6 ms·

This made me remember something about castles... I was wondering, how useful are ancient castles in modern battles? Armchair generals all over the planet kept

This made me remember something about castles... I was wondering, how useful are ancient castles in modern battles? Armchair generals all over the planet kept prattling about them being useless because modern weaponry is awesome and all... Then I went to look properly: 1. Kerak de Chevaliers, yes, that one crusader castle, was occupied during the Syrian war, and gave a hard time to the enemy outside, the castle worked exactly as intended, even with modern weapons. 2. Ditto to a bunch of other castles in some past wars. 3. A fortified monastery gave enemies a hard time in WW2 in Italy, I forgot its name now. 4. Not exactly "ancient castle", but a "star fort" in France was captured in the opening days of Battle of Verdun, in part because the french leadership believed castles to be outdated and didn't garrisoned it properly... the result was that the attempts to retake the fort resulted in 100.000 casualties on the French side before they succeeded. 5. Also in Verdun there was a smaller fort, the commander of that fort was old and the military ordered him to retire for medical reasons, he refused and basically "kept" the fort as his own, with a small garrison, the old guy and his small garrison fought fiercely against the invading Germans and caused 3000 casualties to the Germans before they lost.

samizdis 6y ago
> 3. A fortified monastery gave enemies a hard time in WW2 in Italy, I forgot its name now. Monte Cassino? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
  I'll tell you. This[0] is a hell of a photo. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-577-1917-08,_Monte_Cassino,_Fallschirmjäger_mit_Granatwerfer.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino#/media...
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
A castle gives you a hard time when you only have a gun. If the military has aircraft, missile launchers, and artillery, they'll be flattened before any fighting occurs. Plus it's a pretty easy target.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  From Wikipedia about Monte Cassino "On 15 February American bombers dropped 1,400 tons of high explosives, creating widespread damage.[6] The raid failed to achieve its objective, as German paratroopers then occupied the rubble and established excellent defensive positions amid the ruins. "
  - gonzo41 6y ago
    Those were unguided bombs. Modern artillery and mortars will just slowly wear down a static target like that. From a safe distance as well.
    - hutzlibu 6y ago
      And that comes for free? It binds ressources. Lots of them. You even write "slowly". Meaning fortification is still effective. While the enemy artillery is busy bombing stone, your troops can attack other targets from from other angles.
      - engineer_22 6y ago
        That's right. But civilians believe the US air force is omnipotent.
    - tosseuthansia 6y ago
      it was still 1400 tons of high explosive. Monte Cassino was reduced to rubble. The entire monastery was reduced to ruble and had to be rebuild from the ground up. Also, the US did have artillery at the time, which is bloody precise. It didn't matter, the Monte Cassino was a meat grinder for the Allies. Anyway, why dredge WWII era stuff? The US got spanked in Afghanistan by an irregular militia with bolt action rifles. And their tactic is simple as it is brilliant - negate the advantage of air raids by fighting as close to the enemy as possible.
      - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
throw1234651234 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citadel_of_Aleppo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citadel_of_Aleppo This ancient fortification was the only thing the Syrian army held in the city for months, if not years. It functioned exactly as an ancient fortress did - providing high ground, spotting enemy movement, safety of supplies, etc. Another recent example is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airpo... This was NOT fortified, but allowed concealment, and was held through heavy bombardment, offering a tactical advantage. Yes, US/Russia/China could pound it into the ground, but that takes a LOT of ordinance. Btw, WW II is FULL of these examples. I think the misconception comes from the fact that "modern weapons" - jets, radars, comm sites, missiles, etc cant be "secured" in these facilities. This is true. But that doesn't mean they can't be held through heavy bombardment and house mortars, snipers, ATGMs, small supply caches, etc.

samizdis 6y ago

> 3. A fortified monastery gave enemies a hard time in WW2 in Italy, I forgot its name now. Monte Cassino? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino

ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
I'll tell you. This[0] is a hell of a photo. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-577-1917-08,_Monte_Cassino,_Fallschirmjäger_mit_Granatwerfer.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino#/media...

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

A castle gives you a hard time when you only have a gun. If the military has aircraft, missile launchers, and artillery, they'll be flattened before any fighting occurs. Plus it's a pretty easy target.

hutzlibu 6y ago
From Wikipedia about Monte Cassino "On 15 February American bombers dropped 1,400 tons of high explosives, creating widespread damage.[6] The raid failed to achieve its objective, as German paratroopers then occupied the rubble and established excellent defensive positions amid the ruins. "
- gonzo41 6y ago
  Those were unguided bombs. Modern artillery and mortars will just slowly wear down a static target like that. From a safe distance as well.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    And that comes for free? It binds ressources. Lots of them. You even write "slowly". Meaning fortification is still effective. While the enemy artillery is busy bombing stone, your troops can attack other targets from from other angles.
    - engineer_22 6y ago
      That's right. But civilians believe the US air force is omnipotent.
  - tosseuthansia 6y ago
    it was still 1400 tons of high explosive. Monte Cassino was reduced to rubble. The entire monastery was reduced to ruble and had to be rebuild from the ground up. Also, the US did have artillery at the time, which is bloody precise. It didn't matter, the Monte Cassino was a meat grinder for the Allies. Anyway, why dredge WWII era stuff? The US got spanked in Afghanistan by an irregular militia with bolt action rifles. And their tactic is simple as it is brilliant - negate the advantage of air raids by fighting as close to the enemy as possible.
    - SuoDuanDao 6y ago

throw1234651234 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citadel_of_Aleppo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citadel_of_Aleppo This ancient fortification was the only thing the Syrian army held in the city for months, if not years. It functioned exactly as an ancient fortress did - providing high ground, spotting enemy movement, safety of supplies, etc. Another recent example is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airpo... This was NOT fortified, but allowed concealment, and was held through heavy bombardment, offering a tactical advantage. Yes, US/Russia/China could pound it into the ground, but that takes a LOT of ordinance. Btw, WW II is FULL of these examples. I think the misconception comes from the fact that "modern weapons" - jets, radars, comm sites, missiles, etc cant be "secured" in these facilities. This is true. But that doesn't mean they can't be held through heavy bombardment and house mortars, snipers, ATGMs, small supply caches, etc.