Longest siege

[SwordsMaster]

In continuing to isolate the qualities that make the "greatest" general, the next one I thought was was sieging. Since of the last 400 years in military history more time has been spent sieging and fighting in cities than in open terrain, here is the next ranking:

I wish to know the longest siege: the commanders on both sides, the conflict, the numbers of men involved, their supplies, weaponry, arm (in case combined arms were involved).

Restrictions: both armies must have gunpowder weapons. And yes, I know about Stalingrad, so no need to mention it.

[Kagemusha]

Siege of Leningrad. About 900 days. Lasting from September 8, 1941, to January 27, 1944.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad

[seireikhaan]

Seige of Candia. May 1648 to September 1669. Mainly betweent the Ottomans and Venice for control of Crete. However, Venice also received aid from France and others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Candia
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/siege-of-candia/the-siege.html

[The Stranger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sarajevo

[CountArach]

I just thought I would pitch in that a better general would avoid sieging and instead would seak out a successful pitched battle.

[Kalle]

Why are we looking for the longest siege? Is it to honor the defender for holding out or the attacker for being able to apply pressure and support his troops for a long time?

Normally the shorter the siege the better for the winner regardless if its the defender or the attacker.

If we have 2 diffrent generals with same amount of troops, supplies and artillery laying siege to one fortress each of equal strenght the better attacking general would most likely be the one who succeds in subduing the fortress first not besieging it the longest.

Also are we only looking for the best general in the gunpowder age?

Count Arachs point is also very questionable, depending on era and some other factors. In many times commanders, good or not, thought of battles as most uncertain things that could for ever mean doom, preferring to manouver and lay siege instead.

One of histories most succcesful sieges must be the Russian siege of Sveaborg in southern Finland during the Swedish-Russian war 1808-1809.

Being one of Swedens most expensive military projects ever the fortress was suppose to hold out against overwhelming odds and act as a starting point for counterattacks against Russia and to cut off any russian armies attacking northern Finland.

However it fell to a besieger that had fewer troops and artillery then the defenders.

Treason?? and/or propanda and or psychological pressure were the dominant factors. In any case the Swedish commander handed the fortress over thus practically ending the 700 year old Swedish hold over Finland.

Kalle

[Didz]

The Seige of Troy, said to have lasted over ten years.

The Trojans were beseiged by an allied army of Achaean greek states numbering between 70,000 and 130,000 men. Excavation of the site beleived to have been the City of Troy suggest that contrary to the film depiction the Greeks constructed extensive seige works right around the city including a fully encircling wall with defensive towers. However, presumably there must have been some limitations as the city would have needed fresh supplies.

[Conradus]

I thought of Troy too, but the threadstarter said both sides needed gunpowder weapons. And though they had the gods, these obviously didn't use any rifles.

[The Stranger]

doesnt matter i think we have our winner... 16 years isnt something youre going to top easy...

what about the shortest war... thats always fun

[Didz]

45 minutes.


The Anglo-Zanzibar War was fought between the United Kingdom and Zanzibar on 27 August 1896. With a duration of only 45 minutes, it holds the record of being the shortest war in recorded history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War

[The Stranger]

yeah knew of it already :P still fun though