Forum World Heritage Site

Yes, a number of these have already been connected as "sieges" - and possibly a few more of those suggested by Xeres can be. It can be difficult to differentiate "Siege" and "Battle".

Siege generally implies
a. Attack of a fortified place by an incoming army with the objective of capture. That place often being a place for habitation but could be a castle etc
b. Relatively static around the location
c. Relatively extended in time albeit a single event
Battle generally implies
a. A single fighting event in "Open country"
b. About movement/advance/rereat rather than "capture"
c. Relatively short in time albeit part of a bigger conflict

But there are many exceptions- eg The "Battle of Britain" lasted 2 years - modern battles have tended to last longer than earlier ones. Was the Battle of Stalingrad really a siege? Well it has been and is called both - a siege is really a specialised case of a Battle

I think that generally the rules we have adopted, if not explicitly acknowledeged, elsewhere should apply i.e
a. We check for the nomenclature used in available sources - if it is called a siege than (as far as we are concerned) it is a siege
b. Where there is a choice we assign the "Connection" to the most specific applicable one we have identified. So, since a siege is a specific type of battle, if an event is called both a siege AND a battle we assign it to "siege".

All (?) locations for sieges have been inscribed for other cultural reasons and it is noticeable that there has been a reluctance to nominate/inscribe sites of "Battles" as being "Of universal value". I suppose that there is often little left to see. But one might have thought for instance that Gettysburg might have passed muster. Yet there has been NO reluctance at all to inscribe Military forifications - a curious inconsistency? The first to get inscribed were the Ghana Forts in 1979 - slipping in solely on criterion vi and the statement that they "constituted early evidence of joint activity by Africans and Europeans". They wouldn't get away with that nowadays!

World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers

Battles

Your Reply

	Xeres Partaker	#1 \| Posted: 22 Jul 2008 16:23
		how about a connection of sites where battles took place Historic Centre of Vienna Historic District of Old Québec The Great Wall San Pedro de la Roca Castle, Santiago de Cuba Fortifications of Vauban (i'm sure that at least one of these has been attacked) Tikal National Park (War With Calakmul) Calakmul (war with Tikal) Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Attacked by babylonians) Jerusalem any one know any others

	Assif Partaker	#2 \| Posted: 22 Jul 2008 18:07
		The Turks never reached the historic centre of Vienna, only its outskirts. We also need to see that this suggestion won't overlap with Sieges.

	Solivagant Partaker	#3 \| Posted: 23 Jul 2008 08:57 \| Edited by: Solivagant
		Yes, a number of these have already been connected as "sieges" - and possibly a few more of those suggested by Xeres can be. It can be difficult to differentiate "Siege" and "Battle". Siege generally implies a. Attack of a fortified place by an incoming army with the objective of capture. That place often being a place for habitation but could be a castle etc b. Relatively static around the location c. Relatively extended in time albeit a single event Battle generally implies a. A single fighting event in "Open country" b. About movement/advance/rereat rather than "capture" c. Relatively short in time albeit part of a bigger conflict But there are many exceptions- eg The "Battle of Britain" lasted 2 years - modern battles have tended to last longer than earlier ones. Was the Battle of Stalingrad really a siege? Well it has been and is called both - a siege is really a specialised case of a Battle I think that generally the rules we have adopted, if not explicitly acknowledeged, elsewhere should apply i.e a. We check for the nomenclature used in available sources - if it is called a siege than (as far as we are concerned) it is a siege b. Where there is a choice we assign the "Connection" to the most specific applicable one we have identified. So, since a siege is a specific type of battle, if an event is called both a siege AND a battle we assign it to "siege". All (?) locations for sieges have been inscribed for other cultural reasons and it is noticeable that there has been a reluctance to nominate/inscribe sites of "Battles" as being "Of universal value". I suppose that there is often little left to see. But one might have thought for instance that Gettysburg might have passed muster. Yet there has been NO reluctance at all to inscribe Military forifications - a curious inconsistency? The first to get inscribed were the Ghana Forts in 1979 - slipping in solely on criterion vi and the statement that they "constituted early evidence of joint activity by Africans and Europeans". They wouldn't get away with that nowadays!