Siege Mentality

I have been totally absorbed today in reading about sieges of great cities in ancient history.

The stand off between an attacking army and a population behind defences was a common theme in the very fluid state of affairs between states and nations across the centuries.

If you put yourself in the position of a siege commander then you have two broad options.

The first is to try to capture the city under siege by an all out assault with the prospect of high casualties amongst your troops.

The second is to encircle the city where this is physically possible and sit it out hoping to grind down the inhabitants through fear and starvation.

There are pros and cons attached to each.

If subject to attack by ground forces, catapults, siege towers, battering rams, mining and sapping or other means the chances are that the eventual prize, either command and control of the target or enslavement of the captured occupants, will be much destroyed and depleted.

If a simple act of aggression and terror is the sole intention then whatever is left of walls, buildings and residents is anyway immaterial.

The option of starving out the city may take a long time but at least the assets may be intact and useable when eventually overrun.

There is from my immersion in ancient history a very strong display of cunning and ingenuity in the whole practice of laying siege. We are all very familiar with the clever concealment of a small but effective force of soldiers inside the large model of a horse in the conquest of Troy but there are many other no less devious ploys by which a seemingly impregnable fortress of a city is successfully breached.

In the siege of Sardis, now in modern Turkey, King Cyrus of Persia offered a reward to the first man in his army to scale the huge defences around the city. The defenders had prior to the siege marched around the walls parading a lion with the symbolism intended to make them strong and resistant. However, a short section could not be walked because of its position on a most precipitous slope, in itself considered to be a sturdy deterrent to attack. One of Cyrus' troops, keen to win the prize on offer was watching the steep slope when one of the defending soldiers accidentally dropped his helmet over the ramparts. The butter-fingered guard was seen to easily descend the slope, retrieve the wayward headgear and return to his sentry post. This showed a flaw and weakness in this part of the defences which was then easily exploited by the attackers who took the city by this route.

In the first siege of the ancient city of Babylon the citizens had a vast stock of supplies by which to resist a stand-off type of siege. In addition to the walls the city was bisected by a tributary of a river which provided, as far as the Babylonians were concerned a second line of defence. King Cyrus, again the aggressor,  instructed his army to take up positions at the entrance and exit of the river in readiness for an attack. The water levels were too high until the instruction was given to divert the flow through excavated channels. The population of Babylon were completely surprised by the arrival of Cyrus' massed troops as they waded through the shallows into the heart of the city.

The second siege of the same place saw a very drastic policy by the defenders. In order to prolong their stockpiled resources all of the female population were strangled excepting mothers and with each male being allocated one other woman to bake his bread. The reduced but energised population took to dancing on the battlements and hurling insults at the Persian siege army. One of the defenders was heard to say that Babylon would only fall "when mules have foals". This appeared to the speaker to be a physical impossibilty but within some months this phenomena did occur and the besiegers, feeling this was an intervention by their deities were inspired to an all out assault which was successful.

Individuals have, in ancient history, used a siege as an opportunity to be  noticed by their rulers or King by an act of bravery or foolhardiness.

A certain Zopyrus, a high up commander of a siege army and keen to demonstrate his loyalty came up with a plan by which to gain the trust of the beleaguered citizens. This was by cutting off his own nose and ears, other acts of self mutilation and abuse before presenting himself in this sorry state at the firmly bolted gates. The defenders took pity on him and felt that his defection was a major coup. Zopyrus successfully masterminded the slaughter of, initially 2000 of his former troops below one of the city gates and then a further bloodbath of 4000 of the enemy. These suicide missions had of course been pre-planned as part of the deception. Now beyond any doubt Zopyrus was given overall command of the city and promptly let in the attacker who made short work of its conquest.

There have also been recorded incidences of superstition being used to great effect.

The Persians, aware of the reverence that their enemy, in this case the Egyptians had for cats began to adorn their shields and armour with pictures of felines. In laying siege the Persians also released at the feet of their troops multiple hordes of cats and other sacred creatures which resulted in the immediate capitulation of the defenders.

The use of a wooden horse, in comparison, looks, well, a bit obvious.