• YaksDC@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    In case you were curious, like is was, the walls are 16 to 20 m (52 to 66 ft) tall.

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    According to the Wikipedia article on the history of Bukhara:

    After the fall of the Kushan Empire, Bukhara passed into the hands of Hua tribes from the Mongolian steppe and entered a steep decline. However, the 5th century saw an unprecedented growth in urban and rural settlements throughout the entire oasis. Around this time the whole oasis territory was surrounded by a more than 400 km long wall.

    I assume this structure dates to that period of construction?

    • Tangent5280@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wonder whether this Kushan empire is the inspiration for the name of the protagonist’s tribe in the Homeworld videogame series.

      • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’d think there’d be a reason beyond construction requirements, though—otherwise someone in the past 1,500 years would have replaced it with a more conventional wall.

        • Sordid@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          They did. This is only the oldest, innermost fortification in the city. AFAIK additional layers of walls were build around it later.

    • No_Eponym@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well clearly it’s because the castle defenders of that era were quite sophisticated, but simply don’t dance they just pull up their pants and do the rockaway.

          • Sordid@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s _/‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾\_ shaped. It’s not freestanding walls, the whole thing is an earthen mound with a flat top and its sides lined with bricks.

            • Tangent5280@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So it’s not walls then I suppose. Just the slopes of a flat topped pyramid like thing. I mean, it still provided a height advantage, but it feels like they have lesser cover from arrows than they would have if it was like a conventional wall.

              • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Pure speculation - a typical siege strategy was to dig under walls to cause them to collapse. First, the earthen mound would make the tunneling to collapse a much more labor intensive effort. Second, if an enemy was at the base of the wall it could actually be easier to hit them with projectiles at this angle rather than leaning over and aiming straight down.

                Again, I have zero evidence to support these points, just spitballing here.

                • Tangent5280@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The tunneling issue makes sense. The wall will be much more stable because of the greater base area, and the sappers will need to dig a much bigger cavity under the wall for all the additional material to fall into - if the holes too small the wall might not collapse well enough for the ground forces to have a good opening to assault.

                  The second point is less convincing though. Forts and castle walls had mitigation for that extra issue - machicolations are an example. Often, arrows wouldn’t be used for killing the people right at the base of the wall, instead rocks or hot sand would be used to fuck up their day. These also took out armored units - rocks just, well, crushed them, and hot sand got in the gaps and visors and burned the shit out of them. They could also often not get rid of it without taking off the armor, so they just burned till the sand cooled down.

                  Also arrows were a manufactured commodity. Rocks were just taken from the land, or could be waste from quarries etc, and sand is rough, coarse, and everywhere.

    • Belgdore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not this one, but newer forts were built with angled walls to help protect against canon balls and the like.

    • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Prince Siyawush built the Ark of Bukhara and was eventually buried there.

      Ok, saying a fortress in Sogdia was built by Siyavash is like saying a fortress in Britain was built by Arthur or a fortress in Greece was built by Hercules—it’s what the locals say when they forgot who really built it.

  • Comment105@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The front gate of the castle is huge and impressive, but the backside is like those toddlers with the open ass-flap in ancient Disney-movies.