I found this article really interesting. It basically talks about how conflicts lead to the improvements in the engineering technology. Taking the trebuchet as an example, as there were improvements being made in the trebuchets and the catapults, the castles were also being made stronger and bigger.
I find it odd as to how the engineers worked at that time to create structures for destruction, in contrast to the present time when the engineers work to create objects and structures which are peaceful and safe.
It is interesting to note how the engineers at that time used the available resources in such an efficient manner. As the hurdles cropped up, they used to design better every time. I find them really innovative. Also the pictures presented in the articles are so stunning. The castles seem to be so strong!!!
This article completely reflects the relationship between structures, infrastructures and conflicts. If there were no conflicts, there would be no structures.
I find it odd as to how the engineers worked at that time to create structures for destruction, in contrast to the present time when the engineers work to create objects and structures which are peaceful and safe.
It is interesting to note how the engineers at that time used the available resources in such an efficient manner. As the hurdles cropped up, they used to design better every time. I find them really innovative. Also the pictures presented in the articles are so stunning. The castles seem to be so strong!!!
This article completely reflects the relationship between structures, infrastructures and conflicts. If there were no conflicts, there would be no structures.
I agree with what you’re saying. Defensive and offensive Engineering has come a long way since the middle ages.
ReplyDeleteThere was one detail that surprised me through the reading. Can you believe that it would take more than "25 minute"and more than 250 soldiers to load a trebuchet? If we take the tank as a modern day equivalent of the trebuchet, we can clearly see that engineering as really come a long way through the centuries.
In addition, take those highly fortified ancient castles for example. As of now, militaries around the world, instead of building castle, build fortified bunker. These bunkers were favoured over castle mainly because of the use of aerial bombers. Since these bunkers became very effective at protecting its users from airborne strikes, countermeasures were built. In fact today, the US military for example uses “bunker-busting” missiles so as to successfully and efficiently attack bunkers
Here’s another example illustrating the relationship between structures, infrastructures and conflict
I think the surprise over the length of time it takes to fire is probably because of movies like lord of the rings and other medieval movies like that. It showing trebuchets and others machines firing in a almost continuous stream on the various strongholds it is attacking. Something it didn’t mention about the defensive engineering is the shape of the castles. Yes they did make castles bigger but they also changed how they were designed. In the earlier days towers were square boxes with square torrents. Later own torrents and sometimes the rest of the castle were smoothed out into more of a circle shape. This allowed the rocks to glance of sometimes.
ReplyDeleteAmon that part surprised me too. Wow! I can clearly see the contrast between the engineers of that time and today. Today, the engineers have come up with several things that have helped save time. If there would have been no conflicts, then even today we would have been living in those big and strong castles and the military would have been using the trebichet still. (engr 103)
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post, Dharna. It's almost unbelievable how they put engineering merely for the use of destruction and defending. They could have made proper use of it, like to improve colonies, rather than improving catapult efficiency and ranges. It's a strange thing to know. (engr103)
ReplyDeleteOkay, the whole post was interesting; however the most important part of it is the last sentence: "This article completely reflects the relationship between structures, infrastructures and conflicts. If there were no conflicts, there would be no structures." Because I think that you briefly summarize the point that war and early conflicts changed the way structures are built nowadays, and how the war engines are really one of the 'Five Machines they Changed the World' (engr 103)
ReplyDelete