02-23-2013, 07:43 PM
Quote:he does claim (somewhat surprisingly) that siege-machinery was floated on ships; but the flooding was probably localised, and it is not necessary to imagine the city standing in the midst of a lake
Ah, right! That does make things a bit more plausible, if we assume that Shapur dammed the river to the south-east of the city, causing it to burst its banks and rise against the eastern wall. If the wall itself was of mud-brick, this might cause the water to wash out the foundations and bring the wall down, perhaps...
The ships remain a problem, though. It does seem a little like Julian was developing Ephraim's metaphor of the Ark surrounded by the waves - I'm not sure how familiar the imperial court would have been to Syriac hymns by eastern bishops though. It's surely unlikely that Shapur would have brought boats with him to the siege (across a desert!), and the vicinity of Nisibis, today and I would imagine then too, is not heavily stocked with available timber for constructing massive rafts.
Theodoret's and Michael's (mid 5th century?) accounts of the earlier siege both suggest that Shapur used the river to collapse the walls - perhaps they misunderstood quite how this was done, or perhaps Shapur did indeed use the directed pressure of the water? - and then waited for the flood to recede before attacking. Surely if the Persians had launched ships, these later commentators would have noted such a marvellous feat?
It's also possible, of course, that Shapur tried his river trick twice, in 337 and in 350, hoping to succeed a second time when the first attempt so nearly worked...
Nathan Ross
