5 Misconceptions about Medieval Sieges in Movies

[@SandRhomanHistory]

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!

[@doctoronishispsychosislab1474]

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

[@SafavidAfsharid3197]

Hey can you do some indian siege videos like the 2 sieges of bharatpur?

[@bench-xpre55]

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

[@bench-xpre55]

@@SafavidAfsharid3197 even better would be Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj's siege where he used the komodo lizard dragons to scale the walls lol.

[@sheetmusicpianofied8153]

@Sandrhoman History i would love if you cover 16th and 17th century warfare in other parts of world.

[@Windruzhed]

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

[@johntitor1256]

I'm in a siege and I'm digging a hole, diggy diggy hole, diggy diggy hole!

[@SandRhomanHistory]

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

[@Windruzhed]

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.

[@dragon12234]

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

[@seanpoore2428]

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

[@kmmmsyr9883]

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 :)

[@codyraugh6599]

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.

[@justincharlton16]

You mean a yurt, which is more of a family dwelling.

[@jonisalmela2399]

Battle tents!

[@coinneachreid8971]

@@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)

[@andreaslamers9535]

@@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

[@free_at_last8141]

"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.

[@whatisalifeihavenone4708]

Fellow Bannerlord player! Hurrah

[@chengkuoklee5734]

That's why I only assault after breaching walls.

[@mondaysinsanity8193]

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

[@krashd]

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.

[@chengkuoklee5734]

@@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.

[@nonyabisness6306]

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.

[@henningratjen4364]

Same, why build a wall and then not use it.

[@Yora21]

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.

[@ロース-z7m]

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 🤔🙄

[@juwebles4352]

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

[@justalonesoul5825]

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

[@patricklloyd1797]

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

[@lanychabot-laroche135]

A good historian always cites its sources.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

I'm still trying to figure out what that date is actually referenced to. What is TA? Third Age?

[@penguano5514]

​@@mikearmstrong8483yeah

[@Tkenobi78]

@@mikearmstrong8483yes

[@Pwnicus187]

​@@mikearmstrong8483yes, anytime you see dates referenced in Middle Earth like that it's FA, SA, and TA for First, Second, and Third Age respectively.

[@daffyf6829]

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.

[@Cyrus_T_Laserpunch]

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.

[@BetelgeuseBetelgeuseBetelgeuse]

@@Cyrus_T_LaserpunchTimur did it quite easily lol

[@colatf2]

Source for this?

[@israeltovar3513]

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.

[@arthas640]

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

[@israeltovar3513]

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

[@arthas640]

@@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.

[@YapsiePresents]

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

[@ousamadearudesuwa]

@@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.

[@QuantumHistorian]

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.

[@zarpp9411]

Fantasy is not necessary "Medieval".

[@realstarfarts]

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.

[@caelestigladii]

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

[@BilalKhan-yg9jc]

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]

@@realstarfarts I think the Afghan and Ukraine wars show that the biggest baddest army doesn't always win.

[@RandomNorwegianGuy.]

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

[@thedrunkenrebel]

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.

[@paavobergmann4920]

@@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.

[@Kruppt808]

@@paavobergmann4920 good info. Thanks for a cool read

[@darthbuzz1]

Richard the Lionheart, not Richard the Lionhearth. (probably just a typo)

[@CrnaStrela]

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.

[@alsoyes3287]

It always bugged me how the walls and towers of minas tirith fell apart like it was made by stacking empty cardboard boxes

[@vexile1239]

Because it was?

[@tyreza79]

Are you aware of the 536ad comet ☄️?

[@hannibalburgers477]

👁️Weak m*n stone palisade can't endure the SPECTACULAR URUK BOULDERS 👁️

[@IsaiahINRI]

"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."

[@Sawta]

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.

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

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

[@Casmaniac]

"You've heard of circumvellation... now... I give you contravellation !" *crowd gasps*

[@wilhelmu]

@@Stevie-J what if we put a wall inside a wall

[@F22onblockland]

Mark Antony: "WRITE THAT DOWN, WRITE IT DOWN!"

[@QuantumHistorian]

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).

[@Yora21]

Gaius, this is the seventh battle in a row that you want to build a wall.

[@farobinson87]

That was the smoothest ad insert I've ever seen. Well executed

[@Falconlibrary]

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.

[@TheseColorsRunFromPutin]

lol

[@brianpeck4035]

I often get the sense in movies that the range and destructive power of trebuchets were exaggerated for the epic effect.

[@justalonesoul5825]

Trebuchets indeed, and so many more things...

[@DomWeasel]

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.

[@justalonesoul5825]

@@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...

[@RheaMainz]

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

[@justalonesoul5825]

@@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...

[@Bluecho4]

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.

[@reaganharder1480]

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.

[@CharlesOffdensen]

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!

[@Bluecho4]

@@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.

[@CharlesOffdensen]

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

[@vidard9863]

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?

[@QuantumHistorian]

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.

[@SandRhomanHistory]

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.

[@picklerick8785]

@@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?

[@internetenjoyer1044]

@@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

[@SandRhomanHistory]

@@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]

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

[@disgruntledtoons]

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.

[@nekrataali]

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!"

[@apokos8871]

i love the subtle flex with the animated animals. the channel's presentation is steadily improving, without distracting from the information given

[@rainer6736]

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.

[@jaymeister4850]

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.

[@robertharris6092]

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

[@jaymeister4850]

@@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.

[@Kruppt808]

@@jaymeister4850 damnnnnnnn 😲😊👍

[@jaymeister4850]

@@Kruppt808 *blushes* Yeah I geel out heavily

[@kommissarantilus3742]

''the miners were undermining the walls'' wholesome

[@martinm.6472]

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

[@tardisthephonebox]

Epic comment 😂

[@--SPQR--]

MLB confirmed

[@theOGjaaxter]

Or how having a handful of Elite Mangudai garrisoned in a castle for sorties made them siege-weapon-proof.

[@changer_of_ways_999]

WOLOLO!

[@PiotrDzialak]

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.

[@anthonyl.6879]

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 .

[@SamAronow]

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.

[@carlosenriquevallecruz9721]

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

[@Kevin-jb2pv]

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....

[@4thdimensionalexplorer]

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.

[@Alex-j9p2w]

That’s the point. Trolls can push the towers because they’re big

[@hanneswiggenhorn2023]

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

[@dragonstormx]

I heard a claim from another channel of a siege during the Hundred Years War (I don't remember which) where a castle held out for several years when the attacking army brought cannons, partially because when you attacked a castle you still wanted to take it for your own use, not level it to the ground.

[@muhammadmujtaba611]

Sudden mention of NordVPN at the time of double wall protection is epic 😂😂

[@Shua-k8h]

Haha it got me too

[@RedBaronFlyer]

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.

[@AeneasGemini]

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

[@vinz4066]

I think Stones do the job Just as good.

[@mjfleming319]

@@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.

[@justalonesoul5825]

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

[@DomWeasel]

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.

[@ATurkeySandwichGAME]

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

[@ethienosinsky5186]

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

[@Kruppt808]

The Turks at The siege of Malta would be proud of that kind of tactic

[@Nefus1988]

in Rome Total War I always used Leavy Pikemen at the bottlenecks, always decimated their entire army

[@alm5992]

You mention that they barely ever used oil against attackers, but don't mention how hot sand, water, etc. was more common.

[@pallingtontheshrike6374]

even just lobbing rocks is sometimes enough, 15 kg rock tumbles down at you from 10+, 20+ meters? yikes.

[@davidioanhedges]

When supplies are short, heating a large amount of anything is wasteful, and although it looks dramatic it's not even very effective

[@pallingtontheshrike6374]

@@davidioanhedges yeah, depends on where you are. if the sun is the thing doing the heating then hot sand might be simply finding the sand to dump.

[@rick7424]

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.

[@justalonesoul5825]

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....

[@calebr908]

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

[@voodoodummie]

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.

[@DomWeasel]

The orcs also have trolls to push their towers forward.

[@ivokantarski6220]

@@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.

[@annominous826]

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.

[@hanneswiggenhorn2023]

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

[@annominous826]

@@hanneswiggenhorn2023 Certainly, but you can also do that with sand or dirt.

[@Skyte100]

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.

[@incurableromantic4006]

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

[@AedanTheGrey]

A media based entirely on the duration of a siege would be fascinating and more historically minded. But that's more of a niche theme and styling, whereas these big dramatic events are tailored to the majority audience. There's nothing wrong with both from a narrative perspective, and I'd love more of the former, but it'd probably take a particular effort and a particular audience to be a successful project.

[@markuslappalainen6847]

Pouring edible oil to attackers would be insane when under siege. Or even drinking water. To use scarce resources to heat the oil as well. Only inedible oil would come to question.

[@Tathanic]

poor boiling piss on your enemies!

[@Voidi-Void]

​@@monolith-zl4qttbf, when most people think of medieval times they think british people fighting british people. The more educated fools will throw in a frenchman somewhere, too.

[@michaeltowler2632]

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.

[@mildlyderanged]

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.

[@Thisisahandle701]

Use it once, but it would definitely give them something visceral to remember over and over again

[@johnysnoww3831]

5:00 When ottomans sultan mehmed the 2nd breached the walls of konstantinopol he had to use massive cannons for days and days to the same spot, so he could deal any type of meaningful damage to the walls, and once the one part of the walls felt, there was still 4 more inner walls protecting the city + moats and elevated ground for the defenders, so when the ottoman elite soldiers (Jinaris) who fought with very little armor rushed to attack the bottle neck that was formed when one part of the wall felt, the defenders just came out with big shields like what roman's used that would shield a fully grown man and then they would have heavy armor on + crossbows and they would shoot their crossbows from the top of the shield that was protecting them from everything. So they only had to use like 20 men and they had very little ammount of casualties while the ottomans trying to attack from that little bottleneck spot went thru massive casualties, i think they lost like at least 15k men just for that one part of the wall that opened up a little bit.

[@muhdadeeb9291]

still Konstantinopel got their ass whooped

[@johnysnoww3831]

@@muhdadeeb9291 Yeah ottoman empire was huge and mehmeds father tried and failed so mehmed knew what mistakes not to make. and they just kept thorwing men and sieged it.

[@papahairy5315]

​@muhdadeeb9291 just like their ottomans got their ass whooped during the first balkan war

[@Twitch-33457]

Tbf Constantinople definitely had the best walls of any city at that time

[@johnysnoww3831]

@@Twitch-33457 Yeah i seen that documentary about the attack on constantinople and it was ridicilous how hard it was to attack even if you knocked down the walls and created bottle neck (which would be kinda better for the defender unless the attackers had heavy cavalry and they did not.). Because it had so many other defensive measures.

[@alistair676]

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.

[@DontLookNowBuddy]

Why throw expensive hot oil when some hot sand or boiling water would do?

[@lamlol605]

Other oil from animals

[@DontLookNowBuddy]

@@lamlol605 you seem to not understand that using oil- especially animal oils that you cook with- would have been ridiculously expensive and in too small quantity to use as a weapon effectively in siege defense.

[@jayb3843]

Noo he's saying that "oil" can be made with any fat's (I believe plant based does too but those would all be edible with longer shelf life, so I don't see you wasting In a seige) but surely anyone trying to survive would be using every last bit of fat, meat, grissle & even Bones/marrow for stew's Etc , but unless it was processed & stored right animal fat/oil can spoil fairly easy. Making it inedible, but luckily in most situations like war or siege's you will have access to a substantial amount of useable fats for fuel/ weapon oil that otherwise would just be wasted & not even consider utilizing Even, Actually the source it's coming from is actually a problem that would have to be handled immediately & unless some how conditions have because so awful & desperate that it's either this or starve to death & even Still some would refuse to eat it , especially if you start having plague or sickness spreading around, then you have really only the choice of burning The Bodies immediately as handling them & burying etc , requiring more people to be at risk & expend calories They don't have & potential risk if a religious or public service is done Etc. Even if you could find men that have the physical Ability to dig a hole that deep, its Way riskier to sanitation than burning, could contaminate water source & soil or starving animals trying to dig it back up as soon as nobody is looking ( then stray dog's are running around with decomposed femurs & arm's etc spreading that nasty ness... Hell even just substantial rain storms could dig the body back up, or at least wash away the dirt ontop of it making the hole Alot shallower &; easier for animals & whatever Else to dig it up.... Yeah burning & using "people oil" seems pretty much like the best option, or really the only option that is responsible

[@angela_merkeI]

Because water is better spent drinking.

[@DontLookNowBuddy]

@@angela_merkeI oh buddy, you think I meant *drinking water*? Please forgive the confusion- one uses sewage water or run off from the stables, not the precious supply of fresh water.

[@Awesomeevrydy]

General: we will now begin a siege upon the city. Soldier: what now? Do we begin a frontal assault? General: No. we shall wait outside and see if the give up in a month or so

[@nico-te2sb]

No, until winter, the campaigns were carried on only in the summer

[@panagioti6371]

I mean it makes sense, ideally you get the city taken without losing any men, win win

[@istvansipos9940]

#7: walls can be destroyed with swords and arrows (Age of Empires)

[@weirdfunnyvideos1289]

dont forget the invent torches

[@marvinlalandos773]

Spanish villagers with supremacy and sappers be like:

[@jwb_666]

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.

[@jacobharrell8186]

You could have a big pot, and a large laddle to pour hot liquids onto them. You don't have to pour the whole pot on them like Hollywood 😂

[@reinoldi1097]

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

[@MrMyers758]

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

[@Luxington1]

All that being said, what movies are a contenders for most realistic siege scene?

[@finlayson6868]

From my understanding, the King on Netflix has a very accurate - albeit condensed - siege scene.

[@ThalesMML]

Masada 1981 I think the best

[@DRourkey]

Hollywood medieval siege = the best and craziest parts of several seiges in history. Real medieval siege = "do you give up yet?" "No" "OK we'll check back in 3 weeks"

[@mikefule]

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.

[@terry7907]

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.

[@Asterix958]

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.

[@kokofan50]

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

[@shadowlord1418]

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

[@Asterix958]

@@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.

[@CaptBlackjack22]

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.

[@GBHighlands]

Also, just good old boiling water.

[@gerfand]

I knew Siege Towers were tall Towers rather than assault plataforms most of the times, I didnt knew they did that to move them Also game wise,I hate how some games make them into carrying hundred of soldiers like its some kind of modern APC

[@Liam_The_Great]

In age of empires 3 you can load 25 heavy cavalry onto one canoe!

[@zubbworks]

AOE has a tactic where you build a defensive watchtower right up near the enemie's base. Turns out, that is realistic. It shows how real life is alot more of "whatever works" than not.

[@gerfand]

@@zubbworks that is true, castle rushing was actually what they did IRL more or less

[@DomWeasel]

It's hilarious seeing towers crammed with men being wheeled forward because their added weight would make an already heavy tower virtually impossible to move by hand. LotR gets the excuse that they're being pushed by trolls.

[@ivokantarski6220]

Even if medieval people were smaller men should still easily be 20 men a tone. So if a siege tower carried about 60 men it wouldve had 3 tones of live power. I imagine the structure itself was tones too. Through it must be better to have soldiers mainly on the top so it's not tones heavier and when target is reached the soldiers on the ground would go up in the camp and would flood some part of the wall with soldiers that otherwise be on the ground.

[@ThunderDawg89]

I hate in video ads. But that was a chefs kiss of a segue

[@ronnyhansson8713]

Also WHY use boiling oil, people getting boiling water over themselves will also stop trying to scale or break down your walls. Burndamage from scalding water is about as dangerous as from boiling oil and has about the same dangers of infections and so on as boiling oil or tar or pitch - and water in general is way cheaper and more likley to be accessable in large amount

[@ronnyhansson8713]

@@Bezosisgod if your goal is to light it on fire there really isnt a need to biol it first i think - and for the coxt of lets say 100l of lampoil (wich is probably what they used) you can get a hell of a lot of water and having 96 degrees celcius water thrown on you i think is a pretty bad experience - and that for a FFRACKTION of the cost, and if you want to attack a seige engine (lets sy a battering ram) you could use oil in a molotov coctail like thing ( a earthen jar with some burning clothe on the outside thrown at the machine, break open and take on fire from the burning cloth - so suddenly you use like 1-2 litres of oil instead of 80 litres to achive pretty much thew same effect

[@toboraton]

Boiling oil is much hotter than boiling water, and it sticks, is slippery, etc.

[@ronnyhansson8713]

@@toboratonyes it is BUT the cost is so many times higher -letys say you need to pour two or three couldrons of water to reach the same effect it is still WAY cheaper - and aftre a persone is drenched in boiling to near boiling hot water the dont want to stick around any more at the wall - and they most likley will need to be out of cambat and a fairly large amount of them will die or be removed from combat due to the conditions in the besigers camps and no healthcare - cost - benefirt factors is a thing and people inside the keep might have better use for that lamp oil later on...

[@GhostBear3067]

Heated sand was also popular since it got EVERYWHERE in the attackers' armor and clothes and stayed there.

[@hanneswiggenhorn2023]

Boiling water probably isn't very effective. It's not very hot, will cool down really quickly when falling down and spread out so thin that it barely does anything

[@LucidDr3aming444]

Here on my medieval phase because I’m playing bannerlord 2 right now

[@EEWALLK]

Same lmao

[@LucidDr3aming444]

@@EEWALLK yeah! we really be immersing ourselves as we charge into battle with our army, and now we are exploring the truly fascinating facts of medieval warfare

[@wackoproductionz1115]

I just finished my first play through (the khusaits made me khan after conquering the world and I got bored) so I started kingdom come deliverance oh my days now that's a brilliant medieval game

[@Lrzmsibelts]

Same, I basically destroyed and the asserai with my kingdom “ottomans” and been in trouble holding off the mongols, even tho the vlandians and western empire should be attacking me i guess they too worried with all the wars around them, better for me cause the northern empire is a goner now.

[@LucidDr3aming444]

@@Lrzmsibelts in my Playthrough I became king of Vlandia and destroyed Battania. But The khuzaits and the Aserai are just as strong as me they are the ones I’m scared about. Also good way to become king is by having the leader have a “accidental death” *wink *wink I can confirm it worked for me 😎

[@shandon122]

I wish nord vpn could protect me from your nord vpn ad transitions

[@POOFAYMANN]

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

[@austinlowrance5943]

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 😂

[@hanneswiggenhorn2023]

Also the attacking army often outnumbered the defending one massively, so they would suck up much more food than the surrounding land could offer

[@austinlowrance5943]

@@hanneswiggenhorn2023 3 to 1 usually if successful

[@tatianaes3354]

*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.

[@ronald3148]

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

[@nothanks9503]

@@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

[@Cyrus_T_Laserpunch]

@@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.

[@hanneswiggenhorn2023]

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

[@pythonprojectsforwindows6795]

Stirling Castle had 30 defenders in 1303.

[@2adamast]

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.

[@hanneswiggenhorn2023]

@@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?

[@2adamast]

@@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.

[@b.elzebub9252]

Regarding the burning oil.. Greek Fire was definitely a thing. Maybe not oil. But incendiary devices were around and used.

[@bimonsolivar8898]

Many people don't know that the Romans actually couldn't conquer the North of Europe due to the protection of NordVPN!

[@moonunit7417]

I heard they tried the food in England and immediately sailed away

[@QueenAleenaFan]

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.

[@Tucher97]

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.

[@Akiba-dr4uk]

05:29 This was the smoothest ad transition ever. Great job.

[@eirikronaldfossheim]

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]

Edit: "þar skal ok fylgja bik ok brennusteinn, eða elligar veld tjara."

[@eirikronaldfossheim]

@@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.

[@subjectstigma2473]

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

[@muhammadkevinsamudra]

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

[@GuineaPigEveryday]

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.

[@christopherberry8519]

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.

[@tehnosan5769]

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.

[@serlistogiette4168]

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

[@jefflebowski3784]

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.

[@timburton6774]

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.

[@hedgehog3180]

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.

[@Fusilier7]

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.

[@Zetact_]

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."

[@tenchimuyo69]

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.

[@TDOPB]

Party as in "Chug bloody Maries all night" or party as in "Group of people"

[@tenchimuyo69]

@@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.

[@lunaeek9130]

No joke, that was the BEST segue into a sponsorship deal I have ever seen.

[@VinnieG-]

But, the most important thing... Where are the ditches!?!?

[@nguyensonbinh8621]

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

[@etuanno]

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.

[@nguyensonbinh8621]

@@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

[@ArgonYouTube]

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

[@juwebles4352]

@@ArgonKZbin the wonky face implies that it’s a joke dude

[@etuanno]

@@ArgonKZbin If you would've read my full comment, you'd understand I was joking.

[@muratakcan1299]

You forgot the urukhai bombing runs...

[@Tinil0]

"Seige of Helm's Deep, March 3-4, TA 3019" has me dying

[@samreynolds2228]

Love how you added the dates for the fictional middle Earth battles lol

[@cliffordjensen8725]

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!

[@ocadioan]

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.

[@DomWeasel]

@@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.

[@furkanonal8]

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.

[@secario2135]

before the battle of guagamela Persian army slept outside the camp because they afread of night attack by the Macedonian

[@theprancingprussian]

Problems I see in some scenes is defenders leaving the security of the walls to form up outside

[@bignumbers]

Gotta stop the baddies from reaching the precious walls lol

[@theprancingprussian]

@@bignumbers like imagining 1450s gunners not firing their guns because of how cool they were styled

[@ghostpiratelechuck2259]

Defenders sallying out to engage in the field was a very common and valid strategy for a host of reasons.

[@gamesguy]

Ancient armies such as the Greeks frequently fought in front of the walls. There's several advantages to this. 1. You can't be flanked. 2. Your archers are safe atop the walls to rain arrows down on the enemy. 3. If the battle goes badly, you can easily retreat behind the walls.

[@theprancingprussian]

@@gamesguy archers had the risk of friendly fire, a battle would not go south if there was no battle, but it does seem sorta useful under some situations to prevent siege

[@The_Gallowglass]

Don't drop hot oil on the enemy. No no no. Save up all your animal and human waste and then drop it on the enemy. LOL

[@HATECELL]

You could even heat the waste up to near boiling and it would have a similar effect to boiling oil. It might not be flammable and not as hot, but being doused with boiling water would at the very least incapacitate the victims. And given that they can't quickly take off their soggy gambesons (or if they do they'd be way too vulnerable to projectiles) means the hot liquid will stay for quite a while

[@martiansoldier]

I heard somewhere that instead of oil, they might heat up sand that had tiny scraps of metal in it, then drop that on attackers. I don't remember if it was in general or a particular siege, but imagining heated metal slipping under my clothes makes me think it could work to divert attention from the attack at least xD And of course sand gets everywhere.

[@benamini5701]

I believe people have misunderstanding about oil. Edible oil was expensive or at least it wasn't cheap; but petroleum oil was very accesable in some places.

[@masneri97]

I learned the single breach stuff when i was kid thanks to total war... Oh boy how much i exploited the dumb ai ahahahha

[@leocomerford]

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

[@GG-bw3uz]

Good read, much thanks for this.

[@coinneachreid8971]

Scaling a breach was deadly for anyone attempting it, in the British Army such units assigned to this duty were called "The Forlorn Hope"

[@DomWeasel]

@@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.

[@coinneachreid8971]

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

[@highadmiraljt5853]

20-30 casualties vs 2,000 casualties Sometimes patience really is a virtue

[@jerryzak1206]

A couple copulating at 6m49s certainly adds to our understanding of camp life.

[@GBHighlands]

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.

[@andyarken7906]

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

[@EucalyptusDrops]

That was the smoothest sponsor transition

[@psychopompous3207]

I watched the NordVPN section because of how smoothly you placed it in your video. Good job.

[@CharlesOffdensen]

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.

[@noisepuppet]

15:06 did someone say "generously splattering loads"

[@HazardRoz]

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.

[@Artur_M.]

That smooth transition to an ad.👌

[@harjawaldaz136]

But oil is readily available in the tar pits that are literally right outside the castle though...

[@WizeGuyz2023]

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

[@AmraithNR]

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.

[@druzhcniq0749]

​@@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.

[@81Earthangel]

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).

[@righteousviking]

"Pour the boiling oil!" *grabs the cauldron with his bare hands*

[@hedgehog3180]

That's not even a historical inaccuracy that's just some very basic knowledge everyone should have.

[@ZekuChanU]

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

[@mikesmancave8833]

Its hilarious how horses were always able to smash through a wall of spears but the elves got impaled en masse 😂.