Just a few notes: 1) *brick walls* are both cheaper and less likely to have catastrophic failures when shot at but are obviously softer and thus easier to tunnel through. A similar concept was used in Japanese castle design, but mostly to reduce the risk of catastrophic failure caused by earth-quakes. The distinct design feature of walls being at elevated platforms not just increased the stability, but also allowed broader combat platforms. It probably originated from their habit of creating rice terraces in mountainous regions. Thus, the concept was rather foreign to Europe, but it did pop up here and there, especially on hill-castles when the desire for larger living quarters manifested, but the natural landscape didn't support it (but had been chosen for strategic or legal/political reasons). 2) I cringed a bit when you used *round towers* as an example for *blind spots.* Square towers are the prime example of that problem and round towers used to be the solution! The problem with round towers is that for every angel you have only very limited firepower, whereas when you have a V-shaped wall e.g. at the entrance, you can shoot many cannons and guns at the same point. I'd also like to point out in this context that square towers probably gave birth to bastions. Designers quickly realized that having the towers protrude a little gave the defenders options to shoot directly next to the wall, which used to be a blind spot. An innovation were half-towers, which were a bit cheaper to make and offered the enemy no cover, once the tower got conquered. Over time, these towers became shorter and bigger, resulting in bastions. 3) Medieval European castles were optimized to be defended by the smallest possible force and had to be small due to the costs of building stone castles. Star-fortresses (and many Japanese castles) had a very different approach: *depth-defense* (space out your structures so that they are harder to destroy, let the enemy bleed for every layer they conquer). When you think of a stereotypical medieval castle with 4 towers and a keep, you probably need per shift a dozen men at least. With a small star-fort, you need several dozens. A cannon is typically operated by 2-6 men and just to have a bunch of riflemen on every edge to cover all the angles and in every layer, you get easily several hundred soldiers! This clearly reflects on organizational and logistical aspects. IMHO, those forts were not the cause for more centralization, but a result thereof. War was always freaking expensive and in the middle ages, most castle owners could barely afford a single cannon! Thus, there was a time, where a hundred men and a cannon, could tour Europe and conquer one castle after the other! Such innovation resulted in an arms race and required the formation of larger military organizations and a strong economy supporting all of it... As a side-note: while the bastion system made already sense for medieval castle-design, the typical star fort pattern would have been useless to them due to the requirements in long-range weapons and the manpower defending it (if it was guarded by just a dozen people, a few ladders would do the trick). 4) regarding *bombardment:* even medieval castles would have soaked up a lot of cannonballs until being ready to assault. Thus, shooting breeches everywhere would have been a very costly affair (it was done, but not the first choice). Also, if the attackers have just one cannon, it would take way too long to see results. In the early days of artillery warfare, the primary target was the gates of the castle. A secondary target might have been towers guarding the gate/breech. Even there, complete destruction would have been pointless, but the goal would have been to incapacitate the defenders on top. The dilemma for the defenders was that while cannons were inaccurate, they were able to outreach the defenders (even if you can shoot that far, it is far easier to hit a gate or tower with a cannon than an individual soldier or cannon). 5) even in medieval times, the best way to bring down a wall or tower is not to shoot it endlessly, but to dig a tunnel and collapse its foundation. With star-forts, this strategy became even more important and elaborate. 6) The one thing I missed really in this presentation is how the bastions and ravelins are connected. In fact, there are three different approaches that have been used: a) all connected by bridges (mostly done when the moats were filled with water) b) reachable by stairs from the moats (requires dry moats and makes the battlements quite vulnerable once the moat has been invaded, as the battlements offer by design little protection from behind, in order to combat this, many star-forts had firing positions inside the moat) c) reachable by tunnels (this makes them hard to conquer and safe to use during even heavy bombardment, in addition, tunnels would often have loopholes inside the moat and tunnels could be used to combat mining operations). 6) star-forts had a glacis and each wall was higher than the last allowing concentrated fire over the top, but optimal protection from counter-fire.
I think you’re correct at the end of the presentation: Centralized power and bureaucracy was the prerequisite for industrialization. Very interesting video.
2:43 And this notion refers to giant bombards specifically. The likes of Mons Meg and ones that put a definite end to Roman Empire (or what's left of it)
Very informative Video! I miss a very important point about the Bastion, Concept. The Cannons to protect the "trench" are hidden in the Corners of the Bastion and so cannot be shot at frontal. Even if you manage to destroy the Bastions walls by bombardement any enter into the trench is still a deathtrap. Therefore the besieging side often tried to tunnel below the walls and blew them up from underground, what lead to a quite specialized tunnel warfare.
Nice review of Vauban's engineering. So long as there's a rationale to take the town, very step forward for defense prompts two steps forward for assault.
1:20 _everyone should know what a (medieval) castle looks like_ I honestly doubt it. Here some reasons: 1) most people don't realize that most European castles were made of wood 2) most European castles were very small (often just one tower) 3) wooden structures were often plastered to look like stone and living quarters were lavishly decorated, both painting, but also wooden walls, or tapestry. 4) I haven't seen a single castle where the battlements with their murder holes were left intact. I honestly don't know how they once looked like, when they probably had wooden elements 5) most people don't realize how many men it would take to effectively guard a medium-sized castle (as depicted around 1:20) and that for every guard, there would be at least 3x as many non-combatants who need to be able to seek shelter in the castle, and yet we don't see much about how that many could be sheltered in relatively little space.
Well the first motte and bailey castles including Windsor Castle were indeed initially made of wood (right after the Norman invasion, prior to that we didn't have castles as such) but they were rapidly replaced by stone. I doubt whether any proper castles were made of wood after mid 12th century. I also don't know why you think they were one tower unless you mean the Keep, but that normally had towers on each corner. I'm from the UK and have been to a lot of castles, including Warwick, Caernarvon, Criccieth, Harlech and lots more and pretty sure I saw murder holes.
@@simonh6371 They existed for longer. It's a price question. It might be that for every stone castle, there were 10 wooden forts. However, over time they slowly got upgraded to stone. Still, even in the late middle ages wooden castles were built. To answer your question about the single tower: what's the first part of a wooden castle that you'd replace? It's probably either the keep, or in a larger castle the gatehouses. There were castles that were little more than a single tower. In my region, but also many other places, a house with a keep was really popular. Quite often, only the tower survived for cenuries.
Excellent video in terms of information I learned a lot and I thank you for that but from 6:35 to 10:05(the MS Paint sequence), the audio volume dropped down so low. I want to hear what you have to say but it was so hard to hear! But honestly, for information and content I am very thankful, just wished it wasn't a challenge to change my audio around while I watch or listen. Hope you are doing well and have an amazing day friend!
cannons were expencive and as for obliterating the walls that took hours if not days following which u had to still climb up the rubbel its important to note that early guns followed the reinvention of repopularisation of crossbow style siege equipment, and crossbows. Scorpions are destinct from balistas and for like half a milenum before the late medieval times u had armor go from chainmale to briganteen to segmented plates and it gradually developed in to plate aromor so it could be that gunpowder and crossbows were a discovered solution not just a thrend meaning that the interest in to better weapons made its way in to aisia and then true connections it gradually made its way in to europe keep in mind that the mongols were a traiding society relient on trade so it is possible to have a chain of penpals responcible for the migration
Probably the most invaluable source I have is the Atlas of World Military History by Richard Brooks. It gives very concise summaries of military history from ancient Mesopotamia to the current day (it was published in 2000). Used copies are available on Amazon for as little as $3.50. It got me through more than a few papers in college. Also Giant of the Grand Siecle: The French Army, 1610-1715 by John Lynn and The Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough by David Chandler have much more info on this subject. Here's a bit of a tip from someone who wrote countless papers: you don't necessarily have to find a source specific to that topic. Look up something tangentially related (Thirty Years War, Wars of Religion, etc.) and usually there will be a chapter or two talking about what you are looking for. Attack the problem indirectly.
City walls in a star or bastion pattern. Basically a star or bastion fort, but on a much larger scale. Sometimes, the pre-existing medieval style walls were retrofitted with the more modern bastions and other defenses, creating a hybrid of the two. That said, by the 19th century, more effective artillery combined with expanding city sized and urban sprawl made walling off cities unfeasible. The process of updating a cities defenses was monumentally expensive, so ho sophisticated they were depended on the wealth of the city being protected.
@@robfromjersey7899 Thank you I asked the question party because I noticed cities under sieges would have trenches obstacles and sandbag walls like the siege of Leningrad and I wanted to know how city and towns were protected after walls were useless in the late 1400s by siege artillery . So yeah all of that
They are in every country.all over the world.so you mean to tell me we all just built the same structures without supposed contact between all these places
@@綾波レイ-j1m yeah but some of those might as well be pyramids.we didnt build those with hand tools and horse and buggy.there is definitely lost tech that allowed these structures all over the world to be built
They're amazing, watched some good Swiss TV docus on that. Chalets with painted on windows concealing cannons. Rocks on the side of a mountain which open up to reveal cannons. Real James Bond stuff. The Swiss are very very smart.
Anyone with decent firearms and a modicum of understanding of geometry. Funny how they were built to replace curtain-walled defences at the same time as cannon and muskets became commonplace.
They're not all over the world, just in places colonised by Europeans or of strategic importance for their interests i.e. trading (think the Dutch in Indonesia). They're not in Australia because by the time we started settling there they were already obsolete. Also there are none in what is now Tatarstan, or Mongolia or Central Asia. Because yes I know what you're hinting at lol.
Just needed to be big enough for a small garrison to control the surrounding population. Castles of this size were commonplace and not as big as Hollywood may make them seen.
@@DiscothecaImperialis It can vary greatly from time and place, but could be as small as 20 or so fighting men, or could be upwards of 100. There are stories of 40-50 men holding off armies, so that seems to be a typical garrison, though it could change based on circumstances.
so how come LIDAR shows them under the canopy of the rainforest? how come they can be found on every continent on earth? the amount of earth work is staggering.
They were built by the European colonial powers during the age were they controlled most of the planet. Britain alone had colonies on every continent, as did many other empires back then and their frequent wars required constructing these defenses to hold said colonies
@@destroyer1667 I guess this design impressed feudal lords all over the earth We have a few dozen star forts in India from pre colonial era there were many warring states in the subcontinent back in the day The only answer to this is that war is a great catalyst for innovation
@@destroyer1667 so they built all of these star forts in the US over the space of 1 or 2 years? Check out Fort Jefferson, good luck transporting 16 million bricks to that location in the early 19th century (where the foundations for it are under water)
@@simonh6371 a highlighted reply .. lol. A pseudonym and an avatar used by the content producer claiming expertise on fortification hmmm 🤔 perhaps camouflage and deception would be more up your alley Simple? Not sure what a "tartartard" is but "Tara" is Sanskrit for ⭐ Ma-tara is a Dutch starfort in Sri Lanka. If you're going to produce content Simple - don't be petty. People like you will never understand why Jesuits used the following quote: “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.” Good luck with your toy soldier collection Simple.
Were these people stupid? What were they protecting within these walls. Their country? Was it a last ditch effort for what? Doesn't make sense. This video didn't even come close to eluding to the tremendous amount of them all over the world. Many probably overgrown and yet to be discovered.
"Were these people stupid? What were they protecting within these walls. Their country? Was it a last ditch effort for what?" - So you are criticizing video about type of strongholds without knowledge about purpose of the strongholds? Really? "This video didn't even come close to eluding to the tremendous amount of them all over the world" - They were built by colonial powers like Netherlands or England, that's it. There is no mystery here.
@@przemog88 You dont know anything about these structures and history as its been hidden and rewritten. All we know are what they were repurposed for which is war and w.e.
@@coryskizm "You dont know anything about these structures" - Besides: 1. We know what they were - fortifications made purposely as a defensive structure against cannonballs. 2. They were firstly build in Italy in a middle of XV-th century. 3. They become obsolete at the end of XIX-th century. "All we know are what they were repurposed" - any evidence for that? No? I thought so. Is that all?
try writing a script and reading it instead of "winging" your presentation. A useful video made uninteresting with the comments "whatever"..... Interesting but a half ass job.... and the part where you are using the drawing as reference totally has no sound. Chicken scratch doesn't make for anything interesting.... I'd work on that skill more
lol...’ creativity of the engineer putting it together”....excuse me..... these are the same designs found throughout the entire world at a time when communication did not exist between engineers the world over....Strange how the creativity of the engineers in Japan (which was closed off to the west) Matches the creativity of engineers in Europe .....And Mexico and Canada and South America and South Africa.....etc etc
MultiBrad777 dba ACid w Elder these were mainly build in renaissance and colonial times The Mexicans at that time were Europeans, south Africa had colonies, the people in Canada were Europeans, south America had colonies and there was definitely trade and travelling going between Asia and Europe
Japan was closed off for everyone except the Chinese and Dutch. The Dutch introduced many European teachings to Japan, much of it of a military nature. The Japanese called this "Rangaku", or "Dutch learning". And seeing as the Dutch were one of the primary builders and users of Star forts. Its suddenly obvious how the Japanese would know about them.
@@Jack-Hands It’s suddenly not obvious that a handful of Dutch built the exact same starport in a foreign country that they would build anywhere else in the world....If you are aware of the size of these structures you know that that story is impossible
@@Jack-Hands you can go with the Wikipedia story.... as it is easy to write things down and have people repeat them.....But you and all of your military buddies today could not build one of these structures
Great thanks. I live in Naarden NL. Please tell me how I can get free energy, these bills are crippling me and I had to stop smoking weed because I haven't got enough money.
the sheer amount of starforts being found all over the world, makes this story difficult to sustain, the complexity and logisticsrequired, in contrast with the isolation of many of them, and population demographics of those times, makes this story highly unlikely, and lastly, as with cathedrals and such, the lack of documentation and original papers hand signed, with marks and corrections and such, makes this story highly unlikey. and if we add that erope was a in constant war all that time, one has to wonder how would the soldiers bild all that in the times given by history, again highly unlikely.
They were found all oever the world because colonial powers had colonies all over the world, that's it. As for lack of some written sources, many were destroyed during various wars. "how would the soldiers bild all that in the times given by history, again highly unlikely." - I have no idea what you wanted to say with this "argument".
I love finding you woo-woo merchants peddling your "I'm ignorant and lazy so I don't understand international trade, or how to build things, therefore magic"
@@przemog88 it's a woo-woo conspiracy theory that with 'star forts' the _'star'_ part is a nod and a wink to their true purpose of by harnessing the power of .
Your general knowledge too limited, your mind too uneducated too small, your ignorance too big, the books you have read in your life I can probably count on fingers of one hand, your knowledge of the world beyond the USA too small. That's the reason it doesn't compute. Same as my phone can't run a nuclear power station.
Peter Havenga eg... you will see many of these alleged forts consisting of an entire island.....Not very defensive as you can just sail around it---eg....who built theseforts?...who made the millions ov bricks used in each one???...How did the same design become used throughout the entire world at these early points in history with no communication-available.. . (including china and japan.... technically closed off to the west )
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Over any miltary considerations, star fortress are truly architectural masterpices of umanity
Just a few notes:
1) *brick walls* are both cheaper and less likely to have catastrophic failures when shot at but are obviously softer and thus easier to tunnel through.
A similar concept was used in Japanese castle design, but mostly to reduce the risk of catastrophic failure caused by earth-quakes. The distinct design feature of walls being at elevated platforms not just increased the stability, but also allowed broader combat platforms. It probably originated from their habit of creating rice terraces in mountainous regions. Thus, the concept was rather foreign to Europe, but it did pop up here and there, especially on hill-castles when the desire for larger living quarters manifested, but the natural landscape didn't support it (but had been chosen for strategic or legal/political reasons).
2) I cringed a bit when you used *round towers* as an example for *blind spots.* Square towers are the prime example of that problem and round towers used to be the solution! The problem with round towers is that for every angel you have only very limited firepower, whereas when you have a V-shaped wall e.g. at the entrance, you can shoot many cannons and guns at the same point.
I'd also like to point out in this context that square towers probably gave birth to bastions. Designers quickly realized that having the towers protrude a little gave the defenders options to shoot directly next to the wall, which used to be a blind spot. An innovation were half-towers, which were a bit cheaper to make and offered the enemy no cover, once the tower got conquered. Over time, these towers became shorter and bigger, resulting in bastions.
3) Medieval European castles were optimized to be defended by the smallest possible force and had to be small due to the costs of building stone castles. Star-fortresses (and many Japanese castles) had a very different approach: *depth-defense* (space out your structures so that they are harder to destroy, let the enemy bleed for every layer they conquer).
When you think of a stereotypical medieval castle with 4 towers and a keep, you probably need per shift a dozen men at least. With a small star-fort, you need several dozens. A cannon is typically operated by 2-6 men and just to have a bunch of riflemen on every edge to cover all the angles and in every layer, you get easily several hundred soldiers! This clearly reflects on organizational and logistical aspects. IMHO, those forts were not the cause for more centralization, but a result thereof. War was always freaking expensive and in the middle ages, most castle owners could barely afford a single cannon! Thus, there was a time, where a hundred men and a cannon, could tour Europe and conquer one castle after the other! Such innovation resulted in an arms race and required the formation of larger military organizations and a strong economy supporting all of it...
As a side-note: while the bastion system made already sense for medieval castle-design, the typical star fort pattern would have been useless to them due to the requirements in long-range weapons and the manpower defending it (if it was guarded by just a dozen people, a few ladders would do the trick).
4) regarding *bombardment:* even medieval castles would have soaked up a lot of cannonballs until being ready to assault. Thus, shooting breeches everywhere would have been a very costly affair (it was done, but not the first choice). Also, if the attackers have just one cannon, it would take way too long to see results. In the early days of artillery warfare, the primary target was the gates of the castle. A secondary target might have been towers guarding the gate/breech. Even there, complete destruction would have been pointless, but the goal would have been to incapacitate the defenders on top. The dilemma for the defenders was that while cannons were inaccurate, they were able to outreach the defenders (even if you can shoot that far, it is far easier to hit a gate or tower with a cannon than an individual soldier or cannon).
5) even in medieval times, the best way to bring down a wall or tower is not to shoot it endlessly, but to dig a tunnel and collapse its foundation. With star-forts, this strategy became even more important and elaborate.
6) The one thing I missed really in this presentation is how the bastions and ravelins are connected. In fact, there are three different approaches that have been used:
a) all connected by bridges (mostly done when the moats were filled with water)
b) reachable by stairs from the moats (requires dry moats and makes the battlements quite vulnerable once the moat has been invaded, as the battlements offer by design little protection from behind, in order to combat this, many star-forts had firing positions inside the moat)
c) reachable by tunnels (this makes them hard to conquer and safe to use during even heavy bombardment, in addition, tunnels would often have loopholes inside the moat and tunnels could be used to combat mining operations).
6) star-forts had a glacis and each wall was higher than the last allowing concentrated fire over the top, but optimal protection from counter-fire.
I guess Im kinda randomly asking but does anyone know a good website to watch new series online?
Thank you!
I've been looking for good pictures and information on star forts for a couple of builds in my minecraft world. This video was really helpful
did you find any extra sources? Im doing the same thing XD
I think you’re correct at the end of the presentation: Centralized power and bureaucracy was the prerequisite for industrialization.
Very interesting video.
2:43 And this notion refers to giant bombards specifically. The likes of Mons Meg and ones that put a definite end to Roman Empire (or what's left of it)
Very informative Video! I miss a very important point about the Bastion, Concept. The Cannons to protect the "trench" are hidden in the Corners of the Bastion and so cannot be shot at frontal. Even if you manage to destroy the Bastions walls by bombardement any enter into the trench is still a deathtrap. Therefore the besieging side often tried to tunnel below the walls and blew them up from underground, what lead to a quite specialized tunnel warfare.
Enjoyed the khorne reference at the beginning :)
Nice review of Vauban's engineering. So long as there's a rationale to take the town, very step forward for defense prompts two steps forward for assault.
the netherlands have some cool star fortresses from the 80 year war
the villages/cities are
bergen op zoom 1652
naarden
bourtange
heusden
I think in total NL has more bastion forts than any other country.
I keep hearing "star forge" and now want to play KOTOR
The audio quality is really bad, maybe consider buying a microphone. The information was highly cherished.
The sound quality is great ..idk what ur talking about ..it's better than most professional utubers ...
It’s glitchy but clear. Def needs a new mic tho
19:00 Eventually Mortars too were added into defensive system as well.
Very cool I have been more and more interested in these types of fortifications for years now thanks for the information
1:20 _everyone should know what a (medieval) castle looks like_
I honestly doubt it. Here some reasons:
1) most people don't realize that most European castles were made of wood
2) most European castles were very small (often just one tower)
3) wooden structures were often plastered to look like stone and living quarters were lavishly decorated, both painting, but also wooden walls, or tapestry.
4) I haven't seen a single castle where the battlements with their murder holes were left intact. I honestly don't know how they once looked like, when they probably had wooden elements
5) most people don't realize how many men it would take to effectively guard a medium-sized castle (as depicted around 1:20) and that for every guard, there would be at least 3x as many non-combatants who need to be able to seek shelter in the castle, and yet we don't see much about how that many could be sheltered in relatively little space.
Well the first motte and bailey castles including Windsor Castle were indeed initially made of wood (right after the Norman invasion, prior to that we didn't have castles as such) but they were rapidly replaced by stone. I doubt whether any proper castles were made of wood after mid 12th century. I also don't know why you think they were one tower unless you mean the Keep, but that normally had towers on each corner. I'm from the UK and have been to a lot of castles, including Warwick, Caernarvon, Criccieth, Harlech and lots more and pretty sure I saw murder holes.
@@simonh6371 They existed for longer. It's a price question. It might be that for every stone castle, there were 10 wooden forts. However, over time they slowly got upgraded to stone. Still, even in the late middle ages wooden castles were built.
To answer your question about the single tower: what's the first part of a wooden castle that you'd replace?
It's probably either the keep, or in a larger castle the gatehouses. There were castles that were little more than a single tower. In my region, but also many other places, a house with a keep was really popular. Quite often, only the tower survived for cenuries.
As a Civ6 modder. i'm willing to watch this by the way.
Excellent video in terms of information I learned a lot and I thank you for that but from 6:35 to 10:05(the MS Paint sequence), the audio volume dropped down so low. I want to hear what you have to say but it was so hard to hear! But honestly, for information and content I am very thankful, just wished it wasn't a challenge to change my audio around while I watch or listen. Hope you are doing well and have an amazing day friend!
I really like your channel and would like to get a better way to contact with you 😃
Its quite rare to find some one intersted in this stuff
cannons were expencive and as for obliterating the walls that took hours if not days following which u had to still climb up the rubbel
its important to note that early guns followed the reinvention of repopularisation of crossbow style siege equipment, and crossbows. Scorpions are destinct from balistas and for like half a milenum before the late medieval times u had armor go from chainmale to briganteen to segmented plates and it gradually developed in to plate aromor
so it could be that gunpowder and crossbows were a discovered solution not just a thrend meaning that the interest in to better weapons made its way in to aisia and then true connections it gradually made its way in to europe
keep in mind that the mongols were a traiding society relient on trade so it is possible to have a chain of penpals responcible for the migration
Do you have any books or websites to talk about fortifications of the age? Interesting video though thanks for the video
Probably the most invaluable source I have is the Atlas of World Military History by Richard Brooks. It gives very concise summaries of military history from ancient Mesopotamia to the current day (it was published in 2000). Used copies are available on Amazon for as little as $3.50. It got me through more than a few papers in college.
Also Giant of the Grand Siecle: The French Army, 1610-1715 by John Lynn and The Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough by David Chandler have much more info on this subject.
Here's a bit of a tip from someone who wrote countless papers: you don't necessarily have to find a source specific to that topic. Look up something tangentially related (Thirty Years War, Wars of Religion, etc.) and usually there will be a chapter or two talking about what you are looking for. Attack the problem indirectly.
The Vauban Fortifications of France from Osprey Publishing.
It's not a ditch around a castle or fortress, it's a moat. If it's not filled with water, it's a dry moat.
Ditch is perfectly fine in the context of Early Modern fortifications.
Excellent video!
18:26 Where is this?
From iron cometh strength! From strength cometh will! From will cometh faith! From faith cometh honour! From honour cometh iron!
Shudders in Iron Cage.
How were cities and towns defended from 1500 to ww2 thank you in advance
City walls in a star or bastion pattern. Basically a star or bastion fort, but on a much larger scale. Sometimes, the pre-existing medieval style walls were retrofitted with the more modern bastions and other defenses, creating a hybrid of the two. That said, by the 19th century, more effective artillery combined with expanding city sized and urban sprawl made walling off cities unfeasible.
The process of updating a cities defenses was monumentally expensive, so ho sophisticated they were depended on the wealth of the city being protected.
@@robfromjersey7899 Thank you I asked the question party because I noticed cities under sieges would have trenches obstacles and sandbag walls like the siege of Leningrad and I wanted to know how city and towns were protected after walls were useless in the late 1400s by siege artillery . So yeah all of that
You do know there are these forts ie Star Forts in the US as well.... in fact they are scattered all over the country
Very much aware.it was the standard fort design of the era. If I remember correctly, one of the photos is of Ft. McHenry.
@@robfromjersey7899At 11:03. Looking east towards North Branch and North point. Inner aharbor would be behind the camera. I need a crabcake.
They are in every country.all over the world.so you mean to tell me we all just built the same structures without supposed contact between all these places
@@seancrutcher525 I mean, it's an objectively good fort design. They exist all over the world for the same reason that arches do.
@@綾波レイ-j1m yeah but some of those might as well be pyramids.we didnt build those with hand tools and horse and buggy.there is definitely lost tech that allowed these structures all over the world to be built
What about Swiss fortresses aka the Alps
They're amazing, watched some good Swiss TV docus on that. Chalets with painted on windows concealing cannons. Rocks on the side of a mountain which open up to reveal cannons. Real James Bond stuff. The Swiss are very very smart.
Star forts worldwide? who built them?
The European colonial empires and nations who they traded information with.
Anyone with decent firearms and a modicum of understanding of geometry. Funny how they were built to replace curtain-walled defences at the same time as cannon and muskets became commonplace.
They're not all over the world, just in places colonised by Europeans or of strategic importance for their interests i.e. trading (think the Dutch in Indonesia). They're not in Australia because by the time we started settling there they were already obsolete. Also there are none in what is now Tatarstan, or Mongolia or Central Asia. Because yes I know what you're hinting at lol.
1:54 So a castle can be THIS small?
Just needed to be big enough for a small garrison to control the surrounding population. Castles of this size were commonplace and not as big as Hollywood may make them seen.
@@robfromjersey7899 How many men are usually required to man these castles? about a platoon/squadron of infantry or cavalry?
@@DiscothecaImperialis It can vary greatly from time and place, but could be as small as 20 or so fighting men, or could be upwards of 100. There are stories of 40-50 men holding off armies, so that seems to be a typical garrison, though it could change based on circumstances.
Some castles were just a single tower.
Some historian claim that storming guide lines were kopulüru fazil ahmed 😃idea
🤠👍🏿
rob from jersey…. please contact me for info on maybe collab on video! i found TONS of awesome land works in newjersey
Fatevi un giretto a Palmanova
Good stuff - for 34k views - buy yourself a better mic
Did you actually say gravity lol
so how come LIDAR shows them under the canopy of the rainforest? how come they can be found on every continent on earth? the amount of earth work is staggering.
They were built by the European colonial powers during the age were they controlled most of the planet. Britain alone had colonies on every continent, as did many other empires back then and their frequent wars required constructing these defenses to hold said colonies
@@destroyer1667 Thanks for the reply - but the current historical narrative cannot account for that.
@@destroyer1667 I guess this design impressed feudal lords all over the earth
We have a few dozen star forts in India from pre colonial era there were many warring states in the subcontinent back in the day
The only answer to this is that war is a great catalyst for innovation
@@destroyer1667 so they built all of these star forts in the US over the space of 1 or 2 years? Check out Fort Jefferson, good luck transporting 16 million bricks to that location in the early 19th century (where the foundations for it are under water)
Star and bastion forts were built from the 1600’s to the 1800’s, most trees grow in just a few decades.
Nonsense!
Tartartard.
@@simonh6371 a highlighted reply .. lol.
A pseudonym and an avatar used by the content producer claiming expertise on fortification hmmm 🤔 perhaps camouflage and deception would be more up your alley Simple?
Not sure what a "tartartard" is but "Tara" is Sanskrit for ⭐
Ma-tara is a Dutch starfort in Sri Lanka.
If you're going to produce content Simple - don't be petty.
People like you will never understand why Jesuits used the following quote:
“Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”
Good luck with your toy soldier collection Simple.
Were these people stupid? What were they protecting within these walls. Their country? Was it a last ditch effort for what? Doesn't make sense. This video didn't even come close to eluding to the tremendous amount of them all over the world. Many probably overgrown and yet to be discovered.
"Were these people stupid? What were they protecting within these walls. Their country? Was it a last ditch effort for what?" - So you are criticizing video about type of strongholds without knowledge about purpose of the strongholds? Really?
"This video didn't even come close to eluding to the tremendous amount of them all over the world" - They were built by colonial powers like Netherlands or England, that's it. There is no mystery here.
It’s almost like humans are a very warlike species or something.
@@przemog88 You dont know anything about these structures and history as its been hidden and rewritten. All we know are what they were repurposed for which is war and w.e.
@@coryskizm "You dont know anything about these structures" - Besides:
1. We know what they were - fortifications made purposely as a defensive structure against cannonballs.
2. They were firstly build in Italy in a middle of XV-th century.
3. They become obsolete at the end of XIX-th century.
"All we know are what they were repurposed" - any evidence for that? No? I thought so.
Is that all?
A grain of salt
try writing a script and reading it instead of "winging" your presentation. A useful video made uninteresting with the comments "whatever"..... Interesting but a half ass job.... and the part where you are using the drawing as reference totally has no sound. Chicken scratch doesn't make for anything interesting.... I'd work on that skill more
Holy shit dude it was 2019 when you uploaded this video yet the mic makes it sound like it was made on a shitty 2005 camera. Unwatchable.
Then don't watch it
Lololol the first 2 uh what theHell are they protecting LOLHAHA smallmind bro... ur way off lol 😂 think again stop Regurgitating what you read
Exactly what I was thinking he couldn't be further away from their real purpose
@@andrewwilkinson7121 which is?
@@baneofbanes storing adrenochrome for the big brain chuds like philyb3040 to recharge their tiny withered prostates from, probably
lol...’ creativity of the engineer putting it together”....excuse me..... these are the same designs found throughout the entire world at a time when communication did not exist between engineers the world over....Strange how the creativity of the engineers in Japan (which was closed off to the west) Matches the creativity of engineers in Europe .....And Mexico and Canada and South America and South Africa.....etc etc
MultiBrad777 dba ACid w Elder these were mainly build in renaissance and colonial times
The Mexicans at that time were Europeans, south Africa had colonies, the people in Canada were Europeans, south America had colonies and there was definitely trade and travelling going between Asia and Europe
MultiBrad777 dba ACid w Elder plus there was also plenty of colonies in Asia
Japan was closed off for everyone except the Chinese and Dutch.
The Dutch introduced many European teachings to Japan, much of it of a military nature.
The Japanese called this "Rangaku", or "Dutch learning".
And seeing as the Dutch were one of the primary builders and users of Star forts. Its suddenly obvious how the Japanese would know about them.
@@Jack-Hands It’s suddenly not obvious that a handful of Dutch built the exact same starport in a foreign country that they would build anywhere else in the world....If you are aware of the size of these structures you know that that story is impossible
@@Jack-Hands you can go with the Wikipedia story.... as it is easy to write things down and have people repeat them.....But you and all of your military buddies today could not build one of these structures
Star forts are not forts they were free energy resources
Cool story bro. But were there dragons in it?
... with no trace of anything being powered. Nice try, but at least get a conspiracy theory that has _some_ end goal.
Great thanks. I live in Naarden NL. Please tell me how I can get free energy, these bills are crippling me and I had to stop smoking weed because I haven't got enough money.
totally missed the point, complete fluff.
"Missed the point" where exactly?
Okay milo, don't get your tinfoil bent out of shape - wouldn't want your mediocre brainwaves to leak away
the sheer amount of starforts being found all over the world, makes this story difficult to sustain, the complexity and logisticsrequired, in contrast with the isolation of many of them, and population demographics of those times, makes this story highly unlikely, and lastly, as with cathedrals and such, the lack of documentation and original papers hand signed, with marks and corrections and such, makes this story highly unlikey. and if we add that erope was a in constant war all that time, one has to wonder how would the soldiers bild all that in the times given by history, again highly unlikely.
They were found all oever the world because colonial powers had colonies all over the world, that's it.
As for lack of some written sources, many were destroyed during various wars.
"how would the soldiers bild all that in the times given by history, again highly unlikely." - I have no idea what you wanted to say with this "argument".
I love finding you woo-woo merchants peddling your "I'm ignorant and lazy so I don't understand international trade, or how to build things, therefore magic"
Too big, too much of them, does not compute.
1. Not sure what do you mean by "too big";
2. Not sure what do you mean by "too much of them".
@@przemog88 it's a woo-woo conspiracy theory that with 'star forts' the _'star'_ part is a nod and a wink to their true purpose of by harnessing the power of .
Your general knowledge too limited, your mind too uneducated too small, your ignorance too big, the books you have read in your life I can probably count on fingers of one hand, your knowledge of the world beyond the USA too small. That's the reason it doesn't compute. Same as my phone can't run a nuclear power station.
These are not defensive installations...Put the stupid history book down and use your own mind.
Then,pray tell,what are they?
Peter Havenga There are a 100 ways to determine that these are not forts...look into it
Peter Havenga eg... you will see many of these alleged forts consisting of an entire island.....Not very defensive as you can just sail around it---eg....who built theseforts?...who made the millions ov bricks used in each one???...How did the same design become used throughout the entire world at these early points in history with no communication-available.. . (including china and japan.... technically closed off to the west )
@@MultiBrad777 I knew it was them aliens
Michail no such thing as aliens