Printable View
Greetings :knight:
I was wondering if anyone knew of any famous sieges that had been broken by the the besieged army throwing caution to the wind and riding out and either routing or destroying the besiegers, the more desperate the seige the better, Off the top of my head I cant think of any, but there must be some surely :inquisitive:
Hmm... Helms Deep? :laugh4:
Yeah most of the time seiges work, and if they fail it's because off another army, but almost never from within town.
But maybe Alkmaar or Leiden in de 80 years war in Holland. (it's Alkmaar isn't it, I'm sure of Leiden)
Wasn't there some siege during the First Crusade when the crusaders charged out of the gates and routed a vast Muslim army with an, according to legend blessed lance found in a Byzantine church at the front?
Almost, except that the Crusaders did not rout the army per ce. Over half the army deserted because the army was a sort of conglameration of various Seljuq petty rulers under the overall command of a guy named Kür Bagha, these subordinate commanders feared that Kür Bagha would become too powerful if he won, thus endangering the realms they had carved out for themselves. When they deserted most of the troops who did not know what was going on thought it was a rout and fled themselves. Many of the Crusaders claim to have seen armoured angels driving away the Turkish forces and thus they were filled with what you fiery fanaticism, the Turkish troops who were not fast enough to get away were mostly slaughtered.
silly me I forgot all about Helms deep :laugh4:
Actually its that kind of seige break out im interested in - minus the orcs and Elves and dwarfs though.
I checked out Alkmaar and Leiden, I could only really find an article about The seige of leiden, interesting but not exactly what i had in mind, for some reason the articles on Alkmaar didnt seem to work but Ill have another go and check it out.
Kur Bagha sounds more like it - How do you pronounce that and how did you get the umlauts?
Cheers guys :2thumbsup: Ill go and see if i can find out more about all of the above
Kür Bagha was the over all commander of the Turkish army, the siege was at Antioch. I would not go as far as saying the Crusaders actually routed the army, they just had damned luck fighting people who didn't have any sense of loyalty to one another, because they didn't trust each other.
I don't really know how to pronounce it, it's a Turkish name and I'm not Turkish and don't speak Turkish either. It's alternatively written as Kerbogha as well.
Sure but I doubt the Crusaders knew that.
Pretty gutsy to come charging out at a percieved stronger army.
That's true, also keeping in mind the fact that they had lost most of their horses and they were starved, I'm sure their motivation did not exactly fall when half of the enemy run away followed by most of the other half.
I do not think they would have beat it however had the subordinate commanders and their armies not deserted the battle, but it would have been pretty hard to not make them do that.
Would Leningrad count?...
I don't think the Soviets counterattacked out of the city then? Or did they?
Didn't the Germans withdraw the besieging forces to use them elsewhere or were they simply destroyed by some Soviet force coming to the rescue?
I know little about this, but I think it's a combination of both, plus the fact that Sovjets would counterattack from somewhere else.
It is an interesting debate about Leningrad...
Leningrad was never truly besieged. It had a lot of 'backland' to grow crops in, not enough, but still a lot. Also the connection with the rest of the SU was never cut. Lake Ladoga was open for transfer of supplies all the the while and on the 18th of January 1943 a landcorridor was opened as well.
But the forcing of the corridor was made by a combination of the Leningrad and Volkhov Fronts. But since we have already discounted lifted sieges with the aid of other armies, Leningrad won't count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
:laugh4: You stole mine!
Seriously though, I don't think I know of any. Didn't Oda Nubunaga do something like that?
Actually Japanese history is filled with successful sallies, and in typical Japanese fashion there are also plenty of heroically doomed sallies.
For instance the Shimazu were supposed to have sallied from their last castle, knowing that it would never work. But they did it and were honoured by the besiegers afterwards.
Perhaps Belisarius in Rome? Though that wasn't decided by one all-out charge from the city.
Antioch. I heard a version that the "turks" routed because another turkish army was heading their way. they were enemies of Kür Bagha and wanted to defeat him. I also thought it said that from far away it looked like an white army therefore the cristians thought it was an army of Angels
I thought the aztec Capital was succesfully sallied.
Pavia was also succesfully sallied though another army from the outside was needed to be succesful.
Vienna was succesfully sallied, but again an army from the outside was needed.
I believe there are few sallies, if any at all, that would have succeeded without help from the outside
That may be true as well, anyway both versions for the Turkish flight sounds probable...Quote:
they were enemies of Kür Bagha and wanted to defeat him
I don't know to which part of Aztec history you're referring, but when the capital was under siege by the Spanish, didn't they lose it? On the other hand, the Spanish did manage to escape Tenotchiclan, while in a way being under siege in Montezuma's palace, they lost many men though in "La Noche Trista"Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Stalingrad. Though it was more of victory in the city than a sally out I guess..
Also, about Helm's Deep: it's more dwarf than dwarves, wouldn't you say?
Uh... heard of something called Operation Uranus ? The city was just a bait and a trap to tie the Germans down, since thanks to Adolf's shining genius they were supposed to take the damn thing pretty much no matter the cost despite its rather meager strategic importance (especially as a jungle of blasted ruins). Leave it to crackpot dictators to make really stupid things a prestige issue...
The Soviets, realizing this, were only too happy to keep the Germans there not in the least because the confines of urban warfare negated just about all the advantages the Germans had, while they got ready to demonstrate they too could do that kewl Blitzkrieg thang.
That's not really sallying. They retreated the main forces across a bridge, then rebuilt and re-took the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Retreated ? They pulled a textbook double envelopement from the flanks with armies entirely different from the one entertaining the Germans in Stalingrad, and after they beat off the German relief efforts duly proceeded to tighten the noose towards the Volga. The Soviet troops in the city itself moved nowhere before the encirclement was completely sprung and the last German pockets cleared.
I fail to see much sallying or "victory in the city" involved in the proceedings.
They had control of most of the city. There were pockets in houses and factories and such, but the Germans had control of most of the city.Quote:
By the end of August, Army Group South (B) had finally reached the Volga to the north of Stalingrad. Another advance to the river south of the city followed. By September 1, 1942, the Soviets could only reinforce and supply their forces in Stalingrad by perilous crossings of the Volga, under constant bombardment by German artillery and planes.
Amid the debris of the wrecked city, the Soviet 62nd Army anchored their defense lines with strongpoints in houses and factories. Fighting was fierce and desperate. The life expectancy of a newly-arrived Soviet private in the city dropped to less than twenty-four hours.
You're right when you say, the battle was stupid because it had too much to do with pride, but I just have to argue that the Germans did in fact have control of most of Stalingrad before the counter attack.Quote:
Georgy Zhukov, responsible for strategic planning in the Stalingrad area, concentrated massive Soviet forces in the steppes to the north and south of the city.
Which was roughly comparable to taking the curtain wall but floundering before the inner citadel in medieval terms, ergo worth nothing. Besides, after Uranus got rolling it likely wouldn't have mattered much if the Germans had managed to take the whole city at the last minute - they were regardless already trapped.
Anyway, the point is that the Soviets in Stalingrad itself never 'sallied'. The envelopement was conducted far away from the city itself by entirely different armies. Not that they retreated too much either - the ferry over the Volga was very much an one-way trip, and troops sent into the city either died or kept fighting but sure as Hell weren't coming across (given the overwhelming concern the Red Army had for the well-being of its soldiery, odds are they didn't bother evacuating the wounded either). A somewhat extreme case of what Sun Tzu called the "deadly ground" in a way.
If you want to nitpick about it Stalingrad can't really even be properly called a siege to begin with (unlike for example Leningrad), it was rather the WW1 Western Front fought in an urban setting (minus the gas).
Also more elf then elves too. Lousy Kiwi changinh history *looks shifty*Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Battle of Obertyn. Polish cav charged from fortified camp, captured 50 cannons, killed over 7000 Wallachians and forced rest to withdraw.
never heard of... got any more info
Lanky, there were more elf reinforcements... you know those 700 dudes with that commander that got an axe in his back
:no: Those elves weren't there. The only elf present at the battle of Helms Deep was Legolas. The reinforcements were put in by the film makers as an excuse to bring Arwen into the main plot by having her fight. Luckily word got out and they hastily changed that but left the elves in.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
The Battle of Obertyn sounds interesting just, what I was thinking of, any idea how you pronounce that? - Ill have a search and see if I can find any info on it,but if you have any more info then cool. Is/was Cavalry a polish Military speciality?, Ive heard talk of them before. :charge: All of these battles sound interesting but its more this kind of breakout I was thinking about :2thumbsup:
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:
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.
That's right, never quite understood why they made Haldir fight (and die ?!) at Helms Deep - but leave the Rangers out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vidar
: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
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.
Perhaps mercenary wuold be a wrong term fro the vast makority of troops during that period (basically hired among the local population).Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
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
i.e.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.
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.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 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:
The battle of Vienna wasn't a sally was it? I thought they were relieved by John Sobieski (The Polish king) and his armyQuote:
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
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vidar
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vidar
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
Play a little STW, it will get you in the mood to research everything Japanese!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vidar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
'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.
Well the Trojans did try to chase off the invaders a few times. Initially and when they attacked the camp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
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.
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.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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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=Watchman]
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.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.
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.
Which didn't happen because there was no major sally in the end, the Ottomans retreated after they signed peace treaty (status quo). :book: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,
Antioch
Also, not quite a siege, more of an 'escape from the jaws of defeat' kind of thing. Syria, several thousand years ago. Four Egyptian divisions in a marching column -first one sets up camp, second one gets jumped and routed by a Hittite army. Last two divisions too far away to help. Pharoah leads personal guard and entourage in a series of desperate charges - and with the help of a supporting column coming from the coast, drives the Hittites over the river. I am, of course, talking about Kadesh.
just read the wikipedia article about Antioch,that Somebody Else put a link to in the post above, am I right in thinking that the holy lance described is the so called spear of destiny that various different factions, throughout history have used as means to stir up the masses, if so its kind of scary to think how far this piece of slight of hand on the part of peter bartholomew has caried.
Theres been lots of cool posts :2thumbsup: about various sieges, but none that really meet the criteria of a seige broken alone by the besieged, sallying forth against the odds and routing or defeating the besiegers, is it the general consensus that this is probably so rare an occurrence as to be the stuff of legend/fiction. If your besieged do you always need outside help? :inquisitive:
Why would one let oneself be besieged in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vidar
The Greek landscape doesn't lend itself to the mobile swirling of the chariot archers. Not enough room. The same is true about the Hittime chariots. One was a spearman, armoured, one was the driver an one was a shieldman. The shieldman and spearman might have carried javelins, but they couldn't have used a bow, the spearman's armour would have precluded him from using a bow (armour at that time wasn't particularly good for mobility as was shown at Kadesh) and the shield would also. The Hittites didn't use bows with chariots in any significant degree, which can also been seen from the construction of their chariots. Tough, heavy, stable and not very mobile. Almost the exact opposite ofthe Egyptian chariots. However, the Hittite homelands were rugged, and often if you met an enemy there was little to do but to charge them head on. So they built their chariot to withstand the rocky terrain (wether they actually charged in AHEAD of BEHIND their infantry is something we will never know, though Kadesh shows them as highly impetuous). An Egyptian chariot would be broken within minutes in the same terrain.
Further the Hittites armoured their horses, which the Egyptians didn't.
Greek number of chariots amount to perhaps 400 in all. Very few, and hardly worth the effort for archery. Usually not that many would be present at battles.
The Dorians gave away with the chariots alltogether.
The Myceneans were the ones to evolve the chariots in Greece. From the heavy slow box-chariot (with the Dendra panoply for the warrior and a very long spear) to the light yet sturdy rail-chariot (the taxi).
Troy existed long before the war and lasted well into the Roman period as well. Athens still sending two virgins to some temple her ruler had violated immensely.
The city around the citadel mound has only just been uncovered by groundpenetrating radar. The mound itself was only the ruling place, much like most Classical cities had such last refuges. However there was a city around it.
Also the Mycenean fortresses were anything but impervious to attacks. Most of them show signs of having been sacked. Even the most impressive, Tiryns was apparently taken.
And I agree the Mycenean fortresses are much more impressive than the layout for Troy. Yet we have no stories of the sack of Tiryns or Mycenae... Even despite the fact that they were sacked only shortly after Troy (50 years or so), and apparently by Dorian invaders.
Now it seems strange that these Dorian invaders would grab the story of a sack of a relatively weak city done hastily, while they themselves had taken virtually all the mighty fortresses in Greece by force.
However if the story was impressive enough, then perhaps. A long war with plenty of heroes and intrigant lords. Now that is something that makes for great stories.
Humans doesn't care for quick wars. They are boring. We might think it is impressive, but we don't really hear much about them.
We hear about WWII and the Hundred Years War. We hardly hear about the Six Days War anymore... Which were more impressive? I would say the latter. But the first two makes for many more, and better stories, something people would like to listen to.
The political machinations of the lords we can only guess at. Perhaps their disunity is in fact a mere plot to make the story that much more interesting, for something must go on in those 10 years, they can't just sit around and do nothing but wait and fight a little, can they? You can look at it that way too.
We simply don't know about the political structure at the times. Perhaps the king of Mycenae had united the land fully? And much like Alexander's empire it broke up upon his death... We simply don't know.
But it seems that Tiryns was indeed a subject of Mycenae. So the two most powerful fortresses together. Could that perhaps be a pointer towards a sort of hegemony lead by Mycenae?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Cossacks even Russians sometimes used the tactic which required allowing the enemy to attack them from all sides, even besiege them - it was all about exhausting the superior enemy and counterassaulting later. By allowing the enmy to surround them they also gave their own soldiers no choice, but fight to death boosting morale this way.
This battle at Chocim in 1621 I mentioned is the excellent example of such tactic.:book:
And it's often the most effective defense if you can't compete with the enemy in the field. Oftentimes it's the attackers who run out of supplies first while camped around a fortress in hostile territory. And if a relief army comes, it's an awkward position to be in, between stronghold and army. The first period of French success in the Hundred Years War was almost entirely composed of hiding in walled cities while the raiding English starved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
Ajax
Sometimes the besiegers just gave up and left. The point is that in your own territory help is ussually not far away... and what harm would some extra help do. Antioch is another story... but somebody else, not friends though helped them out, atleast that is the theory i believe. If you are so strong to rout the enemy with one or a series of sallies, you can probably beat him in the field too. So why wait to get besieged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vidar
I think what comes closest to your idea is the polish trap.
I recently read "The Great Siege" by Ernle Bradford, about the 1565 seige of Malta by the Ottoman Empire. A fascinating read, and also a very compelling story. Several hundred of the last effective knightly order in Europe, with several thousand militia defended malta against 40,000 of the Sultan's finest warriors. This halted Turkish expansion in the mediterranean.
I'd say the siege of Vienna by the Ottomans should be up there, too. Considering how important of an event it was, its not discussed often.
Yeah i read about that too... i did so after i played AoE3. I thought those ringthrowers never existed but they did. The maltese actually used burning hoops that they threw down hill to disrupt the Ottomans. But i dont know much more.
The Ottomans just withdrew didnt they... so the maltese never really sallied and won by sallying... they won by holding out.
You can't prove anything!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Just Wait Till I Can!, Ill Bring You Down Mate, Down!!!
Indeed. They were relieved by a force from Sicily, I believe. They never really had the forces to rally out in the first place, though, other than hit and run attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derfasciti
maybe you are referring to the siege of chukoji? shibata katsie, an oda vassal with 400 men was besieged by a rokkaku force about 10 times his size. the story goes that when he knew his men couldn't hold out much longer he destroyed their water supplies and led them in an all out charge that caught the rokkaku completely by surprise and routed them.
cheers Nokhor Just checked out the seige of Chokoji Castle :2thumbsup: it sounds from the little info I can find about the siege, to fit the bill exactly , 400 men against 4000 with no help and no water a desperate sally forth, shier ferocity mixed with fear winning the day the alleged quote from the commander Shibata Katsuie, sums it up "Sooner a quick death in battle than a slow death from thirst!", I could only find a little bit of info on samurai-archives.com so if any one has a good link to any more details I for one will be most grateful
well... beer anyone :P ~:cheers: