Early Greek siege towers

[Eleatic Guest]

Two question about the development of early Greek siege towers:

1. Chronology: The use of mobile siege towers is well attested for the Neo-Assyrian empire. They were also later employed by the Carthaginians in their struggle for Sicily in the late 5th century BC (in my view, the Phoenician connection is clear enough). But Thucydides tells us of a solitary incidence of a very slightly earlier Greek use, by the Athenians against the walls of Syracuse (413 BC). They, uncharacteristically, employed them mounted on ships.

Now, does this point to a different route of transmission from the Ancient Near East, perhaps even an independent Greek invention, or should we go with the view that the Greeks learned this siege technique from the Carthaginians nonetheless?

Las primeras referencias al uso de torres de asedio en las fuentes documentales las encontramos durante la Guerra del Peloponeso en la Magna Grecia. Aparecen en el asedio de Siracusa del 413 a. C., aunque montadas sobre barcos (TUCÍDIDES, VII, 25, 5).

Pero, cuando su uso parece generalizado es en el marco de las operaciones púnicas sobre las ciudades griegas de occidente. Selinunte el 409 a. C. (DIODORO SÍCULO, XIII, 54 - 55) o Akragas el 406 a. C. (DIODORO SÍCULO, XIII, 85) hubieron de sufrir las armas de Cartago. El relevo en el campo de la innovación bélica lo tomaría Dionisio I de Siracusa cuyo máximo ejemplo fue el asedio a Motya el 397 a. C. en el que se pusieron en marcha las torres de mayores dimensiones conocidas hasta ese momento (DIODORO SÍCULO, XIV, 50 – 51).

SOURCE: http://www.rubensaez.com/descargas.htm "Torres de asedio: las mayores máquinas bélicas de la Antigüedad"

2. Technology: Somewhere I read that there is no evidence the Assyrians and early Carthaginians ever used siege towers for forcing their way onto the battlements. Rather, their use seems to be confined to the use of battering rams housed in the structures, or merely as fighting platform for archers and slingers. This I find interesting because subsequent ancient and medieval history of siege warfare amply demonstrated that the main military effectiveness of siege towers lay in scaling the walls, less so in breaking through them.

Were the Greeks indeed the first and how would you call such a mobile siege tower fitted with a bridge in English?

[Sean Manning]

Thucydides 7.25.5 talks about a merchant ship fitted with wooden towers and screens so men onboard could shoot at the Syracusans on shore while other Athenians tried to remove a barrier of underwater stakes which was stopping them from attacking the Syracusan fleet. I'd be cautious about comparing this to the use of wheeled siege towers on land. Making a movable tower which provides good cover seems harder than making one which just sits on the deck of a ship and provides a platform to stand on. And our sources on naval warfare before Thucydides are very limited (and even he doesn't tell us much about fights involving merchant ships).

I'm not sure when the first use of a siege tower on land is recorded in our sources. But the problem is that we know very little about 5th and 4th century sieges not conducted by Greeks. The Persians and Carthaginians might have had devices other than walls, rams, mines, and ramps, but we wouldn't expect any evidence of them to survive.

[ushumgal]

2. Technology: Somewhere I read that there is no evidence the Assyrians and early Carthaginians ever used siege towers for forcing their way onto the battlements. Rather, their use seems to be confined to the use of battering rams housed in the structures, or merely as fighting platform for archers and slingers. This I find interesting because subsequent ancient and medieval history of siege warfare amply demonstrated that the main military effectiveness of siege towers lay in scaling the walls, less so in breaking through them.

Were the Greeks indeed the first and how would you call such a mobile siege tower fitted with a bridge in English?

This does appear to be true of the Assyrians. There are many depictions of siege towers. They are invariably wheeled (with a single exception from Assur-nasir-pal II) and they invariably have a battering ram. A few are depicted as tall as the battlements they oppose (most are much shorter and vaguely resemble tanks), with archers in the top. But NONE of them show a bridge. Storming city walls (frequently depicted) was typically accomplished by means of ladders.

No idea what the Greek is, but Assyrians apparently called such machines (or perhaps just the ram part) ašibu.

Below are two shots from a single scene from the North-West Palace of Assur-nasir-pal II at Nimrud (early Neo-Assyrian). The first shows the single unwheeled siege tower...no bridge, just archers. Note that the defenders have attempted to foul the battering ram with a chain (which Assyrian soldiers are trying to remove), and also the two guys with "spears" (actually a kind of crowbar or large chisel) working on digging through the wall. City walls in the ancient Near East were very often mud-brick, and so were very vulnerable to such tactics. From a sheltered position (such as inside a siege engine), one could effectively dig through them, given enough time. Hence the chisel tip on the battering ram. Also note the reed or cane mats that cover the siege tower, which look pretty much identical to the shields (and indeed, the cane shield found at Dura-Europos, dating well over 1000 years later).

The second pic shows the normal mode of climbing walls...on a ladder. Sorry about the blurriness on the bottom...scanned it on a crappy scanner...

...Sorry to rather sidetrack the topic, but I thought it might be of interest.

[Eleatic Guest]

I'd be cautious about comparing this to the use of wheeled siege towers on land.

You are right, although, on the other hand, the underlying military principle of superelevation was the same.

I'm not sure when the first use of a siege tower on land is recorded in our sources..

See above the Spanish quotes. Diodorus records the use of siege towers against Greek colonies for the late 5th century.

City walls in the ancient Near East were very often mud-brick, and so were very vulnerable to such tactics. From a sheltered position (such as inside a siege engine), one could effectively dig through them, given enough time.

Yes, that is why the Assyrians may have never devised the idea of an assault bridge, because boring through the mud-brick walls was effective enough. It may be that only the Greeks (or Carthaginians), confronted with enemy ashlar walls, were forced to think of new ways to use siege towers.

But NONE of them show a bridge. Storming city walls (frequently depicted) was typically accomplished by means of ladders.

In all fairness, I am not sure whether there are any Greek depictions of assault bridges, so the Assyrian case, which cannot rely to the same extent on textual evidence as the Greek, may be at an disadvantage here, but still. I think the idea is appealing that the existence of stone fortifications throughout the wider Greek world provoked the invention of assault bridges. Hey, I may even be the first to have the idea?! Where's the patent office? wink:

[D B Campbell]

Thucydides tells us of a solitary incidence of a very slightly earlier Greek use, by the Athenians against the walls of Syracuse (413 BC). They, uncharacteristically, employed them mounted on ships.

Sean Manning has answered this one, so we can probably move on. (Sadly, Thucydides doesn't make clear what purpose the turrets served -- were they linked with the winching operation, as the underwater stakes were pulled up, or did they simply house missile troops in support of the winching operation? Either way, these are not an early version of the siege tower.)

I read that there is no evidence the Assyrians and early Carthaginians ever used siege towers for forcing their way onto the battlements. Rather, their use seems to be confined to the use of battering rams housed in the structures, or merely as fighting platform for archers and slingers.

There is some disagreement whether the Assyrian war-machines should be classified as "towers" or rather simply as turreted battering rams. The turret seems to have functioned in largely the same way as the turrets on Greek battering rams.

Our sole evidence for Carthaginian siege towers (as far as I recall) is Diodorus' account of Hannibal's invasion of Sicily in 410-406 BC. At Selinus, six towers and six rams may hint at a dual-purpose machine (D.S. 13.54.7), or may not; the height advantage was, at any rate, exploited by missile troops (D.S. 13.55.6-7), who seem to have made no attempt to cross over onto the battlements. The purpose of his siege-towers at Akragas cannot be known, as they were quickly destroyed (D.S. 13.85.5), but the fact that he replaced them with a Persian-style embankment ("assault ramp") suggests that he wanted to get troops up onto the battlements; but maybe he was going to build the embankment anyway.

It is at least interesting that the Carthaginians were hailed as the inventors of the battering ram, not the siege tower.

Were the Greeks indeed the first and how would you call such a mobile siege tower fitted with a bridge in English?

As you probably know, Diodorus' description of Dionysius I's siege towers is the first to describe troops using "gangways" (epibathrai) from siege towers. Interestingly, this is not to attack the battlements; but rather, once the towers have been wheeled into the town, troops cross over onto the flat rooftops using the gangways (D.S. 14.51.1 & 7). The contemporary writer, Aeneas Tacticus, envisages a siege tower as a platform for missile troops (32.8 ), so the "boarding bridge" idea perhaps had not yet taken hold.

There is no specific word for a siege tower that incorporates a gangway (although Vegetius has different words for the gangway, depending on how it operates).

I think the idea is appealing that the existence of stone fortifications throughout the wider Greek world provoked the invention of assault bridges.

Remember that many Greek and Sicilian fortifications were mud-brick, too. In most cases, only the stone socle survives.