posted 02-01-2003 01:25 PM            

I have to agree that with the 'right sort' of castle/ defense it is possible to hold off thousands of 'enemies' with only 300 soldiers. On the moment I don't have the books with me to give the right examples of such sieges, but in the back of my mind i am thinking at the sieges of Rhodes, Malta and ofcourse of Constantinople, where a relative small amount of defenders held of the osman armies.

posted 02-08-2003 04:48 AM            

The design of the castle was pretty ordinary, with a couple of flaws that I could see.
1/ They had the main gate going directly to the heart of the castle, instead of leading it through a less vital area first, giving a double defence.
2/ The stairs led to a large platform in front of the door to the cave. If one equates the caves with the keep, they should have had a much more difficult access to that door, which was the last line of defence. A small drawbridge or 90 degree turn in the access to it should be the least one could expect. I don't even recall there being any arrow loops to allow defence from within the caves.

As for the defence of the castle. Think about the fact that this was the first major siege that castle was going to be used for. The situation was do or die. It was a last ditched attempt at saving their existence, not a common event.
So what do they do? They leave the access bridge to the main gate intact! Fools! It would have been a simple job to take out a few keystones on the last arch and it would collapse, making it impossible for the main gate to be breached without major building works by the enemy.

On top of that, they then leave the water drain unguarded. They should really have filled it in.

Last but not least, the archers at the back of the wall that was blown up were ordered to charge in when they still had many arrows left. We know from history that the English did not do this, but instead guarded their archers with men and obstacles. Archers are a poorly armoured specialised unit, lethal at a distance and near useless at close quaters.

I did mostly like the movie though.

posted 02-12-2003 01:38 AM            

The fortress of Helm's Deep was supposed to have been used many times as a virtually impregnable haven. As such, having just one entrance literally surrounded by a mountain seems fairly secure.

The single bridge leading to the entrance I thought a nice touch. In order to approach the entrance--the weakest point--it forces attackers to a very narrow spot, easily defended (as seen in the film). It also provides a point of counter-attack.

The water drain wasn't really a danger unless someone has gunpowder, because its open enough to be defended. What's more, as the only "weak spot" in the whole outer wall, it is the place where the defenders can anticipate attack.

You may not agree with any of the above, but at least it is arguable.

And the "archers" at Helm's Deep were Elves, immortal soldiers literally centuries old with the experience to match. In other words, they are not *just* archers but also expert swordsmen, horsement, etc. Nor should we use medeviel English as the guide for Elvish tactics.

posted 02-12-2003 05:37 AM            

When faced with a force of some 10,000 that would not give up, would fight to the last and was out to totally destroy you, keeping the main gate intact becomes vital.
THey should have done everything possible to prevent it from being broken down. Having a narrow bridge is good, but having a broken bridge is better.

The water drain is certainly a debatable point, and could be defended by archers, although for some reason they failed to do so.

As for the elven soldiers, no matter how good they are, they are always safer killing the sword swinging iron clad monsters from a distance than they are trying hand to hand combat.
An archer can kill safely from a distance, risking no injury from a swordsman. I would keep them using their bows until the last arrow, and only then send them to fight with swords where they would risk death. Many of them were in fact lost as soon as they engaged them in sword combat.
Reality is reality, even in such films, there are certain aspects of logic which still apply.

posted 04-04-2003 12:23 PM            

Personally, I thought the battle made lots of sense (minus a few extravagances like Legolas "surfing" the shield). The impression given was that without breaching the wall Helm's Deep would have held (showing that Theoden was right to take his people there rather than march off to meet Sauruman's army head-on).