Main purpose of castle was to protect against raids, right?

The average castle had maybe 100 men garrison and food for a month. This would be a useful hold against a raiding party of 500
But against 5,000? No, I don't think so. Would any castellan really resist if an army of 5,000 shows up on their backyeard and demanded surrender?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Well there a b***h to take down on age of empires

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Taking one down is easy. Taking down 13 next to each other is kinda b***h.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >But against 5,000? No, I don't think so. Would any castellan really resist if an army of 5,000 shows up on their backyeard and demanded surrender?
      In general the strategy was to either starve them out or bombard the walls. Both options took forever. It isn’t like in Stronghold - most projectiles would miss or bounce off, and they were slow to fire.

      Storming the walls was an option and even with 500 you might win, but the problem is that there would be dozens of these small garrisons all over the place and the kill-death-ratio would eventually exhaust the manpower of the invading army.

      No it was to make the noble inside it feel safe when he had to shit.
      It's no coincidence the toilet was in the most central part of the fortress.

      No, the main and sole purpose of castles was to dab on the peasants.

      Insightful posts.

      Castles were up to several acres in size and could support dozens of people on their own agriculture.

      This isn’t accurate, most of them were incredibly small. Larger city walls would be easier to breach, but a well-built citadel would be small on the inside because of the cost of construction and due to the increased number of personnel you would need. You’d be surprised if you looked. Most only have a small grass rally point in front of the keep.

      >even if the defenders are outnumbered 1 to 100 the attackers still have to build siege equipment.
      one word: escalade
      How long do you think building ladders like pic related would take? a hour?

      They are also extremely easy to push off. Storming a castle like this was not as common as the movies would lead you to believe.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >storming a castle like this was not as common as the movies would lead you to believe.
        Are you a historian? Because here is a historian saying they were very common:

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          ffs for the millionth time: lindybait isn't a historian
          he's a dance teacher with a lot of moronic hot takes

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >doesn't know the art of trebucherry
      ngmi

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    No it was to make the noble inside it feel safe when he had to shit.
    It's no coincidence the toilet was in the most central part of the fortress.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Castles were up to several acres in size and could support dozens of people on their own agriculture.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    No, the main and sole purpose of castles was to dab on the peasants.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Well you have to keep in mind they didn't have the trebuchet for a while so it was all battering rams slowly hitting the walls while being thrown arrows and boiling oil and stuff

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Ever of the head of an escalade?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >lindybeige

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >seethes in lack of doctorate of history and Fellowship of History membership

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            "Napoleon Bonaparte"

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Seethe more, I'm pretty sure Lindy has a knighthood too.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            He doesn't have a doctorate, much less in history.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          He's based

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            his comment on the holocaust made me lose all respect for him

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            go back to your containment board

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    There are probably different-tier castles. You hear that France and Spain had a billion (one keep for every 10 km). But what is never said is that 90% of those castles were probably wooden motte-bailey keeps that had a garrison of 20.

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    even if the defenders are outnumbered 1 to 100 the attackers still have to build siege equipment. This might buy them enough time for reinforcements to arrive, or if they didnt they can surrender then. When there is a castle in every minor shithole it makes attacking difficult

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >even if the defenders are outnumbered 1 to 100 the attackers still have to build siege equipment.
      one word: escalade
      How long do you think building ladders like pic related would take? a hour?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        How long do you think it'll take me to kick the ladder down?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          hope you are fast, because I will more ladders than you have men

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Good thing wall space is limited and my walls crenalations protect from arrowfire

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            but do you have enough men to protect the walls and the gate that is being rammed?
            How much your men do you put behind that gate in case it is broken?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I dont need men behind the gate because I have 4 guys throwing rocks and arrows at your unprotected peasant rammer from above the gate.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            aah, checkmate, you did not account for my sappers

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Dipshit my castle is built on solid stone

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            my spy's already in your castle sapping your trebuchets and backstabbing your king

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Not as easy as you think when the ladder is at an angle, weights 100 kg and has 10 guys wearing armor on it.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            just push them sideways and let gravity do its thing

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Clims up the ladder
        >Suddenly finds himself surrounded on all sides by 10 opponents
        >Ladder gets kicked down, no escape or reinforcements
        >Defenders amputate him and carry him to the butcher
        Good plan mate.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      That, and castle defenses would often be supplemented with cavalry, from adjoining areas, fighting outside the castle.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    someone posted a very good link here to an article very long but very well explained and that went very deep into how castles and sieges worked but i lost it. it was 3 articles on the same blog

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      You mean that history teacher's blog about Game of Thrones getting everything wrong which too was 3 parts?

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >But against 5,000? No, I don't think so
    What do you care if its 500 or 5k or 50k outside? What are a bunch of shiteating bandits or peasant scum gonna do against it?

    And good luck trying to conduct a siege, if all the food of the area is inside your stone keep and every usable building outside scorched down.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >What are a bunch of shiteating bandits or peasant scum gonna do against it?
      they are gonna do

      >even if the defenders are outnumbered 1 to 100 the attackers still have to build siege equipment.
      one word: escalade
      How long do you think building ladders like pic related would take? a hour?

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Would any castellan really resist if an army of 5,000 shows up on their backyeard and demanded surrender?
    An army of 5,000 in feudal Europe would have been incredibly expensive to feed, arm, and keep disease/plague-free for long. Castles were meant to be deterrence and resist. A well fortified, well stocked castle can hold out for weeks/months. Even if it's a month, that's a month of an enemy army being stalled, leaving other flanks unprotected, and allowing the invaded kingdom/state to rally an army to relieve the siege.

    Poor camp conditions, shitty diet and food practices, and lack of supplies doom many a siege. As long as the castle knows the enemy doesn't have siege engines or will take time to assemble them, their stores are stocked, and know a relief army is coming at some point, a castle would be willing to hold out. Ladders were incredibly dangerous, and failed repeated assault would have demoralized an invading army and bleed too many troops. Invasions, again, as expensive and the lost of even a few trained men-at-arms is a huge loss.

    An example of this is the Siege of Kerak, where Saladin immediately retreated once he learned Baldwin IV was marching on him. Of course, Kerak had a lot more important people in it, but the gist is the same. Castles are meant to delay and deter invasions to pin enemy armies to allow time for the invaded country's armies to assemble and move.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >An army of 5,000 in feudal Europe would have been incredibly expensive to feed, arm, and keep disease/plague-free for long.
      Maybe during the Merovingian times, but by the high medieval period, armies of 10,000 were common. And hardly the limit, Edward I invaded Scotland with 30,000 men. Granted it was basically a blitzkrieg, and still ran into logistical problems.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        The Siege of Harfleur during the Hundred Years War had Henry V's 11,000 man army stalled for a month and losing thousands of men to disease to 400 well entrenched Freshmen and refugees.

        Yeah, 10,000+ men armies were becoming more common but they were still basically limited to only the most powerful of sovereigns due to how expensive they were to raise, rally, and keep in field. The point is, is that castles were effective deterrence and mechanisms to stall huge armies that basically only the most powerful of lords could muster anyways.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Edward III had besieged Tournai with 20,000 a century earlier. French, themself assembled similar size to defeat Henry V's army. But only part of it made it to Agincourt.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The French forces that made it to Agincourt still outnumbered the English to a good degree. The English won the same way they did at Crecy: they forced the French into a relatively narrow corridor between woods, placed spikes in the ground (already muddy and hard to maneuver because of rain) to deter the cavalry the French were still heavily reliant on, and picked them off with their longbows. Whatever reinforcements could have made it to the French sooner would probably not have made a decisive difference under those conditions…

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Agincourt was nothing but a lucky last stand. French fricked because the Constable lost control of the army.
            >Whatever reinforcements could have made it to the French sooner would probably not have made a decisive difference under those conditions…
            You realize the reinforcements would have arrived from the rear of the English, right? The reason why the English had to fight was that the road was blocked by the army and reinforcements were following the English, so they had three choices:
            >fight the front army
            >back up, hope to defeat the reinforcement before the main arm comes
            >wait for the reinforcements and main army to attack simultaneously

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The British were the superior force, and constantly fricking annihilated the French during 100 year war. Deal with it froggy.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Agincourt happened in 1415, meanwhile, La Hire joined Charles VII in 1418
            La Hire's battles:
            >Battle of Baugé: French victory
            >Siege of Montargis: French victory
            >Siege of Orléans; French victory
            >Battle of Patay: French victory
            >Battle of Gerberoy: French victory

            If La Hire had been in Agincourt, he would have wiped the floor with the English.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            is this what they teach you in british schools?
            because last time i checked, the english lost that war. please correct me if this is wrong

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            it was a series of wars and the english won some of them, just lost the final one.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >w-we actually won the 100YW, i s-swear

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The French literally relied on cavalry on muddy ground with spikes strewn in it, against English longbowmen who had a previous track record of destroying cavalry, suffering about ten times the losses of the English. That doesn’t sound very “accidental”.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            you mean like how 1000 French cavalry destroyed 5000 longbows as seen here

            Agincourt happened in 1415, meanwhile, La Hire joined Charles VII in 1418
            La Hire's battles:
            >Battle of Baugé: French victory
            >Siege of Montargis: French victory
            >Siege of Orléans; French victory
            >Battle of Patay: French victory
            >Battle of Gerberoy: French victory

            If La Hire had been in Agincourt, he would have wiped the floor with the English.

            BTFO

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The French literally relied on cavalry

            Lolwut

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yes because frick you. I hope your 5000 men are willing to sit outside for as long as I have food, because otherwise I'm going to raid your food supplies if you move past me, and kill your defenders if you split your forces. Furthermore, I'm comfy waiting because my buddies are going to come calling soon and either attack your army from behind or raid your supply lines so your army starves.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      otherwise I'm going to raid your food supplies if you move past me
      >he thinks medieval people modern supply lines when even Romans had to rely on foraging for the most part

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >he thinks that foraging was a primary supply instead of a necessary supplement

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          We have a letter from Charlemagne to an abbot who summons him to raise an army and to join him. He tells the abbot that the campaign will last six months and that his soldiers should bring with them THREE months of supplies with them.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            ...meaning that Chalremagne is assuming responsibility for feeding and maintaining the soldiers for three months. He could do this from either his own storehouses or from the local area, depending on circumstance.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            that is one interpretation, more logical is that they would pillage the remaining three months

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            No the more logical interpretation is that an experienced general like Charlemane wouldn't gamble 50% of his campaign on being able to locally source his supplies

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >No the more logical interpretation is that an experienced general like Charlemane wouldn't gamble 50% of his campaign on being able to locally source his supplies
            So, that he wouldn't forage?

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    You are now a resident of the IQfy castle.
    Whats ailing you

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Monkey's pox milord

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Another for the pyre, sad!

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      non stop religion threads from brainlets who cant read real history books, sire

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Normandy has a billion castles, but Henry V controlled all of them after only taking Harfleur (port), and its two largest cities (Caen and Rouen). How do you explain this?
    It is clear the castles were not a match for Henry V surrendered when the cities fell.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Talks about Henry V's campaign
      >conveniently leaves out the Battle of Agincourt, you know, the battle where the French left their castles for a dumb-ass charge in a muddy field against English lowbows and stakes. The disaster killed 6000+ fighting men and hundreds of men-at-arms/knights, severely weakening French strength and making the ability to relieve any besieged castle unlikely.
      >also leaves out that Harfleur's campaign was a preamble to Agincourt, which did not lead to any immediate English gains. Long-term it resulted in the French breakdown and semi-civil war, furthering weakening them.
      >Henry V gains were made due to the threat of a renewed invasion and a negotiated treaty, not actual sieges of castles.
      >A bunch of nobles, like the English-allied Duke of Burgundy, forced King Charles VI to sign the extremely English-favored treaty. The treaty disinherited Charles VII and made Henry the heir to the French throne. Henry V gains Northern France with the aid of his Burgundian allies and pro-English French defectors.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Same thing happened in Jerusalem after the Battle of Hattin: the Crusaders emptied the garrisons of every castle under their control to fill out their field army and then lost it all in a pitched battle. Saladin walked into the practically empty castles afterwards

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think that is quite right, do you have source on that?
        Historian Maurice Keen states that Jerusalem did not have many strongholds prior to the 13th century, because the kings were interested in the offensive rather building castles, and most of their castles were on the coast. Following the fall of Jerusalem they began rapid construction of castles to defend their remaining territory.
        So, with that info, I don't think there would have been enough garrisons to withdraw troops.
        Also wikipedia states this:
        >According to some European sources, aside from the knights there were a greater number of lighter cavalry, and perhaps 10,000 foot soldiers, supplemented by crossbowmen from the Italian merchant fleet, and a large number of mercenaries (including Turcopoles) hired with money donated to the kingdom by Henry II, King of England

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Can someone post OP the Alamo thread, I know it's around here somewhere.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      ahh here it is

      [...]

      Even though it failed it was still worth it, even against gunpowder.

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Need to raise, pay and feed an army of 5000 to take over a shitty hill defended by local villagers
    Not worth the investment.

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    everyone in the thread. watch the war lord with heston

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    These celtiberians lasted 1 year in their casttle to 20.000 romans.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Numantia
    "134 – 133 BC, lasting either eight or sixteen months"
    "Scipio nevertheless raised an army of 20,000 with 40,000 allied and mercenary troops"

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yes and it also serves as a strategic stronghold

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >assault the castle directly
    >lose 2000 men
    >heh, those 100 men didn't stand a chance against 5000

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Okay, after all that time, treasure and blood spend, you succeeded in finally taking my castle, congratulation
    >HOWEVER

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      See this is what I don't understand.
      That map shows Normandy had multiple castles in the 14th century, but there is no record of Henry V capturing them, only for his capture of Harfleur, Rouen and Caen, after which he went to Paris.
      So, what happened there, did the castles defect when they heard all major cities had fallen?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        They definitely besieged some castles but most of Normandy switched indeed over. But both Henry V and his successors in the field spend the next decade wasting their time and strenght with endless sieges of various castles in the area.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Wasn't Normandy entirely owned by the French King? All lords had lost their lands to the king.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Thats not how feudalism works.

            They might hold their lands from the french king now instead of the Duke of Normandy, but take a guess who the new rightful King of France was right now?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            No, I mean there literally weren't counts like back in William's day.
            No longer was there a count of Evreux, or Alencon.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            There were a ton of counts and even dukes in Normandy during that time.

            The Count of Alencon had been elevated to a duke before Agincourt and died during that battle.
            The Count of Evreux was John Stewart of Darnley

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The Count of Alencon had been elevated to a duke before Agincourt and died during that battle.
            Granted.
            >The Count of Evreux was John Stewart of Darnley
            Was made count of Evreux in 1427, and not during Agincourt 1415

            I also think the count of Eu was an English prisoner, but I think that is all the counts. There might have seen segneurs.

  21. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Would any castellan really resist if an army of 5,000 shows up on their backyeard and demanded surrender?
    That depends on the location of the castle, the size of the garrison, the ability to smuggle in men and supplies, and the likelihood of reinforcements arriving before the food runs out. For a textbook example of that, you can look at the siege of Montségur in 1243-1244 AD. The castle was situated on top of a large rocky outcrop that was very difficult to scale. As a result, 100-200 Cathar rebels and 400 civilians held out against a 10,000-strong army for almost a year. After that, they were allowed to surrender on the condition that they renounced Catharism.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      That is interesting, I guess building a castle on a mountain paid off, I just don't think most rural castles were so lucky position-wise and would have been easier to take.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Most rural castles weren't exactly fortresses, either. For every Montségur, Sedan or Malbork, you had a hundred or more fortified farmhouses occupied by minor lords, particularly in areas that changed sides regularly (pic related is a typical fortified farmhouse built to protect minor nobles and wealthy burghers from raids along the English-Scottish border).

  22. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    FEAST

  23. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The castles are there for raiders!

    The surveillance state is to catch terrorists!

  24. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    There is a difference between peace time garrison and war garrison.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      true, peacetime garrison was 20 men, and wartime was 200 men

  25. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Depends, in Whales castles were actually more offensive than defensive.

  26. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Ah yes it's another episode of a White supremacy thinking only Europeans had castles

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *