I, for one, welcome our slightly elevated overlords.
Just from that link: I was not aware that Alex had such rockin’ sideburns.
Actually if I recall aright, they both were described as having this arrangement: an incomplete wall backed up against a supposedly unscaleable mountain or cliff face. In fact I think Isengard did too. For some reason Tolkien seemed fond of this defense arrangement, which is perhaps why it also crops up in the works of his imitators.
I know Tolkien was famously expert in medieval language and literature, but I wonder if that knowledge extended to siege warfare. Maybe it was symbolism (broken ring?), or maybe he just felt that fully encircled fortresses didn’t always suit his storytelling needs. It probably streamlines things a lot, plotwise, if foes can only approach the castle from one direction.
I think there’s something pretty important that everyone else has overlooked. The deadliest thing that a fortified citadel nestled safely under a protective cliff would face wouldn’t be rapidly descending cavalry or elevated archers, it would be Mother Nature.
Every time it rained heavily: flash floods
Every time it snowed: avalanche
Rest of the time: good chance of a rock fall
In the real world, these things would kill a lot more castle dwellers than the occasional berserk goblin horde.
I think that depends both on the local geography and climate. First, I don’t think the OP meant an overhanging cliff face, like P~, where P is the cliff and ~ the fortress viewed from the side, but a straight-up (and unclimbable cliff) like cI (this time viewed more from above - the wall is only a half-circle), but the cliff rises like this I from the side. (sorry, I suck at ASCII drawing.)
Second, if the cliff formed a triangle on the other side of the mountain, with the highest point above the city, facing away from the castle, rains and snow would run down there. If the cliff consists of granite or other such strong material, there would be hardly any to none rock fall.
The other advantage (again depending on local geography) is time and effort saved building only half a circle - if you’re out in the middle of flat land (steppe or sandy desert), with one straight, smooth (by the erosion of wind; and therefore impossible to climb) cliff, and you have to carry each stone block for your wall for several miles, then building only half a circle means your city/castle/fortress is finished much quicker and earlier than the full version, with the option of living in the finished half-circle and continiuing work on the advanced fortress 2.0
I think that’s why in wilderness survival tips, they tell you to look for an existing shelter of one or two joining walls, so you have less area to cover with your bivac tarp/snow bricks/ fir branches /whatever you have at hand.
All true, and the idea of having someone use siege engines to fling boulders above the fortress and set off rockslides on the side unprotected by walls would also make the defenders a bit uncomfortable, I’d think.
Not exactly the same thing, but Marseille in Roman times may have had something like that. Except it wasn’t at the base of a cliff; more like at sea-side with a bit of cliff going down to the ocean. A wall surrounded the city except for along the shore/cliff line.
I am going by Steven Saylor’s “Last Seen in Massilia” which describes a seige of Massilia (present day Marseille) by Caesar’s army. My understanding is that while Saylor’s works are basically fiction, they are written in a historically correct context.
One reason for such an arrangement may be historical inertia. The castle may have been sited on a previously occupied spot. An existing village or such. That village could have been founded there for other reasons than defense: the cliff provided shelter from the weather, it was the highest* easily accessible* place, the village peasants wanted to get to their fields without climbing up and down a mountain every day, etc… So when the local noble plans his new fortress, it goes on top of the old one and neighboring mountains be damned. “No one could get up there to attack us anyway. And it would be way too expensive to drag building materials up there. And the castle is to defend the town, so why would I put it outside the town…”
Also, there is value to the idea that a neighboring high point is just too hard to climb. It may be harder to get up to the heights than to besiege from the regular approaches.
san juan de la peña
for some impressive pictures of a monastery which is one of the most impregnable places I’ve ever seen. The name means “St John of the Rock” and it isn’t on a rock or against a rock: it’s under a rock, in a canyon. There is no way to get siege engines there and no way to bombard it.
That said, the arrangement of “a fortress against a hill” is something I don’t think I’ve ever seen in Spain, but there’s places (the village of Artajona for example) which only bothered fortify the climbable part of the hill.
I’m not certain about the realistic counterparts, but the arrangement makes good sense IF you command sufficient man/orc/elf/ whatever power to construct your fortifications on the appropriate scale. Siege weapons can be rendered mostly useless with a sufficiently massive wall, and natural problems can be likewise addressed. Once constructed, these walls would provide a sort of secondary protection along the mountain side should enemy scouts manage or bother to scale the mountain.
I’m trying to think of fortifications in the real world like Minas Tirith but I am drawing a blank.
There is this via Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Saint-Michel
There is an old (very old) ringfort in Ireland which backs onto a high cliff. If I can remember the name I’ll post a picture.
Found 2 examples, but not what I was thinking of:
http://www.a-wee-bit-of-ireland.com/eire_jul_2005/ring_fort_1.jpeg
and
http://photos.igougo.com/pictures-photos-l196-s2-p300234-Lisnagun_Ring_Fort.html
Also, you may be interested in Crannogs, which were built in lakes.
(Sorry, can’t seem to hyperlink atm)
I was rereading the “War of the Ring” and found a note on Minas Tirith that concerned this subject. Tolkien conceived of the Hill of Minas Tirith and Mt. Mindolluin being connected by a shoulder that was only as high as the 5th level of the city. I then checked the “Atlas of Middle –Earth” to verify. The distance between the extremely steep Mt. Mindolluin and Minas Tirith was large; it was nearly 1000’ from the cliffs to the Citadel. The wall of the city also defended this shoulder of course and the top of the shoulder contained the Rath Dínen, House of Kings and the House of Stewards (collectively the Hallows).
So even if an enemy gained the heights of Mt. Mindolluin they could only have rolled stones down on the tombs and not the city. Additionally hauling materials to make siege engines up to the top of Mt. Mindolluin was probably not worth it as this peak was very steep and peak in snow year round.
As per the Thain’s book: Mindolluin means “towering blue-head.” The element mini means “stand alone, stick out” and mindo means “isolated tower.” The word luin means “blue.”
I imagine you’re referring to Dún Aengus in the Aran Islands.
http://www.conference.ie/imageupload/Dun_Aengus.jpg
Bingo.
Thanks.
How steep is the cliffs at the point of that semi circle ,and is there some access to the water without a gravity assist (ie jumping).
From the arc of that wall, it looks like it was intended to protect the danes from the irish ,and not the other way around.
Declan
It has been suggested that the cliffs were not there when it was built and the Fort may have been a full circle originally. Erosion of over 2000 years can do that.
Here is the Wiki article, there is plenty more outthere about this stone enigma.
I note Wiki suggests it may not have even been a fort, but I did not see that in other articles I looked at.
As noted above, plenty of fortified towns were built using this arrangement but abutting the coast. Obviously, this would not generally have been a secure approach, but it would have had much the same effect assuming you weren’t defending your town against an enemy whose navy controlled the seas.
If they did control the seas, your habor would just be a nice entry point.
San Pedro de la Roca in Cuba is a half-walled fortress set against a more or less impassable seacliffs.
There are many similar ‘fortresses’ in the American Southwest.
