If the initial attempt to seize the walls failed, or if the defenses were too strong to even attempt one (e. g., because of a water-filled moat or walls too high for the army’s ladders to reach the top), the besieging army could give up on the idea of taking the place by storm and instead settle in to starve it into surrender. This was rare, however. Instead, armies would usually begin to lay the groundwork for a deliberate attack, using a variety of methods and engines to reduce the defenders’ advantages. Such preparations took time, at least several days to several weeks, depending on the strength of the fortifications to be attacked.
That, then, required the army to set up camp. Doing this properly was an important task, to be supervised by the commander of the army. In his old age James the Conqueror remembered having “made some thirty [siege] camps” and also commented concerning the great siege of Murcia that “in going thither with my host I was among the first, that I might at once set my camp as it ought to be set. For in battle kings should be in the rear guard, whilst in quartering their army they should be foremost, to place their men better.”29
The need for flat, dry ground, with access to water, was made very important by the possibility of a long stay, which usually had to be taken into account, even if a more rapid success was hoped for. Hence more care than usual would be taken to ensure an organized layout; the tents might be set up in orderly rows, with the commander’s headquarters in the center, perhaps with an open plaza in front of it, as had been Roman practice, to allow a convenient rallying place in the event of an attack on the camp.30 Those who did not have tents would make shelters thatched with hay, either with a framework of wood or, if wood was unavailable or if the camp was within bombardment range of the town, dug into the ground like a foxhole.31 These could be quite snug and dry, though they also made the host vulnerable to fire in much the same way a town was.32 Outside the lines of the camp, pits or long trenches would be dug for various forms of waste, then re-covered with dirt once halfway full.33 In addition to their sanitary function, these could help protect the camp. At the siege of Acre in 1291, the defenders made a sortie one night, “put the outposts to flight and reached the tents, where they became tangled up in the guy-ropes. One knight fell into the latrine trench of one of the amir’s detachments and was killed.”34
There were also particular concerns deriving from this context. A deliberate assault would usually be preceded and accompanied by the fire of various large stone-throwing engines, catapults or trebuchets, and an important consideration in choosing the position of a siege camp would be that it include ground suitable for siting the engines (ideally, on a level patch of high ground overlooking the town, neither too close nor too far away) or at least for facilitating their defense. Sallies by the townsmen and garrison could be expected, directed both at the camp and specifically at the engines, so it was important to pick terrain that would hinder any surprise attack.35 Even armies that did not customarily prepare field fortifications while on the march would usually, for this reason, do so for a siege camp. These would most often take the form of a palisade or a simple ditch, with the dirt thrown inward to form a rampart, or both.36 Most towns had rivers or large streams passing through or past them, and so it was usually possible to encamp along running water, which aided sanitation and defense as well as providing water for drinking, washing, and cooking. If the besiegers planned to encircle the town and fully cut it off from support and resupply, however, this also posed the risk of defeat in detail. In such a case, separate fortified camps might be constructed in each sector and special efforts made to build or repair bridges to allow for mutual support.
World History
