Friday, May 24, 2013
23 May 2013 Utrecht -- The Walls
When it came to city defenses I was always under the assumption that the bigger the better. Smaller walls only happened due to the lack of financial planning and budgeting. Yet we learnewd at the observatory that smaller walls were eventually the perferred. When cities had walls atleast. Mayhaps I like it when long held child assumptions are learned to be wrong but it was a bit of a surprise when I learned at the observetory that when the canonball was improved, to be steel instead of rock, the walls were readjusted to fit the new weapondry. Bigger walls were a larger target, most likely inspiring "the bigger they are the harder they fall"statement. Interesting. Due to smaller walls not only did the opposing forces have a smaller target but also the city was more easily ably to return fire. I wonder if small walls became a deterrent after this, like "Oh they have a small wall they most have the better canons, we should leave them alone!"on second thought the war types were probably more like "Oh a challenge" Pity. -- Alix Carpenter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought lowering the walls was a bit strange myself. I understand the "bigger target" argument, and also that striking the top of a high wall with a cannonball will break and produce rubble easier relative to a short, stout wall. However, I'd think that having a height advantage would be a great plus. You can see farther, fire farther (via arrow, cannon, rifle, etc.), and it would be much more difficult to scale. Disadvantage would probably be repair costs.
ReplyDelete