Bronze was easier (as in actually possible, given technologies at the time) to form into large homogenous pieces like that, but let’s not forget that bronze was really expensive. One of the incentives for developing him iron casting technology in the 18th century was that while bronze cannons were better than iron cannons, bronze was way more expensive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_(305%E2%80%93304_BC)

Your example isn't that big though, not compared to a castle. Doors were sometimes made of metal. Portcullis

I thought the metal for the Colossus was from melting down the bronze armour and weapons of their enemies?

Parts of the walls and doors could have been reinforced too.

Honestly I was just fighting back at the idea that large single cast objects did not exist till the industrial revolution.

How are large, single cast objects not relevant to this conversation?

>Did you even read the original post.

You forget a question mark. Did you even reread your comment before posting it?

Besides most castle walls were brought down by undermining.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_ram >The Athlit ram consists of a single bronze casting weighing 465 kilograms (1,025 lb). It is 226 centimetres (89 in) long with a maximum width of 76 centimetres (30 in) and a maximum height of 96 centimetres (38 in).  ... The casting of an object as large as the Athlit ram was a complicated operation at the time, and would have been a considerable expense in the construction of a war galley.

The ram was MUCH smaller than castle walls. It was 7' long by 2.5' around. A castle wall could easily be 10' tall and several feet thick. A 10' section of wall would need maybe 6 times that much metal and castle walls are far longer than 10'. Metal walls would get wildly expensive very quickly.

Bruh, the Union had over 40 and the Confederates over 20. Both sides had plans and began construction on many more when the war ended. Two, you got me laughing on a history sub.

Did you even read the original post. Its about covering the walls not just the doors.

It can also cause some rocks to explode.. But that wasn't really something that was happening in that period.. They didn't really have fire weapons that burned hot enough to destroy stone walls. They still used catapults, and trebuchets for that purpose. (Depending on the era of coarse)

This post is about covering castle walls with metal to make them stronger they had arrows.

Desktop version of /u/Penkala89's link: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-industrial_armoured_ships>

^([)^(opt out)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)

Not a fortification as such but you may be interested in Medieval/Early Modern armored ships. definitely some interesting designs that are often glossed over

You can cast bronze and copper which is not nearly as difficult as forging. You can see long pieces of metal here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portcullis

They were saying no one made big sheets of metal during the civil war. No clue about why they said arrows

[removed]

Ehh fire can still destroy stones. It makes them very brittle

The athlit ram was a single cast copper and that thing weight 1,000 pounds. Hell I think most roman naval rams were single cast. If they could fortify ships that way, why not doors and buildings?

The big issue with plate armor wasn't cost, so much as technology and infrastructure limitations. Once the necessary industry and skilled labor force was in place, it actually became more affordable than mail, and in later periods you'll find mass-produced munitions-grade plate armor (e.g., during the English civil war).

The limiting factor for mail is that it requires lots of manual labor to make, rivet, and weave together the rings, along with the tailoring to get it fit properly. It can be made even in a low-tech setting, but it'll always take a lot of time and effort.

Of course, for the medieval period, plate never fully replaced mail, either. There's plenty of places you just can't enclose in metal plates and still be able to move and fight, so mail voiders, skirts, standards, etc. remained a part of full plate harnesses.

I do know that various siege towers would have metal plates...

Remember the siege towers from "LOTR: The Return Of The King"? They would look similar to this, but not as cool.

The metal plates would provide protection from fire, and arrows.

I'm not exactly sure they would use this method on stone walls as they already provide adequate protection from both..

[removed]

>Even so, they still didn't wear full plate, because A. It's expensive and B. Wasn't practical, as it was cumbersome. They would wear some interleaved plating and some leather pieces, all bound together with cordage.

Iron was also scarcer and lower-quality in Japan. It required more skilled labor to turn their poor raw materials into serviceable armor plates. Chain links were right out.

The US Civil War famously happened after the industrial revolution took place.

> good luck finding enough ore without modern mining methods.

I don't think the finding ore was the big problem back then. it was moving it. a whole transportation system had to be invented to get the industrial revolution running. first it was riverboats and canals, then railroads.