Castles

What kind of Castle's are we taking about

Because I have a lot of Castle's

Like a lot

>mystical fantasy castles that are impossible
>actors from capeshit
>only one person has actually helped me out

this place is a joke

Is there such a thing as too many Castle's?

...

No?

...

>Implying you would really get serious responses on a request thread where you DIDN'T POST ANY CASTLES TO START.

...

...

where are they quarrying all the stones from?

...

...

...

The commute from top to bottom must be an absolute bitch.

...

...

OP here, that was not me.
However, I wouldn't have opened a request thread if I did have castles to contribute, right?
Thanks everyone though!

You do realize that the quarry could be literally five 5 meters down the road.

>mining ore that close to the sea
>from chalk cliffs no less

Many Castles were built atop a quarry

Been to chalk cliffs, shore was full of boulders.
And quarrying stone is different from ore mining.

>They removed the Church

triggered

I think this is my favourite stage.

It's small enough that a group of PCs can attack it and defeat the defenders without getting way over the powerlevels that I like to have in my games and if PC or the group owns an outpost like that handling it won't make things too complicated and distract from the rest of the game.

Also owning it won't mean that the players are likely to have such a huge army that it makes little sense for them to fight without it. At this point the party is likely to themselves hold positions in the staff. Like one of them as the lord and the others as guards, the court mage, huntmaster etc.

Not a castle but an abbey. A casterly abbey if you like...

...

...

...

...

...

...

archive.4plebs.org/hr/thread/2679272/
archive.4plebs.org/hr/thread/2035812/

How were castles designed? did they have dedicated castle architects back then?

theladders.com/career-newsletters/leonardo-da-vinci-resume

As the sequence of pics shows, they evolve over time as weapons change, but yes you have engineer-architects who designed castles, like this guy:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_of_Saint_George

...

...

...

no you just slide down. The problem is getting back up

I never really understood one point about castles. Like the little ones, not the massive "can hold an entire city" lot.

They couldn't hold terribly many people, and often only had a handful in them at a time unless they're reinforced.

So why not just walk around? There are only so many absolutely necessary choke points in a kingdom. Just walk around, ignore the dozen fucks holed up inside and walk around.

I've always liked palisade castles. So adorable but cool.

48452031
So the forces in the castles don't bit you in the ass.

Damn, this looks comfy.

Depends what your objectives are. You can't take the land if the enemy lord is still sitting in his castle right in the middle of it.
It's also a staging point. The enemy can raid from it and just retreat back in if things go badly.
In addition it's a place to store supplies. And logistics is what wins battles.

...

What are the differences between a castle, a fort, and a fortress?

I know it was harder to spot and intercept people back then, but if you come in with enough soldiers what's stopping you from taking everything around the castle? If you can hold the outer stuff why bother with the inner castle or two?

>enemy walks around castle
>survive

I wonder what the point was.

Castle can only hold so many people. Especially the smaller bare bones ones like say .

Yeah I get it the important people hold up in them, but like come on.

>>but if you come in with enough soldiers what's stopping you from taking everything around the castle?

What you're describing is pretty much a siege.

>>If you can hold the outer stuff why bother with the inner castle or two?

There's enemy soldiers in there. Once you ease up, they will sally out and retake what you've captured as soon as possible. In addition to enemy soldiers, though, you have potential valuables such as books, medicine, food, treasure, etc. Not to mention there's a lord in there with his family.

Depending on your objective, you might want to capture that lord and his family.

Yeah mate, that is called a siege. You may have heard of them. They were kind of common.

Still, if you are in the middle of a land filled with enemies, you're better off holed up in a castle than just walking around. And when you are in there, you can wait for the war to be over or wait for allies to come or strike up a negotiation. It's better than being captured or killed by the enemy.

>ignore the dozen fucks holed up inside and walk around
and have some fuckers raiding your supply lines

Any soldiers you commit to taking all the little castles will take casualties, and won't be able to do anything else while the siege is going on. The objective isn't necessarily to survive, but to tie down the enemies' resources. Disease deaths in besieging camps in particular could get atrocious- even a small siege could reap massive death tolls among the attackers. And if the enemy just parks a large enough force to prevent sallies and raids, but doesn't commit the forces needed to take the castle- well, there you go, survival accomplished.

Besides, wars come in different sizes. A really big war, they might not be worth much, but in petty little lord vs. lord wars with only small forces even a small fort is a powerful position. Then there are forces like Vikings and other raiders that can do a lot of damage in the open, but probably don't have the resources or inclination to prosecute any sort of siege in the normal course of things.

...

Yeah, but there aren't that many people in there.

Yeah, but seiges generally involved massing around the castle and yelling at each other until one side dies of disease and malnutrition. I'm talking about just ignoring them and maybe keeping some soldiers in the nearby settlements.

If the castle is ignored soon enough they wouldn't have too many fighting men in them. If you're not storming it you wouldn't need much yourself.

You mean the guys who are worth much more alive than dead?

You need a big army to besiege even a small castle - you can't do much to the guys inside, and you have to surround the place with your army or else they get someone out and get reinforcements from their mates.
And a castle will likely have good stores too, better than the besieging camp unless it's very well organised (though admittedly, when their food's gone it's gone)

And going out to find allies too.

>there aren't that many people in there
20 good men is enough, hue hue

Well, on other boards you might get banned if you don't post at least 6 pics of requested stuff...

This thread reminds me of this old Commandos clone I played back in the day, called Robin Hood: Legend of Sherwood. You could post half the maps from that game and fit right in here. All conveniently designed to be barely able to be infiltrated by a party of at most six skilled and specialised people, too.

hey can I get some gothic/castlevania-styled castles?

Look at the date friend
World stopped being fun around the 1500s. Protostantism ruined everything for everyone for ever.

Then in the 1700s everyone got high on enlightenment and slaughtered everything good in France, including all the good catholic nobles, a lot of innocent citizens, alot of the art of the catholic church, and chivalry itself. All led by a sewer-man's newspaper

kek that looks like the exin castillos I used to play with

You've now got me wondering about R34 castles. Damn you man

Hmmmm, if it was burned in a siege would that be Razin' Bran?

Thanks japan.

...

in there is a small discussion of castlefolk and their physiology. the consensus seems to be that it involves architects being sent out of the castle. I subscribe to the theory that they reproduce asexually, sending out architects like spores

...

...

...

...

butthurt monarchist detected.

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

Remember to get a good fleet to back up your claims.

Doesn't need to be a LARGE raiding party, user. Not to mention any other hostile forces active in the are can fall back to it, leading to the garrison growing over time.

What it boils down to is that you have to commit enough men to surround the damn place so that they can't slip out for sallies and raids, and hold that ground until they starve or surrender.

Congrats, you just discovered sieges.

>If you're not storming it you wouldn't need much yourself.

Sure, if you want the defenders to slip out irregularly on nights to raid your ass. Suddenly you're losing men every month, morale is in the shitter, and that's if you've been bothered to keep a supply chain up to them and not just make them forage for their own provisions (good luck, the defenders took everything inside and burned the rest).

In short, like said, by the time you've dedicated the bare minimum amount of men to:
1. Have enough awake at any time to repel a dedicated sally or raid
2. Completely surround the castle so that they can't slip out to harass supply lines/steal supplies/kill men in their sleep/whatever
3. Compensate for the inevitable attrition from disease and the like
4. establish a supply chain and/or forage for supplies

you've essentially done what every medieval military commander in the history of ever has done when presented with a castle filled with random fuckwits: siege them out while riding on with the rest of the force to the next castle.

>If you're not storming it you wouldn't need much yourself.

>There's only like six guys in there, I'll leave two dozen men to keep them hedged in
>...
>I guess they had more than two dozen arrows in there

It's built on the water, thus stone could be shipped economically to the building site. It's the same reason that Paris could be built mostly from stone and brick.

>t. Ignatius Reilly

>implying the French Revoloution wasn't the most gory, terrible, act of powdered fedora ever
Even England said that they were acting less civilized than wild niggers.

Remember France used to be cool before this

That sucks. Sorry, but you could do better.

The Japanese really did build fortifications like this during the Warring States period.
If you lived on the top most layer, you probably never left.

>implying liberty has to mean stupidity

They also built their inner castle walls like mazes with dead ends, as well as spike and oil traps.

>the French Revoloution was the most gory, terrible, act of powdered fedora ever
You're not wrong about this, but you have to remember it's the effect, not the cause. The cause happened long before and was Louis XIV's decision to switch to absolute monarchy, along with the growing "noblesse de robe" (which should never have been allowed to exist in the first place). When you elevate clerks, merchants and lawyers to noble rank as though they were the equals of fighting men, the bourgeois start getting big heads, and when you then also deprive the warrior nobility of their hereditary right to freedom and rule of their lands, well.

But then all *that* stuff happened because technology fucked our shit up. Basically you have to delete gunpowder to avoid this terrible mess. (Gunpowder's more to blame than Protestantism for the fuckugly 16th century castle, although by all means tackle that too while you go back in time. Gonna have to go to town on the corrupt Renaissance Papacy to avoid the Reformation, though.)

>liberty

Meaningless buzzword.

Yeah, yeah, we get it, you wuz kangs and should rule over the lesser people, no one cares.

Nah, I accept my position as the working class. I'm not whinny that I should be president or an oil tycoon so why would I have delusions of being king?

Damn, that must smell bad.

>my life is shit because it's fated to be shit so I should just let it be shit

Have fun in your dank little pit there.