Greatest Siege

[Sayeret]

There is no correct answer here but I want to see what people think with regards to this issue.

[Werewolf01]

Troy strictly based upon the supposed duration. I am suprised you left the great sieges of Malta and Vienna out.

[mountainbear]

The siege of Alesia by the Roman Legions under the command of Julius Cesar.

[Para]

Are you looking for the longest siege or the bloodiest.

[Sayeret]

Are you looking for the longest siege or the bloodiest.

It's nothing official just which siege you find the most interesting or by whatever standards you have.

[Scagel]

Wasnt Jericho the one where the Israelites blew horns and caused the walls to crumble?

[beNder]

Masada

[GrimReaper]

The siege of Alesia by the Roman Legions under the command of Julius Cesar.
x2
and shame on you sayeret for not adding it ;)

[Sir Zach of R.]

Jerusalem, by the Crusaders.

[IAF]

Siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Roman Legions... i wouldn't use the word 'great' as there's nothin glorious abt it. However its effect is still felt to this day with regards to the Temple Mount issue

[stateofequilibrium]

Masada

The Romans built a mountain to reach them.

[S'13]

Masada

The Romans built a mountain to reach them.

Ramp would be a more correct definition ... ;)

[Javehn]

Jericho by the Israelites at 350 BCE ?? It's more around 1200 BC .

[Roger Rabbit]

Troy, sheerly because of the myths inspired by it.

[ronin2172]

I love topics like this.....I guess you have to consider the length of the seige, the tactics involved in both defence and offence, the fortifications if any, along with the cost in lives, the strategic importance of the action, and finally did the fall or successful defence of the city or position have a definitive effect on the campaign or conflict as a whole...
The pretenders....

Jericho..no, I dont consider marching around a city several times then shouting a seige :P

Troy...well there is no definitive proof that it even occured, and Homer is quite hazy on the details ..hell he didn't even say how Troy fell, he ended the iliad with the death of Hector if i recall correctly.

The Contenders....

Beirut is interesting as it is the only post WW2 example of a seige but as the primary goal was the expulsion of the PLO and not the surrender of the city, I say no. Also it is not on nearly the same acale as the others on this list.

Vicksburg is interesting as well as much for the moves leading up to and in support of the seige as the seige itself. The fortifications were quite extensive and played a direct role in frustrating Grant.

Verdun was a long (the longest battle in history I think), bloody slugfest, but really had no great impact (other than casualties) on the conflict as a whole.

Constantinople was dramatic, had quite strong fortifications and hailed the end of the Byzantine Empire (but it was dead by then anyway). But it's impact was more symbolic than anything else.

I couldn't find too much detail on Tenochtitlán

Leningrad was a marathon 890 days and incredibly destructive but there were other more important battles however such as Kursk and...

Stalingrad. The numbers are staggering. Civillian casualties alone are stunning....


1. Traktorozavodskiy District: 150 people alive*.
Before the battle the population was 75'000.

2. Barrikadniy District: 76 people alive*.
Before the battle the population was 50'000.

3. Ermanskiy District: 32 people alive*.
Before the battle the population was 45'000

1. On each square kilometer of Stalingrad Tractor Factory's territory were
dropped approx. 2000 bombs (not counting small-gauge artillery and
mortars).
2. On each running kilometer of the rail track were about 16 bomb craters.
3. On each running kilometer of pipelines were 15 direct hits.
those are for three districts of the city. Was Stalingrad strategically important? Yup, it was the key to the North Caucaus and it's grain and oil supplies. Also this was the place were Stalin resolved to stop retreating (just take a gander at his infamous order 227). The length of the seige did not equal Verdun or Leningrad, but made more than up for it in ferocity. Did it's outcome have a definitive effect? I would say so, it changed the course of the war on the eastern front. Germany would be mainly on the defensive, and the loss of Von Paulus and his sixth army was a serious body blow to the German war effort. those men were irreplaceable.

[foxtrot023]

Numancia- A celtic Iberian town resisted the roman legions


"The war between the Romans and the Celtiberians was called the 'fiery war,' so remarkable was the uninterrupted character of the engagements....The engagements as a rule were only stopped by darkness, the combatants refusing either to let their courage flag or to yield to bodily fatigue, and ever rallying, recovering confidence and beginning afresh. Winter indeed alone put a certain check on the progress of the whole war and on the continuous character of the regular battles, so that on the whole if we can conceive a war to be fiery it would be this and no other one."

Polybius, The Histories (XXXV.1)

There had been peace for almost a quarter of a century when, in 155 BC, a raid into Hispania Ulterior (Farther Spain) by the Lusitani and the defeat of two successive Roman praetors encouraged the town of Segeda in Hispania Citerior (Nearer Spain) to rebel. The following year, it refused to pay tribute or provide a military contingent to Rome but formed instead a confederacy with neighboring towns and began the construction of a defensive wall. Quintus Fulvius Nobilior (the son of Marcus Fulvius Nobilior) was sent against the Celtiberians in 153 BC, with nearly thirty thousand men. But the consul was late in arriving and ambushed soon after, with six thousand Romans slain.

(Nobilior had been designated consul for the following year but could not assume office until the Ides of March. Given the military situation, the Senate decreed January 1 to be the start of the new civil year, which permitted him to depart with his legions that much sooner. His defeat on August 23 was so disastrous that the day on which it occurred was declared a dies ater, a "black day" and subsequently considered unlucky. Indeed, Appian relates that no Roman general would willingly initiate a battle on that day.)

A siege of Numantia (Numancia) several days later, where the Segedans had taken refuge, was no more successful. Three elephants were brought up against the town walls but became frightened and turned on the Romans, who retreated in confusion. There were other setbacks, and the hapless Nobilior was obliged to withdraw to camp, where more men suffered frostbite and died of the winter cold.

He was succeeded the next year by Claudius Marcellus, who convinced the native tribes to come to terms, taking hostages and imposing a fine but granting them pardon. Resentful of such magnanimity, the Senate demanded, as it would throughout the war, deditio or unconditional surrender. It rejected the peace proposal and, in 151 BC, sent Licinius Lucullus with another army. But, before the new consul could arrive, Marcellus, who "desired that the war should be brought to an end by himself, thinking that he should gain glory from this too," persuaded the coalition to give themselves up. Agreeably light terms were imposed, and the chagrined Lucullus was deprived of a war.

Indeed, sending consuls rather than praetors to Spain, especially given the relatively insignificant events in Segeda, suggests that Hispania had become the new theater for military conquest, where an endemic state of war provided an opportunity for personal and political advancement. Indeed, eleven of the thirteen commanders sent to Hispania Citerior were consuls, many of whom, as Appian remarks, "took the command, not for the advantage of the city [Rome], but for glory, or gain, or the honour of a triumph." During the next twenty years, the inability of successive Roman consuls to bring the war to a conclusion also made eventual victory that much more desirable, as each thought he could succeed where his predecessors had failed.

Certainly Lucullus was such a man. "Being greedy of fame and needing money," he engaged in a series of unwarranted attacks on a neighboring tribe, which offered hostages and tribute and the admission of a Roman garrison into town. Lucullus then had all the adult males massacred and the town sacked, a betrayal, says Appian, that "brought infamy upon the Roman name." Another tribe, hearing of such treachery, accepted a treaty only when Scipio Aemilianus, the adopted grandson of Scipio Africanus and military tribune under Lucullus, personally negotiated for food and winter clothing. "As for the gold and silver which Lucullus demanded, and for the sake of which he had waged this war, thinking that all Spain abounded with gold and silver, he got none."

In 150 BC, Lucullus joined forces with Sulpicius Galba, praetor for Hispania Ulterior, who already had been defeated by the Lusitanians the year before. Now caught between the two armies, the tribe was obliged to seek peace. Feigning sympathy and offering to resettle them on fertile land, Galba enticed the Lusitanians out of their towns and divided them into three groups, each some distance apart. The Romans then massacred them all in turn. Thousands were slaughtered, the rest sold as slaves. Galba, "being even more greedy than Lucullus, distributed a little of the plunder to the army and a little to his friends, but kept the rest himself, although he was already one of the richest of the Romans." Galba later was called to account for this treachery but avoided trial. (Although Lucullus had not even been reprimanded for his earlier atrocity and Galba escaped punishment by pleading for his children's sake, the Senate was to become increasingly stringent in its oversight of the war.)

One survivor of the massacre was Viriathus, who emerged as the leader of the Lusitanians in a sustained guerrilla war against Rome (significantly, guerrilla, itself, is Spanish in origin, from the diminutive of guerra, war). He first gained fame when he managed to save his countrymen just as they were about to surrender. Reminding them of Rome's perfidy, he promised deliverance if they would obey him. "Excited by the new hopes with which he inspired them, they chose him as their leader." With a select band of men on horseback, attacking and retreating, he harassed the Romans in the field for two days, giving the others a chance to scatter and escape. In 147 BC, the praetor of Ulterior and ten thousand Romans were ambushed and killed. The next year, his successor was defeated as well, and Viriathus overran the province.

In 142 BC, having trapped the Romans, Viriathus proposed a treaty which recognized him as "a friend of the Roman nation." But it, too, soon was broken, and the Lusitanians were forced to continue fighting until, finally, in 139 BC, the envoys sent to negotiate peace were bribed to assassinate Viriathus instead. With his death, "a man who, for a barbarian, had the highest qualities of a commander, and was always foremost in facing danger and most exact in dividing the spoils," the Lusitanian war came to an end. But other guerrilla bands continued to resist, "the women bore arms with the men, who died with a will, not a man of them showing his back, or uttering a cry. Of the women who were captured some killed themselves, others slew their children also with their own hands, considering death preferable to captivity."

Even as the Lusitanians were resettled, war had begun on another front. An unexpected defeat had prompted Viriathus to incite the Celtiberians to renounce their treaty with Rome, and in 143 BC they renewed their own hostilities. This was the beginning of the Third Celtiberian War or, as Appian characterizes it, the Numantine War. In 141 BC Pompeius Aulus was sent to Citerior with thirty thousand men. The campaign was a series of blundering misadventures and Pompeius was compelled in 139 BC to negotiate a covert settlement. It is likely that the consul had misrepresented his campaign to the Senate, because, after hostages, prisoners, and deserters had been turned over, and indemnity paid, Pompeius reneged and denied ever having made any agreement. His successor was obliged to refer the entire matter to the Senate, which decreed that the war should continue.

Hostilius Mancinus, the next consul, fared no better. In 137 BC, while besieging Numantia (Numancia), he panicked at the rumor that reinforcements were being sent and surrendered his entire army, pledging peace between Rome and the Numantines as equals (foedus). So ignominious was this treaty to the Senate, having been made without its authorization, that Mancinus was recalled and Aemilius Lepidus, the other consul for the year, sent to Spain in his place. Inpatient at having to await the outcome of the debate over the treaty, which eventually was repudiated, he began to ravage the countryside. The Senate was incredulous at this unprovoked renewal of hostilities and demanded to know why "after so many disasters had befallen them in Spain, Aemilius should be seeking a new war." Suffering from a lack of food, the Romans were compelled to retreat and desperately tried to decamp under cover of darkness. "Such was the confusion that they left behind everything, and even the sick and wounded, who clung to them and besought them not to abandon them." Only a lunar eclipse saved the Romans from being pursued. Lepidus was deprived of his command while still in the field (the first time that such an abrogation ever had occurred) and recalled to Rome in disgrace.

There was debate in the Senate. Mancinus argued that Pompeius was to blame, having made a similar treaty, himself, and bequeathed to him an unprepared army. Pompeius contended that he already had been subjected to an inquiry. Exasperated with both consuls, it was decreed that Mancinus would be returned to Spain and symbolically delivered naked and bound to the Numantines, in repudiation of the treaty, but he was refused.

Clearly, the situation was becoming intolerable. There was more indecisive fighting until, in 134 BC, "the Roman people being tired of this Numantine war, which was protracted and severe beyond expectation," elected Scipio Aemilianus to end the war, the law being waived to allow him the consulship for a second time. Scipio had destroyed Carthage a dozen years before and, having learned from the mistakes of his predecessors, took with him only friends and volunteers, including the Greek historian Polybius, whose lost account of the Numantine war was utilized by Appian in his own history. This was just as well, for the valor of the Celtiberians, relates Polybius, was such that "young men avoided enrolment, finding such excuses as it was disgraceful to allege, unseemly to examine, and impossible to check" (XXXV.4).

Mindful, says Florus (I.34.11), of the adage that a general has the army which he deserves, Scipio expelled the prostitutes and fortune tellers from camp and dispensed with the use of beds, as well as unnecessary wagons and pack animals. Camps were fortified and then demolished, trenches were dug and then filled in again. Men were given allotted tasks and assigned a particular place while on the march, the army never being divided or separated. "When he judged that the army was alert, obedient to himself, and patient in labour, he moved his camp near to Numantia."

Refusing to engage the Numantines, who had fought so desperately in the past, Scipio sought to defeat them through starvation. Nearby fields were laid waste and what was not used burned. The stronghold of Numantia then was circumvallated with a ditch and palisade, behind which was a wall ten feet high. Towers were placed every hundred feet and mounted with catapults and ballistae. To blockade the nearby river, logs were placed in the water, moored by ropes on the shore. Swords and spear heads were embedded in the wood, which rotated in the strong current. Allied tribes were ordered to send reinforcements. Even Jugurtha, who later would revolt from Rome, himself, was sent from Numidia with twelve war elephants. The Roman forces now numbered sixty-thousand men and were arrayed around the besieged town in seven camps. The Numantines, "ready though they were to die, no opportunity was given them of fighting" (Florus, I.34.13).

There were several desperate attempts to break out but they were repulsed. Nor could there be any help from neighboring towns. Eventually, as their hunger increased, envoys were sent to Scipio, asking if they would be treated with moderation if they surrendered, pleading that they had fought for their women and children, and the freedom of their country. But Scipio would accept only deditio. Hearing this demand for absolute submission, the Numantines, "who were previously savage in temper because of their absolute freedom and quite unaccustomed to obey the orders of others, and were now wilder than ever and beside themselves by reason of their hardships," slew their own ambassadors.

In 133 BC, after eight months of siege, the starving population was reduced to cannibalism and, filthy and foul smelling, compelled to surrender. But, "such was the love of liberty and of valour which existed in this small barbarian town," relates Appian, that many chose to kill themselves rather than capitulate. Families poisoned themselves, weapons were burned, and the beleaguered town set ablaze. There had been only about eight-thousand fighting men when the war began; half that number survived to garrison Numantia. Some of the pitiable survivors were chosen for Scipio's triumph, the others were sold as slaves and the town razed to the ground, the territory divided among its neighbors.

[M4ko]

Leningrad was under more of a blockade than siege. Germans cut all supplies and routes in and out of the city without really sieging it.

[ronin2172]

Leningrad was under more of a blockade than siege. Germans cut all supplies and routes in and out of the city without really sieging it.


that would be a seige then as the German's aim was to capture the city.



Main Entry: siege
Pronunciation: 'sEj also 'sEzh
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sege, from Old French, seat, blockade, from siegier to seat, settle, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin sedicare, from Latin sedEre to sit -- more at SIT
1 obsolete : a seat of distinction : THRONE
2 a : a military blockade of a city or fortified place to compel it to surrender b : a persistent or serious attack (as of illness)

[Turbo]

Masada

didnt they kill themselves not to be taken alive ?

[M4ko]

Leningrad was under more of a blockade than siege. Germans cut all supplies and routes in and out of the city without really sieging it.


that would be a seige then as the German's aim was to capture the city.



Main Entry: siege
Pronunciation: 'sEj also 'sEzh
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sege, from Old French, seat, blockade, from siegier to seat, settle, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin sedicare, from Latin sedEre to sit -- more at SIT
1 obsolete : a seat of distinction : THRONE
2 a : a military blockade of a city or fortified place to compel it to surrender b : a persistent or serious attack (as of illness)

i knew someone would jump it to correct it, fine, fine. This is why i said that it wasnt much of a siege.

Siege is ussualy reffered to historical sieges. In middle ages castles were sieged and ussualy take over same day. If attacker wasnt able to breach castle walls or gates a blockade was set up to starve the enemy.
US Army sieged Baghadad with first bombing it then baraging it with tanks and artillery. While Leningrad was only blockaded, which is still part of sieging, but not to a full extent.

[ronin2172]

Leningrad was more than simply blockaded...


After the Fourth Panzer Army had breached the Stalin Line there was only one place where the Red Army could make a stand to halt the German advance on Leningrad. This was on the Luga River on the tip of Lake Illmen. The German attack on this position was launched on 8 August 1941 and met little substantial resistance because the Russians did not have long range artillery or tanks.

However, in a last minute attempt to stop a complete collapse and also to give the Leningrad defenders time to build trenches and a protective perimeter, the Russians counter-attacked. Within two weeks they had been pushed back and the German High Command was left with the decision whether to take the city by storm or to besiege it. They decided on the latter course, estimating that the Panzer divisions could now be used to good effect on the Central Front. This solution also by-passed the problem of what to do with the civilian population once the city had been taken. On 1 September 1941 the Germans began to bombard the city and Field Marshal von Leeb decided to disobey orders and try to take the city.

He sent in General Reinhardt's Panzer divisions on 9 September and after initial success the Panzers could make little headway in the street fighting. A final three sided attack on Kolpino failed and Leeb decided to withdraw the Panzers and send them south. The Germans continued to advance: they took Schlusselburg on Lake Ladoga thus cutting off Leningrad from its major supply lines. The Finns had stopped their offensive on the 1939 Russo-Finnish borders and cut not be prevailed upon to go any further.

In November 1941 the situation in Leningrad worsened as 11,000 died. During that month Tikhvin fell (9 November), the Lake Ladoga was unnavigable because of the ice and there could only be a precarious route over the ice. However the Germans had not kept a large enough force outside of Leningrad and the Russians recaptured Tikhvin. The siege continued until 1944. Hitler had various plans to take the city by storm but there was no repeat of the September 1941 attempt. The most ambitious plan was conceived in the summer of 1943 - a parachute drop of two divisions on to the city but it was quietly discarded after the defeat at Kursk.
In August 1942 the Russians tried to raise the seige by regaining the German corridor between Tosno and Lake Ladoga but although the fighting continued until September, there was no breakthrough. In January 1943 the Russians launched another attempt and this time recaptured Schlusselburg, which allowed supplies to reach Leningrad. In January 1944 a fully co-ordinated attack from all the fronts in the north pushed the Germans back and relieved the city on 19 January 1944. The 890 day siege was over. Some 200,000 civilians had been killed by the German bombardments, and at least 630,000 died of starvation
Where was this not a full siege? It fufills every criteria. The only reason why the germans never stormed the city was because they had other things that required their attention (ie Kursk and Stalingrad).

[foxtrot023]

Leningrad was never assaulted. in the Summer/autunm of 1941, Hitler changed his mind and ordered the city to be blockaded, instead of taking it by assault, so that the people in it would "wither on the vine". When Manstein's 11th army successfully assaulted Sevastopol, Hitler changed his mind again and sent then to assault Leningrad. Before the 11th army could deploy, it was sent south against to help lift the siege of the 6th army in Stalingrad.

[tecumseh]

The seige of Sevastapol is the one I find the most interesting and tragic.

On the soviet side, miles and miles of defensive works, and huge forts like Fort Stalin and Maksim Gorkii. 106,000 encircled troops with their backs to the sea, without a chance of winning.

On the german side, Manstein and his 11th army. The germans shipped in gargantuan mortars (like Karl, firing a two-ton mortar round) and heavy guns (like Big Dora, with a 90' long barrel) to lay down 5 days of 'annihilation fire', then stormed it.

Eventually the fighting moved underground, into the catacombs and caves, where bands of soviets continued to hold out for months, until reduced to fighting with hands, shovels and rocks, or entombed by explosives, or suffocated with poisoned gas.

[gaijinsamurai]

Actually, there was quite a bit of fighting around Leningrad, even if it was nothing like Stalingrad or Kursk. Didn't the Spanish Blue Division participate in that campaign?

I'd like to read more about the fighting for Sevastapol. Do you have any recommendations, Tecumseh? (or anyone else?) A lot of my Eastern Front reading has come from Paul Carrel's books, "Hitler Moves East" and "Scortched Earth", in addition to personal memoirs of participants.

[Minardiau]

Hello? Tobruk anyone?

[tecumseh]

Actually, there was quite a bit of fighting around Leningrad, even if it was nothing like Stalingrad or Kursk. Didn't the Spanish Blue Division participate in that campaign?

I'd like to read more about the fighting for Sevastapol. Do you have any recommendations, Tecumseh? (or anyone else?) A lot of my Eastern Front reading has come from Paul Carrel's books, "Hitler Moves East" and "Scortched Earth", in addition to personal memoirs of participants.

The John Erickson books 'road to stalingrad' and 'road to berlin' are excellent. Anything by DM Glantz or S Zaloga. Antony Beevor's books are fairly mainstream but great to read.

They are all general eastern front books that don't just rely on german sources and memoirs.

I don't know of any good sevastapol seige books in english, just good ol' google.

[ElHombre]

the siege of the alamo in 1836, of course! :lol:

i've always enjoyed reading about the great french engineer vauban. he not only designed many of the keey defensive strategies of his time but also devised ways to overcome them with the least loss of life to both sides.

he could predict to the day (sometimes to the hour!) how long a siege would last.

[Inquisitor]

The siege of Sarajevo from 1992 to 1995 of course

[foxtrot023]

Actually, there was quite a bit of fighting around Leningrad, even if it was nothing like Stalingrad or Kursk. Didn't the Spanish Blue Division participate in that campaign?

I'd like to read more about the fighting for Sevastapol. Do you have any recommendations, Tecumseh? (or anyone else?) A lot of my Eastern Front reading has come from Paul Carrel's books, "Hitler Moves East" and "Scortched Earth", in addition to personal memoirs of participants.

Yes there was fighting around Leningrad, but not inside Leningrad. Even if the original Barbarossa plan included the taking of the city, Hitler (as he oftentimes did) changed his mind halfway through and ordered the city to be surrounded and left to starve. The Blue division fought with Army Group Nord, but was not related directly to operation in Leningrad. As an interesting side note, the blue division was considered a german division (the 250th) since Franco did not wanted a war with the allies, but he did wanted to give the USSR some payback from the civil war in Spain, hence the 250th served were it did, instead of going with Army Group South were the foreign divisions went.

[Mamon]

foxtrot, why did the 250th division fight with Army Group North? That's one thing I always found troubling, as a Spaniard myself I know that cold temperatures go against my blood. Wouldn't they be better acclimated to warmer temperatures, along Ukraine/southern Russia?

[foxtrot023]

I do not know Mamon. But I know that the division was considered part of the Heer and not a "spanish division", because Franco did not wanted to declare war on the allies (western allies) but he did wanted to give payback to Stalin for his "support" to the spanish republican side. Hence the blue division became the 250th infantry division of the Heer.

As to why it was sent to the north, I can only speculate, since all other foreign divisions (italians, romanians, hungarian, etc) were sent to the south. As to why the cold? well, in Huesca, Pirineos, Cantabria, Asturias, Leon, etc is plenty cold (vaya un frio de perras) with temp. this year as low as -20c.

regards, saludos

[Mamon]

it must be that i'm from Sevilla

and if anyone has been there during the summer, you know what i mean.

[Easy C.]

I'd say the siege of the toilet bowl by my arse.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Another pointless poll with a very narrow outlook on history - what of the many long Medieval sieges, The Peninsular war etc., etc.?

[Sayeret]

Another pointless poll with a very narrow outlook on history - what of the many long Medieval sieges, The Peninsular war etc., etc.?

you make a poll then.

[roland]

- Verdun wasn't really a siege as the town wasn't really an objective and the supply never get cut from the rear (the sacred road)

- The siege of Malta 1940 - 1942 by the Italian and the German was quite interesting.
Was defended by a bunch of tough RAF airmen that transformed Italian and Afrika Corps's logistic in North Afrika to a nightmare.

[Benny]

Foxtrot - Thanks for the excelent information about Numancia. Did you write that yourself?

I voted for Leningrad.

How about the siege of Sebastopol during the Crimean War?

Or the Siege of Malta in 1565, against disproportionate odds?

And, on a different level, the Berlin Blockade 1948-49?

Benny

[Freibier]

The siege of my hometown Weiden by the swedes during the thirty years war.
There's also a nice legend about it - after several months the supplies inside the city were very critical and the swedes thought that it will be only a matter of days till the city surrenders.
During one of those days, the swedes tried once more to storm the city and were very surprised that the defenders shot back with wheat grain instead of musket balls - the swedish commander was very puzzled and called off the attack and reassesed the situation - he thought that when the defenders can shoot back with grain then their supplies can't be so low?
That night also something strange happened - the swedish soldiers saw the devil dancing ontop of the city wall !!
This must have scared away the swedes as on the next morning, all swedish troops were gone and never came back - the "devil" was a local shoemaker that wore a cowskin and a devils mask - he became a honorary citizen and the devils mask can still be seen today ontop of the old city gate :D

[Benny]

Funny - We have a similar legend, during the siege of Lisbon by the Castillians, who decided to leave after being showered with bread!

Benny

[Minardiau]

Seige of Tobruk:

Simply because the Aussies held out against Rommel and when they were relieved by the British it fell :P

Seige of Singapore:

Because of the shear stupidity by Churchill, Percival and Wavell. The Island had ample stocks of ammunition, food and other supplies yet no defences were prepared against the Japanese because it was felt by Percival that it would lower morale.

England not responding to Australian requests to abandon the city

England ordering reinforcements into Malayia despite the warnings.

No preperation by England period.

[Clearday-TRForce]

Of course, Constantinople by the Turks (1453)




The Byzantine army itself totalled about 7000 men, 2000 of whom were foreign mercenaries. The city also had fourteen miles of walls, probably the strongest set of fortified walls in existence at the time. The Ottomans, on the other hand, had a much larger force, numbering around 100,000, including 20,000 Janissaries. Mehmed also built a fleet to besiege the city from the sea



Scholars consider the Fall of Constantinople as a key event ending the Middle Ages and starting the Renaissance because of the end of the old religious order in Europe and the use of cannon and gunpowder. The fall of Constantinople also severed the main overland trade link between Europe and Asia. As a result, more Europeans began to seriously consider the possibility of reaching Asia by sea - this would eventually lead to the European discovery of the New World.





regards

[Yosy]

Of course, Constantinople by the Turks (1453)

Scholars consider the Fall of Constantinople as a key event ending the Middle Ages and starting the Renaissance because of the end of the old religious order in Europe and the use of cannon and gunpowder. The fall of Constantinople also severed the main overland trade link between Europe and Asia. As a result, more Europeans began to seriously consider the possibility of reaching Asia by sea - this would eventually lead to the European discovery of the New World.

regards

Although the fall of Constantinople marked the end of the Middle Ages it's not by the reasons that you posted. The desire of reaching Asia by sea was just a portuguese enterprise dating back to 1415. The fall of Constantinople made the scholars of that city run to the west and they brought with them the books and lost knowladge of greeks and romans back to Europe. That, and the fact that the Crusades exposed the aristocracy of Europe to different, more advanced cultures, triggered the Renaissance.

[baboon6]

Seige of Tobruk:

Simply because the Aussies held out against Rommel and when they were relieved by the British it fell :P

Seige of Singapore:

Because of the shear stupidity by Churchill, Percival and Wavell. The Island had ample stocks of ammunition, food and other supplies yet no defences were prepared against the Japanese because it was felt by Percival that it would lower morale.

England not responding to Australian requests to abandon the city

England ordering reinforcements into Malayia despite the warnings.

No preperation by England period.

Tobruk did not fall "when it was relieved by the British". By the time the siege was lifted in November 1941 most of the 9th Australian Division had been removed by sea and replaced by the British 70th Division and a Polish brigade. Tobruk fell in June 1942, after another offensive by the Germans had turned the Gazala line. By this time most of the defences had been removed and the air and sea support available was not adequate to sustain another siege (which the RAF and Royal Navy had told the army) . In fact it should have been abandoned. General Ritchie should have ordered General Klopper to evacuate his force(2nd SA Div plus British and Indian brigades), but as usual, he couldn't make a decision. Therefore a lot of South Africans, Indians and Brits ended up in the bag.

Not trying to take anything away from the Aussies, they did a hell of a job capturing Tobruk(6th Div) and defending it (9th Div).

[Paracaidista]

I voted for Leningrad.
Or the Siege of Malta in 1565, against disproportionate odds?


I voted Leningrad too. Also I consider the 1565 Malta siege against the turks also important. However, in South America there was a incredible siege too. The War ot the Triple Alliance (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/War-of-the-Triple-Alliance) involved three countries (Brasil, Argentina and Uruguay) against Paraguay, and the place under heavy siege was the river-city fortress of Humaitá from 1866 to 1868.

[Benny]

Paraguay hasn't yet recovered from that catastrophic war.

Benny

[ogukuo72]

Personally, I prefer the "held-out against all odds" kind of siege. :P

There's something heroic about them.

[Yosy]

Personally, I prefer the "held-out against all odds" kind of siege. :P

There's something heroic about them.

Yeah, me too. And there are loads of examples of this. Thermopilaey (bad spelling I know) - from the actual historic event: Persians: "Surrender your weapons"; Spartans: "Come and get them" p-) ; Malta 1941-42, Okinawa 1945, etc...

Dien Bien Phu is the most recent example of this.

Read Howard Simpson's book about the battle. He was an american war correspondent in Indochina and was at Dien Bien Phu - although he left in the beginning of the battle. Amazing book, specially the last chapters.

[ogukuo72]

I was thinking of Wake Island in 1942 too, but is it technically a siege? :)

With regards to Malta 1940-42, the best parts I love to read about are the great convoy battles that the British had to fight through to Malta. It's not just the defenders who were heroic, but the merchant crew that sailed the transports.

Respect.

[speckfire]

What about Alexander the great and the siege of Tyre?

http://www.cedarland.org/tyre.html

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t09.html

[ogukuo72]

Fort Vaux

In late May, the German troops could tell that something was in preparation. Assault training increased. The ammo dumps were filling up with heavy shells, each bearing a mysterious green cross. Generals and staff officers seemed more optimistic. At the end of the month, the Kaiser himself was rumored to be near the front, along with a large brass band.

At the start of June the German offensive struck. It began, of course, with an artillery bombardment. But the French noticed right away that this bombardment was different from most. The shells impacted almost silently. The newer soldiers said "Look, the Germans are shooting duds!". The veterans shouted "Gas!" and donned their masks.

The "Green Cross Gas" was more technically known as phosgene. The Germans had intended to produce a gas which French gas masks would be ineffective against, while German gas masks would neutralize it. Although the French masks performed much better than the Germans hoped, forcing virtually all the French artillerymen into gas masks greatly reduced their effectiveness. Hard breathing and fogged lenses didn't help them load heavy shells or aim their weapons. The gas persisted for two days due to a lack of wind. Sure that phosgene would lead to victory, the Kaiser had, in fact, been near the front, planning to enter Verdun in triumph. The plan of simply bleeding the French had, for the moment, been abandoned.

The Germans made a considerable dent in the French front southeast of Fort Douaumont on the first day. They overran Fort Vaux, which was externally defenseless because a "Big Bertha" round had earlier detonated a French internal demolition charge and blown out the fort's twin 75mm turret. All other weapons had been stripped off earlier in the war to supply the field army.

Nonetheless, Fort Vaux was much better prepared than Fort Douaumont had been. Its commander was Major Raynal, who had been wounded in the leg and captured earlier in the war. Because of his wound, the Germans had exchanged him, and he had been assigned to fortress troops so he could keep off his leg much of the time. Now he was to prove that a wounded man is still very dangerous. His garrison was nearly 300 men, armed with rifles, pistols, machine guns, and hand grenades.

The Germans occupied the counterscarp galleries and proceeded up the communicating tunnels. The French had established blockages at these tunnels, with a machine gunner and grenadier stationed at each. Behind each blockage was constructed another, to limit the German advance at the inevitable time when the forward team should be killed. This held off the Germans for three days.

The Germans then tried to smoke out the fort by dumping flamethrowers into every opening simultaneously. But the French survived. Major Raynal then sent out his last carrier pigeon with a desperate plea for help. The bird, badly gassed, at first returned to its cage. But on the second attempt, it flew off to a command post in Verdun. After being relieved of its message, the pigeon collapsed and died. It received a posthumous Legion of Honour, and has been preserved in a museum.

The French made five attacks in four days to attempt to relieve Fort Vaux. But only one of these got within sight of the fort, and was beaten back. Incredibly, a junior officer sneaked through the lines to get word to higher headquarters that the fort was still in French hands. More incredibly, he returned to Fort Vaux immediately afterward.

On the second day, Fort Vaux had run out of water. Their cistern's level gage had been stuck, and it was actually empty. By the fourth day, the French were nearly dying of thirst. Major Raynal, though it broke his heart, had to surrender. There was nothing more to do. The fort had been beaten more by thirst than by the Germans.


The collapse of Fort Vaux

Thursday - 1 June Following a lengthy bombing and with the use of a large number of flame-throwers, the Germans finally regain command of the Bois de la Caillette. The Bois Fumin, situated just behind the village of Vaux, is taken for the greater part as well, but at a high price.

The major gain of this particular conquest is that the German troops in front of Fort Vaux are no longer controlled by the flanking French fire from the Bois de la Caillette and the Bois Fumin. After this the German attack focuses on Fort Vaux. This is a medium sized fort generally accounting for a garrison of 250 men, but now accommodating some 600 men. The Commander is Major Sylvain Raynal. He suspects the big attack to take place soon: in the morning the fort is caught in a rain of grenades. Raynal counts 1,500 to 2,000 hits an hour.

Friday - 2 June The Germans are able to surround the fort almost completely. A few hallways are taken as well. The French men inside the fort stubbornly defend themselves and from the French frontline counter attacks are undertaken to regain control of the fort. The French artillery draws up a barrage that compels the German attackers to remain in cover.

Sunday - 4 June To smoke out the French German flame-throwers are used. This attempt fails as draught forces the smoke out of the fort and obstructs the attackers in their actions. The French again undertake a few counter attacks but are awaited by German reinforcements who force the attackers back in a man-to-man fight. The Germans are again hindered in their movement by the French bombardment.

Monday - 5 June Inch by inch the Germans force their way into the fort where the French, behind a barricade of sandbags, keep up a firm front. Major Raynal organises the defence in a heroic manner. His chief concern is the limited amount of drinking water available within the fort. The water tank contains less water than the gauge glass indicates. Therefore the rations of 1 litre a day per person are reduced to 1/8 litre. Wounded receive double this amount.

(Note: The Germans are also suffering from a lack of drinking water. The month of June starts off with high temperatures and drinking water is scarce on the battlefield; every drop has to be brought in from elsewhere. Another factor is that the explosives contain the chemical substance lydite, which produces heavy thirst as well. There are stories circulating of Germans on the battlefield of Verdun trading cigarettes with the French for bottles of drinking water.)

Commander Raynal sends carrier pigeons carrying messages begging for reinforcements. Sometimes a company manages to reach the fort. In one such a case only 26 men are left of the original 170. German attempts to blow up the fort fail due to French artillery fire from the nearby-situated Fort Souville.

Tuesday - 6 June The situation in the fort is terrible. The ambience is totally ruined by oil damp and dust; it is pitch dark. Regularly panic attacks start when a gas attack is suspected. The men are going mad with thirst. They lick condense water of the walls and some drink their own urine. The stench is unbearable because the latrines are out of reach; there are excreta in every corner. Finally, Raynal decides to surrender.

Wednesday - 7 June A white flag appears on top of the fort and a French orderly delivers Lieutenant Rackow, the German Commander, a letter. Major Raynal requests an honorary surrender of his garrison. This is granted and the garrison surrenders in a military correct fashion; arms presented. The French are treated with respect: souvenirs are exchanged and photographs taken. The Crown Prince receives Raynal with full honour, expresses his admiration for the heroic opposition and presents Raynal with his own sword as a mark of honour.

Verdun might not have been a siege, but Fort Vaux at Verdun had definitely held out heroically against all odds. :)

[Ruutiukko]

If you like to read about sieges, try the Fortresses-series by Osprey.

And no, I don't work for their advertisement department ;)

[ogukuo72]

Read those at Borders. They are good, but horribly expensive for not much information and small photographs. The best part are the artwork though. :)

[Yosy]

I was thinking of Wake Island in 1942 too, but is it technically a siege? :)

With regards to Malta 1940-42, the best parts I love to read about are the great convoy battles that the British had to fight through to Malta. It's not just the defenders who were heroic, but the merchant crew that sailed the transports.

Respect.

Oh yes, those convoys were heroic. And throughout WW2 the merchant shipping crews (who were civillians) were amazingly brave.

I get the feeling that everyone in Malta was a hero. The island is a rock, so it's hard to dig shelters; all the generals in charge of Malta were worshipped by the soldiers - they lived among them, one even just used a biketo move around, to save fuel; the pilots lived and fought in much worse conditions that in the Battle of Britain. And the civillians had to live through the nightmare of constant bombings. Malta's population is still the only one to have the George Cross (the civillian equivalent of the Victoria Cross).

[mattmayhem]

You forgot Sarajevo? If Beruit is up there, then that has gotta be.

[caridon]

my money is on the first malta siege.

if nothing else because of the amount of time and effort spent by the defenders preparing their defenses. (20+ years)

/C

[wiking]

The Siege of Seringapatam in 1799 and Arthur Welleslys (later the Duke of Wellington) siege of Gawilghur later in the campaign against the Marahata empire.

And the siege and storming of Badajoz.

[BlackFlag]

hmm..the alamo should have been on here.

[Paracaidista]

siege (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=siege): the action of an armed force that surrounds a fortified place and isolates it while continuing to attack.

The sitting of an army around or before a fortified place for the purpose of compelling the garrison to surrender; the surrounding or investing of a place by an army, and approaching it by passages and advanced works, which cover the besiegers from the enemy's fire. (Blockade).

A good 'modern' siege would be Dien Bien Phu. Pivotal for the history of South East Asia.

[wiking]

siege (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=siege): the action of an armed force that surrounds a fortified place and isolates it while continuing to attack.

The sitting of an army around or before a fortified place for the purpose of compelling the garrison to surrender; the surrounding or investing of a place by an army, and approaching it by passages and advanced works, which cover the besiegers from the enemy's fire. (Blockade).

A good 'modern' siege would be Dien Bien Phu. Pivotal for the history of South East Asia.

proper sieges don't exist in modern warfare. napoleonic era or so at the latest.

[Paracaidista]

siege (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=siege): the action of an armed force that surrounds a fortified place and isolates it while continuing to attack.

The sitting of an army around or before a fortified place for the purpose of compelling the garrison to surrender; the surrounding or investing of a place by an army, and approaching it by passages and advanced works, which cover the besiegers from the enemy's fire. (Blockade).

A good 'modern' siege would be Dien Bien Phu. Pivotal for the history of South East Asia.

proper sieges don't exist in modern warfare. napoleonic era or so at the latest.

Try to tell that to the French veterans of that battle :roll:. Another issue is why the French got themselves into that position (to be sieged). Sieges exist as long as there is an opposite force ready to surround the defender's strongold. They are as old as war and as new as (maybe) Fallujah.

[wiking]

siege (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=siege): the action of an armed force that surrounds a fortified place and isolates it while continuing to attack.

The sitting of an army around or before a fortified place for the purpose of compelling the garrison to surrender; the surrounding or investing of a place by an army, and approaching it by passages and advanced works, which cover the besiegers from the enemy's fire. (Blockade).

A good 'modern' siege would be Dien Bien Phu. Pivotal for the history of South East Asia.

proper sieges don't exist in modern warfare. napoleonic era or so at the latest.

Try to tell that to the French veterans of that battle :roll:. Another issue is why the French got themselves into that position (to be sieged). Sieges exist as long as there is an opposite force ready to surround the defender's strongold. They are as old as war and as new as (maybe) Fallujah.

Well, by siege i mean castle vs. cannon, sapping forward, establishing a breaching battery and ending by either the siegeing army marching off or storming a breach. But i don't know much about the french at Dien Bien Phu.

[Zarathustra]

Stalingrad or leningrad, can't really decide, both were awesome.

[Yosy]

Try to tell that to the French veterans of that battle :roll:. Another issue is why the French got themselves into that position (to be sieged). Sieges exist as long as there is an opposite force ready to surround the defender's strongold. They are as old as war and as new as (maybe) Fallujah.

I've read a book about it recently - it's in one of my earlier posts in this thread.

The french failed at Dien Bien Phu because: too much confidence on air support, military arrogance (refuse to adapt to a new form of warfare - the same thing that doomed american effort in Vietnam), a whole new form of warfare to deal with, and lack of support at home (see the plantation scene in Apocalypse Now Redux).

[ogukuo72]

I believe that the Viet Ming was actually better equipped and better supplied compared to the French. The popular and romantic conception is that Viet Ming was a native insurgency, and they were nothing more than guerillas.

In fact, they were well supplied by both the Chinese and the Soviet Union, had substantial field armies backed by artillery and anti-aircraft weapons, and well led by capable field generals such as Giap.

The Viet Ming actually had a preponderance of forces and firepower at DBP, not the French.

[Yosy]

I believe that the Viet Ming was actually better equipped and better supplied compared to the French. The popular and romantic conception is that Viet Ming was a native insurgency, and they were nothing more than guerillas.

In fact, they were well supplied by both the Chinese and the Soviet Union, had substantial field armies backed by artillery and anti-aircraft weapons, and well led by capable field generals such as Giap.

The Viet Ming actually had a preponderance of forces and firepower at DBP, not the French.

The french made the mistake of letting the Vietminh evolve from a guerrilla to a revolutionary army. Giap wasn't a brilliant general, but he was good on logistics, and able to withstand enourms ammounts of casualties - something the french lacked.