Abstract:Abstract One of the most potent ways of labelling enemies in the ancient rhetoric of war was identifying them by their city. Cities were among the most highly developed symbols of state identity, and ...Abstract One of the most potent ways of labelling enemies in the ancient rhetoric of war was identifying them by their city. Cities were among the most highly developed symbols of state identity, and Roman leaders, like the kings whom they came increasingly to imitate, had to form their plans and policies around cities and their various claims to status or power. Founding, refounding, and major embellishment were normal ingredients in rulers’ city-policy. Destruction was just as effective, directly proportional in its impact to the fame or beauty of what was destroyed. The ruination of cities is a statement in the same symbolic language as founding or beautifying them: a Dresden or a Dubrovnik attracts both the tourist and the Baedeker raid. In antiquity, the city embodied much more than art or cultural heritage. Attacking famous ancient cities in the manner of Alexander or Demetrius Poliorcetes was important to a conqueror’s image. The style of the attack, the fate of the people, and the extent of the damage all had their resonances. Sacks were normal: wholesale destruction evoked Nineveh, Miletus, King Xerxes at Athens, and, above all, Troy.Read More
Publication Year: 1995
Publication Date: 1995-10-26
Language: en
Type: book-chapter
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 102
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot