SIEGE WARFARE and COUNTER-SIEGE TACTICS in LATE ANTIQUITY (Ca

SIEGE WARFARE AND COUNTER-SIEGE TACTICS IN LATE ANTIQUITY (ca. 250–640) Michael Whitby Abstract Although there are numerous remains of Late Roman walls and other defensive works, these offer little insight into how individual sieges progressed, and most of our knowledge about siege operations in Late Antiquity comes from literary sources, which, for different reasons, provide a wealth of information. Tactics and techniques were substantially the same as in earlier Roman and Hellenistic times, so that comparative evidence is relevant, and the main issue for debate is the switch from torsion-powered to traction artillery and who was responsible for this development. Introduction The archaeology of the siege in action is a substantially more challenging topic than the archaeology of defensive structures, since the inevitably transient operations of a siege, however protracted and bitter they will have been for all those involved, may not have left enduring marks in the material record, or at least marks which can be associated with one particular event rather than another. As a result, our knowledge about the mechanics of sieges is largely derived from literary sources. I will, there- fore, first review this information, before returning to the question of how archaeology contributes to this picture. Literary Sources Fortunately, our literary sources provide a substantial quantity of information about sieges of both cities and fortresses. In part, this reflects how warfare was the prime component in secular historiography, and how within late antique warfare there genuinely were numerous sieges. Indeed, in some conflicts, sieges formed the dominant form of military activity: thus, in the war against Persia which occupied the whole of Constantius A. Sarantis, N. Christie (edd.) War and Warfare in Late Antiquity: Current Perspectives (Late Antique Archaeology 8.1–8.2 – 2010–11) (Leiden 2013), pp. 433–459 434 michael whitby II’s reign, there was only one pitched battle (the indecisive encounter at Singara in 344), but three sieges of Nisibis, where the repeated Persian fail- ures dented the prestige of King Shapur.1 Two centuries later, the Justini- anic re-conquest of Italy largely revolved around the control of fortresses and cities, at least until the General Narses arrived.2 The predominance of sieges reflected the fact that commanders were reluctant to risk pre- cious manpower in open battle unless they had a clear advantage, while secure control of territory depended on possession of key fortified cities which attackers had to capture in order to weaken the enemy and obtain significant booty, whereas defenders had to retain them as the basis for long-term authority in a particular area. Sieges could also provide exciting material for narration, and were sanctioned by historiographical precedent which stretched back to Thucy- dides’ account of the siege of Plataea,3 and more generally to the Homeric cycle of epics (especially the Iliad and the Iliou Persis). These were occa- sions of high drama with opportunities for a rich narrative of the ingenu- ity of assailants and defenders, for descriptions of a site or aspect of a site, or of a machine, and for emotive descriptions of the consequences of capture. The authors of our two most substantial secular narratives, Ammianus Marcellinus in the 4th c. and Procopius in the 6th c., each had personal experience of siege warfare, both on the defensive side—at Amida (359) and Rome (537–38)—and on the offensive—at Maiozamal- cha (363) and Naples (536).4 But, because sieges increasingly impinged on the civilian population of the empire and became intertwined, as we shall see, with religious beliefs and the reputations of particular cults or objects of devotion, we have detailed eye-witness accounts of threats to their cities by civilian observers such as Bishop John of Thessalonica in the Miracles of St Demetrius, or the authors of the anonymous accounts in the Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite of Kavadh’s attack on Edessa in 503, and in the Chronicon Paschale of the 626 siege of Constantinople. Stories of apparently miraculous survival were presented to enhance the reputation of the agent, whether that was a saintly figure, as Genevieve at Paris, a bishop, as Anianus at Orleans (both during Attila’s incursion in 451), or an object such as the acheiropoietos image of Christ at Edessa in 1 For the centrality of fortified cities to warfare in the East, see Isaac (1990) 252–60. 2 For a list of sieges in the 6th and 7th c., see Syvänne (2004) 502–505. 3 Thuc. 2.71–77; 3.20–24. 4 But, as Matthews (1989) 288 notes, the benefits of personal experience may be sacri- ficed to the rhetorical expectations of the literary tradition..

Load more