Saragossa in 1808 sustained a close siege of near two months; and in 1809 it was again besieged for two months. Rosas in 1808 sustained a siege of thirty days. Gerona in 1809 sustained a siege and blockade of seven months, nearly four of them being of open trench. Mequinenza (a very small work) in 1810 sustained a siege of more than two weeks. Astorga in 1810 sustained a siege of thirty days; twenty-four being of open trench. Lerida in 1810 sustained a siege of thirty days, two weeks being of open trench. Ciudad Rodrigo in 1810 sustained a siege of two months. Almeida in 1810 sustained a siege of more than a month. Tortosa in 1810 sustained a siege of six months. Tarragona in 1811 sustained a siege of nearly two months. Badajos in 1811 sustained a siege of more than forty days open trench. Lerida in 1811 sustained a siege of two weeks open trench. Saguntum in 1811 sustained a siege of a month. Valencia in 1811-12 sustained a siege of two months Ciudad Rodrigo in 1812 sustained a blockade of several months, and a close siege of two weeks. Badajos in 1812 sustained twenty-one days of open trenches. Burgos in 1812 sustained thirty-three days of open trenches. St. Sebastian in 1813 sustained a siege and blockade of nearly three months, with fifty-nine days of open trenches. Pampeluna in 1813 sustained a siege of more than four months. Monzon in 1813-14 also sustained a siege of more than four months. This list might be increased with numerous other examples, to show that even poorly fortified towns are capable of defending themselves, on an average, for more than a month. These examples, be it remembered, are nearly all taken from a period of history since any material improvements have been made in the art of attack. Since the time of Vauban the improvements in attack have not kept pace with the increased means of defence. Moreover, these examples are taken from the sieges of towns defended mainly by old and antiquated works, and entirely incapable of offering the same resistance as detached fortifications, with all the modern improvements. The value of fortifications, as land defences, is sufficiently proved by showing their general capability of resisting an invader, even for a limited period; thus affording us time and opportunity to provide other means of security. But it must not be inferred that forts besieged _en regle_ will necessarily fall after so many days. Such is far from being the case. The besieged have usually great advantages over the besiegers; and unless the latter are vastly superior in number, or the work is of a very inferior character, or the garrison is destitute of the requisite means and energy to resist an attack, they will not be taken.