02-26-2013, 02:42 AM
The main detail seems to lie in the Second Oration which has been quoted earlier. The first one is less 'florid' perhaps! But both do mention floods and siege engines on boats, etc.
I quote from the Second Oration to Constantius re the dam/full-tide:
When this had been going
on for many days in succession, part of the dyke
gave way and the water flowed in in full tide,
carrying with it a portion of the wall as much
as a hundred cubits long.
I think I have misread that line about the full-tide. Julian seems to be saying that the damns broke suddenly precipitating the waters onto the walls as if in full-tide.
Hmm, it is possible that Shapur's artificers are doing both? An initial dam around the city to create the 'lake' which is then gated-off upstream to create a subsequent body of water back up the Mygdonius. Or perhaps Shapur sees that the initial lake idea is simply not working and then improvises an additional siege tactic of building up a body of water to release as a 'battering-ram'? I do find it an interesting coincidence that an accidental giving way of the dyke leads to exactly the effect Shapur has been seeking all along. But if the breach was intentional and planned/improvised after the failed four month 'lake' siege then why does Julian not mention that? It would prove an even greater victory over the Persians as opposed to this accidental breach and subsequent successful defense.
The sequence in Julian is unequivocal:
Arrival
Damming of the Mygdonius around Nisibis
Fruitless siege attempts in boats/rafts for four months
Sudded breach which causes a section of the walls to collapse (how long is a 100 cubits? Is this a rhetorical figure? If it is, we need to demonstrate that with references to other texts, for example).
Successful defense of 3 attacks
Shapur retreats
Julian ignores the vision of Constantius on the walls and the other superstitous descriptions and concentrates on a panegyrical approach using Classical imagery. If he has incorporated Ephraim's Biblical flood imagery and converted it into a Homeric one then we can perhaps discard the whole 'lake' topos and instead imagine the Persian engineers simply damming the river above the city and then releasing the waters on cue as a battering ram. However, this leaves a four month period hanging between the start of the siege and the release of the waters. I am no expert (on many things!) and know little of siege/water mechanics! Perhaps four months means that the waters were NOT in spate from a Spring thaw but that the siege commenced after that period . . . ?
By the way, I am planning a trekking holiday to Cappadocia in early Summer as background research for the latest novel and may be able to include Nisibis. Amida was on the itinerary but the Trekking company for some reason have removed it this year!
I quote from the Second Oration to Constantius re the dam/full-tide:
When this had been going
on for many days in succession, part of the dyke
gave way and the water flowed in in full tide,
carrying with it a portion of the wall as much
as a hundred cubits long.
I think I have misread that line about the full-tide. Julian seems to be saying that the damns broke suddenly precipitating the waters onto the walls as if in full-tide.
Hmm, it is possible that Shapur's artificers are doing both? An initial dam around the city to create the 'lake' which is then gated-off upstream to create a subsequent body of water back up the Mygdonius. Or perhaps Shapur sees that the initial lake idea is simply not working and then improvises an additional siege tactic of building up a body of water to release as a 'battering-ram'? I do find it an interesting coincidence that an accidental giving way of the dyke leads to exactly the effect Shapur has been seeking all along. But if the breach was intentional and planned/improvised after the failed four month 'lake' siege then why does Julian not mention that? It would prove an even greater victory over the Persians as opposed to this accidental breach and subsequent successful defense.
The sequence in Julian is unequivocal:
Arrival
Damming of the Mygdonius around Nisibis
Fruitless siege attempts in boats/rafts for four months
Sudded breach which causes a section of the walls to collapse (how long is a 100 cubits? Is this a rhetorical figure? If it is, we need to demonstrate that with references to other texts, for example).
Successful defense of 3 attacks
Shapur retreats
Julian ignores the vision of Constantius on the walls and the other superstitous descriptions and concentrates on a panegyrical approach using Classical imagery. If he has incorporated Ephraim's Biblical flood imagery and converted it into a Homeric one then we can perhaps discard the whole 'lake' topos and instead imagine the Persian engineers simply damming the river above the city and then releasing the waters on cue as a battering ram. However, this leaves a four month period hanging between the start of the siege and the release of the waters. I am no expert (on many things!) and know little of siege/water mechanics! Perhaps four months means that the waters were NOT in spate from a Spring thaw but that the siege commenced after that period . . . ?
By the way, I am planning a trekking holiday to Cappadocia in early Summer as background research for the latest novel and may be able to include Nisibis. Amida was on the itinerary but the Trekking company for some reason have removed it this year!
Francis Hagan
The Barcarii
The Barcarii
