I think you are right that the participle by itself captures the
meaning of "after it had been attacked", but, as you say, you
could make it more explicit with postquam. In that case,
firstly, subordinate clauses in Indirect Statement generally use
finite verbs rather than extending the accusative/infinitive of
the main clause; however, the participle would still have to
agree with the accusative subject (postquam oppugnatam est). The
other question is the mood of the verb. You have probably moved
on to unit 7 by now and seen that subordinate clauses in Ind.
Statement usually use the subjunctive (unless you are
acknowledging the truthfulness of the subordinate clause, which
seems reasonable in this example). So it could be oppugnatam
est/sit (or oppugnatam erat/esset if you wanted to emphasise the
time sequence).Tommasinus wrote:1 - We understood that the city,
after it had been attacked, was being destroyed by the strength
of the soldiers. Intelleximus urbem oppugnatam* militum vi
deleri. * If I wanted to us