3 ms·

It's always struck me as obvious this is a 'factoid'. How much of a sword fight can you have on a spiral staircase? It's fun though? And a great learning oppor

It's always struck me as obvious this is a 'factoid'. How much of a sword fight can you have on a spiral staircase? It's fun though? And a great learning opportunity - you can teach a kid the fun factoid, plus something about how hard it is to find out if a commonly-held belief is true.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
And as the article itself mentions, if it's down to that level of desperation you've already lost. I mean the attacker can start a fire to smoke anyone upstairs out, or continue the siege and just wait.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  True, but like all security measures the point is to make things harder for intruders. Security through obscurity is prudent in addition to other measures, so would this. (Regardless of wheather this actually was a thing or not).
  - zimpenfish 5y ago
    > the point is to make things harder for intruders If the intruders are at the bottom of your stairs, you've probably already lost, no?
    - bluGill 5y ago
      Depends. Most castles had defense in depth. You could lose a few wings and survive long enough for external defenders to come rescue you. I don't see why you would fight on the stairs though, as opposed to running to the top where you can close a door behind you, or fight from a flat floor.
    - Swenrekcah 5y ago
      With that attitude one certainly has already lost :)
ch4s3 5y ago
This is what strikes me as well. You probably wouldn't be fighting with a sword, because at best those were side arms for knights in most circumstances in Europe. You'd likely defend a staircase from the top with a barricade, and/or by pushing something down it. Spears or other pole arms would be preferable for defending the space from the top. But as you mentioned, you might as well start a small fire at the bottom to smoke out defenders. Worst case scenario as an attacker, you could just wait out people on the upper levels, they have limited supplies and you presumably control the gates and ground level.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

And as the article itself mentions, if it's down to that level of desperation you've already lost. I mean the attacker can start a fire to smoke anyone upstairs out, or continue the siege and just wait.

Swenrekcah 5y ago
True, but like all security measures the point is to make things harder for intruders. Security through obscurity is prudent in addition to other measures, so would this. (Regardless of wheather this actually was a thing or not).
- zimpenfish 5y ago
  > the point is to make things harder for intruders If the intruders are at the bottom of your stairs, you've probably already lost, no?
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Depends. Most castles had defense in depth. You could lose a few wings and survive long enough for external defenders to come rescue you. I don't see why you would fight on the stairs though, as opposed to running to the top where you can close a door behind you, or fight from a flat floor.
  - Swenrekcah 5y ago
    With that attitude one certainly has already lost :)

ch4s3 5y ago

This is what strikes me as well. You probably wouldn't be fighting with a sword, because at best those were side arms for knights in most circumstances in Europe. You'd likely defend a staircase from the top with a barricade, and/or by pushing something down it. Spears or other pole arms would be preferable for defending the space from the top. But as you mentioned, you might as well start a small fire at the bottom to smoke out defenders. Worst case scenario as an attacker, you could just wait out people on the upper levels, they have limited supplies and you presumably control the gates and ground level.