How often was it that sieges ended in starvation/surrender?

[Plank of Wood]

A thought I've recently been having. How common was it for a siege to be resolved by battle, or ended in the surrender of the defenders?

Similarly, did it become more common that sieges ended in battle after cannons became a factor, or was this offset with the development of equally effective defensive technology and architecture?

 

[Arilou]

From what I remember from the 30-years war, starving the besieged out completely wasn't *all* that common, but neither was actually storming the place. Usually the siege would progress to the point where the besieged felt they could no longer effectively resist (often when a breach had been achieved) but before the actual bloody final assault. (the custom that an assaulted city or fortress wasoepn for sacking probably helped in that regard) and of course, many cities just surrendered without a fight to spare a siege in the first place.

 

[Fishman786]

From what I remember from the 30-years war, starving the besieged out completely wasn't *all* that common, but neither was actually storming the place. Usually the siege would progress to the point where the besieged felt they could no longer effectively resist (often when a breach had been achieved) but before the actual bloody final assault. (the custom that an assaulted city or fortress wasoepn for sacking probably helped in that regard) and of course, many cities just surrendered without a fight to spare a siege in the first place.

I wish this would happen in PDS games. But no, we have to slowly besiege every single hopeless little fort.

 

[Arilou]

I wish this would happen in PDS games. But no, we have to slowly besiege every single hopeless little fort.

To be fair, there were a lot more forts in Germany than provinces there are provinces there in EU4

 

[Fishman786]

To be fair, there were a lot more forts in Germany than provinces there are provinces there in EU4

True.

Doesn't make the sieges any less annoying.

 

[Kaarle XII]

I've understood that at least in the later times (say, 17th and 18th centuries) one was supposed to resist for a while, so that the city/fort could then be surrendered honourably. Of course things would change if for example the besieged had good information that help was on the way.

 

[Lord Finnish]

True.

Doesn't make the sieges any less annoying.

In CK2 at least, a fort that surrenders is somewhat simulated by having an army that crushingly outnumbers the defenders. Your siege equipment builds in less than a week and the battle doesn't take much longer either. The few dozen casualties that you incur - barely noticeable.

 

[gagenater]

To be fair, there were a lot more forts in Germany than provinces there are provinces there in EU4

And all it takes is a couple of them to hold out for a little while with long, complex negotiations supervised by a neutral 3rd party. That's all 'simulated' when you have a province under seige and gradually progress towards completion. A well situated and provisioned place won't give up right away - they will extract concessions in exchange for their giving up. If you can't wait for all that the assault button is right there - - - - - it'll be easy right?

 

[joak]

I've understood that at least in the later times (say, 17th and 18th centuries) one was supposed to resist for a while, so that the city/fort could then be surrendered honourably. Of course things would change if for example the besieged had good information that help was on the way.

In the middle ages there was a convention (at times) that a defending force would make a deal--if a relief army doesn't arrive by such-and-such a date, we will surrender.

Not exactly on topic, but I've read many accounts in e.g. English medieval infighting (such as Stephen & Mathilda) where castles would be taken after a day or two. While many sieges would last months or fail completely, and few were in between (weeks). Does anyone know the difference? My working assumption is that an enemy army showing up unexpectedly might not give you a chance to secure everything or load up on supplies.

 

[Fornadan]

there are other ways to capture a fortified place than by formal siege, for example by climbing the wall in the middle of the night or the tried and true method of having sympathizers inside the walls open the gates for you

 

[Amallric]

In the middle ages there was a convention (at times) that a defending force would make a deal--if a relief army doesn't arrive by such-and-such a date, we will surrender.

Not exactly on topic, but I've read many accounts in e.g. English medieval infighting (such as Stephen & Mathilda) where castles would be taken after a day or two. While many sieges would last months or fail completely, and few were in between (weeks). Does anyone know the difference? My working assumption is that an enemy army showing up unexpectedly might not give you a chance to secure everything or load up on supplies.

Can't say for England, but in Russia trying to capture a city by surprise was indeed a major component of siege warfare tactics.

 

[Arilou]

In the middle ages there was a convention (at times) that a defending force would make a deal--if a relief army doesn't arrive by such-and-such a date, we will surrender.

Not exactly on topic, but I've read many accounts in e.g. English medieval infighting (such as Stephen & Mathilda) where castles would be taken after a day or two. While many sieges would last months or fail completely, and few were in between (weeks). Does anyone know the difference? My working assumption is that an enemy army showing up unexpectedly might not give you a chance to secure everything or load up on supplies.

It's probably either A) Show up with a superior army so they surrender/surprise them completely and get inside before they can react.
B) Do the proper siege thing and assault (would probably take a few days to get stuff ready)
C) If that fails, keep digging more extensive mines, countervallations, etc. Lob more stuff at the defenders, etc. etc. And try again.
D) Do the long-haul thing and starve them out.

 

[Kovax]

There were numerous ways of concluding a siege. On many occasions, the besiegers ran out of provisions before the besieged, or the besiegers were unwilling to spread their limited forces out far enough to encircle the castle completely for fear of the scattered groups being attacked, in which case the besieged continued to receive supplies at odd intervals. In other cases, one side or the other was wracked by disease and gave up. Striking a deal with one faction within the defending ranks often led to an internal conflict, sometimes with the result that the deal-accepter was set up as governor or local lord. In other cases, the siege continued until it became apparent that help wouldn't arrive before the defenders were out of supplies, at which time they surrendered. There were a few incidents where the defenders refused to give up until honor was satisfied by some token combat. It depended heavily on the individual leaders, the resources and supplies they could draw upon, the ratio of forces, and to some degree on plain luck.

 

[Eusebio]

I believe there were customary laws of warfare that governed how sieges were to be conducted. During the 2nd English Civil War the Royalists refused to surrender Colchester in a militarily hopeless position. When the town surrendered after two and a half months the senior commanders were refused quarter and executed for causing unnecessary suffering by prolonging the siege.

 

[joak]

I believe there were customary laws of warfare that governed how sieges were to be conducted. During the 2nd English Civil War the Royalists refused to surrender Colchester in a militarily hopeless position. When the town surrendered after two and a half months the senior commanders were refused quarter and executed for causing unnecessary suffering by prolonging the siege.

According to wikipedia the slaughter following the Siege of Badajoz is excused by some for the same reason--the other side fought too hard so it was unfair somehow.

 

[Lord Finnish]

I believe there were customary laws of warfare that governed how sieges were to be conducted. During the 2nd English Civil War the Royalists refused to surrender Colchester in a militarily hopeless position. When the town surrendered after two and a half months the senior commanders were refused quarter and executed for causing unnecessary suffering by prolonging the siege.

That seems rather noble of the Parliamentarians.

 

[Kgw]

According to wikipedia the slaughter following the Siege of Badajoz is excused by some for the same reason--the other side fought too hard so it was unfair somehow.

The defense of the French garrison lead to the slaughter of the Spanish* population. What is to excuse? :wacko:

* Ally of Great Britain.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

The defense of the French garrison lead to the slaughter of the Spanish* population. What is to excuse? :wacko:

* Ally of Great Britain.

Collaborators perhaps? Or more likely, they were angry after battle making them paranoid=they see foreign ally as hostile enemy.

 

[Lord Finnish]

Collaborators perhaps? Or more likely, they were angry after battle making them paranoid=they see foreign ally as hostile enemy.

Or they just don't care because they are 19th century peasants in a foreign land.

 

[gagenater]

Collaborators perhaps? Or more likely, they were angry after battle making them paranoid=they see foreign ally as hostile enemy.

They were the only ones who didn't run away fast enough to keep from getting killed. It's called bloodlust. You spend literally months risking your life, and at the final moment have a very high risk of death while sprinting into cannon fire peed looking for an opportunity to kill. Then someone blows a whistle or something and your supposed to sit down and have a cup of tea? That's not how human psychology works, especially in the 'we are surrounded by filthy foreigners' 18th century mentality. You expect a reward for your risk and hard work, and if the only way to get one is to take it from some innocent bystanders then so be it.