Talk:Siege tower

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Medieval C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Expansion

I put in a request for expansion, since this article is rather short. How would ancient armies go about propelling such a device? I don't see how it could be dragged forward, since that would put the draft animals at risk, yet it seems to massive for people to push. --Carpathian

I agree that more information is needed on this aspect, but it does not strike me as an unsolvable problem. It is stated that both slopes and mud would impede the towers. Assuming firm and flat ground, only rolling friction poses requirements to the pulling/pushing force. Rolling friction can be minimized by good design and maintenance (lubrication). It is also stated that the towers were slow. In other words, using mechanical advantage is not out of the question. E.g., connecting an onboard "treadmill" to a gear train that runs (some of) the wheels at amplified torque. Also, any large animals (horses or oxen, even elephants?) pulling the tower directly could be standing either inside or behind it and apply the same force as if they were standing exposed in the front. The stability of the tower should perhaps not be made overly dependent on the contribution from the weights of the animals. This is all my speculation, though. I feel that the article should have included more details. (Some of the drawings, especially the Chinese one, are not informative at all.) Elias (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the article up to date, due to the brilliant assault plan, deviced by danish police forces. They reinvented the siege tower :) Fleischmeister 08:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It surely is an interesting story, but I am not sure it can be called a modern-day equivalent or "reinvention" of the siege tower. Today's police and military forces can also enter rooftops (or walls) from helicopters, and also observe and fire from said helicopters. That is both more modern and more representative. If there are any advantages – such as availability or stealth characteristics – from routinely using cranes, lifts or ladder trucks for certain operations, they may still be considered modern versions of siege towers. Or if one leaves the requirement of siege or armed conflict behind (including protection of the users), retaining only the requirement of overcoming walls, then lifts and ladder trucks may perhaps be seen as civil successors to the siege tower? Elias (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I had never heard of this siege weapon until I saw Return of the King. Thanks for the educational lesson!

-Kyle

Unlikely Statements

removed:

The target of the siege would usually not see the siege tower approaching and would be caught off guard.

Are we sure about this? It seems highly unlikely that they would go completely unnoticed. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's nonsense. Comment is removed and should stay that way. --A D Monroe III 02:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC

I was uneasy about the claim that they were used throughout antiquity, so I took it out. I am unaware of evidence that the Assyrians or ancient Egyptians used them. Iglonghurst 18:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the Assyriams at one point in time used something like a siege tower, but it was more of a tall battering ram with a upper floor for archers too fire down on the wall defenders.whaoag 00:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Projectiles

You should specify what kind of projectiles were used inside of the tower to fight back. Small ballistas would be probable.

Done. I have more information on projectiles to put in later. Grimhelm 21:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fleischmeister 08:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Names

Julius Caesar the big head man

Pupose of Towers?

Do the towers really house knights? i find this very unlikely as knights were highly trained and the elite troops of an army. I do not believe htey would risk these men's lives in a vulnerable tower suceptible to all kinds of attacks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bklounge (talk • contribs) 01:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Invention of the Siege Tower

The Carthaginians were not the first to use siege towers - it is a well-known historical fact that the Assyrians, who mastered siege warfare several centuries before the Greeks and Romans, first used siege towers in the 9th-8th century BC. I'm going to make the appropriate edits for the "Ancient Use" section - anybody is welcome to consult me with any questions or concerns. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Šarukinu (talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Speaking of early users, I just added the Chinese to that list, with a reference to mobile siege towers by the 6th century BC.--PericlesofAthens 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unusual matter

Why does the same two-paragraph section on medieval siege towers and battery towers keep getting removed from this article? Glancing at the history page, it appears to have happened at least half a dozen times. --Grimhelm 21:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are duplicated. Just check the two paragraphs above the deleted ones. Same for other article. Just some editors do not place edit summaries when they delected the paragraphs. --Statsone 05:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I see. I wonder how we missed this (or how it came about!). Well, at least it has now been sorted out. --Grimhelm 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Mordor force.jpg

The image Image:Mordor force.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]