famous sieges

[Somebody Else]

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.

[Vidar]

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 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?

[Somebody Else]

If your besieged do you always need outside help?

Why would one let oneself be besieged in the first place?

[Kraxis]

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?

[cegorach]

Why would one let oneself be besieged in the first place?

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.

[ajaxfetish]

Why would one let oneself be besieged in the first place?

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.

Ajax

[The Stranger]

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 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?

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.

I think what comes closest to your idea is the polish trap.

[DisruptorX]

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.

[The Stranger]

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.

[Somebody Else]

Antioch is another story... but somebody else, not friends though helped them out, atleast that is the theory i believe.

You can't prove anything!

[The Stranger]

Just Wait Till I Can!, Ill Bring You Down Mate, Down!!!

[DisruptorX]

The Ottomans just withdrew didnt they... so the maltese never really sallied and won by sallying... they won by holding out.

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.

[nokhor]

You stole mine!


Seriously though, I don't think I know of any. Didn't Oda Nubunaga do something like that?

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.

[Vidar]

cheers Nokhor Just checked out the seige of Chokoji Castle 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

[The Stranger]

well... beer anyone :P