15 replies to this topic

[mohistManiac]

When I was recalling all the movie representations I've seen of Chinese walled cities it occurred to me that all the gates were made of wood. They seemed built to scale as the sets were usually featured in some action sequence complete with pyrotechnics and other enhancing special effects but I became rather wondrous why they weren't made out of anything stronger like metal for instance which could withstand burning. Is there some grand architectural genius that is hidden in such a simple construction for a gateway that was intended to block the entryway from invaders, bandits, and refugees that are collectively assembled to tear it down?

[Pattie]

Is there some grand architectural genius that is hidden in such a simple construction for a gateway that was intended to block the entryway from invaders, bandits, and refugees that are collectively assembled to tear it down?

Have you considered what it would take to make/cast iron doors? How much they would weigh? Installation and maintenance?

Just a thought.

[mohistManiac]

Have you considered what it would take to make/cast iron doors? How much they would weigh? Installation and maintenance?

Just a thought.

I figured that since those civilizations were quite handy with metal work that they could have standardized the construction enough to lower the costs of logistical efforts. They could have even gone only as far as to plate the wooden gateway to prevent it from severe weathering damage. The doors would last longer without need for maintenance. I just find it odd that there would be metal workings on the doors like taotie and other things serving symbolic functions rather than having a definite practical use.

Picture of forbidden city door ---> http://commons.wikim...city_Jiaotu.png

[tadamson]

#1 Wood is actually very strong

#2 Wood withstands weathering better than iron

#3 You can block the gateway behind the door with other materials or design it to lead into a killing zone, negating most of the weakness.

[Tibet Libre]

Wood reinforced with metal fittings was considered strong enough for gates over the length and breadth of Eurasia. Much more interesting is why the whole gate structure remained wooden for so long in China (as late as Song), whereas gates flanked by stone or brick towers had already become common in the Ancient Near East and Greece in the 2nd millenium BC. This questions also extends to the whole circuit walls which were still earth ramps at a time when the transition to masonry had been made for centuries, even millenia, in much of Western Eurasia.

[mohistManiac]

Wood reinforced with metal fittings was considered strong enough for gates over the length and breadth of Eurasia. Much more interesting is why the whole gate structure remained wooden for so long in China (as late as Song), whereas gates flanked by stone or brick towers had already become common in the Ancient Near East and Greece in the 2nd millenium BC. This questions also extends to the whole circuit walls which were still earth ramps at a time when the transition to masonry had been made for centuries, even millenia, in much of Western Eurasia.

Earth ramps are naturally fire proof and weather proof. Everything else that required wood should be the main worry due to water logging and being flammable. If they covered the wood structure with lacquer that would only take care of the rain but it won't take care of fire and lacquer itself is flammable I think. The question is why the gate itself is made of wood without the added protection of metal that they clearly had. Covering several gates is definitely not considering to cover a football field's worth of sheet metal. There could be accidental fires from some guy carrying a torch at night, all of a sudden the gate is wide open and the city would be ready for the taking.

[Tibet Libre]

Earths ramps are fireproof, but so are brick and stone walls, hence this cannot be the reason why Chinese city-builders stuck so long with them.

As for the gates, massive wood does not burn so easily, and I assume that vinegar, commonly applied in naval warfare, was used in large quantities to make the gates even more fireproof. And, of course, wetted hides were hung wherever possible.

By the way, there are still ancient metal doors extant, for example in the Pantheon, Rome (and Hagia Sophia, Constantinople): http://commons.wikim...trance_door.jpg

[mohistManiac]

Earths ramps are fireproof, but so are brick and stone walls, hence this cannot be the reason why Chinese city-builders stuck so long with them.

As for the gates, massive wood does not burn so easily, and I assume that vinegar, commonly applied in naval warfare, was used in large quantities to make the gates even more fireproof. And, of course, wetted hides were hung wherever possible.

By the way, there are still ancient metal doors extant, for example in the Pantheon, Rome (and Hagia Sophia, Constantinople): http://commons.wikim...trance_door.jpg

If they got out brick and mortar to do what earthen walls did it would be reinventing the wheel so to speak. I'm under the assumption that brick and mortar were earthen wall enhancements in the same way sheet metal could be applied to something that seriously needed fireproofing. Also, metal can be distorted in its shape and still function so it would also serve the purpose of defense against battery rams. I could see if wetted hides were hung that it could stave off fire but in the event of an attack they won't have the means of doing that on the side that was getting burned.

[Tibet Libre]

I could see if wetted hides were hung that it could stave off fire but in the event of an attack they won't have the means of doing that on the side that was getting burned.

That is a misconception, if I may say so. Any ancient defender was absolutely aware that the defense of the city walls, and particularly the gates, required to keep the enemy and its war engines from closing in the walls. If the defenders were under such a pressure that they barely managed to hold out on the battlements, the city was usually ripe for the taking.

[mohistManiac]

That is a misconception, if I may say so. Any ancient defender was absolutely aware that the defense of the city walls, and particularly the gates, required to keep the enemy and its war engines from closing in the walls. If the defenders were under such a pressure that they barely managed to hold out on the battlements, the city was usually ripe for the taking.

It ought to have occurred to the side charging the city gates to douse the hides with something like a wax and recommence burning strategies.

[RollingWave]

Your missing one of the key point here.

During peace times, it is against the practical interest of the central government to build strong city defense. for one thing, it's more expensive, and second, common bandits aren't going to assemble enough of an army to actually challenge the walls to the point where a better defense was actually needed. Also, it actually RAISE the risk of rebellions if those cities are highly defensable.

the Song made a point to upgrade some of their wall defense to a point. mostly because of the real risk of a invasion from the north. but the later dynasties didn't actually face such a risk (at least that they were aware of) so building really strong defenses were both economically unpractical and politically stupid.


Also, most of the external threats the Chinese face were from nomadic forces. very few of whom have any sort of idea on siegecraft. so the chances of them using tactics other than a direct storming is very low at best (and even that they don't try too often)

The Europeans, especially in the middle ages. build a ton of super defensable castles because it made sense. their owners had limited holdings. and war was a constant. more over the feduel system gave all the interst in the world for the owner of the land to hold it at all cost (instead of say... retreating for now and gather up a larger force to advance later).

The political context is very important. you have to consider what warfare and general government structure is like, if your running China, why would you want a city in the Yangtsi region to have strong defense? it's overkill against bandits / rebels, it's more expensive.

The Roman Aurelian Walls was not constructed until the Roman empire was starting to face crisis in the 3rd century. from the Servian Wall was practically useless by the later half of the republic (because half of the city was now outside the walls) . the need for a new wall simply wasn't around during the hey days of the Roman rule. (and Chinese emperores generally didn't need to impress their subjects like the Romans did)

Also, while the common gate house we see in Chinese walls were wood, it's not neccesary true everywhere.

this for example, was an early Ming wall. the city also happenes to be situated near Inner Mongolia, see the connection?

[mohistManiac]

Your missing one of the key point here.

During peace times, it is against the practical interest of the central government to build strong city defense. for one thing, it's more expensive, and second, common bandits aren't going to assemble enough of an army to actually challenge the walls to the point where a better defense was actually needed. Also, it actually RAISE the risk of rebellions if those cities are highly defensable.

the Song made a point to upgrade some of their wall defense to a point. mostly because of the real risk of a invasion from the north. but the later dynasties didn't actually face such a risk (at least that they were aware of) so building really strong defenses were both economically unpractical and politically stupid.


Also, most of the external threats the Chinese face were from nomadic forces. very few of whom have any sort of idea on siegecraft. so the chances of them using tactics other than a direct storming is very low at best (and even that they don't try too often)

The Europeans, especially in the middle ages. build a ton of super defensable castles because it made sense. their owners had limited holdings. and war was a constant. more over the feduel system gave all the interst in the world for the owner of the land to hold it at all cost (instead of say... retreating for now and gather up a larger force to advance later).

The political context is very important. you have to consider what warfare and general government structure is like, if your running China, why would you want a city in the Yangtsi region to have strong defense? it's overkill against bandits / rebels, it's more expensive.

The Roman Aurelian Walls was not constructed until the Roman empire was starting to face crisis in the 3rd century. from the Servian Wall was practically useless by the later half of the republic (because half of the city was now outside the walls) . the need for a new wall simply wasn't around during the hey days of the Roman rule. (and Chinese emperores generally didn't need to impress their subjects like the Romans did)

Also, while the common gate house we see in Chinese walls were wood, it's not neccesary true everywhere.

this for example, was an early Ming wall. the city also happenes to be situated near Inner Mongolia, see the connection?

I figured it was some reason like that. Makes sense to focus a budget towards military concerns where concerns need be applied. But fire burning down a wooden gate isn't a concern you say? What about the burning with wax and oil method? Mongols didn't have oil nor wax?

[RollingWave]

I figured it was some reason like that. Makes sense to focus a budget towards military concerns where concerns need be applied. But fire burning down a wooden gate isn't a concern you say? What about the burning with wax and oil method? Mongols didn't have oil nor wax?

I have no idea, but a large piece of wood isn't nearly as flammable as your suggesting. and there are various methods of treating it in war situations that could make it even harder to burn.

If gates were so flammable, why weren't more sieges won that way? almost all the accounts I see meantion methods other than burning down doors. (climbing up the walls are obviously the most common.)

[mohistManiac]

It occurred to me as I began thinking how these gates were usually depicted as being dug in deep cross sectionally into the surrounding walled structure as though it were a concave surface. Does anyone know if a dug in surface would allow for less air circulation for fanning flames that have started to develop or if the air flow around the area of a concave surface created a natural barrier between the surface itself and flames that try to envelop it as opposed to a bulged out convex surface?

[brightness]

It occurred to me as I began thinking how these gates were usually depicted as being dug in deep cross sectionally into the surrounding walled structure as though it were a concave surface. Does anyone know if a dug in surface would allow for less air circulation for fanning flames that have started to develop or if the air flow around the area of a concave surface created a natural barrier between the surface itself and flames that try to envelop it as opposed to a bulged out convex surface?

Gates had to be thinner than walls simply because gates had be open-able in peace time. Gates being inset into the thick walls had more to do with enabling portholes above the gates allowing arrows/boiling liquid pouring down on attackers. Wooden gates were seldomly breached by fire. Fire weapons would be better used clearing the battlements so that the gates could be breached by devices like rams. It's not easy to start a fire on a big block of wood, especially with metal sheathing. Normal firewood firemaking involves tinder etc. Any incendiery landed in front of the gate could be put out by liquid poured down same portholes above the gates.