- This topic has 5 voices and 10 replies.
-
Posts
-
Could someone please define this? I got from wikipedia (I know I know…kill me) that it is a blockade of a city.Is this wiki entry fairly accurate?How did it work? Is this something that couldn't be done by hoplites? You don't see it so often, as far as I know, in Greek military hisroty. But when Athens did it, how? Was it by the navy? I notice the Romans do sieges often, so I am assuming one needs the numbers, as in a Legion(s) in order to do it successfully.Some specific questions are:Was the whole city actually surrounded or just the entrance gates/escape routes (if it was a walled city)?After the forces broke through the walls or barriers and engaged in combat in the city, is this still considered siege warfare?
Yes, that definition is generally correct.The main reason the ancient Greeks did not conduct too many sieges is logistics. The Hoplite array was not a long-service force. Remember the Hoplites were tied to the land in ways that Roman Legionaires were not. The Hoplites were citizens first and soldiers second, they literally could not afford to be away from home long enough to conduct a siege. The Greeks did not really conduct siege warfare until the Peloponesian Wars.It depended on the tactical situation whether a city or fortress was entirely invested or just blackaded.The final act of a sucessful siege was the assault or surrender. That combat, if any, was considered part of the siege as well. Do not forget that it is traditional for a city that refuses to capitulate when invested to be sacked if the siege is successful.I hope I answered all your questions. If not, hit me up some more.You can be forgiven for starting your research with Wikipedia, just dont end it there. ;D
Thanks. Yes, I forgot that about the hoplites and their “seasonal” warfare.Was the formation of a siege standard or did it depend on the situation? Were the depths of the ranks the same as a regular battle in a field? Are there any good diagrams available? In one of my textbooks there are good step-by-step diagrams of some of the major battles of the Punic War, but any mention of seige warfare is not accompanied by pictures. Maybe that answers my earlier question. There are no diagrams because the siege formations were not standardized?I'm thinking of the spectacle of the Roman Army too. It must have looked quite intimidating to the enemy to see thousands of well drilled troops marching towards them. I just wonder if that same type of intimidating spectacle was used in their seige warfare.(sorry, Phid. Should have posted this in the Rome section)
You don't really form up for siege warfare. The Romans built fortifications and manned them with sentries only forming up in line of battle when the enemy sortied from the siege lines. That is pretty much the same tactic used up to now. Sieges generally lasted weeks but could last months. The Roman siege of Masada in 79 A.D. lasted over a year. Caeasar's siege of Alesia lasted several months as well and he had to build lines of circumvallation to hold off a relieving army. Here is a good link to the Siege of Alesia Most ancient siegeworks would have actually looked fairly empty of people as the soldiers would have sought cover from enemy archers. You would not have seen anything like the opening scenes of Gladiator at an ancient siege.This is a picture of what the siege lines at Alesia looked like. The interior lines are called Lines of Contravallation and the outward facing lines are lines of Circumvallation Caesar had built to defend against the relieving army.
Thanks scout! Good link too. This helps me visualize it better. It was more like an encampment than a battle formation.
The biggest difference between a siege and open field battle was the duration. Until relatively recently most battles were over in a day, often only a few hours. Sieges lasted for months and strained pre-modern logistics to the limit. Think of it like this, a man consumes about 6-8 pounds of provisions per day excluding water. This means that an army of 10,000 requires 40 tons of supplies per day without accounting for fodder for animals. The amount of supplies required by an army are almost impossible to procure locally during a siege and had to be shipped in. This is why most ancient sieges failed, not because they were defeated militarily. Sieges were often harder on the besieger than the besieged. At least those under siege had roofs over their heads and if lucky had supplies stockpiled. It was not uncommon for towns to keep two year's worth of provisions on hand for potential sieges. Most armies would melt away from disease and desertion long before the garrison was starved out. The easiest and surest way to take a city was by storm and so avoid a siege altogether.
The easiest and surest way to take a city was by storm and so avoid a siege altogether.
That's my mistake. I thought a siege WAS taking a city by storm rather than just a blockade. Is it safe to assume that a siege was a way of preventing warfare? IOW, trying to make the enemy surrender rather than fight them.
I think the whole point of the siege was simply to overcome the enemy through attrition, or at least morale. I don't think that defenders would choose to be besieged if they could help it, but holing oneself up is resorted to when one runs out of options. Look at the Jews who were besieged in Masada. I'm sure that by most accounts they would have thought that they could outlast any army that camped out outside the fortress.
Throughout most of history, most sieges have been unsuccessful. Siege was actually a tactic of coice for defenders in some places. The attacking army was much more fearful of a siege than the defenders although a siege was not pretty or comfortable for either side. Siege warfare is still warfare, just different than open-field battle.Phid, you are right that the defenders of Masada thought they could outlast any siege. They did not count on the Romans building a ramp to the top of the plateau. In the end, Masada did not fall. All the defenders committed suicide rather than face a Roman assault. The current IDF swears an oath that Masada will not fall again in the old fortress as the capstone to their military training.
In the Civil War, Vicksburg and Petersburg were classic sieges. Vicksburg was successful, whereas Petersburg not so much. In fact Petersburg resembled World War I trench warfare more than a siege. ]The Iliad is the story of the siege of Troy (that lasted 10 years).The Romans besieged Syracuse and were held at bay by the mechanical devices of the genius Archimedes.The Bible tells of the sieges of Jericho and Ai during the conquest of Canaan.
I dont think you could call the Trojan War a siege. It was much more a loose blockade as the Greeks did not completely invest the city. The Trojans still had communications with their outlying districts.If you remember correctly the Romans eventually took Syracuse killing Archimedes along the way.I dont know that I would classify marching around the walls for seven days and blowing a horn so God would destroy the walls a siege either. Although I guess you could call it short successful sige since the town was completely invested.Just playing devil's advocate here ;D
