>>280284412
I agreed with you at first, but the more I think about it the more I think the other anon is right.
Conventionional wisdom would suggest destroying the fort entirely is the best option, but in these specific circumstances the retarded idea to keep the fortress around may beat out conventional wisdom.
What the rebels have going for them is the sheer intensity of their hatred of the Hapsburg oppressors. It's almost like Wolfram gifted them this, their greatest weapon. We saw how desperate they were to climb over sacrificial corpses to slaughter the garrison soldiers without mercy.
If Leopold wants to siege the fortress completely, he will have to march his army through miles and miles of murderous Swiss territory. Even with a great show of force and proper weapons, I think the sheer hatred would fuel a relentless resistance that would make every mile marched a bloody one. Then imagine trying to set up a camp on the Swiss side to siege the fortress, the army would be a sitting duck for constant guerrilla raids.
Keeping the fortress around gives the rebels a defensible base of operations, control of traffic coming from the Italian side and sends a message to outside powers that they can do more than just burn and pillage. This last benefit could help them convince outside powers like Bavaria or France to lend military aid to their cause by displaying a certain degree of competence.
The most important factor that makes this scenario work is the sheer amount of bloodlust the mountain cantons feel towards the Hapsburgs. As long as this makes travel through their territory too costly, the fort cannot be fully sieged and supplies can be relied upon from the Swiss side, while the Italian side is defended.
