Irriac, before and after the inundations used to lift the siege

[Caenwyr]

I don't know but it don't seem perfect to me!!!

If you were the lord of this city, and you had the choice between certain death for yourself and the sack of your city on the one hand, and giving your people wet feet on the other (in the process defending not only yourself but also them from the enemy), what would you do? If you're unsure as to the meaning of the word "sack", make sure to look up the atrocities that happened during the Sack of Rome in 1527. I don't know about you, but If I could prevent that from happening to my people, I'd gladly be prepared to make them suffer a bit from the defense I'm offering them. Anything is better than being sacked.

Don't forget, this is just an "if all else fails" measure. As long as the walls stand, the city wouldn't need to be inundated at all.

On a different note: I just realized that everything having to do with water in the defense of this city would depend on the control they have over the locks. Controlling just one of the two pairs would suffice, but you'd need to defend them strongly. Way stronger, perhaps, than I did in the initial drawing. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to drop one of the two lock pairs, and move the castle right over the other one. On the other hand, that would mean a better defense for the city itself, but a more urgent reason for the enemy to immediately storm the castle instead of the city. Let me know what you think.

Hmph, medieval city defenses. Not so easy as I first thought.

[vither999]

On a different note: I just realized that everything having to do with water in the defense of this city would depend on the control they have over the locks. Controlling just one of the two pairs would suffice, but you'd need to defend them strongly. Way stronger, perhaps, than I did in the initial drawing. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to drop one of the two lock pairs, and move the castle right over the other one. On the other hand, that would mean a better defense for the city itself, but a more urgent reason for the enemy to immediately storm the castle instead of the city. Let me know what you think.

Yeah. Looking at it tactically, that'd be the first place to get hit. As atpollard mentioned, it's very unlikely the city could be "surprised" by a large army, and so if a big enough army to pose an actual threat came near they'd probably inundate to be on the safe side. But if that army had some kind of guerilla combat troops, they could head out way in front, take out the locks, and thus prevent inundation: or worse, undo inundation by opening the gates at low tide.

Another (cheaper) tactic to having more fortifications around the locks might be just to have more of them: taking two before word gets out that an attack is going down seems fairly reasonable, but taking ten? Not quite as likely...

[EDIT] Spelling.