As they were ripped from the altars: Civilians, sacrilege and classical greek siege warfare

Abstract

The most common view of archaic and classical Greek warfare is one of hoplites, pitched battles and strictly defined cultural norms. Within this picture, sieges are often marginalised. It was only with the development of systems of fortifications in the late fifth and early fourth centuries BCE that Greek warfare changed to prioritise the attack on cities, as agricultural lands could no longer be easily ravaged. Traditionally, historians have developed a view that Greek warfare was highly ritualised and governed by rules, one of which supposedly prohibited the targeting of civilians, which by extension we may read as settlements. In general, however, this view of Greek warfare has been questioned in recent literature. This chapter contributes to these debates, further demonstrating that early Greeks were not averse to targeting civilians and settlements in war, and that siege warfare was common. The chapter explores the specific hardships endured when war is brought to a settlement, during the siege and in the aftermath of a city’s sacking. The analysis then moves on to look at the one supposed way for persons to save themselves after their city has been sacked. This practice of seeking divine protection at divine sites (altars/temples/sanctuaries) is well known throughout Greek history and was used not only by persons in times of war, but also by those in trouble during peacetime. The usefulness and effects of taking asylum after the successful sacking of a city will be discussed and the universal protection supposedly given will be questioned.