pothos.org

An academic question for you roman buffs out there...which siege was more important in world history? Which siege was more difficult in its scope for the besieger? I've my own opinions, of course, but would like to hear yours first.
Nicator

Did Marcus Claudius Marcellus learn anything from Alexander? Hannibal did, I would guess Marcellus had historical information on Alexander's siege of Tyre as Hannibal studied Alexander's military tactics. I'll go with Tyre although they were similar, Alexander summoned a council of his Companions and the leaders of his army, together with the captains of infantry and cavalry and said, "I see that an expedition to Egypt will not be safe for us, so long as the Persians retain the sovereignty of the sea; nor is it a safe course, both for other reasons, and especially looking at the state of matters in Greece, for us to pursue Darius, leaving in our rear the city of Tyre itself in doubtful allegiance, and Egypt and Cyprus in the occupation of the Persians. I am apprehensive lest while we advance with our forces towards Babylon and in pursuit of Darius, the Persians should again conquer the maritime districts, and transfer the war into Greece with a larger army, considering that the Lacedaemonians are now waging war against us without disguise, and the city of Athens is restrained for the present rather by fear than by any good-will towards us. But if Tyre were captured, the whole of Phoenicia would be in our possession, and the fleet of the Phoenicians, which is the most numerous and the best in the Persian navy, would in all probability come over to us. For the Phoenician sailors and marines will not dare to put to sea in order to incur danger on behalf of others, when their own cities are occupied by us. After this, Cyprus will either yield to us without delay, or will be captured with ease at the mere arrival of a naval force; and then navigating the sea with the ships from Macedonia in conjunction with those of the Phoenicians, Cyprus also having come over to us, we shall acquire the absolute sovereignty of the sea, and at the same time an expedition into Egypt will become an easy matter for us. After we have brought Egypt into subjection, no anxiety about Greece and our own land will any longer remain, and we shall be able to undertake the expedition to Babylon with safety in regard to affairs at home, and at the same time with greater reputation, in consequence of having appropriated to ourselves all the maritime provinces of the Persians and all the land this side of the Euphrates."I'm not sure which siege was more important in world history? I'd love to hear other thoughts on this question.

In relation to world history Alexander's victory at Tyre must be the more significant, as failure here would have meant defeat for the expedition for the reasons Arrian gives. Whereas the survival of Syracuse would not have jeopardised operations against Hannibal.

According to Norman Davies "Europe, A History", Syracuse was absolutely critical for the Romans. Before Syracuse, their was triple detente, and afterwards Rome became the dominant power, with Carthage and Hellenistic Greece now both secondary. As a side note, who knows what Archimedes would have accomplished and discovered had he not been cut down during the sack. The implications of his death were potentially devastating to the future development of math and science. I'm still going to hold out on my opinion until we get some more replies...
Nicator

It has been a while since I have done anything on the Punic wars. So I am leading with my chin expecting somebody to deck me. As I recall Sicily was vital to blocking the transport of Troops and supplies to Hannibal in Italy. Effectively tying one hand behind his back, with the Scipios occupying the armies of Hasdrubal and the other Hannibal in Spain it was only a matter of time before Hannibal could not go on. I can't recall the precise number but I think in all the time he was Italy he only got re inforced once or twice, meaning his forces were dwindling whilst Rome was getting stronger. Hannibal failed due to Sicily being in Roman hands (actually second rate troops at that) the deserters from Cannae were placed there amongst others. So compare the two tactically. Tougher then I thought. Both were estential to control Naval activities. Rome's navy like Alexander's navy was inferior to the enemies. Both Rome and ATG decided to control a superior navy by blockaging bases (or so I understand). I could'nt choose between the two they are so similar tactically.As far as engineering goes, Archimedes was just so good. But Alexander's men worked so hard and under fire. The only comparison for hard work that comes to mind is the Roman seige at Masada. The ramp is still there today. Just as Alexander's work is still visible today in fact there are hotels built on top of it. Another lasting legacy of his reign.

Great thought on Masada, I wanted to mention that master piece of work by the Romans I believed they used many Jews (the chosen people) to accomplish that incredible feat also contrary to popular belief there were around five people who did survive the mass suicide by hiding in some sort of cave or something to that effect.

Are you considering the Syracuse siege by Athens in 415
a.C.
It has been a mess, as well!

Lets go Nicator, don't act like a fart in the wind, I'd love to hear your opinion on this subject, there's been enough replies.

..."a fart in the wind", well I guess I blew that one! (Sorry, but I just couldn't help it).As a general rule, I try not to second guess Alexander or his motives...especially when it comes to tactics and strategy. He was rarely wrong, and even when wrong he always seemed to find a way to make it right, or at least had the right idea. The fact that he spent over seven months on the siege is telling enough of the importance of the task. This was Alexanders greatest achievement, and it definitely took Persia out of the sea and the Mediteranean for good. The question remains was it absolutely necessary? My postion on this is that if you give your enemy an opening he will surely take it. Tyre was the last opening on the tactical chalkboard. Alexander needed it to prevent Darius from taking the war to mainland Greece. The implications of this are obvious. Further expansion into asia would be impossible with Darius lurking in your rear, and threatening to cut your supply lines and any point of his choosing. From this perspective it was imperative that Alexander take Tyre.
What was the more difficult siege? Perhaps a draw on this issue. The siege ended at Tyre once Alexander began bringing the walls down and pouring troops in...a vicious sack if ever there was one. The Romans never got to this point, as payoffs brought the gates open and let troops in. Thus it was perhaps more of a crescendo of activities for ATG, but if payoff were possible ATG would likely have gone that way. Both sieges produced innovations in siege tactics from both sieger and besieged. The effect of Tyre was difficult to assertain because Alexander was so fast and Darius fell so quickly at Guagamela that the long term effects of taking the island became a mute point. Whereas with Syracuse the Romans played a game of cat and mouse for a while after taking Syracuse. More or less waiting for the long term effects to take their toll on Hannibal. Thus striking home a blow at the lynch pin of his operations, and making further warring difficult. As an interesting side issue, how could Darius and/or Hannibal continue without their respective mediterranean fortresses. It seems Darius didn't need Tyre as bad as Hannibal needed Syracuse. Alexander put Darius in the unenviable position of having to fight a ground war against the Macedonians...thus he had to fight Alexander's fight. This was perhaps not as impertinent for Hannibal who could fight a ground fight with the

cont'd...As an interesting side issue, how could Darius and/or Hannibal continue without their respective mediterranean fortresses. It seems Darius didn't need Tyre as bad as Hannibal needed Syracuse. Alexander put Darius in the unenviable position of having to fight a ground war against the Macedonians...thus he had to fight Alexander's fight. This was perhaps not as impertinent for Hannibal who could fight a ground fight with the best of them, but his ground fighting capabilities were now severely limited due to his loss of naval superiority. As for world historical importance...imaginative speculation runs amuk here. If not for ATG, Rome would never have been able to exist in grand way that it did. ATG's military tactics and strategies were well read by all of the great military leaders of Rome. ATG's legacy of world domination left an indelible influence on Roman leaders. If for nothing else, he showed that it could be done. Taking this aside, and trying to focus on the actual minutae of the military importance of each siege I would say Rome's sacking of Syracuse made a definite and profound impact on the future of her empire. The effects of which were not immediate, but within several decades became obvious. Hannibal was perhaps the greatest threat to Rome's future, and one could argue, the greatest threat she ever faced. Alexander unfortunately died before his own empire was finished being created. So I would have to include the Hellenistic kingdoms which followed his reign. The greatest threat facing them was each other, until the advent of Rome. Tyre seems almost to be just another must have victory in a long string of must have victories by ATG over Persia. Persia was definitely not beaten after Tyre, and could have still turned the tide of war with a victory at Guagamela, or with a little better planning, anywhere it so chose along the vast western asian frontier. Therefore, my choice would be Syracuse as a little bit more important in the grand scheme of things to come, and as they went...go.later Nicator

I agree when you mentioned ATG laid the foundation for the Roman Empire, thanks for your message thread, I'm fascinated with sieges in antiquity.