Re: History Channel International: Lost Castles of England


<am05@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c333d537-d8bd-4c36-be98-7a90504ca9cd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 9, 1:08 pm, "Uwe Müller" <uwemuel...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<a...@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im
Newsbeitragnews:6600bf53-10fe-406f-891d-ecd58e61587a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 9, 10:10 am, "Uwe Müller" <uwemuel...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





<a...@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im
Newsbeitragnews:f5cea4b1-d74b-44e5-93a4-f24e4650b4b1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 9, 1:50 am, "Uwe Müller" <uwemuel...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@xxxxxxx> schrieb im
Newsbeitragnews:cPednfMl3byMaGbanZ2dnUVZ_ommnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx

"erilar" <dra...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:drache-DB2904.16503308042008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <hc2dnVadx9MSIGbanZ2dnUVZ_vOln...@xxxxxxx>,
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

i'll wager many were canibalized by the locals for wood to be
used
in
useful
buildings.

I don't know how much wood would be that reusable, but that
certainly
happened to plenty of stone castles.

--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex:http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo

a wooden palisade would ptovide a lot of nice beams.

If the palisade had been standing only a few years, maybe. After that
the
wood would have started to rot, you would not have wanted to use it
for
any
constructive parts. And you can't split just any trunk, it would have
to
be
a from straight grown tree.

So the question would rather be, how much of a central authority was
there,
to keep people from building defenses from local ressources, and how
much
timber was there, to cut and work into denfensive works.

And how effective these defences would be against a 'prevalent' enemy
in any particular time and place.

UM. You should have read to the end. Caesar had lot's of trouble dealing
with walls made from timber and stones.

Perhaps Ceasar did but the Mongols quite clearly did not. This is why
I put 'in any particular time and place'.

Strictly speaking, they were only marginally effective (if at all)
even during the pre-Mongolian times: Andrew Bogolubsky took Kiev by
storm and Kiev supposedly had very good wood and stone defenses (as I
understand, authenticity of the reconstruction of the Golden Gates and
fragment of the wall is not beyond the doubts). But this aside, the
Mongols took numerous fortified towns of the Central Russia in a
signle winter campaign (Ryazan - 6 days, Vladimir - 3, etc.).

UM: The iron age constructions were put on hill tops, and took a really
determined besieger to destroy. Anyhow, bribes and hunger seem to be the
most effective weapons against defences.

Well, in the specific cases I was talking about neither bribes nor
hunger played a noticeable role.

OTOH, when much earlier the troops of the Great Prince Vladimir of
Kiev (St. Vladimir) besieged Byzantian town (with the stone walls,
AFAIK) in the Crimea, it did take an inside job to force it to
capitulate. Of course, the Russians of late X century were well behind
the Mongols of XIII in their siegecraft.



Fortified towns could be a different case, because there were only a few
proffesionel defenders and a long stretch of fortifications to guard. The
walls were manned by guilds and neighbourhood militias. Their interests
might not have conincided with that of the owner of the town.

Again, not relevant in the specific case I'm talking about: interests
of the city militias were the same as those of their rulers (withstand
Mongolian assault).

Of course, there were numerous cases when militia was fighting against
its prince. IIRC, history of Novgorodian Republic was full of such
cases.




The same goes for the most of the usual small and poorly manned wooden
castles.

Not too much in the terms of 'militia' in these cases. :-)

They'd give you an edge on a smal raiding party. Full stop.

Indeed.






Over here the height of of defenses was restricted (as high as a man
sitting
on a horse could reach with his sword), and slawic timber
constructions
had
no problems reaching equal or greater heights.

But besides the height you also had to deal with thickness, which was
limited for the purely wooden constructions.

UM: Over here purely wooden defences were late, because they were
ineffective against anything but animals and raiders. They used timber
and
earth or timber and stone. You can make them as thick as 20 m and reach
heights of 6 - 8 m. But then they had oak to build with, which, when
seasoned, does not catch fire easily.

Well, AFAIK, in the Medieval Russia construction of the wooden
defenses varied depending on many factors and they ranged from a
simple palisade ("chastokol") all the way to the complicated stone/
earth/wood defenses. Even these advanced combinations proved to be
inefficient during the Mongolian invasion. However, stone construction
was too expensive to be widely affordable and it took quite a while
(at least two centuries) to build stone walls at least for the major
Russian fortifications (earthworks and wood remained in use for the
minor ones well into XVIII).

UM: The western slavic people
here

Can you please specify the region you are talking about? I may guess
what do you have in mind but guesses are, quite often, wrong. Are you
talking about the areas of modern Pomerania?

UM: Pommerania, Mecklenburg, eastern Schleswig Holstein and Brandenburg,
roughly the area between the rivers Elbe and Oder

had built highly efficient, thick walled
fortifications out of wood and earth, and had the people homes and farms
outside. They would man the walls in time of need. That prooved to be all
right against most cases of direct assault.


Well, a "typical" (AFAIK) arrangement in the Medieval Russia (as far
as 'one size fits all' is applicable) was a little bit different: most
of the settlements (vegetable gardens including) were within the city
walls and, quite often, there was a citadel, "kremlin" inside the
city. Prince and at least some members of aristocracy would live
inside the "kremlin" (in the Kremlin of Moscow residences of some top
aristocratic families existed probably until X V - XVI). Quite often
there were settlements outside the walls ('slobodi'). In many cases
city defenses had been strenghtened by the fortified monasteries
located outside city walls. In Moscow quite a few of them survived,
some with very impressive fortifications (changed from wood to stone
in XV - XVI).

UM: I would call them castles not cities. They have been called early towns
or pre-urban settlements, it all depends on definitions. The bigger ones
have provided typical urban functions and living space for the inhabitants,
the smaller ones might have been occupied by only a few people, except in
times of need.




Amphibian landing operations took some, most fell after negotiations. Only
a
few were ever besieged and stormed.

Well, this was different from Russia. During the 'wooden period'
sieges were a commonplace and even in more recent times they happened
quite often, especially on the disputed territories (for example,
border between Russia and Lithuania/Poland).

Not to much in the terms of amphibian operations because most of the
territory was safely landlocked.

UM: The interested parties here thought the area to be nice in a strategic
sense, but not imoportant enough to take risks for elsewhere. So longer and
well planned campaigns from the outside were rare. Pay the oposition,
increase factions in the communities, 'safeguard' heires and heiresses, that
sort of thing was common. And raids.


The difference may also have to do with the wood used, resinous trees,
pine
and fir, can easily be burned.

Oak was a widely available tree in the Central Rus and probably in the
Southern (modern Ukraine) as well.

UM: Than why could the Mongols take the wooden defences so easily? What did
they do, that hadn't been thought off before?

And with the surrounding countryside. Over
here, dense woods and a multitude of small rivers, lakes and bogs made it
hard for any bigger army to move.

I'd say that this can pass as a typical countryside of the Central
Russia. This was one of the main reasons why the Mongols launched a
winter campaign of conquest: the rivers turned into the roads.

UM: So they were used or better adapted to the weather than the locals or
what?


Still, the attackers from the west
succeeded in the end.

They most definitely did.

UM: Mecklenburg and Pommerania were integrated with their local power
structures more or less intact. And as there seems to be a high percentage
of 'unusual' burials too, they seem to have been won over for the empire
and the true belief only on the outside.

have fun

Uwe Mueller



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: History Channel International: Lost Castles of England
    ... storm and Kiev supposedly had very good wood and stone defenses (as I ... Kiev besieged Byzantian town (with the stone walls, ... Well, AFAIK, in the Medieval Russia construction of the wooden ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: History Channel International: Lost Castles of England
    ... timber was there, to cut and work into denfensive works. ... storm and Kiev supposedly had very good wood and stone defenses (as I ... walls were manned by guilds and neighbourhood militias. ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: The Most Modern View on the Dark Ages :-)
    ... definitions of chain armour when archeological evidence indicates two at ... (e.g.,barbarians didn't build in stone because they "believed in the ... The same goes for Medieval Russia: both wood and stone had been widely ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: History Channel International: Lost Castles of England
    ... storm and Kiev supposedly had very good wood and stone defenses (as I ... Well, AFAIK, in the Medieval Russia construction of the wooden ... apply this particular trick to the specifics of the Mongolian Winter ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: History Channel International: Lost Castles of England
    ... storm and Kiev supposedly had very good wood and stone defenses (as I ... The iron age constructions were put on hill tops, ... proffesionel defenders and a long stretch of fortifications to guard. ...
    (soc.history.medieval)