Is it possible to build a castle/fortification in a swamp?

Is it possible to build a castle/fortification in a swamp?

I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started, all I had was swamp! Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em! It sank into the swamp, so I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. I built a third one. It burned down, fell over, and then it sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up! And that's what you're going to get, lad - the strongest castle on these islands!

Underground.

Read up on the Kingdom of East Anglia. Most of the area was swampland back then, and all the towns/forts/anything was built on little islands of (relatively speaking) high ground. Until quite modern times, engineering meant that building in a swamp would be very difficult, and as a result hugely expensive and time consuming to the point of being basically impractical. That said, it could be done, if enough time and money was available, though the structure would be restricted to a relatively moderate size, and living in it would likely be thoroughly miserable.

Turtle living-castle or something.

came here to post this

I still wonder what is this structure where you hire lizards is supposed to be.

To add to this (entirely correct) answer, castles were constructed to protect strategic points and farmland, while you could build a castle in a swamp given enough time and resources to stabilise the ground there is absolutely no point because swamps are basically useless.

No one's coming near your swamp castle because Sun Tzu's number 2 rule of warfare is basically 'nigga seriously, DO NOT fight in a swamp' but likewise your castle is useless, it can't support itself well from farmland and doesn't offer refuge for anyone because no one's really living there.

Not even trolling here, look up mormon history. I don't remember much, cause I got the fuck out, but supposedly large portions of salt lake city was a swamp when they got there, the temple was supposedly erected on a foundation of rock pounded into the ground with a cannon they had on one of their wagons.

>Sun Tzu's number 2 rule of warfare is basically 'nigga seriously, DO NOT fight in a swamp'
What's rule #1?

Never get involved in a land war in Asia?

Yes, it will be expensive though.
As Sant Peterburg in russia was built in a swamp.
As well as some old castles in Baltic states, as a lot of them where pretty much swamps and forests

Here we go. according to the church, the swampy grounds of St. George, Utah were packed with volcanic rock using a cannon as a piledriver, the cannon is on display in the visitor's center.

A canopy wrought from wicker

Do not pursue Lu Bu

Don't wage wars.

For real.

Do not talk about Fight Club.

Possible yes.

But it's a dumb idea.

For one thing: There isn't any arable land to defend in a swamp, so why the fuck would you build fortifications there? Not like there are going to be important roads through a foot of mud.

But let's pretend that it was a reasonable thing to do, for some convoluted-ass reason. And that there wasn't a hill close enough that it made a better position.

So first you cart in a ridiculously-huge ass-load of sand. Then build everything out of cut stone because wood and clay won't work at all. Then realize you beggared the surrounding 100 miles by spending an insane amount of labor on something totally worthless.

Don't talk about Sun Tzu's rules of warfare

There will be trouble first and people will see sun twice a year, but yes you can

fucking Frey

Well, we're on Veeky Forums so there may be some fantasy reasons like I don't know magic leyline or whatever.
Another possibility may be that the fortress was built before the region got swampy? I guess it would be more of a ruins though.
A race that can only get cosy in a nice murky damp swamp?

Try to have overwhelming numerical and materiel superiority.

Seriously, that's his big rule. All those management types who say they've got big insight from reading Ancient Chinese Strategy are bullshitting because his book basically comes down to three things:

1. If you're going to have a shit-breaking competition then have more shit than the other guy, that when his shit's broke you still have shit.

2. If there's a thing you want to do that would go really badly if your enemy attacked you while you're doing the thing and you can see your enemy, don't do the thing.

3. If you can take their shit rather than breaking it you can then use their shit to break their other shit.

What this really made me wonder about Imperial China was how bad their average standard of generalship was if The Art of War was a real mindblower, that must've been some real Zapp Brannigan shit. If it were published today it'd be called 'warfighting for dummies' and I bet pretentious types only read it because 'art of war' sounds manly as all fuck.

Basically yeah, it's don't wage wars if possible and if you need to make sure you fucking crush your opponent as quickly as possible.

This

I think you overestimate people's knowledge of warfare back in the 6th century BC. Back then, wars/fights were basically farmers' quarrels over land and it was about as advanced as you might think, so what now seems like common knowledge was pretty useful to know back then. I mean, Alexander's Hammer and Anvil tactic was so mind blowing back in the fourth century BC that he conquered most of the known world with it.

Most people underestimate wood - buildings in Venice stand on wooden poles

As anons

said, building a castle in a swamp is quite possible, but also impractical. However, this is Veeky Forums!

What would be viable reasons within settings for a swamp castle to exist? suggested the land was cursed after construction, resulting in the swamp.

Maybe it does have a purpose as a farm in a fantasy world. Valuable swamp plants or maybe it's fortification for a dire alligator farm!

If you have to worry about frog/fish people, it's also entirely worthwhile to expect an attack through the swamp. Maybe the castle is built upon an oddly present high ground near the swamp's border.

Yes.

Yes but it will take some trial and error.

>I think you overestimate people's knowledge of warfare back in the 6th century BC.
I don't overestimate it since historically speaking Sun Tzu was indeed some serious hot shit, there was obviously a good reason for it as people in the olden days weren't idiots, they simply didn't have the legacy of iterative development we now have to stand on. What makes me really think is how terrifyingly unsophisticated their concept of warfare must have been and how much of it must've been ramming groups of people together until one side ran away, so unsophisticated and pointlessly bloody.

If you wanted to do it I'd suggest merrows or bullywugs or similar amphibious creatures. The bottom half of the castle is submerged and flooded and the residents transition between wet and dry floors freely. Constructing a swamp castle is far more sensible if you don't need to keep it from sinking and if your food lives in the swamp.

Yes.

It wasn't bloody, as far as I remember. They were just two groups of soldiers either crashing into eachother or manuevering around eachother until the side with worse morale and tactics fled. Classical warfare, even chinese one, was really simple and relatively bloodless until Alexander and then the romans changed the game in the west, while chinks invented advanced weaponry like crossbows and gunpowder weapons and then horribly misused them.

As for sophistication, imagine that barbarians were still just mob-rushing romans in the 1st century AC. They weren't dumb, they simply did not have the means to learn more advanced tactics (Commanding a group of men to stand still while being pelted with rocks, javelins and arrows or to slowly retreat in the center so you can break the enemy's formation is pretty difficult) and didn't have the necessary wealth and centralization to train their men.

Ravenna, capital of the western Roman Empire after the crisis of the third century, emperors chose it specifically because it was built in a swamp and was therefore hard to attack.

Better than building in the swamp itself would be building on the only solid ground in the surrounding area to create a defensible choke point, such as Moat Cailin in ASoIaF.

>why the fuck would you build fortifications there

So that a group of 2-6 adventurers can explore its ruins for sick loot sometime in the indeterminate future.

Fucking kek

Yes.

It might even be realistic if you want.

Two things you are overlooking 1: common sense is not common, and 2: someone had to think up these things that look like a no brainer after the fact