Roman Siegecraft

[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.

 

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?

 

Not when she was sacked the first time. That's why she built walls. The second time the barbarians sacked Rome, they were let in.

[Quintus]

I have been, with little success, trying to recreate a roman onager. If anyone has ideas on how to fix the following problems, please tell me, I need help!!

• Throwing arm is either too weak or too heavy
  
• Torsion springs break if they are under enough strain to lift the arm
  
• It is incredably hard to twist the torsion spring enough
  
• I cant find what I will use for a cup on the throwing arm thats light
  

Thanks

[caldrail]

I have been, with little success, trying to recreate a roman onager. If anyone has ideas on how to fix the following problems, please tell me, I need help!!

• Throwing arm is either too weak or too heavy
  
• Torsion springs break if they are under enough strain to lift the arm
  
• It is incredably hard to twist the torsion spring enough
  
• I cant find what I will use for a cup on the throwing arm thats light
  

Thanks

 

The throwing arm only needs to lift a sling - Its the rising motion that pulls the sling and its load over the top. Are you using too heavy a missile? You need to use ropes, not springs. Yes it is hard to twist the 'spring'. Put your back into it soldier!

[Quintus]

Okay, I'll try a sling, but how do you get it to shot the missile at the right time?

 

And about the missile, we were thinking a pumkin or something similar, but it's probobly too heavy and we will

have to use something smaller

 

Thanks for the advice!

 

 

 

 

P.S. sorry if i'm annoying you with the smielies, gotta love em!

[Kosmo]

Did the roman army lost in time her skill in siege?

Byzantium was hard to conquer for Septimius Sever and I can't think of a succesfull siege during the dominate. Of course they did not make any conquest so they had little to siege.

They never took Hatra, but this was mainly because of a supply problem.

[caldrail]

The western armies would have lost some technique towrds the end, but it is true that barbarians were crafty beggars in sieges and tricks were common in ancient sieges. Sieges were possibly less important in later times anyway because resistance was less frequent. Remember that the west changed the capital to Ravenna, surrounded by marshes with a convenient water exit for an emperor under siege. Walls are not enough to keep attackers out. You need stout resistance and some hope of relief.

 

Regarding the onager - I honestly don't know how to help you any further. Actuallly I'm curious myself. Ive seen tv footage of such machines in action so I'll have to dig and figure out how they did it myself.

[Viggen]

This article was brought to us by forum member Caldrail

 

When Rome went to war an enemy fortress was nothing more than an obstacle to be overcome. Legions carried with them field artillery which meant they were well equipped to deal with opposing fortications. Their policy of having artisans and sappers in the ranks meant that any unit could build defenses and attack those of the enemy. It seems their greatest enemy was time.

 

...continue with the article on Roman Siegecraft

[Eunapius Titus]

In all but the deepest of the Middle Ages, the beseiged has a definite disadvantage against his opponent. The reason is simply: mobility and supply. When carrying out a siege, mobility is essentially completely unhindered in all but an area in the center of the battlefield. For the defenders, they are stuck in that very area. The beseiger can resupply, re-equip, bolster his forces, or basically do anything he wants in most cases. The besieged is fortunate if anyone realizes their plight or is able to defend it.

 

The reason that the various non-Roman cultures did not particularly advance in "siegecraft" is simply: they weren't on the offensive. Pax Romana extended beyond the borders of the Empire. Quite frankly, mounting an offensive against Rome was suicidal except in a very limited attempt, and attacking a neighbor simply allowed the Romans an easy victory and an easy ally.

 

Siegecraft became a Roman technique not because of any lack of ability or lack of technology. It became a Roman technique by lack of foreign use.

[caldrail]

Wrong. Non-Romans used siegecraft often, its just that they weren't much good at it. The Sassanid Persians were an exception. Now they knew a few things about getting into castles. However, all non-roman cultures consistently showed how crafty human beings can be. Although their siege technique was poor they came up with all manner of ruses and tricks to gain an advantage.

[Quintus]

From what I've read, the Greeks developed siege craft and the Romans had the resources to massproduce Greek ideas

[Pantagathus]

From what I've read, the Greeks developed siege craft and the Romans had the resources to massproduce Greek ideas

 

I know that the Sicilian (Greek) Tyrants like Dionysius used them extensively.

[caldrail]

Roman siegecraft was nicked wholesale from the greeks. Its just that the romans had a much more confrontational approach to getting in than most societies. Of course, they weren't the only ones who conducted assaults. The greeks had done so, and so had the assyrians.

[Dominus Rex]

While reading The War with Hannibal books XXI-XXX of Titus Livy's History of Rome, I realized how poor the Carthagians were at besieging cities. It seemed like the only way Hannibal could get in was betrayal of the city. No wonder he didn't march on Rome after Cannae. He didn't have a chance of taking it, at least by assault.

[caldrail]

He was capable of it - he just didn't know it. Hannibal was criticised in the ancient world for not knowing what to do with a victory. He could win battles effortlessly but he had no experience of siegecraft and was unaware how undefended Rome was at that time. He was never able to grasp the need to exploit his victories. In fact, it was entirely possible that Rome might have surrendered to Hannibal without much resistance. Rome never really did put up a fight although I notice there were street battles during the Year of Four Emperors (69AD)

[Dominus Rex]

I also noticed he would start to lay seige to some little town, then the defenders would sally out, kill a few of his men, and Hannibal would just leave. Almost like he thought beseiging a city was a waste of time. Ofcourse, spending 16 or so years roaming around the Italian peninsula is also a waste of time.