- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 47,153
- Thread Author
- #1
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2023
- Messages
- 38,446
A point about sieges
In the YouTube video titled "A Point About Sieges," the creator discusses the prevalence of sieges in ancient and medieval warfare, arguing that they were far more common than battles. This perspective challenges the prevailing notion that wars were predominantly fought through set-piece battles, highlighting a significant oversight in how historical conflicts are often portrayed.
The video starts with the creator stating, "Sieges were common; battles were rare." He elaborates on how historical narratives tend to emphasize battles, neglecting the crucial role sieges played in warfare during these periods. By examining historical examples, he points out that while battles such as those in the Persian Wars, including Marathon and Salamis, are highlighted, they occurred alongside numerous sieges that fundamentally shaped the outcomes of these conflicts.
One of the key examples discussed is the conquests of Alexander the Great, who, despite engaging in several notable battles, participated in many more sieges to secure his victories. Similar observations are made about William the Conqueror, emphasizing that after his one famed battle at Hastings, he primarily relied on sieges to subjugate the region that would become England. The creator notes how sieges allowed for more manageable and less risky military operations compared to the uncertainties of fielding armies in open battles.
The video further touches upon the 100 Years' War, arguing that substantial territorial changes resulted more from sieges than from actual battlefield victories. Cannons and siege tactics were crucial in dismantling fortifications owned by opponents, leading to shifts in power not through battles but through a methodical acquisition of territory.
In summary, the creator urges viewers to rethink the traditional narratives of military history, advocating for a greater appreciation of the strategy and significance of sieges. The overall takeaway is that sieges, often overlooked, were the backbone of warfare during ancient and medieval times, playing a crucial role in the outcomes of various historical conflicts.
---
What do you think about the emphasis on sieges versus battles in historical narratives? Are there examples from history that further support or challenge this view? Feel free to share your thoughts!
In the YouTube video titled "A Point About Sieges," the creator discusses the prevalence of sieges in ancient and medieval warfare, arguing that they were far more common than battles. This perspective challenges the prevailing notion that wars were predominantly fought through set-piece battles, highlighting a significant oversight in how historical conflicts are often portrayed.
The video starts with the creator stating, "Sieges were common; battles were rare." He elaborates on how historical narratives tend to emphasize battles, neglecting the crucial role sieges played in warfare during these periods. By examining historical examples, he points out that while battles such as those in the Persian Wars, including Marathon and Salamis, are highlighted, they occurred alongside numerous sieges that fundamentally shaped the outcomes of these conflicts.
One of the key examples discussed is the conquests of Alexander the Great, who, despite engaging in several notable battles, participated in many more sieges to secure his victories. Similar observations are made about William the Conqueror, emphasizing that after his one famed battle at Hastings, he primarily relied on sieges to subjugate the region that would become England. The creator notes how sieges allowed for more manageable and less risky military operations compared to the uncertainties of fielding armies in open battles.
The video further touches upon the 100 Years' War, arguing that substantial territorial changes resulted more from sieges than from actual battlefield victories. Cannons and siege tactics were crucial in dismantling fortifications owned by opponents, leading to shifts in power not through battles but through a methodical acquisition of territory.
In summary, the creator urges viewers to rethink the traditional narratives of military history, advocating for a greater appreciation of the strategy and significance of sieges. The overall takeaway is that sieges, often overlooked, were the backbone of warfare during ancient and medieval times, playing a crucial role in the outcomes of various historical conflicts.
---
What do you think about the emphasis on sieges versus battles in historical narratives? Are there examples from history that further support or challenge this view? Feel free to share your thoughts!
Similar threads
