Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a photograph by Beato.

The aspect of these migdols, or forts, must have appeared strange to the first Egyptians who beheld them.  These strongholds bore no resemblance to the large square or oblong enclosures to which they were accustomed, and which in their eyes represented the highest skill of the engineer.  In Syria, however, the positions suitable for the construction of fortresses hardly ever lent themselves to a symmetrical plan.  The usual sites had to be adapted in each case to suit the particular configuration of the ground.

[Illustration:  185.jpg THE WALLED CITY OF DAPUR, IN GALILEE]

     Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a photograph taken at Karnak by
     Beato.

It was usually a mere wall of stone or dried brick, with towers at intervals; the wall measuring from nine to twelve feet thick at the base, and from thirty to thirty-six feet high, thus rendering an assault by means of portable ladders, nearly impracticable.*

     * This is, at least, the result of investigations made by
     modern engineers who have studied these questions of
     military archaeology.

The gateway had the appearance of a fortress in itself.  It was composed of three large blocks of masonry, forming a re-entering face, considerably higher than the adjacent curtains, and pierced near the top with square openings furnished with mantlets, so as to give both a front and flank view of the assailants.  The wooden doors in the receded face were covered with metal and raw hides, thus affording a protection against axe or fire.*

* Most of the Canaanite towns, taken by Ramses II. in the campaign of his VIIIth year were fortified in this manner.  It must have been the usual method of fortification, as it seems to have served as a type for conventional representation, and was sometimes used to denote cities which had fortifications of another kind.  For instance, Dapur-Tabor is represented in this way, while a picture on another monument, which is reproduced in the illustration on page 185, represents what seems to have been the particular form of its encompassing walls.

The building was strong enough not only to defy the bands of adventurers who roamed the country, but was able to resist for an indefinite time the operations of a regular siege.  Sometimes, however, the inhabitants when constructing their defences did not confine themselves to this rudimentary plan, but threw up earthworks round the selected site.  On the most exposed side they raised an advance wall, not exceeding twelve or fifteen feet in height, at the left extremity of which the entrance was so placed that the assailants, in endeavouring to force their way through, were obliged to expose an unprotected flank to the defenders.  By this arrangement it was necessary to break through two lines of fortification before the place could be entered.  Supposing the enemy to have overcome these first obstacles, they would find themselves at their next point of attack confronted with a citadel which contained, in addition to the sanctuary of the principal god, the palace of the sovereign himself.  This also had a double enclosing wall and massively built gates, which could be forced only at the expense of fresh losses, unless the cowardice or treason of the garrison made the assault an easy one.*