5 ms·
Yes, it would take not just a real historian, but someone who had done research, to answer this question. Having been up and down a few of those, it certainly s
by wnissen 3y ago
Yes, it would take not just a real historian, but someone who had done research, to answer this question. Having been up and down a few of those, it certainly seems more than just plausible to me, even taking into account the numerous recorded sieges. On the other hand it is also true that spears and shields play a much greater role than swords. Hard to imagine wielding a full-sized shield, let alone a spear, in one of those staircases, though!
- Analemma_ 3y agoI think the bigger point from the article is that by the time people are fighting hand-to-hand in the tower stairwells, the defenders have already well and truly lost: comeback from such a state was probably impossible (and if the walls were breached the defenders would almost certainly have surrendered rather than fought to the last man). So it wouldn't have really made sense to design things for this possibility.
- jvanderbot 3y agoThis comment is a perfect example of GGP's problem with historical analysis. As is the nearly-exactly comment in TFA: > Frankly, if you find yourself in this position the castle is probably already lost. It's conjecture all the way down.
- qwytw 3y ago> It's conjecture Just like the entire staircase argument? Except that we actually know that: > Frankly, if you find yourself in this position the castle is probably already lost. Was true in almost all cases.
- ramblenode 3y agoThat's not a good counter-explanation. A castle staircase takes a lot of time and effort to build. Choosing to build the staircase in one direction or the other has negligible cost. If there is even a slight or possible advantage to one direction then it would make sense to build it that way. Defense in depth.
- gowld 3y agoWhere's the contemporary research to determine which direction has advantage?
- the_af 3y ago> If there is even a slight or possible advantage to one direction then it would make sense to build it that way If it's true that the battle at this point is lost for the defenders -- and known history indicates this is so -- then why would the builders choose directions based on this extremely unlikely scenario, instead of on just about any other consideration (aesthetic, practical, or even random)?
- lazide 3y agoWhy does the USMC issue bayonets still?
- the_af 3y agoI've honestly no idea. I'll take a stab at guessing (mind you, this is blind guessing, happy to be corrected!): the USMC still issue bayonets because of both tradition, which is important to the military, and also because they are actually useful in close quarters battle, which still occurs on occasion, such as in urban warfare and house-to-house combat clearing, etc. The likelihood of having to use a bayonet/knife in modern CQB is probably significantly higher than the likelihood of medieval defenders recovering from an enemy army that has stormed their castle.
- the_af 3y agoSomeone apparently disagreed with me but provided no additional explanation. Oh well, such is life... on HN!
- qwytw 3y agoBecause it's a multi-purpose utility knife that can also optionally be mounted on a rifle? Having a knife might be useful in various situations even outside combat as far as I know.
- Cass 3y agoThat's a bizarre line of thought to me. If you build an expensive structure for fortification, you don't usually get to the interior design and then go "Oh fuck it, this extra safety measure wouldn't cost anything, but if they've got this far we might as well surrender, so let's not bother." Going by that logic, the president's bunker under the pentagon would've been built without a lock. After all, people don't usually have to physically drag a country's leader out of their locked bunker, right? By the time anyone's knocking on that door, usually the war is lost and the country has surrendered. And yet, if you're designing for defense, why NOT take such a cheap and easy countermeasure as putting a lock on the door or choosing the more defensible way to spiral your staircase? You might want to buy a few more minutes to negotiate in a desperate situation; you might want at least the option of taking that futile last stand; you might be facing not an invading army but a single lunatic with a sword who snuck past the outer guards.
- whiw 3y agoI imagine that it would be more difficult to gain entry to an upper floor (at the top of a narrow staircase so single-file attackers) and a sturdy door with a couple of guards outside, than it would be to gain entry to rooms on the same level. Perhaps the women were tucked away on the upper floors, in relative safety.
- Tao3300 3y agoFighting on the stairs would be kinda silly. Better to wait outside the doorway so that after your attackers are done running up the stairs with armor and weapons, you and your pals are waiting there at the choke point to layeth the smacketh down. The only real benefit to fighting on the stairs is that you still effectively impede progress if you're dead.
- the_af 3y agoExactly, fighting on the stairs is pointless. If you are the attacking army, just wait it out. You've won the siege, and any defenders up the stairs will have to either come down or starve to death. Why risk attacking up the stairs?
- vidanay 3y agoIf you're at the bottom of the stairs, stuff the stairs full of firewood (tables, chairs, dressers, etc) and light it.
- CydeWeys 3y agoYeah, just burn/smoke out the defenders. If you're already in the bottom of the building it's over, just a matter of time when. You can also take the castle apart and cause it to collapse.
- dylan604 3y agowhat happens if you're running down the stairs and come upon the attackers on the way down?