TV and film have a thing with modernising conflict to make it more recognisable to a modern viewer, and for dramatic effect. Another example of this is the 2018 version of Robin Hood, which features the titular character learning speed-shooting techniques on a Saracen bow with the express purpose of using it in action scenes in corridors and streets, according to the director. A particularly striking artistic interpretation of the Crusades is the portrayal of the Crusaders wearing body armour in the same style as flak jackets and fighting in city streets in a similar to way to modern warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

GOT keeps its medieval/fantasy aesthetic, so it isn't as extreme. I also haven't seen the series or the episode, so I can't really visualise what is happening, so my commentary will be more based on the concept of urban warfare, room-clearing, etc. in the sense that a modern military force would do.

Anachronistic Warfare

Something which needs to be made clear from the outset is that urban warfare wasn't a thing back then. In my discussions and debates on historical archery, many "pop history" enthusiasts visualise the house-to-house fighting described above, and how archers would have to shoot rapidly and be highly mobile. The thing is that most battles in medieval times were not fought in urban centres. Because of the logistics of deploying an army, it was impractical for the attacker or the defender to put the bulk of their forces into a confined space.

Conflicts therefore typically happened in one of two ways:

• Pitched battle, in which armies arranged on the field and fought a decisive battle
• Siege, in which a numerically smaller force is encircled inside the defenses

Siege, which is closer to what we're looking at, shouldn't be seen as just an army hurling rocks and climbing walls. There was a fair amount of diplomacy involved - the exchange of demands, terms of surrender, etc. The outcomes were varied. Surrender was an option. The armies might agree to wait until a specified date to see if relief would arrive - in this case, the besieges might not have the force to assault the defenses or feel that it isn't worthwhile. Or if the defenders feel confident, they fight it out.

Terms of Surrender

It's important here to go into more detail about who was defending these forts. We often see soldiers and guards and assume they're just arrow fodder. However, these soldiers were typically conscripted and paid for their service. In England, the King organised a muster in each county and levied the able men as needed, as bowmen or lancemen, with other stipulations in their contract on the equipment they were to receive in their service, as well as pay. The contract would be written on parchment, and torn with a clear edge so that the levied soldier kept a piece and could match it to the other half. Some of these levied soldiers served in field armies, others were contracted to serve in garrisons.

Part of the contract's clause would be what would happen in the event of a siege. In short, the contract obligated the King to relieve the garrison within a certain period of time. If this time elapsed, the garrison captain could negotiate their own terms, or abandon the position.

An example of this in practice is the Siege of Berwick in 1333. The English had the Scots surrounded in late March and, with the later arrival of the King's forces, assaulted the defenses with trebuchets, naval assaults and even cannon. A truce was called, and Berwick's governor negotiated that if the town was not relieved by 11th July, they would surrender. The governor's son, and eleven others, were held as hostages as a guarantee.

The Scottish army, led by Sir James Douglas, did not arrive by the 11th, but instead managed to send a cavalry force of 200 to Berwick. King Edward III did not regard this as an actual relief force (both for the pitiful size, and the argument that the relief force had to come from Scotland, whereas the cavalrymen were rushed from English territories). Considering the terms of the truce breached, Edward set up gallows outside the walls and hung the governor's son in sight of his parents, and threatened to hang 2 hostages every day.

A second truce was negotiated when the governor was relieved of command, extending the surrender to 19th July. The English promised that the surrender would involve the return of Berwick and its lands to England, and safe passage to its inhabitants and garrison. They also specified the conditions of what could be considered relief (so that 200 horsemen could not technically be called relief), those terms being: 200 Scottish men-at-arms fighting their way through the entire English army of ~10,000 into Berwick, the Scottish army reach and cross a specific part of the River Tweed, or the defeat of the English army in open battle on Scottish soil.

Douglas' force arrived, was soundly defeated, and the Berwick garrison surrendered on the 20th according to the terms negotiated.

Moving elsewhere, if we look at the Siege of Jerusalem in 1187 (depicted in the film Kingdom of Heaven), the defending commander, Balian of Ibelin, negotiated the terms of surrender with Saladin. Saladin demanded unconditional surrender, while Balian threatened to destroy all the holy places in the city and massacre the Muslims in the city. They negotiated on the payment of ransom for the release of the Crusaders, and Balian agreed to surrender Jerusalem under these terms.

So...did they use Breach & Clear tactics?

After that long tangent, you might be wondering what the entire point is. The thing to keep in mind is that fighting in towns, cities and inside the castle walls was avoided as much as possible. It was bloody and costly in lives, ruining both the defender and the attacker. It was more likely that the garrison would negotiate a surrender, or after the assault began, be forced to negotiate a surrender. If the castle walls were breached, the attackers didn't need to assault the keep and kill every single defender. At some point, the garrison commander will call a truce and end the hostilities, especially if it meant ensuring the survival of his people. Fighting to the last man would be seldom the case.

So when attackers got past the walls, they didn't need to clear each house as would be the case in modern war. The people inside the houses weren't soldiers or guerillas; they were civilians to be captured or slaughtered. The defending forces would likely retreat to the next defensive position, such as an inner wall or keep, and the town abandoned while its inhabitants took shelter inside. At some point, the commander is going to realise that they have no chance of winning or being relieved.

You simply didn't need a special forces unit specialised in room-clearing and CQC to fight in medieval warfare.