It is debatable whether siege warfare became as important as it was due to the presence of the defensive monstrosities that were castles or if it was siege warfare that led to the advancement of castles, but siege warfare is a key focus regardless. When analyzing medieval warfare, some historians make the mistake of ignoring siege engines or warfare and instead choose to focus their inquiry on knights or horses . Knights on horseback had a minor impact on siege warfare, which was the leading form of combat. The medieval battleground consisted of not only the great walled cities, of which, for example, there were almost one hundred in Gaul alone, but also numerous castra, castella, and even less elaborate fortifications. Siege warfare in Europe focused on these fortified cities and other, less fortified, population centers. Bachrach argues that siege warfare is not focused on enough when examining medieval warfare. The majority of warfare during the Middle Ages was made up of siege warfare, and Bachrach says that historians instead choose to focus on minor components of medieval warfare such as knights on horseback and that in depth examination of siege warfare is necessary when historians are examining warfare during the Middle …show more content…
One such historian,Sven Ekdahl, views horses, castles and the crossbow as being the most important advancements in medieval warfare. Sven Ekdahl focuses on how horses and crossbows allowed european forces to easily conquer the heathen peoples but also mentions how the europeans had the advantage by having the ability to create “permanent fortresses in stone or brick: the manufacture of bricks and mortar was unknown in the eastern Baltic until then.”. Ekdahl provides a middle ground between the two dominant paradigms of medieval warfare, talking about infantry advancements as well as structural enhancements that played such a key role in medieval warfare, especially in siege