| Forum: | Castles In General & Medieval History |
| Topic: | random thought of the day. |
|
|
|
*If HTML and/or UBB Code are enabled, this means you can use HTML and/or UBB Code in your message.
whenever I think about forts I think that they are normally larger than castles. I also think that they were built later than castles. I also associate forts with earthworks and not stoneworks. does anyone know if there's a difference? Castles had to represent the power and wealth of their owner. They were the center of the "civil" life in their area - taxes were gathered there, they were the place for jurisdiction, archive, storage... and a place for refuge in times of war. A fortress has by far not all these functions, it is just the fortification of a strategic important point and provides quarters for the troops. castles on the other hand appear to be used not only for military purposes but they also serve as residences for the upper class. the reason I was thinking about why forts were built after castles is I thought that maybe the castle focused on individual people while fortresses were built for armies. it looks like castles and knights stopped working when massive armies all working together completely overwhelmed them. [This message has been edited by bent one (edited 06-29-2005).] [This message has been edited by bent one (edited 06-29-2005).] as far as I know it does not exist, such a catalogue. But a good book on a special sort of castles all over the world and in comparison is: Castles of God: Fortified Religious Buildings of the World by Peter Harrison. ipflo Amazon.co.uk http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1843830663/qid%3D1120075358/202-5405819-5766242 CASEMATE, January 2005 Synopsisbent one I was reading some of the other forums and I began to wonder about what the difference between a fort and a castle? are there certain characteristics that designate a fortification as a castle or a fortess? I thought that they were pretty much the same thing. Maria Hm... not necessary. For example, Moldavia doesn't have a proper castle, but it does have forts in the north of the country. Their main role was that of defense (both from south and northen atacks). Merlin There are several big differences between forts an castles. The most important: Forts were built (allready by the old romans) only for miltary purposes. But castles were the fotificated houses of the nobilty and an important part of the feudal system during the middle ages. Maria Yes. The name fort is a short version of fortification, which comes from the latin words fortis (strong) and facere (to make). Actually, in french the word still means strong.
What I always thought was funny about the Moldavian forts (sometimes called fortresses)is that you had to take then in order to take the country. In 1476, the ottoman army took all Moldavia exept the north, and found it only had a lot of villages.
The Moldavian fort of Neamt (Cetatea Neamtz)is smaller than a castle (or so I thought, in fact there might be smaler castles, I don't know. It had a prison, which was called the Neagra (the Black one), and rooms for soldiers and food. More about it at http://www.neamt.ro/cmj/Cetatea_Neamt/Cetate_Eng.html Maria I guess you think forts were built later than castles because you have in mind American forts? Paul http://www.answers.com/topic/castle provides us with definitions about the difference between castles and forts.
But I go along with what Merlin said.
In his book - English Castles - Professor R.Allen Brown defines a castle as "basically a fortified residence, or a residential fortress"
I have always thought of a castle as being a fortress and stately home plus a centre of administration.
Paul.Merlin Neamt looks great, and from what I get from that homepage I think it is in fact a castle (built in the late 14th century), something similar to the emperors castles (Reichsburgen) in Germany, Switzerland and Italy or the royal english castles in Wales. Sometimes castle and fortress can't be separated as clearly as I showed it in my first answer, because many castles were changed to fortresses in post-medieval times. Neamt seems to be such a case, but still looks very much like a castle of the late middle ages. Have you ever been there, Maria? bent one so a castle has a lot more purposes than a fort.
a fort sounds like it was built specifically for military reasons. kind of like the bases we have today.
I am not sure how the knight thought about war. was he fighting to gain glory for himself or the one he was serving? if this was the case I don't think the knights worked like armies we have now where it focuses mainly on teamwork and serving your purpose to the whole. there are strength in numbers but i think that there is more strength in organized numbers. Peter Just had a look at the site Maria indicated.
Really loved the curved approach bridge to it. The site actually reminds me of one or two Welsh castles.
The study of fortifications (including castles) becomes more and more complex as you learn more. I find we have such great input on this site, that I have to keep altering my horizons regarding my viewpoints on the subject.
I am rereading Peter Harrison's excellent book from last year 'Castles of God'. And finding the subject of fortifications in North Africa fascinating. The building and the changing role of the 'Ribat'is just one such instance.
Peterbent one t seems that every civilization has built fortifications of one kind or another. it'd be great to see them all and compare them to each other or to see which civilization built the best ones.
do you think that there is a big catalog somewhere of all the worlds castles?ipflo hi
A tremendous book...well supported by some spectacular photographs.
Throughout history, great faiths have been subjected to persecution and attack from beyond the wall - literally walls, in Peter Harrison's remarkable book of the great monastery-fortresses, and church-fortresses, of the world. The fortified religious buildings of Christendom, Islam and Tibetan Buddhism are some of the most dramatic buildings of the middle ages. Though they shared a common purpose in defending the living faith from the armies of the unbeliever, they are astonishingly different from each other. Peter Harrison has spent a lifetime in scholarly pursuit of fortified religious buildings dating from a thousand years ago and more, in the Old and New Worlds, the Orient, and the Occident, ranging through New Mexico, North Africa and Tibet, though the majority are to be found in Europe. The wild, often hostile, terrain in which these fortresses were built speaks of a militant faith, and Peter Harrison's purpose is to show how and why religious establishments incorporated military architecture. He considers this unstudied subject from a uniquely wide point of view, historical, military, and architectural. Every form of religious building that received fortifications is illustrated, from the humble parish churches of the Anglo-Scottish Borders to the Potala Palace of the Dalai Lama and the Vatican. Particular features of this book are the author's photographs, taken in some of the wildest and most inaccessible parts of the world, and his own very detailed plans and illustrations of many of the buildings described. SHORTLISTED FOR THE LONGMAN-HISTORY TODAY BOOK OF THE YEAR 2005 AWARD. Dr PETER HARRISON is Research Associate, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of York. Maria Yes, I've been to Neamt. It was impressive. I'm not sure about it being a castle, I mean in all documets it is called a cetate, which comes from the latin civitas, and I think the best translation is fortress. The romanian feudal system is a bit different from the occidental one. But it is possible it was built using the model of a castle. Anyway, it was a fortress in 1450, sure enough.
Powered by:
Ultimate Bulletin Board (UltimateBB), Version 5.40
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998-1999.
