Roman Siege opinions/input

[Decimus_Vitus]

First off I'm sorry if this post may be in the wrong topic. Feel free to move it.

 

I'm working on a scene of involving siege weapons. The link below is a sketch, far from finished, but I wanted to get your opinion(s) to see if anything really looks wrong or out of place for the period. The theme of this is the siege of Carthage. I included some onagers. I tried a siege tower but it just didn't like the way it looked. I will be putting up ladders/soldiers where you see the breach in the wall. Archers will go out front of the Legionaires and of course some dead scattered about. I was thinking of putting a tortous just below the guy falling.

 

 

So if you feel like adding your input, suggestions or expertise I'd appreciate it. That way I can make the changes before I finish... Thanks

 

 

EDITTED to change link and Title ...no longer Carthage

 

http://www.ancientvine.com/thebreach.html

Edited December 6, 2006 by Decimus_Vitus

[M. Porcius Cato]

Didn't Carthage have three rings of walls to protect her city?

 

Also, what is the name of that mountain range in the background?

[DecimusCaesar]

Great picture DV, keep up the good work!

 

I have noticed that you use Republican legionnaires of the later era (around Caesar's age) rather than the Hastati, Principes, Triarii and Velites that would have been in use during the Punic wars.

Here is an illustration:

 

 

I will also quote General J.F.C Fuller on classical Roman siege warfare:

 

"In a classical siege the normal procedure was as follows: first, a line of investment, or of contravallation, was drawn round the city in order to cut its garrison off from relief and supply. Next, were it likely that the enemy would attempt to relieve it, the line of contravellation was encompassed by a second line which faced outwards; it was called the line of circumvellation, and its purpose was to protect the besiegers.

When those lines had been duf, the points of assault were selected and the method of attack agreed. Should it be to tunnel a breach, lines of mantlets were pushed forward , under cover of which archers were assembled to fire at the defenders at the walls. Next, under their coverring fire, chains of penthouses were advanced in order to establish secure forward communications; simultaneously movable towers and a mound were built, and lastly the battering rams were emplaced."

 

Then again, J.F.C Fuller was describing classical Roman siege warfare, and perhaps Carthage was an exception. The onagers in the picture had been in use since Hellenistic times. I don't know if the ballistae were in use at this time, so I might have to check that up.

Good luck with your picture, it is very good, even the sketch is of a very high quality.

[Pertinax]

I have a few images scavenged and entered in the gallery here:

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...si&img=1242

 

three or four "punic" plates together if that helps the cause.

 

As DC mentioned I was under the impression (perhaps erroneous) that the ballistae were more of a 1st C BC-1st C AD "common" weapon.

[caldrail]

I'm working on a scene of involving siege weapons. The link below is a sketch, far from finished, but I wanted to get your opinion(s) to see if anything really looks wrong or out of place for the period. The theme of this is the siege of Carthage. I included some onagers. I tried a siege tower but it just didn't like the way it looked.

 

It depends on what sort of siege tower you're building. A wheeled tower would need flattened terrain or some sort of track to allow it to approach, but also remember that the romans built siege towers in place, even against the walls of a fortress if they could get away with it. Before you ask, yes, they did suffer casualties.

 

Regarding siege machinery, its also important to remember that breaking down the walls might be impossible. Usually the lighter weapons were used to keep defenders heads down whilst the real work went on, and in many cases a heavy siege weapon would be used to wreck the internal buildings and hopefully cause enemy casualties. To shell them into defeat if you like. Getting in was likely to be via ladders, cranes, towers, or simply by ramming a hole in the gate. In rarer cases the wall might be brought down by mining underneath it.

 

Having said that, we do note that roman soldiers were getting medals for being the first man through a breach, which to me suggests that siege engines were concentrating their fire on a more vulnerable spot on the wall instead of just a wide barrage which was largely ineffective.

[Decimus_Vitus]

Thank you all for your valuable input. Yes I know the time period is of. I'll have to scratch Carthage then. Perhaps this image would be more fitting of Vespasian and his army. Thanks again.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

I'm not really sure catapults of any kind could at this period do such damages to walls, their purpose until the middle ages' trebuchet was to clean the top of the wall from ennemy troops and cause destruction inside the city, including by sending fire over the wall, not the do holes in the wall, a task that was for the tunnels and the battering rams. The reason is the rather light weight of the projectiles. Also, if I may comment your picture, the scales are wrong : the wall is too low for a structure build in regular stones as the one you have and the towers not massive enough. Also a wall like this would probably have a ditch in front of it, especially in the 1st century BC ( to which I'd date your picture due to armor design ). It could be a representation of an italian city besieged during the civil war, like Alba Fucens which was besieged by roman style equiped Socii. The defenders would then be romans soldiers. The adventage with such a description would be the fact you can find picture of the Alba Fucens walls rather easily on the web and in books.

[caldrail]

I'm not really sure catapults of any kind could at this period do such damages to walls, their purpose until the middle ages' trebuchet was to clean the top of the wall from ennemy troops and cause destruction inside the city, including by sending fire over the wall, not the do holes in the wall, a task that was for the tunnels and the battering rams. The reason is the rather light weight of the projectiles. Also, if I may comment your picture, the scales are wrong : the wall is too low for a structure build in regular stones as the one you have and the towers not massive enough. Also a wall like this would probably have a ditch in front of it, especially in the 1st century BC ( to which I'd date your picture due to armor design ). It could be a representation of an italian city besieged during the civil war, like Alba Fucens which was besieged by roman style equiped Socii. The defenders would then be romans soldiers. The adventage with such a description would be the fact you can find picture of the Alba Fucens walls rather easily on the web and in books.

 

At jerusalem the size of projectiles employed by heavy catapult is very impressive indeed. It was only the stout nature of that cities walls that prevented them from making a very deep impression. Not all walls of this time were so strong. The romans also employed ropes and grapples to pull walls down with manpower or beasts of burden. Large catapults might fire all manner of projectiles for different purposes. Including rotting bodies/carcasses to spread disease.

 

I agree that siege weapons were employed to clear the walls of defenders but this was a taks left to the lighter equipment. Firing a stone ball weighing more than half a ton takes time and the defenders might easily see it coming. They did at Jerusalem. In fact the romans had to paint the missiles black so the defenders wouldn't spot them in flight. On the other hand, a ballista bolt is a fast moving missile that you'd have great difficulty in reacting to quickly enough.

 

Battering rams are unlikely to be used against a wall. Whilst it might have happened a ram was better used on weaker obstructions like palisades or gates.

 

Now assuming the picture depicts a city rather than a castle, there's no reason to assume that a ditch would be present. If the roman commander wanted a siege tower brought in to scale the wall then any ditch would be filled in. A wooden 'tortoise' would be rolled up close so fascines and earth could flatten the gap.

 

The picture is ok. The walls height as opposed to the stone blocks is of no relevance. These things varied according to local material, cost, and ability in construction. The size of tower would vary anyway and I don't regard that as a valid critiscm. If the artist wanted to depict a particular site with complete accuracy then more research is needed. As a depiction of a generic roman siege its a good effort. The only real critiscm I have is that the commander has assembled his men too close. They're within range of enemy fire and clearly have a day or two to wait before an assault can take place. Also, the picture suggests that the romans are in short supply of wood. I don't see any representation of a circumvallation or engineering such as ladders, cranes, tortoises, fascines, towers etc.

 

Please don't be deterred - the quality of artwork is very good. We're only arguing over historical detail.

[Decimus_Vitus]

Good input ...yes from an accurate historical perspective I admit I'm a bit off on this. Lol I had good intentions ... So I finished it off as a Hollywood version (sorry guys). Most of the stuff I create I try to get as close to historical fact as I can. In this instance I believe the catapults are fairly accurate as a model. My other stuff is also very close (Forum of Pompeii, Temple of Isis, and Hadrians Wall). Rendering history is sometimes a PITA