 Section 0 of THE BOOK OF FAMOUS SEAGES This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Daniel Sagner, Massachusetts, United States. THE BOOK OF FAMOUS SEAGES by Tudor Janks, Preface It is only in modern times that history has come to be anything more than a story of wars carried on between either rulers or peoples. In old time warfare was endless. Every people knew that its lives and its property were safe only so long as they could defend themselves from enemies that had no scruple to prevent them from killing or robbing all foreigners. The art of making war or defending a country against its enemies, therefore, was more important than any other study. Success in war was the only path to greatness and the price paid for safety in the possession of land or property. When a people was overcome, its men were slain, its women and children carried into slavery, its homes destroyed or occupied by the conquerors, while its wealth became the plunder of its enemies. In this state of the world, every town was necessarily a fortress ever ready for attack, and the people living in it were the garrison who expected to defend it whenever enemies appeared. The earliest civilized peoples were those who had learned to support themselves by tilling the ground or by keeping flocks and herds, and these settled peoples had to have homes not too often changed. They were surrounded by other peoples who were hunters and fishermen or robbers who lived a wandering life and had no scruple in taking by force the property they coveted, and who were attracted by the wealth gathered and stored in settled places. To be civilized, a race had to fight for its home, so it came about that the first victories of civilization over savagery consisted in being able to defend fortified places against attack. When there grew up a number of civilized nations, and these came into conflict through the jealousy or ambition of their kings, the struggle to see which would overcome the other took two forms—the battles in the open field and the attacking and defending of fortresses, or walled towns. Histories tell us much less about the methods of attacking and defending strongholds than about ordinary battles, and yet the story of sieges is certainly as important, and in many ways more interesting than the story of field warfare. In this book it is told how great cities have been taken by able commanders. Out of the hundreds of battles for fortified towns, those have been selected which give a fair idea of the science and art employed in siege warfare from the earliest times to our own day. It will be found that each siege represents a somewhat different state of the art of war, and usually shows the methods of some great general unstoutly opposed by men not only brave, but skilled in defense and determined to hold their own against him. After the early days when accounts are somewhat mythical, a glance is taken at the siege of Troy, mainly to show how little knowledge of the art of warfare was shown on either side, and then we consider the exploits of the Persians under Cyrus, of the Spartans against the Athenian allies at Plataea, of Alexander against Tyre, and so on, following the art of war as waged by Caesar, Titus, and the Saracens, and the Crusaders, and the great commanders of more modern times down to the Japanese taking of Port Arthur, the most recent of great sieges. Although no more than a score of sieges are treated, yet these have been selected as types of the rest, and show clearly the various methods of taking cities from the beginning of history to our own times. Another list might have been selected, or the number of sieges might have easily been doubled or quadrupled, but it is believed that those chosen are the best for the purpose. To treat of more would have made the accounts too brief. Whoever reads even so summery a sketch will see at what great cost the nations have preserved their civilization or their nationality, and will learn that no age has been without its great leaders, its brave soldiers, and its devoted patriots. Tudor, Janks. End of Preface. Section 1 of the Book of Famous Sieges. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. The Book of Famous Sieges by Tudor Janks. The Taking of Cities. All boys know the difference between a game of football, as it was played in the old days on many a school playground, between two groups of boys chosen by leaders from their own schoolmates, and the same game as it is played today before thousands of deeply interested lookers on by picked and trained teams from the great universities. And yet the object of the two games is not very different. In each case one party struggles to overcome another, and to carry or drive a ball over the goal line. The difference between the two games consists simply in the fact that one is a mere struggle without any particular science, while the other is scientific, from beginning to end. There is the same difference between the fighting of battles in the earliest days of the world, when two great bodies of men came together and struggled, each to overcome the other, and the battles of later times, when every part of the struggle was directed by the careful study of the science of warfare. Of course there is a certain interest in every sort of a fight, whether we approve of it or not. This may come from the fact that mankind have always been fighting animals, or it may come from mere curiosity, the desire to see which side will win. But there is all the difference in the world between such an ignorant interest and the really scientific interest and pleasure gained from watching a struggle in which skill, courage, learning, and genius are pitted against the same qualities in worthy enemies. An old Indian who was taking a party of young men upon a hunting expedition in the West was amused at their excitement over the sport. Hug, he said grimly, this is nothing. Wait until you hunt men. And we may say to those who find excitement in going over the strategy of the football field, or in listening to accounts of brilliant plays, that these are nothing, when compared with a great game of warfare wherein from the beginning of the world men have been forced to stake their lives, and those of their wives and children upon the issue of their conflicts. There is no part of this great story of warfare that is not of thrilling interest. No branch of military science that may not be studied with delight as well as profit, but too often the issue of great battles, the winning or losing of the victory, has been turned upon mere accident, or been decided by overwhelming force. Upon the battlefield even Napoleon declared that God was on the side of the heaviest battalions, and Cromwell to his pious motto put your trust in God added, but keep your powder dry. There is, however, another branch of warfare which, when fully developed, became more purely a science. From the very earliest times, when warfare was almost universal, men were forced to gather together for safety. They could not live far apart for fear of attack by wandering full men. Consequently not only did they build their houses nearer together, but they chose for such gatherings the places that aided them to beat off their enemies. They built their towns, which grew into cities, either upon high places easily defended, upon banks of rivers, upon pilings out in lakes, upon islands or sometimes in thick forests, that they might be safe from attack, or if attacked, might most easily defend themselves. Hence it followed, that together, with the art of fighting in the open, there grew up another art that had to do with the taking or defending of cities. And since the attack in the defense of these strongholds was usually a matter of considerable time, there came about a careful study of ways to repel an enemy, or to overcome and capture places. This developed into a complete science in which certain leaders became expert, and what was learned in one age was handed down to the next, so that each generation learned what former ages could teach, and made inventions for themselves toward the perfecting of the science. The very name siege shows that the taking of cities was something which men went about with deliberation. The word means a sitting down, before a place so as to work out methods of overcoming it. The very earliest sieges were not, of course, complicated matters. There was a simple method adopted, which may be explained in a few words. The besieging forces, once they had gathered about the city of their enemies, forced their way directly through the fortifications, which seldom consisted of more than banks of earth, piles of logs, or logs driven upright and close together, making palisades. If the attacking army was strong enough to force its way through these, the struggle became a hand-to-hand conflict, much like an ordinary battle. If they could not in this way carry the place by assault, as it is called, the only thing to do was to form a ring around the place and to wait, until those inside were starved into submission. This sort of a siege was not improved upon for many a long century, and it was in this way that the soldiers of bygone ages who were armed with spears, bows, and arrows, slings, and swords, captured their enemy cities, and overran their lands. The first improvement in this sort of fighting came about in the early times, when the nations of the earth that possessed a civilization greater than their neighbors were the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Assyrians, and Babylonians, and the other races around the shores of the Mediterranean. These peoples protected their cities mainly by great earthen or clay walls, by palisades, and by wide ditches or waterways. In order to overcome these obstacles, the besiegers of cities had to devise means of getting across the ditches, or climbing over the walls, or of driving the defenders from important points in order that their own men might take them. Their artillery, so to speak, consisted of their archers and their slingers. In order to cross the moats or ditches, they made use of rafts, inflated skins, or great bundles of reeds, or the logs of wood. To surmount the walls, they carried light ladders or ropes or of wood, to which they attached hooks or stones, so that they could be thrown to the top of the walls, and would aid the soldiers in climbing to the top. It can be readily understood that the possession of such weapons and such methods of warfare did not give the besiegers power to take really strong cities which were either by nature or by art thoroughly fortified and defended by a force in any way equal to that of the outside enemy. Consequently, many of the early sieges lasted a great number of years, and were decided only by the starvation of those within the fortified walls, or by the arrival of an army from outside to drive away their foes. To starve out a garrison it was necessary not only to prevent provisions from reaching those within the city, but at the same time to support the army outside. In places where the soil was rich and crops could be readily raised, both parties might support themselves during a siege by growing the food they needed. If the soil would not support the besieging army it would have to bring its food and supplies from long distances, and this could be done only where the besieging force was numerous enough to guard itself from attack, and at the same time to send out strong parties to bring in supplies from the surrounding country. We shall not be able, in one brief volume, to describe more than a few of the greatest sieges of history, and we shall select those which are most notable because of the importance of the places besieged, the warriors who attacked and defended them, or the interest of the plans and methods adopted by the besiegers and besieged. End of section number one. Section two of The Book of Famous Sieges. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. The Book of Famous Sieges by Tudor Janks. Section two, The First Period. As regards the science of warfare, the history of mankind may be roughly divided into five great periods, differing very greatly in length it is true, but separated from one another by great changes in the methods of making war, due to improvements in the weapons used. So far as our subject, The Taking of Cities, is concerned, the main thing which controls the carrying on of a siege and the defense is the question what men are able to throw. For the very idea of a siege supposes that one party is protected from being closely approached by the other. Although a siege may result in a hand-to-hand fight at one part or another of the fortification, this does not come about until after the wall of the fort has been broken through or thrown down or until the outsiders, by climbing the walls or building up a structure as high as the wall, have brought themselves to the same level and so may fight once more as if upon level ground. To keep the outsiders from throwing down the wall, breaking through it, or building up a structure that will bring them to its top, the main reliance is upon the use of missiles, artillery of one sort or another. Things may be thrown for two purposes, both by besiegers and besieged. One is to kill or drive away the enemy soldiers and workmen. The other is to destroy the things built up for defense or for attack. For either purpose, the enemies must get within range. If they have artillery, which name applies quite as much to the old-fashioned machines for throwing beams and stones or arrows, as to modern guns, that will send projectiles to a very great distance, then they need not come near the enemy, and neither side can long remain exposed, that is, within range of the fire of the other. So it is that the nature of the weapons used has made great changes in the conditions of sieges, and these changes have brought about the five great kinds of fighting since the beginning of history. The first of these periods extends from the earliest times, about which we know only through carvings upon old tablets and monuments, down to the time when mechanical engines for throwing missiles were invented. It is said during the reign of Dionysios of Syracuse, about four centuries before Christ. This date may not be certain, but at all events it has been handed down as about the time when these great machines were first put to use. Before this date armies could assail one another at a distance, only by means of arrows and darts, or of stones, flung by slingers. How long ago these weapons took the place of clubs and stone throwing by hand, we do not know, for they seem to have been in use further back than times of which we have any record. They may have been used 10,000 years ago, or even more. Of course these small missiles would kill men and animals, but they could not destroy the lighter sort of fortifications, nor pierced through breastforks, even though these were merely of light branches woven into basket work supported by stakes. They could be often warded off, also by light shields carried in men's hands, though now and then a strong slinger could succeed in making a masterly shot, such as that with which David slough goliath. Yet behind their shields soldiers were able to advance close to any fortifications, and by means of ladders might force their way over them to a hand-to-hand fight. For the purpose of destroying the walls themselves, or the enemy's lighter fortifications, the ancients used principally the battering ram, or a similar engine with a pointed head meant rather to pick a wall to pieces than to break it down, such where the chief weapons used from the oldest Egyptian times down to the wars of Alexander the Great. From old carvings we see also that the ancient soldiers knew how to dig under walls and towers, either to undermine and overthrow them, or to gain an entrance to a town by an underground passage. But though the carvings show how a city was taken, we cannot give the full story of any siege, and must content ourselves with a sort of general account that will give us an idea of the fighting about the walls of Nineveh, Samaria, Damascus, Kadesh, Calhamesh. In the days of such old warriors as Totmes III, the Alexander of Egypt, of Ramses II, of Tiglas Pilithar III, of Gideon and David, the stories of most of these early sieges must be much alike in general plan. End of section 2. Section 3 of the Book of Famous Sieges. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. The Book of Famous Sieges by Tudor Jenks, a siege in the earliest times. Perhaps in a list of sieges the first that is worthy of attention is that of the Siege of Babylon, which was taken something more than 1300 years before Christ, or more than 200 years before the Siege of Troy, 1184 BC, described by Homer. There is not much certainty in accounts of events going back so far as this, but this account describes the city is having been captured by King Ninus, which is a Greek name for the Assyrian king Tiglathinin, and united with his own city or country of Nineveh. This great city Babylon had existed since before the dawn of history, and at a later time is said to have been from 40 to 50 miles in circumference, or to cover an area about as great as that covered by Philadelphia today. Within its great double walls, which had declared to have been 300 feet in height, and over 80 feet thick, was enclosed an area which consisted, for the most part, of gardens, parks, fields, and orchards. The streets ran at right angles. Outside of the walls was a deep moat dug when the clay was taken out for the walls themselves. And there were a hundred gates of brass, and 250 towers in the enclosing structure. It was rather a mighty fortress than a wall. The city was built on two sides of a river, and its halves were joined by a movable drawbridge, supported on stone piers. Within the city were great palaces, two at the ends of the bridge, the outsides of which were decorated with coloured bricks, an enormous temple, and other smaller ones. And the real Euphrates, which ran through the city, supplied a reservoir four miles square. The country roundabout was a great flat plain divided by marshes, rivers, and artificial canals. Most of the travel was in big flat boats. Whether or not the siege of Babylon by 9us was exactly like all other sieges of these ancient times, we need not inquire. We know enough of the warfare of those days to be able to describe about what must have taken place. But it is probable that in these earliest days the walls of Babylon were nowhere near so high as they became when the city was at its strongest. Had the walls then been as high as 300 feet, probably the city could not have been taken by an army like that brought against it under King 9us. The strongest part of the army, which King 9us led, consisted of a force of horsemen, which, far in advance of the main body of his troops, rode over the level plains in order to protect the rest from surprises, and to give timely warning of the presence of the enemy in case any outposts of the city should be met with. The coming of these cavalrymen would put to flight all the inhabitants of the country, who, in peaceable times, occupied the fields and villages of clay huts, thatched with rushes and branches built here and there along the great network of canals and watercourses that made this plain, now a desert, one of the most fertile regions of the earth. We may be sure that the Babylonians had posted horsemen of their own miles from the city in order that they might have early warning of the coming of the enemy. These outposts would be the first to arrive with news that the enemy's army was at hand, riding at full speed over the plains and dashing over the bridges, their horses lashed to the highest effort, they appeared at the bronze gates of the city, gave the password, and carried the warnings to the commanders of the garrisons stationed in the many towers along the great wall, then would be lighted the beacons, that by their light at night or smoke in the daytime, called the defenders of the city to arms. Hasty orders sent the bodies of archers and slingers to their posts at the broad top of the wall, which was wide enough for a number of chariots to drive abreast along its top. Meantime, following closely after the galloping scouts, came the country people, in much the same manner as some 700 years later, they are described by Macaulay as thronging into the city of Rome when it was threatened by Lars Portina. A mile around the city, a throng stopped up the ways, a fearful sight it was to see, through two long nights and days, for aged folk on crutches and women great with child, and mothers sobbing over babes that clung to them and smiled, and sick men born in litters high on the necks of slaves, and troops of sunburned husbandmen with reaping hooks and staves, and droves of mules and asses laden with skins of wine, and endless flocks of goats and sheep, and endless herds of kine, and endless trains of wagons that creaked beneath the weight of corn sacks and of household goods, choked every roaring gate. Although Macaulay's lines refer to a time so many centuries later, there can be no doubt that except that boats were more frequent than wagons, they paint a true picture of the flight of the dark-skinned country folk to the great stronghold of Babylon before the advancing army of Ninus. When at length the enemy are within sight upon the flat plain, the brazen gates are shut fast, the outer drawbridges are drawn up or destroyed, the soldiers stand at their posts behind the breastworks on the edge of the wall, and the siege is begun. Having advanced to a place just out of range of the arrows and stones from the slings, the forces of King Ninus prepare their camp, spreading around the city upon all sides, making their campfires, putting up their tents of skins stretched upon branches, and settling themselves for a long siege. At once they begin building a wall of their own to protect their camp from any sudden attack on the part of the Babylonians. They know that there are heavy forces of soldiers behind those enormous walls, and that if the sentinels upon the top of the walls can spy out weak places in the line of the besiegers, at any moment one of the great gates may be flung open, and a column send out to attack the weak point. If such attacks are made, it is but for the purpose of delaying the work of the besieging army, for it is too strong to be put to flight. The Babylonians know that their main strength is in keeping behind their walls and in making the work of the besiegers as difficult and as slow as possible, but though the work may be delayed, it cannot be stopped when the besiegers are so strong. The army outside has brought with it spades and hose and other tools for digging, and gradually the soft clay and sand is dug out to make a ditch, and then piled up into a wall high enough to shelter the soldiers from the arrows and stones that might reach them, even though the range may be a long one. This wall once completed, a more dangerous task must be undertaken. This is the building of a mound. The outside wall is really no more than a protection for the besieging army, making it hard for the Babylonians to deliver attacks against them. The mound is the first means of attack. Having selected some part of the city wall, which seemed not so well defended or not so strong as the others, the soldiers of King Ninus bring baskets full of clay, which they empty over the front of their own wall, very much as modern laborers begin the building of a road across a valley. Load after load of the earth is poured over the edge, and gradually between the two walls a cross wall is built up, extending from the outer wall and rising higher as it nears that of the city. During this work, there is a fierce battle between the bowmen and the slingers on each side. Large forces of the Babylonians gather upon their own wall opposite the growing mound, and discharge their arrows and the stones from the slings against the workmen who are carrying the earth that goes to building the mound. The outsiders in the same way do their best to protect their own men and to slay the Babylonians upon the wall. Every step in the building of the way between the two walls makes the danger greater, since, beginning almost out of range, the workers are forced as the mound lengthens to encounter a hotter and hotter rain of missiles from the marksmen of the city. Although many of them wear an armour of metal rings or plates sewed to cloth of quilted garments or of leather, and besides protect themselves behind great wicker and leather shields, which are planted upon the mound as they advance, such a work cannot be carried on without great loss of life, a loss greater outside than within, since the Babylonians have the advantage of fighting from a higher wall, thus shooting downward upon their enemies, and are protected by better fortifications. But owing to the fact that not many archers and slingers can find room at the point on the wall's opposite which the mound is being built, the besiegers, by constantly sending reinforcements, are able to carry the mound steadily forward until it actually reaches the wall of the city. They have selected for attack a point midway between two of the great towers along the city wall, so that they may, as far as possible, escape the missiles sent from these. Once having reached the walls, the workers are actually safer than before, since the bowmen and slingers are forced to expose themselves over the edge of the wall in order to fire straight downward, and thus offer themselves as marks for the arrows and stones of the besiegers who shoot from along the mound. Having completed the cross wall between besiegers and besieged, there comes the problem of breaking down the city wall, or of climbing over it. Although only a narrow column of men can find footing upon the mound, yet there can be brought against them a force not very much greater. Probably the final attack will take place at night, this can hardly be a surprise, since great fires are kept lighted by the besieged along their own wall. But even the great fires can give but an uncertain light, and the work of the marksman is made less deadly by the flickering flames and the dark shadows. When the column that has been formed for the assault has reached the city wall, the fiercest struggle of all takes place, great beams of wood, cauldrons of boiling water, flaming pitch, stones, everything that is heavy is brought to the edge of the wall, and hurled down upon the soldiers below. Meanwhile, by means of long ladders, beams of wood, bundles of reeds, the mound is raised in height. Though the brave soldiers fighting their way slowly upward lose many of their number, they are reinforced by fresh soldiers as fast as they fall. While the besiegers are thus making good their footing upon the wall, the Babylonians within are building breastworks across their own wall, on each side of the point where the besiegers have gained a foothold, in order to prevent entrance to the city. Along the top of the wall begins a hand-to-hand fight, the besiegers try to clear the defenders from its top, the defenders resisting stoutly every step in advance. But where the besieging army is stronger and is able to gain complete possession of a large portion of the wall, it is not long before they can tear this down, since it is always easier to destroy than to build up. Having thus broken away into the city, they can more easily destroy any defences that may have been built behind the opening they have made, since these are usually much smaller and weaker than the wall already taken. In this way, entrance to the city is gained, and the breach once made, the enemy once established within the walls, the advantage is upon their side, for the simple reason that they have what is called the interior line of defense, a phrase that requires a word of explanation. Imagine a small body of men attacked by a surrounding crowd, unless the odds are too great, this central body has the advantage of position, since it has a smaller surface to defend, a smaller distance to go to strengthen a weak point of the force. Suppose for example that the forces of King Ninus had broken their way into Babylon and are advancing through a gap in the wall, the force brought against them must surround them in order to stop their advance, they must occupy a wider space and can less easily send more men to any weak point that needs reinforcement. Meanwhile, the attacking party are immensely strengthened by their own bowmen and slingers, who from the top of the captured wall can rain missiles down upon the heads of the Babylonians who are resisting the advance of the procedures. Nevertheless, there may be many a long and stubborn fight before the city is finally taken, but in these fights there is no great advantage on the part of the citizens against their enemies, and if the attacking force is more numerous, the breaking open of the wall and the entry of the troops from outside leads sooner or later to the downfall of the city. In battering down walls, attacking armies from the very earliest times as we know from old stone carvings made great use of the battering ram, this was a long heavy log often armed at the head with a heavy metal point and hung from its middle so that it could be swung forward and backward, delivering at each swing a blow the force of which depended not only on the weight of the ram, but was often also greatly increased by bodies of soldiers who lent all their strength to aid the swing of the instrument. Sometimes the rams were hung in a frame that was roofed over and protected at the sides, and these could be pushed forward upon wheels. After the mound had given way for advancing the battering ram, the thickest wall built of small bricks could not long sustain its battering blows. Such was the method of attacking the great cities that grew up in the vast plain where the story of civilized mankind begins, but in the next siege we shall see that even the little skill shown in taking these cities was not known to the early Greeks and the Trojans. End of section three, reading by Liam Young. Section four of the Book of Famous Sieges. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org, recording by Tommy Hursant, Carlsbad, California. The Book of Famous Sieges by Tudor Janks, The Taking of Cities. The Siege of Troy. The attack upon Troy, which is supposed to have taken place very nearly 12 centuries before the birth of Christ, is without doubt a less skillful example of the art of taking cities than were many that preceded it. Certainly, in the story as it is told by Homer, there seems to be little more military art used in taking the city than might have occurred to the minds of a crowd of small boys or African savages. It may be that there was more use of devices in taking the city than Homer cares to mention, or rather we should say, than are told of in the poem or series of poems that are attached to the name Homer. The object of these poems was to show the bravery and the skill and the fighting of certain leaders of the two forces. Both the poet and his audiences cared little or nothing about how the city was attacked and cared a great deal to hear of the boasting speeches and personal combats with spear, shield, and sword were in the great fighters Achilles, Agamemnon, Hector, and Paris played the part of stage heroes. Next in interest to these personal fights came the stories of how gods and goddesses came down from the upper air to help one warrior or to trick another. The whole story of the 10 years during which the Greek fleet was tied up along the shore and the Greek army was encamped upon the plane around the Walda city shows us therefore little except the quarreling and fighting, the grief and joy of the petty kings and chieftains upon whom both armies depended for success. Even in the method of their fighting there is nothing scientific. It is a matter only of which fighter is able to strike the hardest blows or to throw his spear with most force or to run away quickest when overcome as no Greek warrior of those times ever hesitated to do. The American reader of the Iliad can hardly help noticing the strong likeness between the warfare carried on by Greeks and Trojans and that waged between the American Indian tribes at the time when the white men had but recently come to America. If there be an advantage it is upon the side of the American Indians in that there seems to us something more admirable in their silent fighting their stoical bearing of wounds and injuries and their manifold endurance of whatever fate sent them. According to Homer the Greeks shouted as they fought to terrify the enemy and to encourage their own side and they burst into tears when hurt and even yelled with agony when in pain. The honors to be gained in battle were alike in the two cases as the Indians drove to take his enemy's scalp and the Greek did his best to capture his enemy's armor. As the Indian chief would ride out and challenge his bravest enemy to single combat so did the Greek heroes and in both cases the important movements of the battle were delayed until the question of strength of the two champions could be settled. A matter that really should have been of no importance. Imagine if you please a general of today challenging to single combat a general of an opposing army while the troops gathered as if in a football field to see what would come of it. In the ten years during which the siege lasted it would seem that the Greek army was strong enough at least to maintain its place around the city in spite of the efforts of the Trojans to drive them away. And if the Greeks had known enough there were many ways by which the Trojan wall could have been breached or undermined and thrown down or an opposing mound like that of the ancient eastern warriors could have been carried to the walls and the city thus captured. But although we read in Homer of the Greeks building a wall to protect their camp there is no mention of any besieging work being carried toward the wall of the city itself. In the early part of the poem we have in book third Paris challenging Menelaus to single combat and the dual following. And the next book is a battle between the armies merely an undisciplined struggle of two bodies of armed men in the open. In the seventh book we see the Greeks building a wall around their camp apparently for protection only after the loss of the battle since the Trojans are shown in camping on the field. Halfway through the poem in book 12 we find the Trojans under Hector trying to assault the Greek camp in turn. In this attack the enemy are unable to force their way across the ditch at the foot of the wall and are compelled to descend from their chariots and attempt an attack on foot the army having been divided into five bodies. Then the hero Sarpedon succeeds in breaking through the wall at one point while Hector throwing an enormous stone against one of the gates breaks it down and the Trojans drive the Greeks from their camp and their ships. The only artillery they used if we may call it so is stone throwing and the enormous stone cast by Hector is the only missile that seems worthy to be thought of as an attempt at bombardment. But even in this book Homer gives more space to a marvelous portent an eagle in the sky in conflict with a snake then to the operations that resulted in breaking through the Greek's defensive wall. A few words however show us the Trojans trying to dig away the mounds of earth and to set fire to the beams that support the earthworks while the Greeks upon top of the entrenchments shower the besiegers with darts and arrows. This fight by the way is said to have taken place in a snowstorm. In the midst of this busy scene the poet represents his fighters as pausing now and again to deliver long operatic speeches but perhaps as in the opera this touch is not meant to be realistic. The actual breach of the wall made by Sarpedon the Trojan champion was accomplished by the use of a lever which pried apart the great stones and in the actual passing of the wall there is a line to show that the Trojans made use of ladders or of some similar contrivance. The return of the Greeks to the battle is preceded by a shower of stones and arrows from the Greek marksmen and the career of the victorious Trojans is cut short by a strong body of Greeks who resist them under the command of the two Ajaxes. But the final repulse of the Trojans comes about through the downfall of Hector struck by a stone thrown by Ajax and again the Trojans be take themselves within the city little or nothing haven't been accomplished by their sortie. Another attack of the Trojans is more successful in destroying the Greek wall and the Trojans reach even the first line of the Greek ships but are once more repulsed. Of course like many other incidents about the city this attack and repulse of the Trojan warriors is regarded as being brought about by the work of the gods who interfered every moment to aid a friend or thwart an enemy. When the Trojans are pursued back to their walls in an attempt to make a stand against the Greeks Hector is frightened and caused to take refuge in the city by the appearance of the god Apollo. When once more the Greeks appear advancing against the walls of the city at the very beginning of book 22nd we at last hear of what looks like a systematic method of attack for Homer tells us how the Greek soldiers made their advance under the protection of their shields. The old Greek temples were covered by a roof known as a testudo and probably from its resemblance to this roof the method of protecting themselves by holding their shields over their heads is likewise called the testudo a name that has survived to our own time in natural history since it has been applied to the tortoise because his shell is formed of plates closely set together and therefore resembles the ancient roof like structure of shields under which soldiers were accustomed to protect themselves from arrows and other missiles in advancing against a besieged city. It is doubtful however whether the Greeks actually made the skillful joining of shields into a single roof over their heads that was afterward adopted by the Romans and no doubt had been used by many other nations before them. Homer's Greek line simply speaks of their resting their shields upon their shoulders and he does not give us any reason to suppose that this was not done by each soldier singly. As to the final capture of the city there are some authorities who are inclined to doubt the whole story of the great wooden horse stating that it is only a poetical way of expressing the fact that the Greeks gained entrance into the city by treachery through the opening of a gate that was known as the horse gate. It has been said too that the episode of the horse may come from a confused legend regarding that a battering ram was used possibly with a horse's head. On the other hand it does not seem likely that's so peculiar a story so full of detail and connected closely with many other events handed down from antiquity was entirely an invention. We may if we choose accept it and believe that a small body of soldiers could have been concealed in a hollow image a great horse and once within the city could have stolen out and opened the gates to their comrades particularly at a time when the Trojans believed the siege to have been abandoned. It was natural that the close watch over the wall should be given up that only a small body of men should be left at the gates and that a body of men once within the city could have held their own against an attacking force around one or two of the gates until the return of the Greek army from the island Tenedos to which they had retired. Once within the city the story of the siege is at an end but from one or two incidents during the fight within the walls we may gather something about the structure and the strength of the defenses. Thus while the Greeks were trying to break into the Trojans citadel we are told in the Aeneid how a big tower at the top of the palace was loosened from its foundations and toppled down upon their heads by the work of one or two Trojans. As this is spoken of as a lofty tower from which the whole of Troy could be viewed it was certainly looked upon as a main feature of the palace. We may therefore get some idea of the size and importance of the building when a main feature of it could in a short time by the use of levers be torn from its foundations and hurled down upon the attacking Greeks. Another incident of the same attack was the destruction by Perus the son of Achilles of a great palace gate which Perus beat from its fastenings single-handed wielding an axe. These events seemed to point out that the buildings the palace the citadel the walls were not of a very massive construction. Probably they were built mainly of bricks after the usual fashion in neighboring parts of Asia and partly of stone and woodwork. Certainly if they had been of the massive masonry that investigators have found in some even more ancient cities we should not hear of their destruction under so feeble an attack. It will be seen by this brief account of the siege of Troy that it was of little importance from a military point of view. Its greatness consisted in its being made the subject of a great poem and in its connection with the Grecian mythology the most poetic and fascinating series of fairy stories myths legends that the world has ever known. To the student of military affairs the fighting around a Troy seems a crudeness itself. The main object of the campaign the taking of the city appears to interest the two armies least of all the affairs that occupy their attention. Personal squabbles single combats grand speeches visions of gods and goddesses all of these Homer tells us with a force vigor and simplicity no poet has sense equal but a tribe of savages in Africa to say nothing of the American Indians at their highest point of development would have used more effective means and more ingenuity in taking a fortified place then can be found by a close reading of the Iliad in the Odyssey or even of the Aeneid where Virgil has continued Homer's story. Nor is it easy to understand why this should have been so. The Greeks at least were as practical minded as any people of the world their land was full of fortified places their remote forefathers had built enormous structures which seem massive to us who dig them up today yet clever craftsmen as they were they do not seem to have brought into use the devices for taking cities which had been known centuries before in Egypt and Babylonia as we see them depicted upon temple walls and also had been used in a land with which the Trojans must have been in communication that is in the regions around the Tigris and Euphrates where Assyria and Babylon were situated. In the next great sieges of which history tells us some five or six centuries later there is at least some science shown in the taking and defending of cities and forts in fact as we have already pointed out the Greeks and Trojans were far more unskillful in these matters than were the great races in Babylon Assyria and Egypt many years before their times. The old carvings show that these people knew how to use the battering ram, how to undermine walls, how to build great mounds of earth up to the city walls and also how to meet these different kinds of attacks. Our Bible has many references to show that the Jews had learned these arts from their neighbors and like them knew how to fight with slings, arrows, rams, ladders and other weapons but there is no need to do more than refer to this since the arts of those early times remained unchanged and were employed by later generals. We shall return then to the city of Babylon and tell of its taking by the Prussians under Cyrus or one of his generals. End of Section 4. Section 5 of the Book of Famous Sieges. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Stephen Seidel. The Book of Famous Sieges by Tudor Jinx. The Siege of Babylon, 538 B.C. If we were to tell about the Siege of Babylon by Cyrus only those facts wise men of today are willing to accept. The story would be a brief one indeed. More than five hundred years before Christ this siege took place and those were not days of exact history. The accounts that come to us were largely mixed with fables and with bits of stories gathered from tradition. Which are true and which are false there is nothing to show. That the city was taken by Persians there is ample evidence. Probably the general way of taking it is correctly stated though some say that it was another than Cyrus who used the plan and the little anecdotes of his doings at the time may or may not be true. The story of his early life is not unlike that of Romulus or of Oedipus the grandson of a king ordered to be left exposed to die because of the prophecy that he should take his grandfather's throne. Cyrus was brought up by a shepherd or herdsman and only in manhood came back to the court. He became a king 559 BC and was still a young man when in command of the Persians he set forth to conquer the mighty fortress city Babylon then ruled by King Belshazzar. It is difficult for us to determine just how lofty were the walls and how strong the defenses of this ancient city. Instead of telling us accurately about such matters the older historians tell how Cyrus, while on the march toward the city, arrives at a little river and is aroused to a mighty wrath against it because one of his sacred white horses is drowned in crossing the stream. Like an angry child the Persian king vows that the river shall no more run and sets his great army to digging 360 canals into which he drains the river leaving its bed dry. Arriving at Babylon in the spring of that year he fights a cavalry battle with the Babylonian outposts who soon retreat within the walls, close the gates, and settle down inside confident that no human power could overcome their defenses which were now at their full height and probably far stronger than when 9S took the city. When Cyrus's army was drawn up around the enormous circuit of the widespread city it looked so small as to excite the derision of the Babylonians gazing indifferently upon it from the battlements of their lofty walls. And apparently they were justified. The ordinary way of taking cities at that time was to build a mound high enough to raise the besiegers to a level with the tops of the walls. Now and then if wood was plentiful great towers were used instead of lofty mounds. To destroy these mounds or towers the besieged people would dig great mines below them that the structures might fall in. Or when besiegers were ready to climb over the walls they were met with boiling water, burning oil, or pitch while showers of stones and arrows came from both sides and were received upon great shields. If the mound or tower could not be destroyed at least the besieged could build towers of their own opposite the threatened points and could raise these as fast as the besiegers raised theirs. The walls of Babylon, as we have already noted, are said to have been upward of three hundred feet high at the very least. And we can understand the amused smile with which the Babylonian aristocrats looked down upon the feeble Persian force that crept ant-like along the great flat plains far below them. Cyrus, however, was not such a commander as those against whom the Babylonians had fought before. He had with him the most valuable military engine in the world, a bright and ingenious brain, and he soon succeeded by strategy where forces might have been despised. When cities could not be taken the commanders were accustomed to blockade, that is to build ramparts around on every side and then in camping to wait until the provisions inside the city were consumed and starvation delivered the inhabitants into their hands. The Babylonians judged by what they saw that Cyrus had adopted this plan, for as they took their usual outings in their chariots upon the broad driveway along the walls, they could see the busy Persians digging a ditch around their city and throwing the earth into an embankment on its farther side. This, to the Babylonian gentlemen, was an even greater joke than the first arrival of their foes, for every well-informed citizen knew that in the grainries and reservoirs of the great city were stored sufficient food and supplies to support the whole city for twenty years. There was something very amusing in imagining the young Persian, Cyrus, passing the time from his early youth to middle manhood, picnicking on the plains around the walls of Babylon, while the citizens went about their daily affairs as little disturbed as if swarms of ants were raising anthills out there upon the great plains far below. It was really a popular recreation to take note of the doings of the Persians, who, as Xenophon tells us, next built tall towers which must have seemed like pygmies viewed from the lofty walls above here and there along the ramparts. These were set upon the trunks of tall palm trees, apparently as if upon stilts, for it is said that Cyrus wished the Babylonians to believe that they meant to provide against sorties. Really, the purpose of these towers was far different. It may be that Cyrus's plan was suggested by his foolish anger against the little river he had crossed. At all events, when the Babylonians had begun to lose interest in the Persians' puny fortresses, and had returned to their daily round of business and amusement, Cyrus took the occasion of a great feasting and banquet within the city to connect his long trench by short canals with the river Euphrates. Through these little canals the waters of the river were led away into the long trench, or, as Herodotus says, into a great reservoir that had been dug by a former queen of Babylon. An hour by hour its depth was decreased. When the waters were sufficiently lowered so that the Persians could walk in its bed, Cyrus sent a strong force along the course of the river until they came to where it entered beneath the great gates in the walls into the heart of the city of Babylon. In order to distract the attention of the guards, Cyrus had ordered a feigned assault to be made here and there against the walls or gates, and while these attacks were being repulsed, the forces that he had sent along the bed of the river succeeded in forcing their way into the center of the city. As I have said, it was a time of feasting and merry-making. The Babylonians were taken completely unawares. They were unarmed and many of them no doubt had drunk too much. In a few hours Cyrus had seized the strong citadels and was in possession of the city. Here is the story as Herodotus tells it. The Persians, who had been left for the purpose at Babylon by the riverside, entered the stream which had now sunk so as to reach up to about midway of a man's thigh, and thus got into the town. Had the Babylonians been apprised of what Cyrus was about, or had they noticed their danger, they would not have allowed the entrance of the Persians within the city, which was what ruined them utterly. But they would have made fast all the street gates which gave upon the river, and mounting upon the walls along both sides of the stream, would so have caught the enemy as it were in a trap. But, as it was, the Persians came upon them by surprise and so took the city. Owing to the vast size of the place, the inhabitants of the central part, the residents at Babylon declared, long after the outer portions of the town were taken, knew nothing of what had chanced. But as they were engaged in a festival continued dancing and reveling, until they learned the capture but too certainly. The capture of a great city by a trick, or rather by shrewdness against stupidity, shows how ancient sieges were often determined by simple happenings. Though Xenophon tells us that Cyrus had catapults, or arrow-throwing machines, carried on camels, this is doubtful. Another historian, Satesis, tells us of wooden dummies being put on the walls of the city's sardis when it was besieged by Cyrus. But there seems to have been no general practice of digging mines or of regular attacks in these old times. In fact, much of this early history is a mass of fables. The story of the prophet Daniel, and of the writing on the wall, is familiar to us all, and there is little doubt that it was this taking of Babylon that followed Belshazzar's Feast. To about the same time belong the taking of Rome by Porcena in 508 B.C., when Horatius kept the bridge, though it is now believed the Romans could not keep the city. We read of a siege of Barca a year later, where Herodotus tells how a copper-worker detected the enemy's attempts to dig under the walls by using a metal shield as a sounding-board, putting his ear to the shield, laid flat on the ground, he could hear the miners beneath, and thus the mines were discovered. This seems to show mining was not entirely unknown in these days. About twenty years later, Coriolanus, the Roman general, gained his name by the taking of Corioli, which he did by driving back a sally of the enemy and following them so fiercely as to enter the gate with them, as Plutarch tells us. Thus a city was taken, but is agreed by the authorities that there was little real skill in the art of besieging until after the Peloponnesian War in Greece. In this war really began with the trouble over the city of Plateia, which was taken by the Spartans about one hundred years after Cyrus's exploit at Babylon. Artillery, or machines for throwing arrows and stones, came into general use first in this war of the Grecian states, but later than this earliest siege. End of Section 5. Section 6 of the Book of Famous Seages. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Stephen Seidel. The Book of Famous Seages by Tudor Jinx. The Siege of Plateia, 429 B.C. In the history of Greece there were two great leading parties. At the head of one stood the state of Sparta, while the other was led by the Athenians. The jealousy between these two powers led it last to the long contest known as the Peloponnesian War. In the state of Biosha was the city of Plateia, the only one of its state that was friendly to the Athenians. Secretly, three hundred Thebans, allies of Sparta, gained admission to the city one night and marching to its public square summoned the Plateians to give up their alliance with Athens and to join with them on the Spartan or Lacodemonian side. When the Plateians discovered how small a body of Thebans were in the city, they captured more than half the invaders and put them to death, in spite, the Thebans said, of a promise to spare their lives. This was the immediate cause of the outbreak of the war. A great army collected under Archidamus, the Spartan king, and, entering Attica, ravaged it far and wide, burning towns, destroying crops, and carrying off what they could not destroy. Meanwhile, the Athenians remained behind their walls in Athens, refusing to risk a battle. The Spartans did not attempt to assault Athens, the walls of which were high and strong. This was the first campaign, and the second was carried on in the same way. But during the second campaign the Athenian forces captured Middleene, killed over a thousand nobles, threw down the walls of the city, and sent colonists who were friendly to the Athenians to occupy its lands. Meanwhile, the Spartan forces, united with the Thebans, had attacked Plataea, laying waste in their march all the country round about. Then the forces encamped before the walls, and sent heralds to summon the city to surrender. The Plataeans begged for time to consult the Athenian leaders, and a truce was granted. But soon word was received that the Athenians insisted that Plataea should remain true to the alliance, so there was no choice but to stand the siege. So cruelly was the war waged on both sides, that the Plataeans did not dare announce their decision to hold out except from the top of the walls, and as soon as her render was refused, the besiegers began their work against the city. They cut down all the trees for a wide space round about, and built a palisade on all sides of the city to keep the Plataeans from escaping. Then they began to throw up an enormous mound to bring them on a level with the top of the walls. This mound was built of wood, stones, and earth, and its sides are said to have been protected by a sort of wooden lattice work of interwoven trees and branches to keep the sides from falling outward. Upon this work the men labored night and day in relays, and it was completed in seventy days, that is, it was built up to the walls and made the same height. But one difficulty in raising a mound against a city lies in the fact that it gives warning to those inside of the exact point to be attacked, and the Plataeans raised their wall by building up a structure of logs opposite the end of the mound and backing this wooden breastwork with bricks taken from houses nearby. The front of it was, as usual, covered with raw hides, so that it might not be set on fire by thrown torches and flaming darts. So far the advantage was on the side of the Plataeans, since they had plenty of material within the walls to raise their breastwork as fast as the mound was built up, and they could annoy the besiegers from the walls by shooting down upon them, while as exposed to arrows than were the workmen outside. Also, from behind their walls the Plataeans dug an underground mine leading to the front of the mound, and as fast as the mound was raised they dug the ground away from beneath. The loose stuff of which the mound was built fell rapidly into the opening below, and so the secret mine was discovered. To prevent the ruin of the mound, the engineers of the besiegers filled in the hole with wattles, that is, with branches woven together which kept the earth solid. The Plataeans, however, carried their mines still farther than the head of the mound and continued to dig it away from below as it was built up above. The next step, by the besiegers, was to set up their engines against the wall, and by bringing a heavy battering ram to bear, they soon succeeded in breaking it through at one point, only to discover that the Plataeans had prepared for this, by building inside the breach a second wall in a half-moon shape, what has since been called a demilune or half-moon, so that after the wall was broken through it was impossible for foes to enter the town without undergoing a terrific fire of stones and arrows and a rain of all sorts of missiles from the new inner wall, while forcing that also. Other rams were set to work at different parts of the wall, but some were caught in nooses and pulled aside, others broken by means of great timbers which were slung by chains from each end and supported by poles thrust over the walls. By raising these great timbers and letting them fall again, some of the rams were broken. These devices were not new, but were known even to the ancient Egyptians and Assyrians. By this time the besiegers had made up their minds that the city was not to be easily taken, and consequently decided that the place must be starved into submission. Since the siege had been expected by the Plataeans, they had long ago prepared for it, by filling a city with provisions, by sending away, all except the fighting men, four hundred Plataeans and eighty Athenians, with a hundred and ten women to bake bread. The Spartans decided to build something stronger than the Palisades around the city, so that a smaller force might keep the Plataeans in, and they built two long walls protected inside and out by a ditch. This was to resist any sally by the Plataeans, and at the same time to prevent their being rescued by an Athenian attack from without. Their two walls were sixteen feet apart, and at intervals were towers extending clear across from wall to wall. Here and there were huts to protect the soldiers. These long walls were built of bricks, and when they were finished the besiegers thought they could safely send away half of their force. But before giving up the attempt to take the city by storm, they made one last attempt. Bringing great faggots of dried branches they tumbled these one night into the space between the mound and the wall, poured sulfur and pitch over them, and when all was ready set fire to the great pile. Undoubtedly this fire might have destroyed the wooden barriers which the Plataeans had built, for it was far too fierce for them to extinguish. The historian Thucydides says that it was the greatest fire ever seen save where forests are incandled by the rubbing together of branches. But during that night came a great thunderstorm which extinguished the flames. This attempt having failed, and most of the forest having marched away, there came a lull in the siege while the besiegers waited for the provisions in the town to be exhausted. Too feeble to make an open attack, the Plataeans became so reduced by famine that at last more than half of them decided upon attempting to escape secretly from the place, so as to leave more food for the rest. In order to climb over the besiegers' walls, it was necessary to make scaling ladders, and the first question to be settled was, how long these should be? We get a good idea of the simplicity and lack of science of the soldiers of the time when we learn how they decided as to the height of the besiegers' walls. They sent to the battlements a great number of Plataeans to count how many bricks there were from top to bottom, this they could do, Thucydides tells us, because the wall on the side toward the city had not been thoroughly whitewashed. When the men had reported how many bricks they had counted, the leaders took the report of the majority and then worked out from this by a simple sum in multiplication the height of the wall. The scaling ladders being made of the right length, the 222 Plataeans who had decided to attempt an escape waited for a dark and stormy night when they knew that the sentinels on the besiegers' walls would retire to the towers for shelter, then keeping some distance apart from one another so that their weapons might not clash, and having only the left foot shod to prevent slipping in the mire, the Plataeans lowered themselves from their own wall, crossed the space between, erected their ladders and climbed to the top of the besiegers' wall. The leading party of Plataeans were armed with daggers and spears and were followed by a number of archers. Climbing quietly to the top of the wall in the rain and darkness, a number of them had gained the top when the usual awkward soldier knocked down a tile in its clatter aroused the enemy. An outcry was followed by the rush of armed guards from the towers to man the whole wall. But the Plataeans, as soon as they had gained the top, had seized the towers to the right and the left of the place where they were crossing, and were able, by stationing a strong force of archers in each, to keep back the besiegers. As it had been arranged, so soon as the attempt had been discovered, the Plataeans inside the town made a pretended assault against the walls of the besiegers, and in the darkness it was impossible to tell which attacks were real and which were feigned. While the besiegers were thus in uncertainty, the escaping Plataeans had all succeeded in reaching the top of the outer side of the Spartan wall, and those who had already crossed ranged themselves on the farther side of the outer ditch, from which they were able to direct their fire against the besiegers who tried to regain the captured wall. As the Spartans carried torches and the Plataeans were in darkness, the latter fought at a great advantage, and their archers slew many of the Lachodemonians. When three hundred reserve troops of the besiegers had found out where the real attempt to break out was being made, and had arrived to prevent the crossing, they found that they had come too late and could only shoot into the darkness toward where they supposed the escaping Plataeans to be marching. It had been arranged among the besiegers that if an attempt to break out should be made, certain signals should be displayed by lighting torches, but the Plataeans very cleverly lighted many torches of their own in different parts of the wall, so as to confuse the signals that were meant to bring help to the Spartans. As soon as a force could be got together, it pursued the escaping Plataeans, but these having at first taken the road toward Thebes, that is toward their enemy's country, rightly believing that this was the last direction they would be expected to take, were able to get a good start, and then to turn back toward the mountainous country where all trace of them was lost. Of the two hundred and twenty, all but eight escaped, a few having turned back while yet between the walls, and one unfortunate archer having been captured just at the outer ditch. In the morning the Plataeans who had been told by the few who returned that the attempt had been an utter failure and all were captured, begged for a truce to bury the bodies of their friends, a request that must have angered the besiegers, and that led to the discovery of their friend's successful escape. As for those left within the city, they were soon brought to terms. An assault against the city being tried was so weakly met as to prove a second might easily be successful, but as a matter of politics the assault was not made for a very curious reason. The besiegers did not wish to take the city by storm when once they were sure of it. Looking forward to a time when peace should be made, they wished to be able to say that the Plataeans had surrendered of their own free will. So they persuaded the Plataeans to let them enter the city and to submit the question of surrendering to certain men sent from Sparta. As it was impossible to refuse the Plataeans agreed to the terms. Then followed a sort of mock trial, consisting really of long political speeches on both sides, which resulted in the putting to death of nearly all the garrison and the selling into slavery of the unfortunate women who had been retained in the city to bake the soldier's bread. Within a year afterward the whole city was destroyed and the materials used to build a great caravan sari and a temple to the goddess Hera, or Juno. The siege of Plataea thus ended with the escape of half its defenders and the death of the rest. As an example of the art of war it at least shows a great advance in military devices over the aimless fighting about Troy, proving that the Greeks had gained during the centuries some notion of how cities might be taken. The struggle had lasted for two years and is looked upon as the first really methodical siege. Here were regular walls, towers, and battlements to keep the siege from escaping, and also a second line of the same defenses to keep aid from reaching them. It was the first circumvalation. Then, too, the besiegers used the mound in assaults, and there was mining to destroy siege works with the building of towers within to meet towers outside and the making of a second wall to defend a breach made in the first. There was science shown on both sides. Section 7 of The Book of Famous Sieges. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. The Book of Famous Sieges by Tudor Janks. Section 7. The Second Period Whether or not the heavy artillery that preceded gunpowder was invented in Syracuse, we may date the invention somewhere near the time of Dionysius the tyrant of that city, and with the contriving of this class of machines, a complete change was brought about in the art of besieging strongholds. Probably the first idea of sending a heavier missile than the ordinary arrow of stone from a sling was to build up a large crossbow much stronger than any man could pull by his unaided strength. When such a bow was set upon a frame and provided with a little windlass by which it could be drawn back, it became possible to shoot very long and very heavy bolts and arrows, and these would go much further and more swiftly than one fired from the handbow. The arrows were laid in a channeled through. The next step would be to adapt the same machine to the firing of stones instead of arrows. A very simple matter, as it required only the putting of a flat block at the middle of the bow string, so that when the bow was released the block would strike the stone and shoot it out of the trough. This heavy artillery bow was the beginning of the complicated machines of the same kind, that afterward were built to an enormous size, and fired great beams or stones heavy enough to better down a fortification. Of these an account will be given later. The bow, having been developed and magnified, some genius must have seen that it was possible to make a big sling upon the same principle, that is, to have a very large sling worked by machinery instead of a small sling used by hand. The machine for throwing stones based upon this idea consisted of a heavy and long beam of wood carrying the sling at one end, the long end, and being heavily weighted at the other. This beam being set up upon a pivot, when drawn back down to the ground, would raise the heavy weighted end, then a stone having been put in the sling while the lighter end was fastened down. The beam was suddenly released, the heavy weight descended carrying the long end through a wide arc and throwing the stone out of the sling to an enormous distance. These too were improved greatly at a later date. This ancient artillery was made to throw light stones of ten pounds or less, darts or great boulders as much as three hundred pounds in weight. Of course they were frequently used to attack one another, that is to say, when an enemy's catapult became troublesome it would often be destroyed by bringing a number to beer upon it and shooting it to pieces if possible. One very unpleasant use made of these throwing machines was that of hurling into a city dead bodies or compounds that were poisonous or ill-smelling so as to cause disease. There were countless forms of this ancient artillery and the names given to the various devices are most confusing since the old authors are not always careful to use the same names for the same sorts. It must be remembered that for several centuries before Christ down to the 17th century these predecessors of cannon were in constant use and that clever men were ever engaged in improving them and making them more effective. Their effect upon sieges was to bring about the building of much stronger and loftier walls, but at the same time it was not at all impossible for a builder who had plenty of time and money to make a wall strong enough to resist them. As these machines could easily be made of immense size and would throw to great distances stones of a weight great enough to batter down all but the heaviest fortifications. No longer were soldiers shields or light-pressed works built of wood able to resist such heavy missiles. Consequently attacks upon fortified places had either to be carried on from a greater distance or when the besiegers approached they had to protect themselves by heavy banks of earth or strongly framed breastworks of logs that could resist the missiles from the heavy artillery. Heavy towers or breast walks were covered with earth or great mattresses to break the force of blows and also provided with an outer covering of raw hides which would not take fire for it was as easy to throw great masses of burning stuff as to throw heavy rocks or beams of wood. Since these engines of war could be constructed wherever timber could be found or could be taken apart and transported on wagons light fortifications would no longer resist an army provided with such weapons. So city walls had to be made both higher and stronger and light outworks were of little use except for a short time since they could soon be battered to pieces by the enemy's artillery. It resulted from the use of these engines of war that sieges became more scientific and better prepared but were seldom attempted except by a strong force well supplied with artillery and engineers. Alexander the Great of Macedonia is said to have had portable catapults that is he carried the metal parts and fitted them with the necessary beams and cords. The machines of this sort were thought to be of Syrian or Phoenician invention and in the next siege we saw see Alexander using them against the city of Tyre the richest and oldest of Phoenician ports. End of section seven. Section eight of the book of famous sieges this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Dan Ficklin Indianapolis The Book of Famous Sieges by Tudor Jinx The Siege of Tyre 327 BC It will be as well to begin the story of Alexander's taking of the city of Tyre by admitting that from the modern point of view there is little or no excuse for the exploits of the Macedonian conqueror. Even his admirers admit he had no other purpose than to extend his power as widely as possible though he seems to have made the excuse that he wished to extend Greek civilization. Having made himself master of Macedonia and the neighboring regions having discovered the power of his soldierry to overcome lesser armies Alexander simply extended his conquests farther and farther as he learned others weaknesses in his own strength. As a boy Alexander complained that his father would leave him nothing great to do. Taught by his mother to think himself a descendant of Achilles coming to the throne at a time when his kingdom was full of revolt Alexander was trained to warfare from the beginning and had placed in his hands by the death of his father the best organized army than in the world. He was about 20 years old when he took the throne and at 22 he had already won great victories against barbarians and Greeks. He was no older when at the head of 35,000 men he invaded Asia defeating at the Granicus river a great Persian army that left all Asia Minor in his hands. The next year he defeated 600,000 versions the army of King Darius. It was at this time that he turned southward to attack Phoenicia for the Phoenicians were the great naval power of the world and Alexander did not dare march into Asia leaving behind him Phoenician fleets that might aid his enemies at home or cut off his retreat. Of the Phoenician cities the greatest and richest was Tyre the mother city of Carthage which began as one of its colonies. The grandeur, the pride and the power of the city can be best understood by reading in the bible the 27th chapter of Ezekiel where the prophet most poetically sets forth the city's magnificence in predicting its fall. There have really been two cities of Tyre the old and the new one upon the mainland the other on a small island some two miles long across a straight half a mile in width the old city had resisted the attack of Nebuchadnezzar for 30 years but had finally been destroyed. New Tyre the island city was surrounded on all sides by lofty walls built of squared stones set firmly in gypsum magnificent fortifications of masonry with lofty towers. To the north and south of the island were two harbors one looking towards its sister city Sidon the other toward its daughter city Carthage. In these harbors upon the approach of Alexander the Phoenician fleet was sheltered a fleet of galleys with masts and sails but also rowed by from three to five banks of oars. Alexander had with him no fleet when he first approached the city and was compelled to make an attack by land. The old city of Tyre had been abandoned and the Tyreans had sent their women and children and their old men for the most part to shelter in Carthage so that the new town was strongly garrisoned by some 30,000 effective men was amply provisioned and its people did not for a moment believe that Alexander could take the place. When his heralds arrived to demand Tyre surrender they were carried to the lofty walls that face the shore and thrown into the sea in wanton insult to the Macedonian army. The first step in the siege was to construct a great mole or causeway so that Alexander could bring his army from ashore to the island. This of course was begun out of range of the engines from the walls. To construct the mole Alexander used the materials of the abandoned city first driving piles of cedar from the forests of Lebanon deep into the bottom of the strait and building up the work with wood, stone, and earth with which to great firmness he had mingled rushes. Much of the hardest work was done by the inhabitants of the country round about whom Alexander's soldiers gathered together and forced to labor at its construction. At the task of building the mole Alexander's men worked day and night while their general encouraged the best workers by large presence and, as was his custom, oversaw every detail in person. Along the edges of this mole the waves of the Mediterranean dashed and to keep it from being washed away the Macedonians felled great trees with which they made a barrier along its whole length as a breakwater. So soon as the growing causeway approached within the walls of Tyre the Tyrian engineers set up great machines for throwing darts and stones and posted their skill for archers and spearmen thickly along the battlements so that the soldiers found their work more and more perilous the further it proceeded. They were protected by great shields and by manta letts or rolling breast works made of logs framed together but every now and then some workman would expose himself and be picked off by a Tyrian marksman. To meet these attacks Alexander was forced to erect two great wooden towers at the outward end of the mole and a station upon them his own engineers and archers to oppose the fire of those besieged by shooting those who fired from the walls. Meanwhile the Tyrian fleets came boldly out from the harbors knowing that there was no navy to oppose them and advancing towards the sides of the mole poured a heavy fire upon Alexander's soldiers and worksmen. When the towers were finished a battle waged fiercely between the Macedonians and Tyrians for days the mole meanwhile growing slowly. The front of the towers had to be protected by raw hides for from the walls the Tyrian engines flung cauldrons of burning pitch and masses of flaming tow. When they saw that the towers could not thus be destroyed the Tyrians repaired in one of the harbors a great flat boat such as they used in transporting animals. This had two mass upon it from the yards of which they hung cauldrons filled with pitch or bitumen and perhaps sulfur or other combustibles. The whole boat was then loaded with dried wood well soaked with oil and bitumen and when all was ready two of the triremes or ships of war one on each side towed the flaming ship out of the harbour bringing it close to the towers at the head of the mole they set it adrift in such a way that the winds and waves carried it against the causeway. The back of the fire boat had been so loaded that the prow was raised high in the air and it ran up the side of the mole and stuck fast. A few brave Tyrian soldiers now set fire to the great mass of wood and sprang into the sea to swim back to their friends. Alexander and his soldiers rushed to extinguish the flames but at the same moment the Tyrians gathered upon the walls sending volleys of missiles against them and despite the Macedonians efforts the great towers caught fire and after a single hour most of the mole was destroyed. Thus failed Alexander's first attempt and we can imagine the rejoicing of the Tyrians as they yelled with triumph gazing of the smoky ruins from their lofty walls. They had taken some few Macedonian prisoners and these they tortured and put to death in full sight of their companions tossing the bodies into the sea. This desecration of the bodies was to the Macedonians the greatest of all insoles since to them as to the Greeks the burial of the dead was a matter of supreme importance. By his failure and the insults of the Tyrians Alexander was driven to mightier efforts. Leaving his able engineers and clever workmen to build a broader bigger mole Alexander departed for Psydon to get together a fleet and to summon more soldiers to his assistance. While the work upon the mole proceeded Alexander collected a first 80 and finally a fleet of over 200 vessels and he was also joined by 4,000 Greeks under Cleander. In command of this great force Alexander returned to the siege. Having captured a few of the Tyrian vessels that had ventured too far from the harbors he drove all the rest of the enemy ships from the seas. They were drawn up in the harbor and their prowls towards the entrance and across the entrance to the harbor the Tyrians stretched a great chain. Then Alexander's fleet was moored along the shore on both sides of the mole ready to attack if the enemy's naval force came out. Having thus guarded against interference from the Tyrians Alexander's men built many great catapults. These they placed upon flat boats and upon slower vessels of his fleet and upon the mole itself. Other vessels were provided with lofty towers or with battering rams and two of them carried great bridges hinged to the decks and drawn up against their mass ready to be dropped down upon the Tyrian walls when a breach should be made in them. In order to repulse the coming attack the Tyrians erected many wooden towers on top of their stone walls and from these discharged great volleys of arrows and flaming firepots against any of the Macedonian vessels that approached. As the Tyrian walls were 150 feet high little could be done until they were broken through at some point and when Alexander's fleet advanced the attack and drew up their rams against the walls and lowered men with crowbars and hammers to break the foundations it was discovered that the base of the great wall was protected by an enormous mass of loose boulders against which the rams had no effect and which could not be removed except a few at a time under the fire of the enemy. But the greater the difficulty the more fiercely the Macedonians conducted the attack. Alexander's engineers prepared great flatboats and had them guarded by triremes which are said to have been male clad that is protected either by metal or leather and ropes against the fire from the walls. These boats were tied to the mole and from their decks divers were sent to attach nooses to the loose stones so they can be hauled up and deposited in the flatboats by which they were carried out to sea. From the Tyrian walls were thrust long poles with hooked knives to cut the ropes that fasten the flatboats. Then Alexander sent some of his vessels to guard these ropes but still the ropes were severed by Tyrian divers who, probably by hidden ways, swam out from beneath the walls with knives in their hands. At length Alexander was forced to moor his boats with chains and then gradually succeeded in removing the loose stones from the base of a part of the wall. One of the causes that made the Tyrians hold out so bravely was the hope that they would get help from Carthage which owed them everything for past favors. But both Carthaginians and Tyrians were Simites, keen in trading, shrewd in commerce but lacking in generosity though brave and skillful were driven into a corner. There was in the race little sympathy with their fellows and throughout Tyre's great extremity the Carthaginians remained idle spectators of its ruin. The next attempt of the Tyrians to interfere with the siege consisted of a naval attack. Across the narrow mouth of the harbor they stretched many sails as if to drive them thus hiding their fleet from the Macedonians. Behind this screen 13 of their strongest vessels were loaded with soldiers and one day at noon suddenly withdrawing the screen of sails these dashed out into the harbor driven at full speed by their rowers and attacked Alexander's vessels that were drawn up to protect the side of the mole. It is said that Alexander was doing the classic equivalent for enjoying his lunch or else was passing the hot time of the day in oriental fashion by taking a nap. At all events things went badly for the Macedonian fleet which lost many men and was in a fair way to be captured. Learning of this sudden outbreak Alexander showed as one of the riders say the qualities of an admiral and repelling it hastily preparing for action a number of his own vessels he dashed at full speed around the whole island on which Tyre stood. Though he was in full view of the Tyrians on the walls so busy were the vessels implying their attack that they had no warning of the coming vengeance until the rescuing Macedonian fleet appeared to cut them off from the mouth of their harbor attacking them in the rear. Out of the 13 Tyrian vessels two were captured and a number of others severely damaged making their escape with the greatest difficulty. Alexander had no desire to be interrupted again during the lunch hour by similar naval impertinence so he stationed enough of his own vessels before the mouth of the Tyrian harbors to make certain that their vessels could no longer interfere with the besiegers work. By this time the mole had come close enough to the wall so that the battering rams could be swung to and fro to deliver their shattering blows but against the solidly cemented ramparts of Tyre the rams proved nearly useless. Now that he had a fleet while the Tyrian fleet was bottled up Alexander was able to attack the wall even at other parts than those reached by the mole and sending his war vessels close to the city he tested the strength of its walls upon all sides. It is said that there is always a weakest link in a chain. At Tyre this was found on the seaword side of the fortification. Taking it for granted that they would always be able to rely upon their fleet the walls were either thinner or weaker toward the sea. Here the army succeeded in cracking dislodging and removing stones until a breach in the wall was made. Two vessels had been made ready to lower bridges onto the opening as soon as made and now these were rowed or pushed forward. The bridges were dropped and the heavily armed Macedonian soldiers advanced with lance and sword behind their shields to clear the way for the besiegers. But the Tyrians had gathered in such numbers behind the breached wall and poured upon the attacking party so fierce the volley of stones, arrows, burning pitch, and balls of flaming tow that Alexander's men were driven back while behind the breach the Tyrians built a second wall curved into a half moon that for the time closed the gap. Then came an interval of three days during which both sides were making ready for the Grand Assault. Alexander brought together all his battering rams opposite the weakened wall, sent both his fleets to break the chains at the mouth of the Tyrian harbors, and at an appointed time the whole Macedonian force was let loose upon the city. All the engines at once began flinging heavy stones and great timbers against the walls, while the Macedonian fleets rammed and broke the chains, entered the harbors, and attacked the Tyrian vessels. The old breach was widened, the bridges once more lowered from the floating boats, and Alexander's chosen men in closer ray fought their way to the walls and gained their top. Then, separating into two parties, they marched along the top of the walls, taking in turn each tower as they came to it. The attacking fleet also succeeded in reaching the walls of the harbors side, put up great ladders by which the soldiers climbed at the top of the walls, and at a short time the Tyrians were driven back from their defenses, retreated to the center of the city, and made their last stand around one of their temples. According to the old-fashioned, Alexander led his men in person, and after taking the citadel and reforming his guards, attacked the Tyrians in their streets. They were no match for the Macedonians in hand-to-hand fighting, and the Macedonians were wild with their age to avenge the torture and killing of the captives. In a short time, 8,000 Tyrians were put to death, and 2,000 were nailed upon crosses. To show how unequal was the fighting in the streets, we may note the statement that only 20 of the shield-bearing Macedonians were slain. The whole loss of Alexander in taking the place was about 400 killed, and three or four thousand wounded. A greater loss than Grant suffered in taking Vicksburg. Before taking the city, Alexander had had a dream that Hercules had stretched his hand out over the walls to welcome him into the city. Perhaps for this reason he pardoned all those who had taken refuge in the Temple of Hercules, while slaying or selling into captivity all the rest, some 30,000. To celebrate his triumph, Alexander sacrificed to Hercules before his temple, making a sacred offering of the great engine that had first breached the wall, and then held a grand naval review and paraded his forces, celebrating games and sports before the temple. So, after seven months, fell this city, believed to be unconquerable. The site of this island city today is occupied by a small and unimportant town, with a few thousand inhabitants. But the great mole, to build which exhausted the city in a forest, still exists, and has caused a change in the tides about the city that has made the harbors fill up, thus destroying not only the city itself, but those very advantages that made its site valuable. Gosping Plutarch tells us that the boy Alexander was wasteful in throwing incense upon the sacrificial fires, and that his tutor rebuked him, telling him to wait until he had conquered the lands where incense was made before being so lavish. After Tyre was taken, Alexander found amongst the spoils great stores of frankincense, and sent a great quantity of it to his tutor with the message, this will teach you never to be niggeredly with the gods. It is important to remember that Alexander was helped in his warfare by the cleverness of the Greek engineers, and that they had learned from the earlier nations the secrets of siegecraft. Alexander's exploits were so celebrated that they were known throughout the civilized world, and no doubt the story of his sieges and the means used by him for taking cities were entirely familiar to the Carthaginians, and also to their great rivals the Romans. Thus, probably, the art of warfare was handed down from nation to nation until it came to Rome. The next siege, that of Sagantum, was what brought about the great Punic wars, and led to the ruin of Rome's great rival in the south, across the Mediterranean. It is an interesting siege also, because Saguntum was founded upon a rock, and could be attacked from only one side. End of Section 8. Recording by Dan Ficklen, Indianapolis. Section 9 of the Book of Famous Sieges This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Stephen Seidel. The Book of Famous Sieges by Tudor Jinks The Siege of Saguntum, 219 BC Some of those who have written about great generals in the past have put the Carthaginian general, Hannibal, among the three greatest, the other two being Caesar and Napoleon. But such an estimate is based upon their general character as great men. Considered simply as soldiers, Frederick the Great of Prussia and Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden are certainly the equals of any who ever lived. Frederick, being often put at the head of the list. Hannibal, however, exceeds all the rest according to these same writers in his unselfish and patriotic character. He fought for the good of his country and never put his own interests against those of his nation. It happens, owing to the sort of wars that he fought, that Hannibal did not conduct any very great siege. This was because he was fighting with a not very large army against a great number of foes and in the enemy's country. He did not have time or sufficient force to settle down before a stronghold and to take it by siege. He was, therefore, much less skilled in this form of warfare than either Alexander or Caesar. The only siege of importance that he carried on was against the fortified city Saguntum upon the eastern coast of Spain. The city, at that time, was only one mile inland, though now the coast has extended so that it cites three miles from the sea. It was situated upon an enormous rock, the sides of which were cliffs three hundred or four hundred feet high except on the westward where a slope was more gentle. To provide against attack at this, its weakest point, great walls had been built there in a very strong and high tower. Although in those days the usual plan for attacking such strongholds was to build a great mound of earth, as that Alexander used in reaching the walls of Tyre, this could not be done against Saguntum, since the rock was too high and the mound could not be brought as high as the walls. Hannibal was, therefore, compelled to cut down hundreds of trees and build a long galleries of strong walls that were called vigniers. These, covered on the top with hides or earth, were like over-ground tunnels, and through them his soldiers could safely advance against the westward side near to the walls. Out of wood also Hannibal's engineers built great towers and battering rams covered with roofs. The towers were placed upon rollers and gradually moved forward until they came so near the walls that the archers and slingers could attack the defenders from above. This kept the soldiers of Saguntum from rushing out to capture or to set on fire the rams, which are said to have been of enormous size. The Saguntines at first drove the Carthaginians from their rams by their volleys, but as soon as the men were protected and the rams could beat against the walls, these soon began to yield. Hannibal succeeded at last in throwing down part of the wall and three of its smaller towers. The Saguntines had plenty of stores, were excellent fighters, and, being the last town in Spain to resist Hannibal, they hoped that if they could hold out a reasonable time, help would come to them from the Romans. Hannibal had a hundred and fifty thousand men and was well provided with siege machines, but he wished to take the city as soon as possible, and so, upon the making of the first breach in the walls, he ordered to charge without waiting to widen the breach and gain a broader front of attack. His men, consequently, fought at a disadvantage and were again and again driven back with great loss. Their great numbers were of no advantage since they could only advance in a narrow column. The Saguntines, encouraged by their success, constantly rushed out to attack the siegeworks, and at one time succeeded in wounding Hannibal in the thigh, so disabling him that he had to give up the active direction of the attack. Once before this, Hannibal had narrowly escaped being crushed under an enormous stone thrown from the wall. In these attacks, the Saguntines made great use of blazing darts, called Fellerica. Probably these were first made to set fire to the siegeworks, but they proved most effective also when used against Hannibal's soldiers. For five days these assaults were repeated at intervals, but the Carthaginians could not force their way into the city. In spite of his hurry, Hannibal was compelled to see that the city could not be taken with a rush. He left the main works in the hands of his engineers, who first built a long breastwork protected by towers across the western front of the city, behind which the Carthaginians were safe from attack. Then, at their leisure, the engineers constructed enormously high towers of many stories, upon each of which were strong bodies of archers, slingers, and engineers with their artillery. When this lofty tower had been brought within bow shot of the wall of Saguntum, so heavy a fire was poured down upon the defenders that they could not remain upon the upper part of the wall, but were forced to leave it undefended. This left the pioneers free to advance close to the foot of the wall, which was built of stones laid not in mortar but in clay, with picks and levers the base of the wall was soon weakened and the wall thrown down. But meanwhile the Sagoutines had had time to build a half-moon wall inside to protect the breach. This, however, was a weaker wall in the first, and being commanded by the tower could not easily be strengthened. Another breach was soon opened in another part of the wall, and having a strong force the Carthaginians were able to prevent these breaches being closed. After several such breaches had been made, a strong force of Carthaginians being sent at once to attack each could not be repulsed. The Sagoutines were forced to flee from the wall and to take refuge in their strong citadel or great tower. By the time Hannibal returned in person to the attack the defense seemed so hopeless that he offered the citizens fair terms if they would surrender. But refusing to give up the Sagoutines gathered all the wealth of their city into one great pile, set fire to it, and slew themselves. When, at length, the great tower of the citadel was in turn undermined and fell, the Carthaginian army entered only to find the place a mass of ruins. This siege lasted for eight months, and despite the attempt to destroy the city's wealth there was enough booty found in the city and sent to Carthage to make the avaricious Carthaginians eager to see the war carried by Hannibal into Italy. Five years later occurred the remarkable siege of Syracuse by the Romans under Marcellus. This is mainly remarkable for the wonderful feats in engineering that are told of as the work of the great Archimedes, a native of that city. But unfortunately we do not know exactly the nature of the machines used by the philosopher. He was more interested in pure reasoning than in the clever things he made, and so we have no means of knowing more than history tells us, that he destroyed and drove away the Roman ships. Suppose it was by means of explosives that Archimedes set them afire or raised them in the air. Would not the story read much as it does now? At all events the siege may be briefly told, though we cannot make clear all its happenings.