Star fort locations

[Hanslune]

Military use of Star Forts

I use to teach a course in which I discussed the history of artillery and the contest between defense and offense.

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Star_fort" why they were designed to prevent dead zones .

 

Curtain walls are great against infantry but very vulnerable to the impact of a 24 pound iron ball going 700-1,000 mph hitting it. Masonry and brick forts would crumble and it was found that plain dirt and sand worked better.

Solution sink the wall into a ditch where it still is an obstacle to the infantry but cannot be hit by artillery directly. The only target was a few feet where the defending artillery could fire at you.

 

[Nobu]

1 minute ago, Hanslune said:

Military use of Star Forts

I use to teach a course in which I discussed the history of artillery and the contest between defense and offense.

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Star_fort" why they were designed to prevent dead zones .

 

Curtain walls are great against infantry but very vulnerable to the impact of a 24 pound iron ball going 700-1,000 mph hitting it. Masonry and brick forts would crumble and it was found that plain dirt and sand worked better.

Solution sink the wall into a ditch where it still is an obstacle to the infantry but cannot be hit by artillery directly. The only target was a few feet where the defending artillery could fire at you.

 

Ahhh ok, that makes sense. 

[janesix]

11 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

So do you understand the difference between facts and your opinions?

Because this is your opinion and not a fact.

--Jaylemurph

Of course I do. You are a materialist, you may never understand. I wouldn't lose all hope, though. Many of us were materialists before we were shown that something else was going on.

[janesix]

15 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

At the time when star forts were built artillery was line of sight weapons, while today they are ballistic. This means that modern artillery can simply lob their shells over walls and that is why fortifications like that stopped being built. Its simply new technology that made an old technology obsolete and this happens all the time. 

There really is no big mystery there.

I have no doubt that star forts were repurposed when they were found and misunderstood.

[janesix]

16 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

In an age where artillery can be fired balistically (that is, not in a straight line) and at extreme distance, you’re right, the Star Fort (and indeed, more forts) effectiveness was cut down. Even during WW1 the move was away from forts and towards bunkers (an underground complex with a thick concrete roof as opposed to an above ground complex with a stone palisade around it). Although those bunker complexes were often called “forts” as with the series of Forts in Australia guarding our Ports like Fort Lytton. 

Fort technology though was at least 2000 odd years old, a constant evolution of the Roman idea of a ring of wooden palisades around the camp when the legion was on the march. 

Explain why sometimes there are several star forts, on on top of another. Also explain why there were often small star forts inside a larger star city. And why there always had to have a water element, either being at a shore next to a body of water, a rive running through or alongside, or a mote if ther was no other water source.

[Essan]

20 minutes ago, janesix said:

Explain why sometimes there are several star forts, on on top of another. 

Where?

Also explain why there were often small star forts inside a larger star city.

Where?

Also explain why there were often small star forts inside a larger star city. And why there always had to have a water element, either being at a shore next to a body of water, a rive running through or alongside, or a mote if ther was no other water source.

For strategic reasons and/or to provide a water source (the defenders need to drink!).   Exactly the same with stne built castles, for example.   Or, indeed, almost any settlement.

[janesix]

24 minutes ago, Essan said:

Where?
 

Where?
 

For strategic reasons and/or to provide a water source (the defenders need to drink!).   Exactly the same with stne built castles, for example.   Or, indeed, almost any settlement.

Just  google star forts, you will see many examples of the two that You asked "Where". I don't have time to do your homework for you.

[Abramelin]

20 minutes ago, janesix said:

Just  google star forts, you will see many examples of the two that You asked "Where". I don't have time to do your homework for you.

You're just making it up as you go along, right?

If you are eager to prove a point, the least thing you can do is provide the members here with links and images.

Now it looks as though you expect that your ideas will be shot down, and are therefor hesitant to come up with more and detailed info.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

1 hour ago, janesix said:

I have no doubt that star forts were repurposed when they were found and misunderstood.

Why did you ask for our thoughts when you are clearly not interested in an actual answer ? 

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, janesix said:

I have no doubt that star forts were repurposed when they were found and misunderstood.

Well no, there creation and construction was well understood during the life time of Vauban and other engineers. May I suggest you read a history of fortifications.

There is no mention of them by earlier authors. Methinks you fantasize to much.

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=ZeZWPuDMwMYC&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP9

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=1mFBAAAAIAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA8

etc.

[janesix]

17 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Well no, there creation and construction was well understood during the life time of Vauban and other engineers. May I suggest you read a history of fortifications.

There is no mention of them by earlier authors. Methinks you fantasize to much.

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=ZeZWPuDMwMYC&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP9

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=1mFBAAAAIAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA8

etc.

http://www.starforts.com/gallery.html

This is a worldwide phenomenon, and an ancient one.

[Trelane]

2 hours ago, janesix said:

Explain why sometimes there are several star forts, on on top of another. Also explain why there were often small star forts inside a larger star city. And why there always had to have a water element, either being at a shore next to a body of water, a rive running through or alongside, or a mote if ther was no other water source.

The location near a body of water was to assist in many facets while moats are used almost exclusively as a defensive element to a fortification. Locations near naturally occurring bodies of water provided water to troops inside the fort. It provided a means for supplies to be moved into the fort. It also provided a defensive means as tactical advantage eliminating an avenue of approach or flanking area.

 

[Trelane]

2 hours ago, janesix said:

Of course I do. You are a materialist, you may never understand. I wouldn't lose all hope, though. Many of us were materialists before we were shown that something else was going on.

Can you explain your use of the word materialist? You throw that word out there describing or categorizing people. Just for clarification purposes, thank you.

[cormac mac airt]

18 minutes ago, janesix said:

http://www.starforts.com/gallery.html

This is a worldwide phenomenon, and an ancient one.

There’s nothing “ancient” in that link. 
 

cormac

[janesix]

54 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

You're just making it up as you go along, right?

If you are eager to prove a point, the least thing you can do is provide the members here with links and images.

Now it looks as though you expect that your ideas will be shot down, and are therefor hesitant to come up with more and detailed info.

Star fort layered on older star forthttps://www.livehistoryindia.com/story/amazing-india/tipu-sultans-star-shaped-fort/

Star fort inside fort cityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City

[janesix]

6 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Can you explain your use of the word materialist? You throw that word out there describing or categorizing people. Just for clarification purposes, thank you.

A materialist is a person who is in the mistaken belief that the material world is the only world.

[Abramelin]

21 minutes ago, janesix said:

http://www.starforts.com/gallery.html

This is a worldwide phenomenon, and an ancient one.

They were built worldwide, yes, but were does it say they are ancient?

[Nobu]

You need water (running is better) in a fort. Otherwise in a siege your army will perish from the runs. I’m not a fort guy and I know this. I use to look at the little bugs that cause dysentery (entameobas are fun) and as someone that has had a seeming lifetime of diarrhea, I fairly consider myself at least a novice on the subject.

 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

3 minutes ago, janesix said:

A materialist is a person who is in the mistaken belief that the material world is the only world.

How is that relevant to star forts ?

We know how they were built, when they were built, why they were built and who built them. Like I said before there is no mystery here....... apart from why you continue to push the idea that there is a mystery. Thats the real mystery here.

[Abramelin]

8 minutes ago, janesix said:

Star fort layered on older star forthttps://www.livehistoryindia.com/story/amazing-india/tipu-sultans-star-shaped-fort/

Star fort inside fort cityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City

I clicked on your links, and read it all.

Nowhere does it say the starforts were built on older ones.

Maybe you can quote from the links the parts that say that older starforts are below the more recent ones? I can't find it.

[Abramelin]

You know Jane, as Cormac, Hans, and others are my witnesses, I am still busy trying to identify a square formation on the bottom of the North Sea:

link to post

And of course I'd like it to be man-made (and for the witnesses, no, I now doubt it is recent; see latest post), but if I can't prove it, it will remain a fantasy.

[rashore]

2 hours ago, janesix said:

I have no doubt that star forts were repurposed when they were found and misunderstood.

Star forts were not found or repurposed. Star forts were purposely built for defense- particularly artillery defense, and within the last few hundred years, and it's fairly well documented how, why, and when they were built. You are completely misunderstanding what star forts are, why they were built, and when they were built. You should be seriously doubting the notion that star forts were ancient, found, or repurposed. 

2 hours ago, janesix said:

Explain why sometimes there are several star forts, on on top of another. Also explain why there were often small star forts inside a larger star city. And why there always had to have a water element, either being at a shore next to a body of water, a rive running through or alongside, or a mote if ther was no other water source.

Defenses within defenses were fairly common before star forts started getting built in the 1500's, with things like a building inside castle walls. The notion of multiple defensive positions within each other is normal and smart warfare- if an outer defense gets breached, people can fall back to another inside defense. Sometimes towns and then cities would be built up outside the fort, and sometimes followed the outlines of the fort, creating star cities. It's like how there would be a castle with an outer wall, then towns would build up outside the walls in the same general shape as the walls.  

Water elements like moats and rivers can serve as defenses that make it more difficult for attackers to get to your walls. And also, when under siege, having water access for humans and sometimes animals to drink is crucial. In times of peace it can be handy for having fish or waterfowl in your moats and river for eating. Having wells inside defenses is also popular because of the need for potable water. 

The reason why the golf course you posted in your OP was built there in 2004 was because rich people like water features as well as golfing in their luxe communities. 

[jaylemurph]

1 hour ago, janesix said:

Just  google star forts, you will see many examples of the two that You asked "Where". I don't have time to do your homework for you.

They must not have included that information in the book she’s parroting!

—Jaylemurph

[rashore]

1 hour ago, janesix said:

Star fort layered on older star forthttps://www.livehistoryindia.com/story/amazing-india/tipu-sultans-star-shaped-fort/

Star fort inside fort cityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City

The first is a fort built on a hill, there is no older star fort, just one modern fort built in the 1790's. In the article you provided it explains how and why the fort was built, and there isn't any old fort under the one that was built in the 1790's.

Vatican city has no star fort. It does have some city walls that have some bastion formations, but it is not a star city. And nearby Castel Sant'Angelo isn't a star fort, nor are its surrounding gardens a star fort. The gardens were designed and built in the 1930's.

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, Abramelin said:

You know Jane, as Cormac, Hans, and others are my witnesses, I am still busy trying to identify a square formation on the bottom of the North Sea:

link to post

And of course I'd like it to be man-made (and for the witnesses, no, I now doubt it is recent; see latest post), but if I can't prove it, it will remain a fantasy.

Having taken another look at the tentative coordinates you gave for the square formation I came up with a bit of difference in same by some +/- 10 miles. Although neither coordinate gives any good sign of what that formation may be. 

cormac