Talk:Siege engine

message: :Try Mangonel, although it is pretty stubby. Adam Bishop 18:56, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: 2003

message: I reverted the edits for a number of reasons.  One was some of the edits came straight from the worldnet site.  Others had no cite in them.  --statsone 05:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by [[user:Tamrhind|Tamrhind]] 

message: The intro line to this page is wrong.  Only some siege engines were made for breaking or overcoming walls.  The most popular forms (mangonel, onager, ballista, etc) were used as to kill enemies, not fortifications.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.105.83 (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro line

message: The word catapult confuses me slightly; in the sketched picture in the section about Roman siege engines, there is a machine called 'catapult'. But according to the article catapult, a catapult seem to be a general, non-handheld, projectile propeling siege weapon. The catapult shown in the picture in this article is classical though. Does anyone know if that model is called anything else than just 'catapult'? --Kri (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What type of catapult is it? 

message: The term sow is on the disambiguation page, which directs one to this page, siege engine.  But the word sow is not on the page anywhere.  Any chance of someone who knows what it means, and could add it? I read the term in a historical fiction book, Brother Cadfael's Penance by Ellis Peters, last in her Cadfael series set in the 12th century, in the Anarchy. Lots of maps as part of the book, but no drawings of the weapons for the siege included in the plot.  Prairieplant (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is no longer on the sow disambiguation page. Solely to the siege tower entry, for military usage. Does that suffice for proper explanation of the term?  --Prairieplant (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sow

message: From the article:
This looks like OR, as since before World War II it is cities and not defensive area fortifications that have been besieged. Defensive area fortifications were largely obsolete by the end of the Napoleonic wars and of course that had nothing to do with "aircraft-delivered munitions and cruise missiles".
While specialised siege guns as not being built in large numbers (there of course the odd super gun that has been constructed), the use of artillery in sieges is not redundant as was shown in the Battle of Grozny (1999–2000) and for many armed forces, the availability of artillery is an important constituent of any siege and assault on a city, because apart from the effectiveness of artillery they may not have vast quantities of aeroplanes or cruise missiles. Also if it is a matter delivering tonnage as was pointed out by Nikolai Bersarin about the Battle of Berlin:  "the Western Allies had dropped 65,000 tons of explosives on the city in the course of more than two years; whereas the Red Army had expended 40,000 tons in merely two weeks". -- PBS (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, it does feel like OR (and quite possibly inaccurate OR at that). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. The paragraph is not only OR, but plain wrong. While traditional fortresses are no longer common, engines designed to bust bunkers and the like continue to thrive. They just aren't specifically called "siege" engines because modern tactics try to avoid anything remotely resembling a siege.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR? 

message: Hello  and , one more exchange of reverts, and this is an edit war in 24 hours, so I hope this is the end of reverting. The OED link is interesting, but can be read only by those with an account at the British Library. Discussing screens for use during construction of siege equipment One source I found online says this about when the wicker screens were used in Roman Empire sieges: "Once an attack began, the defender's walls could be overcome by building a ramp (agger) up against them using trees, earth and rocks. Whilst this was being done the attackers would be protected by temporary covers such as a fire-proof wooden shelter (vinca) known as the tortoise or the more mobile convex wicker shield known as a pluteus. They would also be given a covering fire from artillery batteries and archers and could then scale the last part of the walls using ladders (scalae). Artillery fire might also rain down on the city from those mounted on ships in the harbour. The defenders could try to extend the height of the wall section under threat from a ramp (as happened at Jotapata when attacked by Vespasian in the 70s CE), build a second defensive wall behind the part under attack (as at Masada in 74 CE), or even add towers in the cat and mouse game of a long siege." Source https://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Siege_Warfare/ 
If that source is suitable, perhaps it could be used in this article in the paragraph on Roman Empire sieges and the tactics using the engines in their almost always winning sieges. It is an online encyclopedia that describes the review process for articles, and the author of this article cites his sources. It would add a citation to this article, which is considered to be short on inline citations by others. I am not an expert in this field, just an editor interested in good clear articles, and in siege engines, to understand historical events.  --Prairieplant (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Prairieplant, I've no concern that pluteus is a term used to describe a movable wicker shield wall, although your source would be a good addition to the article. What I haven't been able to verify is the use of plute as an obsolete English synonym for "pluteus". My print version of the OED (from 1975) does not not mention this -- only plute as plural form. But assuming that plute is indeed correctly cited in the OED as an alternate form, the question remains: pluteus also means a barrier or thin wall placed between columns (cf Plutei of Trajan -- does the OED specifically indicate the archaic plute form was used in the context of constructing siege engines or more generally in a military context? If it doesn't it really seems a stretch to mention it here. I mean it is one thing if there were a reliable source that specifically used the term plute in the context of Roman siege engines -- in that case some clarification about what the heck that term means is in order--but in this context the OED cite at present seems completely irrelevant. older ≠ wiser 23:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if this is what the question really is (apologies for thinking it had to with scoring a point in the other skirmish), then I guess I should restate more clearly the information provided by the OED (while refraining from commenting on the odd assumptions that sources cited by other editors are wrong unless proven otherwise). So, the OED web edition has an entry for "plute", which consists in the qualification "Roman Mil. Obs. rare.", a pointer to the definition of "Pluteus n. 1" and and example of usage (in which incidentally it is clear that reference is made to siege machinery). "Pluteus n. 1" has subentries for the Roman military meaning (already quoted above) as well as for the achitectural and the furniture meanings. – Uanfala (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Thank you all, ,  and . Knowing exactly what the OED says about the word plute makes it clear that the terms plute, pluteus, and plutei are correctly used in this article. I added the source I found to the article, and added a sentence as well that I hope is appropriate, about the nearly perfect success of the Romans when they set about besieging a place, based on the same source. In my own searches on the word pluteus, I learned it is also in use now as the genus of a large group of mushrooms, whose tops could be described as convex screens, perhaps? Reinforcing the Latin meaning of the term long before Linnaeus started his taxonomy of plants. That is a light-hearted note on which to end our discussion.  --Prairieplant (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wicker screens  

message: "The Spartans used battering rams in the Siege of Plataea in 429 BC, but it seems that the Greeks limited their use of siege engines to assault ladders, though Peloponnesian forces used something resembling flamethrowers."
Is there a source for this? I know Greek fire was a thing and that there were siphon-like systems to use it, but I think those appeared much much later on, specially on the Byzantine era. 45.182.127.185 (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flamethrowers