Siege technique of the Slavs
What kind of siege technique, according to sources, did the Slavs use?
Analysis of sources on polyorcetics of the 6th-7th centuries. shows that it, as a science, was based on combat experience and on the theory emphasized from the studies of ancient authors (Kuchma V. V.).
The Slavs undoubtedly acquired knowledge in this area from the Byzantines, which we wrote about in the previous article on "VO", and we know the specific circumstances of how this happened.
In siege business, more than in any other military craft, practice is the most important factor of skill.
In the conditions of the Early Medieval it was impossible to "write down" knowledge and use it as needed, especially by the Slavs. Skill was passed from one specialist to another only in the process of professional activity. And the more troops participated in the sieges, the higher their knowledge in the construction of siege artillery was, of course, and vice versa. Therefore, the Slavs, first with the Avars, and then independently acquired this knowledge, participating in the battles, which we wrote about above. We see the constant growth of skill on the data of such a source as "Miracles of St. Dmitry of Thessaloniki" (CHDS).
Even if we take into account the fact that different tribes participated in the sieges of Thessaloniki, possibly not related to each other, then, at least in the 7th century, one group of tribes is at war, migrating to Greece and Macedonia, with the participation of the Slavs. citizens of the Avars, from Panonia, who, in turn, as we know, in the 7th century. had the experience of the war against the Romans in Italy in alliance with the Lombards.
The Slavs used all the siege weapons that were known during this period: stone throwers, battering rams - battering guns, assault towers, turtles - equipment for digging.
Stone throwers
Probably the most technically difficult to manufacture and execute were stone throwers.
In the late Roman period, such a technique was called a scorpion or onager, and Procopius of Caesarea also calls a stone thrower in the middle of the 6th century. The shells used were cores weighing from 3 to 80 kg, most often from 3 to 26 kg, which depended on the size of the guns.
The authors of the ChDS designated these weapons among the Slavs as πετροβόλος, while they called the Greek stone throwers πετραρία. If the first name was already encountered by Diodorus (1st century BC), then the second term in the text of the CHDS is used only when describing technology among the Romans. Mauritius Stratig (early 7th century) wrote that the troops should have Petrobols.
The same term is found in the "Easter Chronicle", when describing the siege of Constantinople by the Avars and Slavs, and Theophanes the Byzantine, when describing the installation of defensive equipment on the same walls in 714. It is clear that these are weapons with some differences in design.
It is possible that πετραρία was a smaller tool, since in the three listed sources it is used on the wall; the use of a larger tool leads to the loosening of the wall, and, perhaps, there is simply no room to place it.
We cannot say that this tool was more perfect, since the sources of this period, in particular the Byzantine Anonymous of the 6th century, describe a rather primitive technique that cannot be compared with ancient samples, although we know of outstanding mechanics and geometers of this time.
This is how the author of the NPR describes the situation with its application. A Greek working on a stone-throwing machine, under the name πετραρία, wrote the name of Saint Dmitry on the stone and sent it against the Slavs. It is worth noting that he alone controls this weapon:
“As soon as the stone was launched, at the same time from the outside from the barbarians another was thrown towards him, exceeding it by more than three times. He met with the first and was turned back, and both of them fell into the depression of the stone thrower (πετροβόλου) of the barbarians and killed those who were there along with the Manganar."
But the ChDS describes the Petrobol of the Slavs:
“They were rectangular, wide at the base and tapering towards the top, on which there were very massive cylinders, bound at the edges with iron, to which were nailed logs, like beams of a large scrap, which had slings suspended at the back, and strong ropes in front, with the help of which pulling them down at a signal at the same time, they launched the sling. Those flying up [slings] continuously sent huge stones, so that the earth could not withstand their blows, and even more so a human building. And they surrounded the quadrangular stone throwers with boards only on three sides, so that those who were inside would not be wounded by arrows [sent] from the wall."
Unfortunately, we have very few sources about the Slavs during the invasion of the Balkans, but it can be assumed that such weapons were often used during the migration period, especially in the 7th century, so it is difficult to agree with the conclusion that during the siege the Slavs ineptly used stone throwers (Aleksandrovich S. S.), which, incidentally, is also refuted by the ChDS, when it is indicated that 50 (!) Stone throwers of the Slavs faced a serious defense of the city:
"… [the stones] sent to the wall did not cause any harm to it due to the fact that it was very strong and strongly fortified."
Despite the constant fighting in the Balkans, it can be assumed that the fortifications of the cities were maintained in good condition. During the reign of Justinian I (reign 527-565), a huge number of cities and fortresses were fortified in the Balkans. No wonder, as we wrote above, the storming people tried to take cities on the move and went over to sieges if they did not succeed.
The walls of the fortifications were built of hewn stone blocks, which were installed on the outer and inner sides, the gaps were filled with fragments of stones, debris and filled with mortar. The leveling layer was made of bricks. The dimensions of the brick: thickness 5 cm, length 32-36 cm. Thus, the rows of stones were alternately interspersed with brickwork, which was fastened with lime mortar. The foundation was built in the same way.
The walls at the base were thicker than at the top; in Constantinople, the inner wall was 4.7 m at the base and 4 m at the top.
The towers were built as separate structures in order to have independent defense modules, communication between the lower and upper levels of the tower was excluded. The towers protruded from the wall at a distance of 5 to 10 m (S. Turnbull).
Siege Towers
Another extremely complex structure used by the Slavs is the siege tower, or helepolis.
Gelepola is a drawbridge tower made of wood. She moved on wheels. For protection, iron or raw hides were used, on the upper platform there were archers, an assault detachment and there could be siege weapons. A detailed description of them can be found in the Greek polyorquetics - specialists in the siege and defense of cities.
Of course, it was built within the framework of the existing trends in polyorketics, and, of course, the Slavs initially learned about its construction from the captured Byzantine mechanics, which we wrote about above, but it seems that during the 7th century. the Slavic tribes were already acting independently. And at the end of the VII century. the author of the ChDS writes about the engineering military structures of the Drugovite tribe during the siege of Thessaloniki:
“… To put it briefly, it was something that no one of our generation knew or had ever seen, and we still have not been able to name most of them”.
It is also difficult to agree with the opinion that “to bring such a colossus to the walls was worth colossal efforts, which were often not justified”.
(Alexandrovich S. S.)
Even if we do not take into account the vicissitudes of fate that are ubiquitous in war, then, it seems to me, it is worth considering the following factors.
First, judging by the ChDS and the Easter Chronicle: the besieged did not think so and took these towers very seriously.
Second: the exact calculation of the height of the tower in relation to the fortifications was very important. Vegetius (V century) gives examples of problems and failures when a mobile tower (turres) does not correspond to the size of the main one (it was lower or was too high).
Third: it was extremely difficult to construct such towers, see, for example, the summary work of the polyorketian Anonymous of Byzantine (about the 10th century), where, by the way, he reports that the polyorket Apollodorus came to the same conclusions in his calculations during the construction of the towers that and the mechanics of Dyads and Khariya, who lived at different times. And the Slavs erected these structures without such mathematical knowledge as the Roman mechanics and geometers had.
So, during the siege of Thessaloniki around 620, the Slavs built huge towers that towered over the towers of the city, apparently for the convenience of clearing them from the defenders, strong armed youths were on the platforms. By the way, Mauritius Stratig, in such a case, recommended the construction of anti-towers.
Fourth: the use of these structures, it seems, as we wrote about above, became quite familiar for the Slavs who occupied territories in Greece and Macedonia, otherwise how would they know how these machines were built when they were a novelty even for the Romans of Thessaloniki at the end VII century.
Fifth: the practical necessity in combination with the psychological factor in this case is beyond doubt.
Despite the fact that archeology practically does not provide us with data, we can talk about a fairly high level of woodworking among the Slavs.
So, along with semi-dugouts, above-ground houses with underground pits were a fairly common type of housing. Among the few settlements, the fortification in Volhynia near the village of Volyn stands out. In winter, it was built of wood and has ground structures, like the settlement of Khotomel. Log structures had connections "in the paw" and "in the oblo".
In the same Zimno, the remains of a woodworking lathe were found (Sedov V. V., Aulikh V. V.).
I repeat, at this stage in the development of production forces, the Slavs could quickly perceive structures made of wood. In the BDS, when describing siege weapons, their metal parts are also mentioned. We will write about the problems of metalworking among the Slavs in the next article.
Ram-ram
Battering ram is also a weapon that is often used by the Slavs during sieges. Which is natural due to its simplicity. The first mention, when the Slavs use it together with the Avars, refers to the 80s of the 6th century, during the siege of Thessaloniki. This is how Procopius of Caesarea, secretary of the great commander Belisarius, describes the ram, or "ram":
“Having built a kind of small quadrangular house, they pull the skin over it from all sides and from above so that this machine is light for those who move it, and those inside would be safe and, as little as possible, are exposed to arrows and spears of enemies. Inside this structure, another log is hung across from above on freely moving chains, trying to attach it, if possible, in the middle of the structure. The edge of this log is made sharp and covered with a thick iron, like the point of arrows and spears, or they make this iron square, like an anvil. This car moves on four wheels attached to each pole, and from the inside it is driven by at least fifty people. When this machine is firmly attached to the wall, then, moving the log, which I mentioned, with the help of some device, they pull it back, and then release it, hitting the wall with great force. With frequent blows, it can very easily swing and destroy the wall in the place where it hits …"
Already at the end of the VI century. there is a report that the Slavs use a "ram" with an "iron forehead". At the same time, we saw that the Slavs at the beginning of the 7th century.together with the Lombards, they used battering rams (aries) in the capture of Mantua in Italy. We are talking about the Slavs who lived in Panonia, in close proximity or together with the Avars, and were the tribes that participated in the Avar campaigns to the Balkans and to Constantinople at the beginning of the 7th century.
Further, at the beginning of the 7th century, the ChDS reports that the Slavs use precisely complex, rolling "rams", "from huge trunks and well-rotating wheels."
Turtle
The next popular siege weapon mentioned among the Slavs was the "turtle". This is a structure, under the cover of which the besiegers destroyed the city wall using tools, among which were an ax, a crowbar, a pickaxe and a shovel - all the traditional weapons of military craft.
The Slavs could destroy the walls without the protection of the "turtles", under the protection of archers and shields.
The turtle, as Vegetius described it, “Made of wooden beams and planks; so that it does not burn, it is covered with a fresh skin."
The Slavs covered the turtles for additional protection
“Special twisted braids made of vines, willows, vineyards, and other flexible shrubs. Braids were freely thrown over the turtles, or, perhaps, they were hung over the turtles on poles."
(Alexandrovich S. S.)
This is what the "turtles" made by the Slavs were like:
“Turtles covered with freshly skinned skins of bulls and camels, because of their strength, could not be damaged, as you know, neither by throwing stones, nor by fire or boiling resin because of the moisture of the skins, and even more so by the few people armed, as usual, with spears and bows."
We also have information that the Slavs also used other devices. In their arsenal were fiery mixtures for setting fire to walls and, of course, siege ladders. Among these weapons there are mysterious "gorpeks". Either these are just stakes, or sharpened sticks that were driven into the wall in order to climb onto it. There is no exact information about them.
One-tree
Within the framework of this article, I would also like to mention the floating craft used in the siege. Traditionally, the Slavs used one-tree trees, but it can be assumed that at the end of the 7th century. Slavic pirates in Greece could also sail on captured ships. For the first time, the massive use of one-tree trees in the assault was applied during the siege of Thessaloniki in the early 20s of the 7th century. and Constantinople in 626, when the Slavs attacked the city from the northern side of the Golden Horn. George Pisida writes:
“And there they are, as if in a fishing net
having tied them up, they spread out the hollowed-out boats."
A lot of controversy arises around where the Slavs built these boats. It can be assumed that during the siege of Constantinople, the construction was carried out on the spot, since there is enough forest in these places today.
In the 70s of the 7th century. during the siege of Thessalonica, the Slavic tribes who settled in Greece and Macedonia used "connected" ships. At the same time, they are used, judging by the text, not only during the assault, but also when patrolling the water space in order to block the city. So, during the assault, the Slavs installed siege weapons on ships:
"And immediately they approached the wall in rows along with the siege weapons, vehicles and fire they had prepared - some along the entire coast in connected [ships], others on land …"
The Slavs used the same scheme that was described by Athenaeus the Mechanic, a polyorketian (≈ 1st century AD):
"… connect two large boats, put this machine on them and drive it up to the walls, usually in calm weather."
Further, he once again points out that the boats during the excitement move in different directions and the structure is destroyed, however, this just happened during the siege of Constantinople, when the unrest began in the Golden Horn Bay.
So, we see that the Slavs used all the available techniques known during sieges.
It is important to note that there is a lot of confusion when we talk about siege technology. This is due to the fact that it has not changed for a long time: from antiquity to (very approximately) the beginning of the Crusades. It is indicative that there is a dispute around the dates of life of the most famous polyorketics in the scientific literature in ranges calculated for centuries (Mishulin A. V.).
Slavic fortifications of the 6th-8th centuries
At the end of the VI century. in different Slavic lands, fortifications begin to appear en masse. Of course, archeology does not provide us with information about the social needs for the creation of such fortifications, which causes controversy in the scientific community. A straightforward approach, when the fortification is viewed exclusively as a place to protect the surrounding population from raids, is not always appropriate: in addition to external threats, it is necessary to take into account the specifics of the state of the studied society, and this is often completely impossible due to the state of historical sources.
If for a long time the open type of settlement with rare fortifications prevailed among the early Slavs, then from the end of the 6th century. there are many fortified places.
This, it seems to us, was connected with two points: first, the formation of tribal alliances, where the central settlement demanded protection primarily as a cult center and as a center of power and control.
Second, in the course of the migration movement, especially in the western direction, a military need arose to create "military" outposts. The "military" ones are taken in quotation marks for a reason, since they are primarily fortified tribal centers in a foreign environment, as in the case of the advancement of the Western Slavs to the west of Europe or the northwest and northeast of Eastern Europe in the case of the resettlement of the Eastern Slavs.
Ukrainian archaeologist B. A. Tymoshchuk developed a periodization of these fortified settlements, defining three types of them: a refuge, an administrative center, a sanctuary.
Community centers had wooden walls, reinforced with clay slopes on the outside.
The most famous of these communal settlement centers is Zimno (a settlement on the Luga River, a tributary of the Western Buka, Volyn, Ukraine).
The author of the excavations of the Zimnovsk settlement V. V. Aulikh attributed its beginning to the end of the 6th century, but later, using specifying data, the occurrence of Zimno is attributed to a date not earlier than the beginning of the 7th century.
Tymoshchuk B. A. writes about the fortifications of Zimno:
“The base of this line was a wooden wall made of horizontally laid logs sandwiched between pairs of posts. On the outside, the defensive wall was reinforced, as the profile of the rampart shows, with a bulk clay slope, and on the inside - with long houses directly adjacent to the wooden wall. During the fire, which destroyed the defensive structures, the rampart sprawled and blocked the burned-out logs, due to which their remains were relatively well preserved. Apparently, from the side of the steeper slope, the wooden defensive wall stood at the very edge of the site and was not reinforced with a bulk clay slope (it was replaced by the natural slope of the cape). Therefore, the remains of the wall have not survived here. In addition, the fortified line was reinforced with nadolb (low palisade), which was arranged in the middle of a wide slope. Fortified lines of this type were also investigated at other settlement centers, community centers."
There are eighteen such fortified settlements or tribal centers on the territory of the Carpathian Ukraine, lands belonging to the Duleb tribe.
Note that not all territories inhabited by the Slavs of the 7th century. researched with such thoroughness, so we can apply the retrospective method here.
Without removing the external threat from the agenda, the emergence of fortified settlements can only be explained by the beginning of the formation of new relations between kindred tribes and the struggle for power in tribal alliances.
At the beginning of the VII century. fortifications appeared on the territory of the Sukovsko-Dzedzitskaya (Lehitskaya) archaeological culture, an example of which is the fortification of the Szeliga castle with an area of 5 hectares on the Slupianka River, the left tributary of the Vistula. The fortification had a small earthen rampart with stones and a wooden wall and was located on the borders of the kaganate (Alekseev S. V.).
To the east, on the territory of the Kolochin architectural culture (the forest part of the Dnieper region to the sources of the Dnieper), there was a number of fortified settlements (VII century): permanent habitation and refuge ((Kolochin-1, Kiseli, Cherkasovo, Nikodimovo, Vezhki, Bliznaki, Demidovka, Akatovo, Mogilev The fortifications were located on the cape, were fortifications with ramparts and ditches (sometimes more than one), had several defensive sites. Wood was used as reinforcement for the ramparts. Defensive walls along the edges and ridges were also used. In the fortresses there were closed long houses with an inner courtyard (Oblomsky A. M.).
At the beginning of the VII century. Slavs, advancing from the east into the Oder basin, in an alien, unknown environment, built their settlements as powerful defensive structures.
It should not be forgotten that to the man of this period, real and imagined external forces seemed to be of equal value in terms of threats. And protection from them, including with the help of fortification, was the most important thing, especially in the process of migration into a hostile environment. Even taking into account the fact that, as historians assume, these areas were quite deserted.
But for the first Slavic settlers, the threat came from the east. This is how the settlement of Tornovo (the Spree River basin) perished, on the site of which new migrants built new fortifications: a powerful ring shaft 10-14 m high, a ditch 5-8 m wide, structures of vertical pillars and log cabins.
Sorbs (Serbs) migrating to this area, the Ant tribal group, at the beginning of the 7th century. created powerful fortresses between the Elbe and the Saale: the structure was a fortification of dry masonry with wooden structures on top.
The Serbs (Sorbs) used the skills borrowed from the Byzantines in the Danube borderland in the construction of fortresses.
In the same period, the city center of the Union of the Obodrites was built - Stargrad (now Oldenburg) and Veligrad (Mecklenburg). Features of its strengthening: area 2, 5 sq. km, the rampart is 7 m high, the base of the rampart was a wooden frame, covered with a "shell" of blocks and planks. This design will soon become decisive in the construction of fortresses by the Slavs in these territories.
It is obvious that the Vogastisburk fortress, in which the first Slavic king Samo was located and which was besieged by the Franks of Dagobert I (603-639), was of a similar design in about 623. For details about this castle, see the article on "VO" "The first state of the Slavs."
It is important that such a powerful structure was too tough for the Franks, an attempt to starve out the “castle” failed, since, apparently, the Slavs were not just sitting in the fortification, but actively counterattacked, which caused the besiegers who had left the camp to flee.
We see that the fortifications of the early Slavs were distinctive and original, for their construction the Slavs had enough capabilities and strength.
In conclusion, it should be noted that not all Slavic tribes possessed the skills of siege work, just as the level of "fortification" knowledge was different, and this undoubtedly stemmed from the different level of development of the tribes. Obviously, those who interacted more closely with more developed states have gone further.
But in general, all the Slavs were still at the tribal stage of development, on the eve of early statehood.
Sources and Literature:
Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae. Theophanis chronographia. Ex recensione loan. Classeni. V. I. Bonnae. MDCCCXXXIX.
Anonymous Byzantine. Poliorketics instruction. Translated by M. N. Starkhov Greek polyorquetics. Flavius Vegetius Renatus. SPb., 1996.
Greek polyorquetics. Flavius Vegetius Renatus. SPb., 1996.
About the strategy. Byzantine military treatise. Translation and comments by V. V. Kuchma SPb., 2007.
Paul the Deacon "History of the Lombards". Translation by D. N. Rakov. M., 1970.
Procopius of Caesarea War with the Goths. Translated by S. P. Kondratyev. T. I. M., 1996.
Strategicon of Mauritius. Translation and comments by V. V. Kuchma. SPb., 2003.
Flavius Vegetius Renatus A summary of military affairs. Translation and commentary by S. P. Kondratyev. SPb., 1996.
The collection of the oldest written information about the Slavs. T. II. M., 1995.
Alexandrovich S. S. Siege work among the ancient Slavs in the VI-VII centuries. // Russian and Slavic studies: Sat. scientific. articles. Issue 1. Answer.editor Yanovskiy O. A. Minsk, 2004.
Alekseev S. V. The great settlement of the Slavs in 672-679. (Unknown Russia) M., 2015.
Aulikh V. V. Zimnivske ancient settlement - a word for memory of the VI-VII century. not. in Zahidniy Volini. Kiev, 1972.
A. V. Bannikov Roman army in the IV century (from Constantine to Theodosius). SPb., 2011.
Mishulin A. V. Greek polyorquetics about the art of sieging cities. // Greek polyorquetics. Flavius Vegetius Renatus. SPb., 1996.
Nicholl D. Haldon J. Turnbull S. The Fall of Constantinople. M., 2008.
Oblomsky A. M. Kolochinskaya culture // Early Slavic world. Archeology of the Slavs and their neighbors. Issue 17. M., 2016.
Sedov V. V. Slavs. Old Russian people. M., 2005.
Timoshchuk B. A. East Slavic community of the 6th-10th centuries AD M., 1990.
Kuchma V. V. Military organization of the Byzantine Empire. SPb., 2001.
