So true mate ... soooo true. :-D

I consider my clothing a type of castle that I can take with me wherever I go. . . LET ME HAVE MY DELUSIONS DAMN IT!

Shadiversity Does your clothing have crenellations?

Learned that the hard way.

Earth was actually a good material to build defensive structures out of. Rammed earth is about as good as the lighter types of stone and requires no special skills to build with, just the basic knowledge of how to do it is all you need. Mud brick and rammed earth was used fairly extensively in the middle east and asia for fortifications.

Trippic Trippik. Damn smokers in bed.

L3gendaryLlama Aye, it 'twas the scaley devils, for certain!

Dragon fire can't burn stone walls!

Alfatazer _ *Bush did Agincourt!*

We need the Dragonborn!

@@alfatazer_8991 Tell that to Harrenhal and King's Landing.

losing? LOSING?

It's fine, just a little heatstroke from building his own castle... surely.

typo? TYPO?

Mateus Viegas Losing his mind?? THAT INTRO IS DIVINELY AMAZING!

Mm, I think he just cut-and-pasted it from a previous video. It is a bit annoying though.

If you make the walls tall enough, no kangaroo will be able to jump over the wall.

@@geekinutopia5899 yeah , but a cat probably would.

@Vox Populi that's nightmare fuel

@Vox Populi lol, just wait until some random fantasy franchise steals this idea

Yea but it's not the roo's you gotta worry about, it's the emus

Where do you live? I want to move there.

@@whiterabbit7147 Alaska

@@tylerm9509Thank you! I'm packing my belongings right now. Lol

But a molotov cocktail in the form of burning pitch or tar could stick to the wood and cause it to smolder. I believe some siege weapons also threw projectiles that burned, such as hot coals. Get enough incoming fire and something's gotta give. Today we can use homemade napalm from gasoline and Styrofoam. Sticky burny icky.

Shouldn’t some mud be enough to fireproof your house

It was only in England. England was a weird place back then.

It was a leading country in CCTV per capita even then.

not really, it was the same in france, germany and the netherlands

And in Sweden throughout much of the castle building era building castles at all was banned except for the king. Might be why the history of wooden crap is none-existing.(outside the viking age, which in the rest of Europe is part of the medieval age.) In Sweden most castles start out as a kastal (a fortified stone tower, usually no more impressive than a church tower, in fact in many cases they have become the same thing.) And you then add onto that until you run out of wealth or offspring, or get defeated and the locals remove the structure by their frequent and eager tendency to use unoccupied castles as quarries. The most common castle here was most likely the fornborg, a structure built often away from convenience in order to be built in a defensive location instead, with a unmortered stone wall several meters high, with a wooden palisade on top of it and with the manor houses inside and not part of the structure. The oldest ones are at least from the 400-500 hundreds and were build until after the viking age.

Germany did not exist in the middle ages, yes there was a kaiser and yes there was the holy empire of german nation but it was more a bunch of rivaling states and mostly laws were shit on by local rulers

Alan Doyal but what about dragons

This is a good point!

If the crenellations were regulated I'd imagine motte and moats would have been illegal for all but the most important people and castles.

M Motte and Bale structures were the most common castles AFAIK, thus your conclusion appears to me highly unlikely.

There was a type of manor that only was surrounded by a moat in Germany, usually buildt in the lad Middle Ages by the lower nobility that could afford a real castles at that times standards.

Square farms, a set of buildings closed by a gate building are already a fortification. No need for crenelation: ponds, hedges, lesser buildings. The whole can be covered by sturdier flanking towers/buildings. The lay out of Rorke's Drift shows how much can be done with nearly nothing. The major enemy are freely foraging parties of an army, not the royal engineers.

Architecture would honestly depend more on the resources available and already existing culture than anything biological.

True, but each of the fantasy races already have an established culture (kinda) and would be more likely to live or move to environments that best suit them. Dwarves and gnomes would live in the mountains, halflings in hillsides, goblins in the forest, etc.

While thats true, a bit of cultural aspects also come into consideration. A good example would be fortresses in India. Forts built by the Rajputs are different in design compared to the ones built by the Mughals and the Delhi Sultanate rulers.

michael compton lol

Thanks mate, I'm so glad you liked it!

you da man!

as someone who has tried to make his own axes before (for harvesting and processing wood) an axe made with weak metal like copper (or in my case aluminum) would still be preferable to a stone axe made with nearly any stone type. I'd rather use an axe made out of reshaped aluminum siding than one made out of sandstone for instance (I only had sandstone and limestone at the time, and trust me, that shit doesn't hold an edge).

Jabun, those stone types /are/ notoriously soft and brittle though, they are sedimentary stones. That's why they used to use igneous stones like flint and obsidian instead. Still not as good as metal, I grant you, but the stones you used are particularly crappy.

+Jabun The Wanderer the celt is a stone axe that works though (polished, rather than knapped; no edge at all). Granted, it takes a long time to do anything with it, but it works.

losing? LOSING?

otto eduard Leopold von Bismarck Duke of launberg Wrong comment thread? WRONG COMMENT THREAD?

Nothing. MAKE WOOD CASTLES GREAT AGAIN

Xortsa I will build a stone wall around those wooden castles and make the... stone-wall-builders pay for it! Yeah that really wasn't as funny or inspiring as I thought it would be...

+otto eduard Leopold von Bismarck Duke of launberg and eisein shcleckin von hoffstein graf tullen cousin in berlin von eiseinbourg von heykeleissen schnell achtung... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ht5zqcl8r9W7qI0.html

I'm in! When do we start?

Carpenters assemble! It's time to stand up for... Let's just build the castle and think about that later! HURRAY!

Ben Walters By the time the video finished that was all I could think of, how cool it would be to build my own castle!

but could we call ourselves lords and brag about our big impressive castle tho

Motte and Bailey, definitely

MACHICOLATIONS!!!

This.

Not to mention that thick enough crenelations made of wood would still function as cover in a gunfight against infantrymen. the sheer size of the US meant most battles were between large wads of infantry with only a few cannons, which were relatively easily dispatched with your own cannons kept at a higher elevation and thus with greater range. the costs of fighting with cannons grows exponentially the farther you need to drag them, so in europe (where the next country over is about one to two week's travel on foot) cannons were more viable to have in a high ratio compared to your footmen, while in the US you might not run into hostiles for three months.

+Jabun the Wanderer Yeah, and most American forts would've been built to deter natives who probably didn't have many cannons anyway. It'd have been a lot harder for them to acquire cannons and shot (basically only by capturing, and then they'd have to learn how to actually use them), than it was for them to acquire small arms.

Then again, in 1776 a fort made from palmetto tree logs that had been built on Sullivan's Island (South Carolina) held up just fine against an intense British naval bombardment.

The french also built a nomber of these, mostly to protect traders against raids from natives before the 13 english colonies expanded westward. They pretty much had too, because most of the time they were few and to occupy "New France", and scattered on a huge territory, so they needed strongholds not to be easily overrun. And they probably built more to defend themselves against the english, but this must have been much less effective, since Englishment knew how to deal with forts (and the were well equipped and numerous).

I like your wordcraft in this comment ;)

Lizard Notdead thank you ^_^

I'm sorry but Shad isn't an expert and this video is misleading. The development and architecture of castles is a very complex topic and you just can't say "most castles were wooden". Yes, most castles in the 9th century were wooden, but not in the 15th century. The Middle Ages were a long period of time and the architecture of castles developed, just like architecture develops today. If you're writing a medieval novel, I recommend consulting an actual historian.

It was kinda like modern building permits. Of course, the monarchs needed to keep track of how many castles were built and almost everything about them to make sure the lesser aristocrats wouldn't rebel against the king or queen.

Japanese had an interesting concept- have a peasant class that does not really get involved in the warfare. then there is no real need to attack villages- samurai just fight over land and control over the peasants. Castles of course- and the fact they have rice- means they can survive decades under siege in theory. China of course had the opposite problem- raiders always preyed on the peasants, so they build massive walls to protect villages and in the end the entire country. They made CHINA a stronghouse.

Love your reference to crenelation as a defining characteristic, I believe I remember learning about that, but I believe it was mostly a social thing. By the XIV century we were putting merlons on everything, palaces, churches, towers, small houses. It was indeed a status symbol, but I don't believe it was a defining feature.

Also, very important to remember when looking at which palaces and castles have crenelations, a lot of surviving structures weren't build with crenelations or merlons in them, but were then added later in a different period for aesthetic purposes. You can see that with Paço de Guimarães, which has largely been rebuilt (wrongly rebuilt) in the early XX century, and had merlons put on a bit of it in the XVII century (I believe), to which the rebuilder thought to mean it had merlons everywhere, when it fact it's very unlikely it did. Also it's a complete mess inside and completely historically inaccurate, but ah well.

I live in an Area of Germany, where most castles are simbly a stone manor house with a moat. They are even well preserved and they have some visible functional elements such as archer slits or narrow windows (maybe with remparts) on top. There are also some Ruins, where archaelogist could estimate the small size of the castle, which would be basically a tower with a small bailey in front with low remparts. It is also certainly true that most noblemen had low ranks and not enough income to build a castle with 15m high walls and a 30m keep. A small castle could do the jow as good as a big one, at least the stone versions, since there logically were even less entry points and only 10 men were enough to defend it effectively.

Another important point is: projectile thrower siege weapons were not as commons as movies and games make us think. You would need engineer to build and work on them.

Colonel RPG Onward Rogue !!

so in other words fight to the death or not at all?

gewoon Gijs btw most castles evolved over time - the history of their reconstructions and additions and changes would take up a whole book

western, eastern, or kimodo?

Allo! Frogfwer es mas nachte nien quew pototas

10 points for being drunk and watching youtube about Castles. Another 10 points for the dragon comment. Well done sir, well done...

taht's what the moat is for!

The privy is what makes the moat dangerous. =|

Hmm didn't think about that, they would have to throw the pee and crap somewhere wouldn't they? lol

Are you referring to the garderobe?

not really as that was the kings castle

The king of Rohan was practically just a lower level noble of Gondor.

+Jabun The Wanderer. That's not true. The rohirrim were never subjects to the thone of Gondor. They were a people group from just east of Mirkwood, whose princes had on many occations been allies of Gondor. Then, when the rohirrim secured the victory at Celebrant, saving Gondor from defeat the steward Cirion made the land of Calenardhon a gift to the eutheod. Their prince Eorl then became the king of this land, and swore the "Oath of Eorl", that the eutheod would always be allies with Gondor and would come to their aid. So the Kingdom of Rohan was never a part of Gondor, though parts of the land had previously been. And the King of Rohan was never a subject to the thone of Gondor, but allies on an equal footing. At the time of The War of the Rings, Gondor had dwindled in size so much that Rohan was a fully one third the size of Gondor.

First it must be realised that Edoras is not a castle but a citadel. It is a fortified city, or more like a town since the eutheod were not city dwellers and most people lived on farmsteads and in small villages. And it's defences is not made entirely of wood. There's a stone wall around the hill where the city is located, and then there's a wooden pallisade on top of the stone wall. Along the wall are some small towers and a gatehouse. These defences are really weak. There is no ditch or moat outside the walls, allowing an attacker free passage right up to the walls. The walls have no allure (gangway) nor any crenelations, so the walls can not be manned. The wall have to be defended from the towers and the gatehouse. Only the gatehouse have any defensive works as such. There is a double door, which gives the ability to trap attackers between the doors, and a gallery on top from which defenders can attack enemy troops. Though because the hight is not great, anything defenders drop on attackers won't pick up much speed as they are falling. There are some loop holes for archers in the walls around the gallery, and that is the only cover defenders have when fighting attackers. There are NO defensive works past the wall and gatehouse, so if an enemy breaches the wall, it's over. There's no keep inside the walls. The kings hall Meduseld is not defended in any way, despite it sitting on top of a hill that would make an good defensive position. There's a watch tower just beside Meduseld (though the penthouse of Meduseld looms higher than the watch tower and a guard there would be in a better position as look out), but it's a simple wooden structure with no defensive design. The hill is a great defensive position, but with all the defences down at the base of the hill the defensive advantage is lost. One might say that Edoras is realistic as to how it's described in the books and regarding the population of Rohan that are not city dwellers or great builders. The buildings are inspired by old norse style, especially from the old stave churches, some of which are still standing today. But the houses are not constructed like the longhouses prevelant during the viking age. In warfare, the rohirrim resembles normans much more than vikings, with the exception of their shields. Vikings didn't build much castles, but a good number of forts. The normans were great castle builders, though. Edoras is made to be a somewhat evolved Motte and Bailey. And Tolkien drew on old english peoples as inspiration for the rohirrim, such as britons and anglo-saxons. So how should Edoras have been defended? First, one digs a ditch or moat around the city. Or several. Then you make the walls more robust, add wallwalks, crenelations, hoardings etc. on the walls so you can man the wall with defendes. Make the towers taller and protude more so they provide fields of fire along the wall. Make the gatehouse taller and more robust, adding more murder holes and maybe a portcullis and some machicoulis. Inside the city walls there should be additional walls, creating several baileys so that a breach in the city wall doesn't let an attacker swarm the city. Then you use the hill for all it's worth. Build a strong wall close to the top of the hill, with all defensive measures known at the time, and then build a proper keep inside it. Meduseld itself is undefenceable as it is. Now that would be the castle, the walls and keep on the hilltop, where the citizens and garrison of Edoras could retreat if the city walls were breached. This is how one fortifies cities since the time of Motte and Bailey fortifications. If Shad makes a video on Edoras and Meduseld, I'm sure he will agree on everything mentioned above.

he did kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fb-Roq55rLaUlJc.html

Old Ironsides used the characteristics of different types of oak to bounce cannonballs - but the crucial one was not available in Europe until after 1492, being a New World species. European oak is prone to shattering, but was great for beams in half-timbered manor houses.

It's strange how a turn-based tactics game pays so much attention to weapons and armor.

Or Kingdom Come: Deliverance it is out 13 february 2018 and realistic, set in bohemia in 1403.

SketchUp, a free and easy to use program ^_^

Yay thanks for the reply I think I'v heard of that

You really should do a tutorial for it.

This is the same in German - the equivalent of the "English" word château is das Schloss/Schloß (and it also literally means "lock" just Zámek in Czech) and castle is die Burg. Btw, the Czech word for a castle might come from the same root as the Russian word for town, which is "Gorod". It does not look the same as hrad, but there is a vowel shift between east and west slavic languages so "g" becomes a "h" and this then looks a lot more like hrad. But I'm not a linguist so take that connection with a grain of salt.

You are right. Also we have got quite a few ~burgs, ~bergs and even some ~borgs here. German was all the rage here for few hunderd years in high circles after all ^_^ I looked at word chateau (which i presume is french word, dunno what gave me that idea) and in french it also means both type of castles acording to my dictionary. Well they have Chateau and Chateau fort. I say that doesn't count ^_^ Also in polish it's Zamok and Gród. Will be tha same for all slavic languages.

00Trademark00 You're not a linguist but I am and you're right, it's the same word. It comes from the times when towns were just wooden castles with several houses around them.

@Riko: Russian actually uses the word "kreml" for castle. Or rather for a fortress. They don't have castles in the same sense we have them in Central and Western Europe. The Kremlin in Moscow is just one of many kremlins. Maybe the correct translation of the word kreml is citadel, since it actually is supposed to be a little town with a fortress.

If he didn't have that, we'd just have Sh.

+Halosty ba-dum-tss

JG R It is also partly a comedy sketch.

I love Shad, and his enthusiasm is the stuff of legends, it really is. But IMHO, it is getting slightly annoying. I appreciate that he receives just as much feedback that says the exact opposite however. Just my two cents. EDIT: Ok, I have to admit, the intro is hilarious. I just can't dislike it, as much as I want to xD

Th3VG7 you can simply click on the bar below to skip the ad (as I did, I watched it the first time but didn't want to watch the same ad again)

Yeah I was one of the guys who encouraged him now that I think of it. Sorry guys it's just so funny! AND AWESOME

Th3VG7 but, but, CASTLEESSSSSSS

Fuck, I guess we'll have to skip ahead in the video from now on.

Also love your videos. Keep up the good worke👍🏻

But what about the Dragons

328th

Alan Doyal yes what about dragons🐉

2573th!!!

Castell carrel cennen in wales built on cliffs, plenty of images to look st