asian polearms reinforced

[jobo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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)

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)

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]

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)



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)



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.

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]

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]

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]

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.