5 Misconceptions about Medieval Sieges in Movies

2024 ж. 28 Нау.
1 654 738 Рет қаралды

Get the exclusive NordVPN Deal here: nordvpn.com/sandrhoman
It's risk free with Nord's 30-day-money-back-guarantee!
Medieval sieges have become a favorite of moviemakers and game studios. Impenetrable walls, spectacular siege engines, a good dose of hands-on fighting and destruction make for an ideal canvas for heroism and drama. As history buffs we celebrate this attention. As historians, we often shed a tear. In general, most sieges were by far not as spectacular as depicted in popular media. Historical authenticity often falls victim to drama. Over time, the emphasis on dramatic storytelling in pop culture together with the doubtful work of some historians have created several misconceptions about medieval sieges. In this video we’re going to tackle five of these misunderstandings and look at one controversial aspect as a bonus at the end.
Patreon (thank you): / sandrhomanhistory
Merch store: sandrhoman.creator-spring.com/
Paypal (thank you): www.paypal.com/paypalme/SandR...
Twitter: / sandrhoman
Chapters:
00:00-00:51 Intro
00:51-03:27 Crumbling Walls?
03:27-05:35 Easy Breaches?
05:35-06:35 Nord VPN
06:35-09:13 Living the Good Life?
09:13-10:54 Tent Cities?
10:54-13:00 Siege Towers?
13:00-15:34 Throwing Things from the Walls?
Bibliography:
In this video we heavily relied on
Rogers, C. J., Soldiers’ Lives Through History. The Middle Ages, Westport 2007.
Further reading:
Bradbury, J., The Medieval Siege, Woodbridge 1992.
DeVries, K./ Smith, R. D., Medieval Military Technology, Toronto 2012.
McGlynn, S., s. v. “Siege Warfare” in: Clifford J. Rogers (ed), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, 2010.
Purton, P., A History of the Early Medieval Siege, C. 450-1220, Woodbridge 2009.
Purton, P., A History of the Late Medieval Siege, 1200-1500, Woodbridge 2010.

Пікірлер
  • In this video we heavily relied on one of Clifford Rogers' book: Soldiers’ Lives Through History. The Middle Ages, Westport 2007. We recommend you check it out yourselves here: amzn.to/3j2kQvG Get the exclusive NordVPN Deal here: nordvpn.com/sandrhoman It's risk free with Nord's 30-day-money-back-guarantee!

    @SandRhomanHistory@SandRhomanHistory Жыл бұрын
    • I think boiled water with honey in it would be used in place of oil . both readily available and the sugar in the honey would maintain the heat in the water during the fall

      @doctoronishispsychosislab1474@doctoronishispsychosislab1474 Жыл бұрын
    • Hey can you do some indian siege videos like the 2 sieges of bharatpur?

      @mahameghabahana3197@mahameghabahana3197 Жыл бұрын
    • @@doctoronishispsychosislab1474 waste honey? Nope! Every bit of food is necessary during a siege!!!

      @bench-xpre55@bench-xpre55 Жыл бұрын
    • @@mahameghabahana3197 even better would be Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj's siege where he used the komodo lizard dragons to scale the walls lol.

      @bench-xpre55@bench-xpre55 Жыл бұрын
    • @Sandrhoman History i would love if you cover 16th and 17th century warfare in other parts of world.

      @sheetmusicpianofied8153@sheetmusicpianofied8153 Жыл бұрын
  • What surprised me about actual sieges was all the tunneling they did. Of course that might be a bit boring to watch in film.

    @Windruzhed@Windruzhed Жыл бұрын
    • I'm in a siege and I'm digging a hole, diggy diggy hole, diggy diggy hole!

      @johntitor1256@johntitor1256 Жыл бұрын
    • There's a bit of mining in Alatriste (siege of Breda) and Ironclad (siege of Rochester Castle by King John).

      @SandRhomanHistory@SandRhomanHistory Жыл бұрын
    • I was watching a (your I later realised) video about the siege of Vienna and it was just tunneling back and forth. Though that is a bit later then the timeframe in this video.

      @Windruzhed@Windruzhed Жыл бұрын
    • Well, it's not like it can't be made interesting. As the defenders often dug counter-mines. Cue close quarters tunnel warfare

      @dragon12234@dragon12234 Жыл бұрын
    • @@SandRhomanHistory the mining scenes in alatriste were horrifying imagine fighting in those cramped dark conditions ._.

      @seanpoore2428@seanpoore2428 Жыл бұрын
  • During the siege of Malta, a single hospitaller defended one of the breaches in the wall of the fort of st. Elmo. After some hours he asked for a chair so he could sit while doing it.

    @daffyf6829@daffyf68299 ай бұрын
    • Trying to take a castle that has the Knights Hospitaller keeping it safe is just not worth it, it will never be worth the sheer amount you will have to spend to take it, assuming you even have enough bodies, materials, and time, which you probably don't.

      @Cyrus_T_Laserpunch@Cyrus_T_Laserpunch6 ай бұрын
    • @@Cyrus_T_LaserpunchTimur did it quite easily lol

      @BetelgeuseBetelgeuseBetelgeuse@BetelgeuseBetelgeuseBetelgeuse5 ай бұрын
  • About tents: What you said might be true for Europe, but I assume for nomadic armies, such as Turks and Mongols, tents were usual, since they would have lots of tents because they live in them even in peace time. Historians of the time describe Oghuz obas in Anatolia as big tent cities, so they probably brought some of their tents to battle :)

    @kmmmsyr9883@kmmmsyr9883 Жыл бұрын
    • Perhaps not, remember these are the family tents they mainly live in. They still likely had a lot more tents but a lot of depictions have their families and others just in the same general region rather than at the siege. They still likely had far better conditions over all since home would be a little less than a day or so away, so they could lay siege in rotations though obviously then there's the fear concerning supply chains and the question if they can maintain a long seige since the idea of a releif army would be far more threatening, and until later for the Mongols their actual supply base would be rather limited.

      @codyraugh6599@codyraugh6599 Жыл бұрын
    • You mean a yurt, which is more of a family dwelling.

      @justincharlton16@justincharlton16 Жыл бұрын
    • Battle tents!

      @jonisalmela2399@jonisalmela2399 Жыл бұрын
    • @@jonisalmela2399 Yep Genghis Khan , when besieging Chinese cities would set up his encampment with white tents after a specified length of time he would order the colour of the tents changed to black . This was a form of psyops, the white tents meant that the defenders would recieve quarter the black ones meant that they were all doomed (it was pretty effective apparently)

      @coinneachreid8971@coinneachreid8971 Жыл бұрын
    • @@codyraugh6599 after the siege of Vienna (1st one 1529) the people told about the tents, also many tents were taken as price, another side this would be the new age

      @andreaslamers9535@andreaslamers9535 Жыл бұрын
  • The one that allways gets me is when the defenders face the attacker in front of the wall, with no earthworks or anything, completly negating the advantage of having fortifications.

    @nonyabisness6306@nonyabisness6306 Жыл бұрын
    • Same, why build a wall and then not use it.

      @henningratjen4364@henningratjen4364 Жыл бұрын
    • And then abandoning their shield wall as soon as the enemy gets into reach of the sword to pair off into one on one duels.

      @Yora21@Yora21 Жыл бұрын
    • Like in Game of Thrones, they definitely didn't have any clue concerning military tactics & strategy, in this regard, one of the worst series. They'd probably done anything wrong they could have done wrong e.g. "the long night", sending in all the cavalry first without reconnaissance, placing the catapult in front of the infantry, and as you already mentioned why to use walls if you can place your troops in front of it 🙈🙄 Didn't even considered air support 🐲 Movie makers, journalists, and even some politicians, don't have a single clue about military tactics and technology, but making movies, writing articles about military technology, or making decision in security councils 🤔🙄

      @user-jd7gh2ef4s@user-jd7gh2ef4s Жыл бұрын
    • True, when they the defending army array outside initially however it is worth noting sallying out to fight the attackers was pretty common in sieges just to keep the morale of the defenders up, though that would have been 1 or 2 groups of soldiers likely not the entire defending force

      @juwebles4352@juwebles4352 Жыл бұрын
    • "Troy" (2004 movie).... xD They have "impenetrable walls", but half the army is outside the ramparts waiting for close combat... /huge facepalm

      @justalonesoul5825@justalonesoul5825 Жыл бұрын
  • This is random, but I must say I appreciate the fact you included the date for the battle of helms deep as you did the other real battles

    @patricklloyd1797@patricklloyd1797 Жыл бұрын
    • A good historian always cites its sources.

      @lanychabot-laroche135@lanychabot-laroche135 Жыл бұрын
    • I'm still trying to figure out what that date is actually referenced to. What is TA? Third Age?

      @mikearmstrong8483@mikearmstrong84837 ай бұрын
    • ​@@mikearmstrong8483yeah

      @penguano5514@penguano55146 ай бұрын
  • "Siege towers were not meant primarily to disgorge attackers across a draw bridge, they were used by archers to sweep the battlements." Every Bannerlord siege, I've wondered why three or four men running across an unprotected plank ten meters above the ground to attack a phalanx of men on a rampart was a good idea. Thank you for clarifying.

    @free_at_last8141@free_at_last8141 Жыл бұрын
    • Fellow Bannerlord player! Hurrah

      @whatisalifeihavenone4708@whatisalifeihavenone4708 Жыл бұрын
    • That's why I only assault after breaching walls.

      @chengkuoklee5734@chengkuoklee5734 Жыл бұрын
    • ​@@chengkuoklee5734 i...how? untill late game its very difficult to breach quick enough

      @mondaysinsanity8193@mondaysinsanity8193 Жыл бұрын
    • In Rome: Total War (the first and best one from 2004) siege towers are incredible due to the stupidity of the A.I. because it waits until the last possible moment to switch out archers for infantry and so your own soldiers pour out on to the enemy's wall to chop up all the archers. An exploit I abused unashamedly.

      @krashd@krashd Жыл бұрын
    • @@mondaysinsanity8193 I take my own sweet time. I have tons of food for pro-long campaign. My enemy garisson are starved out. Without battlements,2 breached holes, and low morale, they can't stand a chance against my elite troops. I don't know but I found concentrating on 2 breached sites is way way better than attack from 3 sides.

      @chengkuoklee5734@chengkuoklee5734 Жыл бұрын
  • Modern movie makers tend to forget that the warriors of the medieval age, was still humans. They didn't just throw themselfs at a castle. But a good reward (As Richard the Lionhearth gave for clearing rocks from a breach) probably gave the incentive to take more daring, dangerous and/or brave risks

    @RandomNorwegianGuy.@RandomNorwegianGuy. Жыл бұрын
    • Back in medieval times, armies were fairly small and the barrier to entry was high. Yes, any bloke could wield a spear but it took decades before only the strongest men could master the longbow. Armies in medieval times valued their numbers more than armies nowadays because better than average soldiers weren't readily available.

      @thedrunkenrebel@thedrunkenrebel Жыл бұрын
    • @@moreplease998 Jup.I believe it was more of a pretty solid, dangerous and rough game of push-and-shove to show which side is boss. A) there is an old swiss engraving called "the bad war", showing two pike formations so tightly jammed up that it is down to hand-to-hand melee. It looks pretty much what we are used to from the movies, but the title implies, this was a nightmare everyone tried their best to avoid. B) I once attended a reenactment, featuring lots of polearms. So, in that setting, personal safety was rated a little higher than in the average Hollywood Blockbuster, but the interesting part happened, when we were given an hour of "no script, just do your best" after the rehearsal of the staged show battle: Yes, lines did clash, but ususally that meant they were advancing just into reach of their polearms, and then were mostly busy clearing the space in front of them from enemy weapons, and a fascinating group psychology developed, were the side that was more confident would gain momentum, and the engagement was decided once one side managed to push the other in a situation from which they couldn´t manoever without risking to break ranks. If that happened, it was overin seconds, and the attackers lost all motivation to pursue, as that was fantastically dangerous (both in real life and in-story). It´s still bloody exhausting and plenty stressful, and with some serious injuries occurring here and there due to actually sharp weapons and earnest blows, I can see this would make for a nice bit of PTSD, although the rate of casualties would probably be a lot lower than in a modern firefight. I came to think that watching special police break up a protest is probably the closest thing today to a medieval infantry battle.

      @paavobergmann4920@paavobergmann4920 Жыл бұрын
    • @@paavobergmann4920 good info. Thanks for a cool read

      @Kruppt808@Kruppt808 Жыл бұрын
    • Richard the Lionheart, not Richard the Lionhearth. (probably just a typo)

      @darthbuzz1@darthbuzz1 Жыл бұрын
    • To top it off, they often depicted the army to have good discipline and form their ranks in orderly fashion. That very rarely happens during medieval age as army mostly consisted of mercenaries, soldiers from annexed regions, and conscripted villagers. They will desert the moment they see danger and they wasn't trained to be part of main army. So parts of why people like Genghis Khan, Jan Ziska, and Saladin were successful in their campaigns was because they fought as a disciplined army rather than ragtags of mercenaries and peasants. But of course once they do fight proper army, they got stalled.

      @CrnaStrela@CrnaStrela Жыл бұрын
  • I'd have added another point: *scale* . Movies invariably show every part of the ramparts manned by archers shoulder-to-shoulder, and 100,000s of men attacking. That might have been the case on the very largest sieges, but most (including those shown on film) were in a whole other ballpark. A few hundred men was already a very substantial garrison, and very, very few medieval armies numbered above 10,000. A more accurate depiction would involve the defenders very spread out and only focussed on where the attacker was actively pushing against. Similarly, the besiegers were never a sea of men dozens of ranks deep swarming all sides of a city simultaneously.

    @QuantumHistorian@QuantumHistorian Жыл бұрын
    • Fantasy is not necessary "Medieval".

      @zarpp9411@zarpp9411 Жыл бұрын
    • This annoys me. Armies in virtually every other part of the world were routinely much larger than 10k, Medieval era or not. Historians or commenters always cite the British, French, Italian, German, etc armies, which were significantly smaller than......well, as I said, every other region of the world. I mean the Incas and Aztecs would summon armies over 100k; many battles in the Sengoku era had 50-100k per side; Eastern European armies fighting the Mongols (ie Georgians, Kiev, Cumans, etc) would be 50k or more; and don't even get me started on Chinese, Korean, or Indian battle size.

      @realstarfarts@realstarfarts Жыл бұрын
    • @@realstarfarts Well, historians from the cultures you mentioned routinely mention the battles their culture participated in.

      @caelestigladii@caelestigladii Жыл бұрын
    • I think the Trojan horse is one example of how laying a successful siege required a lot of creative thinking with small groups of saboteurs kept engaging in wars of attrition with each other with very few large attacks usually months apart. Those too would be when absolutely necessary to push an advantage or when facing a charge out and a counter attack by a relieving Force. From what I understand medieval commanders were especially risk averse and cautious because one bad maneuver cold cost them their entire army because it was almost always in close tight lines. I especially learnt of the risk aversion from watching a historical reenactment video on the crusades between Salahudin Ayubbi and King George the lionheart. Both leaders failed to capitalize on hude advantages repeatedly because they were so cautious and had to get their numerous generals and commanders agree with a course of action. Generally sieges were a lot of maneuvering with very few kinetic engagements.

      @BilalKhan-yg9jc@BilalKhan-yg9jc Жыл бұрын
    • @@realstarfarts I think the Afghan and Ukraine wars show that the biggest baddest army doesn't always win.

      @BilalKhan-yg9jc@BilalKhan-yg9jc Жыл бұрын
  • The hidden costs of war, like the tents, is one of the reasons why the art of war was so irregular in most medieval Europe. When examining other cultures of the times, it also explains limitations and choices of tactics and strategies. Eastern Roman armies kept a measure of the old Roman art of war, which included the State providing, if not the equipment outright, at least the right equipment at reduced prices or more normalized quality. It means that Roman soldiers do used tents, since the manuals prescribed shape, size, and how many men used the tents, as with prescriptions on encampments.

    @israeltovar3513@israeltovar3513 Жыл бұрын
    • That's also why even Germans, Arabs, Iranians, and Turks, all enemies of the Roman's, idolized and copied Roman's even centuries after their fall and why well into the modern age Europeans worshiped the Roman's. The Roman's could wage war at a skill level and scale that was unimaginable to most of humanity for centuries if not millennia later and their logistics were key to all of this

      @arthas640@arthas640 Жыл бұрын
    • @@arthas640 Agreed. Only the Ancient Chinese dynasties and some Indian rulers are comparable, and they had more abundant resources and manpower to manage...

      @israeltovar3513@israeltovar3513 Жыл бұрын
    • @@israeltovar3513 that's what always amazes me about the Greeks and Roman's. Of you look at similarly influential empires like various Indian cultures, the Chinese, Iranians, and Egyptians and you'll find super fertile rivers often with massive deltas that were among the most fertile growing regions on earth plus they usually had valuable mines nearby. The greeks though had very poor fields and little in terms of mineral deposits and the Roman's mainly just had the Po valley which isn't particularly valuable and they had to conquer it from other Italian tribes. Despite also having populations that pale in comparison to single _enthic groups_ in china and india the greeks and lster Roman's were able to build empires, develope ideas, and pioneer technologies that were the equal of their eastern contemporaries which is kind of mind boggling. I mean there were greeks building computers and steam engines over 1000 years before the industrial revolution and Roman's were building sewer, water, and road networks that didnt really get eclipsed until the 18th or 19th centuries and were comfortable to those built in China and india despite having populations and resource pools a fraction the size.

      @arthas640@arthas640 Жыл бұрын
    • The byzantine mentality of waging war with no expense spared really bit them hard when fighting the turks post mazinkert.

      @Rayan2Musikahan@Rayan2Musikahan Жыл бұрын
    • @@arthas640 the Song, Tang, and Han Dynasty is the only thing I can imagine that had outpaced the West in terms of technology and civilization to the point that they influenced the rest of Asia for centuries to come. Set aside Persian and the other Indian, Egyptian, and Phoenician civilizations.

      @ousamadearu5960@ousamadearu5960 Жыл бұрын
  • I think the idea of trebuchets firing stuff on fire has two reasons for movies: 1) the audience can see where the object hit 2) it's a super cool idea, even if total nonsense.

    @Sawta@Sawta9 ай бұрын
  • It always bugged me how the walls and towers of minas tirith fell apart like it was made by stacking empty cardboard boxes

    @alsoyes3287@alsoyes3287 Жыл бұрын
    • Because it was?

      @vexile1239@vexile1239 Жыл бұрын
    • Are you aware of the 536ad comet ☄️?

      @tyreza79@tyreza79 Жыл бұрын
    • 👁️Weak m*n stone palisade can't endure the SPECTACULAR URUK BOULDERS 👁️

      @hannibalburgers477@hannibalburgers47710 ай бұрын
  • I have it on very good authority that castle defenders poured hot porridge onto their attackers. Many times, the first batch was too hot, the second batch was too cold, but the third one was just right. This was called the Goldilocks Defense.

    @Falconlibrary@Falconlibrary Жыл бұрын
    • lol

      @captaincrunch6500@captaincrunch6500 Жыл бұрын
  • I want a period drama set in Caesar’s battle of Alesia. “Dude, I figured it out. Another wall!”.

    @napoleonibonaparte7198@napoleonibonaparte7198 Жыл бұрын
    • "You've heard of circumvellation... now... I give you contravellation !" *crowd gasps*

      @Casmaniac@Casmaniac Жыл бұрын
    • @@Stevie-J what if we put a wall inside a wall

      @wilhelmu@wilhelmu Жыл бұрын
    • Mark Antony: "WRITE THAT DOWN, WRITE IT DOWN!"

      @F22onblockland@F22onblockland Жыл бұрын
    • I don't know why people think that bicircumvallation is an invention of Caesar at Alesia. Other Romans had been doing it for centuries. Others were doing it even before the Romans too. The only real "innovation" of the late republic in this regard is the speed at which such field fortifications were built, making them ever more ubiquitous (see Dyrrachium or Philippi for famous examples).

      @QuantumHistorian@QuantumHistorian Жыл бұрын
    • Gaius, this is the seventh battle in a row that you want to build a wall.

      @Yora21@Yora21 Жыл бұрын
  • The word "undermine" comes from the tactic of digging under a castle wall to weaken it.

    @james6401@james640118 күн бұрын
  • I often get the sense in movies that the range and destructive power of trebuchets were exaggerated for the epic effect.

    @brianpeck4035@brianpeck4035 Жыл бұрын
    • Trebuchets indeed, and so many more things...

      @justalonesoul5825@justalonesoul5825 Жыл бұрын
    • It all depends on the size of the trebuchet. The truly monstrous machines built with counterweights could manage 300 metres but they were hellishly expensive and time-consuming to construct and had a very slow rate of fire. The normal size had a range of about fifty metres throwing a 200 pound weight. It's normal however with writers not to make the distinction between machine sizes so the misconception of power occurs. It's like confusing a 155mm howitzer with an 81mm mortar because they're both labelled 'artillery'. As for destructive power, against fortress walls their power is often exaggerated; as this video points out it could take weeks of bombardment to reduce a fortified wall. Against wooden roofs, not so much. Trebuchets could throw much heavier weights than catapults and because their shots came down steeply, they had considerably more kinetic energy. There is however a tendency to treat them like artillery shells. Shells explode and cut men down with shrapnel, and somehow in films the solid shot of catapults and trebuchets has a similar effect. I assume though that's because having men drop down dead intact is less gory than showing them having their limbs torn off or their insides ripped out by the passage of a solid shot.

      @DomWeasel@DomWeasel Жыл бұрын
    • @@DomWeasel "The normal size had a range of about fifty metres" You are quite obviously seriously mistaken. A range of 50 meters is utterly ridiculous : servants would be at distance of being shot by bolts and arrows very easily, bolts and arrows which can go up to 200m. Hell, you could even throw medium rocks at them, at that distance. Thus, minimal range of a correct trebuchet is minum 200m, up to 450 meters. Quite easy to research and verify...

      @justalonesoul5825@justalonesoul5825 Жыл бұрын
    • @@DomWeasel Have you seen what throwing or dropping a rock does to the rock? The rock actually fragments, and fragments are shrapnel!

      @RheaMainz@RheaMainz Жыл бұрын
    • @@RheaMainz On what planet do you live?? Without velocity from an actual explosion, what you dare to call "shrapnel" doesnt do ANY damage at all... The rock fragments where it lands and the fragments are not going anywhere : it's neither a meteorite nor a landmine... Shrapnel is metal in semi-fusion going at high velocity and capable of piercing through you like you were a piece of cardboard...

      @justalonesoul5825@justalonesoul5825 Жыл бұрын
  • Movies fail to depict the importance of having some monks to convert those annoying knights that want to snipe your siege.

    @martinm.6472@martinm.64727 ай бұрын
    • Epic comment 😂

      @tardisthephonebox@tardisthephonebox7 ай бұрын
    • MLB confirmed

      @--SPQR--@--SPQR--6 ай бұрын
    • Or how having a handful of Elite Mangudai garrisoned in a castle for sorties made them siege-weapon-proof.

      @theOGjaaxter@theOGjaaxter6 ай бұрын
    • WOLOLO!

      @changer_of_ways_beep_bop_boop@changer_of_ways_beep_bop_boop5 ай бұрын
  • i love the subtle flex with the animated animals. the channel's presentation is steadily improving, without distracting from the information given

    @apokos8871@apokos8871 Жыл бұрын
  • ''the miners were undermining the walls'' wholesome

    @kommissarantilus3742@kommissarantilus374210 ай бұрын
  • Something to be remembered about castles in the medieval period: while the surviving castles we have (and thus inform our popular imagination) were stone, many castles were made of _wood._ Because it was much easier to build keeps, towers, and walls out of wood. These would then be plastered and white-washed, just like stone fortifications of the same period. Thereby disguising whether the castle was a strong stone fortification, or a weaker wooden one. If historical sources talk about testing walls with siege engines, they could also have been referring to literally seeing if the walls were actually stone, or if they were wood. Or at least, this is what I've heard. Don't quote me on this.

    @Bluecho4@Bluecho4 Жыл бұрын
    • I mean, it does make sense. Stonework is slow and laborious, and therefore expensive. A wooden castle will still provide much of the benefits of a stone one, just with the downside of being easier to break down should an army attack.

      @reaganharder1480@reaganharder1480 Жыл бұрын
    • Actually castles in Western Europe were mostly made of stone. There were some made of wood, but that was mostly geographical thing. Castles in Saxon England, or in the most Rus lands (with the exception of Galich and Pskov) were wooden. But if you go to say Switzerland or Germany fortified houses were made of stone since forever. There are examples of stone castles from 8. or 9. century, making them older than all wooden castles!

      @CharlesOffdensen@CharlesOffdensen Жыл бұрын
    • @@CharlesOffdensen Now, is that because wooden castles were actually uncommon? Or is that simply supposition, based on the absence of evidence of wooden castles? Wood castles, by their nature, do not survive well in the long term. Much less centuries.

      @Bluecho4@Bluecho4 Жыл бұрын
    • @@Bluecho4 There is plenty of evidence of wooden castles. So we can't speak of lack of evidence.

      @CharlesOffdensen@CharlesOffdensen Жыл бұрын
    • highly unlikely that anyone could keep it secret that they had made a castle out of wood, or that the wood would require so few repairs that no one from the area would be aware. what is MUCH more likely is that they couldn't conduct proper geological surveys when designing the foundations. thus a wall built on what later turned out to be bad foundations would be weaker than even the defenders realized. further a critical component is deception. where will the attack come from if the enemy is testing all walls?

      @vidard9863@vidard9863 Жыл бұрын
  • Sudden mention of NordVPN at the time of double wall protection is epic 😂😂

    @muhammadmujtaba611@muhammadmujtaba6119 ай бұрын
    • Haha it got me too

      @user-mw2cu8tx1o@user-mw2cu8tx1o8 ай бұрын
  • As much I know, In the siege of the Fortress of Massada by the romans . The romans built a ramp to bring a siege tower at the level of the walls. Only to find most of the defenders dead .

    @anthonyl.6879@anthonyl.687910 ай бұрын
    • Archeological evidence suggests that most of the people at Masada were hostages, not defenders, and that there was in fact a fight when they got to the top. But because the Sicarii were so few in number, they were easily overwhelmed and unable to force their prisoners to commit suicide. Josephus, writing shortly after the war under the constraints of his patron Vespasian, probably changed the story to make it more appealing to Roman cultural values.

      @SamAronow@SamAronow10 ай бұрын
  • You seem to be branching beyond your previous focus on renaissance pike-and-shot warfare backwards to the medieval period. Have you considered also going a little bit more recent and doing something on Vauban? His name is basically synonymous with siege engineering and it marks a step change in the speed with which sieges were concluded.

    @QuantumHistorian@QuantumHistorian Жыл бұрын
    • Absolutely. We have our star fortress 2.0 video planned for some time but we feel like we already said most of what we would say about Vauban in other videos. The thing with Vauban is that he did not invent as much as people think. Most of what he wrote about was already used. He did make an art of besieging fortresses though, so I'm sure we'll cover him at some point. Same for the 18th century. But generally speaking, branching out takes us lots of time because we need to buy new artwork and create a whole new set of characters. We're still operating with a relatively small budget compared to the big guys like K&G, armchair historian etc. These channels have lots of writers and animators as well. If we want to branch out, we need to think about it twice because it comes with a substantial risk due to the fact that we only release two videos a month. If one or even both of these videos don’t get an average amount of views, we could be in trouble. Especially, since advertisers look at your last few videos when deciding if they work with you and how much their willing to pay.

      @SandRhomanHistory@SandRhomanHistory Жыл бұрын
    • @@SandRhomanHistory Have you done anything on early modern warfare in the Americas? Sieges and battles at Havana, Porto Bello, Jamaica, Quebec, between the French, English, Dutch and Spanish from 1492 to 1713?

      @picklerick8785@picklerick8785 Жыл бұрын
    • @@SandRhomanHistory fascinating look into the behind the scenes business consideraions. have you considered supplementing these big videos with some short non/low animated videos about smaller topics? Might spread the risk abit? but i have no idea what im talking about tbh lol

      @internetenjoyer1044@internetenjoyer1044 Жыл бұрын
    • @@internetenjoyer1044 yeah, we thought about that too. Maybe we‘ll do it at some point. but generally speaking shorter video make less money and we always struggle to keep our texts short because, well… there is always so much to cover.

      @SandRhomanHistory@SandRhomanHistory Жыл бұрын
    • @@picklerick8785 we‘ve not done anything related to the americas as of yet but we‘d like to do that at some point.

      @SandRhomanHistory@SandRhomanHistory Жыл бұрын
  • Food was also difficult for the besieging army to procure locally because whoever was in charge of the city could be expected to commandeer all of the food in the local area, or order its destruction to keep it from falling into enemy hands. So a siege meant a supply train, along with all of the hassles involved in that.

    @disgruntledtoons@disgruntledtoons Жыл бұрын
    • You'd also have nearby villages retreat into the castle to avoid being terrorized by the invading army. Which is...you know...the main reason to build a castle. They'd bring all of their food and stuff with them. This also meant since the attacker had to create and maintain a supply train, they could be raided by allies of the defender. A lot of people making these stories don't really seem to think about why people built these huge, ginormous buildings (that were more like cities, complete with gardens and wells) or why they couldn't be avoided by invaders. They seem to think "Hahaha skyscraper made of stone go boom!"

      @nekrataali@nekrataali Жыл бұрын
  • The reality of sieges is that nearly all of them consisted almost entirely of waiting. Waiting does not make for exciting movies.

    @incurableromantic4006@incurableromantic40067 ай бұрын
  • What?! So that man-at-arms in age of empires destroying a stone wall with just a sword is not real?! The betrayal brother.... :(

    @carlosenriquevallecruz9721@carlosenriquevallecruz97215 ай бұрын
  • I remember seeing that if you didn't surrender once you were forced back to the castle interior, the attackers were going to kill everyone for forcing them into the meat grinder of taking the castle itself.

    @Skyte100@Skyte1006 ай бұрын
  • i was playing empire total war as prussia. i had a breach in my fort walls so i put my cannon on cannister shot and angled them and my line infantry to form up in such a way that when the attackers stormed the hole, they were decimated by cannister and musket volleys

    @ATurkeySandwichGAME@ATurkeySandwichGAME Жыл бұрын
    • Empire's AI is pretty braindead, even when the AI has enough artillery to obliterate your fort, the AI chooses to throw it's army at that the first breach they make

      @ethienosinsky5186@ethienosinsky5186 Жыл бұрын
    • The Turks at The siege of Malta would be proud of that kind of tactic

      @Kruppt808@Kruppt808 Жыл бұрын
    • in Rome Total War I always used Leavy Pikemen at the bottlenecks, always decimated their entire army

      @Nefus1988@Nefus1988 Жыл бұрын
  • Kingdom Come: Deliverance is a very realistic Medieval game, and i remember it had one siege in it, we barely managed to get one trebuchet. It was very underwhelming. And realistic, as i learned now.

    @rainer6736@rainer6736 Жыл бұрын
    • Realism and entertainment value are often at odds with each other. Hell, just the other day the new Top Gun came out and we see dogfighting, tight twists and turns. In real life, you notice a bogey 100 miles out and blast it with a radar homing missile.

      @jaymeister4850@jaymeister4850 Жыл бұрын
    • @@jaymeister4850 the piolets are still drmanding the airforce put guns on their planes to this day. so they must be getting used.

      @robertharris6092@robertharris6092 Жыл бұрын
    • @@robertharris6092 You've heard only a bit of the story. Let me help you out: The F-35A (the Air Force version) has an internal 25mm GAU-22 rotary cannon. The B and C variants (Navy) can only carry a gun on a removable external pod. Reason for the configuration change is weight saving; a carrier plane is heavier than a non-carrier variant and the B version (the VTOL version) has to be kept as light as possible. Most missions flown with the Naval planes (B and C variants) are without a gun, because the external gun undermines the stealth features of the plane. As to why the A variants have a gun and B and C variants have an option for a gun: 1. To eliminate the risk of having a minimum distance to engage for their planes. Missiles don't work over extremely short ranges, guns do. 2. The F-35 will have to perform Close Air Support (CAS) on enemy ground troops and for that, you need a gun. 3. The F-35 is expected to go into enemy controlled airspace. It is entirely possible that a depleted aircraft is damaged and then a gun offers at least a very low level of defense. 4. The Air Force learned some very harsh lessons when they removed the guns from the F4 Phantoms in Vietnam and they are unlikely to repeat their mistakes. As far as to my dogfighting point goes, dogfighting has been replaced by Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat that relies heavily on avionics and low radar observability.

      @jaymeister4850@jaymeister4850 Жыл бұрын
    • @@jaymeister4850 damnnnnnnn 😲😊👍

      @Kruppt808@Kruppt808 Жыл бұрын
    • @@Kruppt808 *blushes* Yeah I geel out heavily

      @jaymeister4850@jaymeister4850 Жыл бұрын
  • The real problem with boiling oil and boiling things in general is keeping them hot. Sieges can last months if not years and you have no way of knowing the time and place of the next attack.

    @PiotrDzialak@PiotrDzialak9 ай бұрын
  • "General Kenobi." "Commander Cody." "The siege goes well. With our continued barrage their shields should be down in 3 months." "But we've been here a month already." "Yes sir, we're right on schedule."

    @IsaiahINRI@IsaiahINRI7 ай бұрын
  • I heard somewhere that hot sand was used which would make so much more sense than oil. Depending on where you are obviously but I mean you could have tons of that stuff and it will get inside armor and stick.

    @CaptBlackjack22@CaptBlackjack227 ай бұрын
    • Also, just good old boiling water.

      @GBHighlands@GBHighlands7 ай бұрын
  • You would think that a castle under siege would be hanging on to any oil it had or even animal fat if it was winter because it is actually a food source.

    @michaeltowler2632@michaeltowler26324 ай бұрын
  • I could have sworn I heard (or read, rather) that, rather than using oil, defenders might utilize boiling water or sand that had been heated to pour onto people trying to climb up siege ladders. I'm not sure how accurate that is though.

    @redbaronflyer8392@redbaronflyer8392 Жыл бұрын
    • it would at least be both cheaper and more available than oil. I can imagine scalding water would be a great deterrence to attackers

      @AeneasGemini@AeneasGemini Жыл бұрын
    • I think Stones do the job Just as good.

      @vinz4066@vinz4066 Жыл бұрын
    • @@vinz4066 liquid can easily penetrate armor, and then the victim has boiling liquid next to his skin and can’t get relief until he gets his armor off. Josephus describes the agony of Roman soldiers doused with boiling oil, and it sounds very nasty.

      @mjfleming319@mjfleming319 Жыл бұрын
    • @@Stevie-J You mean... like... bolts and arrows? Oh wait... =D

      @justalonesoul5825@justalonesoul5825 Жыл бұрын
    • For many sieges, water was too valuable to be used as a weapon. Urine on the other hand... Pouring a cauldron of boiling piss on an attacking force was a great way to make them retreat. Sand however was the norm. Dropping hot sand would work its way into armour and clothing and burn skin but it would also create a cloud of dust which would blind attackers. It's painful enough getting sand in your eye; imagine if it was almost red-hot.

      @DomWeasel@DomWeasel Жыл бұрын
  • Even ironclad's depiction of sapping was inaccurate; pig fat was used to cause the fire, they didn't send in live pigs which are made up of 2/3rds water xD

    @MrMyers758@MrMyers7588 ай бұрын
  • What I've heard is that defenders would more often drop boiling water, or heated sand, on attackers instead of oil. And it makes sense if you think about it - if you have access to plentiful water, then it's pretty damned close to as effective as oil, but much cheaper and available in greater quantities.

    @annominous826@annominous8267 ай бұрын
    • The advantage of oil/fat is that you can get it hotter I think. Like you van get water to 100 degrees, but oil only boils at around 300 degrees, which would be much more painful for a soldier, especially if they only get hit by a small splash

      @hanneswiggenhorn2023@hanneswiggenhorn20237 ай бұрын
    • @@hanneswiggenhorn2023 Certainly, but you can also do that with sand or dirt.

      @annominous826@annominous8267 ай бұрын
  • 5:30 That was such a good transition into an ad i cant even be mad at it.. still gonna skip it though lol

    @POOFAYMANN@POOFAYMANN7 ай бұрын
  • Very nice video. I never considered that siege towers were mainly missile platforms. Guess I played too many Total War games and thought they were based on real things. Anyway, good job!

    @cliffordjensen8725@cliffordjensen8725 Жыл бұрын
    • Yeah, though for older TW games(Rome 1, for example), they also had the missile firing on top, so if you could destroy the towers with artillery, you could use the siege towers to clear the walls of defenders before attacking.

      @ocadioan@ocadioan Жыл бұрын
    • @@ocadioan When you built the great towers, their ballastae could sweep whole sections of wall clean. It was hilarious watching four or five men at a time being shot from the wall top. Not so funny when you were on the receiving end.

      @DomWeasel@DomWeasel Жыл бұрын
  • Vienna.. Wet weather... Lost Canons in the mud... Lots of sicknes... Wall breached (mining) but the City was not captured.

    @reinoldi1097@reinoldi10977 ай бұрын
  • All that being said, what movies are a contenders for most realistic siege scene?

    @Luxington1@Luxington12 ай бұрын
    • From my understanding, the King on Netflix has a very accurate - albeit condensed - siege scene.

      @finlayson6868@finlayson68682 ай бұрын
  • Love how you added the dates for the fictional middle Earth battles lol

    @samreynolds2228@samreynolds22288 ай бұрын
  • I'm quite impressed and inspired by your original graphics. You've clearly spent a lot of work building them and probably pushing the limits of a fairly simple program, which is the kind of technique I myself have always been forced to rely on. What you've accomplished here is amazing!

    @Vinemaple@Vinemaple Жыл бұрын
  • That was really interesting, love it! I never knew they 'pulled' the towers forwards via rings & ropes... I guess even those ropes must have been really expensive to make.

    @JohnDoe-tx8lq@JohnDoe-tx8lq9 ай бұрын
  • Yes and I'm sure you'll address it but the thing a lot of movies and especially video games miss is the sieging army was in most cases more likely to run out of supply before the city did. Most castles I went to had a central court yard that had been used to grow food by the monks in a siege or two. Another thing monks themselves people underestimate their drive to keep people healthy they were the medieval equivalent of doctors without borders 😂

    @austinlowrance5943@austinlowrance59439 ай бұрын
    • Also the attacking army often outnumbered the defending one massively, so they would suck up much more food than the surrounding land could offer

      @hanneswiggenhorn2023@hanneswiggenhorn20237 ай бұрын
    • @@hanneswiggenhorn2023 3 to 1 usually if successful

      @austinlowrance5943@austinlowrance59437 ай бұрын
  • The boiling oil/water/sand thing has always struck me as absurd, its a lot of space, energy and effort to use on a weapon that can only be used once, and is reliant on being i the right place at the right time.

    @mildlyderanged@mildlyderanged9 ай бұрын
    • Use it once, but it would definitely give them something visceral to remember over and over again

      @Thisisahandle701@Thisisahandle7019 ай бұрын
  • It also stands to reason that siege towers were in most cases impractical or even impossible because the ground outside the walls would not have been flat but instead very uneven and sloping downwards in the direction away from the wall.

    @jefflebowski3784@jefflebowski3784 Жыл бұрын
    • Yep, just imagine your pushing a tower forward and suddenly a wheel gets stuck in a hole some defender dug the night before under cover of darkness. Over it goes and hundreds of men + thousands of hours of labor just became another obstacle to keep you from the walls.

      @timburton6774@timburton6774 Жыл бұрын
    • In cases like that you might just flatten the ground. This isn't medieval but at Mesina the Romans just built an entire fucking ramp all the way up to the fortress and then rolled siege towers up it before storming the walls. Medieval people hadn't forgotten how to do earthworks so while they might not quite do something on that scale they would know to like flatten the ground before rolling over it, they'd also be filling in moats, which is why so many of them are empty because just a ditch is a decent bit of defense.

      @hedgehog3180@hedgehog3180 Жыл бұрын
  • I watched the NordVPN section because of how smoothly you placed it in your video. Good job.

    @psychopompous3207@psychopompous3207 Жыл бұрын
  • That smooth transition to an ad.👌

    @Artur_M.@Artur_M. Жыл бұрын
  • 5:00 fighting into a breach is even worse. Having a choke point like this doesn't only mean that you face an equal amount of skilled enemies a la 300. A clever enemy will form a half circle behind the wall around the breach, which means you are surrounded and can be attacked from all sides. At the same time, the outer circle formed by the defenders is bigger than your inner circle, which means more surface area for them, so at any given time, more of their man are fighting, meaning some of the attackers will always have to fight a 1v2 battle

    @hanneswiggenhorn2023@hanneswiggenhorn20237 ай бұрын
    • Stirling Castle had 30 defenders in 1303.

      @pythonprojectsforwindows6795@pythonprojectsforwindows67956 ай бұрын
    • Curtain walls fall like a curtain from tower to tower, unless they are breached slowly from the top. A narrow passage like an open gate is held in front, not behind unless you hold it with artillery.

      @2adamast@2adamast6 ай бұрын
    • @@2adamast well, holding it in front on the other hand will put you at a disadvantage, because it allows your attackers to make use of their numerical advantage and negates most advantages a castle brings you. Can you elaborate why you would do this?

      @hanneswiggenhorn2023@hanneswiggenhorn20236 ай бұрын
    • @@hanneswiggenhorn2023 I believe we lost/forget most secondary structures to castle defense set before the walls. Those are documented in star forts (with infantry position present in front of the wall) and absent in historical or new medieval castles. The whole space in front of the wall must be a choke ground and you get support by the towers. Standing behind the breach there is nothing in your flanks or back.

      @2adamast@2adamast6 ай бұрын
  • I give LOTR a pass, because the whole point is that Sauron uses Zerg tactics and monsteous machines and creatures and highly disposable troops to brute force his way through problems. Most other films, though....

    @Kevin-jb2pv@Kevin-jb2pv7 ай бұрын
    • Pretty much. Still he was pretty stupid for an ancient schemer who nearly took over the world in the past but thats a whole separate thing.

      @colonagray2454@colonagray24547 ай бұрын
    • That’s the point. Trolls can push the towers because they’re big

      @user-ip8fb4kg2n@user-ip8fb4kg2n7 ай бұрын
    • I still kind of hate how thin the walls are. They feel like they are made out of paper and make the city appear to just be weak

      @hanneswiggenhorn2023@hanneswiggenhorn20237 ай бұрын
  • No joke, that was the BEST segue into a sponsorship deal I have ever seen.

    @lunaeek9130@lunaeek9130 Жыл бұрын
  • That whole part about the tents and huts really reminded me of how construction workers will live in small shacks and huts when doing work somewhere far away and remote.. like a mountain maybe.

    @sethleoric2598@sethleoric2598 Жыл бұрын
  • As for the oil, as said below it's more likely boiling water: readily available, much easier to handle, very similar effect. I also once read they'd heat sand, which would then get between armor and cause great pain. As for the effect, it probably wasn't meant to inflict maximum casualties but rather to destroy morale and cause wounded. As we know, wounded are a big burden on the attacker: you have to get them back to camp, treat them, they may spread disease, and others see them, lowering morale. You also can't just leave them to die, as anyone would then think twice before attacking.

    @alistair676@alistair6764 ай бұрын
  • Orcs using siege towers with a ramp does fit their reckless tactics, or lack thereof. They relied on shock and instilling fear to brake their enemy. After all, they did just before launch severed heads into the city.

    @rick7424@rick7424 Жыл бұрын
    • This type of things were done by actual humans, to be fair. Shock&awe + biological warfare before its time. Spread foulness, disease AND terror. We have nothing to learn from literary creatures concerning violence and cruelty. They are based on us....

      @justalonesoul5825@justalonesoul5825 Жыл бұрын
    • they do definitely rely on fear in the book they do other things as well like making a fire burn round the city etc

      @calebr908@calebr908 Жыл бұрын
    • as distasteful it is to a modern populace, terror does work well in war. The easiest siege you'll ever do is one where you can just scare the defenders into surrender.

      @voodoodummie@voodoodummie Жыл бұрын
    • The orcs also have trolls to push their towers forward.

      @DomWeasel@DomWeasel Жыл бұрын
    • @@voodoodummie Mongols also used biological warfare. In cause a city didnt surrender and they managed to enter it then damn that's a bad luck day, week, month, year, years or the quickest route just death.

      @ivokantarski6220@ivokantarski6220 Жыл бұрын
  • The part about oil really annoys me. Olive oil has several types of quality to it with different types of olives used for cooking oil or lantern oil. Pouring boiling water is what's a real fantasy.

    @jwb_666@jwb_66610 ай бұрын
  • Nice video man thanks. I agree all the points you made in the video except one; tent cities. This may not be true for Medieval Europe but it was true for Asia originated states. They were using tents when they lay siege. An example is the Siege of Constantinople in 1453. It is clearly stated in the chronicles of both Roman and Ottoman that where the Mehmed II put his otag/ordugah which was a literal tent city. Also, we have accounts from European travelers who saw these tents. On the Ottoman miniature paintings you can see those tents portrayed. Also, you can see some of those tents in the museums of Germany and Austria gathered from the 2nd siege of Vienna. You might say that those are belong to high ranking officials yes that is true but it is because they were the prettiest ones so they wanted to keep them. In addition, soldiers having tents in Ottoman Empire or any other Turkic or Mongolic states was not a rare thing because it was part of their life even after they settled down.

    @furkanonal8@furkanonal8 Жыл бұрын
    • before the battle of guagamela Persian army slept outside the camp because they afread of night attack by the Macedonian

      @secario2135@secario2135 Жыл бұрын
  • A couple copulating at 6m49s certainly adds to our understanding of camp life.

    @jerryzak1206@jerryzak12067 ай бұрын
    • Not the most historically inaccurate thing, some sieges went for months/years and small cities grew up around the siege camp, with female company being a highly priced commodity among a group of thousands of lonely young men.

      @GBHighlands@GBHighlands7 ай бұрын
  • The illustrations and animation is absolutely fantastic, I love this.

    @PeterTheFrog@PeterTheFrog Жыл бұрын
  • Hot oil and various highly useful items thrown down murder holes I have massive doubts of. Calories were preserved. Just ask if it's a valuable resource in a siege and you will have your answer. Pitch, maybe if there was an excess I think would be used in conjunction with straw to choke and burn the enemy would be vastly more useful - oil and rocks would make armoured men struggle for balance and footing and break up formations. Excrement could be saved and boiled for this purpose but it would only provide a moderate long-term obstacle. Caltrops I think would be obligatory! but 3-4 people with simple crossbows with 5-6 people reloading for each of them would be incredibly effective against helmets and armour while providing excellent cover, brilliant ammunition use/accuracy and armour penetration/point blank range.

    @christopherberry8519@christopherberry851910 ай бұрын
    • Tbh in most cases stones from a hight of 10-15 meters would deal quite some harm to an armoured soldier, in most cases more then arrows, but still got outclassed by bolts from crossbows. But until crossbows were widely available and used most heavily armoured troops got taken out by blunt force trauma, as it didn’t need to penetrate to cause injury to the person it hit.

      @tehnosan5769@tehnosan576910 ай бұрын
    • ​@@tehnosan5769 yeah still aint feeling good getting hit by 150+ pound warbows no matter how much armor you have

      @serlistogiette4168@serlistogiette416810 ай бұрын
  • This was great! It's been so cool watching this channel grow, without a doubt.

    @jsoth2675@jsoth2675 Жыл бұрын
  • Hmm... no wonder Sun Tzu wrote that sieges are to be avoided whenever possible in his Art of War book.

    @subjectstigma2473@subjectstigma24736 ай бұрын
    • you remember it huh, that book just one page with a few words and sun tzu think its done, not even explain it to the reader and make an example lol

      @muhammadkevinsamudra@muhammadkevinsamudra6 ай бұрын
    • that says nothing about Medieval strategy as a whole though, I mean if you think Medieval wars in europe its mostly sieges. That's what the Western Way of Warfare is largely known for.

      @GuineaPigEveryday@GuineaPigEveryday5 ай бұрын
  • Reports of the siege of Odawara in 1590 seem to indicate the besiegers having a large party outside the castle for weeks on end. Though the strategic circumstances of that siege were unique, as it was effectively the last stronghold the attackers needed to take for Japan's unification so the defenders had nothing else to rely on to save them.

    @tenchimuyo69@tenchimuyo697 ай бұрын
    • Party as in "Chug bloody Maries all night" or party as in "Group of people"

      @TDOPB@TDOPB6 ай бұрын
    • @@TDOPB Definitely a lot of drinking, dancing women, and non-combat related entertainment of that nature, even plays. The men defending the castle didn't have as much fun. A good example of a siege that was more intense would be Osaka, which was around 24 years later in 1614. If by intense, I mean the attacking army actually putting in serious effort and care into what they were doing.

      @tenchimuyo69@tenchimuyo696 ай бұрын
  • That was hands down the best way to begin an advert for Nord VPN. Well played sir.

    @phantom-lab@phantom-lab Жыл бұрын
  • #7: walls can be destroyed with swords and arrows (Age of Empires)

    @istvansipos9940@istvansipos9940 Жыл бұрын
    • dont forget the invent torches

      @weirdfunnyvideos1289@weirdfunnyvideos1289 Жыл бұрын
    • Spanish villagers with supremacy and sappers be like:

      @marvinlalandos773@marvinlalandos773 Жыл бұрын
  • Every time I watched siege movie, I always scream "Where the trenches?", Heck even a mythology movie Wrath of Titan still make sense when they have trenches

    @nguyensonbinh8621@nguyensonbinh8621 Жыл бұрын
    • Trenches are overrated as we saw in WW1. They were totally useless. Just look at how many ppl died then. ;) I agree, if you want to "deliver" troops to the walls, you don't let them walk over a plain field to be shot to shit. But that's not artistic enough and produces way too few casualties for the viewer.

      @etuanno@etuanno Жыл бұрын
    • @@etuanno the main casualties during medieval age up to Napoleon age wasn't during warfare, but rather diseases and plagues. Both offensive and defensive, face the same situation, however the offensive usually face more problems since they need logistics and manpowers (3-1) to take down defencers

      @nguyensonbinh8621@nguyensonbinh8621 Жыл бұрын
    • @@etuanno In what way are trenches useless? What a mind boggling thing to say,

      @argon2423@argon2423 Жыл бұрын
    • @@argon2423 the wonky face implies that it’s a joke dude

      @juwebles4352@juwebles4352 Жыл бұрын
    • @@argon2423 If you would've read my full comment, you'd understand I was joking.

      @etuanno@etuanno Жыл бұрын
  • SO MANY questions answered! Thanks for uploading! 11:36 I always wondered about this! It always seemed too risky to just "push" it up to the walls!

    @loszhor@loszhor Жыл бұрын
  • But, the most important thing... Where are the ditches!?!?

    @VinnieG-@VinnieG-7 ай бұрын
  • Seems like the benefit of a breech is diverting the attention of the defenders. They would have to pull people and resources from other areas to fortify the breech, even if it seems like the attackers aren't making a full push toward it.

    @Fakan@Fakan6 ай бұрын
  • 4:25 The seventeenth-century siege of Clonmel is a pretty famous example of how dangerous it could be to assault through the natural chokepoint created by a single breach. Cromwell was under time pressure so he decided to speedrun the siege: that didn't work out particularly well for his Ironsides. en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Clonmel&oldid=1080559560#Assault

    @leocomerford@leocomerford Жыл бұрын
    • Good read, much thanks for this.

      @GG-bw3uz@GG-bw3uz Жыл бұрын
    • Scaling a breach was deadly for anyone attempting it, in the British Army such units assigned to this duty were called "The Forlorn Hope"

      @coinneachreid8971@coinneachreid8971 Жыл бұрын
    • @@coinneachreid8971 The 'Forlorn Hope' from the Dutch 'verloren hoop' were the vanguard of assault force; not the entire force. Their job was to spring the traps waiting for them and clear the way for the rest of the attackers and 50% casualties was the norm for them.

      @DomWeasel@DomWeasel Жыл бұрын
    • @@DomWeasel And instant promotion for the officer in command if he survived (which they didnt often)

      @coinneachreid8971@coinneachreid8971 Жыл бұрын
    • 20-30 casualties vs 2,000 casualties Sometimes patience really is a virtue

      @highadmiraljt5853@highadmiraljt5853 Жыл бұрын
  • I don't think I have ever seen a movie that depicted the use of battering rams against stonewalls...

    @andyarken7906@andyarken79066 ай бұрын
  • Trebuchets were used to hurl stuff OVER the wall, or to destroy wooden walls. They were common in the Rus lands for example, but you could find them everywhere. Trebuchets were also used by defenders. The defenses that the attackers had to build were not made of stone, but of wood and earth, so the trebuchets could be effective against those.

    @CharlesOffdensen@CharlesOffdensen Жыл бұрын
  • Hello. Have been an admirer and subscriber for long. Can you guys do a video on the preparation it took to launch a campaign including multiple seiges, raiding and a few lucky battles. Meaning arrangement of funds, troops, arms etc

    @ManpreetSingh-it3ij@ManpreetSingh-it3ij Жыл бұрын
    • They did one on preparing for a campaign already it was pretty interesting I forget what it's title is tho

      @harleydavidson1014@harleydavidson1014 Жыл бұрын
  • I love KCD military campments, most soldiers sleeping on the floor covered by a simple cloth roof, and straw in the floor in which they did sleep.

    @HazardRoz@HazardRoz10 ай бұрын
  • Another thing left out of film sieges is counter battery fire. Just like today, siege weapons faced the risk of being destroyed by enemy siege engines, however, counter battery does not necessarily need to destroy enemy artillery, it can also suppress enemy fire, giving the defenders or attackers time for other strategic roles. Siege weapons during the middle ages were not static, but when they were, would be entrenched or barricaded by palisades, in order to conceal the weapon's position, and to shield siege weapons from counter battery or infantry sorties.

    @Fusilier7@Fusilier76 ай бұрын
    • The use of "fire" when referring to missile weapons that aren't using, you know, fire, is also a common inaccuracy. People using bows should say "loose."

      @Zetact_@Zetact_6 ай бұрын
  • It would be awesome if we got more media depictions of Roman sieges. Just imagine Caesar's siege of Alesia or the siege of Jerusalem on the big screen?

    @matthewhousham7283@matthewhousham7283 Жыл бұрын
  • Great job as always

    @jaronzennaiter@jaronzennaiter Жыл бұрын
  • Lol gr8 ad placement

    @dgjFOURlife@dgjFOURlife8 ай бұрын
  • Thanks so much for clearing this up and bring truth❤

    @m.wagner7008@m.wagner70086 ай бұрын
  • i was so focused and all of a sudden you brought up NordVPN i was like damn i didnt know they have that back in the days

    @ZekuChanU@ZekuChanU Жыл бұрын
  • Great video, it's one thing seeing medieval seiges in games and films and another seeing historical evidence for how it happened

    @RiceNinja93@RiceNinja93 Жыл бұрын
  • According to Konungs skuggsjá (c. 1250), Chapter XXXIX Military Engines, pitch and sulphur or tar should be thrown down on siege engines following a red-hot plowshare. "þar skal ok fygja bik ok brennusteinn, eða elligar veld tjara." "There shall also follow pitch and sulphur (lit: burningstone or brimstone), or otherwise chose tar." (direct translation)

    @eirikronaldfossheim@eirikronaldfossheim Жыл бұрын
    • Edit: "þar skal ok fylgja bik ok brennusteinn, eða elligar veld tjara."

      @eirikronaldfossheim@eirikronaldfossheim Жыл бұрын
    • @@Stevie-J Konungs skuggsjá is a conversation between son and father on what to do an how to behave etc. It's one of the most reliable sources we have on what they actually did in the period since it's aimed at the King himself.

      @eirikronaldfossheim@eirikronaldfossheim Жыл бұрын
  • I like the way Mount and blade handles seiges. Long, tiring battles that are meant to exhaust the cities resources while maintaining your armies supplies and morale. Yes the games have an action sequence you can play to help weaken the fortress's, but the most effective way to capture them was to starve the people and have them surrender

    @WizeGuyz2023@WizeGuyz20235 ай бұрын
    • In mount and blade if you try a siege instead of assault, a doomstack of 15 enemy lords will appear. If you deal with that, they just respawn with full army and come back for round 2.

      @AmraithNR@AmraithNR5 ай бұрын
    • ​@@AmraithNRIt's annoying as hell, especially if you need siege towers that makes you wait until 3-4 days and let the enemy Lords to assist the castle.

      @druzhcniq0749@druzhcniq07492 ай бұрын
  • I find myself checking for your videos daily. Thank you.

    @jakehopkinson2031@jakehopkinson2031 Жыл бұрын
  • I gotta say your transition to ads behind the breached wall did caught me by surprise and I'm not even mad.

    @RichterBelmont2235@RichterBelmont2235 Жыл бұрын
  • There's an important difference between besieging a castle and storming it. A siege is designed to cut off the castle from the outside world and starve it of resources. If the siege is not relieved by the arrival of reinforcements, then eventually the garrison has to surrender. Storming the castle is a more active and risky approach. That is the bit where the attackers try to enter through a combination of speed and weight of numbers, using ladders, rams and so on.

    @mikefule330@mikefule330 Жыл бұрын
    • Not necessarily. A siege is a military operation designed to capture a castle/city/fortress. You can try to capture it by starvation, storm, treachery, or attrition, but those are all tactics to successfully complete the siege.

      @terry7907@terry7907 Жыл бұрын
    • In sieges, besiegers storms the city until it fell. In blockades, blockaders try to starve defenders. Sieges are far more common than Blockades in history.

      @Asterix958@Asterix958 Жыл бұрын
    • There are actually a few cases or sieges lasting years or even decades because the besieged were able resupply by sea

      @kokofan50@kokofan50 Жыл бұрын
    • @@Asterix958 no sieges are just laying a castle under siege most castles are citys were taken by starvation

      @shadowlord1418@shadowlord1418 Жыл бұрын
    • @@shadowlord1418 Your saying somewhat true. In sieges, besiegers storm cities or castles (castles can suffer starvation just like cities) periodically. If these offensives become unsuccessful, siege prolong and starvation become factor for surrender. Guy I replied claim that Besiegers don't attack castles or cities which is totally false. Capitulating due to starvation is probably least common surrender of castles. Most common reason for surrender is that defenders don't expect or trust relief army to come and save them from besiegers, thus, they surrender castle in exchange of leaving castle with their familly and money. Second common way of city fall is repeated besieger assaults as I mentioned above. Surrendering due ro starvation is very rare in siege history comparing to direct capitulation and capturing by assault.

      @Asterix958@Asterix958 Жыл бұрын
  • Josephus clearly described the use of hot oil in Jotapata in 68 ad. And it is contemporary eyewitness description. However, that was not middle ages event

    @zurababayev8397@zurababayev83979 ай бұрын
  • I recognize those Inkarnate stamps anywhere! lol... Didn't know it could be used to animate stuff like this.

    @sasquatchredbeard9385@sasquatchredbeard93853 ай бұрын
  • Thank you for this video! Lots of new information I did not know about before. About the point the expert said that they didn't use hot oil, I think he also said that boiling water would have done the same. I find it hard to believe they didn't use anything flammable in the aid of defence. You could easily burn ladders and stuff aswell

    @Gaming4Justice@Gaming4Justice Жыл бұрын
    • It's actually quite hard to set most things on fire. Ever tried to burn wet wood?

      @somebod8703@somebod8703 Жыл бұрын
  • Loved the adition of animals in the scenes. Amazing content as always, ty for the vid

    @rogeransaloni2035@rogeransaloni2035 Жыл бұрын
  • The battle for cities in Lord of the Rings are actually pretty realistic for assaults on the walls. When those attacks fail or the army doesn’t have the means for them in the first place is when a beseiging force settles in for the long haul, provided their supply lines are secure.

    @midgetydeath@midgetydeath Жыл бұрын
  • Another issue with going hunting, You could run into an issue where men would get rabbit sickness. I can't remember the exact term for it,. But it's when you have A diet with sufficient protein but insufficient everything else, And you feel constantly hungry. A man who is under the impression that he's starving even when he's fed fairly well will be a very poor workman, soldier, and guard.

    @QueenAleenaFan@QueenAleenaFan10 ай бұрын
    • I think its called protein sickness, and this is due to the lack of fat, rabbits are very very low in fat or maybe no fat at all so rabbit meat is most likely used as a sort of additional piece of meat through into a cooking pot along with a few other things to be fed to teh soldiers.

      @Tucher97@Tucher9710 ай бұрын
  • This reminds me about how the ramparts of Vienna were breached by the Ottomans but the defenders pushed them back as they were lucky that the guards were changing shift at the time

    @Nostripe361@Nostripe361 Жыл бұрын
  • *THE biggest misconception is that people think “siege” means storm, an active assault.* The word actually means sitting. Nothing happens at all: you just wait until the besieged surrender. Anything proactive rarely happens.

    @tatianaes3354@tatianaes33547 ай бұрын
    • Yup a city ounce declared they had food for 10 years. The romans yelled back so we wait for 11 years. so the city did surrender @ ounce

      @ronald3148@ronald31487 ай бұрын
    • @@ronald3148there was once a siege where the defenders flung pigs over the walls at the invaders because they literally had more than enough food and so the invaders gave up

      @nothanks9503@nothanks95037 ай бұрын
    • @@ronald3148 To be fair to those defenders; if anyone could keep a siege going for 11 years, and be stubborn enough to actually do it, it was the Romans.

      @Cyrus_T_Laserpunch@Cyrus_T_Laserpunch6 ай бұрын
  • It's interesting to see the resemblance with modern warfare where there are no walls to breach but the defenders have narrow streets in which they can also deploy gunners and create barricades thus making battles equally difficult. The enemy no longer has to break through thick walls but they must break through tough defenses in narrow spaces. The same as when walls were breached. It's curious to see the way warfare slowly changes in World's History

    @tomascostanzo3673@tomascostanzo3673 Жыл бұрын
  • meanwhile my engineers in stronghold crusader: "OIL AWAYYYY"

    @tugrulserhat@tugrulserhat5 ай бұрын
    • HERE COMES BESSIE!

      @HrHaakon@HrHaakon5 ай бұрын
    • @@HrHaakonwood needed

      @KingKingsley@KingKingsley5 ай бұрын
    • Fuck I love stronghold

      @KingKingsley@KingKingsley5 ай бұрын
  • that sponsor segway was so clean.

    @micklenier6152@micklenier61525 ай бұрын
  • What's also not depicted in movies is the building of ramps. Sieges could take months and the sieging army often just built big ramps (literally just shoveling dirt in front of the wall until they got a hill as high as the wall), while the defenders tried to tear it down or increase the height of the walls.

    @B20C0@B20C05 ай бұрын
  • The main misconception is that people think sieges are simply the preparation stage of storming/attacking a castle. While the main reason for a siege is to starve out the enemy and make them surrender. If you eventually decide to attack the enemy, of course it will also be a lot weaker. Most probing attacks are destined to fail, no matter if your force is 10 times the size of the defenders force. That’s the point of medieval fortifications in the first place, numbers mostly don’t matter. Some castles are actually easier to hold with less people, because your supplies will go further. Often sieges are complimented by a sea or river blockade to make sure re-supply doesn’t matter. Later on this changed, when castles and medieval fortresses became a lot easier to penetrate (cannons, tunnels with explosives, etc.) and eventually useless (artillery).

    @81Earthangel@81Earthangel10 ай бұрын
  • "Pour the boiling oil!" *grabs the cauldron with his bare hands*

    @righteousviking@righteousviking Жыл бұрын
    • That's not even a historical inaccuracy that's just some very basic knowledge everyone should have.

      @hedgehog3180@hedgehog3180 Жыл бұрын
  • Concerning the hot oil, i was told once (during a castle visit) that men were more likely to use hot sand than oil since it is very very very cheaper and still it can infiltrate the enemy's armor

    @basilegilquin7234@basilegilquin7234 Жыл бұрын
KZhead