One Thing That I Think Tolkien Did Wrong and Jackson Did Right - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Juicy-Sweet · 12-20-2012, 07:03 PM

I don't think artilley was used MUCH by the defenders of castles in medieval battles - for the simple reason that they were not very effective against armies.

It's difficult to hit someone standing 500 metres away hurling a rock at them - they will tend to move

Towers, however, do not move, so it makes sense throwing rocks at them.

From my somewhat scant knowledge of medieval warfare archery was effective if you had a big group of bowmen firing at once - this way you get a swarm of arrows, and the other army cant jump away becuse there's arrows everywhere.

I think it would be much more useful for the defending side to put the ressources into archery than artilley - why dedicate 10 men and a lot of wall space to operating a fairly inefficient artillery piece, when you could have instead 30 archers in the same space firing arrows (assuming the pile of rocks and the machine itself takes up the space of 20 men) at a MUCH higher hate. You can fire an arrow every two seconds or so - while i suppose it would take at least several minutes to load an artillery piece.

It means the choice is betwen one rock every two minutes or 1200 arrows being fired continually in the same two minutes.

I don't think the artillery was very maneuverable. Like if you needed to change the angle 30 degrees right because they moved a siege tower - I don't think it was fast.

I'm a bit surprised of the roman castle stuffed with artillery. Maybe there's something special going on here - like an advancing army being forced intp a very tight space by the local geography.

The medieval castles I was - not very many I admit - does not look like a lot of space was dedicated to artillery either. I'll look closer next time I see one

12-20-2012, 07:03 PM	#37
Juicy-Sweet Animated Skeleton Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 49	Artillery not used by defenders I don't think artilley was used MUCH by the defenders of castles in medieval battles - for the simple reason that they were not very effective against armies. It's difficult to hit someone standing 500 metres away hurling a rock at them - they will tend to move Towers, however, do not move, so it makes sense throwing rocks at them. From my somewhat scant knowledge of medieval warfare archery was effective if you had a big group of bowmen firing at once - this way you get a swarm of arrows, and the other army cant jump away becuse there's arrows everywhere. I think it would be much more useful for the defending side to put the ressources into archery than artilley - why dedicate 10 men and a lot of wall space to operating a fairly inefficient artillery piece, when you could have instead 30 archers in the same space firing arrows (assuming the pile of rocks and the machine itself takes up the space of 20 men) at a MUCH higher hate. You can fire an arrow every two seconds or so - while i suppose it would take at least several minutes to load an artillery piece. It means the choice is betwen one rock every two minutes or 1200 arrows being fired continually in the same two minutes. I don't think the artillery was very maneuverable. Like if you needed to change the angle 30 degrees right because they moved a siege tower - I don't think it was fast. I'm a bit surprised of the roman castle stuffed with artillery. Maybe there's something special going on here - like an advancing army being forced intp a very tight space by the local geography. The medieval castles I was - not very many I admit - does not look like a lot of space was dedicated to artillery either. I'll look closer next time I see one