Brickshelf: Ulmaris Castle

[Hobbes]

This should be the one it's based on according to his gallery.

I like the "style" and I think it looks very "accurate". Has a kind of "crusaders look" to it :)

[SuvieD]

I prefer the LEGO fanatsy type castles to this type of building. It is large and impressive but it is too real to life to be all that interesting for me. The exception to this are the cathedrals you see at the RLSteine events. The Gothic look is much more interesting.

I do want to point out though this is a very good build and detail is fairly high.

[The Hordesman]

Ulmaris is one of the most awesome castles ever built. There simply isnt enough words to describe it, every room is filled with furniture, every pebble is a brick, the realistic design (fantasy is so... ineffective against siege, and boring) and that amazing garden...

The castle is just as well as unreachable with most siege engines, you need a proper fleet or dragons here!

[Evil Willy]

Its absolutley stunning...So many pieces, structure is so well planned out, Wonderful wondeful! All its missing is a pirate ship in the water.

Edit: oops its only a moat..No ships in there sorry!

[tophdawg]

that is absoututly amazing

[Mister Phes]

Egad! That's quite large! If I was at home I'd look at more of the pictures, but since I'm using a friend's computer who has a 56K modem I don't think I'll bother. I'm too impatient for dialup Internet connections you see.

[SuvieD]

The castle is just as well as unreachable with most siege engines, you need a proper fleet or dragons here!

Actually it would be quite easy to seige. Being surrounded by water an army would only have to surround it a varied points and prevent supply shipments from entering the castle. Thus starving the men inside which is actually the easiest and most effective seige tactics. As an added bonus while the men are bottled in the castle a small force could be sent into the countryside to burn, rape and pilage the peasantry.

It is much harded to seige a castle built high on a hill. Which is why so many castles were built on them.

[snefroe]

The castle is just as well as unreachable with most siege engines, you need a proper fleet or dragons here!

Actually it would be quite easy to seige. Being surrounded by water an army would only have to surround it a varied points and prevent supply shipments from entering the castle. Thus starving the men inside which is actually the easiest and most effective seige tactics. As an added bonus while the men are bottled in the castle a small force could be sent into the countryside to burn, rape and pilage the peasantry.

It is much harded to seige a castle built high on a hill. Which is why so many castles were built on them.

i'm not so sure about this. Castles like these usually had a huge stock of food. it's far more difficult to occupy the land around it, because that army wouldn't have anything to eat. you wouldn't have any peasant either, because in war time it's their right to stay in the castle for protection. you'd also have no protection against any attack, weather conditions,...

in fact, your strategy doesn't really make much sense. there are far too many strategic points in medieval france or belgium, close to any castle, to occupy. and if your groups are too small or too isolated, they will simply be crushed by the soldiers of the keep, usually even supported by knights...

the only thing you can do is to take a huge army and try to keep the opponent inside his castle, but that means you're gonna have to keep your position around the castle for at least a year, and don't forget, western europe doesn't have sunny weather of california. you're gonna loose lots of people because of lack of food, deseases,... and then there's the question of you being isolated in a strange country. you'll probably get other armies in your back as well... to be honest, it wouldn't be smart to follow this strategy because your opponent is simply in a superior position...

the water obviously keeps you away from the walls. why else do you think so many castles are surrounded by water?

[SuvieD]

i'm not so sure about this. Castles like these usually had a huge stock of food. it's far more difficult to occupy the land around it, because that army wouldn't have anything to eat. you wouldn't have any peasant either, because in war time it's their right to stay in the castle for protection. you'd also have no protection against any attack, weather conditions,...

in fact, your strategy doesn't really make much sense. there are far too many strategic points in medieval france or belgium, close to any castle, to occupy. and if your groups are too small or too isolated, they will simply be crushed by the soldiers of the keep, usually even supported by knights... 

the only thing you can do is to take a huge army and try to keep the opponent inside his castle, but that means you're gonna have to keep your position around the castle for at least a year, and don't forget, western europe doesn't have sunny weather of california. you're gonna loose lots of people because of lack of food, deseases,... and then there's the question of you being isolated in a strange country. you'll probably get other armies in your back as well... to be honest, it wouldn't be smart to follow this strategy because your opponent is simply in a superior position...

the water obviously keeps you away from the walls. why else do you think so many castles are surrounded by water?

No intelligent general would ever attack a castle without at least 3 to 4 times the number of men than the defender. That would be stupid.

Seiging a castle like this would require living off of the same land that stocked the castle with food. Attackers would use up the land around them to provide provisions for themselves. They would burn up all of the trees for fuel, empty villages and towns of their food stores and kill any male threat not located within the castle. Near the castle itself only the rear water door and the front bridge would need a larger group to cut of supplies.

Food stores in any castle would most likely not last a year. Seiging is a long proccess unless you wish to lose many men. The castle itself is the only strong defense. Archers will keep attackers away from the moat and bridge but would do nothing against trebs or catapults which would be hurrling rocks and/or fire over the walls non-stop. Under the barrage of only 2 or 3 such machines the attacker could begin digging trenches to drain the moat which would bottleneck the defenders into the only exit which is the bridge. Draining the moat would also cut off much of the needed water. After a few months of such attacks the defender would most likely surrender but if not they would be forced to meet the attacker outside of the castle in an attempt to lift the seige. Which unless they very blessed would most likely fail.

You are right in that allies would change such an outcome. A seiging army could never surround a castle and fight back and attack from the outside. As soon as the attacker was ingaged the castle defenders would sally forth and drive a line to allow additional supplies to enter the castle. That is why you defeat the ally first or bribe him.

If it were so difficult to seige such a castle why were so many castles overthrown in this period of time? The best method of seige historically is starvation. Once supply lines are destroyed it is usually only a matter of time before complete surrender or death. Outside forces can change the outcome but a good general will have dealt with any such threat before attempting a seige.

Regardless, once canons show up not this castle or any other will withstand seige.

Just another example why realism in toys is just not as much fun. With fantasy I can overthrow an evil tyrannt with one giant and the knights. Real life war and castles have never been made by LEGO. I prefer that line of thinking myself. Life and people are bad enough, the toys I build with shouldn't have to be.

[Mister Phes]

The castle is just as well as unreachable with most siege engines, you need a proper fleet or dragons here!

Actually it would be quite easy to seige. Being surrounded by water an army would only have to surround it a varied points and prevent supply shipments from entering the castle.

What if the castle has a secret underground tunnel that travels for miles underneath the earth? That way, should their supplies get cut off then they could use this tunnel as a means to obtain new supplies without their enemies even know about it...

[blueandwhite]

Actually it would be quite easy to seige.  Being surrounded by water an army would only have to surround it a varied points and prevent supply shipments from entering the castle.  Thus starving the men inside which is actually the easiest and most effective seige tactics.  As an added bonus while the men are bottled in the castle a small force could be sent into the countryside to burn, rape and pilage the peasantry.

It is much harded to seige a castle built high on a hill.  Which is why so many castles were built on them.

This castle would be no easier to seige than any other castle. Concentric castles are certainly common, and do have a number of significant advantages. The tactics you mentioned are by no means particular to this type of structure. Even if this castle was built on a raised plateau, the goal would still be to cut off supply routes and starve out the inhabitants. Sure, being on a plateau affords the defenders a number of advantages, but there are also disadvantages. It is far easier to cut off supply routes to a raised structure. Similarly, it may be harder for reinforcements to gain access to the castle to relieve the seige. In such cases, the occupants may still starve and be forced to surrender.

More to the point, this concentric fortress has a number of advantages you're overlooking. The obvious advantage of this sort of structure is that it is not terrain specific, and thusly can be built in a strategically important location without the same regard to geography. The moat makes sapping virtually impossible. Also, if attackers were to breach the first wall, they would be completely vulnerable to the defenders positioned on the tller inner walls divinding the inner and outer wards. And if the concentric design was as flawed as you suggest, it certainly wouldn't be very common. Remember, some of the last true castles in Britian were concentric.

Later.

[Mister Phes]

In Civilisation III don't ya get a 200% defense bonus for a city on a hill with walls? Does this mean Sid Meier is leading me astray?

[blueandwhite]

In Civilisation III don't ya get a 200% defense bonus for a city on a hill with walls?

[Mister Phes]

Excellent work Mr Blue and White!

What makes a superior fortress then?

Nice looking thing, isn't it?

[blueandwhite]

Excellent work Mr Blue and White!

What makes a superior fortress then?

Superior to what?

For every advantage a fortress has, there are bound to be disadvantages. For example, a castle built on a hilltop may be more difficult to seige, but it may also be difficult to re-supply. Furthermore, to find such geography may force builders to situate the castle in a less strategic point, making it easier for invaders to gain access to desired territory.

Most castles were successfully seiged by cutting off supply routes and starving the occupants to death. Ultimately, a successful seige will depend on alot of factors which go well beyond the soundness of the fortress itself. From a design standpoint, concentric castles were some of the most impressive fortresses of the middle ages. They were not dependant on geography, and the two-walled nature of concentric structures made them difficult to seige, even if the invading army managed to occupy the outer ward.

Trying to give a definitive answer as to what type of fortess is the best is simply unreasonable. Everything is situational.

Later.

[snefroe]

Excellent work Mr Blue and White!

What makes a superior fortress then?

Superior to what?

For every advantage a fortress has, there are bound to be disadvantages. For example, a castle built on a hilltop may be more difficult to seige, but it may also be difficult to re-supply. Furthermore, to find such geography may force builders to situate the castle in a less strategic point, making it easier for invaders to gain access to desired territory.

Most castles were successfully seiged by cutting off supply routes and starving the occupants to death. Ultimately, a successful seige will depend on alot of factors which go well beyond the soundness of the fortress itself. From a design standpoint, concentric castles were some of the most impressive fortresses of the middle ages. They were not dependant on geography, and the two-walled nature of concentric structures made them difficult to seige, even if the invading army managed to occupy the outer ward.

Trying to give a definitive answer as to what type of fortess is the best is simply unreasonable. Everything is situational.

Later.

hm... i guess carcassonne is the best example of a concentric fortification, however, that concept didn't last very long. There was an improved version of the concept, tho. I think it was designed by the french Minister of defense of Charles XIV of France. it's a well known design i just don't know its name anymore...

Still, being in a higher position is always an advantage, whatever the situation you are in. Sure it's more difficult to reach the place but in time of war, it's always a good thing to be in that position... in fact, this was one of the reasons why Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo...

Second, a hill always is the best strategic position of an area to build a castle, because it allows you to have visual access to the area you're controling. it allowed you to see the ennemy long before it's a threat. you'll have enough time to prepare your army and to evacuate the village or city. Usually, it also controls the main roads thru your territory.

Ultimately, i think we're comparing apples with oranges here... there's a difference between a castle or fortress and a fortification, which is basically a design to protect a city or village, like the concentric design. Very often you will find a castle on hill close the a fortified city. Both are compatible.

[Mister Phes]

Superior to other fortresses dear Count Sneffy, but it appears you've provided a clear and logical explaination.

So now I'm wondering, what is the MOST effect type of Fortress to have, one that is well fortified yet can be easily resupplied? Do yer got an answer for that one, Count Sneffy?

Edited February 2, 2006 by mister_phes

[snefroe]

Superior to other fortresses dear Count Sneffy, but it appears you've provided a clear and logical explaination.

So now I'm wondering, what is the MOST effect type of Fortress to have, one that is well fortified yet can be easily resupplied? Do yer got an answer for that one, Count Sneffy?

i think this question of logistics and supplies is a bit of a non-issue here. i mean, your longest lines of logistics went from the individual farmer to the castle, but that's it. apart from food and wood, there wasn't really much to supply. there were also huge storage facilities to make thru the winter... sure, you need a road to your castle but that's pretty much it. don't forget, the middle ages are characterised by feodalism, except for the late middle ages, there were no real national entities/ structures/institutions... so your entire society is organised on a very small scale...

many people also seem to think these small communities were at constant war and therefore needed heavily fortified villages and huge castles. that's not the case. in a case of a conflict, it was usually diplomacy that solved the problems, a worse case scenario would be the political intervention of the king... i don't know if you've ever read documents of the time, but i can asure you, solving conflicts was a very civilised matter. the Dark Ages, were in fact, not dark at all, quite the contrary... thank hollywood for all the misunderstandings...

fortifying cities is a thing of the late middle ages, between 8th-10th centuries most cities were still very small, there was no need and no money to get decent fortification... in times of trouble, the people sought protection in the castles...

later on, cities became very powerful, like the cities of Flanders and the major cities in France. the question how to defend the city basically came down to "how much are we willing to spend on it?" Sure concentric walls would have been nice, but waaaaay too expensive and extravagant. maintenance was far too expensive and very often cities were not allowed to have a standing army ... and don't forget, a city had other obligations as well, like building churches, very, very, very expensive as well

so i guess the largest cities would simply accept a strong wall and a few towers. they just didn't need more...

[Mister Phes]

Count Sneffy, your historian side is shining through at full intensity now! It is very interesting to read the facts, rather than reading about Amercianized stereotyped fiction. But I thought the that era was called the "Dark Ages" because of the relgious oppression which prevented technology from advancing.

[snefroe]

Count Sneffy, your historian side is shining through at full intensity now! It is very interesting to read the facts, rather than reading about Amercianized stereotyped fiction. But I thought the that era was called the "Dark Ages" because of the relgious oppression which prevented technology from advancing.

nope

the term "dark ages" comes from the renaissance time frame, you know, 15th -16th century, when the center of the world was located in Italy, when peolpe like Da Vinci lived and worked in extremely rich cities like Venice, Genoa and Florence,... The people who lived there saw themselves as the ancestors of the Ancient peoples, so everything they thought or did, was based on how the Ancients lived. "David" for instance, was not regarded by the people as a new work of art, an original, but as a new step in the continuing search for perfection, a queste that was started by the greeks, followed by the romans and now taken up again by modern man. Many even saw it as a simple copy of an ancient master's work, nothing more... To say that the interest for the Ancients was a hype, is an understatement, people lived thru the Ancients. The discovery of the two burried cities, one being Pompei, made it even worse.

As "renaissanse" suggests, mankind was "reborn". the first highpoint in human history was the Ancient times, the second highpoint was Renaissance, so everything in between had to be "dark". And for the Italians, it was. After the collapse of the roman empire, they lost control over the world. The center of power in Europe moved to the North, basically France and Germany; the economic power moved to Flanders and Holland; they lost everything, really... untill the 14th - 15th century, when the italian cities like Genoa and Venice fully established trade with the Far East , thru the Middle East...

the idea of the "dark age" was further popularised by historians in later centuries. they too felt that humanity had taken a step back after the fall of the roman empire. they only saw the fallback of science, they were disgusted by the control of the church on medieval society, they hated feudalism... they actually believed that people were scared when the year 1000 arrived and, according to the bible, welcomed the end of the world, they believed that the people thought the earth was flat, they believed the concept of a "witch" was medieval, they were wrong...

in the end, it's only in the last 50 years that historians except the "Dark Ages" for what it really is: an extremely rich era in every aspect of human society, but no longer focused on the things the Ancient peoples liked or did, no longer based in a very small geographic area, but building the foundations of international trade and modern society...

[Mister Phes]

As "renaissanse" suggests, mankind was "reborn". the first highpoint in human history was the Ancient times, the second highpoint was Renaissance, so everything in between had to be "dark". And for the Italians, it was. After the collapse of the roman empire, they lost control over the world. The center of power in Europe moved to the North, basically France and Germany; the economic power moved to Flanders and Holland; they lost everything, really... untill the 14th - 15th century, when the italian cities like Genoa and Venice fully established trade with the Far East , thru the Middle East...

Could the concept of the "Dark Age" be subjective? Certain cultures may disagree that it was a "rebirth" and consider it to be an eradication of theirs instead. From a European and European descended mentality it may seem like a "rebirth" but perhaps in other areas of the world this isn't so. I have a feeling that the Incas, Aztecs and Mayans were quite content with their civilisations before the Spanish Inquisition came knocking upon their door!

the idea of the "dark age" was further popularised by historians in later centuries. they too felt that humanity had taken a step back after the fall of the roman empire. they only saw the fallback of science, they were disgusted by the control of the church on medieval society, they hated feudalism...

That's what I meant by technology not advancing due to religious oppression!

Edited February 4, 2006 by mister_phes

[snefroe]

you're absolutely right! European history as we teach it at school is an interpretation of passed events by European historians and politicians... without any doubt, 1492 was a great year for Spain, but a bad one for the Americas. their "Dark Ages" started then, even tho i think the Mayans were already gone by that time.

[Mister Phes]

According to something I read recently, the Mayan civilisation had declined by the time of Spanish arrival in the Americas, but it definitely continued to exist. "the last Maya state, the Itza kingdom, was not subdued by Spanish authorities until 1697 " so this indicates they hung in there almost until the 18th century!

Edited February 8, 2006 by mister_phes

[SuvieD]

I thought much of the "dark ages" was named due to the heavy political corruption and near extinction of the Christian world. Muslim radicals destroyed the major Christian learning centers of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople (I think those were the three). Only Rome survived. Because much of history was recorded by the literate and most of the literate where nobility and the Roman Catholic church leadership it was skewed and labeled the dark ages during the rebirth period.

I think it is funny how a MOC castle discussion turns into a discourse on the history of Europe at or near the time castles were built.

I still think this castle is a big lumpy gray thing that would be less defensible than one built on a hill. I also prefer fantasy (moderate) castles to real life fortifications knowing that their is no romance in real war nor do castles have any real protection after the introducement of cannons.

Oh, I only got to see one walled city while in Europe, Rothenburg, and I must say that they had no castle due to an earthquake and that as a free imperial city it was quite nice. The defense of the city did not rely on a castle but on it's high walls which were extremely hard to approch (being on a hill) except for on one side which was the most heavily guarded by gates and towers. I can only imagine the stink of such a city with no plumbing and using livestock as vehicles.

Maybe we should call it the Stinky Ages instead of the Dark Ages. ;)

[SavaTheAggie]

Well, I guess since I'm now a member here, I should post in my own MOC's thread :)

Thank you for all your kind words toward Ulmaris Castle. I had a lot of fun building it, though I can't say the same for taking it to shows (it takes 3 hours to set up). I still have it put together (such as it is, packed away from the last show I attended), but I will be taking it apart when I finally finish chapter 10 of my story, whenever that happens to be.

I will leave the history discussion to other people, as I am no expert.

--Tony