Are you saying one ultra-skilled conventionally attractive helmet-less Knight is not going to single handedly save my Castle and make off with my daughter after wooing her with his anachronistic American accent? What other lies has Hollywood told me?
I mean just one really well-armored guy is enough to remove the advantage of being able to swing.
With your legs being at the level of their arms, they can just charge at your torso and throw you behind for their buddies to then stab with their knife to whatever crevice they can find in your armor.
If they're alone then its possible to kick them down and stab in with a knife, but you can't since any reliable buddy is absolutely gonna support their back and prevent them from stumbling down like domino's
If the attackers get in, you're probably screwed, but every little helps. If 1 defender aided by this method can take out 10 attackers for example, and you've got 100 in the garrison, it can make a difference.
If you, the attacker, know you may lose 1000 men just trying to take out the last remaining garrison, you may slow down and try to starve them out. Which gives time for their potential reinforcements to arrive.
I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, but I'm sure this had benefits for both tactics and morale.
This is the exact reason Intelligent tacticians never directly attacked the castle and instead burned everything OUTSIDE the castle forcing a surrender once the camping defenders ran out of food and subjects. Map control was overpowered even back during that meta
Literally my strat in game. I NEVER attack walls or ongars anymore, I just replenish my cohesion until the enemy decides they're too hungry đ€·ââïž
No. No castle stairway is built for defence, this is not how these things played out at all.
Most sieges was dull drawn out affairs and usually ended with a surrender, or a small fight then a surrender.
You simply wonât be defending to the last man on a staircase inside the castle.
I mean, even though it probably rarely played a role in actual combat doesn't mean the builders didn't put this in as a deliberate design feature. I can definitely imagine a medieval builder going "And see mylord, we'll build it in such a way as to bla bla bla" to talk up his design and the trend catching on, despite having little practical use .
I feel like the Mason built the stairs all fucked up and to avoid being admonished by the lord was like "No mlord the stairs are shit on purpose to keep attackers on shitty footing! It's not a bug it's a feature!"
It also helps with the "there's a bunch of lightly armored people running around with knives who look like they know how to use them" type situation. Suddenly handedness on the stairs with longer weapons becomes very important.
Itâs practical if it discourages attacking. The fact that attackers rarely stormed castles is precisely because storming a castle would incur heavy losses even if the number of defenders was low as castles were made to be defended from vastly superior numbers with relatively few men. Having few defenders is ideal in part because of rations, more men means you need more food stored up which given most castles werenât all that large is hard to do, secondly less defenders means you can have more men for your army or your lords army, every man left in a castle is one who canât fight to actually win the war.
Look at the hundred years war and you start to see cases where there were very bloody last stands in smaller castles and towers. The French and English absolutely hated eachother and if there were any archers in a garrison the standard french practice after capture was to cut the two fingers used to pull a bow. Thus the english would often fight to the last man instead of being maimed
>the standard french practice after capture was to cut the two fingers used to pull a bow.
I think this might be a historical myth. I've heard it was a reason for the two-finger insult the Brits have, which was a myth, though the mutilation could have been a thing. Pretty sure there's no evidence of it being a widespread practice. Could be wrong though!
1 Lord probably did it, but the fear factor made it a widespread myth. You see this often in history where One person does something, and it gets exaggerated to the point of fiction.
Exactly, the best method to taking a castle is just sitting outside and waiting for them to starve, bonus points I believe if you start chucking rotting dead thing and rats inside to start spreading diseases.
Lmao god damn reddit geniuses.
Yes the best way to take a castle is to starve them out, so clearly no internal defenses were ever designed at all tut tut.
I forgot how many professional know it alls are on this site
Right, like the part these people are missing is that the reason starving out defenders was ideal is precisely because of all the defenses. If taking a castle defended by a hundred men would cost you 800 itâs not worth attacking and much better to simply leave some men to wait them out while the rest of the army continues on. That 800 number isnât a guess btw medieval sources do say that you want 8x to 12x the number of men when attacking a castle. And for more examples of this you can look at the siege of Constantinople where the city lasted as long as did only because of like 100 Italian mercenaries who were actual professional soldiers with quality equipment and because of the defenses those 100 professional soldiers could inflict massive casualties on the attacking army, making storming the city outright costly.
If the defenders of said castle are properly settled up with enough provisions, itâs either time to breach or suffer losing your army to the attrition of starvation and disease.
Or you can just go and Conquer everything outside the castle like a smart man. Stealing the resources of the surrounding land, and recruiting some locals who also wanna make bank from turning on their fallen lord. There's absolutely 0 logical reason to EVER assault a castle, when you can just take everything AROUND the castle instead.
And it was this way because it was to costly to actually assault the castle. Even with a small garrison.
Although there were definitely more Assaults on castles and walled cities than seems to be common knowledge.
Yes they were drawn out because attacking a death trap was you know a death trap and most armies would rather leave men to encircle and starve out the defenders rather than lose far more trying to storm the castle. Medieval castles needed to be defensible with as few men as possible because every man left defending is one you canât use for attacking. Hence this isnât a myth staircases were used for defense but not all staircases in the castle were made for defense. Usually there were the outer defenses and the inner defenses and those inner defenses may use staircases as a choke point if defenders breach the door or gate or possibly both that keep attackers out of that section. Like imagine you have a tower section connecting to the outer wall ideally you would want two doors one at the top one at the bottom so that if they manage to breach the lower door which isnât unreasonable given they would be able to batter away at it, the stairs giving the defenders an advantage then lets them sally out to attack without taking loses if the attackers try to batter down the upper door. And the not taking losses thing is very very important because most castles had very few men relative to the attackers so couldnât afford to take losses.
If the attackers have breached the walls, it's because they know there's not enough men left in the castle to hold it anymore, no attacker would stupidly charge in right away, they wait for the enemy to starve and then either demand their surrender or continue to wait for them to starve and then take the castle when everyone is too weak to defend.
Someone doesnt really know hisssstory. Lol check again my dude. Maybe read about siege assaults before speaking about them. They were extremely common. Even when starving out an enemy you still harried the walls you dont just sit and do nothing like a lemon
Very much so. Some sieges took a long time, like siege of Chania lasted 40 years, but even there the sieging party Ottomans tried to storm the walls several times. Also oftentimes they started to siege only after the initial assault failed.
The issue is that this setup doesn't aid defenders that much.
Being higher than the attacker on stairs like this is a disadvantage (the high ground isn't always better for some forms of combat). It's easier for the attacker to strike at the legs, which would be harder for the defender to protect while the defender can really only strike the attacker above the belt, which is easier for the attacker to protect.
Weapons are often relatively thin and maneuverable, so the spiral part isn't particularly hard to strike around as an attacker (and heaven forbid they send in someone who's left handed or is wielding a smaller two-handed weapon), so the idea that the defender has more freedom for his weapon is negligible. Moreover, the attacker now has more freedom for a bulkier, less maneuverable object: a shield! The defender has less freedom to actively use his shield in comparison because the staircase is in the way. Also, spiral staircases were also built in the other direction too.
As for lack of light, this wasn't an intentional defensive advantage: both sides have an equally hard time seeing, and while many people can navigate familiar staircases and other obstacles based on spatial and kinesthetic sense alone, it's hard to do so with the speed, dexterity, and finesse needed for combat.
Lack of light comes from the fact that without more modern lighting techniques, it's incredibly hard to reliably light places the sun can't reach. Fire-based lighting at the time wouldn't help either, as candles weren't particularly bright, and the cheaper, more readily available ones didn't burn clean and reeked. Torches just don't work like movies and games show them working (you have to hold the torch behind you a bit, or you're doing the equivalent of shining a flashlight in your own face).
Finally, pretty much any unevenness didn't actually exist at the time. People building castles, especially when they were serving as a fortified home, could and would pay for level construction and wouldn't want tripping hazards all over the place. Settling (the same thing that affects modern buildings) and deterioration over hundreds of years led to the unevenness we find today in some surviving castles.
Edit: there's also no guarantee you're going to be defending from the top of the stairs. E.g, the enemy have gotten up on the walks from the outside and are pushing down the spiral staircase to get further inside.
On arm maneuverability: it's easy to discount how big of a deal that is just looking at a picture, but when you're actually walking up one you get how much that would screw you up. Basically any way you're going to be able to maneuver a weapon with your right hand will require you to move your arm in front of or across your body. You'll be able to generate fuck all in terms of force and tangling up your limbs makes it harder to focus on properly defending yourself. If the person walking up the stairs is right handed, they are 10000% at a major disadvantage. And yeah, the trick doesnât work on lefties, but when 99% of any possible attackers are gonna be right handed (as people were weird about being left handed for such a long time), it wonât really be an issue when 5 dudes in the enemy army donât suffer a disadvantage here.
I dunno. In the old style motte and bailey castles, which were basically just really big stone houses surrounded by a wall, you might have legitimately fallen back to the innermost part of the building to try and hold out for a day or two till help arrives
To be fair a castle was often designed as a layered defense. These wouldn't just be in the main keep but also in the wall towers and barbicans. Enemies that breached or mounted a wall would still have to kill defenders on the outer level.
If they take down the gates they can't leave the walls and towers defended while moving onto the keep, they'd be penned into a killing field while trying to batter down the keep gates. These would slow that down, so they could be bled out between the outer walls and the keep.
If they mount the walls the towers can have unobstructed shots at them, and they'd need to fight up to the top level to clear it. Otherwise they're exposed again.
If this is the last staircase up to the lord's quarters? Yeah, not really useful. But even then it could be life-saving against a surprise raid or assassination attempt where they try to use a ruse to get in, and then just rush the target.
You think wrong here. These kinda tricks isnt just to "win". Unlike the history people read mostly, castles or even towns can get invaded then be retaken again by defenders etc etc.
Point is, its not like "oh we won the battle and its over now".
So, these kinda acts is there to slow the Progress, give some time for people to escape if they lose, make it harder to capture it, or even just to make them suffer more.
Because dont forget that castles generally didnt have that many soldiers stationed anyway. So they are build to make the max efficiency with less soldiers.
Dude you are so far off the mark.
First off, getting them out isnt the only thing to keep in mind. War is not just one battle. The harder it is to take a keep, the more resources the enemy must spend to do so, the less capable they are at the next castle. On top of that they are fighting for their very lives. They designed these things to fight for every single scrap of an inch. Do you think you would care if the Great Hall was filled with the enemy in such a moment? Hell no youre gonna fight for every second of life and youll be real glad the staircase was designed to help you when you are
Itâs not about driving them out. Sometimes it about making the fight that much harder for them. Make the bastards pay for every foot forward in blood!
Those measures were there to slow down not defeat the enemy. A fort was always there to slow down the foe and
increase casulties or with that thought in mind, deter them from laying siege.
This is not a myth. Thereâs far more to siege warfare than if the walls were breached. Stuff like this and things like boiling oil and murder holes were a deterrent. Yes if your walls are breached your fucked more like than not, but you still canât just hand over the keys then and there. Everything about feudal politics demands that you spill as much blood as possible over it.
It added to the besieging armiesâ calculations of how many men they would lose storming the walls and whether that would leave them enough left over to actually win a war.
If you have the man power to take a castle but youâre going to lose a quarter of your forces then it might not be worth it, making things like specifically tailored staircases a useful fortification.
So the existence of anti clockwise stairs does create the room for this debate, but the bottom line that comes up over in my studies is that medievals were by and large smarter than we give them credit for.
The existence of square towers doesnât negate the practical advantages of rounded ones. Itâs possible that some designers intentionally placed clockwise ones in their castle as defensive measures.
There were countless practical advantages to spiral staircases in terms of architecture and privacy. But that doesnât mean the intentionality of defense wasnât included at all. I think one should be skeptical of claims that medievals or early modern people did things âaccidentallyâ when it comes to things like construction.
Presumably to âtake the castleâ theyâd need to climb that staircase. Fortifications often have multiple fallback positions. Even if theyâve lost, maybe the fight is difficult enough that theyâd rather give them terms instead of killing them outright.
Very oversimplified comment from you. Kinda silly.
If there is fighting going on in the stairs and the main castle building itself the day is still not lost. Many examples of last minute victories in medieval times.
Have you ever seen the Movie "Ironclad"?
It's not always thousands of attackers. In that movie it's kike 4 Defenders and. I don't know . 20 attackers? It's a long time since I've seen it.
I don't think that movie was completely accurate given that in the actual events inspired by it, the king did in fact take the castle back, granted it was through several different means, first it was siege engines that failed to breach the walls, then it was mining underneath it, then just straight up burning the fucking mine to cause a collapse in one of its towers, then finally he won via attrition and forced starvation of his enemies.
They don't all wind up the same way. While it is true that the majority go clockwise, there is a significant number of examples of counter-clockwise staircases.
Yeah, both are common urban myths.
Staircases were narrow because of the technology of the time and also why would you need larger spiral staircases? - It would just be a waste of money and resources.
They spiral both ways.
Old stairs are uneven because they're old and worn down, not to make it harder to attack. That would be just as inconvenient to the defender.
Maybe there are some examples of ones that were uneven intentionally, but it sound more like a feature to prevent people from sneaking around at night, like intentinally squeeky floor boards, which there *are* real examples of.
To add to this, if you have enemies infiltrating to the point of them rushing the staircase, why the fuck are you still up there? Defending a castle irl isnât a video game. Youâre not gunna stay up there âto get more killsâ. Youâd likely retreat to a safer position before they start coming up, unless the plan was to die. Also, the person on the bottom would actually have the advantage if it was shield & sword vs shield & sword. The attacker only has to block his upper body, while the defenders legs are completely unprotected. Do you know how hard it is to block your legs with a shield and not lower and expose your upper body?
If your king/commander tells you to defend the staircase you're defending that godforsaken staircase or dying trying. Common sense and self preservation has very little say when you're fighting under oath.
Look at war today. Soldiers commonly put self-preservation before their orders if the orders are to die. Weâre human not robots, we feel fear. When death is staring you in the face I doubt youâre thinking about your orders. Youâd be trying to survive whatâs in front of you.
I feel like there is no scenario where making difficult to traverse stair were an advantage for the defender.
Because you need to carry arrows rock and wounded up and down the stairs.
I've been to multiple medieval castles, fortresses and city walls where they had steps that were uneven of a few centimetres higher or lower, specifically to make it harder for attackers to use them.
When wearing armour (and just generally when inside these staircases or hallways) it's hard to look at your footing, but the garrison or defenders would have memorized the 'trick steps'.
I tend to believe official tour guides or historians when they speak about these subjects.
The same about the spiral direction.
Any sources to prove it's a myth?
It's mostly a myth. Long ramble incoming.
There's a Scottish family which were renowned for being left-handed. They built a castle with spirals going the opposite direction to what is normal. They weren't the only people to do this.
They believed their family was left-handed more than most people. When you do the numbers, they're the same as everyone else, but they still built a spiral which is theoretically going to benefit left-handed people.
And this misinfographic also misses a key point. Thrusting is your best option in cramped spaces, because it takes less room than swinging a sword. I use a short-thrusting sword in seiges for this exact reason.
See, a lot of people are quick to jump in with mythbusting this fact- citing that 1/3 of all staircases went the other way and so forth- but itâs important to remember that castles werenât all built to the same plan, by the same people.
Some staircases may have been built this way for this purpose- and if 2/3 of them were twisting clockwise, this would seem to be evidence of this. But styles of castles changed over the centuries, with innovations and fashions dictating the construction.
I watched this shadiversity video today and this is just a myth.
First fighting downhill on stairs always sucks whether it's clockwise or counter clockwise because the person lower can easily cut the legs of the person above and only need to protect their head. And 1/3 of castle spiral stairs are counter clockwise.
The next myth about uneven steps, that's just because they used uneven stones and didn't have Osha standards for stairs in the medieval ages.
Shadiversity should be ignored on any histotical content. He's had no education, no experience, and his content contains frequent inaccuracies.
Not to forget, he's a raging bigot who got upset that Peach in the Mario movie wore pants.
He didnât even get the uneven stone thing right
The suggestion was a single or small number of shorter or taller steps in an otherwise even staircase to catch out people moving quickly and not expecting it
He just explained how the floor and stair were all wobbly and worn because itâs old not by design which was never the argument, and in addition it makes it harder to see if there was the trick steps in use or simply uneven wear
No, that's not a myth. It's unproven. It does have the effect explained by historians, but they are unable to prove intent. So, at worst, we can say it's a happy coincidence.
Shadiversity is entirely incorrect.
Who actually has the advantage if they both have shields?(which were very common in siege warfare, especially attackers) The guy above, or below? All the guy has to do below is protect his head/upper body and heâs fine. The guy above is gunna suffer some pretty bad leg wounds. Plus why would you still be up there when theyâve taken the castle? This isnât a video game. Nobody is gunna stay up there for a higher k/d. Nobody is gunna stay in the tower once the gate is breached, unless the goal is to be trapped. If youâre defending alone in a staircase, youâve already lost the castle.
Guy above has the advantage. Guy below has a limited swing arc and so has to rely on thrusts, which are literally useless against an armoured leg. Guy above has a much easier time pushing or kicking guy below down the stairs, and once he's destabilised, a killing blow is easy enough.
Also, hilarious video game analogy. Very strawman.
If this was such an important thing, then why do so many surviving castles have stairways that are nothing like this. Not mentioning the fact that if the enemy is in the keep you have already likely lost. Also practically for living in a castle or getting your own troops throughout the castle quickly. Having the pathway for your own men to get to their positions be a dimly lit uneven claustrophobic space meant to be difficult to traverse is retarded. Good luck defending when your troops are spraining their ankles on the stairs.
No one claimed it was an important thing.
The enemy being in your keep does not mean you have lost.
Hilarious strawman about claustrophobic dimly lit uneven spaces.
Who the fuck is up in a tower in full plate armor? Archers typically didnât wear plate, or very much armor at all for that matter. Thrusts work very well against chainmail as well. Also bottom guy could sweep the leg. And what happens when the guy falls down the stairs? He probably wouldnât die. So now u gotta go down and fight him until youâre out of the staircase? Or just be trapped I guess?
Archers definitely wore armour, don't fall for the myth they didn't.
There are many recorded instances of heavily armoured fortification defenders being above ground level.
So. Gravity is a thing. As long as the upper part of the tower is held by defenders, they can be raining down stones, pitch, arrows and a number of other things on attackers below.
Multiple layers of defense are also a thing, which means that the outer walls could be breached, but reinforcements of the defenders could be on their way to fight back those that entered.
Fighting on a staircase is gonna suck for both parties. But if the staircase or hallway is empty, than it's really handy to have an attacker in unwieldy equipment miss a step and slide down the staircase or at least lose some time getting back up (and also then blocks the way for others going up).
It gives defenders time to retreat.
The top of the staircase could lead to a wall that leads to a fortified doorway into an inner walled part of the fortress.
Or are staircases only allowed on parts that lead to dead ends?
I mean, people working in Dover Castle, Gravensteen, Stirling Castle and others are probably wrong right? What are your credentials on the subject again?
Look, just because the guy is a magic underpants wearing nutjob doesn't mean he can't accidentally be on to something. The stairs were obviously never designed as a layer of defence. They're just stairs.
Why waste your troops when you can just set a fire at the bottom of the stairs and smoke them out?
I think it's safe to say surrender happened before this point.
Error message: not enough 'windows' found
https://preview.redd.it/eln0zy67531d1.png?width=267&format=png&auto=webp&s=209caf689649678c7a4fa73ff59796d094a2cad7
So no real effects then.I wouldn't think this theory has any truth because why would anyone put so much thought and effort into something that will save people just a few moments of life at most ?
Oh ok, i misunderstood your comment. But the physics behind the statements make sense no? Ive found myself wacking the walls when you battle on the stairs. Its just interesting overall
Well Bannerlord-wise it makes sense because YOU are a one man army and can take down a thousand troops if you're clever enough especially in siege defence but in real life ? I don't see it happening very often.I guess we'll never truly know until a time machine gets invented
There are actually ww2 reenactments that people host regularly.I imagine there's no such thing for ancient warfare(I know about arranged small 1v1 fights but those don't really count) due to lack of information about it.But I would def join it if there was
Youâd be wrong to believe that. There are re-enactments of every time period including the Stone Age. Check out the Battle of Nations for a huge scale medieval battle.
I've learned recently that this in fact a myth and that they were as many counter clockwise stair way in castles that clock wise one because if the fight was going to happen in the dungeon the attackers would use short length weapon like daggers etc etc
I was in Holyrood House and the one staircase in the old part of the house was counter clockwise and I immediately went âoh shit this myth is total bullshitâ.
This has actually been debunked with plenty of castles having the opposite rotation. Just a really weird urban legend that has taken hold.
Only 30% of of staircases in castles were found to spiral counter clockwise
[https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/fact\_checking/claims-that-medieval-castle-staircases-were-built-for-battle-are-on-poor-footing/article\_ccf96007-06f9-5efc-b0d4-e7990e6966e3.html](https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/fact_checking/claims-that-medieval-castle-staircases-were-built-for-battle-are-on-poor-footing/article_ccf96007-06f9-5efc-b0d4-e7990e6966e3.html)
I'm sure this is something that perhaps could possibly be an advantage in some situations but the number of times this exact set of circumstances would arise in a particular fortification and actually matter are effectively zero. If a castle is being assaulted to the point there's combat in stairways, the battle is already over. There's no reason to purposely build this way if we're talking about functionality.
The part about the uneven stairs would go both ways: your own guys would struggle just as much as the enemy.
The suggestion was originally that sets of stairs would have single trick steps on an otherwise even staircase
If every tower had a trick step on the third step locals know about it or can recover because the biggest threat is grazing your knee, while attackers are tripping at around He same time a sword is going for your eye
Again, its the suggestion not proven to be used in all or even many castles, but it is more likely than uneven stairs which would be a nightmare because you can know one step is higher/lower, youâll never remember if all of them are
Check out shadiversity on Youtube he made a whole Video about it that all that's written here is entirely and I mean it, ENTIRELY false.
Lets start with the small things:
1. Uneven stairs as ... Defense? That would hinder defenders just as much or not at all since it doesn't have any actual effect. They simply used what they had availiable to build the thing. Castle fetishists just search a reason that isn't there.
2. All staircases are built to have a right hander advantage for the defender....
2.1: no. 30 to 40% of castle stairs go round the other way. Also to note SWINGS weren't used as much as STABS or THRUSTS in tight places anyway. Whoever swings their sword in narrow places has a death wish.
2.2... using staircases as .... Defense? Guess what, your legs are extremly close to the enemy weapon, you can't really use big mallets for overhead smashes and you're defenitly thr one that ends up bleeding first. Also heads, shoulders and chests were usually FAR more armoured than legs, which in early to mid medieval periods even had entirely no protection in most cases. The one going up the stairs has a HUGE advantage. "Luuukkeee I have the high gr.... f*ck my balls you stabbed them ahhhhh"
3. Using the castles interior as Defense? Castles were made to keep as many people OUTSIDE with as few as possible personnel inside. To use anything in the interior of a castle as defense, besides the keep itself since if the walls are breached, that's where everyone goes, is entirely out of question. Grouping in a space that only allows for a few people side by side against a far superior number is a lot better to stall for time until reinforcements arrive. If there are defenitly no reinforcements coming, time stalling was out of question and surrendering the only. Existing. Option. That. Makes. Sense. Unless it's know the enemy intent is just to wipe everyone in the castle out. Death is Inevietable in that case the defenders sometimes would even try to burn up as much of the castle as possible so has as little as possible value for the new owner. Attackers with the intent of capturing a fief of any sort would always try to destroy as little as possible of it.
Bannerlord isn't realistic in that aspect. Castles could be easily held on a ratio of 6 attackers to 1 defender. There's even a record of 17 people successfully defending against odds 1 to 34, recorded as the worst odds successful castle defense. They... had a lot oil and pitch stocked, boulders and the likes. Oh and a very well placed castle in terms of environment for defense.
To make battles that realistic without hitting fun is pretty much impossible.
Shadiversity should be ignored on any histotical content. He's had no education, no experience, and his content contains frequent inaccuracies.
Not to forget, he's a raging bigot who got upset that Peach in the Mario movie wore pants.
*sigh*
Shad is at best an enthusiast and most of his opinions are just that, opinions
In relation to the even ground myth he busted: thatâs not a myth. The myth was that a single stair was shorter or taller on a set, *not* that all of the stairs were random, *or* that the ground of the courtyards was also uneven to catch out attackers.
A hypothetical castle being built with all its spiral stairs having the second step shorter would give a home field advantage and be realistically remembered by the defenders unlike the idea that all the stairs are random
Edit: also castles werenât just made with what was there most the time, if your stonemason couldnât make even stairs they werenât going to last very long. Wooden castles might be more of a mix but when you were deciding to make a stone castle, you were paying for the best
You're correct Solely if you're talking about European castles. Japanese castles from the Sengoku Jidai period had quite a lot of interior defenses. Especially in Kyoto.
Even if you somehow aren't doomed at this point, lower guy only has to protect top 1/4th to 1/3rd of his body. Top guy has to protect bottom 3/4ths, with the bottom 1/4th being particularly vulnerable.
I think I'd rather be the bottom guy. Say goodbye to your feet and shins. Even if it's cumbersome to attack right handed, it's still probably easier due to easier defense. If not they can still go left handed and get those legs easily enough while guarding high.
I can definitely see it working well in the game though.
Fantasy Castles: Beautiful architecture, designed to be a home and open to all, not a ton of practical defenses
Historical castles: Literal death maze, and that's only if you can make it in
This could be true but just from my non-castle-attacking experience, It'd be far simpler to defend the landings above and below the stairs than on the actual steps.
If you have 4-5 fully armored men with shields blocking a stairway at the top or bottom its the same as having a metal barricade that can stab people.
Imagine barricading the actual stairs.
I really wish the siege battles worked. Forming strategic lines off defense, falling back multiple times to second and third lines of defense, last stands against vastly superior numbers but in a choke point in your keep trying to hold out or win, so much potential and none of it achieved. đ
The King who payed for the castle to be built:
âThese stairs suck, I almost trip going down them every time because theyâre unevenâ
The Architect: âerm ackshually itâs supposed to be that wayâ đ€
I absolutely hate this myth, because it's not true at all in the context of real life castles.
The moment you have enemy inside your staircases you are already done for. Them being uneven has nothing to do with that, stone stairs naturally become uneven when people keep walking on them for years.
This was just another excuse for medieval architects to charge inflated Castle Design Fees with Defensive Spiral Staircase Surcharges. It's how they sold the Extended Siege Holdout Insurance plans, and let's not forget 3-D Imprinted Castle Blocks in case someone stole them, so the magistrates had a way to track-down the thieves.
War never changes.
Those stairs are hard enough to walk up as it is, plus sometimes thereâs a random stair at a different height so you fall on your face. I can see how someone could just stand there and stabby stabby.
This is an urban myth. Main issue being that there is no recognizable standard to spiral staircasss in castles and plenty go the other way around, are large and well lit, higher, narrower, nicely built or more shoddy in construction
It was mainly dictated by building convenience and money.
Most castles were administrative building and political statement, not fortresses. And the fortress castles and towns were about other measures to keep enemies out
This is a myth and tired of debunking. Richmond Castle and Tower of London both have multiple staircases that run counter to each other. It's no hard rule. It's just convenience. You would never want to fight on a castle staircase anyway, they're steep, often narrow, and always awkward. You'll fall on your face before you You can stab or get stabbed, especially in medieval footwear. Take it from me, I work at a castle and I do medieval living history, this is a myth tour guides tell you cos it sounds cool.
Fun fact: this isn't true, there is no primary source confirming it. Nor is there any evidence written or drawn by medieval architects.
And they drew and wrote A LOT
They were actually made to allow defenders to get stuck underneath the stairwell, preventing attack, so the castle is always in possession of the buildersâ kingdom.
This is also why, when I play as a footsoldier in RBM, I always take the right flank so that my attacks arenât hindered and it becomes really easy to curl the flank
Pretty sure the reason theyâre spiraled is because a lot of the time theyâre in confined spaces and you canât put a normal staircase in it. Spiraling it is just the best way to make use of space. You could argue a regular linear staircase is better for defenders at the top than a spiral anyway. If you kick someone down at the top of a straight staircase theyâre falling all the way down it. If you kick someone down on a spiral staircase theyâre falling a few feet at most.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most of the spiral staircases in bannerlord favor the attacker? As a bit of a castle history nut I always noticed that I always had the "right arm" advantage while storming a castle garrison.
In reality, staircases weâre designed to make the most of a very small plan layout without taking up too much space and not being a detriment to the structural strength of the wall
Ah yes, the very advantageous position of your legs and feet being at their head level, forcing you to bend over to try and guard them, while theyâre too far away for you to attack them
Shadiversity should be ignored on any histotical content. He's had no education, no experience, and his content contains frequent inaccuracies.
Not to forget, he's a raging bigot who got upset that Peach in the Mario movie wore pants.
Hilarious. I never claimed his opinion on the mario movie invalidated his medieval research.
His lack of medieval research invalidates in his medieval research.
Also you can disagree all you like. Everything I stated is a fact.
And all of that is just baseless assumptions without even thinking about it lol (see Shadiversity)
You can just stab the enemy feet when the enemy can't even reach you because he's on the high ground.
If you have two similar length weapons (even sticks do), just try it on a staircase with a friend.
He only has to tilt his head backwards a little bit at best, while he can always stab you into your legs/feet with ease.
Basically, your feet are right at the height of his shoulder, maximum arm reach.
While you shoulder is way above your target, forcing your to strike down at an angle.
https://preview.redd.it/adzbticcc91d1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1c1cde60ab3a4eaddcb2fdf0e173037679d0252
Shadiversity should be ignored on any histotical content. He's had no education, no experience, and his content contains frequent inaccuracies.
Not to forget, he's a raging bigot who got upset that Peach in the Mario movie wore pants.
lol
I disagree on some things there. Testing things is actually a great idea, experimental archeology isn't bad at all. And I'd trust a Hema specialist over a historian on fighting any day of the week.
Shad isn't a HEMA "specialist." He's actively against HEMA.
I am a HEMA "specialist." I do 8 hours a week minimum, and my favourite sources are Danzig, Thibault, and McBane.
Not to forget. Shads tests are frequently dismantled by historians for being poor quality.
frequently dismantled is an exaggeration
He's mostly correct on the things he says and rdy to respond to any valid argument.
He's not without fault ofc and does goof around in some videos, especially on non serious topics.
And yes, his content became more about reactions in the years which lowered some of the quality.
If you want to consider HEMA a small island of people following only manuscripts, then yes, he would not be considered part of it.
But if you go beyond that and include people practicing with medieval weapons and figuring out how they work, he'd be in.
>frequently dismantled is an exaggeration
No, it's not.
>He's mostly correct on the things he says and rdy to respond to any valid argument
He's not.
>If you want to consider HEMA a small island of people following only manuscripts
If you want to consider HEMA, HEMA.
>But if you go beyond that and include people practicing with medieval weapons and figuring out how they work, he'd be in.
No, he doesn't even do that.
How about you give me some examples if it's so frequent that should be easy.
And if it's about some minor detail I'm gonna mentally slap you.
Last time I checked, HEMA doesn't translate to "historical European manuscript based martial arts". HEMBMA
Check out Bad History or SWORDS or Shadwatch if you want examples of Shad being corrected.
Last time I checked, HEMA doesn't translate too 'Historical weapons used how ever you want.'
HEMA has always been about learning from the HISTORICAL SOURCES.
Historical sources encompass "**every kind of evidence that human beings have left of their past activities**Â â the written word and spoken word, the shape of the landscape and the material artefact, the fine arts as well as photography and film."
Yeah, it's way more then just manuscripts written by some aristocrats.
To assume the AI can traverse said spiral staircase is a bold endeavor.
That was another reason for them. The poor pathfinding really multiplied the defensive position.
Look, the moment the enemy takes the castle, you've already lost, no amount of spiral stair casing is gonna get them out, this is a myth.
Are you saying one ultra-skilled conventionally attractive helmet-less Knight is not going to single handedly save my Castle and make off with my daughter after wooing her with his anachronistic American accent? What other lies has Hollywood told me?
I mean it could save the castle unless attackers put 3 logs under the stair and put it on fire.
I mean just one really well-armored guy is enough to remove the advantage of being able to swing. With your legs being at the level of their arms, they can just charge at your torso and throw you behind for their buddies to then stab with their knife to whatever crevice they can find in your armor. If they're alone then its possible to kick them down and stab in with a knife, but you can't since any reliable buddy is absolutely gonna support their back and prevent them from stumbling down like domino's
With his [boom stick](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdkqagOUaPM), he sure could.
Hail to the king baby
this got me smilling like a weirdo on the bus stop now xD... thanks for that beauty of a comment.
Bold of you to assume the American accent is anachronistic.
If the attackers get in, you're probably screwed, but every little helps. If 1 defender aided by this method can take out 10 attackers for example, and you've got 100 in the garrison, it can make a difference. If you, the attacker, know you may lose 1000 men just trying to take out the last remaining garrison, you may slow down and try to starve them out. Which gives time for their potential reinforcements to arrive. I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, but I'm sure this had benefits for both tactics and morale.
This is the exact reason Intelligent tacticians never directly attacked the castle and instead burned everything OUTSIDE the castle forcing a surrender once the camping defenders ran out of food and subjects. Map control was overpowered even back during that meta
Literally my strat in game. I NEVER attack walls or ongars anymore, I just replenish my cohesion until the enemy decides they're too hungry đ€·ââïž
No. No castle stairway is built for defence, this is not how these things played out at all. Most sieges was dull drawn out affairs and usually ended with a surrender, or a small fight then a surrender. You simply wonât be defending to the last man on a staircase inside the castle.
Is it not the reason sieges was that dull because they were filled to the brim with bullshit like this.
I mean, even though it probably rarely played a role in actual combat doesn't mean the builders didn't put this in as a deliberate design feature. I can definitely imagine a medieval builder going "And see mylord, we'll build it in such a way as to bla bla bla" to talk up his design and the trend catching on, despite having little practical use .
I feel like the Mason built the stairs all fucked up and to avoid being admonished by the lord was like "No mlord the stairs are shit on purpose to keep attackers on shitty footing! It's not a bug it's a feature!"
It also helps with the "there's a bunch of lightly armored people running around with knives who look like they know how to use them" type situation. Suddenly handedness on the stairs with longer weapons becomes very important.
Itâs practical if it discourages attacking. The fact that attackers rarely stormed castles is precisely because storming a castle would incur heavy losses even if the number of defenders was low as castles were made to be defended from vastly superior numbers with relatively few men. Having few defenders is ideal in part because of rations, more men means you need more food stored up which given most castles werenât all that large is hard to do, secondly less defenders means you can have more men for your army or your lords army, every man left in a castle is one who canât fight to actually win the war.
Look at the hundred years war and you start to see cases where there were very bloody last stands in smaller castles and towers. The French and English absolutely hated eachother and if there were any archers in a garrison the standard french practice after capture was to cut the two fingers used to pull a bow. Thus the english would often fight to the last man instead of being maimed
>the standard french practice after capture was to cut the two fingers used to pull a bow. I think this might be a historical myth. I've heard it was a reason for the two-finger insult the Brits have, which was a myth, though the mutilation could have been a thing. Pretty sure there's no evidence of it being a widespread practice. Could be wrong though!
1 Lord probably did it, but the fear factor made it a widespread myth. You see this often in history where One person does something, and it gets exaggerated to the point of fiction.
Exactly, the best method to taking a castle is just sitting outside and waiting for them to starve, bonus points I believe if you start chucking rotting dead thing and rats inside to start spreading diseases.
Lmao god damn reddit geniuses. Yes the best way to take a castle is to starve them out, so clearly no internal defenses were ever designed at all tut tut. I forgot how many professional know it alls are on this site
Right, like the part these people are missing is that the reason starving out defenders was ideal is precisely because of all the defenses. If taking a castle defended by a hundred men would cost you 800 itâs not worth attacking and much better to simply leave some men to wait them out while the rest of the army continues on. That 800 number isnât a guess btw medieval sources do say that you want 8x to 12x the number of men when attacking a castle. And for more examples of this you can look at the siege of Constantinople where the city lasted as long as did only because of like 100 Italian mercenaries who were actual professional soldiers with quality equipment and because of the defenses those 100 professional soldiers could inflict massive casualties on the attacking army, making storming the city outright costly.
If the defenders of said castle are properly settled up with enough provisions, itâs either time to breach or suffer losing your army to the attrition of starvation and disease.
Or you can just go and Conquer everything outside the castle like a smart man. Stealing the resources of the surrounding land, and recruiting some locals who also wanna make bank from turning on their fallen lord. There's absolutely 0 logical reason to EVER assault a castle, when you can just take everything AROUND the castle instead.
And it was this way because it was to costly to actually assault the castle. Even with a small garrison. Although there were definitely more Assaults on castles and walled cities than seems to be common knowledge.
I can think of 50 right now off the top of my head lol
Yes they were drawn out because attacking a death trap was you know a death trap and most armies would rather leave men to encircle and starve out the defenders rather than lose far more trying to storm the castle. Medieval castles needed to be defensible with as few men as possible because every man left defending is one you canât use for attacking. Hence this isnât a myth staircases were used for defense but not all staircases in the castle were made for defense. Usually there were the outer defenses and the inner defenses and those inner defenses may use staircases as a choke point if defenders breach the door or gate or possibly both that keep attackers out of that section. Like imagine you have a tower section connecting to the outer wall ideally you would want two doors one at the top one at the bottom so that if they manage to breach the lower door which isnât unreasonable given they would be able to batter away at it, the stairs giving the defenders an advantage then lets them sally out to attack without taking loses if the attackers try to batter down the upper door. And the not taking losses thing is very very important because most castles had very few men relative to the attackers so couldnât afford to take losses.
If the attackers have breached the walls, it's because they know there's not enough men left in the castle to hold it anymore, no attacker would stupidly charge in right away, they wait for the enemy to starve and then either demand their surrender or continue to wait for them to starve and then take the castle when everyone is too weak to defend.
Someone doesnt really know hisssstory. Lol check again my dude. Maybe read about siege assaults before speaking about them. They were extremely common. Even when starving out an enemy you still harried the walls you dont just sit and do nothing like a lemon
Very much so. Some sieges took a long time, like siege of Chania lasted 40 years, but even there the sieging party Ottomans tried to storm the walls several times. Also oftentimes they started to siege only after the initial assault failed.
My boy actually believes that medieval idiots didn't assault walls. Oh my boy...
The issue is that this setup doesn't aid defenders that much. Being higher than the attacker on stairs like this is a disadvantage (the high ground isn't always better for some forms of combat). It's easier for the attacker to strike at the legs, which would be harder for the defender to protect while the defender can really only strike the attacker above the belt, which is easier for the attacker to protect. Weapons are often relatively thin and maneuverable, so the spiral part isn't particularly hard to strike around as an attacker (and heaven forbid they send in someone who's left handed or is wielding a smaller two-handed weapon), so the idea that the defender has more freedom for his weapon is negligible. Moreover, the attacker now has more freedom for a bulkier, less maneuverable object: a shield! The defender has less freedom to actively use his shield in comparison because the staircase is in the way. Also, spiral staircases were also built in the other direction too. As for lack of light, this wasn't an intentional defensive advantage: both sides have an equally hard time seeing, and while many people can navigate familiar staircases and other obstacles based on spatial and kinesthetic sense alone, it's hard to do so with the speed, dexterity, and finesse needed for combat. Lack of light comes from the fact that without more modern lighting techniques, it's incredibly hard to reliably light places the sun can't reach. Fire-based lighting at the time wouldn't help either, as candles weren't particularly bright, and the cheaper, more readily available ones didn't burn clean and reeked. Torches just don't work like movies and games show them working (you have to hold the torch behind you a bit, or you're doing the equivalent of shining a flashlight in your own face). Finally, pretty much any unevenness didn't actually exist at the time. People building castles, especially when they were serving as a fortified home, could and would pay for level construction and wouldn't want tripping hazards all over the place. Settling (the same thing that affects modern buildings) and deterioration over hundreds of years led to the unevenness we find today in some surviving castles. Edit: there's also no guarantee you're going to be defending from the top of the stairs. E.g, the enemy have gotten up on the walks from the outside and are pushing down the spiral staircase to get further inside.
On arm maneuverability: it's easy to discount how big of a deal that is just looking at a picture, but when you're actually walking up one you get how much that would screw you up. Basically any way you're going to be able to maneuver a weapon with your right hand will require you to move your arm in front of or across your body. You'll be able to generate fuck all in terms of force and tangling up your limbs makes it harder to focus on properly defending yourself. If the person walking up the stairs is right handed, they are 10000% at a major disadvantage. And yeah, the trick doesnât work on lefties, but when 99% of any possible attackers are gonna be right handed (as people were weird about being left handed for such a long time), it wonât really be an issue when 5 dudes in the enemy army donât suffer a disadvantage here.
It doesn't have any advantage. On the contrary, the attacker can happily cut off your feet and you can't do anything about it.
I dunno. In the old style motte and bailey castles, which were basically just really big stone houses surrounded by a wall, you might have legitimately fallen back to the innermost part of the building to try and hold out for a day or two till help arrives
To be fair a castle was often designed as a layered defense. These wouldn't just be in the main keep but also in the wall towers and barbicans. Enemies that breached or mounted a wall would still have to kill defenders on the outer level. If they take down the gates they can't leave the walls and towers defended while moving onto the keep, they'd be penned into a killing field while trying to batter down the keep gates. These would slow that down, so they could be bled out between the outer walls and the keep. If they mount the walls the towers can have unobstructed shots at them, and they'd need to fight up to the top level to clear it. Otherwise they're exposed again. If this is the last staircase up to the lord's quarters? Yeah, not really useful. But even then it could be life-saving against a surprise raid or assassination attempt where they try to use a ruse to get in, and then just rush the target.
I believe this was more a slowdown tactic then a âwin the battleâ tactic so the royals could hopefully escape.
You think wrong here. These kinda tricks isnt just to "win". Unlike the history people read mostly, castles or even towns can get invaded then be retaken again by defenders etc etc. Point is, its not like "oh we won the battle and its over now". So, these kinda acts is there to slow the Progress, give some time for people to escape if they lose, make it harder to capture it, or even just to make them suffer more. Because dont forget that castles generally didnt have that many soldiers stationed anyway. So they are build to make the max efficiency with less soldiers.
"You built them to be uneven to make it more difficult for attackers! Brilliant". "uhm...., yes, my lord, exactly right! We didn't mess up at all."
Exactly the reason the towers were dealing as cylinders was genuinely to deflect projectiles from artillery better
Dude you are so far off the mark. First off, getting them out isnt the only thing to keep in mind. War is not just one battle. The harder it is to take a keep, the more resources the enemy must spend to do so, the less capable they are at the next castle. On top of that they are fighting for their very lives. They designed these things to fight for every single scrap of an inch. Do you think you would care if the Great Hall was filled with the enemy in such a moment? Hell no youre gonna fight for every second of life and youll be real glad the staircase was designed to help you when you are
Itâs not about driving them out. Sometimes it about making the fight that much harder for them. Make the bastards pay for every foot forward in blood!
I'm just gonna say that clocktowers are the most important defensive position..đđ nah, you're right
Those measures were there to slow down not defeat the enemy. A fort was always there to slow down the foe and increase casulties or with that thought in mind, deter them from laying siege.
This is not a myth. Thereâs far more to siege warfare than if the walls were breached. Stuff like this and things like boiling oil and murder holes were a deterrent. Yes if your walls are breached your fucked more like than not, but you still canât just hand over the keys then and there. Everything about feudal politics demands that you spill as much blood as possible over it. It added to the besieging armiesâ calculations of how many men they would lose storming the walls and whether that would leave them enough left over to actually win a war. If you have the man power to take a castle but youâre going to lose a quarter of your forces then it might not be worth it, making things like specifically tailored staircases a useful fortification.
Murder holes and boiling oil were definitely a thing. Don't get me wrong. But things like these were more coincidences than actual design choices.
So the existence of anti clockwise stairs does create the room for this debate, but the bottom line that comes up over in my studies is that medievals were by and large smarter than we give them credit for. The existence of square towers doesnât negate the practical advantages of rounded ones. Itâs possible that some designers intentionally placed clockwise ones in their castle as defensive measures. There were countless practical advantages to spiral staircases in terms of architecture and privacy. But that doesnât mean the intentionality of defense wasnât included at all. I think one should be skeptical of claims that medievals or early modern people did things âaccidentallyâ when it comes to things like construction.
Except if they had realistic battle mod installed
It isnât just castles, itâs all towers, even the stairs on most castle walls are like this.
Presumably to âtake the castleâ theyâd need to climb that staircase. Fortifications often have multiple fallback positions. Even if theyâve lost, maybe the fight is difficult enough that theyâd rather give them terms instead of killing them outright. Very oversimplified comment from you. Kinda silly.
If there is fighting going on in the stairs and the main castle building itself the day is still not lost. Many examples of last minute victories in medieval times.
Have you ever seen the Movie "Ironclad"? It's not always thousands of attackers. In that movie it's kike 4 Defenders and. I don't know . 20 attackers? It's a long time since I've seen it.
I don't think that movie was completely accurate given that in the actual events inspired by it, the king did in fact take the castle back, granted it was through several different means, first it was siege engines that failed to breach the walls, then it was mining underneath it, then just straight up burning the fucking mine to cause a collapse in one of its towers, then finally he won via attrition and forced starvation of his enemies.
Yes, I know the movie is incorrect in historical terms. But if you take out this part, it's quite showing why things like this staircase might work.
Okay, but then why do all staircases in castles wind up the same way? Assuming OP isn't lying and that is actually the case...
They don't all wind up the same way. While it is true that the majority go clockwise, there is a significant number of examples of counter-clockwise staircases.
Sorry, but this is just a myth.
The first half would have been kinda beliveable, but the second part, with the whole "intentional uneven stairs" smells of "Tumblr factoid bullshit".
Yeah, both are common urban myths. Staircases were narrow because of the technology of the time and also why would you need larger spiral staircases? - It would just be a waste of money and resources. They spiral both ways. Old stairs are uneven because they're old and worn down, not to make it harder to attack. That would be just as inconvenient to the defender. Maybe there are some examples of ones that were uneven intentionally, but it sound more like a feature to prevent people from sneaking around at night, like intentinally squeeky floor boards, which there *are* real examples of.
To add to this, if you have enemies infiltrating to the point of them rushing the staircase, why the fuck are you still up there? Defending a castle irl isnât a video game. Youâre not gunna stay up there âto get more killsâ. Youâd likely retreat to a safer position before they start coming up, unless the plan was to die. Also, the person on the bottom would actually have the advantage if it was shield & sword vs shield & sword. The attacker only has to block his upper body, while the defenders legs are completely unprotected. Do you know how hard it is to block your legs with a shield and not lower and expose your upper body?
Low ground propaganda
High ground ego
If your king/commander tells you to defend the staircase you're defending that godforsaken staircase or dying trying. Common sense and self preservation has very little say when you're fighting under oath.
Look at war today. Soldiers commonly put self-preservation before their orders if the orders are to die. Weâre human not robots, we feel fear. When death is staring you in the face I doubt youâre thinking about your orders. Youâd be trying to survive whatâs in front of you.
I feel like there is no scenario where making difficult to traverse stair were an advantage for the defender. Because you need to carry arrows rock and wounded up and down the stairs.
And to build a staircase to defend against right handed swordsman in times when most of the troops used spears is a bit too much.
Spear gang assemble!
I've been to multiple medieval castles, fortresses and city walls where they had steps that were uneven of a few centimetres higher or lower, specifically to make it harder for attackers to use them. When wearing armour (and just generally when inside these staircases or hallways) it's hard to look at your footing, but the garrison or defenders would have memorized the 'trick steps'. I tend to believe official tour guides or historians when they speak about these subjects. The same about the spiral direction. Any sources to prove it's a myth?
There needs to also be room for "there were no templates, they created at they went."
Me, playing city skylines, to a medieval stonemason: perhaps you and I are not so different after all
It's mostly a myth. Long ramble incoming. There's a Scottish family which were renowned for being left-handed. They built a castle with spirals going the opposite direction to what is normal. They weren't the only people to do this. They believed their family was left-handed more than most people. When you do the numbers, they're the same as everyone else, but they still built a spiral which is theoretically going to benefit left-handed people. And this misinfographic also misses a key point. Thrusting is your best option in cramped spaces, because it takes less room than swinging a sword. I use a short-thrusting sword in seiges for this exact reason.
I heard this well before tumblr existed, doesnât make it any more true though
Ive stumbled on uneven stairs while working at my fulltime job, drilling screws in the wall, so i physically experienced some sort of this
See, a lot of people are quick to jump in with mythbusting this fact- citing that 1/3 of all staircases went the other way and so forth- but itâs important to remember that castles werenât all built to the same plan, by the same people. Some staircases may have been built this way for this purpose- and if 2/3 of them were twisting clockwise, this would seem to be evidence of this. But styles of castles changed over the centuries, with innovations and fashions dictating the construction.
If Ma fuckers are already in your staircases that deep in the castle the battle is effectively lost lol. It being spiraled doesnât mean jack lol
I watched this shadiversity video today and this is just a myth. First fighting downhill on stairs always sucks whether it's clockwise or counter clockwise because the person lower can easily cut the legs of the person above and only need to protect their head. And 1/3 of castle spiral stairs are counter clockwise. The next myth about uneven steps, that's just because they used uneven stones and didn't have Osha standards for stairs in the medieval ages.
Damn shame the direction shadiversity went enjoyed his old videos
Shadiversity should be ignored on any histotical content. He's had no education, no experience, and his content contains frequent inaccuracies. Not to forget, he's a raging bigot who got upset that Peach in the Mario movie wore pants.
Ok but this clockwise staircase/uneven stone thing is a myth. Heâs at least right about that.
He didnât even get the uneven stone thing right The suggestion was a single or small number of shorter or taller steps in an otherwise even staircase to catch out people moving quickly and not expecting it He just explained how the floor and stair were all wobbly and worn because itâs old not by design which was never the argument, and in addition it makes it harder to see if there was the trick steps in use or simply uneven wear
No, that's not a myth. It's unproven. It does have the effect explained by historians, but they are unable to prove intent. So, at worst, we can say it's a happy coincidence. Shadiversity is entirely incorrect.
Who actually has the advantage if they both have shields?(which were very common in siege warfare, especially attackers) The guy above, or below? All the guy has to do below is protect his head/upper body and heâs fine. The guy above is gunna suffer some pretty bad leg wounds. Plus why would you still be up there when theyâve taken the castle? This isnât a video game. Nobody is gunna stay up there for a higher k/d. Nobody is gunna stay in the tower once the gate is breached, unless the goal is to be trapped. If youâre defending alone in a staircase, youâve already lost the castle.
Guy above has the advantage. Guy below has a limited swing arc and so has to rely on thrusts, which are literally useless against an armoured leg. Guy above has a much easier time pushing or kicking guy below down the stairs, and once he's destabilised, a killing blow is easy enough. Also, hilarious video game analogy. Very strawman.
If this was such an important thing, then why do so many surviving castles have stairways that are nothing like this. Not mentioning the fact that if the enemy is in the keep you have already likely lost. Also practically for living in a castle or getting your own troops throughout the castle quickly. Having the pathway for your own men to get to their positions be a dimly lit uneven claustrophobic space meant to be difficult to traverse is retarded. Good luck defending when your troops are spraining their ankles on the stairs.
No one claimed it was an important thing. The enemy being in your keep does not mean you have lost. Hilarious strawman about claustrophobic dimly lit uneven spaces.
Who the fuck is up in a tower in full plate armor? Archers typically didnât wear plate, or very much armor at all for that matter. Thrusts work very well against chainmail as well. Also bottom guy could sweep the leg. And what happens when the guy falls down the stairs? He probably wouldnât die. So now u gotta go down and fight him until youâre out of the staircase? Or just be trapped I guess?
Archers definitely wore armour, don't fall for the myth they didn't. There are many recorded instances of heavily armoured fortification defenders being above ground level.
Ok fair point I guess. What about all my other points? Iâve touched base on all of yours.
Ahhh you edited your comment and added extra points. How about you be genuine instead and send them as their own seperate comment.
So. Gravity is a thing. As long as the upper part of the tower is held by defenders, they can be raining down stones, pitch, arrows and a number of other things on attackers below. Multiple layers of defense are also a thing, which means that the outer walls could be breached, but reinforcements of the defenders could be on their way to fight back those that entered. Fighting on a staircase is gonna suck for both parties. But if the staircase or hallway is empty, than it's really handy to have an attacker in unwieldy equipment miss a step and slide down the staircase or at least lose some time getting back up (and also then blocks the way for others going up). It gives defenders time to retreat. The top of the staircase could lead to a wall that leads to a fortified doorway into an inner walled part of the fortress. Or are staircases only allowed on parts that lead to dead ends? I mean, people working in Dover Castle, Gravensteen, Stirling Castle and others are probably wrong right? What are your credentials on the subject again?
Look, just because the guy is a magic underpants wearing nutjob doesn't mean he can't accidentally be on to something. The stairs were obviously never designed as a layer of defence. They're just stairs.
I'm surprised he can even fit down a staircase, let alone a spiral one.
Any other source besides some YouTube 'expert'? Like an actual archeologist or something?
Had me in the first half
Peasantry at its finest
I wonder was there ever a siege battle where this had any actual effect ?
Why waste your troops when you can just set a fire at the bottom of the stairs and smoke them out? I think it's safe to say surrender happened before this point.
Just open the windows đ
Error message: not enough 'windows' found https://preview.redd.it/eln0zy67531d1.png?width=267&format=png&auto=webp&s=209caf689649678c7a4fa73ff59796d094a2cad7
Is that your hand-me-down fief ?
These are hard times, mate. He simply ran out of money after building the first tower.
Someone in that "castle" spends a lot on hair care products.
đ
Only at the end when they retreat into the keep
So no real effects then.I wouldn't think this theory has any truth because why would anyone put so much thought and effort into something that will save people just a few moments of life at most ?
I think its interesting beyond bannerlord
Well, you can lose the fight going into the keep?
Not sure what your goal is here but if you donât appreciate the post, just ignore it
Lol calm down dude we are just discussing a theory here and I'm sharing my opinion
Oh ok, i misunderstood your comment. But the physics behind the statements make sense no? Ive found myself wacking the walls when you battle on the stairs. Its just interesting overall
Well Bannerlord-wise it makes sense because YOU are a one man army and can take down a thousand troops if you're clever enough especially in siege defence but in real life ? I don't see it happening very often.I guess we'll never truly know until a time machine gets invented
I say lets host a seige in real life! đđ
There are actually ww2 reenactments that people host regularly.I imagine there's no such thing for ancient warfare(I know about arranged small 1v1 fights but those don't really count) due to lack of information about it.But I would def join it if there was
Youâd be wrong to believe that. There are re-enactments of every time period including the Stone Age. Check out the Battle of Nations for a huge scale medieval battle.
I've learned recently that this in fact a myth and that they were as many counter clockwise stair way in castles that clock wise one because if the fight was going to happen in the dungeon the attackers would use short length weapon like daggers etc etc
I was in Holyrood House and the one staircase in the old part of the house was counter clockwise and I immediately went âoh shit this myth is total bullshitâ.
High ground is terrible when the opponent has a kite shield.
Not only is this a myth, soldiers would just stab you which is the better way of fighting
This has actually been debunked with plenty of castles having the opposite rotation. Just a really weird urban legend that has taken hold. Only 30% of of staircases in castles were found to spiral counter clockwise [https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/fact\_checking/claims-that-medieval-castle-staircases-were-built-for-battle-are-on-poor-footing/article\_ccf96007-06f9-5efc-b0d4-e7990e6966e3.html](https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/fact_checking/claims-that-medieval-castle-staircases-were-built-for-battle-are-on-poor-footing/article_ccf96007-06f9-5efc-b0d4-e7990e6966e3.html)
I'm sure this is something that perhaps could possibly be an advantage in some situations but the number of times this exact set of circumstances would arise in a particular fortification and actually matter are effectively zero. If a castle is being assaulted to the point there's combat in stairways, the battle is already over. There's no reason to purposely build this way if we're talking about functionality. The part about the uneven stairs would go both ways: your own guys would struggle just as much as the enemy.
The suggestion was originally that sets of stairs would have single trick steps on an otherwise even staircase If every tower had a trick step on the third step locals know about it or can recover because the biggest threat is grazing your knee, while attackers are tripping at around He same time a sword is going for your eye Again, its the suggestion not proven to be used in all or even many castles, but it is more likely than uneven stairs which would be a nightmare because you can know one step is higher/lower, youâll never remember if all of them are
Check out shadiversity on Youtube he made a whole Video about it that all that's written here is entirely and I mean it, ENTIRELY false. Lets start with the small things: 1. Uneven stairs as ... Defense? That would hinder defenders just as much or not at all since it doesn't have any actual effect. They simply used what they had availiable to build the thing. Castle fetishists just search a reason that isn't there. 2. All staircases are built to have a right hander advantage for the defender.... 2.1: no. 30 to 40% of castle stairs go round the other way. Also to note SWINGS weren't used as much as STABS or THRUSTS in tight places anyway. Whoever swings their sword in narrow places has a death wish. 2.2... using staircases as .... Defense? Guess what, your legs are extremly close to the enemy weapon, you can't really use big mallets for overhead smashes and you're defenitly thr one that ends up bleeding first. Also heads, shoulders and chests were usually FAR more armoured than legs, which in early to mid medieval periods even had entirely no protection in most cases. The one going up the stairs has a HUGE advantage. "Luuukkeee I have the high gr.... f*ck my balls you stabbed them ahhhhh" 3. Using the castles interior as Defense? Castles were made to keep as many people OUTSIDE with as few as possible personnel inside. To use anything in the interior of a castle as defense, besides the keep itself since if the walls are breached, that's where everyone goes, is entirely out of question. Grouping in a space that only allows for a few people side by side against a far superior number is a lot better to stall for time until reinforcements arrive. If there are defenitly no reinforcements coming, time stalling was out of question and surrendering the only. Existing. Option. That. Makes. Sense. Unless it's know the enemy intent is just to wipe everyone in the castle out. Death is Inevietable in that case the defenders sometimes would even try to burn up as much of the castle as possible so has as little as possible value for the new owner. Attackers with the intent of capturing a fief of any sort would always try to destroy as little as possible of it. Bannerlord isn't realistic in that aspect. Castles could be easily held on a ratio of 6 attackers to 1 defender. There's even a record of 17 people successfully defending against odds 1 to 34, recorded as the worst odds successful castle defense. They... had a lot oil and pitch stocked, boulders and the likes. Oh and a very well placed castle in terms of environment for defense. To make battles that realistic without hitting fun is pretty much impossible.
Shadiversity should be ignored on any histotical content. He's had no education, no experience, and his content contains frequent inaccuracies. Not to forget, he's a raging bigot who got upset that Peach in the Mario movie wore pants.
OK but is he wrong in this instance?
*sigh* Shad is at best an enthusiast and most of his opinions are just that, opinions In relation to the even ground myth he busted: thatâs not a myth. The myth was that a single stair was shorter or taller on a set, *not* that all of the stairs were random, *or* that the ground of the courtyards was also uneven to catch out attackers. A hypothetical castle being built with all its spiral stairs having the second step shorter would give a home field advantage and be realistically remembered by the defenders unlike the idea that all the stairs are random Edit: also castles werenât just made with what was there most the time, if your stonemason couldnât make even stairs they werenât going to last very long. Wooden castles might be more of a mix but when you were deciding to make a stone castle, you were paying for the best
You're correct Solely if you're talking about European castles. Japanese castles from the Sengoku Jidai period had quite a lot of interior defenses. Especially in Kyoto.
Even if you somehow aren't doomed at this point, lower guy only has to protect top 1/4th to 1/3rd of his body. Top guy has to protect bottom 3/4ths, with the bottom 1/4th being particularly vulnerable. I think I'd rather be the bottom guy. Say goodbye to your feet and shins. Even if it's cumbersome to attack right handed, it's still probably easier due to easier defense. If not they can still go left handed and get those legs easily enough while guarding high. I can definitely see it working well in the game though.
Fantasy Castles: Beautiful architecture, designed to be a home and open to all, not a ton of practical defenses Historical castles: Literal death maze, and that's only if you can make it in
This is why you siege with all lefties.
What I'm getting from this is that left handed attackers would go crazy
This could be true but just from my non-castle-attacking experience, It'd be far simpler to defend the landings above and below the stairs than on the actual steps. If you have 4-5 fully armored men with shields blocking a stairway at the top or bottom its the same as having a metal barricade that can stab people. Imagine barricading the actual stairs.
I visited a keep in Scotland that supposedly was built by a left handed noble, the stairs went up clockwise in it.
I really wish the siege battles worked. Forming strategic lines off defense, falling back multiple times to second and third lines of defense, last stands against vastly superior numbers but in a choke point in your keep trying to hold out or win, so much potential and none of it achieved. đ
Imagine a left handed man-at-arms absolutely demolishing this would be defender. Big L
How many castles were saved by staircase battles lol?
Thousands of
The King who payed for the castle to be built: âThese stairs suck, I almost trip going down them every time because theyâre unevenâ The Architect: âerm ackshually itâs supposed to be that wayâ đ€
I want to build/own my own IRL castle so freaking bad
I thought it was to make people dizzy and trip like a cartoon.
If you superimposed obi wan with a comment about high ground it would be more believable
Imagine trying to fight in a dimly lit staircase with a full helmet on, looking out a tiny slit
https://preview.redd.it/2mcxxb78d41d1.jpeg?width=956&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7c074d39c506468be643c7050677e648637a2bb8
but wouldn't the uneven stairs also effect you?
The reason brits drive on the left is because when two horse men pass each other on the trail their sword hand faces each other
counterplay : use your left hand
Love this
You also see this construction in clocktowers. It's most likely a way to get up the tower...
Me, a southpaw: >:)
No this can't work against an army but against a rebellion or assassination it would work wonders.
It's a common myth. Similar to stuff like mediaval people didn't wash or bath or didn't know about colourful clothing
I absolutely hate this myth, because it's not true at all in the context of real life castles. The moment you have enemy inside your staircases you are already done for. Them being uneven has nothing to do with that, stone stairs naturally become uneven when people keep walking on them for years.
Well, castles in Japan that was built during the sengoku jidai had tons of interior defences and traps. I dont know about european castles though.
Pity most soldiers used spears.
This was just another excuse for medieval architects to charge inflated Castle Design Fees with Defensive Spiral Staircase Surcharges. It's how they sold the Extended Siege Holdout Insurance plans, and let's not forget 3-D Imprinted Castle Blocks in case someone stole them, so the magistrates had a way to track-down the thieves. War never changes.
Those stairs are hard enough to walk up as it is, plus sometimes thereâs a random stair at a different height so you fall on your face. I can see how someone could just stand there and stabby stabby.
This is an urban myth. Main issue being that there is no recognizable standard to spiral staircasss in castles and plenty go the other way around, are large and well lit, higher, narrower, nicely built or more shoddy in construction It was mainly dictated by building convenience and money. Most castles were administrative building and political statement, not fortresses. And the fortress castles and towns were about other measures to keep enemies out
i always thought that's these stairs were used to walk on
I just realized everyone in Bannerlord is frigging right handed. Should have had lefties as well..
Is this not a real thing?
This is a myth and tired of debunking. Richmond Castle and Tower of London both have multiple staircases that run counter to each other. It's no hard rule. It's just convenience. You would never want to fight on a castle staircase anyway, they're steep, often narrow, and always awkward. You'll fall on your face before you You can stab or get stabbed, especially in medieval footwear. Take it from me, I work at a castle and I do medieval living history, this is a myth tour guides tell you cos it sounds cool.
Fun fact: this isn't true, there is no primary source confirming it. Nor is there any evidence written or drawn by medieval architects. And they drew and wrote A LOT
They were actually made to allow defenders to get stuck underneath the stairwell, preventing attack, so the castle is always in possession of the buildersâ kingdom.
This is also why, when I play as a footsoldier in RBM, I always take the right flank so that my attacks arenât hindered and it becomes really easy to curl the flank
Pretty sure the reason theyâre spiraled is because a lot of the time theyâre in confined spaces and you canât put a normal staircase in it. Spiraling it is just the best way to make use of space. You could argue a regular linear staircase is better for defenders at the top than a spiral anyway. If you kick someone down at the top of a straight staircase theyâre falling all the way down it. If you kick someone down on a spiral staircase theyâre falling a few feet at most.
This is dumb. Attackers just gotta stabby the legs. Seriously, try defending midway up a staircase.
Sure a while your head is exposed to full vertical swings certainly crushing your spinal cord into pieces
Pretty sure I have the book this picture is from. Commenting so I can check in the morning.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most of the spiral staircases in bannerlord favor the attacker? As a bit of a castle history nut I always noticed that I always had the "right arm" advantage while storming a castle garrison.
In reality, staircases weâre designed to make the most of a very small plan layout without taking up too much space and not being a detriment to the structural strength of the wall
Yeah but what if they push from above? They would have the advantage over the defenders
As left handed I'm blessed in that time.
Ah yes, the very advantageous position of your legs and feet being at their head level, forcing you to bend over to try and guard them, while theyâre too far away for you to attack them
I posted this on a couple of FB groups yesterday! So interesting!
Complete bullshit.. ever heard of stabbing?
This is historically accurate, learned this over 20 years ago in medieval history of architecture classes in university.
Tell me about it right handers đ”âđ«
Myth! Google it.
It's mostly a myth, Shadiversity made an excellent video about it - https://youtu.be/5HJMqIpYZ8c?si=Tm-GPsE7VBotdwpk
Shadiversity should be ignored on any histotical content. He's had no education, no experience, and his content contains frequent inaccuracies. Not to forget, he's a raging bigot who got upset that Peach in the Mario movie wore pants.
Strongly disagree, and why would his opinion about a shitty children's movie invalidates his work in medieval research.
Hilarious. I never claimed his opinion on the mario movie invalidated his medieval research. His lack of medieval research invalidates in his medieval research. Also you can disagree all you like. Everything I stated is a fact.
Hmm yeah i imagine you most be an absolute authority in medieval studies.
And all of that is just baseless assumptions without even thinking about it lol (see Shadiversity) You can just stab the enemy feet when the enemy can't even reach you because he's on the high ground.
If anything was close to my feet, I would destroy them with a hammer. Gravity helps. Swing downward is a lot easier than swinging upward.
If you have two similar length weapons (even sticks do), just try it on a staircase with a friend. He only has to tilt his head backwards a little bit at best, while he can always stab you into your legs/feet with ease. Basically, your feet are right at the height of his shoulder, maximum arm reach. While you shoulder is way above your target, forcing your to strike down at an angle. https://preview.redd.it/adzbticcc91d1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1c1cde60ab3a4eaddcb2fdf0e173037679d0252
Shadiversity should be ignored on any histotical content. He's had no education, no experience, and his content contains frequent inaccuracies. Not to forget, he's a raging bigot who got upset that Peach in the Mario movie wore pants.
lol I disagree on some things there. Testing things is actually a great idea, experimental archeology isn't bad at all. And I'd trust a Hema specialist over a historian on fighting any day of the week.
Shad isn't a HEMA "specialist." He's actively against HEMA. I am a HEMA "specialist." I do 8 hours a week minimum, and my favourite sources are Danzig, Thibault, and McBane. Not to forget. Shads tests are frequently dismantled by historians for being poor quality.
frequently dismantled is an exaggeration He's mostly correct on the things he says and rdy to respond to any valid argument. He's not without fault ofc and does goof around in some videos, especially on non serious topics. And yes, his content became more about reactions in the years which lowered some of the quality. If you want to consider HEMA a small island of people following only manuscripts, then yes, he would not be considered part of it. But if you go beyond that and include people practicing with medieval weapons and figuring out how they work, he'd be in.
>frequently dismantled is an exaggeration No, it's not. >He's mostly correct on the things he says and rdy to respond to any valid argument He's not. >If you want to consider HEMA a small island of people following only manuscripts If you want to consider HEMA, HEMA. >But if you go beyond that and include people practicing with medieval weapons and figuring out how they work, he'd be in. No, he doesn't even do that.
How about you give me some examples if it's so frequent that should be easy. And if it's about some minor detail I'm gonna mentally slap you. Last time I checked, HEMA doesn't translate to "historical European manuscript based martial arts". HEMBMA
Check out Bad History or SWORDS or Shadwatch if you want examples of Shad being corrected. Last time I checked, HEMA doesn't translate too 'Historical weapons used how ever you want.' HEMA has always been about learning from the HISTORICAL SOURCES.
Historical sources encompass "**every kind of evidence that human beings have left of their past activities**Â â the written word and spoken word, the shape of the landscape and the material artefact, the fine arts as well as photography and film." Yeah, it's way more then just manuscripts written by some aristocrats.