How to Lay Siege to a Polygonal Fortress in the 18th and 19th Centuries

[@SandRhomanHistory]

Black Friday sale: up to 55% off using my code SANDRHOMAN at checkout - partner.ekster.com/sandrhomanhistory

[@bjorntorlarsson]

The siege of Plataea early on in the Peloponnesian war 430 BC is interestingly described by Thucydides. It might be that not a single city wall was successfully stormed during that 27 years long war. The trebuchet was introduced in Europe only after the war to solve this frustration. They had only battering rams, attempts to build huge siege ramps, and pole vaulters (any volunteers? No, why?) A funny part, on building a ramp that mysteriously stops growing: "The Plataeans changed their mode of operation, and digging a mine from the town calculated their way under the mound, and began to carry off its material as before.This went on for a long while without the enemy outside finding it out, so that for all they threw on the top their mound made no progress in proportion, being carried away from beneath and constantly settling down in the vacuum."

[@loyalpiper]

8:01 average European racism against the celtic nations of Britain 😅

[@kovi567]

How many times will the thumbnail change?!

[@Thraim.]

Vauban was an economic mastermind. Create a problem -> sell a solution

[@odd-ysseusdoesstuff6347]

Business is boomin'!

[@SusCalvin]

Officers still have a mix of adventurers and entrepreneurs.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

I Mean the simple way to stop his solution from people who buaght it is... Sappers... If it takes two weeks from them to get to the walls you have time to digg tonels and make their pretty ofnesnive trenchs into better looking explotions and creators.

[@AlbertaGeek]

Organized religion beat him to that business plan by thousands of years.

[@anthonyramirez9925]

google and apple love his method

[@N0noy1989]

Thanks for the tutorial. Can't wait to try this with my bros over the weekend.

[@SophiaLilithUwU]

Fr i have a siege schedule for tomorrow and this helps a ton!

[@logank444]

I remember my first siege

[@1986tessie]

It's not even about the storming but the town you loot along the way.

[@shinsenshogun900]

Lost a lot of my fellow friends, mentors, and battalionmates, but I've at least taken myself trophies and accolades to retire with a career and pension in the government!

[@NotUnymous]

Funny 😄

[@T33K3SS3LCH3N]

It's like fortresses have simply grown ever bigger and more decentralised in response to increasing firepower. To the point where they are so big that they are no longer recognised as 'fortresses'. Starting with a walled settlement or castle. Spreading out into a star fortress with additional outworks. Adding more detached fortfications in front to form a polygonal fortress. When even that could be razed, fortifications stretched into trench systems long enough to bisect whole countries. Which finally turned into a 'defense in depth', dozens of kilometers deep. Whole towns now serve the purpose of 'outworks', where defenders have to be just as mobile as attackers.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

Still even know the humble trech and sandbag can still work as much as earthen works which in the modern context is a abse build underground under a mountin... and stone walls work too as what highly defned base or cirt would not be made out of cioncrate? So yeah the basics have nver changed only no one uses an off the rack design anymore... Weird that we ever used them to be honest especkly before mass production and when it never was a good idea... AS shown by have dumb thick walls are still extremely OP given the fact they are the reason why tghe cirtioes that have them regardless of ever have never been taked over milltraerly despite their walls being byond ancent adnd never been maiantained. And that last bit only if you poor like just a few guys poor... As no nation on earth has tgheir only defence plane be having a few QRF respond to fire outbrakes... If their milltray is that lacking they don't plan on some outside force conquireing them.

[@robertjarman3703]

I mean, look at the defenses of Kursk. Well, not now, Kursk's defenses are pretty weak right now, but in 1943, they were immense. The area of the battle was roughly 30,000 square kilometres, which is the area of Belgium.

[@chengkuoklee5734]

Ditch:" You can't accept your failure and what does that lead to? Yes, back to me."

[@kylezdancewicz7346]

@@GreenBlueWalkthroughthe problem is army format armies were singular centralized and concentrated forces that would dedicate themselves to a limited number of objectives and operations at a time. Capture this city or fort, intercept the enemy army, relieve 1 siege. In this scenario it would be illogical to give your enemies battle in the open if your on the defense. Instead you can defend the important points with heavily defended cities and forts that can resist enemies for months on end for you to muster and counter attack or for them to exhaust themselves. The second the front line or armies spanned large areas this then failed as now the enemy can effectively sieges and cut off numerous forts and cities at a time requiring fortified frontlines which required cheaper and more moveable defenses like sand bags to fill the gap between forts and cities to prevent them from being cut off. Also systems like what you suggest did exist. If an open ground battle was necessary then forces would attempt to make shift fortifications to assist but again because of the nature of these engagements they only happened if the one army caught the other. So the intercepting army can’t sit down and fortify because then the target army gets away while the target army usually wishes to deny battle as fighting an open battle only waste their men and resources that need to be used to take the next fort or city. And not to mention this is only in the context of Western European static warfare. In Eastern Europe because of numerous factor theirs less forts and heavily fortified cities that are further spread apart meaning open engagement became far more important leading to Gulyay-gorod, wagon forts, moveable, and deployable barricades. This system still indicative of the time but it was just more cost effective to make the army the less defended fort rather than fortify every major city and strategic area. -I wrote too much about this probably but I hope you read it

[@TheNicestPig]

@@robertjarman3703 If you want a truly modern defense line, look at the Surovikin line, thousands of kilometers of interconnected trenches several dozen kilometers deep, with endless mindfields that can be replenished near instantly, air defense, pre-sighted artillery, and roaming drones overhead, all under the umbrella of assault and fighter aviation.

[@cc0767]

10:15 Not the hero we needed, but the hero we deserved.

[@velstadtvonausterlitz2338]

😂

[@everett6072]

Was just on my way to polygonal fortress siege when the notification popped up on phone. Thanks Sandrhoman, this video probably saved my bacon.

[@stevecooper7883]

Try to avoid the dysentery!

[@RandomCat82]

Hey why is someone seigeing my polygonal fortress using these funny methods

[@Arcwelder12]

Really hope this series will continue on to examine the defences of the WW1 and WW2 period.

[@thanakonpraepanich4284]

Then wrap up the series with the battle of Dien Bien Fu, the last siege battle in the history of French Army so far and probably the last formal siege anywhere.

[@egoalter1276]

There honestly is not enough info on the use of field fortifications in modern manouver warfare. To the point people believe they dont even exist.

[@DrippyPootis]

@@thanakonpraepanich4284 I mean they could go over the siege of Bakhmut in the current Russo-Ukrainian war, although it was a bit more of a modern siege.

[@Demopans5990]

Possible example: Siege of Stalingrad and Siege of Budapest

[@freedomfighter22222]

@@thanakonpraepanich4284 In the modern age sieges have become much more common again as highly urbanized cities become natural fortresses, it is why sieges like on Sievierodonetsk, Bakhmut and Mariupol takes so long despite large Russian advantages in armor and artillery in those battles. Modern fortresses just aren't purpose built but they are very efficient as they have so much mass of structures to make bombardment incredibly slow.

[@Zadlo14]

3:05 Vauban's influence was also visible during the Great War where Germans always built three line trenches in both offensive and defensive approaches.

[@stevecooper7883]

We still see some of the same layout in Ukraine today!

[@Arcaryon]

The fact that you can see his designs in dozens of major French fortification is similarly astonishing, this man really shaped Frances borders.

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

And so did the Allies. and these trenches are now a cover against either new kind of bombshells lobbed by breechloader recoil dampened artillery. or MG arrays.

[@Jacob-yg7lz]

10:06 I respect the grind. The man had a goal and used his skills to achieve that goal.

[@milopatz2023]

Based war engineer

[@jobo5300]

It strikes me how in the grand scheme over time the objective shifted more and more from: "How can we create an unbreakable position?" to: ""How can we delay the enemy and make them expend as much ressources as possible?"

[@Benbre08]

Hey man, I speak French and I must say that your prononciation of French names is actually great, you don’t butch the names or anything and I wanted to say that’s appreciated, love your videos btw

[@adamstrange7884]

Last time I was this early, the club was the dominant weapon!

[@collinnicolazzo2065]

For me it was the rock

[@velstadtvonausterlitz2338]

Amateurs! For me it is tooth and nails!

[@AlbertaGeek]

@@velstadtvonausterlitz2338 You guys evolved natural weaponry?

[@robertjarman3703]

It was still a popular weapon in the First World War. Better in many cases than trying to use a bolt action rifle in a small trench.

[@eestaashottentotti2242]

Neurotoxin. When I was a frog. It was yesterday.

[@hare6227]

I´m from Badajoz and i work as a Tourist Guide! Thank you for talking about our amazing siege in the Napoleonic wars

[@davevd9944]

Vauban was truly a genius. He creates the best fortress designs and then proceeds to make a nearly perfect tactic of how to beat them.

[@togowack]

They are Starforts. We did not build them, they were not meant to counter any kind of siege or combat. They were for dividing up the earth

[@followerofteaandspice1815]

10:06 what a madlad

[@TheRealCHIMShady]

gigabased

[@SB-129]

> Comes from nowhere > Sells innovative tech to highest bidder > Drowns self in alcohol > Refuses to elaborate

[@MyVanir]

@@SB-129 This is what the russian guy from the drinking gesture story sought to live up to.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

@@SB-129 >can't elaborate

[@SB-129]

@andresmartinezramos7513 "The brave may fall, but never yield."

[@clintmoor422]

Oh, wow, never thought you'd cover this period but to be honest it fits well with the overall theme of the channel. Maybe continue and also cover sieges in the 20th century?

[@jaro551]

Yes KZbin, I'm interested. I need to know how to capture a Polygonal Fortress, you never know when it will be useful.

[@SoloRenegade]

the best way to know how to breach any defense, is to be supremely good at defense. Once mastery of defensive warfare is achieved, a person now knows all teh various weaknesses of a given defense, and now knows precisely how to defeat each layer of a given defense.

[@simon2493]

I do find it infesting that going closer to WW1 there will be even more focus on just detached forts, well it is logical concussion to the problem of protecting the city itself or and there will be much less focus on the shape itself, you can see even on google maps they do have almost perfect trapezoid shape.

[@thanakonpraepanich4284]

Was Dien Bien Fu the battle when the detached forts concept no longer working?

[@quentintin1]

@@thanakonpraepanich4284 not really at Dien Bien Phu, the French had showed a strategical blunder in completely under estimating the ability of their enemies to set up artillery at all, let alone in concealed positions making it hard to counter the French positions also had minimal reinforcements, being made of earthworks and sandbags, no concrete had been allocated thus they were particularly vulnerable to artillery fire the battle of Dien Bien Phu was even a textbook siege, even if it wasn't so much in form than in spirit, but the Vietnamese forces surrounded the position, cutting it from supply, then bombarded and attacked the outlying forts, bringing artillery closer once the forts were secured, this also allowed to bring AAA close enough to make landings suicide and even parachuting supplies and reinforcements a difficult ask. then they bombarded the french positions for several days before launching a final assault, taking the position the french, under constant barrage, cut away from supplies and reinforcements could only offer so much resistance

[@chrisc1140]

@@thanakonpraepanich4284 I think it's more just the terminology is no longer used, as they're less often formal things. Even in Ukraine, small clusters of dugouts, trenches, and fighting positions perform a similar role.

[@robertjarman3703]

Ils ne passeront pas!

[@DanielWW2]

WW1 was brutal though. Especially the Germans with their dedicated siege train (think railway guns or Big Bertha), just blasted apart 18th and 19th century fortresses like the cannons of the 15th and 16th century did to medieval walls. Those buildings simply could not handle being hit by early 20th century armour piercing shells. Reinforced concrete bunkers where the response, but those are also limited in their effectiveness. WW2 saw far fewer usage of siege guns, but the Germans once again had their dedicated siege train that cracked open pretty much anything. The result is that defences now are dispersed and in depth. That also was made possible by the massive increase in firepower with machine-guns, mortars, artillery, but also range finding equipment and methods to lay down extremely accurate fire. Because no single strong point can be expected to last long. The siege guns of old are gone, but they have been replaced by rockets, missiles and (guided) bombs that still are more than capable of devastating individual fixed fortifications. Thus spreading them out to prolong the ability of fortifications to resists. Because in the end, fortifications are intended to make the cost of attacking them, prohibitive. Eventually everything can fall. But the cost needs to be made as high as possible.

[@FacesofHistory-uss]

This video brilliantly illustrates the evolution of siege warfare and the constant battle between offense and defense. It's fascinating to see how innovations like Vauban's methods and polygonal fortresses shaped history. The level of strategy, engineering, and ingenuity involved in these conflicts is truly mind-blowing. Great work on breaking down such a complex topic so clearl

[@DT-wp4hk]

Menno van Coehoorn stichting is an organisation dedicated to preservation of old defensive positions in The Netherlands

[@AdamSchadow]

Amazing tutorial now I just need to know how to properly build my own polygonal fortress.

[@nunn_]

Great video I’ll keep this in mind whenever I need to lay siege to a polygonal fortress from the 18th and 19th centuries.

[@ViktorCZ42]

The time I waited for this video is immense, but so is my enthusiasm

[@TheBullethead]

You said polygonal forts required besiegers to come up with newer methods than Vauban's for taking the previous generation of star forts. However, what you illustrated was just the same as before with parallels and saps. And while this is true to a certain extent, it also isn't due to the VAST improvements in artillery coming thick and fast due to the Industrial Revolution. The most important changes here were to range (thanks to rifling), effectiveness of each shell (due to the invention of high explosives and armor-piercing shot and shells), rate of fire (due to breechloading cannon), and size of cannon (due to improvements in metallurgy and means of transportation). Of course, fortresses also got barbed wire, reinforced concrete, armor plating, and revolving, even retractable turrets, too. And all these innovations were adopted at different times by different nations so wars and sieges often featured different mixes of all these things on both sides. Thus, generals had to adapt quickly to new tech and quickly see how it could best be used against what the enemy happened to have at that moment. So in the days of short-range smoothbores, star forts were good because they provided fire superiority at close range. But as weapons' ranges increased (there was a brief time in the 1850s when infantry outranged artillery thanks to having rifles while the cannon were still smoothbore), decisive firefights happened at longer ranges so forts had to shift their emphasis from short-range crossfire to long-range frontal fire. This was the main reason for the change from star forts to polygonal forts. The polygonal fort tried to mass as many cannon as possible along the ramparts. And while Montlambert's caponiers were designed with massive artillery, he was still thinking in terms of the short-range crossfire of star fort days so they mostly fired across the face of the fort. The caponiers that were actually built were mostly for riflemen, revolving small-caliber artillery, and then machineguns, for a last defense of the ditch, as the issue would really be decided at long range with frontal fire from both the fort and the besiegers. But as the range and power of artillery increased, having all the fort's guns exposed on the ramparts, or even having ramparts at all, became too vulnerable. Thus, eventually, forts became almost entirely subterranean concrete boxes with only a few (often retractable) turrets above ground. They still had a ditch but the caponiers had been replaced by light batteries (revolving cannon and machineguns) at the angles of the counterscarp to fire along the ditch. That was still quite difficult to storm, so then ultra-heavy howitzers were developed to fire literal bunker-busting, battleship-caliber armor-piercing shells into the subterranean core of the fort, and steam trains and tractors could move these to the front lines. The forts had no answer to this, even though some continued to be built, such as the Maginot Line. And then airpower made all this sort of thing rather moot.

[@Paolo-s8p]

Yes. Next step was the trench, weaker than a concrete fortress, but much more resilient and, actually, almost impregnable. Next step after the next step was coming back to the hard fortress, but in a mobile arrangement, called tank.

[@MarionFR]

Thank you for this. It's very clear that this video is like half cooked, like cut in half. Not just how they said methods of attackers had to be adjusted but then practically didn't explain / show anything, but also from the opposite side - the defenders. They said about that key factor was increase of firepower, caponiers, amassing canons - and here showing even pretty funny high artillery tower - but then not presenting anything how did it work, what did it change exactly. So caponiers were so crucial development, something defining polygonal forts and then it's presented that when attackers reached the line of defence they just... storm though it and it's over? Like huh? Video might seem as a nice work, but it's very poor really. It's clear just on logical and structural level. From your comment I've realized it's even much worse and thanks very much.

[@Paolo-s8p]

@@MarionFR Well, Marion. If You will have the opportunity of travelling in Italy, within a radius of 150 km around Turin (my home) You could see, and visit, twenty centuries of military architecture, from Ancient Rome to Maginot. Perhaps the best way to understand how they worked. In Turin there is, too, one of the most important Artillery Museum in Europe, collecting guns from XV to XX Century. Wellcome.

[@niono1587]

Nice comment, it's an alright overview but it seems like a remake of the video on star fortresses. I was always asking for more explanations but he quickly moved on to the next point. I think this is a subject that can't be broken down in this way, as it covers centuries of history, many wars, many fortification designs, perspectives from defenders and attackers and the wider world of fortifications and weapons.

[@joachimmurat97]

Thank for this Video. I'm always interested in sieges and your videos are just perfect for that. If you want to make a video regarding the prussian system I would love to see cologne in it. Since I live there😅

[@TheGrenadier97]

Fort Tigné in Malta might be the earliest 'modern' polygonal fortress. It was ordered by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc, and designed by the Order of Saint John' engineer Antoine Étienne de Tousard, to be finished in 1795.

[@dIRECTOR259]

The Austro-Hungarian WW1 uniform at 12:25 is incorrect as collar stripes (as opposed to full patches) would only be found on later "field grey" colored uniforms, not blue ones.

[@darbyohara]

Can you do a “how to pay siege to an island star/pentagonal fort”? Where little to no land approach exists

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

Have the better navy andlay suege or hope they are not complete then you just need cuning. Like how that Spainire commander took ranmpa florida wirth basically nothing despite everyone else thinking it was impossible even with the British navy... But because it wasn't complete it was easy just sail under the gunfire and watch the cannon balls ail safely over head... This was during tghe americain revolution by the way adn was the most underrate cluctch play pof the war.

[@MyVanir]

@@GreenBlueWalkthrough Proofread what you write before hitting Reply.

[@2adamast]

Star and polygonal have both covering fire along the wall. Both were also open battery platforms build against direct fire at their origin, using mortars seems the best solution.

[@eldorados_lost_searcher]

Sail close to the fort flying friendly colors, disembark your troops into boats on the seaward side, open up on the fortress at the last second and keep up the barrage to cover the landing force. When they reach the island, they need to scale the walls or breach the gates quickly, or they won't last long in such an exposed position. "L'audace, l'audace, toujour l'audace." I'm paraphrasing Cochrane's reduction of three forts in South America from memory, so please look it up and refine it before attempting.

[@musheopeaus4125]

Damn I was just admiring the finishing touches on my new polygonal fortress . 😮

[@jacopofolin6400]

10:10 the man had dream

[@Nihility15]

He knows what’s up. Some things never change eh?

[@theprancingprussian]

increadible, there arent that many videos i can find explaining these forts well

[@alexanderurbanite1880]

appreciate the nod to humane warfare at the end, laying out when it was strategically sensible and therefore morally acceptable to surrender, a very valuable lesson

[@mcdaniel21mc]

Thanks for the tutorial, now I can lay siege to the polygonal fortress down the block more professionally

[@ironteacup2569]

these are awesome! keep up these amazing vids

03:15 Zaragoza mentioned :) And Hannover, what a ride !

[@saxoDK_1600]

Glad there is some focus on the 19th century aswell on this channel!

[@bldbar118]

I was worried my star fortress expertise was getting out of date. Thanks, Sand.

[@AxDhan]

surrender after the last wall falls? my brother in the Emperor, your body is your last wall

[@thanakonpraepanich4284]

So house-to-house combats using suicide bombers and armed civilians are the real last line of defense, as it was at the Battle of Shanghai Warehouse with Dare To Die corp wearing civilian clothes carrying bags of grenades?

[@nathanblissett9470]

@@thanakonpraepanich4284 I think it was just a Warhammer reference. 😅

[@jakukuja7736]

And that's why, even if it crumbled away, CADIA STILL STANDS!!!!

[@FifinatorKlon]

@@thanakonpraepanich4284 Obviously. What do you think?

[@Xingmey]

6:17 - poor lad being blown to bits!

[@MatthewChenault]

3:11 To an extent, the tactics were similar. However, the difference lay in the fortifications that were being used by the Confederates. Rather than developing full Star Fortresses with brick construction, the Dimmock Line (the main defensive system around Petersburg) relied on a mix of trenches, batteries, and outward-facing fortifications, which acted more as oversized artillery batteries than Star Fortresses. The only fully enclosed fortification within the Petersburg and Richmond defenses was Fort Darling - located at Drewry’s Bluff - that was a five-pointed Star Fortification made entirely out of earthen material. The reason for this choice was rather simple; if the Union took the fortification, they would have virtually nothing to defend themselves against an assault from the Confederate Positions, thus making it difficult to defend their gains. Whenever the Federals captured a fortification - such as Battery No. 5 on the Dimmock line or Fort Harrison on Richmond’s Eastern Defensive Line - they would have to engineer and construct new sections of walls towards the Westward-facing sections of the fortification in order to rectify the lack of defenses along those sections. However, even when the Federals took those positions and reincorporated it into their works, the Confederates would simply build a new defensive line behind the captured position. Both Battery No 5 and Fort Harrison would see this happen with the Confederates taking up position along a new defensive line a short distance from their prior line, thus making any gains near meaningless. It’s why Grant opted to wrap his army around Petersburg and cut off the railroad and plank roads leading into the city, thus starving it and - in turn - the City of Richmond.

[@dsmonington]

Yeah that map had basically nothing in common with Petersburg or its siege.

[@MrAdamArce]

The way you say English words with your accent has a rhythm and bounce to it. I enjoy this lol

[@SandRhomanHistory]

It's a Swiss accent!

[@davestier6247]

I woke up today really bothered. The realization hit me as I drank my Earl Grey tea that i had no idea how to attack a polygonal fortress in the 18th and 19th century. One can imagine my wry smile as i stumbled across this timely recommendation. You're in big trouble now Polygonal Fortresses of the 18th and 19 century. I'm coming for you.

[@mariushunger8755]

Ah, another siege classic! Love it!

[@noneofyourbusiness3288]

9:05 seeing a photograph of such "old-school" mortars in action feels surreal. These look downright medieval.

[@mykolasdobilaitis1565]

I was waiting for a long time for you to cover 19th century warfare my dream came true finally!

[@sailordude2094]

Interesting war history, thanks! These tactics were used later on too!

[@lekkiespiewanie2681]

I realy enjoyed this video :D Awesome job!

[@huibertlandzaat1889]

Realy nice topic. Excellent explination. Thank you for uploading.

[@jordansmith2244]

Thank you for providing such great historical content. Its so interesting learning about the vast experiences our European Ancestors went through. Ty

[@BountyFlamor]

A video on the siege of Paris in 1871 would be nice.

[@ToppatClanPenguin]

Thanks for the tutorial, I am now going off in my time machine to the 18th century to go test it out :D

[@FreeFallingAir]

I often wonder what a 'modern fortress ' would consist of. Had better artillery not made it obsolete. I'll always be that little boy building castles with LEGOS. Fantastic video as always!

[@forcea1454]

Artillery didn't make permanent fortifications obsolete, the Maginot line was built after all, nuclear weapons did.

[@TimDutch]

Another great video! Also thanks for mentioning Menno van Coehoorn. He should be more famous :)

[@edi9892]

Two things I've noticed: 1) the role of towers: Renaissance castles had cannon towers, starforts mostly didn't but then they briefly reappeared in polygonal forts. This leaves the question if they had also observation towers or posts to spot the enemy early or organising resistance. With Starforts or polygonal forts with outposts, organising a defense must have been really difficult without telecommunication... Obviously, the lack of towers doesn't confirm their absence. Starforts were altered during wartime preparations, as some buildings were torn down and reinforcements were made. Possibly further trenches and obstacles were added as well. A wooden tower wouldn't cost much by comparison and it would be difficult to hit, unlike a solid tower... 2) How did the outposts work? Yes, they were meant to engage the enemy and withstand somewhat a siege, but they were too small to be held indefinitely and would be rather easy to encircle. Who would want to man the post, if you know that you'll be fighting to the bitter end? Alternatively, you might build an escape tunnel, but that's quite costly...

[@ZS-rw4qq]

8:47 I'd love to see the full episode on this siege

[@Rha-i7m]

You know, you never know if you suddenly find yourself in the 18th century. That is what I tell myself.

[@TheGrenadier97]

By the way, the Tower of Belém in Lisbon, built finished in 1520, kind of reminds me of a cross between a tall medieval tower and a polygon fortress - that is, passing over the intermediary star phase. The three-faced water side is remarkably like a polygon.

[@kiwidiesel]

Ive taken some excellent notes for my next seige.

[@null8fuffzn199]

i love these, incredible animation.

[@Johann.863]

Immaculate video, many thanks

[@polymathart]

You should check out the castle building game Tiny Glade to make the “ideal” fortress.

[@Cronkna]

This will be so useful next week

[@bogdanvino]

So this video leaves me with an unanswered question: how was the polygonal fortressvmore resilient to the formal siege than the preceding star fortress? The formal siege you described here looks basically identical to one you described vs star fort in its video, and I didn't quite get from the video what new challenges were presented by the polygonal fort and how did the attackers adapt to them

[@TheWampam]

There are probably several points: -The forts meant that the besiegers had to start much further out. -Riochets were much weaker (their strength against bastioned fortifications was that you could skip them along the ramparts ) -Casemates where of course much harder to surpress than open canon emplacements, meaning the defenders were much better at firing back. -More and more concentrated artillery made counter battery fire much more effective

[@niono1587]

@@TheWampam And as well, the fortification was more dispersed and disconnected, meaning there would be many batteries and earthworks to capture along to the main fort

[@frogenjoyer69420]

Thanks for the tutorial, it worked!

[@EstParum]

Thanks this will come in handy soon.

[@robbabcock_]

Thanks for this terrific video! 😎⚔🔥🏹🙌

[@xToxicNinjax]

Her: Babe what are you doing up at 3 am Me: Making sure I'm ready for my opponent's advances in siegecraft

[@clemi6739]

Since this video is about Polygonal Fortresses, you could do a video on the siege of Przemysl. A staggering siege for sure.

[@octorant]

Your videos are always so well researched. Have you considered making one about more modern fortifications? Like the sere de rivieres system or evwn the maginot line?

[@taraskywalker453]

Thank you for the guide, I was just planning to.

[@odd-ysseusdoesstuff6347]

*furiously writes for D&D and Worldbuilding

[@sarahsidney1988]

Love your siege videos

[@DeRegelaar]

Incredible video.

[@eclyphh]

Me at 4am: “Yea let’s watch this, maybe it’ll come in handy.

[@ReaperCH90]

I think I can soon get a bachelor's in siegonomics

[@P4Tri0t420]

14:39 Judging on the french soldier infront i think this photo is rather taken in WW1

[@athenovae]

I read the title as: “How to lay siege to a Personal Fortress” and was so confused. I was also probably hungry at the time and craving pizza. 😂

[@potatopotato2042]

this is so interesting, i love your stuff! (also not to nag, but are y'all planning on finishing the 30 year's war series anytime?)

[@absoleet]

Interesting, didn't know about this historical stage of development in fortress defense vs sieges.

[@donkey8471]

Great video!

[@Silvestor_Nomar]

Thank u this information will come in handy

[@TheAdmirableAdmiral]

One thing I always thought was funny was how in Empire Total war, defending the square fortress was possible with 4 units (one for each side) but defending the star fortress which was like 5x more expensive required 10 units to properly defend (two for each spoke) and because the perimeter of the fort was made exponentially longer it was much easier for an enemy to mass all his men at one spoke and overwhelm you there because it would take you forever to re-position.

[@thereynaldosan7695]

That's because the main idea of a star fortress is the heavie use of artillery while defending, such thing you can't do in the game

[@TheAdmirableAdmiral]

@@thereynaldosan7695 No you can, the forts have built in swivel guns that will fire, BUT you need to have each face of the wall garisoned by a unit to activate them, hence the necessity for a minimum of 10 units which in the game is rather difficult and uncommon to do.

[@niono1587]

Ye I agree, I think sieges in empire were done quite horribly even though they have the potential to be really fun. The guns should've gotten deadlier with each progression and should've been manned by their own gunners. It's stupid how forts are left completely empty if you don't have a 150 man line infantry unit in there (that can only take position on one part of the wall.) It's also way to easy to approach the fort, there's no heavy artillery pieces that require progressive siegeworks. you can run up to the fort with minimal casualties and win. If they ever do another gunpowder total war they should add a separate siege system I think.

[@FlyingTooFast]

Thanks… no longer will my neighbor try to keep me from stealing his T-bone steaks

[@Bears5757]

I will use these tips the next time I lay siege to a polygonal castle

[@Cancoillotteman]

That makes me think, any chance of you making a video on the siege of Belfort in 1870 - 1871 ? The place was reinforced by Vauban and later again during Napoleon's time, and saw many interesting aspects of late XIXth century siege warfare, including a failed relief attempt that failed only a few kilometers away from the city.

[@civ-fanboy2137]

Ahhhh Vivaldi. Perfect Music for any siege ^^

[@Waltusb0yuas]

Born to early to lay siege to Death Star born to late to lay siege to a polygonal fortress

[@gabrielacosta3363]

Never thought a siege would be so elaborate. I thought it was all just about making them starve to death and ahoot ablot of cannon balls

[@toddberkely6791]

crazy that the people who would have participated in these battles were only 4-5 generations from the atom bomb

[@Alorand]

I would love a game centered on asymmetrical siege warfare of Star and Polygonal Fortresses.

[@michaelmanning5379]

There are siege rules in the back of "Warfare in the Age of Reason" which is a set of rules for tabletop miniatures. In theory, you need model soldiers and terrain. However, it could be played with pen and paper. It just won't be nearly as pretty.

[@Sir.suspicious]

You should definitely do a video on attacking the Lines of Torres Vedras someday

[@bigsarge2085]

Fascinating.

[@ntesla4714]

Thanks, I watched the star fortress tutorial but I got stuck when the enemy started building polygonal fortresses. I'll try this in the next siege!

[@pathutchison7688]

Really could have used this vid 200 years ago.

[@yorkie3583]

1:16 That dog is planning to lay siege to a polygonal fortress! also, cute dog :)

[@BasicallyBaconSandvichIV]

I'm doing some world building now and I'm wondering what I need to tweak about my world/magic/starfortresses to keep the bastions while still ensuring that the fortress is as defendable as this. Does anybody have any good ideas? Keep in mind that there are no breechloaders, only muzzleloaders, because breechloaders fail to fire and tend to horrifically explode. Also the gunpowder is actually not regular gunpowder but instead magical gunpowder, which has the upside of actually being able to fire in a magical area, but the downside of only being able to be set of by magical sparks, so mages are required when using it.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

seems obvious in hindsight, don't give up land so easily since vobont's system uses that land to build the trenches

[@prs_81]

That is indeed why building outer works and fortification systems became more and more common

[@AsbestosMuffins]

nice to see the american civil war starting to creep in. it was as much a bridge between the old world fighting of the 18th century and a prelude to the modern fighting of the 20th century

[@markhohenbrink5230]

Its going to be interesting to see how seiges worked on fortifications in the 20th and 21st centuries. I dont know if your expertise is in this field but I do hope you take a crack at it.