Dealing with archers on a wall during a siege

[Kahotep]

During ancient and medieval times, how, when an army was besieging a fortress or a walled city, did they deal with defending archers mounted on the walls? Did the attackers fire arrows back at them and hope the defenders didn't duck behind the parapets? Or did they try to knock down the walls?

[♔Jean-Luc Picard♔]

Firepots from catapults were used with some exceptional effect, I believe.

[Old_Scratch]

One way would be to get higher than them. Mobile siege towers could be used for this purpose and could clear the archers off one segment of wall in preparation for the assault.

[hellheaven1987]

One way would be to get higher than them. Mobile siege towers could be used for this purpose and could clear the archers off one segment of wall in preparation for the assault.

Except that was rare and the siege tower also risked be the target of archer.

There were a few common ways:

1. Used artificial cover, such as mobile shield or shield wall (testudo or whatever).

2. Charged; no other way is better than this one.

3. Use tunnel or whatever indirect approach.

4. Storm the section that lacked wall protection, generally means wall that had been destroyed by heavy range weapon.

[Old_Scratch]

Except that was rare and the siege tower also risked be the target of archer.

It depends on what time period we're talking about, but generally siege towers weren't rare. They were used everywhere from the siege of Rhodes in 305 BCE, to the siege of Constantinople in 1453. They could be manned by archers or catapults and ballista and were sometimes fitted with a ram making them very useful for the siege and assault.

[hellheaven1987]

It depends on what time period we're talking about, but generally siege towers weren't rare. They were used everywhere from the siege of Rhodes in 305 BCE, to the siege of Constantinople in 1453. They could be manned by archers or catapults and ballista and were sometimes fitted with a ram making them very useful for the siege and assault.

What I pointed out was to build seige tower higher than wall were rare. Besides, siege towers were generally not the main storming focus; ladders were more practical and common during storming process.

[Xellos_Moon]

Besiegers had excellent reflexes during those times. Archers are very strong when hiding behind their walls. So the besiegers developed a kind of counter strategy for this. Firing back at the archers would be really hard since they can also fire at you and with the advantage of higher ground your screwed. So what the people back in the day thought about was an innovation whose records have been lost in time. They would gather up a group for fast running bunnies and disguise them with wigs so they would look like men. Then spooked the rabbits into running against the wall. The archers hiding behind the wall was stupefied by this and immediately started firing thinking what might happen if these suicidal "small" men might do to them if they manage to scale the walls. I mean "wtf they didnt even bring a ladder. Clearly these guys are nuts!". But the bunnies would not be killed easily because the archers can barely hit em cuz they ran so fast and were very hard targets due to thier size.

Then once the archers were out of ammo and the bunnies tired. The besiegers then strolled around the city claiming it. Im not sure about this one but i think the practice started during roman times then ended with the fall of the empire because they where not effective anymore to barbarians who were accustomed to eating bunnies and thus recognized their smell

[hellheaven1987]

Besiegers had excellent reflexes during those times. Archers are very strong when hiding behind their walls. So the besiegers developed a kind of counter strategy for this. Firing back at the archers would be really hard since they can also fire at you and with the advantage of higher ground your screwed. So what the people back in the day thought about was an innovation whose records have been lost in time. They would gather up a group for fast running bunnies and disguise them with wigs so they would look like men. Then spooked the rabbits into running against the wall. The archers hiding behind the wall was stupefied by this and immediately started firing thinking what might happen if these suicidal "small" men might do to them if they manage to scale the walls. I mean "wtf they didnt even bring a ladder. Clearly these guys are nuts!". But the bunnies would not be killed easily because the archers can barely hit em cuz they ran so fast and were very hard targets due to thier size.

Then once the archers were out of ammo and the bunnies tired. The besiegers then strolled around the city claiming it. Im not sure about this one but i think the practice started during roman times then ended with the fall of the empire because they where not effective anymore to barbarians who were accustomed to eating bunnies and thus recognized their smell

That is an interesting method but how do you know that if the records were lost??

Indeed, I never heard this method before so I highly doubt the statement.

[Xellos_Moon]

That is an interesting method but how do you know that if the records were lost??

Indeed, I never heard this method before so I highly doubt the statement.

Historians wrote about this countless of times namely Plutarch and Livy. Indeed the logic of the "bunny" strategy was so simple that even morons can come up with it. Livy writes "Them bunnies were used by them gauls to break the gates and sack rome, our archers were helpless and our women horrified. Once this bunnies reached the gates our brave warriors couldn't stand the humiliation that some committed suicide to regain thier honor that was lost by being tricked by the rabbits and others were, in language of the 21st century 'freaked-out dawg' and broke towards the citadel. There our survivors starved while the Gauls survived by eating the bunnies they used to siege the gates."

"but then", livy futher explains, "eagles came and just massacred the remaining bunnies forcing the gauls to retreat rather than eat themselves. Our people were delighted, believing that the eagles have been sent by jupiter himself to save us."

Is was at that moment that humans learned that eagles did indeed eat bunnies and thus romans worshiped the eagle as a holy animal and replacing that wolf who did nothing but ran away at the sight of the gauls.

Its all in Livy's writings.

[hellheaven1987]

Historians wrote about this countless of times namely Plutarch and Livy. Indeed the logic of the "bunny" strategy was so simple that even morons can come up with it. Livy writes "Them bunnies were used by them gauls to break the gates and sack rome, our archers were helpless and our women horrified. Once this bunnies reached the gates our brave warriors couldn't stand the humiliation that some committed suicide to regain thier honor that was lost by being tricked by the rabbits and others were, in language of the 21st century 'freaked-out dawg' and broke towards the citadel. There our survivors starved while the Gauls survived by eating the bunnies they used to siege the gates."

"but then", livy futher explains, "eagles came and just massacred the remaining bunnies forcing the gauls to retreat rather than eat themselves. Our people were delighted, believing that the eagles have been sent by jupiter himself to save us."

Is was at that moment that humans learned that eagles did indeed eat bunnies and thus romans worshiped the eagle as a holy animal and replacing that wolf who did nothing but ran away at the sight of the gauls.

Its all in Livy's writings.

Interesting, although that account:

1. Did not mention anything that bunny tricked Romans shooting them and lost the siege by wasting arrows. It simply states that Roman felt humiliated by bunnies.

2. Bunny tactic probably was not effective; instead, it seems that Gauls failed to break into Rome even with bunnies, as they had to eat the bunnies later on. Rather strange if Gauls took Rome.

3. Eagle ate the bunnies thing further suggests that Gauls failed to break into Rome using bunnies, or there were no point for eagles to eat bunnies after Rome was fallen.

Still, very interesting account. I should wait the TWC Roman experts to examine this account.

[Xellos_Moon]

Interesting, although that account:

1. Did not mention anything that bunny tricked Romans shooting them and lost the siege by wasting arrows. It simply states that Roman felt humiliated by bunnies.

i dont get this question

2. Bunny tactic probably was not effective; instead, it seems that Gauls failed to break into Rome even with bunnies, as they had to eat the bunnies later on. Rather strange if Gauls took Rome.

Rome was indeed sacked by the gauls. and i got the link for it. It doesnt mention the bunny tactic here but ya know.

http://www.unrv.com/empire/gallic-sack-of-rome.php

3. Eagle ate the bunnies thing further suggests that Gauls failed to break into Rome using bunnies, or there were no point for eagles to eat bunnies after Rome was fallen.

Thats why it was deemed as a miracle by the romans as in the nick of time a whole squadron of eagles suddenly comes in and assassinates the brave bunnies. Thats why romans then used the eagles as thier mascots thereafter.

And what do you mean there was no point? If rome fell would the eagles not starve? It was simply their lunch so they went ahead and found the most visible targets just wasting away in the streets of Rome.

Still, very interesting account. I should wait the TWC Roman experts to examine this account.

For your information sir i am The twc roman expert

[Kahotep]

Besiegers had excellent reflexes during those times. Archers are very strong when hiding behind their walls. So the besiegers developed a kind of counter strategy for this. Firing back at the archers would be really hard since they can also fire at you and with the advantage of higher ground your screwed. So what the people back in the day thought about was an innovation whose records have been lost in time. They would gather up a group for fast running bunnies and disguise them with wigs so they would look like men. Then spooked the rabbits into running against the wall. The archers hiding behind the wall was stupefied by this and immediately started firing thinking what might happen if these suicidal "small" men might do to them if they manage to scale the walls. I mean "wtf they didnt even bring a ladder. Clearly these guys are nuts!". But the bunnies would not be killed easily because the archers can barely hit em cuz they ran so fast and were very hard targets due to thier size.

Then once the archers were out of ammo and the bunnies tired. The besiegers then strolled around the city claiming it. Im not sure about this one but i think the practice started during roman times then ended with the fall of the empire because they where not effective anymore to barbarians who were accustomed to eating bunnies and thus recognized their smell

Is this even serious?

[intel]

Besiegers had excellent reflexes during those times. Archers are very strong when hiding behind their walls. So the besiegers developed a kind of counter strategy for this. Firing back at the archers would be really hard since they can also fire at you and with the advantage of higher ground your screwed. So what the people back in the day thought about was an innovation whose records have been lost in time. They would gather up a group for fast running bunnies and disguise them with wigs so they would look like men. Then spooked the rabbits into running against the wall. The archers hiding behind the wall was stupefied by this and immediately started firing thinking what might happen if these suicidal "small" men might do to them if they manage to scale the walls. I mean "wtf they didnt even bring a ladder. Clearly these guys are nuts!". But the bunnies would not be killed easily because the archers can barely hit em cuz they ran so fast and were very hard targets due to thier size.

Then once the archers were out of ammo and the bunnies tired. The besiegers then strolled around the city claiming it. Im not sure about this one but i think the practice started during roman times then ended with the fall of the empire because they where not effective anymore to barbarians who were accustomed to eating bunnies and thus recognized their smell

Also, unique breed of combat bunnies were used in direct, hand to-tooth combat, having excellent combat record in both sieges and open battles. Especially in Siege of Jerusalem, when they managed to turn the tide of battle to the Crusaders. But, just as elephants in ancient warfare, they were just as dangerous to the allies as to enemies. In the end, their blood-lust and tendency to going berserk resulted in withdrawal from use as soon as in XVth century.


Highly experienced and well informed reenactors are shown recreating the medieval way of dealing with bunnies which went berserk at the following video:

[Dodge]

Tunnel under the wall/tower and collapse it.

[spanish_emperor]

Simple, they didn't. That is why they had walls. The best advice was to charge up ladders and kill them. They only had archers at the siege to divert the other archers so they wouldn't aim at the men on the ladders.

[Godless Pickle]

Some archers used portable wooden "shields" that were propped up on the ground and had slits through the shield so archers could effectively shoot at the defending soldiers without getting hit themselves.

E.g.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[PointOfViewGun]

During ancient and medieval times, how, when an army was besieging a fortress or a walled city, did they deal with defending archers mounted on the walls? Did the attackers fire arrows back at them and hope the defenders didn't duck behind the parapets? Or did they try to knock down the walls?

One way is to create suppressive fire. The besiegers would actually pray that the defenders duck behind the walls. You see if you're behind a wall you know that if you duck you can be safe of the arrows so you'll duck when you see an arrow coming towards you. But, for an archer on the field standing against arrows shot from a top of a wall there is no option but to fire back. While the defender chooses to duck, the attackers attacks and as a result the attacker opens a gap to advance. Of course attacker will sustain more casulties but their gain will be the fact that the troops in front of them can advance as the defenders will be behind the walls ducking with less chance to fire an arrow.

[hellheaven1987]

One way is to create suppressive fire. The besiegers would actually pray that the defenders duck behind the walls. You see if you're behind a wall you know that if you duck you can be safe of the arrows so you'll duck when you see an arrow coming towards you. But, for an archer on the field standing against arrows shot from a top of a wall there is no option but to fire back. While the defender chooses to duck, the attackers attacks and as a result the attacker opens a gap to advance. Of course attacker will sustain more casulties but their gain will be the fact that the troops in front of them can advance as the defenders will be behind the walls ducking with less chance to fire an arrow.

Impossible; most defenders were well-protected by wall and the only way to shoot them was through the arrow hole. It was very impossible to "suppress" defenders by shooting into those arrow holes.

[PointOfViewGun]

Impossible; most defenders were well-protected by wall and the only way to shoot them was through the arrow hole. It was very impossible to "suppress" defenders by shooting into those arrow holes.

The holes in the walls are a different story. I'm talking about traditional walls where the defenders stand on top of the wall and shoot down.

[hellheaven1987]

The holes in the walls are a different story. I'm talking about traditional walls where the defenders stand on top of the wall and shoot down.

Which is, mostly, not very common.

Most permanunt wall has extract build-up to provide full cover for archers; it is not a difficult process and provides better protection.

However, it is possible to sniper enemy archers through arrow holes; I have read that English longbowmen were trained for that task and had good resulte during siege.