10-26-2010, 05:17 AM
D. B. Campbell wrote:
Whilst the article was a fairly good description of the siege,( or rather non-siege - there was little if any fighting), I too was disappointed in it, because it contained several avoidable errors.
The article states ( p.35 AW iv.2) that at Masada "the top of the siege embankment fell short of the summit". That is how it appeared to Schulten and Von Lammerer on their visit in 1932, but this was the result of an earthquake/tremors(magnitude 6.5), which shook down much of the ramp on 11 july 1927, including a later gateway built apparently through the breach (?) - not to mention earlier earthquakes. Prior to that the ramp went all the way to the wall-base. This in turn led to Von Lammerer's fanciful reconstruction of the siege tower, with the ram incorporated in it halfway up, so as to reach the base of the wall, repeated in the article and the illustration. As the quotation in the article (p.35) shows, or as the Penguin translation puts it: "Silva had a great ram constructed; now by his orders it was swung continuously against the wall till at long last a breach was made and a small section collapsed." Note there is no mention of it in conjunction with, or as part of, the siege tower.Furthermore the ram was brought up against the second, interior breach. Since it would be impossible for the tower to move through the breach - one must suppose a second ram in this scenario. Also the article and illustration refer to "lowering the gangway" from the tower, another incorrect assumption of Von Lammerer because of the erroneous idea that the ramp did not reach up to the wall. In fact, according to Josephus, the Romans crossed the horizontal gap between the ramp and breach by laying plank(?) gangways. ("Expecting further resistance, the Romans armed themselves at dawn and with gangways bridged the the gap between platform and breached ramparts."
...also translated as "... they expected that they should be fought in the morning, when, accordingly, they put on their armor, and laid bridges of planks upon their ladders from their banks/ramp "). This passage shows that there was no drawbridge used from the tower, and that the ramp extended to the foot of the walls/breach.
As to the 'dating controversy', this should be a non-starter. Silva could not have moved up to besiege the place until after the winter rains - which fall around November, so he would have arrived after that, and Masada must have fallen around April 74 AD.
Like Henk, I had been hoping that an article by someone who had visited the site would have some fresh insights, or new details, to offer. I was also disappointed that no reference was made to the possible artillery platform, some 200 yards or so from the wall, at the base of the ramp ( postulated by Alan Wilkins) and necessary because the heavier calibres of shot found ( excluding the 'rolling' stones of the defenders) were too big to have been in the tower. Necessary too to cover the tower as it was laboriously moved up the ramp.
This brings us to the double page illustration - a great illustration, but one which gives a wholly inaccurate and false impression of Masada and its walls, and the way in which the siege was carried out.
In fairness to Duncan, it should be pointed out this artwork may have relied on Igor's research and through language and other difficulties, he may not have had much chance to suggest corrections to Igor.
However, for those like me, who prefer accuracy to 'artistic licence' the following points about the illustration are worth noting.
ERRORS ON THE MAIN EXTERIOR WALL
1) Josephus gives the dimensions and these are largely borne out by archaeology - Yadin estimated height from the fallen quantity of rubble, and concluded that Josephus was exaggerating the height. The wall-height given by Josephus is 12 cubits/18 feet/5.4m, and 8 cubits/12 ft wide/3.6 m, with towers 75 ft high ( it is these that Yadin most likely thought exaggerated - typical Hellenistic defensive wall-towers along a curtain wall never exceed 60 ft/ 18 m or so). They were roughly 100 ft apart.
By 'scaling up' from the illustration it is apparent that Igor's walls are 60 ft or so !! ( three times too tall !!! ) and his towers 90 ft - 100 ft !! ( more than half as
high again as the maximum they should be !! ). Who would be so wasteful of materials, labour and money in such a place building walls much higher than they needed to be?
2)The wall was a casemate or double wall, some 12 ft wide enclosing rooms used for storage and accommodation, all along its length. Igor shows a SINGLE wall ( see the 'breach'), an impossibly thin single block wide. His blocks are also way too big, as comparison with photos shows.....the block size was limited to what a man/two men could lift generally - too laborious and slow if every block must be placed by crane. The blocks are also too regular - in reality they were mostly irregular, rough hewn blocks (photos and descriptions) with smaller ones filling the interstices.
3) Josephus describes the wall as white 'limestone', but he was mistaken, it was in fact built of pinkish red-brown dolomite blocks ( photos again! ) and
covered in white plaster/stucco, as Yadin found. One might wonder why go this trouble and expense, but apart from appearance, it had a practical purpose....it prevented a besieger from calculating the height of the wall by counting courses - it is this and the optical illusion of looking up at smooth white walls that probably led Josephus ( or rather his winesses - he himself does not appear to have visited the place, despite the accuracy, by and large of his description) into over-estimating the height of walls and especially towers....as Yadin pointed out.
The whole appearance of Igor's wall is thus totally wrong. Having visited the site in 1985, Duncan would doubtless be aware of the colour, size and irregularity of the building blocks.
4) Whilst we don't know for sure, the towers were almost certainly of the roofed variety tyical of Hellenistic and Roman fortifications, and the walls more likely than not had battlements. ( the Penguin Josephus refers to the catapults and ballistae in the siege tower " driving them from the battlements".)
THE INTERIOR WALL
1) Igor shows an internal wall of vertical timbers/logs, bound together by horizontal beams. This the exact OPPOSITE of how Josephus tells us it was constructed - "Huge baulks were laid lengthwise/horizontally and fastened together at the ends: these were in two parallel rows separated by the width of a wall and the space between filled with earth. So that as the height increased the soil should not fall out they laid beams across the long baulks to secure them." ( i.e. a casemate/double wall laid horizontally and filled with earth, with the 'double' walls pinned together across-wise, not vertical timbers)
2) How could timbers fall outside the breach? ( the second wall would be some distance behind the first)....but we can put such a minor thing down to
artistic licence.
THE SIEGE TOWER
1) First the good news! The tower is correctly shown 90ft tall and iron plated - as Josephus tells us - but that's about it. Josephus tells us that the tower was equipped with stonethrowers and bolt-shooters ( and doubtless archers and slingers) "driving them from the battlements and forcing them to keep under
cover. Silva had had a great Ram constructed: now by his orders it was swung continuously against the wall until at long last a breach was made and a
small section collapsed." The whole point of a siege-tower is to over-top and outrange the defenders and suppress them with fire so that the wall can be attacked unhindered. ( more proof that Masada's towers were not 90 ft high! ). As shown, Igor's tower could not dominate/overlook walls and towers, hence
could not perform its function and in the context would be useless !
2) Why would you put a draw-bridge on a tower ( which would reduce firing positions on the front of the tower)..... and then batter down the wall in front of it so it can't be used? Josephus makes no mention of any draw-bridge. In fact the Romans crossed the gap between the ramp and breach by laying
plank(?) gangways. ( see above)
3)Then there's the Ram! Josephus does not say it was part of the tower or even in it - indeed his words imply it was not, and was separate.( The Ram
was brought up against the second, interior breach. Impossible for the tower to move through the breach - one must suppose a second separate ram in this
scenario). Igor's Ram is two thirds the way up the tower! Absolutely impossible! At the first swing it would topple over, and such a huge weight of ram and crew would cause a high centre of gravity and thus would be highly unstable - even without swinging!. Also how is it supposed to create a breach from battering the TOP of the wall? Igor's breach could not possibly be created by his Ram ! A Ram to create a breach/bring down a wall must attack its base. I know how this error has arisen...a sketch by Von Lammering/Schulten rather fancifully shows this arrangement, in order for the Ram to reach the base of the wall from the ramp as it then was - lower than the walls - but this was the result of an earthquake/tremors, particularly the 1927 one.
ROMAN ROCKETS
1) Only rockets and modern missiles leave smoke trails through the air! Firebrands and flaming bolts do not ! ( influence of movie "Gladiator" here? LOL!) . Again, we can perhaps magnanimously put this down to artistic licence.
THE DEFENDERS
1) At no point did the defenders resist in the manner depicted. Once the tower came up within missile range, overtopping the walls and towers, the defenders were quickly suppressed, THEN the Ram got busy and was used unmolested by the defenders, who busied themselves building their second wall as the Romans shook down the first....After the breach is made, ( with no defenders in sight) and the ram moved up it had little effect on the second interior earth-and-timber wall which simply compacted with the blows, Silva then "instructed his men to direct a volley of burning torches/brands at it". There is evidently no active opposition to this, which must have been carried out from close to the timber wall - no doubt the suppressing fire from the higher siege tower kept defenders heads down .
The point is, the illustration, magnificent as it is, sadly gives a completely false impression of the edifice itself - its size, its appearance and its construction. It also gives the reader no insight into actual siege methods used. Overall, It is sadly misleading to the general reader, and gives a WRONG impression of the siege of Masada !! It is a pity that a more likely, more accurate illustration was not produced.
Quote:At Masada? You mean you didn't buy Ancient Warfare magazine IV.2 (April/May, 2010)?!
Quote:Thank goodness it wasn't a complete waste of paper, then.
Whilst the article was a fairly good description of the siege,( or rather non-siege - there was little if any fighting), I too was disappointed in it, because it contained several avoidable errors.
The article states ( p.35 AW iv.2) that at Masada "the top of the siege embankment fell short of the summit". That is how it appeared to Schulten and Von Lammerer on their visit in 1932, but this was the result of an earthquake/tremors(magnitude 6.5), which shook down much of the ramp on 11 july 1927, including a later gateway built apparently through the breach (?) - not to mention earlier earthquakes. Prior to that the ramp went all the way to the wall-base. This in turn led to Von Lammerer's fanciful reconstruction of the siege tower, with the ram incorporated in it halfway up, so as to reach the base of the wall, repeated in the article and the illustration. As the quotation in the article (p.35) shows, or as the Penguin translation puts it: "Silva had a great ram constructed; now by his orders it was swung continuously against the wall till at long last a breach was made and a small section collapsed." Note there is no mention of it in conjunction with, or as part of, the siege tower.Furthermore the ram was brought up against the second, interior breach. Since it would be impossible for the tower to move through the breach - one must suppose a second ram in this scenario. Also the article and illustration refer to "lowering the gangway" from the tower, another incorrect assumption of Von Lammerer because of the erroneous idea that the ramp did not reach up to the wall. In fact, according to Josephus, the Romans crossed the horizontal gap between the ramp and breach by laying plank(?) gangways. ("Expecting further resistance, the Romans armed themselves at dawn and with gangways bridged the the gap between platform and breached ramparts."
...also translated as "... they expected that they should be fought in the morning, when, accordingly, they put on their armor, and laid bridges of planks upon their ladders from their banks/ramp "). This passage shows that there was no drawbridge used from the tower, and that the ramp extended to the foot of the walls/breach.
As to the 'dating controversy', this should be a non-starter. Silva could not have moved up to besiege the place until after the winter rains - which fall around November, so he would have arrived after that, and Masada must have fallen around April 74 AD.
Like Henk, I had been hoping that an article by someone who had visited the site would have some fresh insights, or new details, to offer. I was also disappointed that no reference was made to the possible artillery platform, some 200 yards or so from the wall, at the base of the ramp ( postulated by Alan Wilkins) and necessary because the heavier calibres of shot found ( excluding the 'rolling' stones of the defenders) were too big to have been in the tower. Necessary too to cover the tower as it was laboriously moved up the ramp.
This brings us to the double page illustration - a great illustration, but one which gives a wholly inaccurate and false impression of Masada and its walls, and the way in which the siege was carried out.
In fairness to Duncan, it should be pointed out this artwork may have relied on Igor's research and through language and other difficulties, he may not have had much chance to suggest corrections to Igor.
However, for those like me, who prefer accuracy to 'artistic licence' the following points about the illustration are worth noting.
ERRORS ON THE MAIN EXTERIOR WALL
1) Josephus gives the dimensions and these are largely borne out by archaeology - Yadin estimated height from the fallen quantity of rubble, and concluded that Josephus was exaggerating the height. The wall-height given by Josephus is 12 cubits/18 feet/5.4m, and 8 cubits/12 ft wide/3.6 m, with towers 75 ft high ( it is these that Yadin most likely thought exaggerated - typical Hellenistic defensive wall-towers along a curtain wall never exceed 60 ft/ 18 m or so). They were roughly 100 ft apart.
By 'scaling up' from the illustration it is apparent that Igor's walls are 60 ft or so !! ( three times too tall !!! ) and his towers 90 ft - 100 ft !! ( more than half as
high again as the maximum they should be !! ). Who would be so wasteful of materials, labour and money in such a place building walls much higher than they needed to be?
2)The wall was a casemate or double wall, some 12 ft wide enclosing rooms used for storage and accommodation, all along its length. Igor shows a SINGLE wall ( see the 'breach'), an impossibly thin single block wide. His blocks are also way too big, as comparison with photos shows.....the block size was limited to what a man/two men could lift generally - too laborious and slow if every block must be placed by crane. The blocks are also too regular - in reality they were mostly irregular, rough hewn blocks (photos and descriptions) with smaller ones filling the interstices.
3) Josephus describes the wall as white 'limestone', but he was mistaken, it was in fact built of pinkish red-brown dolomite blocks ( photos again! ) and
covered in white plaster/stucco, as Yadin found. One might wonder why go this trouble and expense, but apart from appearance, it had a practical purpose....it prevented a besieger from calculating the height of the wall by counting courses - it is this and the optical illusion of looking up at smooth white walls that probably led Josephus ( or rather his winesses - he himself does not appear to have visited the place, despite the accuracy, by and large of his description) into over-estimating the height of walls and especially towers....as Yadin pointed out.
The whole appearance of Igor's wall is thus totally wrong. Having visited the site in 1985, Duncan would doubtless be aware of the colour, size and irregularity of the building blocks.
4) Whilst we don't know for sure, the towers were almost certainly of the roofed variety tyical of Hellenistic and Roman fortifications, and the walls more likely than not had battlements. ( the Penguin Josephus refers to the catapults and ballistae in the siege tower " driving them from the battlements".)
THE INTERIOR WALL
1) Igor shows an internal wall of vertical timbers/logs, bound together by horizontal beams. This the exact OPPOSITE of how Josephus tells us it was constructed - "Huge baulks were laid lengthwise/horizontally and fastened together at the ends: these were in two parallel rows separated by the width of a wall and the space between filled with earth. So that as the height increased the soil should not fall out they laid beams across the long baulks to secure them." ( i.e. a casemate/double wall laid horizontally and filled with earth, with the 'double' walls pinned together across-wise, not vertical timbers)
2) How could timbers fall outside the breach? ( the second wall would be some distance behind the first)....but we can put such a minor thing down to
artistic licence.
THE SIEGE TOWER
1) First the good news! The tower is correctly shown 90ft tall and iron plated - as Josephus tells us - but that's about it. Josephus tells us that the tower was equipped with stonethrowers and bolt-shooters ( and doubtless archers and slingers) "driving them from the battlements and forcing them to keep under
cover. Silva had had a great Ram constructed: now by his orders it was swung continuously against the wall until at long last a breach was made and a
small section collapsed." The whole point of a siege-tower is to over-top and outrange the defenders and suppress them with fire so that the wall can be attacked unhindered. ( more proof that Masada's towers were not 90 ft high! ). As shown, Igor's tower could not dominate/overlook walls and towers, hence
could not perform its function and in the context would be useless !
2) Why would you put a draw-bridge on a tower ( which would reduce firing positions on the front of the tower)..... and then batter down the wall in front of it so it can't be used? Josephus makes no mention of any draw-bridge. In fact the Romans crossed the gap between the ramp and breach by laying
plank(?) gangways. ( see above)
3)Then there's the Ram! Josephus does not say it was part of the tower or even in it - indeed his words imply it was not, and was separate.( The Ram
was brought up against the second, interior breach. Impossible for the tower to move through the breach - one must suppose a second separate ram in this
scenario). Igor's Ram is two thirds the way up the tower! Absolutely impossible! At the first swing it would topple over, and such a huge weight of ram and crew would cause a high centre of gravity and thus would be highly unstable - even without swinging!. Also how is it supposed to create a breach from battering the TOP of the wall? Igor's breach could not possibly be created by his Ram ! A Ram to create a breach/bring down a wall must attack its base. I know how this error has arisen...a sketch by Von Lammering/Schulten rather fancifully shows this arrangement, in order for the Ram to reach the base of the wall from the ramp as it then was - lower than the walls - but this was the result of an earthquake/tremors, particularly the 1927 one.
ROMAN ROCKETS
1) Only rockets and modern missiles leave smoke trails through the air! Firebrands and flaming bolts do not ! ( influence of movie "Gladiator" here? LOL!) . Again, we can perhaps magnanimously put this down to artistic licence.
THE DEFENDERS
1) At no point did the defenders resist in the manner depicted. Once the tower came up within missile range, overtopping the walls and towers, the defenders were quickly suppressed, THEN the Ram got busy and was used unmolested by the defenders, who busied themselves building their second wall as the Romans shook down the first....After the breach is made, ( with no defenders in sight) and the ram moved up it had little effect on the second interior earth-and-timber wall which simply compacted with the blows, Silva then "instructed his men to direct a volley of burning torches/brands at it". There is evidently no active opposition to this, which must have been carried out from close to the timber wall - no doubt the suppressing fire from the higher siege tower kept defenders heads down .
The point is, the illustration, magnificent as it is, sadly gives a completely false impression of the edifice itself - its size, its appearance and its construction. It also gives the reader no insight into actual siege methods used. Overall, It is sadly misleading to the general reader, and gives a WRONG impression of the siege of Masada !! It is a pity that a more likely, more accurate illustration was not produced.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
