Roman Siegecraft

[Pertinax]

Area denial is the term appropriate to the use of this type of weapon -apart from any actual direct killing potential, you would , if possible avoid where the bolts are heading for if you had the choice: hence an opponent can exert tactical /strategic pressure . Receiving a Principe unit would be a bit of light relief by comparison.

[Germanicus]

To quote Goldsworthy :-

 

Artillery was comparatively rare on the battlefield, because of it's poor mobility. Its advandages were far longer range, greater accuracy and far more penetrative power than other missile weapons. When a Roman army deployed artillery, especially against barbarian opponents, they were able to single out and pick off conspicuous enemies at ranges far beyond the oppositions ability to respond. Artillery probably would kill relatively few enemies, but it's power was such that it would do so in a spectacular way, which could have a deep effect on enemy morale.

 

With regard to carrying ballistae around Gaul, Caesar engaged in seige regularly, which was where the ballistae was mostly used, clearing walls of defenders, and hindering them in their attempts to interrupt other siege work, towers, earth works etc.

[caldrail]

Strikes me that the ballistae had a couple of remarkable advantages that would more than offset the bother of dragging them all around Gaul.

 

Ballistae delivered a remarkably tight packet of spears. Yes, this is can be viewed as a disadvantage in that it makes avoiding these bolts rather simple. But avoiding the firing line of a ballista also has tactical disadvantages too, so the ballistae was useful if you wanted to direct the enemy to a certain location. That's mighty powerful stuff.

 

Also, the psychological effect of the ballistae shouldn't be under-rated. Watching your comrades cut down mysteriously without any cost to the enemy has got to be a huge blow to morale and really make you wonder if there isn't a better place to be than standing in front of a Roman army.

 

Last, the ballistae could be (and at least once was) outfitted with a mechanism that allowed for repeated firing. Testing I've seen on some documentary showed a firing rate of 11/minute (versus 3). Granted that you'd not want to go to battle with nothing but ballistae, but if you can cut an unfillable hole in the enemy lines, you've got the makings of a victory.

 

That said, I don't pretend to be a military expert, and I'm happy to be corrected on this.

 

I don't think you're wrong as such, but there's a deeper side to this question. Imagine Varus hauling these things through the german forest. Hopeless. Never mind the difficulty of travelling, even when the fighting started you'd have almost nothing to shot at, because your field of vision is so limited.

 

Morale is difficult to quantify because some cultures favoured individual courage that made them sometimes oblivious to losses. Mind you, I wouldn't care to stand in front of a roman army either and the romans made sure their enemies felt that way if they could. So perhaps yes, there was a morale advantage even if most of your shots went straight past everyone. Phew, that was close!

 

The auto-ballistae were criticised because the following shots hit the same target as the one already killed.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The auto-ballistae were criticised because the following shots hit the same target as the one already killed.

 

I'm not sure the auto-ballistae were really ever used, but they do seem useful for area denial, which would be awfully important if you wanted to the deny defenders from the area of the ramparts.

[caldrail]

They were used in the attack on Maiden Castle in Dorset, England.

[M. Porcius Cato]

They were used in the attack on Maiden Castle in Dorset, England.

 

Source?

[Gaius Octavius]

The Celts had the answer to Towers and Battering rams,Hill forts.

 

 

And the Romans had the response to that at Masada.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Celts had the answer to Towers and Battering rams,Hill forts.

And the Romans had the response to that at Masada.

 

Good point!

[caldrail]

They were used in the attack on Maiden Castle in Dorset, England.

 

Source?

 

A poor one - a talking head on a tv documentary. I can't remember who the learned gentleman was. I'm not kidding, he did actually say that. Wonder if he's still in gainful employment?

[Guest Allah]

Anyone can engage in the fine art of siegecraft. Even attacking a fort, without engines, counts; though it isn't too smart. A small group of skilled bowmen could be the tools in the siege, even though it's primitive. Easily one of the best methods to causing disarray inside of a city would be to fire something flaming inside, and bows usually do that. If you flush the defenders out, and then attack, you're a master at cheap siegecraft. I think everyone here is caught in the mindset you need stone throwing artillery and big wooden towers to smash a fort. Laying siege is easy, but making something of it is where the art comes in.

 

Then again, you could always build walls that dwarfed Troy, and call it quits. I'd like to see the Romans build a tower 400 feet high! (and I'd like to see somone of the ancient world build a wall that high as well, that would be interesting)

[M. Porcius Cato]

Anyone can engage in the fine art of siegecraft.

 

Then why didn't they? It's easy to say anyone can do something AFTER the technique is already known. Heck, many (maybe most) discoveries--ones that escaped everyone's attention for millenia--look obvious in hindsight.

[Guest Allah]

Anyone can engage in the fine art of siegecraft.

 

Then why didn't they? It's easy to say anyone can do something AFTER the technique is already known. Heck, many (maybe most) discoveries--ones that escaped everyone's attention for millenia--look obvious in hindsight.

 

My whole point was, if you attack a fort you're laying siege. Hence engaging in some form of siegecraft, like fingerpainting (barbarian technology) is to the Mona Lisa (refined Roman superiority). Barbarians, through their simple and practical means, have a history of sacking Rome. Didn't Rome have walls?

[LEG X EQ]

Rome was sacked 2 times by your so called barbarians.

 

1. By the Senonii, a Gallic tribe that migrated to Italy in 420 BC (belonging to the group of Cisalpine Gauls: Insubres, Boii, Cenomani etc.) and sacked Rome 387 BC under their leader Brennus(brennus was more a title than a name, but thats how the leader of the Senones was remembered). Those Senonii where later conquerred by the Romans and in 107 BC granted Roman Citizenship.

So no, they were not barbaric at all, they were the protagonists of the La Tene Culture (along with the other cisalpine gauls).

 

2. Inform yourself about the west-goths and their whole history with rome and the sacco di roma of that period. Than you will think twice about the so called "sack" and of them being Barbaric!

Edited April 2, 2006 by LEG X EQ

[Legionnaire]

An important question to consider: is siegecraft integral to laying a successful siege? A siege is as much about isolation as it is about utter destruction; look at Caesar's triumph at Alesia. By simply enclosing Alesia in a wall and by eliminating the ability of Vercingetorix and the 80,000 men in the fortress to resupply their resources, Caesar was able to achieve first a moral victory. Then, because of the discipline and engineering capabilities of his soldiers, a physical victory even against what seemed to be insurmountable odds. If I read his accounts correctly, he did not have any siege artillery or any advanced siegecraft.

 

I think the art of the siege, particularly in relation to the development of more powerful siege weapons, really advanced with the appearance of castles in Europe during the Medieval Era, for instance the trebuchet. Nevertheless, the onager is a specific example of Roman siegecraft.

 

A site about Roman artillery, with seemingly valid credentials, is on the University of North Carolina server.

 

To answer the original question, I think the advantage shifted to the "barbarian" tribes, such as the Visigoths who sacked Rome in 410 AD under Alaric, with the collapse of the army and the subsequent inability of the legions to defend the Roman frontiers. Simply, the Romans became too decadent and were no longer willing to serve in the military. Thus, the Roman army relied on the support of mercenaries. Furthermore, as the Huns pushed into Europe, they created a mass migration of Germanic tribes throughout Europe. How could the deteriorating Roman army cope with the influx of displaced Germans? They could not. Even if the Visigoths did not possess siegecraft, by overcoming the Roman legions, they really already achieved success. A defenseless city will fall to any siege once starvation and disease begins to ravage the population.

 

From: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encycl...anism/sack.html

The Sack of Rome

 

"My voice sticks in my throat; and, as I dictate, sobs choke my utterance. The City which had taken the whole world was itself taken."

 

Jerome, Letter CXXVII (To Principia)

 

Just before his death in AD 395, Theodosius I divided the empire into east and west, to be ruled by his two sons. Honorius was only ten years old at the time, and the west was governed in his stead by Flavius Stilicho, his guardian and commander (magister militum) of the army. The two halves of the empire were in contention, a situation exploited by Alaric, whose Visigoths had been used as allies (foederati) but now, with the death of Theodosius, renounced their allegiance and rose in revolt. Alaric was able to negotiate the command of the army in Illyricum but there later was resistence to this concession, and he was obliged to abandon the Balkans. In AD 401, Alaric invaded Italy and beseiged Honorius in Milan. Twice defeated by Stilicho but spared each time, Alaric were forced to retreat. Instead, he was persuaded by Stilicho to join in a campaign to wrest Illyricum away from the east. But the scheme was abandoned when the usurper Constantine III revolted in Britain in AD 407 and Arcadius unexpectedly died the next year.

 

Alaric demanded compensation, which Honorius, safe in the capital at Ravenna, refused to pay. Stilicho was executed in AD 408 and Alaric marched on Rome. Zosimus, who provides the only account of these events, records what happened (5.40).

 

"When Alaric heard that the people were trained and ready to fight, he said that thicker grass was easier to mow than thinner and laughed broadly at the ambassadors, but when they turned to discuss peace he used expressions excessive even for an arrogant barbarian: he declared that he would not give up the siege unless he got all the gold and silver in the city, as well as all movable property and the barbarian slaves. When one of the ambassadors asked what he would leave for the citizens if he took these, he replied: 'Their lives.'"

 

The siege of the city was lifted only after five thousand pounds of gold, thirty thousand pounds of silver, four thousand silken tunics, three thousand scarlet-dyed hides, and three thousand pounds of pepper had been paid. Statues were stripped of their decorations and, when that was not enough, those of gold and silver melted down.

 

When further negotiations regarding a homeland for the Goths broke down, Rome again was besieged and, this time, sacked, the fathers of the church seeking to explain such a catastrophe. The date was the twenty-fourth of August, AD 410.

 

Alaric died that same year. Two years later, his kinsman Athaulf led the Visigoths into southwestern Gaul, where, in AD 418, Honorius was obliged to recognize their kingdom at Toulouse. The Vandals and other Germanic tribes who had crossed over the frozen Rhine on the last day of AD 406 now were in Spain under their leader, Genseric. Honorius permitted them to stay, as well, although there was little he could have done otherwise. In AD 423 Honorius died and eventually was succeeded by Valentinian III, who was still a child at the time. The Vandals crossed into North Africa, defeated the Romans there, and, in AD 439, conquered Carthage, which Genseric made his capital. In AD 451, Attila and the Huns, who already had become so powerful that they were paid an annual tribute by Rome, invaded Gaul, in alliance with the Vandals. They were defeated at the Battle of Ch

[Guest Allah]

Rome was sacked 2 times by your so called barbarians.

 

1. By the Senonii, a Gallic tribe that migrated to Italy in 420 BC (belonging to the group of Cisalpine Gauls: Insubres, Boii, Cenomani etc.) and sacked Rome 387 BC under their leader Brennus(brennus was more a title than a name, but thats how the leader of the Senones was remembered). Those Senonii where later conquerred by the Romans and in 107 BC granted Roman Citizenship.

So no, they were not barbaric at all, they were the protagonists of the La Tene Culture (along with the other cisalpine gauls).

 

2. Inform yourself about the west-goths and their whole history with rome and the sacco di roma of that period. Than you will think twice about the so called "sack" and of them being Barbaric!

 

I'm sure they were civil people, but at the time they were the "bad guys" and are obviously barbarians. I'm only going with what the Romans called them, correct them, not me. I'm innocent.

 

Edit: Actually, I'm partial to the Celts, so I can't really point out what the Romans called them. I'm sure they didn't say anything flattering about all the gigantic, long-haired brutes from the north, though.

Edited April 4, 2006 by Allah