|
Author
|
Topic: Siege and oil
|
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 01-14-2001 04:19 PM
For some time debate has gone on at intervals regarding the use of boling substances in defence during a siege with a variety of reservations expressed.
During my recent visit to Malta, I found reference to the use of boling oil, molten lead, pitch and boiling water by the Knights of St John during the Great Siege of 1565.
The point of it was that in desparate times people will use whatever is available to buy themselves a little time, and in this case the prepartion was carried out at a critical point of the siege by the desparate native population who realised that without their assistance, the Knights of St John were likely to be overwhelmed, and the locals did not think highly of their own chances of survival in the hands of the Moslem Turks.
The locals also prepared barricades of rubble and bodies to fill breaches in the walls, allowing the few Knights remaining to concentrate on the fight at hand. |
duncan
Senior Member
|
posted 01-16-2001 11:51 AM
 
Many dumpster divers beleave the oil used during the middle ages in the UK was olive oil. During a seige any type of renderings could and would have been used. If a dead horse came over the wall their wasn't many better ways of getting rid of the critter before disease set in. A rock had to be aimed while exposeing ones self to enemy fire while hot liguid could be poured from the shelter of the wall walk and the oil also helped to hinder climbers or for that matter any one on the ground from standing in the mess. Lead lined the wall/roof plates and was striped with little effort. Besides it was recyclable after use.
What Gordon said about a grim war of survival is not the type most people think of when castles are involved. But more likly was closer to real history. It has always been the troops manning the walls or ditches that risk life and limb with only a very few nobles ever putting their selfs in harms way.
[This message has been edited by duncan (edited 01-16-2001).] |
Peter
Member
|
posted 01-16-2001 12:21 PM
I recall reading somewhere that bundles of faggots were soaked in animal fat, and then hung over the walls.
This no doubt served several purposes .. it may set fire to the ladders, if not the men climbing. At the least the stinking smoke getting into their lungs & eyes. So long as the wind was in the right direction I would have thought ! |
duncan
Senior Member
|
posted 01-16-2001 12:32 PM
When earth work "castles" were being used some historys speak of useing any type of burnable substance with green wood to smoke out the defenders often causing death due to smoke inhalation. This was often used in the early mornings when the fog would cling to the ground. |
duncan
Senior Member
|
posted 01-16-2001 04:27 PM
The french wars are not my long suit.
I did not mean the lower officers that were considered some what noble during parts of history but only the ones of higher standing. The working nobility was and has always been different then the true nobles.[This message has been edited by duncan (edited 01-16-2001).] |
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 01-17-2001 01:28 AM
Whilst boiling oils and fats might have been used they would have need to be used with great care around the castle gate.
Many of the murder holes above castle gates were mainly designed as water spouts to extinguish fires set against wooden gates. Pouring molten fats over gates (even if aimed at the men attacking the gates) would have made the gates much easier to burn.
The fairly readily available quicklime (supplies of which might be around for day to day repairs) would also burn flesh but would not add to any fires. This is also true of boiling water and molten lead.
I have slightly changed my position and do know believe that boiling oil was used in siege warfare but that's its use was rare and that in England (and probably elsewhere) the boiling oil was actually molten fat.------------------
And the astronomyours beheldyne the constellacions of hys bryth by thare castle, and foundyn that he sholde bene wyse and curteyse, good of consaill
Secreta Secretorum Visit Castellarium Philippis |
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 01-17-2001 01:41 AM
I agree with Savoy that generally the nobility of the medieval period where not particulaly cowardly. The general expectation of the period was that nobility were the captains of armies and led from the front. It is a trueism of human nature that people generally fulfil the expectations set upon them. This doesn't mean that the nobility where reckless, however, since it is clear that the made much effort to get the best weapons and armor they could afford.
As with any group of individuals where would have been a range of behaviours and undoubtalbe so nobility were cowardly and some were recklessly brave (both rather useless behaviours in war).
I suppose it's also worth mentioning that many senior churchmen and the higher class of domestic servant were also from noble families. Earlier in the medieval period this did not exclude fighting in war (Bishop Odo at Hastings) but by the hundred year war this was over.------------------
And the astronomyours beheldyne the constellacions of hys bryth by thare castle, and foundyn that he sholde bene wyse and curteyse, good of consaill
Secreta Secretorum Visit Castellarium Philippis |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 01-17-2001 04:55 PM
On the question of slain nobles, throughout the middle ages the prospect of ransom protected many from their deaths, a live captive being worth exchange for gold or silver. This practice is even recorded between Christian and Saracen, Scots and English, as late as the 16th century. Whilst offering some protection since capture rather than a kill was preferred, it was not an absolute guarantee, and there were as Savoy indicates notable exceptions.
Going back to the Siege of Malta, the order was given for no quarter, and the Turks beheaded their captives dead or alive, and fired the heads via their cannon into the Fortresses of the Knights in an attempt to demoralise the defenders. The Knights then reciprocated in an unchivalric act of defiance.
It is worth mentioning that until that point ransom was the norm, and whilst captive there was no comfort zone. Jean de la Vallette, Grand Master at the time of the siege, had years before been captured and spent a year as a galley slave before being freed in an exchange of prisoners. Turkish captives expected the same fate when captured by the Knights. ------------------
Demeure par la verite
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm Gordon.
|
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 01-18-2001 02:35 PM
Amongst the 'Military orders' the knights were monks first, and soldiers second. In the case of The Knights of St John the military role actually took third place behind being hospitallers. Several grand masters of the KSJ were cardinals, whilst most were Bishops, and all had influence in Rome. It is not entirely correct to state that the clerics had given up their military activities, it is more the case that such a role remained mainly with those who continued to fight 'The Crusade'.------------------
Demeure par la verite
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm Gordon.
|
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
Castle Quest
