In the Middle Ages, tales of Kings, lords, knights, feasts, power, conquest, and destruction often involved castles. Once a combination of defensive and residential shelter, these ancient castles scattered like stars across Europe are silent reminders of their country's past ups and downs.

In the Middle Ages, when people talk about castle architecture, they are always keen to talk about its lofty and sublime. Interestingly, the most widespread and impressive myths, both past and present, are those related to tunnels.

Real life is gone, replaced by legends, imaginary histories of the folk, and according to the tour guide, what castle doesn't have an underground network tens of kilometers long? Which historic tunnel has not collapsed, making it unrecognizable today? What tunnel doesn't have some old man's assurance that his ancestors walked through the entire tunnel?

This is one of the most popular recent castle myths, and undoubtedly the furthest from reality. The tunnels, dug at different times, provided materials for tall buildings or thermo-heated cellars for storage, and myths arose. Most of the tunnels were simply cellars, which, like most medieval cities, were probably connected to a network.

Over the centuries, these tunnels, whether cellars or quarries, eventually joined together into a network of underground networks.

In medieval symbolism, however, there is no escape tunnel; it is all a patchwork of romantic creations. Did people dig underground structures like this to protect beleaguered defenders? The answer is unequivocally no. Compared to today, the Middle Ages were more pragmatic than emotional. This use of the "tunnel" was not practical at the time, and in order to escape through the tunnel, the exit had to be far away from the point of departure, so as not to risk falling into besieged territory. But in the Middle Ages, there wasn't as much money to dig through the tunnels between castles and cities as we do now...

On the contrary, in the Middle Ages there were quite a few basements where you could hide, and many quarries were converted for this purpose. The most famous basement is the "Hidden Passage" at Fort Nahu in Picardie, France, which is massive and can hold more than 3,000 people. Since the 9th century, it has formed a network of underground hideouts that have played a role in every war. It has nothing to do with the castle, it is a hiding place dug by the common people to escape the war, and has nothing to do with feudal factors.

Such basement passages are found all over medieval sites, often dug by civilians who had nothing to do with the regime. However, one cannot deny the real castles built under the rocks. From this point of view, there are many such remarkable buildings in the Middle East, the Tyrone Cellar in Lebanon being the most representative. This underground fortress, in a ravine flanked by cliffs and with a dizzying entrance, remained in place throughout the Crusades and for many years after the end of the war. Surprisingly, they didn't do much good, because basements are only valuable if they're not known about.

Once the existence of the basement is discovered, it becomes a deadly trap, like a rabbit's burrow. Such basements are in a worse situation under siege than open-air castles. History has amply demonstrated that people cannot keep their secrets, and as soon as the enemy deprives the guardians of the food supplies necessary for their survival, especially water, these basements suddenly become the dreaded chambers of death.

Is the castle more symbolic than defensive?

In modern castle mythology, "castle main tower" is a hot topic second only to authentic. In the traditional assessment of the castle, it is considered to be the "last hiding place".

The explanation was simple: when a castle was under siege, the besiegers would take the civilian court first, and then the noble court. Once this happens, the castle guardians must flee into the main tower or castle tower. When the siege was extremely intense, the tunnel became the "last hiding place" of the defenders. During the Romantic period, the castle tower, as a status symbol, replaced deep-rooted feudal social relations and served a purely military purpose. Once besieged, it became the inner fortress.

The main tower certainly played a unique role in medieval castle design. But in fact, its role is not as simple as people make it out to be. The main tower can be a symbol of power, it cannot be inhabited; It can also have a dual-use function, like the Philip tower, as a symbol of power, but also a place to live; It could be a prison cell like Provine Tower.

In the 1150 plan, the Provine Tower was designed on the model of a prison; Finally, it can be used exclusively for human habitation. In any case, the castle was never a single "last hideaway"; only the towers, influenced by the architecture of the Philippian style, could be a single "last hideaway" because they were completely separate from the rest of the castle.

Is it appropriate to consider this: when looking at a castle such as Fort Cusi, whose main tower is a replica of the traditional Philiptic tower, with a civilian courtyard in front of it, it is reasonable to ask whether the symbolic significance of the castle is greater than the defensive function of the castle?

Unlike the hideout, the main tower of the castle is always occupied. It can be seen that in the Middle Ages, people did not build the main tower with a rigid idea of imchanging, and many facilities related to daily life can be seen in the main tower. There, residential use accounts for a considerable proportion. The Main Royal Tower of Vincennes is one such example. Many rectangular house towers with small round towers formed a "great family", and such house towers were more common among lesser lords.

When one thinks of a castle, one imagines a siege in which the attackers, after a fierce battle, cross a trench (which people always think contains water, but does not), build long ladders up the parapet, and the defenders hurl weapons at them. The tour guide is most willing to introduce the hot oil.

According to modern legend, these poor defenders had to light fires on the battlements, boil the oil in their iron POTS, and then lift them up to pour the boiling oil over the battlements and crenellations, and even over the wooden battlements... We have to ask, how much of this imagination is plausible?

But for a moment, who would have believed that, high up on the walls of the city, the defenders had set fire to heavy iron POTS, in which expensive oil was sloshing, and then the defenders had lifted the hot iron POTS and, under the fire of the enemy, poured the boiling oil over the heads of the attackers?

Instead, according to historical records, the walls were defended primarily by hard projectiles, starting with large stones piled on the towers and parapets before the siege, but also by effective "weapons" similar to boiling oil, such as quicklime water.

In 1347, Huger de Cadayac requested the construction of a quicklime basin on top of the tower of Biulleborg. In addition, other siege stories mention that the defenders used frivolous methods, such as the 13th century siege of Alsace, where buckets of excrement were poured over the heads of attackers.

But whether offensive or defensive, the main weapon or projectile. Individual combat often uses bows and crossbows, group combat often uses projectiles and stone tools, and some unarmed "weapons", such as stones and rolling logs.

It is true that these practices are not romantic, but it must be understood that in the Middle Ages, as in ancient times and later classical times, siege was usually a matter of expert consideration, which promoted the use of various means of refinement.

For 16th-century engineers, who were not concerned with boiling oil, the construction of machines or cannons, the strategy of advancing, and the reconnaissance of tunnels and basements were the classical doctrines of warfare.