Talk:Siege

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Siege is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 26, 2004.
July 13, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
Siege was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on June 27, 2004.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Grammar

"It was not until the Napoleonic era when dynamic striking columns forced armies into the field and the ever increasing use of, ever more powerful, cannon reduced the value of fortifications." Is that a sentence? What are those commas doing there?

I've done my best to fix it. I can't find any mention of "dynamic striking columns" anywhere except in articles derived from this one, so I've removed that bit; it was making the sentence far too cumbersome.

There's a notation of Macedonian "stone throwers"; is this a reference to slingers (infantry with slings), or a form of siege weapon I've never heard of? Also, I deleted "hordes" in connection to Mongols; the term derives from ordu, the standard military unit--the Mongols were usually outnumbered.... Trekphiler 02:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Can anybody translate De Re aedificatoria? My Latin's too rusty...(On Fortification?) Trekphiler 03:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Is 'seige' a legitimate alternate spelling for siege?

Sign your posts. No, it isn't. The word is spelled "siege". Anything else is incorrect. --Canonblack 20:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Force

I took the link to Force (law) off because it seemed to confuse the issue rather than to help understanding. The legal concept as written in Wikipedia so far has only limited relation to the military use of the word "force". Rossami 22:27 20 May 2003 (UTC)

[edit] I was thinking...

...that perhaps Siege warfare is a better title for this article? (article-to-be)✏ Sverdrup 19:45, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No - the guidelines say to use the most common, non-ambigious name. This name is both non-ambigious (uniquely identifying) and by far the most common. →Raul654 19:47, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin Blockade

Does the Berlin Blockade count as a siege? David Thrale 20:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No - a blockade is not a siege. →Raul654 20:41, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
(Although blockading is one element of a seige) →Raul654 20:42, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam

"But just 14 years later, advances in air power allowed the United States to overcome the siege and defeat the Vietcong." I am very unsure about this - a specific battle is not mentioned, and as far as I know the US pulled out of vietnam. However I don't know enough of the details to edit this bit. Mat-C 01:45, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, a specific battle is mentioned - Khe Sahn. The Americans at Khe Sahn were victorious, while the French (in almost exactly the same circumstances 14 years earlier) were not. →Raul654 01:59, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
PS - I have now clarified this. →Raul654 02:00, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of sieges

I propose a pruning of the list of famous sieges, and putting the rest in List of Sieges. [[User:Sverdrup|✏ SverdrupSverdrup]] 22:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If the article hits the 32 kb mark, *maybe* then (depending on how much it exceeds it). Until then, I think we can safely leave those in. →Raul654 22:26, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
It's only that I don't like long lists in articles, it'd look better if we just listed 5 famous sieges. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 20:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree - given the burgeoning length of the list, it would be better to create a separate list page with a link from here. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And I have moved them to List of sieges - feel free to complain here or in Talk:List of sieges. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent idea. Rich Farmbrough 23:53, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Siege warfare

I think the article as it reads may be misleading in its emphasis. If I understand correctly, the primary weapons of early seige warfare weren't things like battering rams, catapaults, or siege engines. Most early sieges were just waiting games, where the weapons were starvation, disease, and thirst. The besieging army had the option of retreat, and could draw on whatever local resources were available by pillaging. On the other hand, camp living made them vulnerable to disease. The defenders had shelter and usually a large stock of supplies. Whoever broke first lost. Can anyone confirm this impression? Isomorphic 05:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes - to quoth the article "Until the invention of gunpowder-based weapons (and the resulting higher-velocity projectiles), the balance of power and logistics definitely favored the defender." →Raul654 05:43, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
It was certainly true of the early modern period, and I have updated the article to make that important point explicit. I also thought it had been somewhat glossed over previously.
Peregrine981 23:20, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anybody think the description of siege warfare on the trench warfare page should be deleted or moved here? It seems out of place there... Trekphiler 02:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agee with Isomorhpics ideas about the article emphasizing the wrong thing. The characteristics of a siege are the static situation, attrition and negotiation (one of the most common outcomes of a siege is that the attacker takes the town or castle and the garrison is allowed to leave once a condition has been met, such as a breach in the walls or 40 days without relief). The way the article is written now, it misrepresents the typical siege. -Sensemaker

[edit] Edits made by 172.182.159.228

I can't see what the edits made by 172.182.159.228 have to do with sieges. The term "virtual information siege" gives me 0 google hits, so it's not a very well spread term.. --Conti|✉ 14:37, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They're irrelavant and unsupport - dulely removed. →Raul654 15:35, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

It is just unbelievable how something which is really creative can be removed based on "0 google hits". Start thinking into the future rather than solely describing what happend in the past will open new horizons. How can the term "virtual information siege" be discussed and pushed back by an individual with obviously no understanding anything of future conflicts and modern technology? Irrelevant? Not understood! Sorry.

Sorry, these ideas may well be good but Wikipedia has a no original research policy. As an encyclopedia, our job is to catalogue existing, widely accepted knowledge, not to spread new ideas. --Shibboleth 04:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sieges in the modern era

The end of this section seems a bit misleading; it gives the impression that the battle in Vietnam is the last real siege - however, it assumes that at least one combatant member in the modern era have access to sophisticated weaponry, especially heavy air power. For example, modern wars lacking heavy air power (in Afghanistan during the warlord era, the Balkans, Africa) definitely have battles that mimic siege-like characteristics.--Confuzion 08:11, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would have thought the Berlin blockade should be included, the siege of West Berlin by the Soviets. Zoney 11:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As I said on this talk page on June 27, the last time this question was asked (look up) - a blockade is by itself is not a seige. →Raul654 11:25, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Defenders agree to surrender when no relief comes in a certain time ?

I read that about a siege of the Stirling castle in the prelude of the Battle of Bannockburn in its wiki article. And it is also said there, that "similar agreements were a normal part of medieval war". I am no expert in this area. I just find it an interesting point that I don't see mentioned anywhere in the Siege article (though I may have missed it). I think that if it was really a common practice, it could be mentioned in the article. —Marvin talk 22:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was common see for example Siege of Harfleur --Philip Baird Shearer 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, this fact needs to be added. "Common practice" is perhaps to say to much, but some sort of agreement between besiegers and besieged was common. It's highly understandable if you think about it for a moment. An assault against a desperate enemy was something the besieger typically tried to avoid. He could expect heavy casualties from desperate resistance and could usually not expect to control his troops so well that a plunder and pillage can be avoided. A pillaged city or castle is worth a lot less than a reasonably intact one. Plunder will also weigh down your troops and may cause your troops to leave or desert ("hey -I've got some serious dole now, time to quit and go home while I'm ahead"). The besieged were of course not particularly interested in being assaulted and possibly plundered either. Therefore both parties had very good incentives to come up with some sort of an agreement. (So good that some kings like Charles XI of Sweden felt they needed to execute garrison commanders who they felt had given up too easily to save their own skin "pour encourager les autres".) They could both threaten with all-out assault or desperate "to the last man" defense to get a good agreement but usually, it did not come to that. Typical agreement were that the garrison were allowed to leave with their plunder and weapons once a certain condition had been met such as 40 days without relief or a breach in the walls. -Sensemaker

[edit] advent of mobile warfare

With the advent of mobile warfare, one single fortified stronghold is no longer as decisive as it once was. While sieges do still occur, they are not as common as they once were due to changes in modes of battle, principally the ease by which huge volumes of destructive power can be directed onto a static target.

I would be most interested to see the source for this. A because is the siege of Leningrad modern or old? If modern then during the Second Word War there were hundreds of such sieges, so they are still common. If not modern then what modern armed forces have (without using nukes) 49,000 tubes of artillery to use in a siege which is the number of artillery tubes the Soviets employed at the start of the Battle of Berlin (to attack a city already bombed until the rubble bounced). To come slightly more up to date what about the urban warfare during the First Chechen War and the Battle for Grozny. Unless someone can cite a source for the above I think it should be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)