Roman Siege Warfare

[asianboy]

Have several questions:

1. Have the Romans ever built wooden structures on top of the wall to make it taller? In other words, say the enemy has built a siege tower. Let's also say that the Romans would know what part of the walls the enemy would go to. Would the Romans build wooden structures (ex. podium-like structure) to make the wall taller so that the enemy would have to waste their time adding height to the siege tower? The added wooden wall would simply be remove once the siege is over.

2. Had there been any known intances where the Romans flooded the city/town that they were trying to break into? If there are, could you provide some sources please?

3. Besides having spies in the enemies' ranks, had the Romans invented any methods of detecting the people who would dig under the walls?

4. When Romans choose some objects to throw down the wall and at the enemy, did they design the different types of objects for different purposes? Or was it that there wasn't any different "jobs" and they just use rocks or whatever objects that they could find?

5. Did the Romans have secret doorways/holes in their walls? Those would be blocked when not needed of course.

Thank you

[conon394]

5. Did the Romans have secret doorways/holes in their walls? Those would be blocked when not needed of course.

Not sure what you mean here but postern gates/sally ports were fairly common and critical to defense of a fortified site. Fiction and movies tend to potray a fairly passive defense but small counter attacks were critical to really defending a city/fort. Often every tower in a wall might feature one.

[Georgy Zhukov]

1. Have the Romans ever built wooden structures on top of the wall to make it taller? In other words, say the enemy has built a siege tower. Let's also say that the Romans would know what part of the walls the enemy would go to. Would the Romans build wooden structures (ex. podium-like structure) to make the wall taller so that the enemy would have to waste their time adding height to the siege tower? The added wooden wall would simply be remove once the siege is over.

In a siege situation it is unlikely that a garrison would have enough of a supply of wood to build such a larger wall, that and the undertaking it would need, carpenters, architects, engineers, would most likely be absent or perhaps not enough of them would be present to take on such an undertaking. Not to mention the thing sound like a massive waste of energy, when in a siege food and water is rationed so defenders cannot waste energy so foolishly considering a flame of some sort could bring the whole thing crashing down.

But all of that is based on logic only, I'm not positive what the roman indulged in for counter siege works.

[asianboy]

In a siege situation it is unlikely that a garrison would have enough of a supply of wood to build such a larger wall, that and the undertaking it would need, carpenters, architects, engineers, would most likely be absent or perhaps not enough of them would be present to take on such an undertaking. Not to mention the thing sound like a massive waste of energy, when in a siege food and water is rationed so defenders cannot waste energy so foolishly considering a flame of some sort could bring the whole thing crashing down.

But all of that is based on logic only, I'm not positive what the roman indulged in for counter siege works.

1. The structure would be cover with things like uncured hides, which is fireproof.

2. As for protecting against onagers, we would have things like a large, wet leather piece. For those who know what this would be like, you would understand that this could handle quite an abuse. This leather piece would be hung over the wall. When it has been damaged enough, it would simply be replaced. And yes, this replacement happened quite quickly. Actually, the replacement would happened before the next round of onagers firing.

[SigniferOne]

2. Had there been any known intances where the Romans flooded the city/town that they were trying to break into?

Why would you flood the city you were trying to break into?

4. When Romans choose some objects to throw down the wall and at the enemy, did they design the different types of objects for different purposes? Or was it that there wasn't any different "jobs" and they just use rocks or whatever objects that they could find?

Perhaps you're referring to the burning oil and pitch, which Cassius Dio mentions during the wars of the 3rd century. It is hypothesized that the Greek Fire was likewise invented in the 3rd century (i.e. inextinguishable by water).

[bushbush]

Why would you flood the city you were trying to break into?

kind of a cultural barrier It's a tactic used in many cases in ancient chinese warfare. Cities were often next to rivers, which were dammed. To break the defense, the attacker would break the dam, flood the city, the water could either destroy the wall or bring grave misery to the defenders and people there (ruining their supplies bringing disease and etc), helping to take over the city.

ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jinyang

[Ringeck]

kind of a cultural barrier It's a tactic used in many cases in ancient chinese warfare. Cities were often next to rivers, which were dammed. To break the defense, the attacker would break the dam, flood the city, the water could either destroy the wall or bring grave misery to the defenders and people there (ruining their supplies bringing disease and etc), helping to take over the city.

ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jinyang

I'm not sure conditions like that were all that common in the regions the roman empire was operating in. Perhaps in the Nile Delta: flooding was used there in later periods (as a defensive strategy) after all...do we have any accounts of military flooding in roman egypt? It wasn't an area that was much under threat until the arabs walked in... Other flood-prone areas that were under the Empire, like the contemporary Netherlands and Belgium, were not developed in the way that makes floods, and thus also man-made floods, really dangerous until after the roman period. It is sort of telling that the world's five nastiest flooding disasters all have been in China...

[hellheaven1987]

For number 3, I would just post an old post of past.

That would pretty much explain most; just a side-note that counter-mining technology never change even up to Enlightment time (buckets with water, copper coins, whatever coins, brass plate, etc).

[asianboy]

For number 3, I would just post an old post of past.

That would pretty much explain most; just a side-note that counter-mining technology never change even up to Enlightment time (buckets with water, copper coins, whatever coins, brass plate, etc).

That's an interesting post. However, I was looking for the methods of detection.

[bushbush]

I'm not sure conditions like that were all that common in the regions the roman empire was operating in. Perhaps in the Nile Delta: flooding was used there in later periods (as a defensive strategy) after all...do we have any accounts of military flooding in roman egypt? It wasn't an area that was much under threat until the arabs walked in... Other flood-prone areas that were under the Empire, like the contemporary Netherlands and Belgium, were not developed in the way that makes floods, and thus also man-made floods, really dangerous until after the roman period. It is sort of telling that the world's five nastiest flooding disasters all have been in China...

you are absolutely right, also it might be because ancient chinese cities were often built with earth walls, so they were more vulnerable to such attack, not to mention chinese rivers had history of being volatile so there were usually dams or other protections built to protect the cities; these protections can be taken advantages of in a situation of siege.

[asianboy]

Why would you flood the city you were trying to break into?





Perhaps you're referring to the burning oil and pitch, which Cassius Dio mentions during the wars of the 3rd century. It is hypothesized that the Greek Fire was likewise invented in the 3rd century (i.e. inextinguishable by water).

1. bushbush explained the 1st part quite well.

2. I'm simply referring to objects being thrown. As an example, the Chinese used what is called the "Thunder Stick" (I think that's what it's called). Basically, this "stick" would roll down the ladder, thus taking off a row of men with it.

Did the Romans tried to be this specific, or did they just stick to the basics (ex. rocks)? If they do, please provide sources.

[bushbush]

2. I'm simply referring to objects being thrown. As an example, the Chinese used what is called the "Thunder Stick" (I think that's what it's called). Basically, this "stick" would roll down the ladder, thus taking off a row of men with it.

Did the Romans tried to be this specific, or did they just stick to the basics (ex. rocks)? If they do, please provide sources.

if you are talking about siege defense....romans had some very very nasty weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_s...ines#Ballistae

this thing could take out a chain of men, piercing shields and armors easily. Dangerous motherer....its accuracy is probably the most deadly element. It can be used for both siege offense and defense.

[conon394]

In a siege situation it is unlikely that a garrison would have enough of a supply of wood to build such a larger wall, that and the undertaking it would need, carpenters, architects, engineers, would most likely be absent or perhaps not enough of them would be present to take on such an undertaking. Not to mention the thing sound like a massive waste of energy, when in a siege food and water is rationed so defenders cannot waste energy so foolishly considering a flame of some sort could bring the whole thing crashing down.

But all of that is based on logic only, I'm not positive what the roman indulged in for counter siege works.

Actually when a city is under siege you have a huge workforce and all the supplies you could want for building - just start knocking down houses...

Thucydides has a nice detailed description of and active assault (2.76-). The defenders would usually raise their wall in front of a ramp and try to undermine it and likely also build a wall behind the point of attack. The defenders also typically would use cranes to either catch and lift rams or to try and drop weighted post like objects to smash the rams. The Romans and Hellenistic Greeks added catapults but the ideal attempt is fairly standard.

[bushbush]

Actually when a city is under siege you have a huge workforce and all the supplies you could want for building - just start knocking down houses...

Thucydides has a nice detailed description of and active assault (2.76-). The defenders would usually raise their wall in front of a ramp and try to undermine it and likely also build a wall behind the point of attack. The defenders also typically would use cranes to either catch and lift rams or to try and drop weighted post like objects to small the rams. The Romans and Hellenistic added catapults but the ideal attempt is fairly standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70) also is a well-recorded siege campaign for roman military. We had a historian present in the battle recording it. I thought it's pretty valuable.

[Ringeck]

Actually when a city is under siege you have a huge workforce and all the supplies you could want for building - just start knocking down houses...

You'd have to be pretty quick then. Most defenders in a serious siege situation would start by torching any part of a city outside the walls and running the citizenry off, or letting them inside the walls.

[conon394]

I meant the people inside - defenders - since the the quoted text referred to the garrison.

[asianboy]

I have some more questions.

Did the Romans ever divert rivers during siege? As in, did they ever dehydrate the population of the enemy city by moving the direction of the river away from the city? Moreover, did they every do this in a foreign land (territory unfamiliar to the Romans)?

As the usual, please provide sources.

thank you

[MathiasOfAthens]

I have some more questions.

Did the Romans ever divert rivers during siege? As in, did they ever dehydrate the population of the enemy city by moving the direction of the river away from the city? Moreover, did they every do this in a foreign land (territory unfamiliar to the Romans)?

As the usual, please provide sources.

thank you

Battle of Alesia one of the trenches surrounding the city was filled with water diverted from a nearby river, not neccessarily to dehydrate the population but to build a barrier. The seige itself would eventually starve the defenders.

Britany, northern france, moles and breakwaters were used to assault Gaulic cities.

Trenches and counter-trenches and strongpoints were used very frequently during the Ceasarian and Republican periods but declined in use with the heavy infantry during the later centuries.