"Besieged Medieval castles had only 5-6 soldiers defend

File: nw8Hi6d.png (93KB, 500x422px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 500x422px

>>1631701
Not him again.

>>1631705
Tbh I hate this fucket and John Green but still better than the damn humanities threads

t. not OP

>>1631708
no more armour debate threads.

>>1631701
Most castles were pretty small

>>1631725
mommy

>>1631701
>Is Lindy correct /his/?
No. The answer to that question is always and WILL BE always "no".

This is one of the few times when the ridiculously over simplified thread title is correct. Most garrisons were very small. The castle is the obstacle in most sieges, not that there's 4633873 men hidden behind the walls. Not to mention that most castles are built taking into account surrounding terrain for maximum advantage, not just plopped down in the middle of a flat, empty field.

>>1632008
But if there are only a few defenders you can just encircle the castle with ladders and use them to get on the walls.

How are the defenders going to deal with so many ladders?

>>1631701
>Is Lindy correct /his/?

No
Applies to everything he says btw

>>1632957
Why do you guys hate him so much?

I think he's alright.

>>1632967
They hate him because he's progressed beyond shitposting on a mongolian finger painting forum and makes videos people want to watch.
Also the fact that he's tall and not ugly probably contributes.

File: wat.jpg (21KB, 567x567px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 567x567px

>>1633047
>not ugly probably contributes.

>>1633047
>progressed beyond shitposting on a mongolian finger painting forum

What do you mean?

>>1633081
I mean, he's honestly not ugly. Didn't say he was a model but he's hardly a car crash.
>>1633085
He makes videos people like to watch rather than angrily sniping at people on 4chan.

>>1632930
>How are the defenders going to deal with so many ladders?
Non stick castle walls

>>1631701
HE CANT KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH THIS

>>1633085
He shitposts on a silicon valley content aggregator.

>>1632967
I'm French

>>1633257
>I'm French
Throw yourself down a well

File: image(7).jpg (37KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 700x700px

FUCK OFF WITH THESE LINDY THREADS REEEEEE!!! NOBODY WANTS TO WATCH HIS GARBAGE!!

>>1631701
Well some had 300-400, especially royal castles.

>>1632930
A moat or ditch.

>>1631701
No. The smallest I've head of had a dozen, and only faced a tiny force. You need enough men that a dozen archers can't slaughter your night watch.

File: 1452413994867.jpg (23KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x400px

>>1633085
>mongolian finger painting forum
took me a second

File: LindySuave.jpg (23KB, 366x473px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 366x473px

>>1633101
lloyd was a decent looking guy when he was younger

>no one used swords, axes
>no one used horses
>no one used throwing knives
>no one used scythes
>no one used mail coifs
>no one used torches
>no one spoke French during the French revolution
>no one spoke Latin during the Roman Republic
>battle of Zama didn't happen
>romans carried one pilum
>vikings weren't real
>berserkers weren't real
>castles were defended by three soldiers
>butted mail is better than riveted mail

And the best one:
>Shots fired from a machine gun with a bipod are more powerful and accurate than from one without a bipod

>>1631701
5-6 soldiers mean you can assault a castle unopposed with 6-7 ladders. Does that sound plausible to you?
5-6 soldiers could defend a lone tower maybe, certainly not even just a small castle.
Sun Tzu placed an adequate attacker:defender ratio for sieges at between 1:6 and 1:10. If what the turd said was true, it means most sieges involved 50-70 people in all. Shit that small was farmers' squabbles material, not castle sieges.

>>1637535
>>no one spoke French during the French revolution

Explain?

>>1637624
It's just idiotic mumblings from a limey asshole, pay no mind

File: lloyd.gif (1MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x270px

>>1631701

>>1637624
He talks about it in one of his videos about torches and fire arrows

>>1637624
It was only spoken by like 50 percent or 30 percent of the population, that's a pretty well-known fact

>>1637535

You forgot

>Pike to pike combat never happened.

>>1637624
Majority of France is lawful German or English(depending on part of it) clay.

>>1641216
He didn't say that, he said that armies avoided sending pike blocks to other pike blocks.

>>1633047

>not ugly

t. Lindy

>>1643231
Which is wrong.

And no, he argues that it didn't happen, on the basis that people would just run away before they could meet.

File: Beeston_aerial-crop504px.gif (102KB, 504x247px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 504x247px

>>1632930

Being built on top of a giant cliff or surrounded by water works for most castles. Good luck trying to zerg somewhere like Beeston with ladders.

>>1643847

Likewise somewhere like Leeds castle, Kent. What are you going to do? Attach ladders to rowing boats and try to scale the walls whilst bobbing up and down?

>>1643730
>people would just run away before they could meet.

That's correct though.

File: Leeds_Castle_from_the_west.jpg (4MB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3008x2000px

>>1643872

>>1631701

>"Besieged Medieval castles had only 5-6 soldiers defending it". Is Lindy correct /his/? Were so few people capable of defending castles?

Of course not. A castle at the very least needs to pose enough of a threat in a sallying force so that it can't be bypassed. Otherwise, it will get bypassed.

What the hell kind of raid can you mount with 5-6 people. Most medieval castles had garrisons of somewhere between 70-400, depending on how elaborate a fortification you've got before you're calling it a "castle".

>>1643874

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_of_pike

>>1643887
Yes that did happened, Lindybeige mentions it in his video. But that was a rare occurrence.

File: pikemen never fought pikemen you guys, a reenactor told me.jpg (1MB, 1409x920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1409x920px

>>1643874
>That's correct though.
No, its not.

>>1643898

It was certainly not a rare occurrence, at least not when compared to the notion that they "flinched" and avoided contact.

>>1632967
probably some kind of dere

>>1631701
Haven't seen, but I actually believe 5-6 men was common >peacetime< garrison of smaller castles.

>>1643920
>It was certainly not a rare occurrence
You got any sources for that claim?

>>1643874
No, it isn't. Pikes met each other all the time, and routinely fought to near annihilation. Pike units, at least in the medieval, renaissance, and early modern period, were unusually obstinate.

>>1644021

I believe you're the one (Or channeling Lindy's claim) claiming that it happened, and thus it is incumbent on you to provide the sources.

>>1643872
Literally yes. Hence the towers facing the water.

Or you fill in the moat or bridge it.

>>1631701
>>1643957
>when the lord wasn't in the residence medieval castle might have 5 or 6 blokes inside, it doesn't take very many men to look after a castle, more if the lord was in residence or troubles were expected
>Mary Bankes was able to defend the Corfe Castle with 80 men (initially 5)
fuck you OP and your bait, I hope you will spill a hot cocoa all over your lap

File: 1471299930583.jpg (24KB, 245x255px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 245x255px

>>1637535
He never said the Vikings weren't real a, just that it is an occupation, or activity. It'd be like calling all Arabs "raiders" because some of them raided some of the time.

>>1631701
Getting real tired of this autist. It was funny when he made weebs to face the reality but the rest of his content is fucking horseshit

File: langues-de-la-france.png (91KB, 924x900px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 924x900px

>>1637624
"French" is really just the dominant dialect in France. It wasn't as widely spoken until after national schools started spreading it and suppressing the other dialects in the mid to late 1800s. I once heard that even into the 1900s they had signs in classrooms in Brittany with "no spitting or speaking Bretagne ". Nationalism is the infantile disease of mankind.

>>1637535
fuck you, it is either bullshit you made up (no one used horses, castles were defended by three people) or actual facts (no one used throwing knives, most of France spoke regional dialects different from French, actual contemporary definition of berserkers is very hazy)

>>1644067

And how many men do you think it takes to defend a few chuckle fucks bobbing about in a rowing boat trying to put up a ladder or shoot at people trying to fill in a wide and deep moat?

>>1644211

More than 5 or 6, that's for sure, given that the perimeter of the wall is large enough that those 5-6 guys wouldn't even be able to see everywhere they'd need to be, let alone stop a party of 20 or so people from doing one of the above.

>>1637535
you're completely ignoring the nuance of what he said or making shit up
not that he isn't wrong about some things but god damn

>>1643874
i know it sounds fucking horrible but they really did engage each other with the pikes if it was strategically pertinent
people do crazy suicidal shit all the time in war

>>1644118
So which lindybeige video did he talk about this?

What are some good youtube channels for learning about history, but are also interesting?

>>1645368
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv_vLHiWVBh_FR9vbeuiY-A/videos

>>1637564
>Sun Tzu theory on siege
>applying to Medieval warfare

>>1637535
This is autism and over simplification to one of the highest degrees.
Lloyd can be retarded but this is even more autistic than ever Lindys most egregious errors

>>1645689
Are you sure?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdgCq1IGmsY

>>1645696
>dancing is now autistic
That bitch was probably hotter than anyone you've ever talked to

>>1645696
>implying he didn't fuck her silly

>>1645716
>confusing /his/ with /r9k/

Thank you for reminding me of mt ex qt gf who now is probably riding a bigger dick.

>>1631701

didn't saw the video

just looked at the picture

he is wrong

>>1645822
>Le robot 9,000 meme

>>1644211
More than five or six.

>And how many men do you think it takes to defend a few chuckle fucks bobbing about in a rowing boat
Rowing boats can be rather large.

>shoot at people trying to fill in a wide and deep moat?
Plenty, given that there's nothing stopping men from carrying shields and covering the workers.

File: Claypotts_castle_02.jpg (132KB, 800x645px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 800x645px

>tfw you remember most castles would have been like pic related

>>1646277
So it's basically just a fortified house with a tower?

LEAVE LINDY ALONE. He's lovely.

>>1633047
>not ugly probably contributes.

lmao

>>1631701
In times of peace, garrisons were very small to ensure that the position is not occupied by undesirables, that it was well-stocked, and to do general maintenance.

>just zerg rush the walls with ladders
takes tons of people
also moats and stuff
>just fill up the moat
takes ages and your army needs foid and money

in short it would take too long and too much money to storm a well built castle even if it's defended by just a few people

and what do you gain by taking that one castle with maybe a few men guarding it
after all the work and probably all the lifes lost while doing it you gained a castle without functionality cause you filled up the moat

thus you invested money and time just to invest more money and time with the mere prospect of it maybe paying off at some point..


tl;dr : time, food and money are the reason few people could hold a well built case against an army

File: 1452372700245.png (28KB, 186x208px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 186x208px

How are moats supposed to work anyway? Can't you just lower someone into the moat with a rope or something and have them set up a ladder? Then just put a plank between the edge of the moat and one of the rungs of the ladder so the attackers can just walk over the moat and climb. Seems like just a minor inconvenience.

>>1647148
The defenders are not going to stand around doing nothing. They will be shooting arrows and throwing rocks to the attackers. So what you describe is not a minor inconvenience, it actually requires for the attacker to dig trenches and wooden defences to protect the guys working in the moat.

>>1645278
in the one were he debunks the idea that the roman used fire

>>1631701
>5-6 soldiers
With this few defenders, they'd be unable to even patrol anything bigger than a small tower 24/7. Even in just a small castle, you have a great chance to just get in by climbing the wall with a rope in the dark of the nigh.
It's just ridiculous, come on.

>>1646277
Too bad that in spite of the name that is technically a tower house, not a castle.

Lindyposting should be banned.

>>1647239
while he understates the numbers he doesnt do it by that much, most 'castles' were pretty small affairs, mostly torn down after the civil war, the larger ones tended to survive slightly better because they were more likely to be taken as garrisons by the government and required more effort to destroy, but most castles were the fort of a relatively minor lord, a baron or knight and were essentially a tower house with a curtain wall, not significantly bigger than the old motte and bailey type, garrison numbers would be in the 10s for most of these and in the 100s only for the greater lords

>>1647285
Those small affairs weren't castles tho. They weren't meant to be sieged by armies, they were just fortified personal residences proof against bands of thieves and occasional lynching mobs.
Arguing for castles being defended by 5-6 soldiers on the basis of fortified manor houses is disingenuous in the extreme. Intellectually dishonest even.

File: 1459374713519.png (4MB, 1778x2014px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1778x2014px

>>1647247
it's better than Voltaire posting at least

>>1645909

And you're going to bring large rowing boats along with your army? Great, moreshit to drag aalong instead of food and other suppliers and more people needed to take care of them!

How many shield men are bringing? I assume you are paying them extra to stand out in the open being shot at and holding up heavy shields all say to cover a bunch of labourers?

>>1647306
5-6 maybe not but 40 - 50 for most of the smaller affairs is about right, as even discounting the tower houses there were a hell of a lot of pretty small castles, you simply couldnt fit a larger garrison in them for any extended period.

>>1647490

Not even him, but get off it. Most armies constructed siege equipment on site, whether they're ladders and rowboats, or catapults and battering rams. They wouldn't be bringing large boats along with their army unless they were traveling along a river or the coast and then they'd be using it most of the time, not hauling it around except for the final portage.

>How many shield men are bringing? I assume you are paying them extra to stand out in the open being shot at and holding up heavy shields all say to cover a bunch of labourers?

Why do you assume the besiegers are retarded? Pavise crossbowmen were a thing for a reason, and yeah, they made it hard for castle defenders to pick off people rushing towards the wars.

>>1647148
Clearly youve never played a siege battle on multiplayer in Mountain Blade Warband, everyone is itching to get a kill and to prevent the attackers from getting any more ground onto the castle or fort, arrows, ballista, catapults, trebuchets, crossbows, burning hot oil, dropping huge stones would all be used against the invaders to keep them at bay, which is another reason why small garrisons makes no fucking sense.

So is Lindy really wrong and stuff about most things in his videos?

I used to watch him, but lost interest.

>>1644118
Regionalist delusions.

>>1647519

Oh excellent, you're ssending out men togo a build row boats. How long will that take? How many supplies will you use up while theyre building boats that can support a bunch of armoured men trying to maneuver a ladder into position?

A pavises will just barely protect one man while he's crouching behind it. Not a work team unloaded the cart loads of wood, soil, rocks and other shit you'd need to actually fill in a moat. You can just zerg tgat kind of stuff into place.

>>1647788

>Oh excellent, you're ssending out men togo a build row boats. How long will that take?

While I'm hardly an expert on medieval boat-building, given that it usually took 3-6 days to build much more complicated siege engines, I'm going to guess a day, two tops. This isn't something elaborate we need, just something to get a ladder over a moat whose width you can measure in single digit meters.

> How many supplies will you use up while theyre building boats that can support a bunch of armoured men trying to maneuver a ladder into position?

Not all that much, given that the single biggest supply by weight need a medieval army carries is food (or fodder for animals if you count it separately) and they'll be eating no matter what they do. Hell, assaults are almost always faster than the "negotiate or try to starve them out" option, so if you're worried about your own supply situation, you should be pressing for an option like ladders, they are the fastest means you've got.

>A pavises will just barely protect one man while he's crouching behind it.

Yes, but that guy crouching behind it is firing at the guy on the walls. And since we're assuming a ridiculously tiny 5-6 man garrison, you don't need all that many crossbows to suppress resistance from within. That's how you cover your moat fillers, not by having a huge team of guys holding a tarp of shields over their heads.

Meanwhile, the actual moat fillers will probably be wearing some kind of armor, which increases their arrow resistance dramatically. And if your army is coordinated enough to try something like this at night where visibility is down and it's harder to shoot from the walls, it gets even easier.

>>1647208
Link? Or do you mean fire arrows?

File: velesin.jpg (147KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 800x600px

garrison of pic related was in 1476 8 shooters, 1 horseman and 1 burgrave, armed with cannon, small cannon, 6 hand canons, barrel of black powder and 8 crossbows.

>>1647383
That's not much of an achievement.

>>1647788
You seem to have absolutely no idea about how medieval sieges worked.

>>1631701
Typical britbong.

Stopped watching his videos since he can't shut up about how (in his mind) the French suck.

File: Divci_Kamen.jpg (17KB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 250x188px

garrison of pic related was 10 soldiers, later in more restless times raised to 24

So what's the point of a castle with a dozen people in it? Anyone can just walk around it, no? What does it actually do if it can't project force?

>>1647496
40-50 is so much more than what was claimed as to undeniably falsify the initial claim tho.

>I disagree with everything Lindy says

Seeing as most of what he talks about is shit that either very little is written about or is straight out conjecture I have a hard time believing your hatred of him comes from actual disagreement with his arguments.

His videos on fire are pretty informative and I've found nothing to dispute his claims. Some of his more wild conjectures about how certain weapons would've worked might be suspect but seeing as they're conjecture I find it difficult to believe any of you might have hard and fast factual counters to him other than "UGH. MEMES. HE'S POPULAR."

Please prove me wrong though because if I am taking the words of a fraud-hack with even the tiniest grain of salt I'd like to stop doing so.

What's the point of a castle when you can just go around it?

>>1647490
>Great, moreshit to drag aalong instead of food and other suppliers and more people needed to take care of them!
You're sieging a fucking castle. Men would disassemble artillery and haul it bit by bit up fucking mountains, this is a non issue, especially given that it would be constructed on site.

>How many shield men are bringing?
How many do you have?

>I assume you are paying them extra to stand out in the open being shot at and holding up heavy shields all say to cover a bunch of labourers?
Are you paid extra to be this retarded?

They're getting shot at no matter what they do, it's a fucking siege.


>A pavises will just barely protect one man while he's crouching behind it.
Along with whoever is behind HIM, you cockmongler.

>>1648363
A huge portion of his "conjecture" involves things we DO have writing about, or is just easily shown to be wrong.

>>1648363
I think some people get upset with him because there're threads about him almost every day.

>>1648436
>A huge portion of his "conjecture" involves things we DO have writing about, or is just easily shown to be wrong.
That may be true but he never claims he is an authority or what he says is completely accurate.

>>1648384
Castles, even small ones with like 50 man garrisons, can launch raids on your behind, shitposting on your supply lines and burning your shit in raids.

>>1648470
Doesn't matter. He spews bullshit that can easily be disproven with ten fucking secondsof research.

>>1648436
>A huge portion of his "conjecture" involves things we DO have writing about, or is just easily shown to be wrong.
Such as? I frequently look up whatever he rails on about and rarely do I find sources even indirectly arguing against him.

For the times when he does offer alternate explanations they're at the very least thought out and plausible.

Our understanding of history is not immutable. History itself may be, but our knowledge of it not so. Quit being a child and either ignore him or offer arguments against him.

I bet you argue with flat earthers too.

>>1648743
Shit like "We don't know how great swords were used" we do. We have fucking manuals. We have for some time now.

"You can't defend your legs with a sheild that has straps"

He demonstrates this by moving incorrectly-because he's fucking retarded- An apparently doesn't understand even the simplest concepts behind using shields. Oh, and he doesn't think the kite existed.

"Pikes didn't engage each other"
Except they did, and regularly, hence the term bad war even fucking existing.

Lindy is a fucking moron with a depth of study about as deep as his toes, who sits around and bullshits up ideas in the manner of a high school kid who just discovered osprey.

>>1648778
Oh, and easton had to explain to him how fucking wrong he was on the use of daggers.

>>1632930
Castles had a few dozen men at most. climbing up a ladder is a HUGE disadvantage. Having masses of men on the wall like in hollywood is just hilariously wrong.

>>1637535
>the Battle of Zama didn't happen
He explicitly attempted to debunk someone else idea that the Romans made up the battle

>>1648872
Meanwhile, krak des chevaliers could easily boast a garrison of two thousand.

Are you sure you're not retarded?

>>1637564
Most castles are the size of a "lone tower"
Most decent sized castles have walls too high for ladders (armies dont carry ladders around, they make them from local timber)
Most castles were only approachable from a small area. Having a dozen people in a large European castle would probably be enough to defend against thousands, not that any commander in his right mind would assault a castle with all his troops, it just doesnt make sense. The approachable parts of the wall probably could only service a few ladders and a hundred men.
Not to mention most "sieges" involved no combat AT ALL.
If you have 100 people in your castle...your gonna need a LOT of food, and that food needs to last months. Simply logistically impossible for anything short of a fortress.

>>1648778
You sound mad.

You also sound like a kid that thinks he knows how to be a badass warrior because he saw an edgy faggot with a beard saying something about death metal and vikings.

Calling him a retard for "moving wrong" despite moving exactly as you would in the context he was talking about... wew.

You also took the pikes out of context.

I don't know who Easton is and never saw this knife video so I'll just give it to you because I'm generous.

>>1648225
thats because 40-50 is probably the garison of a small fucking fortress

>>1637564
>every castle siege was big and huge just like in my tabletop games!

Lol

File: 1444354149679.jpg (10KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x200px

Why is he always wearing those disgusting unwashed weird ass collar shirts?

>>1648882
Well here's why you're retarded.
>Its one of the largest castles/fortresses in the world, so hmmm maybe an exception? HURRR
>Its "garison" doesn't mean "the amount of men it can sustain in a siege" but "the amount of men it has within it and in nearby camps in order to project power over this area"
>It was used by an army which had more resources than any single country/duchy what have you in all of Europe
>It was purpose built for the largest war Europeans had experienced in centuries
Look at the schematics. It couldnt hold enough food for 2000 people cut off for months. It just couldnt.

No one watched the fucking video. Outside of wartime when the Lord wasn't fucking there is when there'd be 5-6 people. I.e. when the only people that might attack were bandits.

>>1647148
Where are you getting these magic fucking 40 foot ladders?

>>1643878
honestly I would have simply assigned a few squads around the lake then turned my side of the bridge into an unpassable wall of death.

anything past that is just intentionally poisoning their food supply or seeking ways to introduce disease into the enemies ranks.

at that point just wait them out.
also, be sure to be nice to the peasantry. sure if their inside the castle that's their problem. however those outside should be treated fairly and with respect. even send a few troops to help with planting and reaping if necessary. farmers don't really care who's in charge so long as they can continue living.

>>1648959
Did you know he actually converts regular collar shirts to those round collars he always wears
What a fucking autist

>>1637564
And how are you going to go about figuring out how many people are inside the castle at any given time.

Maybe if you just went inside and...oh wait.

>>1637535
Funny how you couldn't source these claims if you tried, and neither can anybody else

File: 13463432342.jpg (22KB, 650x336px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 650x336px

I don't know what name to use to refer to this weapon. Any ideas lads?

>>1648930
>Calling him a retard for "moving wrong" despite moving exactly as you would in the context he was talking about... wew.
No, I understand the concept of ending at the knee. Lloyd either does not, or ignores it to support his retarded ideas.

That, and keeping the shield out, legs in-something readily seen in almost any medieval depiction of men with heater shields that serves to defend the leg.


>You also took the pikes out of context.
No. He claims that pike usually ran away before contact. He is wrong. He has no evidence to support his pet theory.


>You also sound like a kid that thinks he knows how to be a badass warrior because he saw an edgy faggot with a beard saying something about death metal and vikings.
No, I think we have a period source on montante use, and that it's inexcusable to not know this and still opine about the topic. Ten seconds in google to find that shit out.

>>1651009
You could... count.

>>1643847
If there is a castle on top of a cliff with 5 or 6 guys in there why would anyone bother attacking it? I'd just go around tbqh

>>1631701
I'm convinced he's legit autistic.

I used to excitedly run my mouth about things I didn't understand as a kid, and trust me, he's the same way now.

>>1651399
So how could you reliably know whether there are only 10 people in the castle or 40 if you only see 6 men on the wall at any given time? How do you know if there is a contingent of cavalry within the castle if the stable is built within the walls themselves? How do you know if that crossbow slit is manned or not?

Walls tend to do a good job of hiding things from the outside world, also tends to be the reason most people have sex indoors. Unless you actually look inside of a building it isn't really secured.

>>1651197
That's clearly a Tommy gun, that's what people at the time called it anyways.

File: Siege.Chateau.Gaillard.png (131KB, 359x600px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 359x600px

>>1631701
He is using a true but VERY extreme case. Also his talk about the largest garrison number ( 2,000) for a European castle is off by a bit. Château Gaillard in the late 13th century had a peak garrison of 3,400 and a normal garrison of around 2,100 to 2,300. The pic is of the castle at the start of the 13th century, there had been some changes made by the time period that I am talking about.

The big issue with what he has to say on the matter is that he does not touch on the matter that some castles were rather important and most were not. The unimportant ones can be slowly taken without that much of a issue. The important ones the attacker wants to take quickly if possible mostly because they can end or greatly shorten the war. The 'typical castle' that he is talking about is the castle that lords would make to get a control point in that part of their land. Most nobles of note had more then one castle. The highest number that I have ever seen noted for a English Baron was 17 ( that did case a issue because he owned land then his lord did). For French count the highest that I have seen is 34 personally owned castles.Using Edward I of England as a example king he started with around 80 castles and ended with like 114 (or was 117 ?).

Also his use of the English numbers at the Battle of Agincourt for a example is a issue. One the English did not want a field battle at that time. Two they were greatly out numbered. Three they were a bit shocked when they won that battle. Not to say that it is that far off for a large scale lat medieval battle, but it is not a great if you are going outside of just British history.

>>1651595
So how could you reliably know whether there are only 10 people in the castle or 40 if you only see 6 men on the wall at any given time?

By. Fucking. Counting.

I know recognizing faces is hard for autistic people like you, but a neurotypical person can recognize and differentiate between people by their features, even those of strangers. When they are armed men who all bought their own gear, it gets even simpler for normal people, as they can look at the things they carry and wear to figure out if they've seen them before.

>How do you know if there is a contingent of cavalry within the castle if the stable is built within the walls themselves?
Castles would literally always have horses in them. They're useless otherwise.

>>1651627
>>1651197
Rooty tooty german shooty.

It's that they called it at the time.

>>1651631
so you are saying that the scouts would ride up to the castle day after day and get familiar with faces of the defenders on the ramparts while being shot at?

>>1651665
>while being shot at
>tiny six man garrison
Pick one.

And yes. That's their job. Figure out what you're dealing with. And if you're not a total retard, you do this well in advance of actually attacking a place.

>>1651407
If you ignore a castle while invading territory then the defenders will just wheel behind you, encamp in the castle, and presto, you have no supply line and you're facing enemies on two sides.

>>1651197
AR-15

>>1651709
No that's a ghost gun with a 30 bullet clip u dummy

Lindy probably knows more about archaeology and history than most of /his/ anons. His Problem might be that he tries to be contrarian and has very biased sources (history and archaeology professors he knows.)

>>1651476


I like his stuff about the depiction of warfare or historical events in movies.

>>1651722
I like those kind of videos a lot, but my absolute favorites are the oness about "war physcology" or whatever (for example the one that's called "shooting to kill, how many men can do this").

>>1648436

> he thinks that a siege is about being constantly under fire and eternally zerg ing the walls
> not sitting back outside the defenders range and occasionally launching an assault when absolutely necessary

Protip: Soldiers don't like being shot at and they're not going to hold for very long while stood out in the open holding up a shield for some other asshole. How big do you think a pavise actually is? Theyre meant to cover one crossbowman. Nowhere near enough to cover the whole teams of men and animals you'd need to bring in and construct even a small bridge across a narrow moat. Good luck getting them to work effectively when a whole bunch of other guys are constantly in front of them and arround them by the way.

File: 9a90074df48c85de30858e9a29e109c0.jpg (71KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x450px

>>1651665
The person that you are trying to make a point to, >>1651631 has already start calling names so he is unlikely accept that issue. I mean if you are working with anything past 50 to 60 pounds draw self bows to defend the area the fire zones start growing fast. In the medieval period it was 120 to 170 yards long, based on the height of firing position and weapon used. At that range you could easily tell different styles of helm apart, but telling say apart individual people wearing the type of helm ( helm types for lower class soldier were generally regional favorites) and same colors on their Tabard if they were common soldiers. Also you are only seen them from about the middle of their abdomen and up at best. Lastly If they are using arrow holes it gets a lot harder to do a count.

Not saying attacker did not try to figure out the size of a given garrison, and some of the time end up with a very good idea. Just that it was a bit harder then it may appear at first glance.

>>1648778

> he thinks dueling manuals tell us anything about warfare

I bet you think knights were doing all those Talhoffer moves in the middle of battles too.

>>1633047
>not ugly
/fa/ and /fit/ here, he looks fucking gross.

>>1632967
He's autistic and cringey as fuck. Someone needs to beat the shit out of him. He sounds like a know-it-all dork from highschool who survived to adulthood.

>>1651665
I think nobody told him, that attacking armies also have ranged weapons, like bows or crossbows and can shot back. Have a nice time aiming and shooting with 6 zombie guys (because apparently they don't need sleep and will be always on guard for entire siege), when on ground are dozens of crossbowmen hidden behind shields to prevent you from doing that.

>>1643847
If I were an invading general I'd have a hundred guys beat the shit out of that cliff with pickaxes and collapse part of the wall in a fucking afternoon.

>>1651731
He cited a study by S.L.A. Marshall that inside American military circles ( which is were said study came from) that has been view as discredited for a very long time. A much great percentage of soldiers do shoot to kill according to a number of Vietnam era studies then what said post WWII study found. So then they looked for the interview notes from the post WWII study... and they could not find them. Worst a good number of staff officers ended with the idea that the reason they could not find the interview notes is because S.L.A. Marshall faked his work. However by that point he was more or less untouchable.

>>1651780
That's a good point, but I actually was looking for that book, "men against fire" I believe it's called and it said that one of the publishers was the university of Oklahoma, so it kinda shocks me that it could be faked. But as you said, what he says is mostly on point.

>>1651779
>If I were an invading general I'd have a hundred guys beat the shit out of that cliff with pickaxes and collapse part of the wall in a fucking afternoon.

It would take a lot more then a 100 men and 1 day to do that. Back in the the American West in the late 19th century 50 men working in shifts without the aid of steam powered tools or explosives would get tunnel 1 to 3 feet deeper in a day based on what type of rock they were working with. With earlier pickaxes it would be a bit slow. The reason for this comes down to the the quality of the steel used in the pickaxes.

>>1651789


There is a number of other works by S.L.A. Marshall that looked back are likely faked, not just "men against fire". Basically most of the original research he did has issues of one type or another.

>one of the publishers was the university of Oklahoma, so it kinda shocks me that it could be faked.

He fooled most of the Department of Defense and especially the army. He became a rather important figure to them. After making fools of those group and it taking 20 years for them to figure out how hard would it be to get past a academic publisher?

Also at that point he had done real work ( likely his only honest work) in interviewing 200 German officers post. Would you what to turn away that man who has the right to commercially publish that gravy train?

>>1651747
>He's autistic and cringey as fuck. Someone needs to beat the shit out of him.

t: violent sperg

File: MattEaston.gif (1018KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

1018KB, 320x180px

>>1648930
>I don't know who Easton is and never saw this knife video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVhQbOREvPw

>>1646277
I'll give you 20 comfy points for this post.

>>1648473
>shitposting on your supply lines
I can just imagine an army passing by some minor castles because they don't feel like sieging them, and as the frontline has advanced way further, the people inside the castle mess up the road signs, pointing suppliers of the enemy army in the wrong direction.

File: charles vane].jpg (98KB, 461x768px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 461x768px

Just sneak up on them at night with grappling hooks.

>>1651628
This is a good post. Can you please expand on English reactions after the victory at Agincourt?

>>1652934
The English ended up with more POWs then men in their army. Then they got the idea that the French rear guard would give another try at it. At this point Henry the 5th gave the order to kill most of the POWs.

This was both a taboo and against financial interest of the members of his army because of the loss of ransom. Truth is the English only figured out that they had won the battle a bit after the fact.

Not a typical battle at all, nor did it play out like any of the commanders though it would.

>>1637535
>>vikings weren't real
This is true though. It's an occupation.

>>1653333
Had the french followed even half their plan, we wouldn't have the stupid longbow memes today.

Fucking frogs.

>>1651747
>Someone needs to beat the shit out of him
Why don't you do it? You scared?

>>1653333
>>1653364

How did they think the battle would play out?

>>1654085
The initial cavalry attack was meant to sweep the archers off the field.

Infantry would then crush the English knights and men at arms.

Problem is, that cavalry attack numbered a bare few hundred men. VERY few men showed up as assigned, as there was no glory in it,an no ransoms to be had.

Even as it was, those few hundred men did reach the English line, but lacked the numbers to do anything once their momentum was lost.

Had they turned out a large force, the enlish would have lost their archers at agincourt, not patay.

>>1651747
>OOGA BOOGA ME HURT PEOPLE ME NO LIKE

>>1653333
I've heard the 'kill the POWs' thing may have been merely a threat meant to cow the French prisoners into submission, but that was from John Keegan, who is if nothing else a very proud and biased Briton.

>>1631701
We all know that wasn't what he said at all. He said a mothballed castle had 5-6 people around for maintaining it.

>>1654995
don't you dare
bringing reason into this hatefest
stop protecting lindiius braunus
this scum is doing what his dreams of
traveling and talking shit on cam for money