Gabanus Family/Garas/The basic art of sieges

From BattleMaster Wiki
< Gabanus Family‎ | Garas
Revision as of 07:32, 13 January 2020 by Gabanus (talk | contribs) (→‎List of sieges)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Siege basics

In its elementary basics there are two general approaches in which sieges have been executed in history. In early centuries sieges were performed in a singular way, with massive amounts of melee troops scaling the walls with large numbers of siege towers towed along the way. Later, during the age of ranged firepower longer prolonged sieges began to emerge, hailing arrows down upon the defenders before the melee would ensue.

In the current day and age both types of sieges may work effectively and the choice between one or the other largely depends on the size of both attacking and defending armies and perhaps more importantly the composition of both armies. If you command an assaulting army of 1.000 infantrymen and 500 archers you might be tempted to scale the walls quickly. Whether or not that is wise largely depends on the defending force however. If the enemy defends with 1.000 infantrymen and 100 archers, you would be wise however to deploy your infantry further back and allow your vast archer superiority to soften the enemy's infantry. In contrast, if they defend with 100 infantry and 1.000 archers you will wish to scale the walls quickly.

Now let us consider both options and see what elements should be considered before making our choice. Know that to each situation there are exceptions, but below I will describe the more common concepts.

Melee focused sieges

In the first centuries of our world there was a simple rule when it came to sieges: "One must always bring with him at least twice the number of melee troops than his enemy and every squadron of 25 men should bring with them a siege tower." During the time when those rules were written much has changed which should be taken into account.

Factors to consider

  • Bows became better build, the cord able to hold more tension and the men wielding it better trained and as such the opening volleys into the infantry have become more damaging. This in turn generally increase the need for infantry on the attacking side. The ratio depends much on the size of the defenders' ranged force.
  • The deployment and use of mixed infantry has increased, although this will not apply to most sieges still to this day. Mixed infantry being worse in melee than infantry, and worse in ranged than archers should therefore not be counted fully as infantry for the sake of this rule. As such, when mixed infantry is on the defending side, around 1.5 infantry per MI should be sufficient, but in reverse the same applies
  • Cavalry especially on the defenders' side has become more common and will also increase the need for additional melee forces. For when the walls seem to have been breached and scaled, the cavalry charges in, in an attempt to repell the invaders, often succesfully.
  • The number of men commanded by the nobility has increased in size. Where in the old days an army equivalent to 20.000 combat strength was comprised of around 40 nobles, each commanding 30 men (totalling 1200 men), in the current days an army of such strength would consist of 20 nobles each commanding 85 men (totalling 1700 men). Smaller units are often more efficiëntly led and will do more damage per men, to a degree that 3 commanders with 30 men would easily best a single commander with 100 men, despite him having 10 more men. Additionally when a larger unit routs from the battlefield, it takes with it a far larger amount of the total force and strength, leading to a higher degree of unused strength during the battle. As such, when assaulting with larger units than the defender, this increases the ratio of force required.
  • The ratio of militia versus units led by commanders has shifted more towards militia. It is commonly known that these units perform less than that under the command of nobility, will do fewer damage and will rout from the battlefield faster in most scenarios, unless one is dealing with very young and inexperienced nobles. As such, when assaulting a city where the majority of the defenders are militia, this decreases the ratio of required infantrymen to your advantage.

Conclusion on melee sieges

When the scaling of the walls is considered, a commander must primarily take into account the melee forces on both sides and the siege engines which have been brought. A rough initial baseline of 2.2 times the melee combatants will work. When counting melee, MI forces are to be considered less than infantry (roughly between 60%-75%) and melee SF forces are to be counted as superior to infantry (roughly between 135%-150%). The commander must subsequently observe the size of units on both sides, the distribution of militia and noble defenders as well as the presense and size of the enemy's archer and cavalry contingents to adjust his need for army size.

Ranged focused siege

The last several decades have seen a massive rise in the arts of ranged warfare. The first siege known to civilization to have been fought, depending mostly on ranged firepower was fought on the South Island during a Siege of Taselak City, or so tales go. Throughout the years Generals and Marshals across all lands seem to have attempted to replicate the success of that siege, but most of them have failed. During my time as General of First Oligarch I have been able to apply such a siege once and in the successive years have succesfully performed two more and read about all the othes which have both failed and succeeded. In turn we have also had to defend against multiple of such sieges and from this could apply the knowledge gained to render the sieges ineffective. Below I will share my experience and knowledge on this subject.

Factors to consider

  • Defending militia will deploy in the middle
  • Defending militia will deploy in line formation, which in an archer shootout will put them at a disadvantage
  • Archers deal more damage from closer distance as their shots maintain more of their power and accuracy. This however applies to both attackers and defenders.
  • Defending archers behind walls will have cover to use and as such will suffer fewer damage and casualties. Through analyzing battle reports from all places such as this one of a city called Firbalt in distant lands Siege of Firbalt and the reported siege of Taselak, a pattern can be seen. While the exact figures differ due to many factors and the fact that these reports are written by men, it can still be ascertained that depending on the weather and other factors, a city with lvl 5 negates between 20%-35% of the damage. As such an attacking force should be between 1.25x and 1.5x the strength of that of the defender merely to negate the advantage of the walls.
  • The number of men commanded by the nobility has increased in size. Where in the old days an army equivalent to 20.000 combat strength was comprised of around 40 nobles, each commanding 30 men (totalling 1200 men), in the current days an army of such strength would consist of 20 nobles each commanding 85 men (totalling 1700 men). Smaller units are often more efficiëntly led and will do more damage per men, to a degree that 3 commanders with 30 men would easily best a single commander with 100 men, despite him having 10 more men. Additionally when a larger unit routs from the battlefield, it takes with it a far larger amount of the total force and strength, leading to a higher degree of unused strength during the battle. As such, when assaulting with larger units than the defender, this increases the ratio of force required.
  • The ratio of militia versus units led by commanders has shifted more towards militia. It is commonly known that these units perform less than that under the command of nobility, will do fewer damage and will rout from the battlefield faster in most scenarios, unless one is dealing with very young and inexperienced nobles. As such, when assaulting a city where the majority of the defenders are militia, this decreases the ratio of required archers to your advantage.
  • The deployment and use of mixed infantry has increased, although this will not apply to most sieges still to this day. Mixed infantry being worse in melee than infantry, and worse in ranged than archers should therefore not be counted fully as archers for the sake of this rule. They can be counted as maximum of 70% only.

List of sieges