Tweet
Re: On a more serious note...
I answered this last night, but when I was about to post it, my connection went bad, and the post was lost.
Yes. Extensively. Probably the most effective means of breaking the walls down. An attacker simply burnt the wooden structures used to build up the mine. Only trick was to get close enough to the walls to do it without the defending part knowing about it and taking countermeasures.
Not much, except for rounded walls and towers, for more stable structure, and thicker and deeper walls, to counter bombardments as well as mining. The trebuchet was mostly used much as modern artillery is, to cause enough destruction to demoralize a besieged enemy to surrender, or disable him to fight properly, when the main attack was made.
Yes, I think so, if you mean the rounded walls and towers etc. The additional towers in general provided brilliant defences against an attacker from several sides, even should he succeed to get past the walls. He would then be under fire from several angles at once, including the main tower or keep.
I answered this last night, but when I was about to post it, my connection went bad, and the post was lost.
Originally posted by Boco
1) Was mining under walls used extensively before the age of gunpowder?
1) Was mining under walls used extensively before the age of gunpowder?
2) How was military architecture improved to counter the trebuchet? From my limited reading, the best defense against a trebuchet was another trebuchet on higher ground. It sounds like it was the ultimate weapon of it's age.
3) Were concentric castles (e.g. Edward VI's Welsh castles) developed to counter heavy siege engines, or simply to use a small defending force more effectively?
Comment