Theodosian walls and chains

**Belisarius1** · February 05, 2015, 09:20 PM

Was anyone else hoping that sea walls would be added? It seems rather silly to fortify an entire city and then leave the seaward side open to attack. Historically, the Golden Horn was usually secured by an iron chain as well, it's not like a hostile enemy could just sail in.

Also, are torches now magically able to blow up towers in addition to incinerating heavy gates?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9AbMRuLV8s

**damien007** · February 05, 2015, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by Belisarius1

Was anyone else hoping that sea walls would be added? It seems rather silly to fortify an entire city and then leave the seaward side open to attack. Historically, the Golden Horn was usually secured by an iron chain as well, it's not like a hostile enemy could just sail in.

Also, are torches now magically able to blow up towers in addition to incinerating heavy gates?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9AbMRuLV8s

The towers imploded because the enemy captured them, how or why that made them self destruct I don't know

**RGA** · February 05, 2015, 09:59 PM

I did see sea walls in game, albeit with some spaces in between. Otherwise landing troops will just stuck in the small areas outside the wall. Historically, the Sea of Marmara side was rather ill-suited for amphibious landing due to strong current, which of course is not the case in game. The heavy chain blocking the entrance to the Golden Horn was also rather an obstacle than a barrier, as the Byzantines still needed navy to defend it.

BTW, while I agree that towers being blown up are a visually stupid, it does serve a good gameplay purpose. Towers in Total war games are so hopelessly overpowerered that those who are unlucky to be nearby will be machine-gunned to the last man in a very short period of time. Capturing/ destroying towers is thus almost an obsession of every siege battes. I would rather see towers permanently inactivated upon capturing.

**WarriorPrince** · February 05, 2015, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by RGA

BTW, while I agree that towers being blown up are a visually stupid, it does serve a good gameplay purpose. Towers in Total war games are so hopelessly overpowerered that those who are unlucky to be nearby will be machine-gunned to the last man in a very short period of time. Capturing/ destroying towers is thus almost an obsession of every siege battes. I would rather see towers permanently inactivated upon capturing.

This method is just creating a second problem to fix a first. If towers are too powerful then making them less powerful would seem the obvious fix.

**PointOfViewGun** · February 05, 2015, 11:19 PM

The chain was installed in the 8th century.

**Belisarius1** · February 06, 2015, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by Setekh

The chain was installed in the 8th century.

I've only seen a read a few references to the chain. Do you have an article you could recommend regarding this and what was the frequency that ancient ports were secured by chains?

Typically Byzantine galleys would have been defending the port but I would assume that the ends of the chain were fortified as well. Was the chain more of a nuisance or a significant obstacle?

Regarding the currents they certainly made an amphibious difficult but not impossible. The Venetians and Crusaders were able to successfully assault the sea wall utilizing a strong wind. I recall reading that the seaward walls were more vulnerable but I'm not sure about this.

This could be represented in game by allowing ships to carry ladders for seaborne assaults.

**Belisarius1** · February 06, 2015, 12:11 AM

Guess I should have just looked at the wikipedia before posting. Ships that were heavy enough could break the chain which was secured at the tower of Galata. However, the Crusaders destroyed the tower before the amphibious assault.

**PointOfViewGun** · February 06, 2015, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Belisarius1

I've only seen a read a few references to the chain. Do you have an article you could recommend regarding this and what was the frequency that ancient ports were secured by chains?

Typically Byzantine galleys would have been defending the port but I would assume that the ends of the chain were fortified as well. Was the chain more of a nuisance or a significant obstacle?

Regarding the currents they certainly made an amphibious difficult but not impossible. The Venetians and Crusaders were able to successfully assault the sea wall utilizing a strong wind. I recall reading that the seaward walls were more vulnerable but I'm not sure about this.

This could be represented in game by allowing ships to carry ladders for seaborne assaults.

I just did a random Google search. It said on somewhere that the chain was installed by the Emperor Leo III in 8th century.

**AnthoniusII** · February 06, 2015, 08:07 AM

Constantinople and other cities with only 6 units of defenders like in Rome II? !!!!!!
God...Constantinople and Roman cities had vast guarissons!

**Huberto** · February 06, 2015, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Belisarius1

Was anyone else hoping that sea walls would be added? It seems rather silly to fortify an entire city and then leave the seaward side open to attack. Historically, the Golden Horn was usually secured by an iron chain as well, it's not like a hostile enemy could just sail in.

Was wondering this myself. Until I remembered that CA makes this game for people who get bored or frustrated after twenty minutes of battle. I also remember that Carthage siege map has an open door in the back. So why not Constantinople?

**AnthoniusII** · February 06, 2015, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Huberto

Was wondering this myself. Until I remembered that CA makes this game for people who get bored or frustrated after twenty minutes of battle. I also remember that Carthage siege map has an open door in the back. So why not Constantinople?

I answer once again...Because CA is biased against Eastern Roman empire and tries to portay it as a bunch of barbarian heretics that should be easily eliminated by the "holly" german tribes like the Goths!

**Karnil Vark Khaitan** · February 06, 2015, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by AnthoniusII

I answer once again...Because CA is biased against Eastern Roman empire and tries to portay it as a bunch of barbarian heretics that should be easily eliminated by the "holly" german tribes like the Goths!

Nooo it is because The Byzantine kingdom wasn't roman either a empire, and a bounce of heretics as they refuse to follow the pope, and just look where that took them eeehhhhh!

**Erus** · February 06, 2015, 08:48 AM

Perhaps I am odd, but I want crazy good defenses on some settlements and substantial garrisons. Almost every mod I play, most of those being based on the Kingdoms expansion, has some sort of garrison script to compliment whatever is already there. Taking a city was no easy feat and I would like it to show that. There's nothing like attacking with a stack and a half or two stacks to be sure that you can capture a unique settlement with adequate defenses and losing half to three quarters of your force. I don't want to be able to walk in on a whim....

**AnthoniusII** · February 06, 2015, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Karnil Vark Khaitan

Nooo it is because The Byzantine kingdom wasn't roman either a empire, and a bounce of heretics as they refuse to follow the pope, and just look where that took them eeehhhhh!

Hahaha I forgot that!!! Thank you for remind it to me!!!

Originally Posted by Erus

Perhaps I am odd, but I want crazy good defenses on some settlements and substantial garrisons. Almost every mod I play, most of those being based on the Kingdoms expansion, has some sort of garrison script to compliment whatever is already there. Taking a city was no easy feat and I would like it to show that. There's nothing like attacking with a stack and a half or two stacks to be sure that you can capture a unique settlement with adequate defenses and losing half to three quarters of your force. I don't want to be able to walk in on a whim....

The majority of TW players here in TWC had the exact same expectations with you! Unforthunatly CA with Rome II and now with Attila has the exact opposite prospective!

**Stavroforos** · February 07, 2015, 07:54 AM

Guys, this isn't a 4th Century history simulator. It makes sense that there should be some weaknesses present, even in Constantinople, for gameplay purposes.

**Magister Militum Flavius Aetius** · February 07, 2015, 08:09 AM

The first reference to a possible sea wall is in 439.

However, the first actual reference to their construction comes in 439, when the urban prefect Cyrus of Panopolis (in sources often confused with the praetorian prefect Constantine) was ordered to repair the city walls and complete them on the seaward side.

However, they are not mentioned as extant by sources again until the 8th century, at the same time the great chain was installed. It's likely the sea walls weren't even constructed until the 600's AD. Likely after Persia and the Avars threatened the city in the 620's.