famous sieges

Vidar, IIRC, the Rangers only turn up after the siege while Aragorn is planning the relief of Minas Tirith, they ride with him on the Paths of the Dead. The reinforcements that arrive in the book are more Rohirrim under Gandalf and a non-film character called Erkenbrand.

Sorry to geek out on you all there.
Anyway, I was more concerned with historical sieges/sallies. There was a massive siege of Osaka Castle in 1615 that ended the Sengoku Jidai period, in which the defenders initiated a huge pitched battle, but they lost...although as Kraxis rightly says there were loads of good examples of that in the SJ period Japan, I haven't got my copy of Samurai Sourcebook with me so I can't check...!

The siege of Orleans in 1429 is an example of aggressive defence forcing the besiegers to quit though, Joan of Arc being the French leader.

I think Caesar's siege of Gergovia in 52BC also failed due to aggressive action from the besieged, although I'd appreciate someone who knows it better clearing up the details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vidar

I think as regards to Helms deep, that there was only one Dwarf and one Elf There. In the book, Im sure that its a company of rangers led by Aragorn that turn up instead of elves like in the film, could be wrong it was awhile ago since I read it :book:

---

That's right, never quite understood why they made Haldir fight (and die ?!) at Helms Deep - but leave the Rangers out.

:balloon2:

i never read book 2 and 3 :S i want to

Ok :book: , Just checked out the battle of obertyn on Wikipedia, impressive, is it true to say that the moldavian army 20,000 strong - plus 50 cannons - attacked a temporary camp of fortified wagons in a Forest within which 6000+ polish troops, cavalry, infantry and some cannons sheltered. The Moldavians unsuccessfully tried to bombard the camp, then led an unsuccessful cavalry charge which was thwarted by the polish infantry. Then a third of the polish cavalry rode out against the moldavian left flank, forcing the moldovian general to reinforce the left leaving his right flank weakened, the rest of Polish cav then attacked and routed the right flank troops takeing some losses from moldavian artillery. The polish then made one final push with the rest of their troops which caused the remaining Moldavians to rout on mass.

Im not clear from the wikipedia article what the time scale of this seige was or even if it was technically a seige, also I think it says that a lot of the polish troops were Mercs, which kind of goes against popular feeling on the use of mercs doesnt it?, anyone able to clarify the battle? :inquisitive:

I think ill need to check out a few of these japanese sieges mentioned, I know next to nothing about japanese history, also the Battle of orleans does ring a few bells :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vidar

Im not clear from the wikipedia article what the time scale of this seige was or even if it was technically a seige, also I think it says that a lot of the polish troops were Mercs, which kind of goes against popular feeling on the use of mercs doesnt it?, anyone able to clarify the battle? :inquisitive:

---

I wouldn't call the battle at Obertyn a siege it was rather defensive action first with carefully employed counterattack later. Everything was going acording to the plan of Jan Tarnowski the Polish commander. He intentionally lured Rakesh Moldavian commander to attack there which allowed destroying his army in the end.

The battle was classical for so called Polish Old Order ( 1st Polish Republic's most popular tactic) which called either for quick attack or defending with a powerful counterattack used after the enmy is weakened. At Obertyn it was similar to the Hussite or Hungarian tactics.


BTW The soldiers shouldn't be called mercenaries but rather either employed soldiers or hired ones - professional troopers payed by the state. Many armies use such at that time - national armies in the modern sense of the term are quite a new invention. The real mercenaries were known to fight for the highest bidder, the employed soldiers fought for more than that.


I believe there is slightly better example in Polish history - the Battle of Chocim in 1621 where over 60 000 strong Polish-Lithuanian-Cossack army defended in a fortified camp blocking the way of large over 120 000 strong Ottoman force.
It lasted over one month with several Ottoman assaults and numerous sallies of the army of the Commonwealth.

Overall Poles (and Lithuanians) lost 8 000 men ( 2 000 killed, 3 000 died from wounds, 2 700 captured or deserted), Cossacks 6500 dead and the beaten Ottoman army over 42 000 dead. Not technically the thing you are looking for, but as close as I could find.

Regards Cegorach:2thumbsup:

Here's a perfect example for you...

The Battle of Cuarte or Poblet - Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar (a.k.a. 'El Cid') broke the brief siege of Valencia thanks to a daring sortie from the city and smashed an Almoravid army led by Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim (nephew of Almoravid ruler Yusuf bin Tashfin). The decision to sortie out from the city and meet the enemy on the field of Cuarte south of Valencia was a bold one considering Diaz's army numbered several thousand (roughly 5,000) to Muhammad's 30,000 strong army (some sources cite 50,000). The key to Diaz's victory lay in his rapid deployment and clever use of a feint to hold and occupy the main body of the Almoravid army so his heavy cavalry could maneuver and inflict a decisive blow on their flanks. Also the psychological impact of using such a small force to attack a much larger one combined with Diaz's already vaunted reputation amongst Spaniard and Moor alike cannot be underestimated.

The implications of this battle were significant as it was the first time the nigh invincible Almoravids had been defeated by a Spanish or Spanish/Moorish force since they invaded the Iberian peninsula to fight on behalf of the Muslim kingdoms.

FYI, the cheesy Hollyweird epic "El Cid" (starring Charlton Heston and Sophia Loren) featured this battle during the film's climactic and horrendously ahistorical ending.

:knight:

P.S. - Ok, Cuarte isnt exactly a 'famous' example of a besieged army sortying out to attack the enemy but it's a damn good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach

BTW The soldiers shouldn't be called mercenaries but rather either employed soldiers or hired ones - professional troopers payed by the state. Many armies use such at that time - national armies in the modern sense of the term are quite a new invention. The real mercenaries were known to fight for the highest bidder, the employed soldiers fought for more than that.

---

Perhaps mercenary wuold be a wrong term fro the vast makority of troops during that period (basically hired among the local population).
But you are wrong to assume mercenaries only fights for the highest bidder. Many mercenaries held a reputation for loyalty to the employer, in that they made sure to stick with them to make sure they could get future employment ect.
Also the Varangian Guard is considered mercenary... Though the Byzantines were of ocursethe highest bidder. But still. Mercenaries and fiercely loyal.

but what he says is/was true a lot of times. They even changed sides during battles, and again they were not afraid to kill their own fellow countrymen in a battle. If you have money a good mercenary band could be the ideal unit... though theyre quite unreliable if things go wrong in battle or when you turn out not to be the highest bidder

It wasn't all that rare for bigwigs to have their personal guards at least partially made up of foreign mercenaries. Those guys had no local allegiances to clan, family, estate or whatever after all and if you were just plain the wealthiest paymaster around... Another trick was to go to some lenghts ensure that the common folk resented the foreign mercs (such as by letting the latter do largely as they pleased), so that the employer and his authority was pretty much the exact only thing keeping them from getting lynched.

As for the main topic, one that might at least partially fill the criteria would probably be the Swedish repulse at Alte Veste in 1631, where the Imperial cavalry sally was the final nail on the coffin of the Protestant attempts to capture the location. Dunno if it really counts as a "real siege" though.

The whole episode really ended as something of a stalemate anyway, AFAIK.

Siege of Syracuse 416bc?
Strictly I'd call it more just successful counter siege work than sally per-se but there were clearly some sallies involved & reinforcements were by sea into the city.

Bound to be a bunch of others in the Syracuse/Carthage wars & Punic wars.
The Romans had to have a good excuse to develop the extensive counter-sally siegeworks they developed :inquisitive:

The battle of Vienna looks like a good one...

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

I saw an arte special on this siege and was hugely impressed

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/27/0,...392507,00.html

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/19/0,...392371,00.html

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/23/0,...392407,00.html

One note about the third link from the post above

Quote:

---

Doch der Artillerie der Türken gelingt es vorerst, den Angriff der polnischen Kavallerie zu stoppen. Die Polen, auf denen sämtliche Hoffnungen ruhen, müssen sich zurückziehen und neu formieren. Alles ist wieder offen.

---

i.e.

Quote:

---

However, the artillery of the Turks succeeds for the time being in stopping the attack of the Polish cavalry. The Poles on whom all hopes rest must withdraw and form anew. Everything is open again.

---

It is somehow unusual statement since it describes the probing charge of one unit of Husaria sent by Sobieski to check if the terrain is suitable enough for a larger cavalry charge. The unit HAD to retreat because it was supposed to - noone expected them to break the back of the Ottoman army ahead.
It was later followed by the real charge of over 20 000 soldiers from the allied cavalry.
Not the first time when German sources were wrong, though. Some Hapburg historians even managed to write about less than 18 000, even 12 000 Poles at Vienna after all...:book:

Quote:

---

The battle of Vienna looks like a good one...

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

I saw an arte special on this siege and was hugely impressed

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/27/0,...392507,00.html

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/19/0,...392371,00.html

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/23/0,...392407,00.html

---

The battle of Vienna wasn't a sally was it? I thought they were relieved by John Sobieski (The Polish king) and his army

Occasions where besiegers got mauled by a relief army (the besieged garrison often happily coming out to join the fun if able to) are common enough in military history AFAIK, and those aren't what the thread asked after.

There's no shortage of cases where sallies by the defenders played a vital part in frustrating sieges, but I think it was extremely rare for the defenders to be able to actually fight off the besieger that way.

This stems to a large degree from the fundamental logic of siege warfare. If the besieged could beat the besieger on the open, they wouldn't be hunkered down behind the walls in the first place. The whole point of fortifications is to act as a force multiplier and allow small garrisons to defy even vast armies; conversely sieges are very manpower-intensive operations, meaning the attacker pretty much by default has to bring an army several times larger. As a result the only real way the besieged can be able to effectively chase off or pursue the besieger is that the latter for one reason or another (political issues, mass desertion, plague, famine, onset of really appalling weather, whatever) suffers from such mind-boggling attrition that something like a parity of forces is reached.

Which was rare. Armies finding themselves in such desperate cisrcumstances usually just gave up the siege and went away before reaching the critical point. Moreover, fortress garrisons tended to be light on cavalry since horses are useless on walls and eat a lot. This meant they normally had few truly mobile strike forces to take to the field after retreating enemy with, and were thus very limited in their chances to inflict truly serious damage through vigorous pursuit.

Cheers :2thumbsup: cegorach for the clarification on some of the elements of the battle of Obertyn, an impressive battle but not really a seige broken by a sally. The Battle of Chocim, sounds ferocious, you say the ottomans lost around 42,000 troops, thats a lot of men :dizzy2: Where they mostly peasants? What caused the casualties to be so high?

Spino mentioned The Battle of Cuarte, it certainly sounds like the kind of seige break i was thinking about, my knowledge of El Cid comes chiefly :shame: from the movie so i guess i need to go and read up on this battle.

Watchman's hit the nail on the head, by highlighting the rarety of a seige being broken by the besieged - Alone and out numbered - There seems to me to be plenty where outside forces, save the day. I keep coming back to the siege of Kür Bagha, did the Crusaders know there was another army on the way? or was their sally forth a real, do or die trying, attempt to break the seige? :knight:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vidar

I keep coming back to the siege of Kür Bagha, did the Crusaders know there was another army on the way? or was their sally forth a real, do or die trying, attempt to break the seige? :knight:

---

Knowing what we do about Bohemond of Taranto, one suspects he had a few ideas about what was going on...crafty man, that one! Certainly most sources I've read agree that he had spies in Kerbogha's camp and knew that the Turks were not in a cohesive state, and being part of the negotiations he had probably observed some of this for himself. Perhaps he was also prepared to fight against massive odds because he wanted Antioch for himself.
The rest of the army were starving, hallucinating and probably desperate to end the matter one way or another.

cheers matteus, I had a feeling that there was more to it than just gung ho spirit, the angel story sounds like good spin or propaganda to inspire the faithful and cover up the existence of an intelligence network. It still sounds gutsy though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vidar

cheers matteus, I had a feeling that there was more to it than just gung ho spirit, the angel story sounds like good spin or propaganda to inspire the faithful and cover up the existence of an intelligence network. It still sounds gutsy though

---

To be fair, it was still probably one of the most impressive Crusader victories of the period, given that they normally relied on sheer cavalry power backed up by infantry masses (eg, Dorylaeum, Montgisard, Arsuf)...I suspect that many if not most of their horses had died by this time, and they probably had to work as a more disciplined foot army. It was indeed a gutsy decision to fight.

Has anyone got an opinion on Gergovia for me btw?

HOW could I FORGET Fuengirola ?:wall: :wall: :embarassed: :inquisitive:

Clearly one of the most unusual battles ever, something like a parody of Alamo - because horribly outnumbered Poles not only survived a siege, but chased off the attacking British-Spanish force capturing their commander...

The British-Spanish force consisted of:

Lord Blayney had 2,512 British and Spanish troops and number of guerillas:
# British II Btn./89th Regiment of Foot (353 men)
# British I Btn./82nd Regiment of Foot (932 men)
# foreign battalion (509 men)
# 5 guns (incl. one giant 32pdr) served by 69 British gunners
# British naval crews and gunners of frigates and 5 gunboats
# British battleship "Rodney" with 74 cannons
# Spanish Regiment de Toledo (650 men)
# large group of guerillas (c. 2000)


Poles had:

# single company of Polish 4th Infantry Regiment (130-200 men - later up to 350)
# 4 very old guns and ... 3 Spanish gunners (they deserted after first shots)
# 11 French dragoons

The number of Poles could be slightly larger, but initially it was less than 100 - the rest was the 'relief force' ( if you can call so few soldiers this way...), but it doesn't change the fact that the British-Spanish force was REALLY humilated...


I had two sources to describe it in more details here http://forum.thelordz.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=637

one of those is in English, but it sounds a little anti-British - I used more balanced source which is sadly only in Polish ( but based on French, Polish, Spanish and British ones) still you can read it here

http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Fuengirola.htm


Here is the same battle at Wikipedia

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


Overall a minor episode, but so funny. :laugh4:



@Vidar

Quote:

---

The Battle of Chocim, sounds ferocious, you say the ottomans lost around 42,000 troops, thats a lot of men Where they mostly peasants? What caused the casualties to be so high?

---

Several factors - mostly the problems with supplies as in any siege, but assaults and the results of Cossack and Polish sallies were very bloody too.

Ottomans used a variety of forces, but a large number of those killed were at least good soldiers if not the very elite of this army - because they led the assaults in most critical phases they were vulnerable to all kinds of punishment including heavy cavalry charge - much like at Alte Veste Watchman mentioned.:book:


Regards Cegorach:2thumbsup:

I'd say Troy was pretty close. Greek morale took a major hit with the loss of Achilles, especially after so many deaths before his. Then the prompt madness and suicide of Ajax afterward added to the disaster, and only Odysseus' plan with the great horse saved the Greek offensive. If the Trojans had heeded Laocoon's and Cassandra's warnings and burned the horse (with Odysseus inside), the further blow with no sign of possible victory would probably have broken the siege. Ultimately, though, they succumbed to the Greek deception and the siege was successful.

Of course this isn't quite history, but then neither is Helm's Deep, and as I recall it the siege at Helm's Deep wasn't actually broken by the defenders' desperate charge, but by a relief force led by Eomer. Thus it does not actually fit the intention of this thread.

Ajax

Siege of Syracuse by Athens

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vidar

I think ill need to check out a few of these japanese sieges mentioned, I know next to nothing about japanese history, also the Battle of orleans does ring a few bells :2thumbsup:

---

Play a little STW, it will get you in the mood to research everything Japanese!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

I'd say Troy was pretty close. Greek morale took a major hit with the loss of Achilles, especially after so many deaths before his. Then the prompt madness and suicide of Ajax afterward added to the disaster, and only Odysseus' plan with the great horse saved the Greek offensive. If the Trojans had heeded Laocoon's and Cassandra's warnings and burned the horse (with Odysseus inside), the further blow with no sign of possible victory would probably have broken the siege. Ultimately, though, they succumbed to the Greek deception and the siege was successful.

Of course this isn't quite history, but then neither is Helm's Deep, and as I recall it the siege at Helm's Deep wasn't actually broken by the defenders' desperate charge, but by a relief force led by Eomer. Thus it does not actually fit the intention of this thread.

Ajax

---

Actually most scholars actually beleive the war did drag on for many years, and it is certain that a city the size of Troy (the city proper has actually been found around the citadels) could not have stores of food for that long.
Clearly it wasn't so much a siege as a war with the two sides sitting close to each other for a long while

yup,The battle of Fuengirola sounds quality, did I read correctly, The allied troops captured the defenders cows! :laugh4: Well i suppose its important to cut off or destroy your enemies supplies, and later on having their own guns used against them,all that firepower and the allies still lost , its no wonder blayney chose the vodka over the wine! when he was captured. The wikipedia article says he tried to play down the battle in his memoirs, yes I Bet he did. It sounds rather foolhardy to me to put a whole load of deserters in one battalion let alone give them guns, who's idea was that?

I have played a little STW but unfortunately every time an emissary contacted me and it went to the throne room the game crashed, If i just ignore all emissaries its fine, but this seems like only playing half the game.

I could be wrong but wasnt troy almost the opposite of a seige broken by a desperate sally forth :inquisitive: my impression of it, is that it could of kept on going for years if the Greeks had not come up with their cunning plan. I only know a little bit about it but wasnt the whole helen thing just an excuse by the greeks to take over troy and that at the time Troy was a major trading port, which the Greeks saw as an economic threat. If the citys stores were not big enough to last for years did they get help from outside? :inquisitive:

Of course it was an excuse... And of coruse Troy got help from the outside.
Remember that both sides had allies and Troy was allied to 'Thracians'. This might not mean the Thracians as we know them, but the people who inhabited the areas the Thracians lived in in Asia Minor. And that was a rather substantial area. Also, Troy was a subject of the Hittite empire. So it wouldn't be too far if the Hittites sent some help in the form of food and weapons and so on.

Also the heartland of Troy was more than the city. It had it's own dependant farmland, and since the Greeks stayed at the beach all the time the farmers could have keep sending food into the city wile the war raged.

I stand informed. :bow:

Ajax

One has to wonder what would be the odds of anyone managing to keep a confederation as fractious and inherently divided as the Mycenean army before Troy in the field for any real lenght of time, especially if no appreciable progress was made. By what I've read of it the Greek peninsula of the day rather resembled medieval Europe - an awful lot of squabbling little local kings and lordlings each with their own damn mini-armies and a fortress to boot, at best only nominally under some sort of suzerainty of some particularly big boss (Agamemnon in the case of Troy). Odds are their logistics would've gone to Hell in a handbasket pretty fast too.

Plus, that was apparently still around the heyday of chariot warfare (recall that the heartlands of the Hittites weren't too far inland in Anatolia), and Homer makes a whole lot of usually rather confused references to the fact (his versions come from quite a few centuries later when the military paradigm had changed in general and in Greece in particular, and nobody really knew how and what for the things had been used) - recall Odysseus' powerful bow ? If that's not a composite bow, the staple of chariot warriors everywhere except among the Celts, I don't know what is.

Anyway, Chariot Age sieges to my understanding did not normally last very long - they either succeeded or failed pretty soon, and apparently if they thought they had a fighting chance the defenders tended to prefer trying to chase the attacker off without having to endure sitting behind the walls twiddling their thumbs (aristocratic warrior machismo may also have been involved in the proceedings). One theory I've read suggested the famous Trojan Horse was in fact a siege engine known as the "Assyrian horse" due to its inventors and rough overall shape, a kind of combined siege tower and ram/pick used to dismantle or clear sections of wall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach

Several factors - mostly the problems with supplies as in any siege, but assaults and the results of Cossack and Polish sallies were very bloody too.

Ottomans used a variety of forces, but a large number of those killed were at least good soldiers if not the very elite of this army - because they led the assaults in most critical phases they were vulnerable to all kinds of punishment including heavy cavalry charge - much like at Alte Veste Watchman mentioned.

---

I'm under the impression the Ottomans long had the funny habit of cheerfully expending the assorted irregular rabble that tended to follow their field armies in mass assaults against fortifications - mainly to wear down on the defenders, but presumably also rather cynically to alleviate supply issues (and as one fictional commentator put it, "as more durable fill for the moat"). The more elite guys - usually Janissaries and dismounted sipahi by what I've read - started getting committed only a bit later on when real gains were becoming a possibility.

'Course, if the Ottomans had to retreat in disarray and the Poles still had decent amounts of cavalry available the latter would no doubt gleefully snap at the heels of the former, picking off stragglers, savaging the rearguard and all the other fun stuff that now tended to be appropriate for such occasions. Entire as such intact armies could be virtually obliterated by dogged pursuit after all; one reason commanders didn't really like getting too close to enemy armies if they didn't actually want an open battle was just the difficulty of safely extracting their forces should it come necessary.


As for Antioch, that was really a meeting engagement. The Crusaders had already nearly starved to death when they were besieging the city, and their supply situation was still quite critical - they knew full well they would never be able to hold out a real siege so they just plain had to go out to "do or die". As might be imagined most horses were either dead of starvation and/or eaten (remounts were later bought from nearby Armenian princes, I understand), so they really just formed one really long infantry line (partly to keep the annoyingly nimble Turkish light cavalry from outflanking them) and advanced against Kerbogha's (Kür Bogha, Kitboga... damn the guy's name gets spelled in different ways) army. One imagines sheer desperation gave them no small amounts of moral backbone for the effort, although Peter's much-published finding (coupled with the fact many of the Crusaders were probably so hungry they weren't really thinking straight anymore and were thus a particularly rewarding audience for such 'miracles') can't have hurt. AFAIK at least one of the head honcos present privately observed the spearhead looked an awful lot like those used by the local warriors, but was pragmatic enough to keep his mouth shut.

'Course, if Kerbogha's assorted clients, underlings and allies hadn't deserted their nominal boss en masse for their own reasons it's perfectly conceivable the First Crusade could have ended up as a carpet of arrow-studded, horse-trodden corpses before Antioch. But then again, the main reason they succeeded was the endemic infighting on the Muslim side anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

One has to wonder what would be the odds of anyone managing to keep a confederation as fractious and inherently divided as the Mycenean army before Troy in the field for any real lenght of time, especially if no appreciable progress was made. By what I've read of it the Greek peninsula of the day rather resembled medieval Europe - an awful lot of squabbling little local kings and lordlings each with their own damn mini-armies and a fortress to boot, at best only nominally under some sort of suzerainty of some particularly big boss (Agamemnon in the case of Troy). Odds are their logistics would've gone to Hell in a handbasket pretty fast too.

Plus, that was apparently still around the heyday of chariot warfare (recall that the heartlands of the Hittites weren't too far inland in Anatolia), and Homer makes a whole lot of usually rather confused references to the fact (his versions come from quite a few centuries later when the military paradigm had changed in general and in Greece in particular, and nobody really knew how and what for the things had been used) - recall Odysseus' powerful bow ? If that's not a composite bow, the staple of chariot warriors everywhere except among the Celts, I don't know what is.

Anyway, Chariot Age sieges to my understanding did not normally last very long - they either succeeded or failed pretty soon, and apparently if they thought they had a fighting chance the defenders tended to prefer trying to chase the attacker off without having to endure sitting behind the walls twiddling their thumbs (aristocratic warrior machismo may also have been involved in the proceedings). One theory I've read suggested the famous Trojan Horse was in fact a siege engine known as the "Assyrian horse" due to its inventors and rough overall shape, a kind of combined siege tower and ram/pick used to dismantle or clear sections of wall.

---

Well the Trojans did try to chase off the invaders a few times. Initially and when they attacked the camp.

One shouldn't forget that while it was problematic to keep the lord in line, the 'king' would also have them all very close and could control who came and left. And since the lords were anything but united (save the king of course), they would have a hard time uniting up enough to really challenge the king's authority, without enough of their own enemies helping him out. It is not that uncommon that a single uniting factor can keep hugely disparaging forces together because rather than in spite of their disunity.
However ten years might not be the correct length. But a few years could very have lasted.

Actually the time around the Trojan War saw a decline in chariot warfare and a rise in mobile armoured infantry (which has been presumed to be the reason for the Dorian succes, but that is for another discussion). Also Greek and western Asia Minor chariots never carried bows in any quantity (they did use bows, just not like the more eastern styles), that much has been gleaned from the surviving art and the important inventory tablets from Pylos.
Further around this relative decline in active chariot warfare the Greek chariots got lighter and all art of them show them in a 'taxi' style like the Celtic chariots. With a heavy infantryman and a driver, however none of the warrior's weapons or even the shield are suited for mounted warfare.
Perhaps Homer wasn't too far off when he described something like that.

Anyway, the reason the siege is believed to have lasted some time beyond the normal, is the fact that just outside the city of Troy have been found warrior graves of soldiers that seems to have died in combat. Also their equipment looks like it is slightly different from the general Greek equipment at the time, so it is believed to be Trojan. Also the age fits nicely. So it seems Troy had control around her city to the extent that she could bury her warriors outside the city (and not risk all kinds of healthproblems).
While I only know that from a documentary, they DID find both the graves and the city on it. So either it is a huge hoax or there is truth to it.

Lastly, the Trojan War was something to remember... something epic, unlike all the smaller wars and sieges in Greece. So the simple fact that it was remembered could have to do with the fact that it lasted a lot longer than normally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

One shouldn't forget that while it was problematic to keep the lord in line, the 'king' would also have them all very close and could control who came and left. And since the lords were anything but united (save the king of course), they would have a hard time uniting up enough to really challenge the king's authority, without enough of their own enemies helping him out. It is not that uncommon that a single uniting factor can keep hugely disparaging forces together because rather than in spite of their disunity.
However ten years might not be the correct length. But a few years could very have lasted.

---

The minor lords will only go along with the king so long as it benefits them. The second it stops, well, as the saying goes, "if the catering is found wanting change the table" - a very typical problem with such power structures the monarchs of feudal Europe would later also wrestle with long and hard.

Anyway, few months sounds more likely. Sieges lasting for yers are not unknown in military history, but they were very rare and placed very high demands on the organizational and logistical ability of the parties involved. Neither, so far as I know, were present those days; the Assyrians were the most competent at this kind of stuff and AFAIK even they would have had tremendous problems with such endeavours. The various Mycenean lords and their warriors would just about certainly have picked up their things and sailed home if the siege lasted too long without any progress; they'd certainly have better things to do than sit around getting really bored on the Asian coast, such as enlarging their territory at the expense of a neighbour who still tarried there... you can see where that sort of thing can kind of snowball.

Methinks Homer and whoever else was along the chain that transmitted the story down the generations just added some good old Heroic Epic inflation to the duration of the conflict. It's not like the time Odysseus supposedly spent sailing around the eastern Mediterranean makes much sense either.

Quote:

---

Actually the time around the Trojan War saw a decline in chariot warfare and a rise in mobile armoured infantry (which has been presumed to be the reason for the Dorian succes, but that is for another discussion). Also Greek and western Asia Minor chariots never carried bows in any quantity (they did use bows, just not like the more eastern styles), that much has been gleaned from the surviving art and the important inventory tablets from Pylos.
Further around this relative decline in active chariot warfare the Greek chariots got lighter and all art of them show them in a 'taxi' style like the Celtic chariots. With a heavy infantryman and a driver, however none of the warrior's weapons or even the shield are suited for mounted warfare.
Perhaps Homer wasn't too far off when he described something like that.

---

That aggressive and armoured infantry, likely also carrying javelins, is cited as the direct reason of the downfall of the war chariot and apparently developed specifically among the so-called Sea Peoples; barbarian mercenaries commonly served the "chariot empires" as "chariot runners", the highly mobile picked light infantry units that served as backup for each chariot and engaged enemy chariotry and their 'runners if necessary, and it seems logical enough they would have picked the idea up there.

The nearby Hittites, and for that matter about all the other "chariot empires" save for their own reasons Egypt and Assyria, collapsed en masse before the Sea Peoples' migrations not too much later than where the destruction of that particular Troy has been dated, AFAIK (the place seems to have been a good one, as there was a whole succession of fortified cities built on it). The Myceneans likely came down with the rest - I understand archeological evidence suggests virtually total looting and devastation of their characteristic Cyclopean fortress-palaces around the same time the various Sea Peoples rampaged around Middle East.

The most likely culrpits would be specifically those selfsame Dorians who, themselves having relegated the chariot to purely ceremonial and "battle taxi" purposes if not phased them out altogether, would naturally enough also have certain difficulties comprehending how the Myceneans and others had used the things in the first place as their military system was based on very different principles.

Anyway, chariotry isn't really good for too much than as a base for ranged weaponry, carrying people around, and breaking sufficiently weakened infantry formations. As straight shock vehicles they seem to have been rather lackluster, as demonstrated by the often questionable performance of the assorted scythed chariots, all Middle Eastern charioteers' reliance on the composite bow to deal with enemy close-order infantry and the blunt fact determined infantry could and did swarm them, as the Sea Peoples did (and also happened to some later scythed chariots). Chariot horses would also have had the exact same problems with running into solid obstacles like close-order infantry as cavalry horses always did - namely, they won't.

I would not think it were a coincidence chariot warriors invariably carried and employed ranged weaponry. The composite bow was the easily most common, although the Chinese began favoring crossbows and the Celts presumably employed javelins (although their chariots' main purpose was battlefield mobility for elite warriors, not serving as a fighting platform); all the Middle Eastern chariot-users used the bow however, and it is difficult to see why the Trojans would have been different. Or for that matter the Myceneans across the Aegean; they cannot but have known of both the technology and the weapon, and if need be anyone wealthy enough to be able to own and maintain a war machine as expensive as a chariot (and a decent suit of armour) would also have been able to import the weapons anyway. Charioteers invariably carried close combat weapons for running battles with enemy chariot crews and for fending off infantry - the spearman in the Hittite three-man chariots was probably for just this - but as chariots were invariably vastly outnumbered by any infantry, and had the aforementioned horse-related issues as straight shock weapons, that would have left mobility and firepower as their main and for that matter only viable way of dealing with enemy close-combat infantry.

Chinese charioteers commonly had halberds to go with their crossbows so it's certainly possible the Myceneans worked out a system for combining the bow with a long spear, but it seems rather unlikely the spear alone would have been worth too much. Vague and difficult-to-interpret pottery art nonwithstanding.

Quote:

---

Anyway, the reason the siege is believed to have lasted some time beyond the normal, is the fact that just outside the city of Troy have been found warrior graves of soldiers that seems to have died in combat. Also their equipment looks like it is slightly different from the general Greek equipment at the time, so it is believed to be Trojan. Also the age fits nicely. So it seems Troy had control around her city to the extent that she could bury her warriors outside the city (and not risk all kinds of healthproblems).
While I only know that from a documentary, they DID find both the graves and the city on it. So either it is a huge hoax or there is truth to it.

---

I fail to see the connection, especially if one assumes the campaign was first fought on level ground outside the city and the defeated Trojans then retreated to the safety of the walls (this sort of thing was apparently pretty common down in the Levant, and seems logical enough). As chariot warriors were invariably aristocrats it seems perfectly possible extraneous ritual was tacked onto the treatment of those fallen in battle, possibly also those of the enemy (the besiegers may also have allowed the defenders to come out to take care of their dead under a truce; given that medieval knights of both sides could fight tournaments to pass the time during sieges something of the sort would not seem too strange). Survivors from the sack of the city may also have been given the opportunity to bury their heroes or whatever with "full honours" if it comes to that - warrior cultures can get rather odd in these matters.

Quote:

---

Lastly, the Trojan War was something to remember... something epic, unlike all the smaller wars and sieges in Greece. So the simple fact that it was remembered could have to do with the fact that it lasted a lot longer than normally.

---

You'd think the spectacular sacking and destruction of a major, powerful rival city involving a better part of the lords of Greece in rare cooperation would also be a memorable event (betcha the Romans also had lots of stories about the siege and destruction of places like Carthage and Numantia, and made a point of remembering them), especially if such endings to conflicts were unusual back home as probably was the case with the rather strong palace-fortresses of the Myceneans. I'm not sure but I'm under the impression Troy was also a rather larger settlement than what the Myceneans were used to, which would only have added to the impressiveness of the event. You'd also think that if such a powerful fortress fell quickly the expedition would have been that much more memorable, and whatever the Trojan Horse now exactly was it was obviously a cunning and unusual stratagem that contributed greatly to the success of the siege. Even if it wasn't a siege weapon not employed earlier in the region that kind of thing nonetheless tends to add to the mystique of the war in the minds of contemporaries.

[QUOTE=Watchman]

Quote:

---

The more elite guys - usually Janissaries and dismounted sipahi by what I've read - started getting committed only a bit later on when real gains were becoming a possibility.

---

Which happened at Chocim, the elite was commited pretty quickly since Osman II wanted to end the battle as soon as possible - he tried to conquer the entire Poland after all which was at least too optimistic.
The Polish-Cossack army suffered decent (actually I can't find a battle with so large number of lost soldiers - there were larger battles than Chocim in 1621) losses themselves and it wasn't caused by the irregular rabble which was used only for first few probing assaults.

Quote:

---

'Course, if the Ottomans had to retreat in disarray and the Poles still had decent amounts of cavalry available the latter would no doubt gleefully snap at the heels of the former, picking off stragglers,

---

Which didn't happen because there was no major sally in the end, the Ottomans retreated after they signed peace treaty (status quo). :book: