asian polearms reinforced

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,684
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Manchester UK
One issue there, i am not citing specfically British history. If the entitre argument is reliant on "oh but the britions did this or didnt do this" Then its flawed as i never cited British history nor are my refrences to spefic isntances but a general note. Nor are my 2 pictured weapons even from europe



Unless the sige was broken by a outside army, the defenders assualting the sigers or the sigers assualting the castle. Some castles had docks so could just ship in more food if they wished. And you could push persihable food to i think 6 months. You can salt pork and it would last 6 months i am going to call it, could last a year maybe. Dried food i think can last up to 6 months. (pending on what food and conditions of storage)




Where ever, wars are not isolated things, if a war is declared you have a army formed and fileded and the enemy generally has enough time to amass one, presuming this is immediately on the outset of a war and not some years in with several roaming armies each side.

I am pretty sure most fortifications had a few days food, so that means the siges will have to assualt the foritifcation before the army arrives to attack them if they wish to take the fortification. ergo ladders or other engines/means.




Pending on the type of fortification, and how big it is, a lot of animals etc are normally brought in as the enemy arrives, for a motte and baily there is a small town included in the fortification anyway which could house more food maybe a small farm in it. So the enemy army could raid what ever has not retreated to the fortifications.



I never used a film or media as evidence of my point, i was refuting your point about it always being flawed as shown in film when it isnt. And yes they were(pending on the fortifiaction in question, my usage of castle is to mean fortfication), but you didnt have the choice of waiting it out all the time for previously stated reasons.




The context of the orginal point was if a assualt happened this was how they would do it, not a statement on how often it happened or where. the specfics would depend on where and when for how often assualts happened, palisades were a common fortification and the scope of that was to largely restrict access into the town. They are easier to assualt than then pinncle of castle design, and in the same vein if you had cannon a old stone wall will be easy to bring down as its not made to deflect the shot.

Makes it a pointless argument as i never went into specfics as to where and when or a statement on how often. and it would be dishonest to not acknowledge assualts did happen and pending on time peroid and location would be how often they happened hisotrically. In the discussion of if say X weapon was to push down siege ladders, stating "they would usually starve them out" has no real bearing on the point. Its for what ever reason they decided to assualt and this weapon was for the assualt.

the peroid in question here is a good 1,000 years long. (i belive the medievil peroid was cited, so its a good 1,000 years if i got my maths right, around there anyway give or take some years)


Addendum: For the two fortifications i have seen, both could be sieged with ladders, i dont know feet, but the ladders wouldnt be that long. If ladders become completely irrelivent, then you would try and scale another way, use a sige tower, knock a hole in the wall or just go through the gate, or any combination of them if you were to assualt.

that would be a motte and baily and a stone walled town. Stating all walls are 100 foot high seems null, as not all were and wooden palisades were the most common fortification, and if you couldnt get trees that high to make ladders, surely you couldnt to make wooden stakes?

Addendum 2: Yes i am also aware of the trend of building a wall around another fortification to stop the defenders from fleeing and to also make a counter attack harder, that takes time and effort to make as well.
ok, well quote some european history then, that includes some sognificant castles rather than the forts they used to build,

tell me about the seiges that lasted the 6 months you claim as doable

the longest siege in british histpry was 6 months, that was in the 1600s when they had prepetation time and a relativly small number of people to feed and no archers

youl whole pijnt seems to be hollyiwood is accurate with no historical referances at all
 

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
17,356
Reaction score
4,248
Location
Pueblo West, CO
but thats not actually reflected in british history ,

seigies last exactly as long as the food supply in the castle, which in the olden days wasnt very long as even if you had food, you couldnt store it for very long

how many carp are in this pobd and how many archers, troops and civilions are you trying to feed with them,, exactly, where is the fresh water comming from ?, they dient have sterile bottles of buxton spring stacked up.

Depends on which castle you're talking about. There are plenty of surviving examples, such as Leeds, the Tower of London, or Warwick, that had a river forming one side of the moat. Unlimited clean water. Carp. Eels. Ducks. Yummy.
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,684
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Manchester UK
Depends on which castle you're talking about. There are plenty of surviving examples, such as Leeds, the Tower of London, or Warwick, that had a river forming one side of the moat. Unlimited clean water. Carp. Eels. Ducks. Yummy.
so you think a river, had unlimited carp, ?

and presumbly they sat a few people on the wall fly fishing to feed the hungry multitude

the thames has been an open sewer for london since the romans, im not sure it counts as fresh water, thats apart from the fact its tidal,at that point, so salt water to a large degree
 
Last edited:

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
17,356
Reaction score
4,248
Location
Pueblo West, CO
so you think a river, had unlimited carp, ?

Relative to the number of people in the place? Yes.
and presumbly they sat a few people on the wall fly fishing to feed the hungry multitude

Apparently, in joboland, there's no such thing as nets.
the thames has been an open sewer for london since the romans, im not sure it counts as fresh water, thats apart from the fact its tidal,at that point, so salt water to a large degree

Because the 14th century EPA prohibited drinking the water. And only a crazy person would ever consider eating a salt water fish.
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,684
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Manchester UK
Relative to the number of people in the place? Yes.


Apparently, in joboland, there's no such thing as nets.


Because the 14th century EPA prohibited drinking the water. And only a crazy person would ever consider eating a salt water fish.
unlimited is an absolute term, it cant be by ratio, it either unlimited or its not,and clearly it isnt, and how many fish do you thibk are in a 100m bit of the river.
and what are they doing with these nets exactly?
it wouldnt be fresh drinking water even then, typhoid at the least and you said it was for drinking water, drinking sea water sends you mad, you must have swallowed a fair bit ?
 

JowGaWolf

Grandmaster
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
9,617
Reaction score
3,041
Relative to the number of people in the place? Yes.
There would be enough fish to feed those who were considered important and the soldiers. Realistically speaking you wouldn't try to feed the whole town.
 

JowGaWolf

Grandmaster
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
9,617
Reaction score
3,041
how many fish exactly is that, ?
Depends on where your access is to the water is and the current food supply that exists with in the town. To say "that there will be enough fish" also doesn't mean you only eat fish everyday. Depending on what type of live stock exists within the walls, things such as dairy cows and goats for mile. Then you would have chickens as well. If worse came to worse then horses and dogs would be on the menu. Because you aren't trying to feed everyone. There would be enough for your army and your important people. Other things like stored grain and rats would also be available. In the case of the Castle Below. "unlimited supply of fish" would probably fairly accurate even though nothing is truly unlimited. In there case, we could say that they wouldn't exhaust their supply of fish even if they wanted tried. The good thing about fish is that it can be dried and kept for a long time which I'm sure they did a lot. Dishes like soups and stews were probably very popular as well.

If the only water source is the castle's moat then you wouldn't have many fish if any. The first thing that would happen would be to make the water from the moat unusable. Disease it if possible.

You often take the extreme of things, where there are no exceptions. All castles weren't built the same nor were they located in the same type of areas. So the answer to your question is simply. It depends on where the castle is located.

upload_2020-12-16_20-13-10.png
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,684
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Manchester UK
Depends on where your access is to the water is and the current food supply that exists with in the town. To say "that there will be enough fish" also doesn't mean you only eat fish everyday. Depending on what type of live stock exists within the walls, things such as dairy cows and goats for mile. Then you would have chickens as well. If worse came to worse then horses and dogs would be on the menu. Because you aren't trying to feed everyone. There would be enough for your army and your important people. Other things like stored grain and rats would also be available. In the case of the Castle Below. "unlimited supply of fish" would probably fairly accurate even though nothing is truly unlimited. In there case, we could say that they wouldn't exhaust their supply of fish even if they wanted tried. The good thing about fish is that it can be dried and kept for a long time which I'm sure they did a lot. Dishes like soups and stews were probably very popular as well.

If the only water source is the castle's moat then you wouldn't have many fish if any. The first thing that would happen would be to make the water from the moat unusable. Disease it if possible.

You often take the extreme of things, where there are no exceptions. All castles weren't built the same nor were they located in the same type of areas. So the answer to your question is simply. It depends on where the castle is located.

View attachment 23385
we are talking soecificaly about the tower of london, which us in london
you said there would be enough fish to feed the soldiers, but you dont know how many soldiers there are or how many fish are in that bit of the river.

which makes it a strange think to say.

and even if there were enough fish in the river, you have no idea how they would catch them, which makes it even stranger
 
Last edited:

JowGaWolf

Grandmaster
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
9,617
Reaction score
3,041
it either unlimited or its not,and clearly it isnt, and how many fish do you thibk are in a 100m bit of the river.
and what are they doing with these nets exactly?
There were probably more fish back then there is now. If there is a town next to a river then it's probably because that area had a good supply of food resources including fish. Towns only turn into big towns because the resources their was able to support the growth of the down.. So depending on where along the river a 100m stretch of river could be very plentiful. There's more to a river than just fish. There would have been a variety of wildlife habitat. This is why civilizations pop up along rivers. But not just in any place along the river, These tows and cities are found where the resources are good.

Water quality was probably better and Fish and eel migration were probably off the charts back then. Nets during this time would be useful and common in such areas where the fish were plenty
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,684
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Manchester UK
There were probably more fish back then there is now. If there is a town next to a river then it's probably because that area had a good supply of food resources including fish. Towns only turn into big towns because the resources their was able to support the growth of the down.. So depending on where along the river a 100m stretch of river could be very plentiful. There's more to a river than just fish. There would have been a variety of wildlife habitat. This is why civilizations pop up along rivers. But not just in any place along the river, These tows and cities are found where the resources are good.

Water quality was probably better and Fish and eel migration were probably off the charts back then. Nets during this time would be useful and common in such areas where the fish were plenty
so how are you using these nets when your under seige and people are shootibg arrows at you, ? its a very high wall
 

JowGaWolf

Grandmaster
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
9,617
Reaction score
3,041
we are talking soecificaly about the tower of london, which us in london
It doesn't matter. The scenario would still be the same. Big towns thrive where the resources are good. That's why we often find major civilizations located along certain parts of a river. These river locations often are also known for their ability to transport. All big rivers seems to follow the similar development along their coasts. I can almost guarantee that at one point in time the fish population was large enough to dedicate time to build fish traps, make nets, and to develop other ways of capturing fish.

The only question would be if the site was chosen for one reason with the Romans and developed for another reason, Post Roman. Sort of like how some ports go from fishing and then develop into trade. In other words. A fort or early castle could have originally been built their for one reason and then as the area developed, London tower was built for a totally different reason.
 

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
17,356
Reaction score
4,248
Location
Pueblo West, CO
so how are you using these nets when your under seige and people are shootibg arrows at you, ? its a very high wall

DCAM0255.JPG

I shot this at Warwick. This portion of river was inside the walls. Easy to net fish. Easy to get drinking water. For either side of the conflict. There are still people trapping and selling eels there today. I bet that duck would be tasty too.

DCAM0196.JPG

Also Warwick. Standing at the top of the moat. Good luck with your archery at this range. Accuracy will be... subpar.

DCAM0257.JPG

Shot from the lip of ground between the wall and the moat. The lip was just a few feet. To place a ladder against the wall at an angle that's suitable for climbing (as opposed to falling), the base of the ladder will be in the moat. Which means it will have to be longer, too.
 

JowGaWolf

Grandmaster
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
9,617
Reaction score
3,041
so how are you using these nets when your under seige and people are shootibg arrows at you, ? its a very high wall
From my understanding Siege equipment doesn't do well in the water and if you build your curtain wall correctly then you can take a position that would allow the people of the castle to travel towards the river, either for food, or water, or escape.

There is already documentations of escape tunnels leading away from the castle. Some to the water way and other's tunnels to the outside of the castle. Again this all depends on the location of the Castle and the best way for escape. Anything water side would be a waste for an amphibian landing. Castles build before Cannons would be protected by the water, and cliff wall if the castle is built on one. Even during WWII amphibian assaults were often costly. It would be even more so back then.. Better to drive them into the sea than to attack from the sea. or river.
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,684
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Manchester UK
View attachment 23387

I shot this at Warwick. This portion of river was inside the walls. Easy to net fish. Easy to get drinking water. For either side of the conflict. There are still people trapping and selling eels there today. I bet that duck would be tasty too.

View attachment 23388

Also Warwick. Standing at the top of the moat. Good luck with your archery at this range. Accuracy will be... subpar.

View attachment 23389

Shot from the lip of ground between the wall and the moat. The lip was just a few feet. To place a ladder against the wall at an angle that's suitable for climbing (as opposed to falling), the base of the ladder will be in the moat. Which means it will have to be longer, too.
very good but we are,discusing cthe tower of London, that has ravens but no internal river
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,684
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Manchester UK
From my understanding Siege equipment doesn't do well in the water and if you build your curtain wall correctly then you can take a position that would allow the people of the castle to travel towards the river, either for food, or water, or escape.

There is already documentations of escape tunnels leading away from the castle. Some to the water way and other's tunnels to the outside of the castle. Again this all depends on the location of the Castle and the best way for escape. Anything water side would be a waste for an amphibian landing. Castles build before Cannons would be protected by the water, and cliff wall if the castle is built on one. Even during WWII amphibian assaults were often costly. It would be even more so back then.. Better to drive them into the sea than to attack from the sea. or river.
its the tower of london
 

JowGaWolf

Grandmaster
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
9,617
Reaction score
3,041
View attachment 23387

I shot this at Warwick. This portion of river was inside the walls. Easy to net fish. Easy to get drinking water. For either side of the conflict. There are still people trapping and selling eels there today. I bet that duck would be tasty too.

View attachment 23388

Also Warwick. Standing at the top of the moat. Good luck with your archery at this range. Accuracy will be... subpar.

View attachment 23389

Shot from the lip of ground between the wall and the moat. The lip was just a few feet. To place a ladder against the wall at an angle that's suitable for climbing (as opposed to falling), the base of the ladder will be in the moat. Which means it will have to be longer, too.
I think I was looking at the correct castle. If I was there's no way they could attack from one side. Not even with heavy artillery. Archers would have the range and just shoot down on anyone trying to launch stones. Trying to attack from that side would be waste. There's definitely enough river to fish. You could set out fishing nets during a siege and then get them latter if needed. But from what I can see there's only one side that's feasible to attack.
 

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
17,356
Reaction score
4,248
Location
Pueblo West, CO
very good but we are,discusing cthe tower of London, that has ravens but no internal river

Nope. Warwick was one of the specific examples I gave. You don't get to move the goalposts.
A rational person would just admit that the situation isn't nearly as simple as you pretend.

And as for water being inaccessible from the tower of London...

Tower-of-London-River-Thames-part-fortification.jpg


Yeah. I see what you mean. No way you could get to the water...
It's not like the Thames at that point is too wide to shoot an arrow across or anything.
And it's not like the moat around the Tower complex wasn't so wide that today it's used for a parade ground. It's only 30-40' deep and 75-100 yards across.
And despite Jobos claims, though the Thames is tidal, at the Tower it is only slightly salty, and was certainly drinkable. Even today, most of Londons drinking water comes from the Thames.
 
Last edited:

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
17,356
Reaction score
4,248
Location
Pueblo West, CO
I think I was looking at the correct castle. If I was there's no way they could attack from one side. Not even with heavy artillery. Archers would have the range and just shoot down on anyone trying to launch stones. Trying to attack from that side would be waste. There's definitely enough river to fish. You could set out fishing nets during a siege and then get them latter if needed. But from what I can see there's only one side that's feasible to attack.

You are correct. The river at that point is a formidable defense on it's own, even without the walls and archers. It would be a no-brainer to string nets across the openings where the river comes through and catch a ton of fish. There's also still a waterwheel, so you'd even be able to grind flour and such during a siege.
 

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
17,356
Reaction score
4,248
Location
Pueblo West, CO
The other example I gave was Leeds. Here's a few shots from there. Again, the river makes assault ridiculously difficult while providing food and water to the castle.

DCAM0154.JPG

DCAM0155.JPG

Leeds Pano 01.jpg
 
Top