Clash of Clans v.s Siege Warfare

Lately I've been playing a lot of Clash of Clans on my iphone. If you don't know what Clash of Clans is, its a mobile app game where you build a castle-like structure and build an army and try to destroy an opponent's castle. This game is fictional however since it contains giants, wizards, goblins and men with hammers riding warthogs just to name a few. But while playing the game I noticed some very small similarities between actual siege warfare and the game.

One thing both the game and actual thing have in common is the overall objective. That objective being breach the walls of the enemy castle. By breaching the walls, the invaders can steal gold and other goodies to be used to fund the building of armies and such. The only other thing the game and the actual thing have in common is how you breach the walls. In the game, the player can breach enemy walls by the use of sappers with explosives. The sappers (called wall breakers in the game), run towards the wall with a bomb and then it explodes and they blow a hole in the wall.  Although an actual sapper would not run at a wall with a live explosive, the idea is still the same. During an actual siege of a real castle, the job of the sapper was to find a weak point in the enemy walls and exploit it in order to either destroy the wall or allow the rest of the army to enter the castle. Sappers would damage or destroy the walls with explosives, and mining equipment.

After that there isn't much similarities. My strategy for breaching a wall and taking down a castle in Clash of Clans is to use giants and wall breakers to breach the walls. Then use barbarians, archers, and wizards to destroy the base from the inside. The goals of Clash of Clans also differs from actual siege warfare. Clash of Clans is very attack only based where siege warfare could last for weeks or months depending on the circumstances. During an actual siege of a castle, the attacking army would use siege engines such as battering rams, trebuchets, and belfries. These engines are specially made to breach defenses such as fortress walls.The attacking army could also use different kinds of warfare such as biological warfare. This was done by launching the diseased bodies of deceased animals and people over the walls. This could intern make the enemy sick and die. Biological warfare isn't possible in Clash of Clans unfortunately.

After examining any kind of similarities between Clash of Clans or actual siege warfare, the results have been mixed. On one hand they are somewhat similar in their ultimate goals. That ultimate goal in this case was to "take" the castle by breaching its defenses. However, actual siege warfare and Clash of Clans have little in common. The biggest and obvious of them being Clash of Clans is a work of fiction. Also siege engines are not used in Clash of Clans unlike the actual event where siege engines are the main staple of siege warfare. Although Clash of Clans is fictional, it is however less dangerous to human life.

Work Cited

http://www.medievalwarfare.info

http://www.gamezebo.com/2012/08/06/clash-clans-walkthrough-cheats-strategy-guide/

A Change in the Stars

                The movie A Knight’s Tale, directed by Brian Helgeland in 2001, a peasant takes on and accepts the persona of a knight with the help of his two peasant friends.  They were all squires of Sir Ector but do to Sir Ector’s death Heath Ledger’s character, William Thatcher alias Sir Ulrich, is forced to dawn Sir Ector’s armor in order that they may win and they can eat.  However, William proposes that they continue the charade, under different names of course.  This mission of becoming a knight hits a few snags when they find out that patents of nobility are required at Rouen.  They meet Geoffrey Chaucer where William becomes Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein of Gelderland, Wat becomes Fowlehurst of Crewe, and Roland becomes Delves of Dodgington.  After this introduction, that Chaucer sees is an untruth, they decide to join together to get patents of nobility, for William, and clothing, for Chaucer.  And with this the movie truly begins as William becomes Sir Ulrich.

                In the beginning, Chaucer overdoes himself and creates more than six generations of nobility for Ulrich, which founds a friendship that will last throughout the movie.  Although at first it is strictly monetary interests that hold Chaucer’s interests, Chaucer becomes indebted to Ulrich as he sustains heavy losses in gambling.  Shortly after Chaucer’s acceptance of the job as Ulrich’s herald, Ulrich meets and falls for a princess.

                Ulrich follows the princess seemingly haphazardly.  He goes after his love interest with such earnest that he does not realize that he “. . . desecrate the house of God!” (A Knight’s Tale).  The love interest does not go well at first with the princess not even giving Ulrich her name, “’Tell me your name.’  ‘And what would you do with my name, Sir Hunter?  Call me a fox, for that is all I am to you’” (A Knight’s Tale).  It is with this same zeal that he competes in tournaments.  This shows the commitment that a real knight might exhibit in medieval ages.  It is with this same commitment to values that Ulrich shows to his friends.  Even ones he just met as he is forced to pay the gambling debts of his new herald Geoffrey Chaucer.

                Despite his success in the sword, Ulrich is maddened by his failure to place first in the joust.  The main reason for his disappointment is that prestige and rewards are higher in the joust.  This same sense of honor and prestige is evident in the real knights of the Medieval ages as well.  Even courting has a lot of honor involved.  When confronted about his armor by Count Adhemar, Ulrich gallops off maddened by his remarks.  When Ulrich receives a token of Jocelyn’s affection Ulrich is incredibly happy.  Which only serves to madden Adhemar and make him joust even harder against Ulrich.  Two prides were injured in the match when Adhemar admits that a poor country knight has a strong arm when jousting and Ulrich loses Jocelyn’s token of affection as Adhemar returns it to her.  Ulrich ultimately wins the courting process with Chaucer referring, jokingly, to Jocelyn as Ulrich’s “prize” at the Paris tournament.

                The helmet types shown in the movie are very similar to what they would have worn at that time.  The armor smith Kate creates new armor that is smaller and although the other knights laugh, they quiet down when Ulrich easily mounts his horse while the other knight struggles to mount his horse.  The embellishments the heralds say at the beginning of matches are similar to what could have been expected at this time.  In Chaucer’s first introduction he takes his opening remarks very strong in order to win support for Ulrich saying how Ulrich “. . . When he save a fatherless beauty from the would-be ravishings of her dreadful Turkish uncle” (A Knight’s Tale).  The crowd makes a lot of noise at this remark no doubt pleased that Ulrich would stand up to such an un-Christian act.  As Ulrich takes the jousting field the crowd only further rallies behind him.

                Count Adhemar and his squire remark that Ulrich is fearless.  This fearlessness is another knightly aspect that Ulrich displays.  He never loses sight of his opponent.  Because of his abilities on the jousting field, Sir Colville felt he must withdraw due to personal injuries.  As Colville withdraws Adhemar and Jocelyn discuss the withdraw, “’Why didn’t Ulrich finish him?’  ‘He shows mercy’” (A Knight’s Tale).  This example of mercy is yet another knightly characteristic that Ulrich exhibits. 

                A few small historical things to point out would be “the thatcher,” William’s dad, giving William to Sir Ector to be a squire.  Another small thing would be the distaff seen at the tournament in Paris; it is rather amusing to see that a medieval woman might be doing her spinning at a sporting event seems kind of amusing. 

                The historical accuracies, however, end with characteristics, courting, and armor.  The dress is not very accurate at all.  The first inaccuracy occurs at the begging with buglers sounding almost like electric guitars while the crowd stomps and claps to “We Will Rock You” more musical inaccuracies occur at the banquet where the guests dance to “Golden Years,” a song by punk rocker David Bowie.  The next inaccuracy is the flags that spring out of the side of the building as Ulrich strikes blows in rapid fire.  For cultural historians the dress of medieval people would be appalling.

                When going to banquet, Jocelyn has dyed red and green highlights and what looks like feathers sticking out of her hair.  Another Jocelyn inaccuracy is her dress at the tournament ground at Lagny-sur-Marne; where, she dresses in dress that shows more cleavage than would have been socially acceptable at the time.  Nylon mesh, also, was not created at this time which points out another flaw in her apparel.  In this same apparel Jocelyn makes a remark that is an innuendo about being naked; a remark that Joan of Arc, and most other medieval persons, would not have approved of.   

                The face paint worn by most of the younger audience at the jousts may or may not have been present in medieval times but it is rather unlikely.  The last few scenes in A Knight’s Tale are meant to be more theatrical and loose a sense of historical accuracy.  It is rather unlikely that the Black Prince of Wales, Edward, would step in to pardon an imposter despite the bond they had on the jousting field not once but twice.  When William is released from the stocks he also appears unable to stand with Wat and Geoffrey supporting him and visibly shaking while Edward knights him.  And during Chaucer’s announcement of Sir William, Chaucer stands on Prince Edward’s chair much to the shock of Edward and his wife. 

                Although this movie has quite a few outstanding historical inaccuracies, it is a good film to watch for what make a knight.  For what Medieval life was like, not so much.  The final charge against Adhemar, with no armor, barely able to grasp the lance, shouting his name with passion as a war cry perhaps is the best scene for what a knight is.  And in keeping with most movie endings, William gets the girl, the prestige of being called a knight, his father is proud for him, wounds miraculously healed, and his fox, his prize, Jocelyn.  The "change your stars" line can be true.  Joan was just a peasant but she became the savior of Orleans and later a saint.

 

 

Best line in the movie

The non-time appropriate clothing

Prince Edward telling William how knightly he is

Works Cited:

A Knight's Tale. DVD. Directed by Brian Helgeland. Culver City, Calif.: Columbia TriStar Home

        Entertainment, 2001.

Seiging Central High School

This week we have been learning about arms and armor. And I wanted to review on differences between the crossbow and the longbow during the middle ages. As we know, the crossbow was commonly used. According to the course packet, the weapon was composed of a bow fixed horizontally to one end of a wooden stock called a tiller which contained the trigger that held the bowstring in place until was ready to be fired (111). The crossbow was easier to fire compared to the longbow; the archer would aim and then squeezed the trigger lever to lease the nut (112). If we were under attack from  Central, we would protect Burnham by sending the crossbow archers in the opening state of the battle. This would give us a protected position that allowed reloading in relative safety (CP 113).  

Notice the image above, the crossbows are located on the left. And the longbow are on the right.

 Next we would have to send out longbows because crossbow is much slower to load and fire and a longbow can draw and fire six to twelve arrows in about a minute (112). Ideally during battle, warriors would want to use longbows for efficiency. And according to our course packet, bows were also banned, because of their country’s proud heritage of the long bow and the view that crossbow have a lack of skill and strength needed for the use of a longbow (113). 

Here is another image of the different bows used in battle.

If we were under attack, would you pick up a crossbow or a long bow? Which one would be more efficient during the middle ages?

sources: Course Packet.

Alnwick Castle: Beauty and Defense

  This week we have been learning about various aspects of siege warfare. Wednesday we focused on the construction and defense of various castles. Intrigued by this discussion I found one castle that is still in use today, has been used in in films, and contains many of the architectural structures we discussed on Wednesday.
  Alnwick Castle is located in Northumberland, England where it was built in 1096 (1). The castle was actually built strictly for defense purposes not at the request of a king or nobleman for a summer home. The castle's main purpose was to defend England's border from any Scottish invaders (1). The luck of the castle's defenses withstanding invasions from the Scottish however was bleak. In 1172 and 1174 the castle was captured by William the Lion, King of Scotland (1). The castle also played a part during the War of the Roses, its last battle to have served as a fortress (1). Today the castle is used by different educational groups, various films have been set in and around it, and is open to the public to tour.
  Here are some images of the Alnwick Castle:

As you can see this castle shares many of the same architectural features that we discussed on Wednesday. First, the majority of the towers are circular. Second, the tops of the castle's walls have the jagged pattern allowing for easy defense for those on top of the walls during battle. The third feature, and most interesting is that the castle is actually made up of two main rings of buildings (2). Do you think this was simply for defense purposes or simply a fad of the architecture style during this era? Or perhaps both? 

  While the castle is no longer used for defenses it has been used as a set for some well-known films including, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, three Harry Potter films, and the new Robin Hood starring Russell Crowe from a few years ago (3). 

 So while the castle was originally built for defense purposes, it is still a beautiful work of art that is still in use today by various institutions. For one, its just plain cool to have castles still standing from the 11th century but also it is interesting to see that the castles haven't become abandoned buildings but are instead incorporated into pop culture through the lens of film and television shows.

Works Cited

"Alnwick Castle." 2010. Accessed October 2, 2014. http://www.castlesandmanorhouses.com/page.php?key=Alnwick%20Castle. 

Siege of Orleans and Today's Lesson

      Since we were talking about how we would build, and prepare our defenses if Burnham were to be under attack from the rugrats at Central High School, I wondered what defenses had to be overcome at the Siege of Orleans. First off Orleans was on a river which included a large bridge that crossed the river and led in to the city. At the end of the bridge was a two towered gate. There were plenty of fortified towers in Orleans. It was estimated there were around 34. Before the English took control of Orleans, the residents began to lightly fortify Orleans. This mainly included the building of walls around the perimeter.
      Once English had control of Orleans, they heavily fortified different parts of Orleans. This included building large forts in places like the Church of St. Laurent, Ile de Charlemagne, and the Church of St. Prive. These and other forts were spread around Orleans close to the borders. Many were connected by trenches so their troops could move between the forts. Despite the numerous amount of fortification, Orleans was not fully covered. The gaps between the forts were covered by English and Burgundian troops. Men power however was certainly weekend for the English side thanks to a disagreement between the Burgundians and English, that caused the Burgundian troops to withdraw from Orleans.
      The French were successful in the siege because of their strategy. They simply went to one fort, drove out the English, chased them to the next, and repeated until the English were driven out of Orleans. I'd imagine the use of rams, ladders, and portable towers were required to take each fort, along with the troops and defenses to counter the ground troops and archers in the towers. In the end, the French and Joan overcame the English and took the heavily fortified Orleans.

Sources:

 http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/battleswars14011600/p/siege-of-orleans.htm
http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/orleans.htm

King Henry V

Kenneth Branagh, known for his adaptations of many Shakespearian plays as well as being in Harry Potter and directing Thor, wrote the screenplay for, directed, and starred in a close-to-text adaptation of William Shakespeare’s Henry V. The movie is about Henry V and his battle against the French in the Battle of Agincourt.

Kenneth Branagh looking dapper as King Henry V

               The movie is primarily war-oriented. It shows a lot of battle scenes and Henry V has some really rousing speeches. Most of the weaponry and armor looked historically accurate. There was one scene with a bunch of Englishmen shooting longbows and releasing hundreds of arrows. This was historically accurate as the English were more known for their use of longbows.

               Although about 80% of the movie was war, the last 20% was a love story that came out of nowhere. Well, it probably didn’t actually come out of nowhere. There was a scene involving Catherine and Isabel earlier in the film but it was all in French and didn’t have subtitles, and without a lot of action, it was hard to figure out what they were saying. Anyway, the end of the film shows the union between Henry V and Catherine. This scene was really fanciful and showed a union between France and England after England destroyed France in battle. Although I know the marriage happened in history, it just seemed weird that it would happen so soon after this battle.

              

              Overall it seems like the movie is fairly historically accurate. It’s definitely text accurate to William Shakespeare, although I’m sure he took some liberties. In regards to warfare, the Branagh film seemed to know what it was doing and England reigned supreme.

Below, I've included the video of Henry V giving a speech about how they will be remembered for this battle.

Film Review: First Knight

           

 “A man who fears nothing is a man who loves nothing, and if you love nothing what joy is there in your life?” -King Arthur. This I believe to be true fear is never a bad thing. We grow up as kids wanting to be strong and fearless, but when we get older our perspective in that, changes completely. I guess that is how life works.

The film is called First Knight; I believe it takes place in the late medieval times. The film is a romantic drama film. It was filmed in 1995; making the equipment required to make the film not at all good, and is easily noticeable. The actors are Richard Gere as Lancelot a common man who’s a fearless swordsman, Julia Ormond as Lady Guinevere of Lyonesse, and one of my favorite actors Sean Connery as King Arthur of Camelot.

The primary story of the film is about the love triangle between Lancelot, Lady Guinevere, and King Arthur. Lancelot falls for Lady Guinevere and Lady Guinevere and King Arthur love each other, but during the film Lady Guinevere falls for Lancelot. The secondary story is about Malagant a villain who was in the council of Camelot. He was a member of the round table. He left Camelot to pursue against King Arthur.

The film’s message would have to be justice and love; having a law to do right and stop the wrong. The film shows very little relating to Joan of Arc. The obvious was the locations or landscapes and the costumes used to show what people wore in the medieval times. Most of the locations were obviously computerized such as the view of Camelot from a far distance when King Arthur showed Lady Guinevere her new country at the welcoming ceremony. Other locations appeared to be real locations in England. Relating to Joan of Arc, I noticed at the welcoming ceremony Lady Guinevere had what is called a saddle while riding her horse. A saddle is like a chair placed on top of a horse to allow the rider or in the medieval times women to ride with both legs on one side of the horse. Although, Joan of Arc was going to battle, the saddle is very irrelevant in that situation. And one could think, after seeing this film, the saddle is used for ceremonial purposes. By being produced in 1995 the film did a great job presenting how things were in the medieval times.

The directors, producers, writers, and actors were very important to this film. When producing a historical film, details of the events that occurred at that time are very important. The only thing modern about the film was the use of the special affects for the locations of Camelot and Lyonesse. It doesn’t really have that big of an effect on the film, but when looking into details it does changes things a little.

Overall, I gave the movie five stars. There were scenes that were sad, there were scenes that were very intense, and there were scenes that made me happy. The scene that made me sad and in a way hurt was the scene when King Arthur caught Lady Guinevere kissing Lancelot; the scenes that were very intense were the battle scenes; and the scene that made me happy was the scene when Lancelot rescued Lady Guinevere, and stopped under the tree to rest and get out of the rain. It was a romantic scene, I really liked it. I wouldn’t recommend it to be used in class, because when learning about Joan of Arc the film doesn’t cover much around her.

Comparing the St. Michaels

Often when we transition from the classroom to the world of entertainment, we can find some interesting historical parallels and references in modern Television shows. Throughout the course of this class, St. Michael has come up again and again. This got me thinking about the Michael (the arch angel) starring in the TV show, Supernatural. Lets see how they compare to each other!

From our reading in class, one name (other than Joan) seems to come up often; St. Michael. According to Joan's testimony found in Joan our text, she recalls seeing St. Michael before any of the other Angels. It was St. Michael that told Joan that she would be visited by St. Catherine and St. Margaret and that she should do as they say. Joan also explained that he revealed her mission. In Christian culture, St. Michael is seen as one of the highest ranked angels that fought in the battle for Heaven against Satan and his followers. In several denominations teachings about him vary but for the most part he is seen as the "top" commanding angel.

In the show Supernatural, St. Michael is simply referred to as Michael. In the show, Michael is characterized as a strict leader who has established a strong hierarchy in heaven in God's absence (God apparently leaves during the show). Now Michael is the commander of the angels that fight Lucifer and his demons which are often found to be possessing people. Despite Michael being the leader in this angel army to defeat Lucifer and his demons once again, he still loves Lucifer. Lucifer is the brother of Michael because Lucifer was once an angel too (both in TV show and Bible). Michael recognizes that Lucifer is his brother and doesn't want to hurt him.

After looking at both St. Michael from the Bible and Michael from Supernatural, they have proven to be much the same. Since the Michael from the Supernatural was inspired by the actual St. Michael their similarity makes sense. Just in case God decides to leave randomly, we know that Michael will be there for us.

Work Cited

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=308

http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Michael

Pernoud, Re. Joan of Arc, by Herself and Her Witness. London: Macdonald, 1964. 30-31.