> Sieging the high defended castle
> Not just going around it for easy win
Retarded military strategy of the past thread go.
>>1328321
>Leaving the castle so the people in it can fuck with your supply lines and raid your troops, having a fortress to return to when they need
Yeah, those simpletons
>>1328321
castle's weren't just placed on random areas of land, they usually were placed on vital roads or choke points to prevent an enemy army from advancing, or are protecting key economic areas such as your typical city walls or inner-city citadels.
but generally castles were placed defensively so that in order to advance in a direction, the enemy had to assault the castle in order to continue.
>>1328321
And what do you do next when you go around it smartass, roam around the countryside and continue dodging castles forever?
>>1328321
Do you really think professional soldiers were making obvious mistakes for literally thousands of years?
>standing in lines and shooting at people
>not using cover
>not even firing from prone
>reloading standing up
>"""""professional soldiers"""""
>>1329774
>standing in lines and shooting at people
Morale was very fragile and the guns were shit. Generally shooting in a line was the only way you'd keep people from running away and enable them to hit something.
>not using cover
Same reason as above
>not firing from prone
Confirmed for being a shitposter or retarded. The bullets didn't have high velocity and fell much quicker firing from prone would either make the bullets hit the ground or eliminate their ability to aim by having to fire far above their targets.
>reloading standing up
When your primary weapon is almost as tall as you are. Yeah you reload standing up. Besides most battles only had each side fire a single volley and then they charged each other.
>>1329774
I'm just curious, how exactly do you reload a muzzle loaded musket while kneeling or prone?
>>1329810
>expert found
I always had these questions in mind:
1. If most battles are one volley and then charge, why not save up the shot, march really close to the enemy (like 10 meters), and then fire?
2. Why not run or at least jog when you advance? Walking slowly to give enemy more time to shoot at you seems like a waste of soldiers. It is messy, but maybe you can train soldiers to get back into formation quickly after running.
>>1329824
Not him, but during the American Revolution (which I realize isn't necessarily dispositive for all line battles, average musket engagement range was 70 feet. They did get pretty close before letting loose, and shooting earlier and fire there was usually a sign that your army had poor discipline.
>>1329815
You can do it with a little difficulty, lying from the side, holding the gun at a decent angle.
>>1329837
>70 feet
Well, what stops you from shooting even closer?
Anyways, playing devil's advocate, maybe if you march really close, the advancing side will lose so many soldiers while marching that added accuracy is not worth it.
>>1329824
1. Remember that morale was a big issue. If you wanted to fire at 10 feet, your enemy would've fired at say maybe 70, and charged you as soon you as hit maybe 40 or 50 ft away. Trying to get your troops to fire when the enemy has already shot a good quarter of them and is currently charging your line is not great for accuracy or morale. Furthermore, they'd then have to affix bayonets (depending on era) while the enemy is far too close and will probably close with you before your men are ready to charge.
Basically, 10 ft is too close because the enemy with bayonet your ass.
2. Running is terrible for cohesion and command. Formation also takes a while in the field, and a lot of training. If you want to spread out to the point where your running actually gives an advantage in terms of not getting shot, then you're looking at skirmish formations, and the standard practice of light fusilier and rifle units. At that point tho, you lose the benefits to morale of standing shoulder to shoulder with fellow peers, the benefit of ranked fire and also leave yourself ridiculously vulnerable to cavalry.
If most battles were fire one volley followed by charging and stabbing, why did most armies only have flamboyant uniforms instead of, you know, armour?
A cuirass won't stop a lead ball but it would stop a bayonet, did governments back then just hate their soldiers?
>>1329856
Shits expensive senpai, the majority of cavalry could not be equipped with cuirass, and of the cuirassiers, most countries made them pay for their own equipment.
As for infantry, its ridiculously heavy. And even more expensive and costly on a per regiment basis.
>>1329824
1. Again morale was very shit and getting that close would either prompt them to charge flat out or book it and run. Also nothing is stopping one side from firing early and decimating the other and possibly routing them.
2.Well they did march and as you said getting back into formation takes time and since the other side is already in formation they could fire a volley early and maybe even get another volley off before your side gets can get one off.
Although no one tried these as far as I'm aware so these are just assumptions on my part.
>>1329855
For point one, I had what the Swedes supposedly did with great success:
March until you get pretty close to the enemy, start jogging moderately when really close, stop (30 meters), shoot devastating volley, and then immediately charge.
Lets say the opponent shot a bit earlier (70m) and are now charging. Then all I would have to do is jog a bit less, shoot when they are close to charging us (30m) and then charge as well.
I know we're getting into theory-land, but this is fun!
>>1329872
Also, I concede that this only *might* work if you have very tough high-morale sons of bitches under your command; normal armies would break if I made them do this.
Not having mass longbowmen with spikes?
>>1329861
But would the cost of outfitting soldiers with good equipment not be made up for in battle victories? Besides, armour was worn by foot soldiers in prior centuries.
It wouldn't even have to be solid steel cuirasses, chainmail or even leather hauberks would help against a bayonet.
>>1329824
1. because if you got that close you wouldn't be able to defend effectively from calvary charges, you would get buttfucked. In fact by the time you got to 10 m before firing a shot, the enemy probably would have already fired a couple volleys, slaughtered you, and then charged to finish you. I'm no expert on military strategy but I'd guess that you'd probably have to be at least 20m away for it not to be retarded.
2. To stay in formation and to keep discipline in order to preserve morale
>>1329824
Caroloeans did exactly that.
>>1329810
> The bullets didn't have high velocity and fell much quicker firing from prone would either make the bullets hit the ground or eliminate their ability to aim by having to fire far above their targets.
Not him but what you're assuming is stupid.
Being half the height does not change anything about the way you take your shot even with "low velocity" bullets which were by the way at all time faster than our conventionnal pistol rounds.
The issue is the range, not the way you're standing, do you even parralax?
But you're right for everything else though. And i've heard conflicted things about kneeling, some claim that it was to permit two rows to fire at the same time, one kneeling, the other standing, behind.
Don't know how much truth there is to any of this anyway, chances are it was down to own regimental tactics.
>>1329971
That was my inspiration for that question
>>1329824
>at least jog
They often did, le walk slowly is a shitty meme, the advance was at a speedy rate
>>1329880
First of all, chainmail and brigandine is even more labour intensive than cuirass, as its taking the time join thousands of little rings or hundred of small plates vs. beating out one big plate.
Secondly, they did use leather, in a fashion. The men used to wrap their cold weather gear into long rolls, and wear the roll like a bandolier across their shoulder. The many layers of fabric in the roll was known to stop sabres to the target location (more important for the cavalry due to the reduced number of target areas on the body due to being seated on horseback).
>>1329984
The issue is not merely range. Modern pistols are rifled. The majority of napoleonic muskets were not. That's why they were ridiculously long, but still less accurate than the far shorter barreled rifles of the day.
>>1330180
You're overlooking a few things. Chainmail and brigandine is low-skill labor, a solid breastplate is high-skill labor. Moreover, any good plate armor is fitted to the wearer. Off-the-shelf plate did exist, but it limited movement. In the case of breastplate, one that's sized too large will inhibit bending over or any other movement of the waist.
Now, my blacksmithing knowledge is weak, so correct me if I'm wrong, but riveting mail together, or riveting/sewing plates onto some stout cloth requires minimal forging at all. It can be made (to an extent) and repaired on the march. Plate can have the dents hammered out, at best.
>>1330191
Not him but they also used musket ball ammo.
They were actually quite accurate up to 100-150 yards.
>>1330191
But the accuracy of your rifle isn't impacted wether you're standing or prone. And being prone would've improve your aim.
Btw rifled or not, 70 grains of black powder are still gonne have a flat trajectory for the 50 first yards, which is still better as I said than most pistols and smg's of nowadays.
So it surely wasn't accurate as a bolt action would've but it still was quite a deadly weapon.
>>1329824
>1. If most battles are one volley and then charge, why not save up the shot, march really close to the enemy (like 10 meters), and then fire?
Because if the enemy fires first, you'd lose some men before you could fire. There's advantages to firing from afar, and from finding close, you have to find a compromise.
>>1330208
This might be more speculation than fact but i'd imagine there were some good reasons mail was abandoned in favor of cloth or leather.
1- mobility: most armies would be doing a lot of marching / have to be mobile. sewing metal plates into armor may have been uncomfortable to wear on the march. This could be fixed by having a change of non-armored uniforms but then you'd end up having to carry more, which might counter the benefits of additional protection.
2- (speaking of which) protection: As i understand it mail doesn't hold up particularly well versus firearms/shrapnel. in fact, if you happened to be wearing a mail and got hit by a musket-ball or grapeshot (from a cannon) the metal links might shatter and exacerbate the injury. During this era, however, most firearms were low velocity, and layers of cloth probably did a decent (and cheaper) job at slowing or softening the impact of the mini/mustketball etc.
But I'm pretty sure some cavalry units in this period used plate chest pieces, maybe because they had access to horses it was easier to maintain mobility.
>nobody used guns during the crusades
Can someone honestly ecplain this shit to me? Why didn't they use muskets?
>>1330353
>inb4 guns weren't available
Fuck off. They were. I studied European history for quite a while.
>>1328321
If you have the amount of troops that the castles can not raid your effectively if you move passed them the war you are fighting was over before you started.
Here is how castles worked. One much of the food supplies is inside the the castles of the area. Two all of the goods roads have castles along them at different points. If you go passed them you have to move supplies pass them via a wagon train. On a road a ox carts moves 15 to 13 miles a day, barring bad weather. Off road that drops to 11 to 7 miles a day. Horse carts move a bit faster, but horses cost a lot more then a ox. If you bypass a chain of castles then you have to guard your supplies lines, with the deeper you go the long your supple line being. Thus the more men need to guard it. If the site that you are attacking has any meaningful defense to eat your time that can cause issues fast.
this >>1330367
Defense in depth and scorched earth are text book military strategies and can severely diminish an invading army.
A man needs a kilo of food a day and a horse 10, to feed 10000 men and 1000 horses without grazing or living off the land you need around 20 tons of food a day which is around 50 cart loads (400 kg).
The carts themselves need around 11 kilos a day, plus maybe 9 for a day travelling back with the empty cart.
A cart consumes 140 kg of its load on a week long supply line, so if each cart travels the full distance, 77 carts would arrive per day for a total of 1077 carts along the entire route.
You could have carts delivering hay to checkpoints, every day along the supply line requires around 5% more supporting carts, for a week long supply line you need 350 carts, plus 350 on the return journey and 285 carts to supply the supply line (assuming I've done the math right), so maybe 1000 carts is more accurate.
Now imagine there are castles everywhere full of rapacious knights. How the FUCK are you going to defend your supply lines unless you have mongol tier logistics? Once you do the math everything comes into perspective.
>>1328358
Do you know how big the continent is you fucking retard?
Castles may be bug but when comparse to the continent they're nothing, you can choose 3000 other paths
>>1330624
Not gonna lie, for a second there I honestly thought you were being serious.
>>1330624
>Oh shit, that castle is defending the bridge. What do we do, captain?
>Well I guess we'll just have to find the next bridge 50 miles north ;)
Or even better:
>Oh shit, that castle is defending the only pass through these mountains. What do we do, captain?
Well I guess we'll just have to travel 150 miles around the mountains. Hope we don't run into any rivers along the way ;)
And that's why Emperor Maximilian had to march through all of Anatolia before he could prosecute his wars in Italy. After all, why siege when you can just go around?
>>1330521
Reading the Three Kingdoms, it's a funny thing to realize sieges worked the other way around in China. If the place wasn't taken fast enough, it wasn't the defender but the besieger that would start to suffer from the lack of food.
>>1330642
You retard you can traspass the bridge with canoas or shafts you fuck
>>1328321
Protip: any hole you can casually poke in a tried and true military strategy of the past is probably something the commanders of the time thought of and there was probably a reason why they did what they did.
>>1330686
Medieval fucking retards couldn't even read get this through your head you miserable retard, their intelligence quotient was lower than modern children's to them someone Who could read was like Einstein
>>1328321
>Not just going around it for easy win
Actually a lot of people did that, if they wanted a fast victory instead of securing land.
Most notably Jehanne Tarc better known as Joan of Arc did that in her earlier campeigns and on the way to Reims. Cause her goal was to move fast to certain key targets (like Reims for the coronation), but not to conquer the land in between.
The thing is: You cannot hold the land in between without a castle, PLUS you now have enemies in your back that can raid your supply lines from their castle when you are not close.
It works when you want to rush through to secure certain destinations, but not when you want to hold whole areas or wage a long war.
Castles are a danger to your supply lines and you need them yourself to secure trade routes and such.
>>1329872
It worked until their opponents learned to duck when they fired and then just present their Bajonetts and let their loose formation run into what essentially was a pike block for all intents and purposes.
Yeah. "Great" tactic.
Essentially it was a novelty that only worked for a short time.
>>1329897
It's "cavalry."
>>1330670
Where do you get enough of them for a whole army?
Also if you use shafts, now half your army is wet, and you have to rest to get their stuff dry, and they might get ill depending on climate.
>>1330688
The way you write makes me think you're in no place to talk about retardation.
Also, at least in france, 10% of the people could read, it's just that less people knew how to write. And how the fuck do you have any idea of anyone's IQ in the medieval times ?
Yeah I took the bait.
>>1330208
Multiple plates are terrible at stopping stabs, they're barely adequate against slashes. Look at Roman armor, and how it evolved. They originally used lots of small overlapping plates, but all that went out the window pretty quick for a few large strips of overlapping metal and later chain mail. Much more expensive and time consuming to make, but actually useful at stopping weapons.
Any armor you just sew into cloth is shit armor.
>>1330353
Guns were expensive and difficult to maintain. Going into the holy land no gunsmiths, no gunpowder makers, no industry set up for making that stuff existed. It was far easier to create longbows than it was guns. Guns needed a lot of economic backing to make. Great for a kingdom well established with access to lots of raw materials. Really bad for marching 3000 miles into an area with tech generally about 200 years behind yours in a lot of practical ways.
>>1330765
> less people knew how to write
How that even possible? If you know letters enough to read words then you should be able to write them, it isn't space science.
>>1330649
Probably because they were besieging cities.
>>1330688
When the majority of books are written in Latin or French its kind of hard to learn things.
As for the castles you'd have an army raiding your rear and supply line. Plus it makes conquest impossible. You'd be stuck in the middle of enemy territoy.
It might work if your only goal is to fuck up a particular target.
>>1330807
How can one post contain so many faults?
>>1331025
Lack of practice. Before cheap paper was a thing (which it only became in late medieval time), normal people didn't write down much aside of really necessary stuff like merchant lists.
They would often read things though that was written out for a whole town to see on a board, inscriptions at local churches, etc.
Imagine you NEVER held a pen your whole life as someone who isn't a merchant. Can you even guess how crappy your tries of "writing" stuff from memory would be initially?
Why didn't they flank shield walls with cavalry?
>>1328321
Cool, that pepe is wearing lithuanian
>>1330807
>chainmail becomes the go-to armor sometime after 4th century BC
>coat of plates begins being worn over top come late 12th century
>coat of plate diverges into brigandine and solid plate as time goes on
>but according to anon, there were no transitional armors and coat of plate was a mistake
