my blog, where I have now also posted this question, Judith Weingarten mentions Aurelian’s threat to Tyana. “In this town I will not leave even a dog alive” (Historia Augusta, Aur. XXII 6), which comes close.

[Nathan Ross]

Yes, that is what I meant, destruction.

But my point was that sacking a city and completely demolishing it (as at Carthage) are different things.

Judith Weingarten mentions Aurelian’s threat to Tyana. “In this town I will not leave even a dog alive” (Historia Augusta, Aur. XXII 6), which comes close.

And later in the HA (Aur XXXi, 3) there is the story of Aurelian 'destroying' Palmyra, after it revolted against him, 'because it deserved it'. He then orders the destruction halted, after his army has already killed most of the inhabitants regardless of age or sex - this would indicate that there must have been an order or announcement to commence the massacre in the first place. But this 'destruction' did not apparently involve the physical demolition of the city, only the robbing and killing of its inhabitants.

So it would seem that massacring the inhabitants of a city might count as 'sack', or destruction. The demolition of the walls, buildings etc of a city and its levelling to the ground, was something different, and extraordinary. Josephus describes this happening at Jerusalem (whether truthfully or not), but that was after months of siege and presumably not part of the original intention of the beseigers.

- Nathan

[D B Campbell]

And later in the HA (Aur XXXi, 3) there is the story of Aurelian 'destroying' Palmyra, after it revolted against him, 'because it deserved it'.

I think Jona's point is that Aurelian did not first threaten the townsfolk with the imminent destruction of their town; he just went ahead and did it (SHA, Aurelian 31). Or have I misunderstood (again)?

[Jona Lendering]

have I misunderstood (again)?

I don't know. 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).

What I am looking for is the text of speeches in which a besiegers ANNOUNCES his plan to destroy a city, which means, on the one hand, to make sure that the citizens are dead or sold, and on the other hand, the physical ruin - the houses severely damaged. It is what Censorinus announced to the Carthaginians (and which Scipio eventually did), what the Athenians did to the Melians, and what the Assyrians promised to the people of Jerusalem.

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 would have expected more speeches. (Diodorus and the HA come close.)

[Nathan Ross]

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.

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

[Jona Lendering]

The latter may indeed have been regarded as unusually cruel and vindictive (ie punishing not only a people but also the genius loci, perhaps)

A very interesting point; compare the devotio ritual known from ancient Rome.

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,

Another good point. This is in fact what Thucydides tells that Diodotus explained during the Mytiline Debate.

[Nathan Ross]

On that last point, Frontinus provides this anecdote:

Epaminondas, general of the Thebans, on one occasion, when about to engage in battle with the Spartans, acted as follows. In order that his soldiers might not only exercise their strength, but also be stirred by their feelings, he announced in an assembly of his men that the Spartans had resolved, in case of victory, to massacre all males, to lead the wives and children of those executed into bondage, and to raze Thebes to the ground. By this announcement the Thebans were so roused that they overwhelmed the Spartans at the first onset.
Frontinus, Strategems I.11.6

Frontinus also provides a number of ruses for creating terror and dismay among besieged enemies, but threats of total destruction do not feature! In fact, he has a whole section (II.6) on the advisability of allowing the enemy a means to escape (or surrender, presumably), 'lest... he renew the battle in desperation'.

- Nathan

[D B Campbell]

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 would have expected more speeches. (Diodorus and the HA come close.)

You have raised an interesting question, Jona. Interesting, because threatening to destroy a town was not the only way to induce the surrender of the inhabitants. At Gischala in AD 67, Titus induces the townsfolk to surrender by reminding them that stronger towns than their own have fallen to Rome (Joseph., BJud. 4.92-96). In this case, there was no vindictiveness driving the besieger; only pragmatism, that the more towns who surrendered, the quicker the war would be over (imho). It was not always the Romans' aim to despoil and destroy, as others have claimed.

[Bill Thayer]

... 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).

And — I just saw this today 31 Aug — honor of course really to Kevin Knight, who has done a splendid job. His site also includes the entire Catholic Encyclopedia, which is a treasure trove of accurate historical information in addition to all the vetted theology we would expect.

[john m roberts]

Carthage was utterly destroyed in order to make Cato the Censor to shut the %*^# up.