Roman Siegecraft

[Germanicus]

Forgive me for being off-topic but I can't resist, is that an Aussie using an Americanism towards a 'Pom'?

 

yes..yes it it....You're forgiven Virgil...and so are you Princeps !

[caldrail]

Not so. All armies could practice siegecraft to a lesser or greater degree

 

Give me some examples then.

 

To quote Adrian Goldsworthy in "The Complete Roman Army" :-

 

"The defences of most Roman forts would have posed few problems for an army with some knowledge of siegecraft. However, for much of the Principate only the Romans possessed this technology."

 

Can anyone provide some examples to contradict this view ?

 

Mr Goldsworthy is thinking in terms of towers and catapults etc. Don't forget, fire is the most basic siege weapon and everyone had that. Most would have been capable of mining under the walls. I do agree that your average barbarian isn't sophisticated and would've had difficulty with the roman fort, but what about established cultures like the Parthians? Are you seriously suggesting they couldn't have found some expertise had it been necessary?

[Princeps]

Ahem, Virgil, I think you'll find the politically correct term is "Limey".

 

Caldrail - I think you're right, I seem to remember the Dacians definately made use of undermining, though I can't find a source at this time. They probably had the knowledge, I think this is shown by the famous account of their defeated King (Buribista?) when he diverted the course of a river to conceal his hoarde of valuables and was famously betrayed by Bacilis. (Dacians, circa 60BD -100AD)

 

They had the ability imo.

Edited March 1, 2006 by Princeps

[M. Porcius Cato]

I do agree that your average barbarian isn't sophisticated and would've had difficulty with the roman fort, but what about established cultures like the Parthians? Are you seriously suggesting they couldn't have found some expertise had it been necessary?

 

If the Romans were the only ones with siegecraft technology, how did the Persians successfully overcome the defenders of the Athenian Akropolis? How did Alexander defeat the number of walled cities that he did?

[Princeps]

I do agree that your average barbarian isn't sophisticated and would've had difficulty with the roman fort, but what about established cultures like the Parthians? Are you seriously suggesting they couldn't have found some expertise had it been necessary?

 

If the Romans were the only ones with siegecraft technology, how did the Persians successfully overcome the defenders of the Athenian Akropolis? How did Alexander defeat the number of walled cities that he did?

 

 

The Persian horse

[Germanicus]

If the Romans were the only ones with siegecraft technology, how did the Persians successfully overcome the defenders of the Athenian Akropolis? How did Alexander defeat the number of walled cities that he did?

 

To repeat myself for the second time, this time for you Cato, the quote that prompted me to ask the question, was the below from Goldsworthy:-

 

"The defences of most Roman forts would have posed few problems for an army with some knowledge of siegecraft. However, for much of the Principate only the Romans possessed this technology."

 

It doesn't say they invented the technology, nor that people prior to the Roman supremacy didn't possess it, as in the case of Alexander. It merely states that for "much of the Principate only the Romans possessed this technology".

 

If you disagree, fine, state your case. Give some examples, from the first say, 200 years of the Principate, where we can see another state using digging works, circumvellation, siegetowers, sappers etc.

 

With regard to Dacia, I am sure they could counter-tunnel if under siege, as the Jews did at Jerusalem, but would love to see that source you mention Princeps.

 

We all have opinions, till now no ones posted any proof. I'd love so find out something to the contrary.

 

For absolutely the last time - I am talking 50BC to say 200AD and at present I agree with Goldsworthy in saying that the Romans faced so serious threat of siege, as only they had the technology DURING THAT PERIOD.

[M. Porcius Cato]

For absolutely the last time - I am talking 50BC to say 200AD and at present I agree with Goldsworthy in saying that the Romans faced so serious threat of siege, as only they had the technology DURING THAT PERIOD.

 

OK, fair enough--missed the important qualifying clause from Goldsworthy, so I got nothing.

[Kosmo]

Dacian king Burebista conquered, in the time of Caesar, all greek colonies between Olbia and Apollonia. Olbia, Histria and Messembria were destroyed while the others is possible just gave up. We don't know how they did it because our only sources are arhelogical finds showing large scale destruction and a decree for Acornion in Apollonia. Arheological finds point to destruction of the celtic hill fortifications in the same period.

Decebal the last dacian king employed roman desertors and mercenaries to man his machines.

The treatie that he made with Domitian allowed him to keep this experts but he was forced to surrender this romans and the machines after the first war with Trajan. He was the one who hid the treasure in the river during the second war.

During roman occupation of Dacia the huge (40 hectars) legion castrum of Porolissum was overrun during the Marcomanic war and was rebuilt later in the war.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Lets face it folks, in general it takes a lot of experience or mathematics to pull of siege tactics on a large scale. In the ancient would that means a lot of money. In the ancient world only the Romans had it. It's just a reflection of total Roman dominace that enabled an Empire.

[caldrail]

It needn't. It requires a keen eye, a good idea, and the willingness to carry it out to the bitter end.

 

Money? Siege engines were built on-site, not transported here and there. So unless they had pay for the trees they cut down, then costs were nowhere near what you imagine, apart from normal pay and supplies.

 

Experience? No that I agree with. But that applies to warfare of all kinds. It is true that Rome had experience and expertise in siegecraft that made them far more sophisticated than others.

[caldrail]

Well well well what do I find?

 

Apparently in Hadrians time a legion train on the march included no less than 55 ballistae (spear throwers) pulled by mule teams, and 10 onagers pulled by oxen.

 

I must admit I'm suprised the romans marched with this outlay in animals and equipment, it must have slowed them down. All I think of is that they did this with specific targets in mind - a legion wouldn't normally drag this stuff around with them surely?

 

Also available on site were 'Tollenons', big levers that hauled basket loads of roman soldiers onto the ramparts.

[Virgil61]

Well well well what do I find?

 

Apparently in Hadrians time a legion train on the march included no less than 55 ballistae (spear throwers) pulled by mule teams, and 10 onagers pulled by oxen.

 

I must admit I'm suprised the romans marched with this outlay in animals and equipment, it must have slowed them down. ...

 

An indication of just how important the Romans thought of the effectiveness of ballistae to devote those resources to them. From JC's description of the reaction of the tribes to them in Britain to their depiction on Trajan's column they were as important on the battlefield as they were in sieges.

[Ovidius]

I think the Romans had a good siege cadre, but what made them so different was that they added a whole new relentlessness to the art of seigecraft. Take the Siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The Romans took every opportunity to terrorize the Jewish defenders by crucifying prisoners within sight of the defenders or by lobbing their severed heads into the air.

[caldrail]

Well well well what do I find?

 

Apparently in Hadrians time a legion train on the march included no less than 55 ballistae (spear throwers) pulled by mule teams, and 10 onagers pulled by oxen.

 

I must admit I'm suprised the romans marched with this outlay in animals and equipment, it must have slowed them down. ...

 

An indication of just how important the Romans thought of the effectiveness of ballistae to devote those resources to them. From JC's description of the reaction of the tribes to them in Britain to their depiction on Trajan's column they were as important on the battlefield as they were in sieges.

 

Quite posibly, but seeing as legions were expected to march 20-25 miles a day, build a fort at the destination, then stay up all night guarding it before doing it all again tomorrow, it seems remarkable that they'd slow themselves down with tons of siege weapons. I can well imagine how effective the ballistae must have been - I wouldn't care to have one pointed at me - but firing spears has limitations. For battlefield use, I would have thought a stone thrower was more effective against large bodies of men. Perhaps I'm wrong there, but I vaguely remember a quote from a roman officer complaining about the high wastage of ammunition for these things. Not only that, repositioning these weapons on the field of battle must have been impracticle in most cases, so good a site was absolutely vital. As far as impact/impale damage is concerned then I agree they might have been very effective. From a usage point of view these things must have been difficult to operate effectively unless the romans had a defensive or siege style battle.

[M. Porcius Cato]

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.