Sparta and the Long Walls of Athens

[Timotheus]

Not exactly my strong point but I was curious about something.

Was the knowledge of siege equipment completely unknown in Greece when Sparta and Athens were slugging it out? The war lasted as long as it did because Athens and its primary port were protected by the long walls that connected Athens to the sea.

Now I know these walls would not have stopped Alexander but Alexander was 80 years later.

Did siege technology advance that much in that short a period of time? Or was it just beneath the Spartans to use some sort of siege technology to take down a section of the long walls and end the war in one fell swoop?

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Most of Alexander's know how of siege war was gained in those years from the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. The long wall of Athens wouldn't have stopped the Persians probably,at that time. It was because till then,the best way to fight honorably was the phalanx battle. Even the Athenians accused Pericles for not letting them go and fight the Peloponnesians outside the walls. It was also that a siege needed time. And the Spartans didn't want to risk keepeing a big portionj of their army for whole months so far from Sparta, given that the allied army(the most numerous) was consisted of farmers that would need to return to their jobs as soon as possible. Athens was a big and rich city so she made some pretty long sieges,like those of Potidaia and Syracuse. Only the first alone spent the money that Athens had gathered in reserve to end the whole war. How wrong she was!
All in all,it was conditions that made early city states not wanting to siege cities(and what to do with them afterwards anyway) but to solve their differences in one-day battles. Things gradually changed after the peloponnesian war,and the greeks needed to activate their inventiveness and power to control cities.
Khaire
Giannis

[Jona Lendering]

Most of Alexander's know how of siege war was gained in those years from the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. The long wall of Athens wouldn't have stopped the Persians probably,at that time. It was because till then,the best way to fight honorably was the phalanx battle. Even the Athenians accused Pericles for not letting them go and fight the Peloponnesians outside the walls. It was also that a siege needed time. And the Spartans didn't want to risk keepeing a big portionj of their army for whole months so far from Sparta, given that the allied army(the most numerous) was consisted of farmers that would need to return to their jobs as soon as possible. Athens was a big and rich city so she made some pretty long sieges,like those of Potidaia and Syracuse. Only the first alone spent the money that Athens had gathered in reserve to end the whole war. How wrong she was!
All in all,it was conditions that made early city states not wanting to siege cities(and what to do with them afterwards anyway) but to solve their differences in one-day battles. Things gradually changed after the peloponnesian war,and the greeks needed to activate their inventiveness and power to control cities.
Khaire
Giannis

Yes, yes, yes. If there is one thing to add, it is that the catapult had not been invented yet, a weapon that changed the face of siege warfare.

[D B Campbell]

Most of Alexander's know how of siege war was gained in those years from the beginning of the Peloponnesian War.

In what way, Giannis?

imho Alexander's siegecraft was a development of his father's, which was quite unlike the traditional ("primitive") Hellenic siegecraft.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Yes,I thought that someone would mention his father :lol: And you're right. But Alexander sieged probably more cities than his father,and he very often used fancy ways of capturing them. But in my opinion,although primitive,yes, many sieges in the early history were characterized by inventiveness. Even the siege of Plataia shows this.
Another fact is that we don't know what the besiegers did all those months or even years to capture the city. For example,The Athenians sieged Potidaia for 2 years. The way they expected the city to surrender was by making them starve. I can't imagine them(the Athenians) just sitting around the city waiting the others to surrender. This is pure waist of money. Now lets look at Alexander and the siege of Tyre. It was for 6-7 months,wasn't it? Although Alexander had the technology and many more years of hellenic siege war before him,and although he used extraordinary means of capturing it, the siege didn't last less than many other sieges during the Peloponnesian war. But in tyre we have many ancient historians dealing about this siege and many more that Alexander made.
The same with Philip.
But even before the Peloponnesian war the Athenians for example had the name of good besiegers. What would this mean? If nothing else it means that even from the middle 5th century and earlier the Greeks had started developing slowly their siege war. So it is not invalid I think to say that Philip's and Alexander's know how came from the last part of the 5th century. It is a circle. The siege war was developed because of the catapult and the siege weapons,or the siege weapons were designed after the need to capture better defences? And when did the defences start being more and more sophisticated and why? I think this happened in the time of the Peloponnesian war, when cities needed wall to defend them from a state with much money and a fleet to siege them.
I hope I explained myself.
Khaire
Giannis

[Alexander Polemos]

actually i believe it was alexander himself that understood the capabilities of the catapault. Unless I am mistaken, it was Alexander who urged his engineers to design the catapault, or ballista.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

This is not correct. Perhaps he used the catapult more extensiveley than his father,putting them in siege towers etc, but except from the records,there have been found catapult arrow heads that have the name "ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ" on them.(Philip's). I think they were found in Olynthos(where philip lost his eye,perhaps from another catapult arrow)
Khaire
Giannis

[Jona Lendering]

actually i believe it was alexander himself that understood the capabilities of the catapault. Unless I am mistaken, it was Alexander who urged his engineers to design the catapault, or ballista.

Philip encountered catapults in 353 when he was defeated by Phayllus. During the winter, he learned the trick and next year, he struck back (Crocus Field battle). Since then, catapults were part and parcel of the Macedonian equipment.

[Timotheus]

I am not talking about a standard siege of Athens by Sparta. With sufficient engineering skill a section of the long walls should have been rather easy to destroy or go around. Once Sparta is within the walls her superior troops should easily win the day. Also the sheer length of the long walls would make it impossible for Athens to defend all areas equally.

So I guess it really comes down to the Spartans not having the technology to knock down the walls nor the ingenuity to just build a nice ramp to get on top of the walls.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

The Spartans had the "ingenuity" to build that ramp some years later in the siege of Plataia. Yes,the Spartans did not have the technology to take the walls easilly. Just like any other Greek city state. As for the Athenians not being able to defend them...don't be sure about that. The Spartans would also have to focus their attack.And the Athenians,being so numerous inside the walls could easilly defend them. Remember,the entire population of Attica was in the walls. The long walls were inhabited by the thousands of imigrants from the countryside. Wall can be defended by less soldiers than is needed to take them. And in history cities have been kept by women and children. Not to mention that even if the long walls were captured,there were two citadels to be taken de plus. One was Athens and the other was Peireus. Those would need extra efford,time and money to be taken. And in the mean time,I'm sure,the Athenian fleet would have attacked Peloponnesos in many vital places. And the allied farmers would want to go defend their homes,or just return to their farms,otherwise they'd be economically destroyed. And the long walls were some of the best fortifications ever built by then. They were not like the Great wall of China or Hadrian's walls. Pericles had not spent all that money to make something that could be usuless against any greek city state.
So no,the Spartans were not so lazy or dump for not attacking the Athenian walls in those 5 years that they invaded Attica.
Khaire
Giannis

[Mythos_Ruler]

Imagine if the Spartans HAD taken the long walls and the corridor between Athens and Piraeus. They would have been trapped between two more sets of walls and gates.

[hoplite14gr]

Spartan hoplites are terrible in field locked in the their tight pahalanx.

But...just try to scale a ladder while hot oil, stones and other nasty stuff rains over you. Try to overcome a battlement alone while clubs and hatchets of desperate individuals are threating you from all sides.

You really think that Cleomenes refused to attacj the walls of Argos out of chivalry fror queen Telesila?

As for siege equipment just rember that the fiance of an average city state were not the finaces of the more wealthy Bronze Age. Therefor expensive toys like siege machinery was out of the question.

Is hardly surprizing that the Italiotic Greeks with their riches were the first to start buildin siege machinery again.
And Philip ows his "michanopioi" to the Panggaio goldmines.

Kind regards