Two Accounts of One Siege
Two ancient writers describe the same siege. Writer A was not present, wrote 200 years later, and relied on an earlier history now lost; he praises the besieging general and gives casualty figures of 200,000 dead. Writer B was a soldier in the defending city, wrote within a decade, and describes starvation and surrender; he gives no totals but says 'countless' died. A modern historian cites Writer A's casualty figure in a textbook. You are reviewing that citation. Your evidence: the city's estimated population was perhaps 60,000–100,000, and the besieging army numbered around 40,000.
1. Assess the reliability of each writer for the casualty question, and explain why the modern citation is problematic.
Read the worked answer
Writer A is distant in time, not an eyewitness, and dependent on a lost source. His 200,000 dead is arithmetically implausible: the city held perhaps 60,000–100,000 people, and the besieging army about 40,000. Even total mortality on both sides could not reach 200,000. The round figure signals rhetorical inflation, common in victory narratives. His praise of the general makes him a partisan source on this point.
Writer B is an eyewitness writing soon after, which strengthens his account of conditions. But 'countless' is not a number, and a defender's account may emphasise suffering. He is better evidence for experience than for totals.
The textbook citation is problematic because it takes a rhetorical figure as data without testing it against population and army size. The figure should be reported as the ancient author's claim, with its implausibility noted, not repeated as fact.
2. A colleague argues that Writer B is simply more reliable because he was there. Explain why eyewitness status does not guarantee accuracy.
Read the worked answer
Eyewitnesses have access but also limits. Writer B saw the city's suffering but could not see the whole siege: he could not count the dead, know the attackers' losses, or observe decisions in the enemy camp. His account is strong on what he experienced and weak on overall totals.
Eyewitnesses also have interests. A defender writing soon after may shape the story to honour the dead, justify the surrender, or blame leaders. Memory decays, and vivid detail can be reconstructed later.
Finally, being there does not make interpretation correct. He reports starvation; his explanation of why the city fell may still be wrong.
The sound approach is corroboration: use B for conditions and experience, A with caution for the wider campaign, and test both against physical evidence such as destruction layers, mass burials, and siege works. Reliability is claim-specific, not a fixed property of a source.