I would imagine castles like that were rarely captured but by the same token, castles like that were likely not valuable targets anyways. Its a souble edged sword, if you want to fortify a valuable piece of land, you effectively make it more open to attack
I don't need supply lines because I'm not going to stay for long in your land. I will kill, steal and eat from the food the farmers have and then leave.
It was very difficult which is why they usually just tried to starve them out. The Cathars in Montsegur held out for about nine months with only a hundred men against several thousand. Stirling Castle in Scotland held out against the English for months with only like 30 guys.
It always amazes me how these castles were built. I mean getting all that stone and mortar up on a pretty much 90 degree angle 10 meters in the air is one thing, but then making it into a structure that doesnt immediately collapse from a gust of wind is truly fascinating. That thing is probably centuries old and has mostly survived many earthquakes that shatter modern commercial apartments like jengos, crazy stuff. We give medieval people way less credit than they are due
It's not that hard actually, you'd be surprised by how much exertion a man can endure.
The Dolomites are full of WW1 structures and infrastructure. Men had to scale entire mountains with 30 kilos backpacks to create the first ferrate.
You build very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very high siege engines and/or use very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very long spears to jab at the battlements.
The main purposes of these castles were to protect the lord from uprisings, protect at least some of the harvest from raids, and to give the lord some leverage in disputes with the king/other lords. They certainly have weaknesses as other posters have pointed out, but both starving a castle out and taking it with siege equipment were lengthy, resource intensive affairs, and if you're not some itinerant raider pillaging the countryside is often counter productive in the long term.
This. The castle itself is an asset. It's basically just a bunker, you and your prized boys can retreat to the bunker if you are under a significant assault, and the bunker can be well stocked so that even if there is little direct risk to the invader if they just want to sit outside for months, there is a price. They have to pay for the loyalty of their siege army during that time, and of course their time spent there sieging your castle could open them to attack from other enemies elsewhere.
So it is an asset is several directions. It allows you to offer key people some baseline protection from enemies, they can come hide in your castle with you, which could increase their loyalty to you. It also gives you leverage in disputes, because the enemy may know that even if it could mop you up in a straight fight it isn't going to get to have a straight fight. It's going to have to siege you and your boys out of your stupid castle. But you really don't want to end up stuck in the castle in an actual war because you probably will get sieged out. It's more about negotiations on things outside of actual war. The castle really is as weak as it appears, you just siege it. There are just costs to sieging it.
>sire Bertranus Lecul of the Duchy of Pipi, with his 288 levied peasants
vs >legatus Sextus Indus Anus of Rome, with his 28000 men and 12000 auxiliaries
I can understand why one force used basic siege engines and a protracted siege and one did not and instead used its number to assemble engineered war constructs and dissuaded raiding from the fortress
>Captures all the land around it and starves everyone inside while repelling clumsy attempts to sally out down what is probably a long and narrow path that puts your entire force at risk the entire way
Nothing personal kid.
I would imagine castles like that were rarely captured but by the same token, castles like that were likely not valuable targets anyways. Its a souble edged sword, if you want to fortify a valuable piece of land, you effectively make it more open to attack
Surrond them in order to starve them out. Built a trebuchet to launch shit (literally) into the castle.
But most importantly: just negotiate.
This. Rarely do such imposing natural features lie near important roads & infrastructure.
The king and his family hides there while I steal and burn all his land...
>Cuts off your supply lines from behind
Nothing personal, kid
I don't need supply lines because I'm not going to stay for long in your land. I will kill, steal and eat from the food the farmers have and then leave.
While you are looking from your stupid castle.
It was very difficult which is why they usually just tried to starve them out. The Cathars in Montsegur held out for about nine months with only a hundred men against several thousand. Stirling Castle in Scotland held out against the English for months with only like 30 guys.
Aficionados...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Numantia
It lasted for 16 months against 20.000 roman soldiers from 7 different campaments.
"All defenders killed by their own hand
Whole city destroyed"
Ironically enough the Romans liked them more for their tenacity and unwillingness to surrender. Something something similarities
It always amazes me how these castles were built. I mean getting all that stone and mortar up on a pretty much 90 degree angle 10 meters in the air is one thing, but then making it into a structure that doesnt immediately collapse from a gust of wind is truly fascinating. That thing is probably centuries old and has mostly survived many earthquakes that shatter modern commercial apartments like jengos, crazy stuff. We give medieval people way less credit than they are due
It's not that hard actually, you'd be surprised by how much exertion a man can endure.
The Dolomites are full of WW1 structures and infrastructure. Men had to scale entire mountains with 30 kilos backpacks to create the first ferrate.
>it's not that hard, it's just grueling torment for a handful of disposable men
Easy; wait until it rains and then shoot your fire arrows.
You build very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very high siege engines and/or use very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very long spears to jab at the battlements.
The main purposes of these castles were to protect the lord from uprisings, protect at least some of the harvest from raids, and to give the lord some leverage in disputes with the king/other lords. They certainly have weaknesses as other posters have pointed out, but both starving a castle out and taking it with siege equipment were lengthy, resource intensive affairs, and if you're not some itinerant raider pillaging the countryside is often counter productive in the long term.
This. The castle itself is an asset. It's basically just a bunker, you and your prized boys can retreat to the bunker if you are under a significant assault, and the bunker can be well stocked so that even if there is little direct risk to the invader if they just want to sit outside for months, there is a price. They have to pay for the loyalty of their siege army during that time, and of course their time spent there sieging your castle could open them to attack from other enemies elsewhere.
So it is an asset is several directions. It allows you to offer key people some baseline protection from enemies, they can come hide in your castle with you, which could increase their loyalty to you. It also gives you leverage in disputes, because the enemy may know that even if it could mop you up in a straight fight it isn't going to get to have a straight fight. It's going to have to siege you and your boys out of your stupid castle. But you really don't want to end up stuck in the castle in an actual war because you probably will get sieged out. It's more about negotiations on things outside of actual war. The castle really is as weak as it appears, you just siege it. There are just costs to sieging it.
surround it and starve everyone out
Only the Romans had the balls to actually siege fortifications like that. Just build a giant ramp out of earth lol.
correction, they had the numbers to do so
>sire Bertranus Lecul of the Duchy of Pipi, with his 288 levied peasants
vs
>legatus Sextus Indus Anus of Rome, with his 28000 men and 12000 auxiliaries
I can understand why one force used basic siege engines and a protracted siege and one did not and instead used its number to assemble engineered war constructs and dissuaded raiding from the fortress
>Captures all the land around it and starves everyone inside while repelling clumsy attempts to sally out down what is probably a long and narrow path that puts your entire force at risk the entire way
Nothing personal kid.