Castle Side Gate Assault

Let's suppose you have a 1100s Norman Castle, one of the earlier stone fortifications. These typically were on a raised terrain, with stone walls, and usually a ditch that was not filled like a moat. Well, I suppose they became a moat during rainstorms. There were towers that lacked "murder holes" so there are spots juuuust at the base of the castle that are safe for enemies, each usually big for 3 fully grown men, sometimes big enough for 4 smaller guys. These castles often had a singular huge gate for armies (and showing off...) and several smaller gates. The smaller gates were rarely used and one could enter in them triple file.

The easiest way to take a castle would be to let the defenders run out of food. Apparently even without a fridge, castles could hold a fair amount of food, so sometimes the attacker would have to go home.

Let's suppose that there is a castle with a garrison of 3,000 (obviously one of the bigger ones...). The enemy, over 10,000 notices one day that a side gate is open. The defenders shoot arrows and chuck rocks at them. The attackers run up to the side gate and start entering. Someone brought a stone and propped the gate into the "open" position (I don't know how gates work, I assume one can keep it open by blocking its closing). The defenders immediately send knights to block the attackers, but by this point almost a hundred attackers are inside and they can still enter triple file. Until the defenders can get to the gate and remove the stone, the gate is stuck open.

Both sides are fully fed and not disease ridden yet.

Even though the attackers have no siege equipment besides ladders, they have a way in.

Is it plausible for the outnumbered defenders to save themselves?
 
The numbers you give really are enormous for the time, as I understand it. A defending garrison of 3000 men, presumably in addition to any of the other inhabitants, is fully a 1000 larger than the the garrison for Krak-de-Chevaliers at its height. And an attacking army of 10,000 is also extremely large for the period, though not unheard of. That's important, because if the castle is big enough to hold that many men, then its likely large enough that an attack like the one you describe could plausibly take a portion of the castle but not all of it. IIRC that happened during some sieges, where the besiging force was able to take the castle in stages by taking different positions in turn. Something to think about.
 
A garrison of 3000 is big for this time period? I thought there was one with that size (plus militarily useless civilians) like that in the 3rd crusade, and castles really didn't have BIG design from 1100s to king John's time (small incremental improvements more like). I know the basic designs, I just don't know the scales, assault tactics, or how much food they store.

Ok, let's cut down the numbers then. Put 730 guys inside and 5110 outside. The attack gets 50 or so guys in before the defenders meet them in melee with a spear wall to their front and swords and axes to the side. The attackers come in triple file, although they have a small delay while their guys in the front are in the melee (the first 50 guys had it home free, now that the front is blocked there is a delay). The defenders cannot close the gate while it is propped open and must retake it.

Now that the gate is stuck open is it plausible for the defenders to save themselves (without surrendering)?
 
Last edited:
I believe so. I'm more familiar with Norman type castles in England and Ireland, but even then not particularly. Still, I know that the English castles of the Welsh March generally had garrisons of less than 100, though that could swell when an army was using it as a base.

With regard to your question I think the best answer I can give is maybe. Others on board have greater medieval expertise so they may be of more help, but given the situation you describe it probably isn't impossible for the defenders to drive out the attacking force. Much will depend on the exact layout I think. The fact that the defenders can't prevent more attackers from coming in also doesn't help their side as the attackers can just pour men through as fast as possible. So, my answer would be possible but unlikely.

Hope it's of some help.
 
Well, the siege of Cordoba was an example of a small force taking a big city, but it seems to me that you are describing the start of a disaster for the attackers. In fact, I would call it a self-inflicted Cannae.

et's suppose that there is a castle with a garrison of 3,000 (obviously one of the bigger ones...).

I would say... Gargantuan ones.
 
I would say... Gargantuan ones.

I'd agree. Generally speaking I've found that a good rule of thumb when spit balling numbers like the topic starter had...is to generally take the numbers you think are reasonable, and then divide by 10. A castle of 300 men would be about average I'd say, with 1,000-1,200 being a pretty average attacking force.

And yes, it is very plausible for them to save themselves. Given that the attackers would be coming through a quite tiny area, it'd be very likely that the first several attacks would be repulsed through the gate. The ability of the defenders to hold out depends mostly on how effectively they are able to rest their people, and whether the enemy tries to attack multiple positions at the same times or not. If the attackers can keep up the tempo, utilizing their superior numbers to rotate more efficiently than the defenders, then the attackers will have the castle by day's end. Otherwise it'll probably take several days of heavy fighting. And after failing to take the castle the first day of the assault the attackers are likely to seek out alternative points to attack.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
I think Castle with more than 100 is overly big :)

Plausible but very unlikely, defenders has to detect attack very early, rally the garrison, and quickly overwhelm attacker to close side door.

Combination of surprise and lost morale from having attacker enter castle, sudden and unprepared fight in unexpected location, constant influct of new attacker (as long as door stay open), panicked and surrendered defender and civilians inside castle, attacker with high morale and confidence, etc would likely result in castle fall. There are reason why besieger often give opportunity to surrender when wall is breached (side door become breach in this case).
 
I think Castle with more than 100 is overly big
Agreed, I think that 100 is the ok type of big, but 40 to 60 the right type of big

Combination of surprise and lost morale from having attacker enter castle, sudden and unprepared fight in unexpected location, constant influct of new attacker (as long as door stay open), panicked and surrendered defender and civilians inside castle, attacker with high morale and confidence, etc would likely result in castle fall. There are reason why besieger often give opportunity to surrender when wall is breached (side door become breach in this case).

Well, if you have a normal size garrison of 50 defenders and the attackers can get another 50 defenders plus a steady influx of reinforcements, ok, the castle will probably fall, but with 500+ defenders any force of 50 that enters is going to fight an uphill battle no matter if they can get some 3 new guys to their personal Cannae. Remember that the OP said:

The defenders shoot arrows and chuck rocks at them
The attack gets 50 or so guys in before the defenders meet them in melee with a spear wall to their front and swords and axes to the side. The attackers come in triple file, although they have a small delay while their guys in the front are in the melee (the first 50 guys had it home free, now that the front is blocked there is a delay).

No matter how many attackers are outside, we have 10 defenders to each attacker inside.
 
Well, the siege of Cordoba was an example of a small force taking a big city, but it seems to me that you are describing the start of a disaster for the attackers. In fact, I would call it a self-inflicted Cannae.

How? In my example, the defenders are only coming from the front and a side, not front and two sides like in Cannae.

I'd agree. Generally speaking I've found that a good rule of thumb when spit balling numbers like the topic starter had...is to generally take the numbers you think are reasonable, and then divide by 10. A castle of 300 men would be about average I'd say, with 1,000-1,200 being a pretty average attacking force.

And yes, it is very plausible for them to save themselves. Given that the attackers would be coming through a quite tiny area, it'd be very likely that the first several attacks would be repulsed through the gate. The ability of the defenders to hold out depends mostly on how effectively they are able to rest their people, and whether the enemy tries to attack multiple positions at the same times or not. If the attackers can keep up the tempo, utilizing their superior numbers to rotate more efficiently than the defenders, then the attackers will have the castle by day's end. Otherwise it'll probably take several days of heavy fighting. And after failing to take the castle the first day of the assault the attackers are likely to seek out alternative points to attack.

Hey I did correct myself when I realized the scales usually involved. So you think it's about how quickly the defenders rally and get to that gate (and remove that stupid stone)

No matter how many attackers are outside, we have 10 defenders to each attacker inside.

Well, if an attacker dies, he's replaced and if a defender dies... nothing. So I assume it all matters on if the defenders can remove that stone that kept the gate in the open position. Of course, that means beating the attackers while more are coming in.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Well, if you have a normal size garrison of 50 defenders and the attackers can get another 50 defenders plus a steady influx of reinforcements, ok, the castle will probably fall, but with 500+ defenders any force of 50 that enters is going to fight an uphill battle no matter if they can get some 3 new guys to their personal Cannae. Remember that the OP said:
No matter how many attackers are outside, we have 10 defenders to each attacker inside.

But a) Defender still also must defend walls and main gate, they can't just abandon everything to rush attacker, only the reserve force and those resting can be used to repel attacker
b ) Attacker would not just milling around in courtyard to be expelled and have stone thrown at them, they will enter rooms and fighting, in many fights it will be very small room to room fighting without number advantage.
c ) Attackers will keep coming as long as side door still open, so area near side door would become battle place where both side keep coming, attacker coming through side door, defender coming through other parts of castle, and in this place attacker held ground and advantage due to surprise, morale, and number, they are the one who started battle in this place.
 
A similar situation occurred at Waterloo, during the fighting over Hougoumont. A group of French soldiers forced one of the gates open and swarmed inside. James Mcdonnell, the commander of the defenders, personally led a group of soldiers(including Corporal James Graham, named by Wellington as the bravest man at waterloo) through the fight to shut the gate before more French could get through. The French soldiers already inside were all hunted down and killed. The scenario in the OP would most likely have an outcome much like Hougoumont, assuming someone manages to pull off a similar stunt to Mcdonnell.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The reason postern gates were small was so the enemy could not come through at sufficient speed to quickly make the defenders untenable - it only took a few people at the gate to kill off each person as they got awkwardly through one at a time, while the gate size was sufficient for the purposes for which it was needed (e.g. quick night-time sally by a small squad).
Imagine trying to get through a gate about four feet high and two wide when there's three men with spears jabbing at you. It won't be easy!
 
The reason postern gates were small was so the enemy could not come through at sufficient speed to quickly make the defenders untenable - it only took a few people at the gate to kill off each person as they got awkwardly through one at a time, while the gate size was sufficient for the purposes for which it was needed (e.g. quick night-time sally by a small squad).
Imagine trying to get through a gate about four feet high and two wide when there's three men with spears jabbing at you. It won't be easy!

Yeah, this really is the key detail.

Defender numbers are vast, a side-door is NEVER that large. That is practically a second gate - which would defeat the point of a gate for a keep/motte.

However, I would say that because your defender numbers are vast, they could still defend themselves, they don't seem to have lost the walls.

But what you've been describing is less like defending a castle - and more like defending a city.
 
The reason postern gates were small was so the enemy could not come through at sufficient speed to quickly make the defenders untenable - it only took a few people at the gate to kill off each person as they got awkwardly through one at a time, while the gate size was sufficient for the purposes for which it was needed (e.g. quick night-time sally by a small squad).
Imagine trying to get through a gate about four feet high and two wide when there's three men with spears jabbing at you. It won't be easy!

I dunno, my friend seen a few castles in Europe that has a singular HUGE gate (a whole column could go through, not just a trio) and a few smaller ones where one could conceivably enter triple file even with weapons. He's also seen smaller gates like that ones you are talking about. And he confirmed with me last night that although some castles have capacity to swell allies, large garrisons were the exception.

Anyways, this one isn't trying to get through a 2 foot wide gate. It's entering a gate in triple file while you are delayed since several of your allies are in front of you and getting stalled since the defenders suddenly figured out what the heck was going on and would rather not be overrun. In other words, the defenders aren't even at the gate when they raised the alarm and counterattack, so we don't have three guys with spears jabbing at the attackers coming through the gate,

Yes, the situation I imagine has the defenders still holding the walls. if the attacker didn't have anything for siege except ladders, I would imagine it would take a LONG time for them to take the walls without inside help. A gate that was left open, and now stuck open thanks to attacker improvisation, would be noticed within minutes, so the defenders have considerable time before the walls are taken, assuming they can retake the gate and remove the stupid stone. Do you think the defenders can save themselves without surrendering?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
. In other words, the defenders aren't even at the gate when they raised the alarm and counterattack, so we don't have three guys with spears jabbing at the attackers coming through the gate
That was extremely rare. Gates like the one you describe were very important (and the castles that had them quite large) so they would generally be locked and guarded. A postern might go unguarded, but it's hard to get more than a few people in before the problem's noticed.

As for approaching in column of threes, then they'd certainly notice the approach march! Marching carries like nothing else, they'd hear it unless there was active fighting elsewhere.
 
In the unlikely event the defenders forgot the gate was left open, wouldn't they pay more attention to the ladder crews and the primary gate? They would throw stuff at the attackers approaching wouldn't they? And, aside from the room with the chains and gears controlling the gate where it's obvious the gate is up, wouldn't it be hard to see the gate from the walls?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
In the unlikely event the defenders forgot the gate was left open, wouldn't they pay more attention to the ladder crews and the primary gate?
This is why people are assigned positions to take charge of. There's no particularly good reason for attackers to come marching up in column of threes near an area without ladders, while if there are ladders in that area then of course they're going to notice the gate!
And, aside from the room with the chains and gears controlling the gate where it's obvious the gate is up, wouldn't it be hard to see the gate from the walls?
Most gates have specific barbicans built to protect them. In fact, generally speaking most gates have a portcullis and a two-lock system (can't get all the way through in one go). The entire reason for the portcullis to exist is as a quick-drop measure to close off a gate that might be unexpectedly not closed.
 
Hmmm... I guess someone was sleeping on the job if an attack got to this point. This doesn't seem likely. Either they notice a ladder crew at the open gate and shut it, or they notice some guys approaching an area without a ladder.

I remember one time one of Caesar's Gallic enemies had a victory party after driving him off and some of the drunken men threw good food into the water for no good reason, which must have seemed silly when they found themselves under siege the next week. I guess whoever was in charge of the food was also sleeping on the job.

Do you think the defenders can save themselves now that they realized "oops" and the attackers are coming in, if a bit delayed at the moment?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I think what you need to do is to distinguish between "possible", "plausible" and "likely". Which are you after?
 
Top