Re: [eia] relief battle clarification

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake Michael Gorman:
> At 03:48 PM 4/24/2005, you wrote:
> >Thus spake "J.J. Young":
> > > I see what you're saying, but I don't see how the relieving army could ha
> ve
> > > any control over the actions of the garrison, since presumably the 
> > siege has
> > > cut off the garrison from communication.
> >
> >That's another reason why it seems wierd to me that they could affect my
> >morale, since my army would likely be unable to see or communicate with
> >the garrison until such time as the battle is nearly won.
>
> If they leave the city and join the battle, they can break.  If they break, 
> the city falls and the battlefield would change considerably in favor of 
> the besieger who is no longer between hostile forces.   Similarly, if they 
> don't break, they keep a chunk of the sieging army away from the relief 
> army and cause problems for the besieger.

Right, but that still supports my point, viz. that the presence of the 
besieged couldn't possibly make the situation worse for the relieving 
force. If this were a regular field battle, the defenders would already be 
in possession of the city. What I think is weird is that capturing a city 
mid-battle could make the besiegers better off than had they held the city 
prior to the battle.

-- 
J.


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia