Why are we looking for the longest siege? Is it to honor the defender for holding out or the attacker for being able to apply pressure and support his troops for a long time?
Normally the shorter the siege the better for the winner regardless if its the defender or the attacker.
If we have 2 diffrent generals with same amount of troops, supplies and artillery laying siege to one fortress each of equal strenght the better attacking general would most likely be the one who succeds in subduing the fortress first not besieging it the longest.
Also are we only looking for the best general in the gunpowder age?
Count Arachs point is also very questionable, depending on era and some other factors. In many times commanders, good or not, thought of battles as most uncertain things that could for ever mean doom, preferring to manouver and lay siege instead.
One of histories most succcesful sieges must be the Russian siege of Sveaborg in southern Finland during the Swedish-Russian war 1808-1809.
Being one of Swedens most expensive military projects ever the fortress was suppose to hold out against overwhelming odds and act as a starting point for counterattacks against Russia and to cut off any russian armies attacking northern Finland.
However it fell to a besieger that had fewer troops and artillery then the defenders.
Treason?? and/or propanda and or psychological pressure were the dominant factors. In any case the Swedish commander handed the fortress over thus practically ending the 700 year old Swedish hold over Finland.
Kalle
Bookmarks