# asian polearms reinforced



## wolfteethclub (Dec 11, 2020)

Why don't you see reinforcing on these weapons poles like with the European ones? Example


----------



## wolfteethclub (Dec 11, 2020)

I tried to edit the op but couldn't.  Anyways I thought some I've seen have'nt had the reinforced shafts (like the modern reproductions) but I could be wrong and i'm seeing the metal neck pieces now on some historcial examples that also attach to the head that seem to serve as the reinforced area. Thanks!


----------



## jobo (Dec 11, 2020)

wolfteethclub said:


> I tried to edit the op but couldn't.  Anyways I thought some I've seen have'nt had the reinforced shafts (like the modern reproductions) but I could be wrong and i'm seeing the metal neck pieces now on some historcial examples that also attach to the head that seem to serve as the reinforced area. Thanks!


maybe its the nature of there use, some of the european ones were 20fy ir more long.

the basic mo was you and your matrs with  poles with a point, desended on another closly pack group wiyh long pole with a spike on them, the ones with the longest pole tended to win, so the poles got longer and longer and would need more reinforcement

they were not in anyway used as a fast agile weapon, where the lengh and weight would be a,severe hindrence. and if they were someone with a long one would stab you anyway


----------



## wolfteethclub (Dec 11, 2020)

Thankyou!


----------



## isshinryuronin (Dec 11, 2020)

In addition to what Jobo wrote, there are two other good reasons Asian pole arms are not reinforced as in European models and both have to do with metal.

1.  The big, heavy, European metal shields required a reinforced pole type weapon to prevent them breaking .

2.  Metal weapons were too expensive  for the common people as either conscripts or civilians and, at times, prohibited.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 11, 2020)

My guess is that there were different strategies used and definitely different would.  Maybe battle axes weren't widely used in the Asian armies.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 12, 2020)

Thats not nessasily "re enforcement".  Id argue the four make it a re enforcmeent, if two were present before and it was a imrpoved design.  You need to mount diffrent heads etc diffrent ways, in the same way a full tang knife is generally stronger than half, the longer down (within reason) a head on a pole arm is mounted the stronger the heads attachement is.  Id consider the two strips of metal nesssiary to make it a functonal weapon, the 4 probbly are nesssiariy in the instance of that weapon anyway.  But thats not a "re enforcement" per say.

I have seen some asian weapons with that attaching system anyway, it all depends on what material and quality of material anything is.    Its closer to the asian world probbly didnt use pole weapons as much or to the samee lengths as europe did.    So the above method, that and asia used bamboo a lot for polearms in some parts.   I think Bamboo is the cheap and easy to find asian wood, like say ash would be for europe.  

that and a lot of asian weapon modern repros arent made the same they were historically, you can find a lot more european "battle ready" replicas than Asian.    Like the sheer quantity of wall hanger junk katana sets out there.  




Addendum: Its technically re enforcing the wood to make it a functional weapon, i just dont want that to be viewed as the weapon somehow was improved by the addition of a needed part.  If that makes sense, and some people think through it diffrently.    I may have done just that in thinking the usage of re enforce was used in a way it wasnt.    But i have seen some european pole arms with 2 of those strips of metal, some with 4.  That and i think they exist to protect the wood more from metal weapon impacts.   Spears also commonly had metal pieces on the bottom, and so did a lot of polearms for that matter in europe. 


Addendum 2:   It seems to be a asian trend to have longer tangs for their polearms /they dont use as many true polearms that use external re enforcements as europe.   I had a look around some japnese weapons and filipino ones and of them tends to be internally longer tangs. (largely down to just using big knives/longer swords more so than pole arms proper)

I recall a polearm skallgrim got from the TFW store and the wood broke quite easily in testing, no idea if it was a poor replica, or apt replica and they decided to improve the design for the modern market (it was like $200 so not good to have the wood break that easily each time)   But if the wood breaking either didnt happpen that often or was cheaper by a long shot than the metal re enforcements they wouldnt re enforce it with metal, or even consider it. 

If you look at the Nagamaki picture:





The "tang" is longer.  (well i think it used the same blade as the katana actually, just cut to size so not really comprable to a pole axe of europe)

And i just found this Japanese weapon which had external re enforcement. 






That one is apparntly called a tsukubō_.  _That would be a pole arm proper.  No idea what they are used for. 


I was researching this as i was writing it so apologies if this came out sloppy, i had to literally delete and re write the above segment as i found the above weapon.   The only two things i looked up was Japanese and Filipino weapons, so no idea what the others did, and then i just skimmed some filipino ones and did more japanese weapon look up.    Seems to be they mostly just used blades as opposed to proper true pole arms, or at least stacked largely for blades.      Spears normally have a "tang" as well if i recall, no real proper external re enforcement visable unless they were pinned.  But then spears dont tend to be used for cutting so dont really need it as much as a long axe would. 

I have repeated several points in here as well, largely down to finding out things as i went.     All in all, this is effectively what the others wrote, just with pictures and more rambly.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 12, 2020)

wolfteethclub said:


> Why don't you see reinforcing on these weapons poles like with the European ones? Example


I don’t know if we see it or not, I’ve not researched historical specimens of Asian polearms; I am familiar with modern reproductions and recreations.  

Keep in mind, Asia is huge, with many different nations and many different cultures.  Climate in Asia ranges from hot, humid, tropical regions to cold, dry deserts, to windswept grasslands.  These climates mandate different clothing, ranging from very light and loose and minimal, to heavy layered winter garb.  Any weapon design will reflect these climate and regional realities.  So an “Asian” polearm could mean many different things, depending on where it came from. 

In a hot region where clothing is minimal, a less robust weapon would work just fine, while it would fall short in a region where heavy clothing is routine.  Materials resources would also be an issue, affecting what kind of wood is available as well as availability and quality metal for the head of the weapon as well as reinforcement pieces.  Local metallurgical skills would also have had an effect.  

Example: From what I have seen, Japanese spears (yari ?) are made with a tang that is set into the end of the shaft.  That kind of setting would require, in my opinion, some kind of reinforcement on the shaft so that lateral pressure on the blade would not cause the shaft to splinter and split.  I am not trained in Japanese spear methods and am not familiar with their proper construction, so cannot comment further.

In contrast, my experience with Chinese spears is that the spearhead is socketed and fits over the end of the shaft.  The spears that I have assembled myself, I have fixed in place with some epoxy and a small screw driven through the sidewall of the socket and into the shaft beneath.  This design does not need additional reinforcement.  Spearheads can be made longer or shorter, and the socket can also be made longer or shorter in proportion, to ensure a robust connection to the shaft. 

I do want to comment for a moment on something that @Rat said, that spears aren’t for cutting.  This is not true.  A spear has a sharp point for thrusting, but also several inches of double-sided blade edge.  Essentially, they can be like a dagger on a pole.  Thrusting techniques are frequently coupled with cutting techniques within Chinese spear methods.  Some spearheads are designed with an extra-long head, to emphasize the cutting edge and techniques that would be matched to that spearhead design.  So don’t make the assumption that a spear is limited to thrusting and stabbing.  It is a far more versatile weapon than that.  In Chinese martial culture, the spear is known as the “king of weapons” because it is so effective.  Often, when a kung fu system has weapons material with two-person drills and/or two-person forms that match a weapon against another, the weapon is matched against the spear, because the spear is the weapon to beat.  

Keep in mind, there are logical reasons for the spear to hold this position.  First, compared to other weapons, a spear is quick and economical to build, with the addition of a sharp metal spearhead elevating its effectiveness significantly above an all-wood staff.  Compared to forging a good sword, which includes forging a blade, building a robust hilt for the blade, and building a robust scabbard for the sword, forging and attaching a spearhead to a wood shaft is quick and easy and cheap.  I am speaking from experience here, as I have built numerous hilts and scabbards, as well as staffs and attached spearheads.  I don’t do the forging, so I have not built any sword blades or spearheads.  But I can speak to the time and work that goes into these other components, and I have the benefit of using modern power tools and equipment to boot. It is a reasonable and rather obvious assumption that forging a three-foot sword blade will be much more laborious and time-consuming than a one-foot or even a two-foot spearhead.  In addition to the simple size difference, I believe a sword blade requires significantly more refinement in shaping and heat treating, while a spearhead could still be highly functional in a more crude form that can be manufactured much more quickly.   That is why armies were mostly armed with the spear, and fewer individuals, mostly the elites and the wealthy and the officers, carried swords.  Spears were meant for common soldiers so their refinement was less important, their materials were easier to come by, and the entire manufacturing process was faster and easier and cheaper because of this.  As a weapon of the common soldier, it’s widespread use would also lend itself to the development of a wide range of technique and methods which, circling back to my earlier comment, makes it the weapon to beat. 

Now, back to other polearms.  What I see with modern Chinese replicas makes me skeptical of their assembly.  There has been a trend in Chinese martial arts, pushed by the Chinese government, toward modern performance wushu.  This is an artistic cultural method that is more akin to a gymnastics floor routine inspired by martial arts, but is largely removed from legitimate martial application.  Weapons used in modern Wushu are little more than stage props, made of very light weight materials that would not stand up to any use as a legitimate weapon.  Their construction is poor and definitely not robust.  This is often what we see (with some exceptions) in the Chinese martial arts community.  So perhaps we don’t even know how these weapons were constructed historically.  How the blade of a Guan Do, for example, was attached to the shaft on a historical combat-worthy specimen, may not be clear to the lay-person.  A combat-worthy Guan Do blade is wide and heavy (I do not buy into the mythology that General Guan, who supposedly invented the weapon, carried one with a blade weighing something like 70 pounds; that is absolutely ridiculous and would be entirely unusable by even the strongest soldier).  But a combat-worthy Guan Do might have a blade weighing three or five pounds or more, which is plenty heavy enough to require a VERY robust attachment to the shaft to prevent it from separating during use. 

I am sure some research into the matter would reveal some answers, but my point is, if we are looking at products sold by the common retailers as examples, we may be mislead.

Hope this gives some food for thought.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 12, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I do want to comment for a moment on something that @Rat said, that spears aren’t for cutting. This is not true. A spear has a sharp point for thrusting, but also several inches of double-sided blade edge. Essentially, they can be like a dagger on a pole. Thrusting techniques are frequently coupled with cutting techniques within Chinese spear methods. Some spearheads are designed with an extra-long head, to emphasize the cutting edge and techniques that would be matched to that spearhead design. So don’t make the assumption that a spear is limited to thrusting and stabbing. It is a far more versatile weapon than that. In Chinese martial culture, the spear is known as the “king of weapons” because it is so effective. Often, when a kung fu system has weapons material with two-person drills and/or two-person forms that match a weapon against another, the weapon is matched against the spear, because the spear is the weapon to beat.


 
I dont think i made a statement that they were only used for thrusting?      I am well aware there are many diffrent types of spear out there, with diffrent edges and designs.   But they are all principly thrusting weapons, their cutting is largely oppertune draw cutting, and for enlargring wounds.       I had the Yari and generic european spear in mind when writing.   Any statement i made on only for thrusting, would be with the latter point in mind, they are principly for thrusting across the board.   (excluding throwing spears)

There could be a issue as to what cut means, cut can be applied to a more chopping motion and also to a draw cut motion.   You would chop with a pole axe so chopping would apply better, and you would draw cut with a spear with a edge largely.   (im sure you can chop with some spears, and you can certainly draw cut with some designs of pole axe, or pole arm, not in the same way with all of them how ever)

As for the king of weapons assesment, that is largely for the reasons you have expalined, not down to its versality as a wepaon.  (polearms are more versatile spears usually, and a lot retain a spear point and just add more weapons to it, like the weapon the OP posted, its got a spear point, birds beak and what i am going to presume is a (broken) hammer of some description on it)   Its just a cheap weapon to make, easy to teach people to use and generally beats specilist and more expensive weapons in that area, you can teach and equip a lot more people with spears cheaper than you can longswords and quicker.     Then armour etc made a sole thrusting/draw cutting point insufficent for battle field fighting so thats the advent of some polearms.   As long as the head is good, you just replace the pole, and its normally the pole that breaks, and if its a polearm with mutiple weapons and only one weapon on the head breaks, you still have 1 or 2 fall backs.   Maybe 3 if you count using the butt spike if it has one.    


I think that answered your points concisely and accurately?  The spear is universally a cheap and simple weapon, it dominated many peoples warfare for a long peroid of time, from just a pointed stick to refined polearms. 

Addendum: i have no idea how Chinese spears look or the general evolution of them when writing the above, i largely only know european pole arms, and some Japanese ones.    I am presuming they look like the standard run of the mill spear maybe a more cutting head like the scandinavian ones.    I dont think China used chain mail as much as other countries?  but then i could jsut be conflating a sterotype as i know the metalgury in Japan/Korea came from somewhre. (china i think)


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 12, 2020)

Rat said:


> Spears normally have a "tang" as well if i recall, no real proper external re enforcement visable unless they were pinned.  But then *spears dont tend to be used for cutting s*o dont really need it as much as a long axe would.


This was the comment I was responding to.  

I can only speak from my experience with Chinese spear.  The weapon is very versatile and cutting technique is much used in Chinese spear technique. 

In addition, it is an easier and faster weapon to learn when compared to some others, like Chinese sword.  But it is also TREMENDOUSLY effective.  It gives good reach but is still quick and agile with fast directional changes and such.  It isn’t just that it was common and widely used.  It is very difficult to defend against, with other weapons.  If someone had equal skill with a sword or a Guan Do or a war hammer etc., compared to my skill with a spear, I am confident that I would win, assuming the combat took place in an area where I was able to use the spear as it is intended.  Meaning:  if we were in close quarters without room to maneuver, then a shorter weapon like a sword would have the advantage.  So yes, variables do matter.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 12, 2020)

Rat said:


> Spears normally have a "tang" as well if i recall, no real proper external re enforcement visable unless they were pinned.  But then spears dont tend to be used for cutting so dont really need it as much as a long axe would.




I spent a fair part of my youth crawling around museums and armories in Europe. So I'm pretty comfortable saying the above is pretty much pure tripe. Most spears are socketed, and have no tang. Further, although primarily a thrusting weapon, they were absolutely used for cutting as well.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 12, 2020)

Attached is a photo of four of my spears.  These are modern recreations in steel, although I do not know what kind of steel.  You can easily see the socket on each, with the retaining screw. I believe this is an intuitive design and has been used in Europe as well.  I suspect both the socket and the tang designs have each been used in different parts of the world, during different eras and by different cultural groups.

You can see in the picture that the two large spearheads are slightly longer than 13 inches from speartip to the end of the socket.  The cutting edges are clear.  

The smallest spearhead could be hafted as a throwing javelin, and I may try that someday with other similar items that I have. But I like having a small, very very quick spear in addition to my larger ones. 

The two on the right, with the tassels, are hafted on Chinese Waxwood, a fairly tough, but flexible wood.  The flexibility can be utilized in some of the Chinese spear techniques.  The tassels are common to Chinese spears, I believe the idea is to distract from the tip of the spear as well as to have a stopper for blood running down the shaft and keeping it clear from the grip.  Waxwood is common to Chinese spears, at least in the modern era.  China is a huge country, and I suspect that, like all things, people used what was available to them.  So other kinds of wood likely were used in regions where Waxwood perhaps was not available. 

I don’t care much for the tassel so I did not put them on the other two, which are mounted on hickory.  That is simply my personal preference.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 12, 2020)

Rat said:


> Thats not nessasily "re enforcement". Id argue the four make it a re enforcmeent, if two were present before and it was a imrpoved design.


This is where I'm currently am. If I had a battle ax or an axe blade on a long stick then I would be able to easily damage and destroy long pole arms.  If someone was pointing a loag pole arm at me then I would want to be able to destroy what ever weapon that's on the end of it.  In order to do so, I would need something with an axe blade such as a helberd or a battle axe.  While fighting with a long pole gives me the advantage of reach, it also exposes the end of the pole to attacks and grabs.  

The last thing that I would want to do is to have someone chopping away at the end of my polearm  or grabbing the end of it and pulling it away from me.  This is the protection that I see when I look at those photos.  I see something that my enemy's axe won't cut and something that my enemy won't be able to grab.  If my uneducated guess is correct then we should see such designs on longer weapons and not shorter weapons which move faster.  We should also see it on weapons (tools) that are used to push or move people and other weapons. 

2 of the weapons that are in rats pictures look like something that would be used against ladders that may have been used.  If that is so then the prongs will help the tool/weapon to get a better grip on the ladder to push it away.  Ladders were probably placed at an angle that would make it difficult to push them away from the wall.  Not only would a tool like that allow you to lean all of your body weight into it,  there is probably enough room where 2 people can grab the long pole and push. 

Just some thoughts.  But I could be Completely and Totally wrong as I do not know anything about ancient pole arms


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 12, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is where I'm currently am. If I had a battle ax or an axe blade on a long stick then I would be able to easily damage and destroy long pole arms.  If someone was pointing a loag pole arm at me then I would want to be able to destroy what ever weapon that's on the end of it.  In order to do so, I would need something with an axe blade such as a helberd or a battle axe.  While fighting with a long pole gives me the advantage of reach, it also exposes the end of the pole to attacks and grabs.
> 
> The last thing that I would want to do is to have someone chopping away at the end of my polearm  or grabbing the end of it and pulling it away from me.  This is the protection that I see when I look at those photos.  I see something that my enemy's axe won't cut and something that my enemy won't be able to grab.  If my uneducated guess is correct then we should see such designs on longer weapons and not shorter weapons which move faster.  We should also see it on weapons (tools) that are used to push or move people and other weapons.
> 
> ...


I think you’ve made a good observation, and this highlights the point that different tools, techniques, and methods are meant for different situations.  What you are pointing to is siege defense. In addition, a company of spearmen in tight formation will use different methods than a lone fellow defending himself on open ground, with a spear.  The dimensions of the weapon itself would likely be different, in an ideal world, depending on circumstances.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 13, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> I spent a fair part of my youth crawling around museums and armories in Europe. So I'm pretty comfortable saying the above is pretty much pure tripe. Most spears are socketed, and have no tang. Further, although primarily a thrusting weapon, they were absolutely used for cutting as well.



Ok then, and some are attached through a piece of metal through the shaft, there are many words for these i just slipped up on the norm for spears. edit: and detailed terminology for it





Flying Crane said:


> This was the comment I was responding to.
> 
> I can only speak from my experience with Chinese spear.  The weapon is very versatile and cutting technique is much used in Chinese spear technique.
> 
> In addition, it is an easier and faster weapon to learn when compared to some others, like Chinese sword.  But it is also TREMENDOUSLY effective.  It gives good reach but is still quick and agile with fast directional changes and such.  It isn’t just that it was common and widely used.  It is very difficult to defend against, with other weapons.  If someone had equal skill with a sword or a Guan Do or a war hammer etc., compared to my skill with a spear, I am confident that I would win, assuming the combat took place in an area where I was able to use the spear as it is intended.  Meaning:  if we were in close quarters without room to maneuver, then a shorter weapon like a sword would have the advantage.  So yes, variables do matter.



On that note i feel the need to add, when i use spear i do mean spear, a Glaive is not covered when i use spear.    (now a Glaive is effectively a sword on a pole, and a form of pole arm)

I dont dispute anything written there.

@JowGaWolf  Cant read your post or reply to it currently, will at a later date, just letting you know i will get back to you


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 13, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is where I'm currently am. If I had a battle ax or an axe blade on a long stick then I would be able to easily damage and destroy long pole arms.  If someone was pointing a loag pole arm at me then I would want to be able to destroy what ever weapon that's on the end of it.  In order to do so, I would need something with an axe blade such as a helberd or a battle axe.  While fighting with a long pole gives me the advantage of reach, it also exposes the end of the pole to attacks and grabs.
> 
> The last thing that I would want to do is to have someone chopping away at the end of my polearm  or grabbing the end of it and pulling it away from me.  This is the protection that I see when I look at those photos.  I see something that my enemy's axe won't cut and something that my enemy won't be able to grab.  If my uneducated guess is correct then we should see such designs on longer weapons and not shorter weapons which move faster.  We should also see it on weapons (tools) that are used to push or move people and other weapons.
> 
> ...



I think the weapon preservation point is more macro than micro, like the longer the wood lasts the longer you can keep fighting with it, it would probbly break sooner without it, but it may have been passed around 3 people by the time it does.       i dontt hink you can really get the force to chop a pretty thich ash pole by itself in half or something in a fighting situation without it being bait, like if you do that and open yourself up their friend is going to stab you.  But the reasons for re enforcing the wood is muilti faceted and you get my overall point. 

As for ancient warfare, if i recall for most of it the main powers used the phalanx, so long spears with sheids and dense formations.     I dont know much about the peroid other than when the romans expanded they orginally used that method then adopted diffrent ones and fought people who used that method.  Not the tribes of Germany etc, but Macedonia etc.  

As for siege defence, the second weapon i showed apparntly means "pushing pole"   Or something to that effect.  The principle defence for siges was projectiles, the usage of anything you had as ifnantry would be down to thats what you have.     Unless you were shoved next to a murde hole to throw things down it. (which is usually anything and everything thats not valuble and is heavy or hot)   thats medievil europe anyway, the principle of projectiles for walls was universal, the murder holes maybe not so much.  

To expand on that, castles were designed and ideally were designed to maximise the amount of time the enemy spent where you culd shoot or throw things on them.    And to also bait them into what seems to be paths of least resistance.     I saw one that had a mile long, best desribed funnel, it was two walls and no roof, so when they expectly went into it, they would have to walka  mile while cosntantly being shot at and in range of everyone in the fortifications.   (i think it was a mile long, but that was pretty much a pinncle this is what you do example if you can do it) 

I can also see maybe some validity in a pole to push ladders off, but ladders were braced and all sorts, so difficult to push off, or impossible in some cases.


----------



## jobo (Dec 14, 2020)

Rat said:


> I think the weapon preservation point is more macro than micro, like the longer the wood lasts the longer you can keep fighting with it, it would probbly break sooner without it, but it may have been passed around 3 people by the time it does.       i dontt hink you can really get the force to chop a pretty thich ash pole by itself in half or something in a fighting situation without it being bait, like if you do that and open yourself up their friend is going to stab you.  But the reasons for re enforcing the wood is muilti faceted and you get my overall point.
> 
> As for ancient warfare, if i recall for most of it the main powers used the phalanx, so long spears with sheids and dense formations.     I dont know much about the peroid other than when the romans expanded they orginally used that method then adopted diffrent ones and fought people who used that method.  Not the tribes of Germany etc, but Macedonia etc.
> 
> ...


much of castle defebce and attack is just Hollywood,  it just dodnt happen that way .
there are varius  reasons for this, one being the castles wete well built to the pont they were inpenatrable, just how long do you thonk these ladders were? have ylou seen the size of some of these castles, the standard ploy  to tunbel under the walls so they fell down, rather than try and climb over them

second being stuck in a casle was a really bad idea, unless reibforcements were on the way, those under seige inverably lost, not through attack but by staravation, there no good reason to launch a deterimd attack, when you can just sit and wait, the longest seige on record in the uk was 6 months, most didnt last a couple of weeks before they surrendered, a suprisngly high % of these being in the 1600s when they had gun powder, so not many achers

3, a disticted lack of enemies,  dover castle was seiged by the french, who some how manged to loose and carlisle castle 10 times by the Scottish, other than that it was just a couple of civil wars worth


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> much of castle defebce and attack is just Hollywood, it just dodnt happen that way .



What we often see is the Castle and not the wall that surrounded the castle.  It's the wall that surrounds the castle that you would climb.  The Castle itself would be towards the center.  If you research the average height for castle walls you will see a lot of references that the wall was 30 - 35 feet high.   So that's about the height of a wall of a modern 2-story home, here in the US.  People have trees that grow taller than their house so it would be feasible to make a ladder that high.





Castles were most likely situated towards the center  while walls would span outward.  This is why Catapults were made to knock down walls and not to knock down castles unless the castle was within range of the shot.  Strategically.  There's no point to attack the walls if the castle is in range, just hit the castle.  Walls were a barrier between the Castle.  The more enemies you can kill at the walls, the fewer you'll have to deal with by the time they got to the actual Castle.

This way even if the enemy gets over the walls, they would still need a large army to take the castle.

Notice how he states in the videos that using ladders were a popular way of attacking the wall.  Unfortunately.  My scenario for ladder use to attack a wall is only based on  Total War.  So here are the things that work while trying strategies. 
1.  multiple ladders all at once would be hard to stop with just arrows.  So the more ladders attacking the better.

2.  Sending an attack group right behind the ladder so if by chance a ladder carrier gets shot you'll be able to quickly replace that person and carry the ladder.   A 30 foot wooden ladder is going to be heavy.  I used to use a 10 foot wooden ladder and that was heavy for me.  There's no way I would be rushing a wall with just that ladder.    

3. You'll probably want to be stealth for as long as possible as well.   The closer you can get to the wall without being noticed the better.  It would take time for the defensive army to get to your location.   So you'll have you crew attacking the walls and preventing the defending soldiers from being able to take up defenses on the wally .  That's when you send your other ladders in.  Then they are able to climb without little resistance because of the fighting on the wall.  From there you'll just flow over the wall, open up the gate and kill whoever you need to while making your way to the Castle.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 14, 2020)

The Japanese were not able to build walls like in Europe because of earthquakes.  But their structures were similar.  Main castle surrounded by walls that were further out.
My guess is that not everyone add the best engineer or the biggest Castle.  Things don't start big, they get like that over time.


----------



## jobo (Dec 14, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> What we often see is the Castle and not the wall that surrounded the castle.  It's the wall that surrounds the castle that you would climb.  The Castle itself would be towards the center.  If you research the average height for castle walls you will see a lot of references that the wall was 30 - 35 feet high.   So that's about the height of a wall of a modern 2-story home, here in the US.  People have trees that grow taller than their house so it would be feasible to make a ladder that high.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the castle is the whole lot, the keep is the bit in the middle

the castle is wrongly applied to anything with fortifications, there are a lot of manner houses with walls sufficient to keep out vagabond and rioting peasants but in no way sufficient to hold an army at bay.

perhaps if you went and inspected some before commenting on wall height,

a 100 ft is more like it for your medieval castle, thats 100 ft and a moat, meaning you need a 150 ft ladder, in the days when they had to cut wood by hand that a big ask


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> perhaps if you went and inspected some before commenting on wall height,


I don't have to inspect.  I simply just looked up the average height for castle walls or more accurately Curtain Walls which is what I'm actually referring to. Those walls are not said to be as high as 100ft.  

There would be no need to scale a Castle Wall that is 100ft tall.  Just go through the gate or wait them out.   If you control the area within the curtain wall then there's no need to rush. 







The curtain walls for this Castle above are 35 ft high.

The curtain walls for below is from the Citadel of Carcassonne in France. The are 39 feet (12 meters)





Lincoln Castle's curtain wall, seen from inside the castle's courtyard. The Westgate Water Tower is in the background.  Here is another curtain wall. Significantly shorter. This one is inside the Castle's courtyard.







jobo said:


> in the days when they had to cut wood by hand that a big ask





jobo said:


> 100 ft is more like it for your medieval castle, thats 100 ft and a moat, meaning you need a 150 ft ladder, in the days when they had to cut wood by hand that a big ask


Again you wouldn't use a ladder to climb a 100 foot wall.    In the days where they cut wood by hand a 30 or 40 foot ladder wouldn't be an issue.  Not every castle had a moat.


Give me the name of one castle that had a curtain wall of 100ft.


----------



## jobo (Dec 14, 2020)




----------



## jobo (Dec 14, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't have to inspect.  I simply just looked up the average height for castle walls or more accurately Curtain Walls which is what I'm actually referring to. Those walls are not said to be as high as 100ft.
> 
> There would be no need to scale a Castle Wall that is 100ft tall.  Just go through the gate or wait them out.   If you control the area within the curtain wall then there's no need to rush.
> 
> ...


 i also note that castle with 20 foot walls is on top of a 100ft hill


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 14, 2020)

jobo said:


>








What you are looking at are not the walls that they would have used ladders on.  If you look at this historical map (above) you can see that the curtain wall is significantly shorter.


You see the same thing with the image below where the walls are significantly shorter than the walls you are talking about.  If you were going to take over this city you would only need to get into the City Gates and then lay siege to the structure you are talking about.  There would be no need to scale those walls. Let them stay in and rot.




The picture below shows exactly what I'm talking about.   This is a picture was created based on the accounts of when the city was captured.  If you have a 40 ft wall. and a 100ft wall.  Why would you take the ladder's to the 100ft wall?  If someone asked you to make a ladder then why would assume that it's for the 100ft wall?  Why would you attack the strongest point of all the walls there?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 14, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> What you are looking at are not the walls that they would have used ladders on.  If you look at this historical map (above) you can see that the curtain wall is significantly shorter.
> 
> 
> You see the same thing with the image below where the walls are significantly shorter than the walls you are talking about.  If you were going to take over this city you would only need to get into the City Gates and then lay siege to the structure you are talking about.  There would be no need to scale those walls. Let them stay in and rot.
> ...


I’ve been there.  Stayed in a Bed and Breakfast inside the walled town.  Cool place.


----------



## jobo (Dec 14, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I’ve been there.  Stayed in a Bed and Breakfast inside the walled town.  Cool place.





JowGaWolf said:


> What you are looking at are not the walls that they would have used ladders on.  If you look at this historical map (above) you can see that the curtain wall is significantly shorter.
> 
> 
> You see the same thing with the image below where the walls are significantly shorter than the walls you are talking about.  If you were going to take over this city you would only need to get into the City Gates and then lay siege to the structure you are talking about.  There would be no need to scale those walls. Let them stay in and rot.
> ...


because thats the town and not the castle, the castle is the big bit at one end, that looks like a castle

i see your not dennying that it has 100 ft walls anymore


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> i see your not dennying that it has 100 ft walls anymore


The wall that you are talking about is not the same wall that me and others, including the guide in the video are talking about when we say that ladders are used.  The fact that you can't get to the building that you are talking about until you breach the lower wall should tell you something.

Your point that ladders weren't often because the wall was too high has been shown as incorrect... Because the curtain wall is the first wall that you have to breach. That's the wall in which people will use ladders.  The wall that you are showing is not the Curtain wall.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 14, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I’ve been there.  Stayed in a Bed and Breakfast inside the walled town.  Cool place.


It looks like it would be a cool place in modern times. lol. Not sure I would want to hang out their back then lol.  I'm assuming sewage system = pig or bucket that gets dumped out in the street lol.

I'll have to hop on Google earth and check it out


----------



## jobo (Dec 14, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> The wall that you are talking about is not the same wall that me and others, including the guide in the video are talking about when we say that ladders are used.  The fact that you can't get to the building that you are talking about until you breach the lower wall should tell you something.
> 
> Your point that ladders weren't often because the wall was too high has been shown as incorrect... Because the curtain wall is the first wall that you have to breach. That's the wall in which people will use ladders.  The wall that you are showing is not the Curtain wall.


the lower wall does not go all the way roubd the big wall ?????

we in england call towns with a wall round them a walled town, we have lots of them, chesyer and york for two, they are not castles, they are towns with a wall roubd them

thats a walled town it is not the castle,

if you go, they let you walk roubd the town for nothing, they charge you to go in the castle, there proof right there

if you capture the town you still havent captured the castle, you still need to put them under siege,im not sure why yoyr still arguing, you were wrong, youve never even seen a castle or a walled town


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 14, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I’ve been there.  Stayed in a Bed and Breakfast inside the walled town.  Cool place.


So I'm back from my Google Earth travels.  Yeah you can definitely get over the curtain walls with a ladder.  Easily.   That building is 3 level but looks to be about the same height as a modern 2 story here.     The wall in the back ground is part of the curtain wall.  Cars and building show a good size reference.

What was the best thing you like about visiting there?


----------



## jobo (Dec 14, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> So I'm back from my Google Earth travels.  Yeah you can definitely get over the curtain walls with a ladder.  Easily.   That building is 3 level but looks to be about the same height as a modern 2 story here.     The wall in the back ground is part of the curtain wall.  Cars and building show a good size reference.
> 
> What was the best thing you like about visiting there?
> 
> View attachment 23372


that a wall round the town


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> the lower wall does not go all the way roubd the big wall ?????
> 
> we in england call towns with a wall round them a walled town, we have lots of them, chesyer and york for two, they are not castles, they are towns with a wall roubd them
> 
> ...


You are the one who can't tell which size wall that you would use a ladder on.


----------



## jobo (Dec 14, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> You are the one who can't tell which size wall that you would use a ladder on.


im the one that said you wouldnt use a ladder at all, coz the castle wall are 100 feet high,


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 14, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> So I'm back from my Google Earth travels.  Yeah you can definitely get over the curtain walls with a ladder.  Easily.   That building is 3 level but looks to be about the same height as a modern 2 story here.     The wall in the back ground is part of the curtain wall.  Cars and building show a good size reference.
> 
> What was the best thing you like about visiting there?
> 
> View attachment 23372


That would be a big ladder for men to carry, but yes, I’m sure that’s how it would be done.  Ladder would need to be robust enough to hold several men at a time with full gear, so would be quite heavy.  I’m sure they weren’t waiting for the first man to get off at the top before the next begins.  Get as many running up as possible.  But a team could put it up.  Would need to space the base away from the wall a bit, makes it harder to push it off from the top.  I’d say the ladder could be as long as 60 feet, maybe 50.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 14, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> That would be a big ladder for men to carry, but yes, I’m sure that’s how it would be done. Ladder would need to be robust enough to hold several men at a time with full gear, so would be quite heavy.


I didn't read your entire post when I started posted so I didn't change the same thing because we hitting on some of the same conclusions.  I think we are coming to the similar points because we both may be thinking.  "how would I storm a wall with a ladder."   Right now most people are probably thinking of someone running up to a wall with a battle cry and climbing it.  I think more planning went into than that.  If someone told me to take a ladder and scale that wall, kill the soldiers on it and open the gates, then I'm automatically asking myself "Which is the best way to do this without getting everyone killed?"  I rather go in with 50 men and have 30 men on the wall with me, than to go in with 20 and only have 10 on the wall fighting with me.

Everything was heavy back then simply because it was made from wood.  Compared to some of the other equipment used, the ladder was probably the lightest of them all.  If you send a team out to carry the ladder the you can probably get out to the wall fairly quickly.  I'm thinking 9 or 10 strong soldiers to run  hauling butt to the wall with the  another group close behind so even is someone gets tired.  A fresh person can come in to replace the tired ladder carrier.   The weight of the ladder also makes me think stealth might have been used.  You would want to get to the wall before the defenders were in place.   If you take a look at the curtain walls and the area that they cover then calculate how long it will take to get someone to the wall that you were about to climb up, then the time required can be considerable especially if you can get closer to the building without being noticed. 

If stealth was used then you are looking at a lighter soldier.  You could have heavier soldiers follow be hind.  I'm thinking this because sound may be an issue unless the nightlife there is fairly active.  People manning the wall would probably patrol the wall.  Towers at the wall are probably stationed.  Even during the day it may take time for people to actually reach the location.  

The raising of a heavy ladder would be challenging but not impossible  Especially if you have 9 or 10 strong soldiers to do it plus backup..  The video below is a 65 foot wooden ladder.   If Seige ladders were wider then you can have more people walking it up.  In the video there's only 2 walking it up. Double the width of the ladder and you may get 4 pushing?  Whatever the solution was.  I'm sure they had a good way to raise the ladder quickly.    







Flying Crane said:


> Ladder would need to be robust enough to hold several men at a time with full gear, so would be quite heavy.


  They probably only need each rung to hold 1 person. at a time.  That would easy to do with such a heavy ladder.  Those climbing the ladder would probably be light armored soldiers.  It doesn't make sense to send up heavy armor soldiers up like that.  If speed is of value. The sooner you can get up the ladder the sooner you can deal with the few soldiers that are on the wall patrolling. 

If someone is attacking at multiple spots at the same time, then it makes it that much easier.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 14, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> That would be a big ladder for men to carry, but yes, I’m sure that’s how it would be done.  Ladder would need to be robust enough to hold several men at a time with full gear, so would be quite heavy.  I’m sure they weren’t waiting for the first man to get off at the top before the next begins.  Get as many running up as possible.  But a team could put it up.  Would need to space the base away from the wall a bit, makes it harder to push it off from the top.  I’d say the ladder could be as long as 60 feet, maybe 50.


Being that it's said that the average curtain wall was 30 - 40 feet,  I wonder if there was some engineering challenge that happens after that.  Was it a weight baring issue that if walls were built after a certain height then the towers would need to be closer together to support it?

I'm also thinking about the ladder guys again.  When were they actually sent in.  Do you send those men in early in the battle or later in the battle after you have starved the city?  Do you send them up the wall against a strong army or do you send them up a wall after they are weakened?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> much of castle defebce and attack is just Hollywood,  it just dodnt happen that way .
> there are varius  reasons for this, one being the castles wete well built to the pont they were inpenatrable, just how long do you thonk these ladders were? have ylou seen the size of some of these castles, the standard ploy  to tunbel under the walls so they fell down, rather than try and climb over them
> 
> second being stuck in a casle was a really bad idea, unless reibforcements were on the way, those under seige inverably lost, not through attack but by staravation, there no good reason to launch a deterimd attack, when you can just sit and wait, the longest seige on record in the uk was 6 months, most didnt last a couple of weeks before they surrendered, a suprisngly high % of these being in the 1600s when they had gun powder, so not many achers
> ...



As long as needed was usually how long they were made.     A sige would be muilti faceted anyway, as the easiest way in (through the doors) generally was met by a funnel and a death march to the next doors through procjectiles.     And even if it wasnt, you would then still have archers etc shooting and dropping things on you, dropping things on your men through the gatehouse and then a group of men the other side of the doors.


As always, i can easily make the point, waiitng might not be the best as another army could be coming to help them which would be bigger than yours, you might not have the food for it etc etc, in regards to assualt sthe above is apt.   Castles generally had a more reliable stock of food than the army sigeing it, as they were made with carp ponds etc in, water stores and also stores in general.  (the amount and qaulity depends on the fortiication in question, but the best built ones did have food sources inside the fortiications and the keep did have a stockpile in it/water store in it so the keep could last a little longer if the outside fell)

Then we also have siege engines in this to bring down walls and the like and Cannon was used in the later medievil peroid.    So this is very muilti faceted and if i recall, you would generally be ina  better state of affairs inside espeically if the enemy didnt have any means to actually attack you ie siege ladders, catapults, cannon etc.       Especially so if you had a dock and could just sail in supplies and they didnt cut that off.   You do also have to account for skeltaon crew fortifications and the enemies army(ies) actively attacking and able to come back and break the sige, which may outnumber your army.     Actually, if he foritifcation has a dock to a river thats not tidally locked, it will outlast your army, as it can just keep brining in more and more food and poretioanlly men to counter attack.    So you would need to assualt or challange the ships.


Also @JowGaWolf    I did watch that video recently which is pretty funny, and it reminded me that they did indeed brace ladders and have devices etc to stop ladders being knocked off as easily as is made out.

Addendum: i dont think we decided on a specfic place or time for the example of siges, this is more generalities unless one is settled on, but that doesnt negate the previous statements being generalities.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 16, 2020)

I think they may have used segmented ladders sometimes?      So you put several ladders together and fasten them to the castle in some way to create several going up the length.  


Also there is a engineering cap to the height you can make walls, that and the economics of making fortifications.  They need to be near the resources you plan on using, further away the more it takes in both time and money.  You need to pay for transport then the labouring of mining and also the labouring of assembly. 

For the above as well, i have seen several film/media siges have the assualt come after a long blockade or a several day blockage and attacking the fortiifcation with catapult/archers.     so they very much wait until the defenders are weakened, damage as much wood as possible then launch the assualt after a bombarment/siege of some time.    (as i mentioned above the choice is not always yours for when you assualt a castle, then they could always counter assualt if they have more men)


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

Rat said:


> As long as needed was usually how long they were made.     A sige would be muilti faceted anyway, as the easiest way in (through the doors) generally was met by a funnel and a death march to the next doors through procjectiles.     And even if it wasnt, you would then still have archers etc shooting and dropping things on you, dropping things on your men through the gatehouse and then a group of men the other side of the doors.
> 
> 
> As always, i can easily make the point, waiitng might not be the best as another army could be coming to help them which would be bigger than yours, you might not have the food for it etc etc, in regards to assualt sthe above is apt.   Castles generally had a more reliable stock of food than the army sigeing it, as they were made with carp ponds etc in, water stores and also stores in general.  (the amount and qaulity depends on the fortiication in question, but the best built ones did have food sources inside the fortiications and the keep did have a stockpile in it/water store in it so the keep could last a little longer if the outside fell)
> ...


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.

where is the other army comming from, it took a very long time to raise an army, suppy it and walk from london to carlise, or london to mid wales, if renforcements were few days away, your in clover,  if not your in a spot of bother

feedong the seiging army is also an issue, but they can at least go and raid the local farms and get fresh water

perhaps you can give a few historical examples rather than films, to support you point, castles were as you piont out exceptional diifficult to breach,  which is largly why they tended to try and starve them out

im not saying that the use of seige machines never happen, just that it was by no mrans the norm


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> but thats not actually reflected in british history



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




jobo said:


> 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


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)




jobo said:


> where is the other army comming from, it took a very long time to raise an army, suppy it and walk from london to carlise, or london to mid wales, if renforcements were few days away, your in clover, if not your in a spot of bother



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. 




jobo said:


> feedong the seiging army is also an issue, but they can at least go and raid the local farms and get fresh water



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. 




jobo said:


> perhaps you can give a few historical examples rather than films, to support you point, castles were as you piont out exceptional diifficult to breach, which is largly why they tended to try and starve them out


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. 




jobo said:


> im not saying that the use of seige machines never happen, just that it was by no mrans the norm



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.


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

Rat said:


> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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 (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> 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


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Relative to the number of people in the place? Yes.
> 
> 
> Apparently, in joboland, there's no such thing as nets.
> ...


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 (Dec 16, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> 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.


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> 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.


how many fish exactly is that, ?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> 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.


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> so how are you using these nets when your under seige and people are shootibg arrows at you, ? its a very high wall



 

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.

 

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

 

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 (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


very good but we are,discusing cthe tower of London,  that has ravens but no internal river


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> 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...






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.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 16, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2020)

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.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> its the tower of london


So is this information incorrect?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 17, 2020)

On the notation of water,    im pretty sure they at least in the ancient world+ understood the general dyanmic of bad water.      As to store water for long peroids they would mix it with alcohol, or turn it into some sort of vinger or the like.     Something like that anyway.     This would be pending the place, but since the romans did the vinger dilution thing to store water and navies diluted water with alcohol, or maybe the reverse of that.  to store it for voyagers so it wouldnt go bad, this is pre the proper study of microbiology and the like.      Not to down play the fact dysentry was ripe, it could just be bad water stored for a long peroid just tasted rotten so wasnt actually paletable and they edventually figured out diluting it with something would make it last longer.  Maybe per chance the things that would kill off the bacteria inside it were the tastiest things they had.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> 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...
> ...


the tower of lobdon was also one of the examples you gave, seeminly with iut visting in person or by google earth,

so warick castle, how many fish of  weight that means it a viable food sources,wiild you exspect to pull from a short section of that shallow meandering  river on a daily basis, ? 10, 20?

and whats to stop the seigers from netting the river up and down, to a) deprive you of your modest food source and b) get a few fish for their supper.

if that was their intent when siting the castle they didnt think it through

in fact they could just dam it down stream and flood the whole castle, they you could catch the fish by hand as they swam past you


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 17, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


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


I think you have to look at how the tower looked in the past.  If the picture below is accurate then There's no problem with getting to the river.  The way that it looks now may generate some incorrect assumptions.   My understanding is that a lot as been added to the original structure.  Based on what I've read it started out as one thing (not a prison) and then changed into another over time.  Things get repurposed all the time.  Instead of building from scratch, people just build on to it or on top of it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> whats to stop the seigers from netting the river up and down, to a) deprive you of your modest food source and b) get a few fish for their supper


My guess is limited resources.  Engineers and carpenters to actually build a dam.   Depending on what the river is like, it may not be feasible to use the resources to build a dam and to maintain a siege.  If the river's current is strong or deep then building a damn turns into a really big project.  If water fills up be hind the dam and over flows the banks then the water will most likely find it's way back to the river.  In other words.  You build a damn the water fills over and pours to the other side.  

Based on how rivers are in the U.S. I'm going to say Europe has gone through the same thing, where rivers in past were much larger than and wider than what we see today.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 17, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> My guess is limited resources.  Engineers and carpenters to actually build a dam.   Depending on what the river is like, it may not be feasible to use the resources to build a dam and to maintain a siege.  If the river's current is strong or deep then building a damn turns into a really big project.  If water fills up be hind the dam and over flows the banks then the water will most likely find it's way back to the river.  In other words.  You build a damn the water fills over and pours to the other side.
> 
> Based on how rivers are in the U.S. I'm going to say Europe has gone through the same thing, where rivers in past were much larger than and wider than what we see today.



If they built a dam, they'd flood the area. Makes it hard on your own army when you do that.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> My guess is limited resources.  Engineers and carpenters to actually build a dam.   Depending on what the river is like, it may not be feasible to use the resources to build a dam and to maintain a siege.  If the river's current is strong or deep then building a damn turns into a really big project.  If water fills up be hind the dam and over flows the banks then the water will most likely find it's way back to the river.  In other words.  You build a damn the water fills over and pours to the other side.
> 
> Based on how rivers are in the U.S. I'm going to say Europe has gone through the same thing, where rivers in past were much larger than and wider than what we see today.


i know how dams work, even small furry creatures  know how dams work and you dont need  enginners or carpenters,  just buck teeth or a bush saw


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> My guess is limited resources.  Engineers and carpenters to actually build a dam.   Depending on what the river is like, it may not be feasible to use the resources to build a dam and to maintain a siege.  If the river's current is strong or deep then building a damn turns into a really big project.  If water fills up be hind the dam and over flows the banks then the water will most likely find it's way back to the river.  In other words.  You build a damn the water fills over and pours to the other side.
> 
> Based on how rivers are in the U.S. I'm going to say Europe has gone through the same thing, where rivers in past were much larger than and wider than what we see today.


we havent got any hydro electric dams, well maybe one, reservoir dams for drinking water alwaus use a large stream or a small river, as once they are full exactly the same water flows out as in, the river is exactly the same size as it was before,

how much in the past ? river valleys were made in the ice age and its melt period, generall, they were definelty a wider then,

if anything civilisation has increased river flow rather than decreased in the uk, we dont as a general rule differvt whole river to irigate the desert, but mass building has sigbificant reduced the amount of water that the ground can soak up, meaning much more of it ends up in the river, so we currently have a flood problem, with rivers carrying more water than they have in the last,, not sure, probebly since the ice age and ur apaarentky rains more due to global warming, im nit convinced, but then i live in Manchester,  which is known as the rainy city

5he uk syandard mo, is to have floods in March and a water shortage in July


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> i know how dams work, even small furry creatures  know how dams work and you dont need  enginners or carpenters,  just buck teeth or a bush saw


not sure why you wrote it like that as if it's something insignificant.  There's nothing small about how beavers construct dams either.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> not sure why you wrote it like that as if it's something insignificant.  There's nothing small about how beavers construct dams either.


if a beaver can work it out, so can a man, its you thats trying to make it over complicated claiming you need an enginner, to stick some logs in a river

rhough im not sure you think they wouldnt have an engineering devision, to buld bridges seige machines dig under walls etc,etc


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> how much in the past ? river valleys were made in the ice age and its melt period, generall, they were definelty a wider then,


how much in the past ? river valleys were made in the ice age and its melt period, generall, they were definelty a wider then,


jobo said:


> we havent got any hydro electric dams, well maybe one, reservoir dams for drinking water alwaus use a large stream or a small river, as once they are full exactly the same water flows out as in, the river is exactly the same size as it was before,
> 
> how much in the past ? river valleys were made in the ice age and its melt period, generall, they were definelty a wider then,
> 
> ...


A lot of the rivers here in the U.S (specifically in Georgi) were diverted either intentionally meaning that the plan was to change the river's path or unintentionally meaning that the roads and buildings prevent water from running it's natural path, traveling under ground and exiting out where a river would naturally occur. The result is that the rivers either dry up or are reduced in size..

In the mountains in Georgia there are spots of land that is almost completely level.  It's unnaturally level when compared to the surrounding vegetation.  The reason why is because at one time a river flowed through the area, but it was redirected.  In some cases rivers were build on top of.  In other cases we have existing rivers made larger to support river transportation.

I used to do Nature Tours and there was one area on our property that had a creek. It's small maybe ankle shin high in most places with pockets that are deeper.  At first looks, it appears that it was never a big, but if you go along the edge you begin to take note that the ground is sandy and that the area is fairly level.  In Georgia we have a lot of mud and you typically won't see sand unless you are around a river area.  So this area has a large leveled area with a lot of sand like a dead river bed, with trees.  This is where the river would have naturally ran.  But even with all of the construction and the occasional flooding.  That water never gets back to the way it originally was..


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> how much in the past ? river valleys were made in the ice age and its melt period, generall, they were definelty a wider then,
> 
> A lot of the rivers here in the U.S (specifically in Georgi) were diverted either intentionally meaning that the plan was to change the river's path or unintentionally meaning that the roads and buildings prevent water from running it's natural path, traveling under ground and exiting out where a river would naturally occur. The result is that the rivers either dry up or are reduced in size..
> 
> ...


yes i know they have messed about with river in america, hence my irigating the desert quip,

i saw a video about austrialia with peopke complaining the creeks wemre drying up.

though it can be deceptive,  creeks drying up is natral as well, particularly if you comparing ptevious high water marks or expised river beds, tas by the natral process the water keeps cutting the chanel deeper, so the land covered reduces


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> if a beaver can work it out, so can a man, its you thats trying to make it over complicated claiming you need an enginner, to stick some logs in a river
> 
> rhough im not sure you think they wouldnt have an engineering devision, to buld bridges seige machines dig under walls etc,etc


You can't think of engineers like modern day engineers.  There is a lot of things that we would look at and say "oh that's easy for man to do"  But that wasn't the case back then. 
Source: https://tataandhoward.com/a-history-of-dams-from-ancient-times-to-today/

"
*Middle Ages*

During the dark ages, dam construction came to a near halt, resuming around the 15th century AD. During this time, no major contributions to dam engineering were made, and the majority of the dams constructed in Europe, where rainfall is plentiful and regular, were modest structures. It wasn’t until the 1850s, when civil engineering professor William John Macquorn Rankine at Glasgow University demonstrated a better understanding of earth stability and structural performance, that dam engineering improved.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> You can't think of engineers like modern day engineers.  There is a lot of things that we would look at and say "oh that's easy for man to do"  But that wasn't the case back then.
> Source: A History of Dams: From Ancient Times to Today - Tata & Howard
> 
> "
> ...


have you seen that castle? your telling me they cant build a bigger dam than a beaver,  they only need to raise the level 6 foot to flood the castle


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> have you seen that castle? your telling me they cant build a bigger dam than a beaver,  they only need to raise the level 6 foot to flood the castle


I just don't see how you think it's going to work the way that you think it is. Show me the castle that you are referring to, so I can make sure that I'm looking at the same castle you are talking about flooding.


----------



## jobo (Dec 18, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> I just don't see how you think it's going to work the way that you think it is. Show me the castle that you are referring to, so I can make sure that I'm looking at the same castle you are talking about flooding.


the pictures DD posted a bit back of Warwick castle


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> have you seen that castle? your telling me they cant build a bigger dam than a beaver,  they only need to raise the level 6 foot to flood the castle





jobo said:


> the pictures DD posted a bit back of Warwick castle



Not so. You clearly assume that the moat was full to the brim. But that would require a violation of the laws of physics. The lowest portion of the castle proper is probably 30 feet or more above the level of the river. The level of water in the moat could not have been higher than that of the river itself. The moat is 35-40' deep. So to flood the ground floor of the castle would require raising the water level by _*at least*_ 30'. Not just the level of the river, either, but across the entire flood plain. The river passes the castle on the S/SE, and the terrain slopes gradually in that direction. Which means that even if the river flooded, it would flow AWAY from the castle, at least until it filled that entire flood plain.
Putting a dam across the Avon would have been no mean feat. Doing so today, with modern engineering and technology, would take months and months. I really doubt that a 15th century army could do it faster. Especially while being hampered by attacks from the castle.






You can see the waterwheel and pump house in this picture. If you look above it, you can see a section of foundation with reinforcing ribs. You would have to raise the water level above that before it even began to flood the castle.


----------



## jobo (Dec 18, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not so. You clearly assume that the moat was full to the brim. But that would require a violation of the laws of physics. The lowest portion of the castle proper is probably 30 feet or more above the level of the river. The level of water in the moat could not have been higher than that of the river itself. The moat is 35-40' deep. So to flood the ground floor of the castle would require raising the water level by _*at least*_ 30'. Not just the level of the river, either, but across the entire flood plain. The river passes the castle on the S/SE, and the terrain slopes gradually in that direction. Which means that even if the river flooded, it would flow AWAY from the castle, at least until it filled that entire flood plain.
> Putting a dam across the Avon would have been no mean feat. Doing so today, with modern engineering and technology, would take months and months. I really doubt that a 15th century army could do it faster. Especially while being hampered by attacks from the castle.
> 
> 
> ...


the castle PROPER???? are you saying there are some improper parts of the castle that can be flooded?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> the castle PROPER???? are you saying there are some improper parts of the castle that can be flooded?


Sure. There are basements, which as I recall were mostly used for animals. They horses and such would then need to be brought out into the courtyard. Lots of room there. The wheelhouse is also much lower.

 

But let's be honest here. This is really you, as usual, just being unwilling to admit that you could be wrong, and attempting to move the goalposts and change the subject.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 18, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not so. You clearly assume that the moat was full to the brim. But that would require a violation of the laws of physics. The lowest portion of the castle proper is probably 30 feet or more above the level of the river. The level of water in the moat could not have been higher than that of the river itself. The moat is 35-40' deep. So to flood the ground floor of the castle would require raising the water level by _*at least*_ 30'. Not just the level of the river, either, but across the entire flood plain. The river passes the castle on the S/SE, and the terrain slopes gradually in that direction. Which means that even if the river flooded, it would flow AWAY from the castle, at least until it filled that entire flood plain.
> Putting a dam across the Avon would have been no mean feat. Doing so today, with modern engineering and technology, would take months and months. I really doubt that a 15th century army could do it faster. Especially while being hampered by attacks from the castle.
> 
> 
> ...


So I took a look at some flooded castles.
1. The attackers would have to build a dam that can hold tons of water without the water over flowing over top or around the sides.   This alone is a major project.  No army is going to use the resources to flood a castle like the one below.  I'm even willing to bet that they didn't have the technology ot create such dams like that.    
There is also a secondary problem.  Say  the attacking army does build a dam and does flood the area and it looks like the photo below.  How would they attack?  Even after the water goes down, there would be mud all over the place.  There's no way to set up artillery in this mess.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 18, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure. There are basements, which as I recall were mostly used for animals. They horses and such would then need to be brought out into the courtyard. Lots of room there. The wheelhouse is also much lower.
> 
> View attachment 23393
> 
> But let's be honest here. This is really you, as usual, just being unwilling to admit that you could be wrong, and attempting to move the goalposts and change the subject.


Definitely some movement on the goalposts lol.


----------



## BrendanF (Dec 19, 2020)

You guys are awesome.



Rat said:


> And i just found this Japanese weapon which had external re enforcement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The one on the left is the tsukubo.  The names of them describe their functions - tsukubo means 'push pole' and is designed to keep rowdy antagonist at a distance.  The middle implement is called sode garami or 'sleeve entangler'.  The one to the right is sasumata or 'spear fork'.  They were implements used by feudal police and fire fighters, to restrain and detain people and tear down burning structures.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure. There are basements, which as I recall were mostly used for animals. They horses and such would then need to be brought out into the courtyard. Lots of room there. The wheelhouse is also much lower.
> 
> View attachment 23393
> 
> But let's be honest here. This is really you, as usual, just being unwilling to admit that you could be wrong, and attempting to move the goalposts and change the subject.


so you can flood the castle then? that seems to be a contradiiction to your earlier statment that it was impossible.

if its worth the trouble of doing so is a different issue


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> So I took a look at some flooded castles.
> 1. The attackers would have to build a dam that can hold tons of water without the water over flowing over top or around the sides.   This alone is a major project.  No army is going to use the resources to flood a castle like the one below.  I'm even willing to bet that they didn't have the technology ot create such dams like that.
> There is also a secondary problem.  Say  the attacking army does build a dam and does flood the area and it looks like the photo below.  How would they attack?  Even after the water goes down, there would be mud all over the place.  There's no way to set up artillery in this mess.


so how has that castle  flooded with out a major modern civil engoneeribg project? all youve done by posting that pic, is show it doesnt require, 21 century engineeribg to cause a flood of a castle

il give you a clue, floods happen when the water is ariving faster than it is leaving, you dont have to hold back the total extent of the water, that would take some doing,  rather just reduce its flow marginally , so it starts to back up

its common here  for floods to happen as there is a bend in the river or or a bridge that marginaly obstructs the flow

you can test this yourself, by running your kitchen tap full and then droping a few peas in to the sink hole and the sink will slowly start to fill, ergo a flood,  i know this as iive just had to remove three peas from my sink hole


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> You guys are awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> The one on the left is the tsukubo.  The names of them describe their functions - tsukubo means 'push pole' and is designed to keep rowdy antagonist at a distance.  The middle implement is called sode garami or 'sleeve entangler'.  The one to the right is sasumata or 'spear fork'.  They were implements used by feudal police and fire fighters, to restrain and detain people and tear down burning structures.


mystery solved


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> so you can flood the castle then? that seems to be a contradiiction to your earlier statment that it was impossible.
> 
> if its worth the trouble of doing so is a different issue


No there's a big difference between a building a dam to flood the area like you were saying and weather events.  You were talking about having soldiers build a damn to flood the area and that's not feasible because of the size that it would have to be to accomplish that.  The tech wasn't there and the knowledge wasn't their.   The pictures of flooded castles that I saw were all from weather events.  All bets are off when it comes to weather.  As of date the only way man can reproduce such flood waters is to build a massive dam and then to release the water.  None of which were going to happen during that time.

So I'm still sticking with my  thoughts on that one.   The only way I would change my mind on that one is if you showed some documentation of someone actually doing it during that time period


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> so how has that castle flooded with out a major modern civil engoneeribg project?


This is from natural flooding, when it rains a lot.  It has nothing to do with dams. Or what men have built.   Men didn't  cause this type of flooding.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> so how has that castle  flooded with out a major modern civil engoneeribg project? all youve done by posting that pic, is show it doesnt require, 21 century engineeribg to cause a flood of a castle
> 
> il give you a clue, floods happen when the water is ariving faster than it is leaving, you dont have to hold back the total extent of the water, that would take some doing,  rather just reduce its flow marginally , so it starts to back up
> 
> ...


Yep and none of what you stated mention building a dam


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> You guys are awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> The one on the left is the tsukubo.  The names of them describe their functions - tsukubo means 'push pole' and is designed to keep rowdy antagonist at a distance.  The middle implement is called sode garami or 'sleeve entangler'.  The one to the right is sasumata or 'spear fork'.  They were implements used by feudal police and fire fighters, to restrain and detain people and tear down burning structures.


So those weapons were used to catch criminals.  That's nuts seems like that would be a lot of work.  I'm assuming it's for criminals who want to fight back.  Sort of like how police show up on the scene only to have the person on the scene try to fight them back.

Then the one to entangle clothing.   That's an interesting  one.

So out of all my guesses. I was only correct about preventing others from grabbing the pole.  I definitely enjoyed trying to guess it's use.   There used to be a game show  that something similar.  The  host would present an item and people would have to guess what it was and how it was used.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 19, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> So I took a look at some flooded castles.
> 1. The attackers would have to build a dam that can hold tons of water without the water over flowing over top or around the sides.   This alone is a major project.  No army is going to use the resources to flood a castle like the one below.  I'm even willing to bet that they didn't have the technology ot create such dams like that.
> There is also a secondary problem.  Say  the attacking army does build a dam and does flood the area and it looks like the photo below.  How would they attack?  Even after the water goes down, there would be mud all over the place.  There's no way to set up artillery in this mess.



Agreed. There's another obstacle to damming the river that hasn't yet been mentioned. The terrain around Warwick is quite flat. Which means even if you plunked an 80' high dam into the river, it wouldn't matter. Because the water would simply go around the dam. You need to build your imaginary dam at a point which features elevations in the land on both sides of the river.

Google Maps

This is a topographical map of the area. You can't see Warwick because it's too small. Warwick is SE from Birmingham, pretty close to Daventry. Note the complete lack of significant elevation changes. There is literally no place where you could build a dam without the water simply flowing around it. You'd only be able to raise the water levels by inches.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 19, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> You guys are awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> The one on the left is the tsukubo.  The names of them describe their functions - tsukubo means 'push pole' and is designed to keep rowdy antagonist at a distance.  The middle implement is called sode garami or 'sleeve entangler'.  The one to the right is sasumata or 'spear fork'.  They were implements used by feudal police and fire fighters, to restrain and detain people and tear down burning structures.



Europe did that too. This is a man catcher. Thrust it out at their neck, and the hinged pieces let it surround their neck. After that, resistance would result in those spikes doing unpleasant things to ones anatomy.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 19, 2020)

We have three castles (Richmond, Middleham and Castle Bolton) within ten miles of us, none of them could be flooded by any means.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> so you can flood the castle then? that seems to be a contradiiction to your earlier statment that it was impossible.
> 
> if its worth the trouble of doing so is a different issue



No, you cannot. Not unless you can alter the topography. What I said was 'to flood it, you'd have t raise the water level by X amount'. Doing so, in the particular place being used as an example, would be impossible using 15th century technology, and insanely difficult using 21st century technology.
But it's well known that you're not one to let a little reality interfere with your opinions.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> The terrain around Warwick is quite flat. Which means even if you plunked an 80' high dam into the river, it wouldn't matter. Because the water would simply go around the dam. You need to build your imaginary dam at a point which features elevations in the land on both sides of the river.



Jobo keeps saying that it's possible that they would have been able to flood the area but he has yet to show how they would have done it, or how it would have been able to be accomplished during that time period while keeping a castle under siege


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not unless you can alter the topography.


The only feasible way to flood the castle is to change the topography.  It would be like building a lake so that Warrick sits in the middle of it.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> No, you cannot. Not unless you can alter the topography. What I said was 'to flood it, you'd have t raise the water level by X amount'. Doing so, in the particular place being used as an example, would be impossible using 15th century technology, and insanely difficult using 21st century technology.
> But it's well known that you're not one to let a little reality interfere with your opinions.


if you raise the level of the water 6 ft on one bank they you raise 6 ft on the other bank, in which case both directions are,down hill


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> if you raise the level of the water 6 ft on one bank they you raise 6 ft on the other bank, in which case both directions are,down hill



I don't think you're stupid enough to really believe this. But one more time, just on the off chance that I'm wrong about you.
The water will never raise 6', let along the ~30' that would be needed to flood the castle. Because the land on the SE side of the river is lower than the castle. It will overflow its banks on the side of the river away from the castle, and drain out into the flood plain. Which is a HUGE area. And because there's no place to build a dam that would cause even a 6' increase. If you managed to raise the level a few inches, it would run off away from the castle. And around your silly dam.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think you're stupid enough to really believe this. But one more time, just on the off chance that I'm wrong about you.
> The water will never raise 6', let along the ~30' that would be needed to flood the castle. Because the land on the SE side of the river is lower than the castle. It will overflow its banks on the side of the river away from the castle, and drain out into the flood plain. Which is a HUGE area. And because there's no place to build a dam that would cause even a 6' increase. If you managed to raise the level a few inches, it would run off away from the castle. And around your silly dam.


  Only way to get water that high is to keep it in.  It's just not possible.  The land doesn't allow it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 19, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think you're stupid enough to really believe this. But one more time, just on the off chance that I'm wrong about you.
> The water will never raise 6', let along the ~30' that would be needed to flood the castle. Because the land on the SE side of the river is lower than the castle. It will overflow its banks on the side of the river away from the castle, and drain out into the flood plain. Which is a HUGE area. And because there's no place to build a dam that would cause even a 6' increase. If you managed to raise the level a few inches, it would run off away from the castle. And around your silly dam.


But...but...but...just maybe if a guy got a really big bucket...


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think you're stupid enough to really believe this. But one more time, just on the off chance that I'm wrong about you.
> The water will never raise 6', let along the ~30' that would be needed to flood the castle. Because the land on the SE side of the river is lower than the castle. It will overflow its banks on the side of the river away from the castle, and drain out into the flood plain. Which is a HUGE area. And because there's no place to build a dam that would cause even a 6' increase. If you managed to raise the level a few inches, it would run off away from the castle. And around your silly dam.


no, the river doesnt know which side the slope is on, iit will over flow both banks equally,and will over flow in both directions , as the land on the castle side is flatish it will go on to flow in that direction as well,


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yep and none of what you stated mention building a dam


a bridge will restrict water flow sufficient to cause a flood up stream,  some times a long way up stream, so a partial damming of the river can have the same effect.

you dont need to block the whole river off,just enough so more water is ariving that leaving sufficient for fluid dynamics to work its magic


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> no, the river doesnt know which side the slope is on,


No, but physics does.
[/QUOTE]
 iit will over flow both banks equally,and will over flow in both directions [/QUOTE]
So the bank on one side is here _ and the other side is here - and you think they're going to overflow at the same time?


> , as the land on the castle side is flatish it will go on to flow in that direction as well,



If you're trying to change my mind about your intelligence, you're doing a fine job.
The terrain is fairly flat. Bu it slopes down, away from the castle. As was typical, the castle was built on the highest ground available. Even if they had to pile up dirt and make a hill manually.
















Does anyone (other than you) think the water will run uphill to flood the castle?


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> No, but physics does.


 iit will over flow both banks equally,and will over flow in both directions [/QUOTE]
So the bank on one side is here _ and the other side is here - and you think they're going to overflow at the same time?


If you're trying to change my mind about your intelligence, you're doing a fine job.
The terrain is fairly flat. Bu it slopes down, away from the castle. As was typical, the castle was built on the highest ground available. Even if they had to pile up dirt and make a hill manually.















Does anyone (other than you) think the water will run uphill to flood the castle?[/QUOTE]
water frequebtly does run uphill, providing the source is high that the hill, it how they got fountains to work in roman times


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2020)

[QUOTE="Flying Crane said:


> But...but...but...just maybe if a guy got a really big bucket...


But then you 'll have to place the castle inside the bucket lol.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> water frequebtly does run uphill, providing the source is high that the hill, it how they got fountains to work in roman times



No. To quote noted physicist Wolfgang Pauli "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

Water does not flow up hill. Period. Fountains that didn't have pumps worked because they had a water supply higher than the outlet of the fountain. The only way water flows uphill is if it's pumped, or siphoned, or carried.

But as usual, this is typical of you. Post something stupid, then keep moving the goalposts and setting up straw men rather than just dealing with being wrong.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> No. To quote noted physicist Wolfgang Pauli "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
> 
> Water does not flow up hill. Period. Fountains that didn't have pumps worked because they had a water supply higher than the outlet of the fountain. The only way water flows uphill is if it's pumped, or siphoned, or carried.
> 
> But as usual, this is typical of you. Post something stupid, then keep moving the goalposts and setting up straw men rather than just dealing with being wrong.


well that what i said, if the source of the river is higher that the castle it will flow up hill to the castle

as river gneraly progresivly desend there a good chance that may be the cas3


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> well that what i said, if the source of the river is higher that the castle it will flow up hill to the castle
> 
> as river gneraly progresivly desend there a good chance that may be the cas3



Have fun wallowing in ignorance. I still don't think you're stupid enough to believe the tripe you post. Were that the case, you'd be unable to operate a computer.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Have fun wallowing in ignorance. I still don't think you're stupid enough to believe the tripe you post. Were that the case, you'd be unable to operate a computer.


im not sure why people cant have a chat with out throwing insults about,


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> a bridge will restrict water flow sufficient to cause a flood up stream, some times a long way up stream, so a partial damming of the river can have the same effect.


  It doesn't which is why bridges aren't used as dams.  Bridge and dam construction are 2 different things.  Bridges allow you to cross over water, which is not the same has holding water back or trying to restrict water.  

An expert in building bridges doesn't make a person an expert in building a dam.  The concept of a dam is easy.  To actually build one takes a lot of skill.  Even beavers don't just throw trees and branches in a river.  They select specific trees and place them in a specific manner.  its a bigger feat because they live in these and maintain it.  
I've never read where an army was able to flood a castle.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2020)

My thoughts on those who built castles.  They knew what they were doing.  It hard to believe that they wouldn't factor in natural flooding and stable foundations.

Man has built cities along the river banks for thousands of years.  Flooding seems like something they would be highly aware of.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> It doesn't which is why bridges aren't used as dams.  Bridge and dam construction are 2 different things.  Bridges allow you to cross over water, which is not the same has holding water back or trying to restrict water.
> 
> An expert in building bridges doesn't make a person an expert in building a dam.  The concept of a dam is easy.  To actually build one takes a lot of skill.  Even beavers don't just throw trees and branches in a river.  They select specific trees and place them in a specific manner.  its a bigger feat because they live in these and maintain it.
> I've never read where an army was able to flood a castle.


but it does,  which is why bridges get sweapt away, they are acting like dams and resticting water flow,, yhat all a dam is a partial restiction of water flow

nb many dams allow you to cross the water as well, so thats another thibg bridges and dams have in common, they can both do each others job


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> but it does,  which is why bridges get sweapt away, they are acting like dams and resticting water flow,, yhat all a dam is a partial restiction of water flow


And this is why your idea of flooding anything is doomed to fail.  

You don't believe in using ladders to climb the curtain wall
You care more about debating than you do about what's actually possible.  Soldiers back then would have loved to be under your command.
You would rather flood the area where your soldiers have to attack through.  Which would make it impossible to use any sort of heavy artillery equipment, and extremely difficult to mount an attack on a wall through the mud.
You believe that bridges and dams are the same thing, which would drive your engineers crazy.
And you can't admit you are wrong on anything.
And you always remove the goal.

If your goal was to ever be a frustrating person to deal with then you have more than accomplish that.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> And this is why your idea of flooding anything is doomed to fail.
> 
> You don't believe in using ladders to climb the curtain wall
> You care more about debating than you do about what's actually possible.  Soldiers back then would have loved to be under your command.
> ...


i didnt say bridges and dams are the same thing, always,, just they can be, and d
bridges can act as dams and course flooding  and peopke can cross dams as a bridge

its not complicated,  we it is, its fluid dynamics which are a bit complicated,  but you should be able to get the drift of it( pun intended)


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 20, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> You would rather flood the area where your soldiers have to attack through. Which would make it impossible to use any sort of heavy artillery equipment, and extremely difficult to mount an attack on a wall through the mud.



Actually i think it would rot it edventually, or make the process faster, you had to keep most of it dry so it would fit properly to assamble it at location.     If i recall siege equipment methods, most of it was cartered around disassembled, there were some expeident things you could make, i  belive some small ladders were in the expediant catergory.       I also wouldnt want to be the person to have to oil and clean off the rust of the metal parts of the equipment as well.  

thats something i think is overlooked anyway.


----------



## jobo (Dec 20, 2020)

Rat said:


> Actually i think it would rot it edventually, or make the process faster, you had to keep most of it dry so it would fit properly to assamble it at location.     If i recall siege equipment methods, most of it was cartered around disassembled, there were some expeident things you could make, i  belive some small ladders were in the expediant catergory.       I also wouldnt want to be the person to have to oil and clean off the rust of the metal parts of the equipment as well.
> 
> thats something i think is overlooked anyway.


every thiNg rots,EVENTUALY!

and which " seige machines  ate you talking about, as ive told you several times castles ( and city walls) were so well built from about a 1000 ad onwards  that catapultes and the like were completly ineffective, so were seldom used,  sure you could annoy  peopke by dropping a 50 kg rock on their house, but you werent knocking a hole in the wall with it and they wernt goibg to bother dragging them a few hundrd miles on dirt tracks when they could build them on site in a couple of days and they wernt goibg to get you into the casle anyway, and where do you think they kept getting these big rocks from

thats why there were seigies, if they could get in there wouldnt be a siege,  most of the historic examples from the middle agaies were use by the defenders to fire out, as they had them,they didnt need to transport them and they had a lot of rocks


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> every thiNg rots,EVENTUALY!



Obviously, being water logged and exposed to more wate rmakes it rot quicker, along with causing more rusting and maitence issues to metal equipment.  (not just of the metal fixtures on engines, but weapons and armour)



jobo said:


> and which " seige machines ate you talking about, as ive told you several times castles ( and city walls) were so well built from about a 1000 ad onwards that catapultes and the like were completly ineffective, so were seldom used, sure you could annoy peopke by dropping a 50 kg rock on their house, but you werent knocking a hole in the wall with it and they wernt goibg to bother dragging them a few hundrd miles on dirt tracks when they could build them on site in a couple of days and they wernt goibg to get you into the casle anyway, and where do you think they kept getting these big rocks from



Catapult, Tebuchet, Siege towers, Rams and Ladders   I dont recall when the Onerger stopped being used, it may be under the peroid in question.      As far as i recall, siege engines were used until replaced by Cannon, the catapult was replaced by the trebuchet, the trebuchet replaced by cannon.    Not accounting for defensive works either.  (of which soemthing that you can launch a dozen rocks at a attacking formation from behind your wall is useful)

And again as far as i recall for how a Catapult would be used, it would be assembled somewhere, then transported in its componet pieces with the army should they need it, same with most engines.      Given there are metal parts to this, the resources may not be present at the location or you may not have time or the faciltieis to craft the wood to the specfications needed nor forge and attach the metal. 

As much as you can argue for on site construction of a trebuchet, i dont think mobile craftshops had the equipment needed to do such a thing at the time.     Like mobile forges couldnt make a cannon. They were more for re attaching the heads of pole arms to shafts, making shafts etc.    That and if its made for a campaign, it would be pretty precisely crafted, not just a ad hoc thing.   (if we move this to a trebuchet, you would need rope as well, not something easily made and would need special lines made for it)



jobo said:


> thats why there were seigies, if they could get in there wouldnt be a siege, most of the historic examples from the middle agaies were use by the defenders to fire out, as they had them,they didnt need to transport them and they had a lot of rocks



Siege normally denotes any action against a fortification of any time.  And a siege can contain a assualt or several assualts on a forification.     You wouldnt call walking into a town a siege, but you would call axing a hole into a palisade a siege.         


i think this is pretty far off topic at this point honestly.


----------



## jobo (Dec 20, 2020)

Rat said:


> Obviously, being water logged and exposed to more wate rmakes it rot quicker, along with causing more rusting and maitence issues to metal equipment.  (not just of the metal fixtures on engines, but weapons and armour)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


non of that alters the fact that from circa 1000ad defensive wall were impervious to cataputs or variation of,

they would get rustly anyway roubd here and nobody said put the catapults in the water, so thats just a bizare turn  of thought

and if its worth draging usless catapults the lenth of the country just to throw a few dead cows over, is a value judgement, one i think they would have said stuff that we will make one there

and,seige clearly denotes an extrended period of time, it they smash through the walls or climb over them in the first few days, it clearly not a,siege, its a battle


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 20, 2020)

Rat said:


> Actually i think it would rot it edventually, or make the process faster, you had to keep most of it dry so it would fit properly to assamble it at location.     If i recall siege equipment methods, most of it was cartered around disassembled, there were some expeident things you could make, i  belive some small ladders were in the expediant catergory.       I also wouldnt want to be the person to have to oil and clean off the rust of the metal parts of the equipment as well.
> 
> thats something i think is overlooked anyway.


a group built a working trebuchet by hand using the tools back then and filmed the process (Lots of work to create one), then it rained on them after it was built.  They were concern that the wet ropes would stretch and break.  Then they were worried about the mud on the ropes as well causing problems with the pulley being used so they spent the rainy day trying to preserve the ropes and pulley.  I don't think there was much metal.  A lot was done with wooden sockets, which makes sense,  no blacksmith around.  But rain and mud were definitely an issue.  They discovered that the wheels on the trebuchet were so you could roll it around.  The wheels were needed so the trebuchet could move back and forth naturally as it fired. But mud and water damage seems to be a big issue.


----------



## jobo (Dec 20, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> a group built a working trebuchet by hand using the tools back then and filmed the process (Lots of work to create one), then it rained on them after it was built.  They were concern that the wet ropes would stretch and break.  Then they were worried about the mud on the ropes as well causing problems with the pulley being used so they spent the rainy day trying to preserve the ropes and pulley.  I don't think there was much metal.  A lot was done with wooden sockets, which makes sense,  no blacksmith around.  But rain and mud were definitely an issue.  They discovered that the wheels on the trebuchet were so you could roll it around.  The wheels were needed so the trebuchet could move back and forth naturally as it fired. But mud and water damage seems to be a big issue.


a catapult you cant use in the rain, woukdnt be the best idea in the uk,


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 21, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> It doesn't which is why bridges aren't used as dams.  Bridge and dam construction are 2 different things.  Bridges allow you to cross over water, which is not the same has holding water back or trying to restrict water.
> 
> An expert in building bridges doesn't make a person an expert in building a dam.  The concept of a dam is easy.  To actually build one takes a lot of skill.  Even beavers don't just throw trees and branches in a river.  They select specific trees and place them in a specific manner.  its a bigger feat because they live in these and maintain it.
> I've never read where an army was able to flood a castle.



Richmond Castle, very close to where I live is built on the highest ground, one side is a sheer cliff with the RiverSwale below. The bridges to cross the Swale are on much lower ground either side of the town, both are made from stone, both have been there since the castle was built in the 11th century. Damming the Swale would be more than tricky,  building bridges would be difficult enough, the Romans when they were here didn't try, it's the fastest flowing river in the UK, with plenty of white water. 
The castle hasn't been attacked in its history but if it had flooding would never have been an option.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 21, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Richmond Castle, very close to where I live is built on the highest ground, one side is a sheer cliff with the RiverSwale below. The bridges to cross the Swale are on much lower ground either side of the town, both are made from stone, both have been there since the castle was built in the 11th century. Damming the Swale would be more than tricky,  building bridges would be difficult enough, the Romans when they were here didn't try, it's the fastest flowing river in the UK, with plenty of white water.
> The castle hasn't been attacked in its history but if it had flooding would never have been an option.



Not terribly surprising, that's a good description of where a LOT of castles were built. For reasons that should be obvious, don't you think?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 21, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not terribly surprising, that's a good description of where a LOT of castles were built. For reasons that should be obvious, don't you think?



You would have thought it was obvious Y

Incidentally for all you Boy Scouts, Richmond Castle was Lord Robert Baden-Powell's army headquarters during World War One, it also housed some conscientious objectors as prisoners.


----------



## jobo (Dec 21, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not terribly surprising, that's a good description of where a LOT of castles were built. For reasons that should be obvious, don't you think?


would you care to qauntify a lot, there clearly wasnt a lot built in Richmond

do you mean a lot were built near water sources,  yes they were, it would be stupid not to really, in the days when you had to carry it in a bucket

all the uk towns and cities short of the 19th 20th century were built next to rivers, even the ones at the seaside,  it just what people did, if you building a castle in  or near a town or city, which is what they tended to do, then there is also a river near by, it just happens


----------



## lklawson (Dec 22, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> In addition to what Jobo wrote, there are two other good reasons Asian pole arms are not reinforced as in European models and both have to do with metal.
> 
> 1.  The big, heavy, European metal shields required a reinforced pole type weapon to prevent them breaking .
> 
> 2.  Metal weapons were too expensive  for the common people as either conscripts or civilians and, at times, prohibited.


Neither of these statements are correct.  

Most European shields were not metal but were usually wood.  Sometimes slatted wood, often laminated wood, and sometimes with a metal boss, edging, or reinforcements.  Shields that were all metal were the exception rather than the rule for most of Medieval history.

Metal weapons were actually pretty common and only the very poorest person didn't at least have a knife.  Soldiers would have metal tipped pole-arms, swords, long knives, etc. and would usually have some sort of steel or steel reinforced armor (maille or a "coat of plates" for instance).  Militia would as well.  "Short" swords were common and easily available, though the quality of the steel available to the average person may not have been as high as that available to nobles, it was still pretty decent even by modern standards.  European wars denuded whole forests to make charcoal used in smelting and forging steel.  Steel tools, such as the scythe and the pruning hook, were common and there's no reason that swords and the like wouldn't be as well.  Some pole arms are suggested to be named after tree pruning instruments (the Bill) from which it is believed to have evolved.  Hatchets and axes were common and there were some even designed to be thrown away (francisca).

The "Dark Ages" weren't really as "dark" and technologically backwards as the myth we've been delivered today would have us believe.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo (Dec 22, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Neither of these statements are correct.
> 
> Most European shields were not metal but were usually wood.  Sometimes slatted wood, often laminated wood, and sometimes with a metal boss, edging, or reinforcements.  Shields that were all metal were the exception rather than the rule for most of Medieval history.
> 
> ...


a miss statement of fact, we wernt necersaliy taking about the dark ages and there is some debate on if we ever had a dark age and if so when it started and finished,  the term is seldom if ever used by historians only commonly by those ignorant of history


----------



## lklawson (Dec 22, 2020)

jobo said:


> a miss statement of fact, we wernt necersaliy taking about the dark ages and there is some debate on if we ever had a dark age and if so when it started and finished,  the term is seldom if ever used by historians only commonly by those ignorant of history
> it was in the virw of the man


Gads you're a jerk.  You just can't avoid dragging an argument from another thread into this one.

The statements above stand on their merits.  


Most European shields during the era when pole-weapons were common were wood, as I stated.  

Steel weapons were common and easily available during the era when pole-weapons were common, as I stated.
The Pole-Hammer the OP embeds is a 15th-to-16th Century example. 15th Century Polearms

The "Dark Ages" are typically considered during the period of from as early the 9th or 10th century and, depending on the Historian, extending as far up as the 17th Century when "The Age of Enlightenment" is often marked as starting.

You are an argumentative douche who needs to find something better to do with his time.
But, no doubt, you simply can not resist arguing some more.  Maybe you'll dredge up Petrarch or something and talk about how he gives a different time frame.  Whatever.


----------



## jobo (Dec 22, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Gads you're a jerk.  You just can't avoid dragging an argument from another thread into this one.
> 
> The statements above stand on their merits.
> 
> ...


the dark ages arnt typicaly considered to have happen at all, with the term early middle age used as more acurate, it , when it was a thing  was consided to be some where between 3/400ad to a thousand ad,

there is some contention that  some of those years didnt happened at all or if they just miscounted, when trying to get the bible to agree with the calender, which would if true explain the,shortage of writen records from that period,

 nobody ut seens was bothering to count the passage of years for several hundred years and then unilateraly decided it was ad 1000 and tried to make everything else fit


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 22, 2020)

lklawson said:


> The "Dark Ages" are typically considered during the period of from as early the 9th or 10th century and, depending on the Historian, extending as far up as the 17th Century when "The Age of Enlightenment" is often marked as starting.



Oh god i know that one, there is like a 200 year peroid for when the medievil peroid ends, pending who you ask and what criteria you use.   It goes from th 13-1400's if i recall correctly, might be 1500's.   (i think 1500's is too late)    Id cosndier at least from the 1300's the trasnitional years to the next era.  


The Dark ages generally denotes a peroid of time within in the middle ages, i thought medievil did, but the only refrence i found to that was late medievil, turns out mdievil is synonomous with the middle ages.    Its some old fashioned term for a peroid of time after  Rome fell.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2020)

jobo said:


> would you care to qauntify a lot, there clearly wasnt a lot built in Richmond
> 
> do you mean a lot were built near water sources,  yes they were, it would be stupid not to really, in the days when you had to carry it in a bucket
> 
> all the uk towns and cities short of the 19th 20th century were built next to rivers, even the ones at the seaside,  it just what people did, if you building a castle in  or near a town or city, which is what they tended to do, then there is also a river near by, it just happens



Actually Richmond was and is a quite substantial town, it's in North Yorkshire and is the original Richmond. 

The Dark Ages are named as such because there's less known about them than successive years. In the UK the ages tend to be labelled according to what monarch or wars were going on at that time or ......and this is quite  revolutionary I know ......by the actual year! Imagine that.


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Actually Richmond was and is a quite substantial town, it's in North Yorkshire and is the original Richmond.
> 
> The Dark Ages are named as such because there's less known about them than successive years. In the UK the ages tend to be labelled according to what monarch or wars were going on at that time or ......and this is quite  revolutionary I know ......by the actual year! Imagine that.


richmond nether then nor now is a " substantial" town

bolton is a substantial town, with a pop of 300 and odd thousand, richmond has ( according to the last census) a population of 9,000, that a small town, its really a large village

admitedly in the context of the wilds of north yorkshire that may seem substanial, in the context of the rest of the uk, its tiny


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> Oh god i know that one, there is like a 200 year peroid for when the medievil peroid ends, pending who you ask and what criteria you use.   It goes from th 13-1400's if i recall correctly, might be 1500's.   (i think 1500's is too late)    Id cosndier at least from the 1300's the trasnitional years to the next era.
> 
> 
> The Dark ages generally denotes a peroid of time within in the middle ages, i thought medievil did, but the only refrence i found to that was late medievil, turns out mdievil is synonomous with the middle ages.    Its some old fashioned term for a peroid of time after  Rome fell.


yes medieval is synonymous with the middle ages, largly because medieval means middle ages in latin

its time period is a bit vague, it runs from the fall of the roman empire to the renaissance,  but no body knows exactly when( or even if) the roman empire fell or can agree when the renassance started

its very approximately a thousand year period from circa 500 ad to circa 1500 ad,

as i said above its even more aproximate as they had no standard  system for recording the date, between the fall of rome and a 100ad, when they decided to use the birth of christ as a start point, but no body knew when that actually was to a few hundred years


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2020)

jobo said:


> yes medieval is synonymous with the middle ages, largly because medieval means middle ages in latin
> 
> its time period is a bit vague, it runs from the fall of the roman empire to the renaissance,  but no body knows exactly when( or even if) the roman empire fell or can agree when the renassance started
> 
> ...


nb that ad 1000, not 100


----------



## lklawson (Dec 23, 2020)

jobo said:


> the dark ages arnt typicaly considered to have happen at all, with the term early middle age used as more acurate, it , when it was a thing  was consided to be some where between 3/400ad to a thousand ad,
> 
> there is some contention that  some of those years didnt happened at all or if they just miscounted, when trying to get the bible to agree with the calender, which would if true explain the,shortage of writen records from that period,
> 
> nobody ut seens was bothering to count the passage of years for several hundred years and then unilateraly decided it was ad 1000 and tried to make everything else fit


Good grief, you're insufferable.  The point is that, regardless of what you what to call the period between the fall of Rome and the beginning of the Enlightenment, that modern people have vast misconceptions about.  It doesn't matter what you call it, post-Rome, pre-Enlightenment, Dark Ages, Middle Ages, Medieval, or betwixt crowne and toes and trying to argue about that instead of paying attention to the actual point is beyond pedantic.

To reiterate:

Most European shields during the era when pole-weapons were common were wood, as I stated. 

Steel weapons were common and easily available during the era when pole-weapons were common, as I stated.
I half expect you to now start blathering about how there is no bright-line delineation about the Enlightenment and that it's all just an ever-changing continuum.  Whatever.


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Good grief, you're insufferable.  The point is that, regardless of what you what to call the period between the fall of Rome and the beginning of the Enlightenment, that modern people have vast misconceptions about.  It doesn't matter what you call it, post-Rome, pre-Enlightenment, Dark Ages, Middle Ages, Medieval, or betwixt crowne and toes and trying to argue about that instead of paying attention to the actual point is beyond pedantic.
> 
> To reiterate:
> 
> ...


miss statement if facts

the middle ages are from the fall of rome to the renassance, which happened well before the age of enlightenment.

the dark ages are a smaller % of that, some where around 4 hundrd years at the begining, as they didnt really exist as an actual age,, no one has defined them more accuratly than that


----------



## lklawson (Dec 23, 2020)

jobo said:


> miss statement if facts
> 
> the middle ages are from the fall of rome to the renassance, which happened well before the age of enlightenment.
> 
> the dark ages are a small % of that, some where around 4 hundrd years at the begining, as they didnt really exist as an actual age,, no one has defined them more accuratly than that


I must be a prophet.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2020)

jobo said:


> richmond nether then nor now is a " substantial" town
> 
> bolton is a substantial town, with a pop of 300 and odd thousand, richmond has ( according to the last census) a population of 9,000, that a small town, its really a large village
> 
> admitedly in the context of the wilds of north yorkshire that may seem substanial, in the context of the rest of the uk, its tiny




I think you forgot the 15,000 military and their families. Bolton is a conglomeration of villages etc swallowed up to be one place. Richmond isn't. Hey I'm a southerner from London so I'm from the biggest place of all, makes no difference to me what northerners think.

At the time the castle was built in the 11century CE, the town was one of the largest in the North of England. Before that it was a a Roman garrison.


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> I think you forgot the 15,000 military and their families. Bolton is a conglomeration of villages etc swallowed up to be one place. Richmond isn't. Hey I'm a southerner from London so I'm from the biggest place of all, makes no difference to me what northerners think.
> 
> At the time the castle was built in the 11century CE, the town was one of the largest in the North of England. Before that it was a a Roman garrison.


id consider the fact that the 15000 people are not on the census as living in richmond would mean they dont live in richmond,  a brief research period concluded thats because they dont, they live in Catterick which is a town in its own right.

the same reserch period revealed that the 10th most populass town in the 11 century only had 3000 people , and that richmond isnt iin the top ten, so how many folk were living in richmond i wonder


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2020)

jobo said:


> id consider the fact that the 15000 people are not on the census as living in richmond would mean they dont live in richmond,  a brief research period concluded thats because they dont, they live in Catterick which is a town in its own right.
> 
> the same reserch period revealed that the 10th most populass town in the 11 century only had 3000 people , and that richmond isnt iin the top ten, so how many folk were living in richmond i wonder




Populous and substantial don't mean the same thing, you seem to think that having lots of people makes a town substantial   ah well I suppose while you were tying yourself in knots trying to prove me wrong you were leaving some other poor sod alone


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Populous and substantial don't mean the same thing, you seem to think that having lots of people makes a town substantial   ah well I suppose while you were tying yourself in knots trying to prove me wrong you were leaving some other poor sod alone


so wbat makes a town substanial if not the population size,  and therefore the number of buildings that constitute the town, the substance in substantial with regard to towns is the number of buildings or the population and both are closely conected


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 23, 2020)

If not now When?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2020)

jobo said:


> so wbat makes a town substanial if not the population size,  and therefore the number of buildings that constitute the town, the substance in substantial with regard to towns is the number of buildings or the population and both are closely conected



It never occurred to me to think the number of buildings would have anything to do with how many lives in a town

Ok that was sarcasm but you are clutching at straws if you want an argument about populations in a thread titled as this one is

Go find someone else to bother I'm NFI.


----------

