The medieval castle spotted the landscape of the middle ages and are probably the most iconic and recognisable feature of this period, but why were they built in the first place?
I have a topic request. What happened after the battle? Where the dead left there? Was the armor scavenged? And if so by whom? Was this an organized effort? I thought this might be ( even if it is a bit morbid) a good group topic for you, Medatron and Lindybiege. Each with his perspective areas of study.
It depends. Corpses were only left as they fell, if there's no time to deal with them, or if they are already in a state where you don't want to touch them any more. If you got the time, you would want to strip them of their equipment and valuables. Militia were easy to replace back then, but their weapons were more expensive than the poor bastards wielding them. If you had no use for them, you'd dump them into the deepest water or bury them secretly. The corpses might get buried in mass graves, or dumped into the river to prevent diseases and animals coming to close to your men (or you simply move on). Moreover, you could even get ransom from a corpse, if the corpse was still identifiable. People back then thought that you would never find peace, if you aren't buried properly. Thus they rather pay then watching your men dragging the corpses by horse around the castle or doing other grisly things...
i'd reckon it also depended on the cultures involved in the battle's, as well as the reason behind the war, if it's a holy war, chances are your enemy isn't going to respect you enough to grant you burial, if it's more a civil war/pretender chances are after a battle both sides are going to be buried, should the opportunity be there
This is precisely why castles are everywhere in Japan but completely absent in China. The closest thing to a Chinese medieval castle was the Buddhist monastery, which trained its own fighters. During the Sui dynasty collapse, one particular monastery notably protected a prince of the Tang kingdom from a vastly larger fighting force (120 monks + 1k rear guard vs ~10k troops). Later, that prince became Tang Taizong, arguably China's best emperor of all time, and the monastery was given the right to eat meat by order of the emperor. That was Shaolin Monastery.
Rufei I mean, the castle is generally considered to be a European creation. I don't think the Japanese "castles" actually fit the traditional definition, rather the name has been retrospectively applied to them.
Japanese castles protected a feudal lord who administered a region, loosely adherent to the dictates of the emperor or shogun (whoever was in power). They were fortified against invasion and had garrisons. Seems to walk, quack, and taste like a castle to me.
Rufei Yes but were most of them built as castles or where they fortress that were later occupied by feudal lords or, fortified cities with residences within them. Or manor houses that increasingly fortified until they resembled castles? That's my point, there is actually much debate as to whether Japanese castles fit the definition of castles, since a castle must be built to be a fortified home for a ruling Lord from the get go, not start as a fort or regular house. Look into man, it's interesting reading. As I said, castles do originate in Europe, around 9th century, if they do appear in Japan, it's not till significantly later , but again whether these actually count as castles is hotly debated, maybe not for the average Joe, but from a historical perspective. The evolution of the shiro and the characteristics of their design vs the castles of Europe and the Middle East are actually fairly distinct.
Some of the more manor-like "castles" in Japan resemble the siheyuan, the standard Chinese architectural layout of a family's residence. This comes as no surprise since Japan copied most of its cultural relics from Chinese culture, especially Tang Chinese culture. What's interesting is how walled and defensive the siheyuan already is - a typical rich siheyuan would have a main door and another internal door offset from the main door, with that area being a sort of receiving area for guests. It would be relatively easy to convert such a format into a more castle-like design afterwards. It is possible that Japan didn't have certain technologies until later in history. Through most of its history, it has been a backwater place, playing a very minor role in the region compared to the China region. I would only expect it to have European technologies if it effectively bordered it, which was not the case until at least the age of sail. Since China was imperial by 200 BC, there really wasn't any need to develop feudal defenses. What may be interesting to look at is the lack of Japanese city walls. You'd think that they'd copy that feature from Chinese cities if they wanted defensive structures. However the feudal system of Japan prohibited such construction, ergo we have to expect _some_ defensive structure for the lords of a domain. If you look south to Ryukyu Kingdom, castles were plentiful. They are all in ruins now except for one, but it definitely demonstrates that the region had feudal defensive structures designed to protect lords. If the Ryukyu kings made them and they waged war with Satsuma Domain for quite a while, you'd expect Japanese lords to do the same thing. Certainly they had novel characteristics, but they had to serve the same purpose, no?
Rufei That's what I'm saying, it's complicated. I've just found that if you look into the history of many prominent "castles" in Japan, a lot of them were actually built as military installations and then later occupied by lords or manor buildings gradually fortified as the feudal era developed. So calling them "castles" might be convenient for the average Joe, but actually applying a European label to a style of building in a completely different cultural setting with a distinct technological evolution, is somewhat lazy in my opinion.
Shad, try to take into consideration social reasons and not only physiology. I understand that Orcs would make an excellent heavy infantry clad in heavy plate and armed with halberds but where'd they get all these goodies and more importantly how would they be able to field and sustain all of this?
There's a lot more you could have gone into. For instance: Looking impressive. While this may seem vain it was pragmatically very important. Having a big looming keep that can be seen for miles around helps establish mental authority over your people. Presenting security means merchants feel safe moving large amounts of goods through your land, generating tax. Being able to awe visiting dignitaries is helps in negotiations, and having the appearance of strength can avoid a war entirely by making the enemy think it's not worth the effort of trying to take you.
Its not just looking impressive, its a matter of status. The new studies, at least here in Germany, tend to see castles, especially smaller castles built by the lower nobility, more as status symbols than as defence works. Not always and not solely as such but still it plays an important part. The castle shows whos the boss and it serves as an visible border of status between the feudal lord and his subjects. Besides the defence parts and other important functions like generating tax...well, im just 2 years too late for this comment :D
One other drawback you left out of just raiding around the castle rather than conquering it: If you do eventually end up conquering the land, it's doubtful that the people living there will like you at all and will want to go back to their old lord who didn't burn and pillage and rape their homeland
Shad, I just wanted to say this, I am trying to make a fantasy world and your videos are helping me make an accurate world, on top of being overall good videos. Thank you for your indirect help
Same here. I've gone back and re-written a couple of chapters in the past couple of weeks because I made egregious errors in castle design. Cheers, Shad, for saving me from humiliation at the hands of my historian friends.
It's funny, but as a result of all of the historical youtube channels I have been watching I've started to notice, even in writers that I greatly admire, the gross misuse of physics in fictional architecture. For example, the considerable amount of time Shad dedicates to speaking about medieval and gothic architecture allowed me to identify when authors make the mistake of describing enormously heavy upper floors - like entire city blocks - supported by mere wooden supports. Because of the low compressive strength in wood, this would of course be preposterous. Wood is only feasible as a load-bearing support when talking about discrete structures with very few additional floors and where those floors are limited in size - probably no more area than a few hundred square meters. Furthermore, if stone is used to support stone floors, any hollow volume - for example a great hall or wine cellar - has to include vaulted ceilings to avoid putting shearing force on the stone, which is dangerous. Vaulted ceilings and archways leverage the compressive strength of stone, which is enormous.
I was actually hoping to get a video on the subject since there doesn't seem to be one anywhere on the internet. So if you could squeeze it into your schedule i would much appreciate it if you made a video
I never really though about the hit and run raid by the Castles defenders as a key portion of how it worked before. its also makes the idea angry peasants could get rid of lords almost impossible. He can go back to the castle send to one of his cousins for help while whittling away at their strength with raids by his heavily armored knights.
And turning the locals against you, making it easier for the lords of the castles to rally troops against you and even if you eventually take the land, there will be rebellion.
Another excellent video, Shad! I love listening to your videos in the background as I preform other tasks throughout the day. Always have been a massive fan of history and enjoy listening those who share that interest.
Thank you so much! As one of the people that commented about this, I'm absolutely satisfied by this video. The one thing I'll say is that I'd like to learn a little more about the interplay between topography and function - not with regard to the defensibility of the castle, but with regard to its usefulness as an instrument of government and power. Like, why a castle on an island off the coast doesn't help you control the population of the mainland unless you also have a powerful navy - at which point you've probably turned the island itself into a powerful port town which takes economic precedence over the nearby mainland. On why castles aren't commonly on the top of huge mountains tens of miles from large cities. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Also, one thing I've been wondering is if you could list any sources where you got this information? If you're anything like me you don't always remember where you read everything you know, but if, when making your videos, you know of a good source for the information you're giving, it would be great to be able to dig a bit further. As always, thanks for the great content, Shad, and keep it up.
>On why castles aren't commonly on the top of huge mountains tens of miles from large cities. Well, this one's kinda obvious when you ask MrBtongue's question.
Shad, this video also reminded me of one old castle in Serbia I saw few times. It is near the city of Uzice, and was important medieval stronghold, and it is said that control of that castle brought huge power to the local lord after the kingdom/empire collapsed, so much that Bosnian king had to ally with smaller Serbian lords to kill him. And this is as I later understood due to the position of the castle. It is on top of the hill and lowest tower is leveled with the main road that was used by traders from Ragusa (Dubrovnik) to reach Belgrade and it is obvious how easy it was for owners of the castle to rain arrows on someone on the road and there was no protection, so they had to pay the toll for pass or be destroyed. So this is just one more reason many castles were built, to control trade on main rivers and roads. Image of the castle: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Uzice-fortress-by-pedja-supurovic-09.jpg
Whenever I read a title of your videos that contains the word "castle", I can't help but to say it in my mind in that strong way that you do when you say it.
I absolutely love your channel good video.😀 but I do have a question will you ever do videos on ancient Egyptian,Babylon or Greek that would be cool. I feel you could make pretty cool videos on these civilizations
I don't recall which TV program it was, but some years ago I heard the perfect metaphor for a castle on a TV series. Castles were medieval aircraft carriers. A carrier without its air wing is basically just a big boat. A castle without its cavalry is basically just a big wall. The idea isn't for the castle itself to do most of the fighting, but for the castle to send out parties of horsemen to patrol, attack the enemy, oppress some peasants, etc, and for the castle to provide a secure base where the soldiers can rest, resupply, and coordinate. And like a carrier, if your castle is actually being attacked, something's gone horribly wrong.
You don't want to attack a castle in winter, and Winter is Coming. It's interesting looking at the few sieges in Game of Thrones, Theon loses Winterfell, Stannis tries to take it but fails, Ramsey is confident they can hold the castle for the winter, but thenJon just smashes the gate with a giant. In other scenario Blackfish Tully holds Riverrun, saying they have food for two years. Which is a big puzzle to me in Game of Thrones. It's amazing sieges work at all, their Winters last years and years, they must have massive food supplies somewhere.
I have to thank you, Shad; like Sche I'm in the process of creating my own story world, which I plan to write a novel in. Like him, I have to thank you for indirectly helping me along the way, especially with the castles and all...with my favorite type of humour to help me in frustrating times. Thanks, mate; long live Shadiversity!
Dude, you make it sound like castles and fudalisim developed in England as a result of William conquest. I'm sure that's not what you wanted to say, but that would it sounds like. The Castle is an evolution of the Roman Villa (not Anglo-Saxon hill forts), and it was the fall of Charlemagne empire and it's centralized government that prompted the fortification of Villas and the building new Castles, the Normans just imported the practice of building (wooden) castles and the feudal system from Frankia. the Feudal system evolved out of the tradition of Germanic chiefdom, in Frankia, not in England, and it was well established in France by William's time. William just important the way the french used to govern in France at the time, with feudal estates and castles as their centers of governance. sure it helped them maintain control over the Anglo-Saxon population, and in hindsight that could be an explanation for why the Normans managed to keep control of England while the Norwegian kings of England failed...but the point is, the castle weren't a special adaptation the Normans came up with to control the larger English population, it the way they were used to from Normandy. Some times you have to remind English speaking people that European history is not just the British Isles. sorry for all the Brits, but historically, in the early middle ages, France was much more important then England, they set the tones.
@Gad Yariv - I am a Brit, and I agree. Feudalism and Castles were not created or invented in England after the Norman Conquest. They were already established institutions in France that were imported into England by the Normans. You need to go back earlier than 1066 to look for the origins of feudalism and castles. Feudalism operated a bit differently in England than in the homeland of France - in England it was a more centralised system where the vassals were more clearly subordinate to the power of the King, so despite the lack of centralised standing armies and the pyramidal power structure, you still had a more centralised and unitary state. In France, many of the King’s vassals were essentially as powerful as the King, so the overlordship of the king was largely symbolic, with each major lord governing as he saw fit in his own territory. Same pyramidal power structure with military force based on the feudal levy, but more effectively implemented (at least from the perspective of the central power/the King) in England.
Well done. You do good work. I recall a quote from William the Conqueror saying he would never have been able to take over England had it been properly castellated. At the time the Anglo Saxons had hill forts as slightly better than wooden pallisade villages though perhaps most communities were not even protected at that level. An interesting tidbit is that William brought the parts for his first castle with him. To build a motte and bailey castle to be a strong point near his landing. Perhaps you can do an episode on William's "first castle in england".
Very interesting series. Would you be able to assess defensive values of Oxenfurt, Novigrad or Kaer Trolde from the Witcher 3 or La Valette Castle and Loc Muinne from the Witcher 2? I am very curious about your opinion on them. Same as your opinion about Japanese Castles.
to allow access to more advanced units,expand your borders,increase you suply count if equipped with the storage room upgrade,damage and armor upgrades ;)
Send out a messenger at nighttime via the sallyport. Would he get seen? not really. Night provides good cover and the besieging army needs to remain at a safe distance form the castle when not launching an assault. Castles shoot arrows after all.
Bear in mind that the common folk living near the castle have fled. If they couldn't get into their own castle at least some would run to the next castle over. Armies move slower than a 'runner' as the army has to move provisions, pack and setup tents and so on. Also once the siege began we are talking days to weeks to months of the army being outside the castle. Word gets around during that time that an enemy army is there. That enemy army might be at Castle A today but the Lord's of Castle B, C, D, E and so on know that army might come for them next season. Now is a good time to group up and teach that attacker to leave the castles of this area alone.
Hello Shad and community! I recently started watching this channel and found it really intriguing. I like to see someone's thoughts and perspectives on things like these while also being someone who appreciates the more hypothetical side of things. On that note, I was wondering what a Jedi, Sith, or any person who uses a lightsaber as a primary weapon, would pick if they were somehow shipped back in time. My first thought was a rapier as it has a similar balance to a lightsaber, weight primarily near the hand. Then I realized that these people would be used to a "cutting" edge from all directions without need of using the appropriate angle, so maybe a double edged sword, or a curved sword as edge alignment is not as much an issue. Of course, their previous fighting style would play a part as someone who is a master at Makashi would probably pick a rapier and a master at Soresu would most likely pick a two handed sword, but what about masters of more unconventional styles such as the acrobatic Ataru or the force reliant Niman? I would love to hear your thoughts. Thank you.
Excellent channel. I always wanted to learn more about the properties of the castle. But I would like to learn something else. What about siege weapons? I played in many games of the Total War series, and there the presence of siege weapons made the presence of any fortifications virtually meaningless. A few ballistae or catapults there destroy entire sections of the wall or tower in just a few direct hits. But, I would like to know if these siege weapons were really effective against the castle in reality. And why, instead of using them, many preferred to set aside a long siege?
Hey Shad, can you make video on War Scythes? I know they aren't technically medieval, but i fell like they fit with medieval fantasy, more so than traditional over-sized inwards facing scythes we often see
Hello Mr. Shad ( I hope You do not mind me calling you that ). Like the others me and my friend are writing a novel and your channel has become very useful. We are fans and I thank you for the work you do as we can use it as reference Now you said you are no expert and you do make mistakes, I hope you can inform me about more about the medieval ages more particularly the 11th or 12th Century. Your reply would be much appreciated
So, I have been watching some of Shadiversity's various videos about castles and I am interested in learning more, Do you have some resources, scholars you have read, books and historical works referenced somewhere as a bouncing off point. I haven't found much in ways of reference on the subject and this is not me doubting your facts it is me just wanting to learn more, to go more in depth. If I am just missing were these have been provided, please let me know.
Shad, can you do a Fantasy Re-Armed video on "best fantasy beasts/warriors/war tactics for storming a castle"? I'd be very interested to hear what castles would, theoretically, be weak against now that I know why they are so important in medieval warfare. As an idea, would a castle still be an effective defense against aerial attacks from, say, dragons? Would it be a good idea to send rogue classes like thieves/assassins to infiltrate the castle to open it from inside? I'd like to know what you think about this. :)
You did cover most of the import points, but missed a few points. As a personal residence, it functioned as a secure compond. It must of been nice knowing one's family was safe from chiverous knights doing chiverous things. Chiverous things like kidnapping. Another point is castles and fortified cities were centers of commerse and trades. Much of the wealth that would pay for one's war was inside the castle. The more important tradesmen were also in the castle.
When I was visiting Dunluce Castle in Northern Ireland in January, I remember thinking that it would've been difficult for attackers to sit around sieging there during winter since it was pretty cold and windy; the defenders would have solid buildings with fireplaces on the other hand. Similar for the old ring fort Ailech in Donegal. I did also think...it was so windy, how would either attackers or defenders effectively fire arrows without them being blown off course into the next kingdom?
+Shadiversity Maybe you could do a castle review for the following: Castle Acorn Valdek's Dark Fortress(Lego) Royal Palace of Eternia(He-man and the Masters of the Universe(20xx)) The Castle of Morcia(Lego) The Castle of Dracula(Castlevania) The Palace of Del(Deltora Quest)
Don't forget, fortified settlements are a centre for recruitment. As long as that settlement is not continuously under siege, the more time for the angered local populas to reach the settlement and start being levied into the defending army. And of course, the invasion army can't possibly allocate enough resources to besiege every fortified settlement in the area.
another interesting vid, makes me want to go and look at other things around what you are telling me. i.e. further details about the battle of agincourt
It's funny how castle sieges in Mount and Blade are almost the exact opposite of actual historical sieges in the sense that it's fairly easy to take a castle as the attacker
Great video. Wouldn't be starving a castle logistically very difficult? A lot of suplies would be needed to keep the army feed and stable, which might left it specially vulnerable for such skirmishes. I guess that when armies got low in resourcess they would be difficult to command, and propense to raiding. I think the management of resources in marching armies is a very interesting topic, i guess that the leaders has to make sure to fit to a schedule based on the remaining resources and the time they could mantain thee army in specific conditions.
Sun Tsu actually advices to leave fortifications unattacked as it poses a lot of financial and military risk and cost. Plundering or maybe even occupy the surrounding lands gives you access to supplies or loot. On the other hand controlling the surrounding areas can eventually starve the turtling defenders. That is sensible in that way, that someone imprisoned in his own fortification has few abilities to raise troops. That is different if there are allies you can count on.
If an army (say 1000 men) were forced to retreat from a larger army back into their territory, would it split up into small groups back to their keeps to get besieged separately (a group of 50 led by a lesser noble would travel back to their small Motte & Bailey ) or would they stay together and take their chance surviving within a small but more defensible keep? Could armies survive within castles? Do armies just break apart and run back to their separate regions until called back to campaign?
Churchill's Unicorn Typically there were not permanent standing armies due to lack of good logistics, and everyone would just go back home after the campaign. Even if a battle was lost the winner wouldn’t necessarily invade or besiege enemy castles (sometimes it did happen though). Some territory might change hands but usually as a negotiated result of the battle rather than the territory actually being taken by force. In some cases though, after a battle the losers would be sieged in their castles. You have to remember that taking a castle was not actually very easy, so if some sort of negotiated truce could be established, then this was often done.
Very excellent video! Subbed. I did disagree with you on a couple of points, but this was so well put together, and I'd love to debate out my disagreements!
@shadiversity hi, the castle at around the 1:02 Mark. is that by any chance Conisbrough castle in Yorkshire, England? if not it looks a hell of a lot like it. I'm curious because I'm from very close by and the layout is uncanny!!
I can confirm (well as much as I can off the top of my head) it is coinsbourugh. The outer walls existed in this artists depiction but were heavily damaged in late years. Coinsbourgh is the only place I've seen a keep like that. Except maybe Orford.
Mac Guy3135 I knew it! it's a great little design. the keep is of Norman design origins if i remember rightly, so there may be similar styles in France somewhere?
Lord Shad, if you were to design your own 11th century castle, what would it look like? Where would you build it? And would you have it attached to a city or town? I am curious to know.
A major reason they were built is because they allowed you to spread out your fortces and raise them locally without their succumbing to defeat in detail, in a time where logistics and funds required such a system of building armies and maintaining order.
Another reason for castles was that bypassing them was risky. Each castle acted as a center for sorties who could attack foraging parties, communications and reinforcements that passed near them. This often required an invader to leave parts of their army to invest but not necessarily besiege hostile castles in the rear. The lords of castles were more loyal to the own lands so if your feudal lord failed to show up and relieve your castle you had a right to negotiate with the invaders to switch sides or tor hand over the castle.
At 5:20 looks more like a Roman watchtower and not an early medival castle. Btw, you only explain why the Normans built castles in England. In Germany and France the early castles where meant to be safehouses against the vikings and Magyars. And both of them didn't want to conquer land but just raid it. So the local nobles built castles where they would store everything worth something. What do you think of the catapults at 11:50? Where those actually used in the middle ages. Because I find it hard to find sources for them just like for the medival use of torsion spring catapults.
when I was stationed in Germany my professor, who was Bavarian born and raised, told us that castles in Bavaria were built to defend the villages against the Huns. it was the easiest way to defend peasants from horse archers no matter how big their army was. That in some villages people drew lots to see who would be the owner of the castle, and in most cases the farmers didn't want to become the owners because this meant giving up their land. farming was the only way to make money at that time in their eyes.
koosh138 im not an Professor but im from bavaria . Castles against huns dont seem to make sense (roman period), maybe against magyars , or just against other lords of “german lands“
You completely forget about sieges in this video. You can’t communicate, you can’t organize attacks if you are locked inside a castle with attackers all around you that could wait for years
Because trains, planes, and automobiles weren't invented yet, it took quite a while for armies to move. Therefore, defenders needed an effective way to defend a big area without crippling their economy with a too-big military. With castles, you have a safe, relatively close fortification for your small force to retreat to. The attacker could then ignore you and risk hit-and-run attacks, attack and lose a good chunk of their expensive military, or lay siege and hope they can outlast both your supplies and attacks from your re-enforcements.
Good discussion, thank you. It wasn't always clear to me who you meant by your various terms such as attackers and defenders, whether it was the indigenous population defending against the invaders or the castle dwellers against the local populace which they oppressed. The same terms apply to both parties in different encounters. But I think I got the main idea...sort of. Thanks again.
A siege also has another problem and that is that the one besieging the castle could starve before those inside the castle did. A castle with just a few men can defend against a much larger force and most castles have an abundance of food stored up. The besieging force is much larger and supply trains didn't really exist. In fact keeping an army in one place for extended periods of time was very hard. Armies had to keep moving so they could live off the land. Only by the middle of the 19th century with the invention of railways could you transfer enough supplies quickly enough to support a large army indefinitely.
