Rate my castle

Needs work, but okay for a novice.

>Rome Total War large village

>being this autistic

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

In the middle m8

...

...

Ya'll niggers are small time.

Is that the fort where the Romans fought the Jewish zealots?

No idea, just the biggest castle I have in my folders space wise.

You may only have one

Alright, still looks pretty cool.

you're thinking of Masada, different Jewhill.

Ah, thanks.

...

framable/10

Thanks for the thread.

my castle is the best castle of all the castles

it honestly upsets me that thousands of years of fort design and architecture was lost from fucking termites and dry-rot

I want to see a fucking Republic Era Roman hillfort, not the outline of where it once was.

Chittorgargh is a fortress city in Rajastan. Despite its grand size and stout defences, it has been taken by force on three occasions.

A view from the parapets.

I love castle threads. So fucking cozy.

Since this is a thread about fortifications, did anyone else read Tonio Andrade's "Gunpowder Age"? Specifically, the "Chinese Wall Theory"?

Are these celtic?

Indian hill fortresses are amazingly big, and the spiked gates give them a certain charm.

I would call it unrealistic if it weren't real.

Do you guys have any floor plans for keeps?

...

...

...

...

...

love it, but it needs more pointy sticks right beneath the walls
looks slavic

...

Aaaaaand I'm done.

Imagine living in one of those houses if your neighbors were dickheads

I think they're Polish, at least the first two, around the 10th century or so.

I haven't read it, but I read some of his articles and I think I know what you're talking about. The idea that Chinese gunpowder and fortification technology didn't develop like Europe's did, because their thick packed-earth city walls were impervious to even industrial-era cannons. So there was little need to develop heavy siege artillery, because it was of no use, and consequently no need to develop complex bastion forts to deal with that artillery. In contrast, Europe had long built small castles suitable for siege warfare but with brittle stone walls that were vulnerable to artillery, so when gunpowder was introduced it quickly lead to the development of huge cannons capable of blowing apart stone walls (the Turks used the same kind of cannon in Constantinople, derived from German/Hungarian designs). And consequently Europeans devised new kinds of fortress to deal with artillery, the bastion fort and then the star fort, which could be held by even a small number of men against huge armies and gave European colonial empires the ability to entrench themselves in places like the Indian Ocean. To a limited extent the same happened in Japan, with the castles that emerged in the 16th century being designed with artillery in mind and giving Japan an advantage in their invasion of Korea at the end of the century.

Did I get that right?

Its only a model

Polish? Interesting.

Yup, that's it. It was quite surprising. I thought of triple wall systems like Constantinople and Carthage as the top shit before gunpowder. But after reading and checking about chinese walls, man, I had to update my dwarfs accordingly.

Plus, if one removes the curved roofs, chinese fortifications are quite blocky and suit the dwarf aesthetic well.

...

...

...

monteriggioni?

rate my asshole?

San Gimignano.

8/10, would fist again.

...

it's been eight damn years since ACII...holy crap.

Getting an architecture bonnet from this thread. Anyone have Japanese castlesv for variety shake?

Also, to keep the thread Veeky Forums, how do you integrate castles into your games?

What's ACII?

Usually as dungeons, sometimes as places for players to "play house" and/or headquarters.

Assassin's Creed II
where you were able to climb around both cities I've confused earlier.

Why Anglos are so obsessed with this shit?

...

Aside the fact the original article is a piece of Eurocentric bullshit ("we wuz engineers!") and a fuckload of simplification you've also put into it - yeah, more or less like it. Mostly less

Ohhh... Yeah, being a city full of tower-houses, it fits well. Himalayan forts/palaces also would be good assassin climbing material.

...

Two words for you:
Read Needham

He's the final authority about anything China-related. If he says something went like X, then it most definitely went like X and any situation when it didn't was a very specific case or exception.

The book you are quoting is using circular logic to justify presented theory:
Impossible to siege with cannons -> no point making cannons -> remains impossible to siege with local cannons -> remains unchanged

It clearly ignores the very fucking basic thing about siege artillery, as in "Can't crack those fortifications? BRING BIGGER GUN!"
Chinese didn't develop better sieging techniques and tools for that predominately because there was nobody to siege. If you are a fucking empire with pretty efficient bureaucracy and uninterested with expansion most of the time, who you are going to siege? Simple, without circular logic and backed by fuckload of factors, instead "we wuz engineers"

wew lad, this would be a pain in the ass to attack. Before any real naval firepower that thing would be a bitch

It's pretty much new and gunpowder-focused version of "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Avoid like fucking fire.

You're being too simplistic.

Cannons played a role, but it wasn't breaching the walls. Suitable guns to do so would be available only centuries later.

Plus, he remarked the internal peace. External is a different matter.

That's the idea.

No. It has revisionist problems in the second part, but this author knows what history is, for starters. And he offers somethign new, while Diamond just repeated former attempts at creating laws for human history.

Castles, you say?
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWklwxMTl4syenM-NN3NXjNW6DyT6bDMG

Yeah. I wouldn't want to attack that with anything less than cannons. Because taking it by sea is is basically suicide, and even if you take the lower port they can just back up and wall off again so you gained fairly little. And taking from the land isn't much better.

And if you bring JUST a land army or JUST a navy, you might as well go home because you won't be able to siege them.

It can be taken, but only by a much more powerful and numerous force that hates you enough to eat the loses and resources it would take.

Too big to hold, I imagine. Its impressive as fuck, but the walls are so long you need a much larger army to hold it, and any army large enough to do so will be a major resource hog.

2000 years of extremely high stakes games of "who owns the castle" deciding who gets to own what leaves a residual fascination.

Best game of King of the Hill ever.

Like me some early medieval castles

Here is a 10th century German anti-Magyar fort

Because its a big part of european history, a prominent feature in the same middle age combat that most fantasy draws from, and the logistics and tricks of castlemaking is actually pretty interesting.

Castles had only one job: to be as absolutely punishing to take as you could make them. Even the mongols, when they got to Europe, got really fucking fed up with Castles because they would burn all the villages and then people would retreat into the castles, and it was just tremendously unfun waiting outside for them to come out.

And unlike the large nomadic lands, you rode 2 days in any given direction and you had to start the whole process over because these kingdoms were tiny as fuck but EVERYONE HAD A GODDAMN CASTLE WHY DO YOU NEED SO MANY YOU FUCKS. FIGHT ME GODDAMNIT.

The desire to have your own castle is understandable. It's basically a medieval equivalent of MAXIMUM COMFINESS.

I agree.

The same people who are building Guedelon Castle in France started construction on this just a few hours from where I live. They only laid the foundations before they ran out of money though. Would have been super cool to see built.

youtube.com/watch?v=C16L3Z8oI_E

>it was normal for maidservants to sleep at the foot of their lady's bed, if not right next to her

c-cute

>tfw no qt3.14 maidservant in the trundle

that looks really comfy
and also a nice place for me to raise 5 kids to be leaders of men.

>Beige posting

>Too simplistic
>Said by the guy supporting Andrade's bullshit theory
Please explain me how "Europe was superior, because it has constant warfare and fight and that made Europeans stronger, smarter and better" is saying something new? That shit is 200 fucking years old, just read James Mill and his "History of British India". The book is another piece of Eurocentric bullshit that doesn't even try to hide own stance by the second half.

>European history
>Anglo-specific type of construction
K

Let me reitterate - why Anglos are so obsessed with motte-bailey "castles"? Aside being Anglos and pulling this shit for few centuries straight, because that was the best thing they could come up with when dealing with raiders from outside the Isles. It's a fucking joke of fortification, that just about anyone could siege down, if they were something bigger than a band of 30-something guys that only came for easy loot and had their ship waiting for their return only till evening.

What have some of the anons here got against Jared Diamond and Guns, Germs and Steel?

Genuinely curious.

>Are these celtic?
Like the other guy pointed out, they are Polish. Those are different reconstructions of Gniezno, first Polish capital, now a provincional town (which it has been since 13th century, as it lost any importance pretty quick). This one is pre-Christian reconstruction and this is possible state of things before the mid-11th century raid, aka last time the town was important

The big difference between Celtic and Slavic earthwork is that Celts were making actual embarkments, while Slavs were putting down a fuckload of woodwork and THEN cover it with earth. Technically the inside of those ramparts is empty, but it also makes them MUCH harder to siege down, as no contemporary machines or tools were capable to access the upper or lower parts of the "wall", while the construction was much less labour-intensive, since you didn't have to actually make massive earth embarkments.

>2017
>Genuinely curious about Diamond
Here is the (You) you are looking for

I listened to Guns, Germs and Steel on audiobook after hearing it praised. I liked it and I thought his points made sense. I'm not familiar with serious challenges to his views. How else can I express my question in earnest?

Maybe because posting "Diamond was right" or "Guns, Germs and Steel is good book" is a cheap-tier bait? Maybe beauce the book got roasted by pretty much everyone, from academicians to just common people with basic formal education, due to making wild assumptions, simplifying countless factors, taking things outside their context or outright ignoring facts to better mold the theory that can be summed up in "I know jack shit about anything at all, but this shit is digestable enough to sell well to idiots who look for simple, easy answers while looking complex enough".
Looking is the right term. The sole fact the book assumes technological development is something linear and repetitive for every single place is a sure-fire sign the author is retarded

And where is the classic pasta about Diamond when you need it?!

You mean this one?

There is literally one clue you will ever need to understand what's wrong with GGS:
It's a book about technological and sociological development of humanity through ages and continents written by a physiologist specialising in digestion process. And it's researched just like you might expect from such an "expert".

It always baffles me how he's a biologist by trade and in the same time knows so little about plants and animal husbandry a "city mouse" high-schoolers can point out all the basic issues of his reasoning, as I've tested on my students. The guy is literally using reverse Lysenko for his entire agriculture argument.

Shh!

Was this always a barren desert?
How could you supply a garrison with water in a place like this?