• [object Object]@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    16 days ago

    Didn’t they do all that?

    The Roman’s couldn’t build defensive weight palisades without a lot of timber.

    • PugJesus@piefed.socialOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      16 days ago

      It depends on the era! In the Medieval and Early Modern periods, siegecraft, despite being core to military action, was… not prestigious. Even as late as the 16th century AD it was considered work for local levies rather than ‘real’ soldiers, and often handled with a degree of distaste. The engineers who drew up the plans were somewhat respected, but it was still considered not really the work of a real military commander, who spoke to TROOPS and used WEAPONS and STRATAGEMS and wore ARMOR, not nerd shit with angles and calculations and elbow grease.

      On the other hand, as you point out, the Romans in the Classical era were very… thorough besiegers. Every legionary was also a laborer, after all - during the Siege of Jerusalem, they deforested the entire area for several miles to build their camps and siege weapons.

    • F/15/Cali@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      16 days ago

      I mean, the objective was usually to keep the area useful for yourself afterward so full-on salted earth destruction wasn’t the norm. Unless they were trying to send a message. But you’re correct otherwise.