Sorry for the attention-grabbing title ( 
) but I stumbled across an Egyptian fortress in Nubia that seemed to anticipate most of the sophistication that much later distinguished the Walls of Constantinople. Given that these were proven state of the art for a millennium, it makes me wonder how much development actually took place in fortification after the Bronze Age. Most of the principles of effective defense seemed to be already applied in this border fortress from the 2nd millennium BC!
Images:
Reconstruction
Photo
To the details: First off, the walls of Buhen were already made out of worked stone. Very unusual since the Egyptians otherwise used stoically mudbrick for fortifications. Being a southern outpost between the 1st and 2nd cataract, Buhen was built along the Nile bank to allow for resupplies being shipped in from the homeland in case of a siege.
The layout of the walls at Buhen was surprisingly similar to the landwalls of Constantinople: the enceinte was surrounded by double circuit wall. At the foot of the outer wall was additionally placed a forewall or berme to commanded the ditch that was cut into the bedrock and constituted the first line of defense.
The two main walls were strengthened by projecting towers in regular intervals, while the gate house features a highly innovative double zwinger in the reconstruction. Arrow slits were placed all along the crenellated parapet of the forewall.
Lawrence even assumes the existence of a drawbridge, although he seems to do this on the basis of the existence of the moat alone, without further, positive evidence.
On a second look, though, some of these features may not have been as advanced as they initially appear:
The stones were still comparatively roughly hewn, not as neatly worked as proper ashlar.
The projecting towers, as A.W. Lawrence surmises (Ancient Egyptian Fortifications, 1965), were too small to accommodate a number of missile troops that could project flanking fire, nor do they appear to serve a static funtion as pillars to support the wall. Rather, Lawrence believes that the gaps between them were covered by beams that allowed the defenders to throw stones vertically down at the attackers at the foot of the wall, a bit like the later machicolation worked.
The area between the two main walls also seems to be a bit too wide for an effective zwinger, granting the attackers too much space to deploy against the inner wall.
Most importantly, the berme may have been in reality a death trap for the defenders who could have only evacuated over the gate house when their position was being overrun - likely too far for all defenders posted on the more distant stretches to make it to safety.
But, overall, Buhen anticipates the defensive plan of the Walls of Constantinople quite closely. Teething troubles surely existed but the strategic concept of a multi-layered defense was already there and largely implemented.
Astonishing, isn't it?
Finally, I have a specific question concerning the arrowslits in the forewall. First, can we be sure that these were really slits and not machicolations?
Secondly, it seems that these slits were only meant to command the ditch. This is discernible from the berme tower in the foreground (photo) that features three slits pointing at a downward angle into three directions. And what do you think of the arrangement visible in the second tower in the background? This one features two rows of slits on top of each other, but how was the lower one served by bowmen - like here?
) but I stumbled across an Egyptian fortress in Nubia that seemed to anticipate most of the sophistication that much later distinguished the Walls of Constantinople. Given that these were proven state of the art for a millennium, it makes me wonder how much development actually took place in fortification after the Bronze Age. Most of the principles of effective defense seemed to be already applied in this border fortress from the 2nd millennium BC!Images:
Reconstruction
Photo
To the details: First off, the walls of Buhen were already made out of worked stone. Very unusual since the Egyptians otherwise used stoically mudbrick for fortifications. Being a southern outpost between the 1st and 2nd cataract, Buhen was built along the Nile bank to allow for resupplies being shipped in from the homeland in case of a siege.
The layout of the walls at Buhen was surprisingly similar to the landwalls of Constantinople: the enceinte was surrounded by double circuit wall. At the foot of the outer wall was additionally placed a forewall or berme to commanded the ditch that was cut into the bedrock and constituted the first line of defense.
The two main walls were strengthened by projecting towers in regular intervals, while the gate house features a highly innovative double zwinger in the reconstruction. Arrow slits were placed all along the crenellated parapet of the forewall.
Lawrence even assumes the existence of a drawbridge, although he seems to do this on the basis of the existence of the moat alone, without further, positive evidence.
On a second look, though, some of these features may not have been as advanced as they initially appear:
The stones were still comparatively roughly hewn, not as neatly worked as proper ashlar.
The projecting towers, as A.W. Lawrence surmises (Ancient Egyptian Fortifications, 1965), were too small to accommodate a number of missile troops that could project flanking fire, nor do they appear to serve a static funtion as pillars to support the wall. Rather, Lawrence believes that the gaps between them were covered by beams that allowed the defenders to throw stones vertically down at the attackers at the foot of the wall, a bit like the later machicolation worked.
The area between the two main walls also seems to be a bit too wide for an effective zwinger, granting the attackers too much space to deploy against the inner wall.
Most importantly, the berme may have been in reality a death trap for the defenders who could have only evacuated over the gate house when their position was being overrun - likely too far for all defenders posted on the more distant stretches to make it to safety.
But, overall, Buhen anticipates the defensive plan of the Walls of Constantinople quite closely. Teething troubles surely existed but the strategic concept of a multi-layered defense was already there and largely implemented.
Astonishing, isn't it?
Finally, I have a specific question concerning the arrowslits in the forewall. First, can we be sure that these were really slits and not machicolations?
Secondly, it seems that these slits were only meant to command the ditch. This is discernible from the berme tower in the foreground (photo) that features three slits pointing at a downward angle into three directions. And what do you think of the arrangement visible in the second tower in the background? This one features two rows of slits on top of each other, but how was the lower one served by bowmen - like here?
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
