Senglea's role in Great Siege

I have just put down the book The Great Siege 1565: Separating fact from fiction, edited by George Cassar. which I found very engrossing and informative. The book, as its title states, deals with the four-month siege by the Turks and goes into a lot of detail concerning weapons, tactics and all that a 16th century siege entailed.

What I found somewhat disappointing is the absence of information in detail on Senglea's role during the siege. True, Senglea is mentioned here and there, but unlike its sister city Birgu the book does not go into much detail. It could be that none of our academics found it worthwhile to write a paper on the subject, or if such a study exists, it failed to find its way into the book.

Be that as it may, and without in any way wishing to belittle or downplay the great role played by Birgu, during the grimmest part of the siege, Senglea, as the chroniclers recount, bore the brunt of the heaviest assaults by the Ottoman forces and this stands to reason when one remembers that of the two cities Senglea's bastions were the weaker. We read that whenever the twin cities were attacked, the Turkish generals hurled twice the number of soldiers at Senglea's defences than they did at Birgu's.

Furthermore, Senglea was the only place against which an attack was launched simultaneously by land and sea. The Turks' intention was to occupy Senglea from where they could launch an assault on the undefended, unfortified part of Birgu.

During a seaborne assault all along Birgu's seafront, Turkish batteries firing from their newly conquered positions on Senglea would have kept the knights on St Angelo's cavalier pinned down and unable to bring their guns to bear on the attacking enemy boats beneath them. This would have been the end of the siege and a victory for the Turkish army.

Luckily, Senglea stood firm and like its neighbour remained unconquered, hence the title given to it by La Valette, Civitas Invicta.