4 ms·
> In addition, even a cursory reading of the Mongol Invasion of Southern Song will show that the Song dynasty maintained few castles; at the time of the Mongol
by Chathamization 9y ago
> In addition, even a cursory reading of the Mongol Invasion of Southern Song will show that the Song dynasty maintained few castles; at the time of the Mongol invasion...it had 3.
I think that's incredibly misleading. The Song dynasty had numerous impressive city walls, forts, fortified passes, etc. There's no reason to act as if the only worthwhile fortified structures are castles (should we overlook the Theodosian Walls in Constantinople because they weren't castles?).
> Today, there are few such dense forests in Europe, but the most comparable visual is probably the thick African jungles you see in Hollywood films.
Again, this is very misleading. We're talking about a period after most of the Great Clearance. It's also true that many of the woods that were left were maintained woods.
- novembermike 9y agoCastles create a different strategy. A walled city is an egg, you have a lot of area to attack and when you get through there's a treasure inside. A castle is a pebble. It can be crushed, but you have to put in a lot of effort, you get nothing from it and there's a thousand more around you. IIRC the Song also didn't have great castle making technology. Didn't they do earthen fortifications reinforced with clay bricks? And weren't the walled cities typically sitting on plains, possibly without a moat? That's a lot easier to attack than a composite stone wall sitting on a mountain.