|
Author
|
Topic: Castles along the roman road-system
|
Merlin
Senior Member
|
posted 05-18-2000 02:49 AM
  
During my work on a report about castles, cities and monasteries in switzerland, which were visited by medieval kings from 500 - 1273 A.D., I found out that there is a pattern of such places along the old roads of the roman empire. Especially the kings of Burgundy (kingdom from 888 to 1032 B.C.) seem to have placed their strongholds in this manner, to control the still important routes from Lake Geneva to the north. In later centuries, local families built even more castles right beside the old pass-ways over the Alpes or the Jura-mountains. So the existence of roman roads (if still in use) must have been a very important reason to build castles.
My question to discuss: Are there similar patterns in England, France, Italy, Spain or other parts of the roman world?------------------
|
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 05-18-2000 04:24 AM
In England the major Roman road were Royal roads in the medieval period and had a special status which protected them from encroachment. I'd have to look at this in much more detail to be absolutely sure but on the whole my impression is that royal castles often are close to Roman roads and baronial castles are not. However, this may be incidental since the Roman roads tend to link centers of population were the royal castles tend to be concentrated for political, rather than strategic, reasons.Watling Street from London to Chester has major castles at either end and a few small castles or manor houses on it route (which would be expected from a random distribution of such sites). There are three major castles on the route, two are centered in towns (Shrewsbury and Tamworth) and only one appears to be entirely strategic (Totterhoe which overlooks a point where the road cuts through the Chiltern hills).
Chester and Shrewsbury were baronial but both barons had special status as they are in the Welsh Marches and, therefore, were charged with protecting the border. Tamworth was also baronial but built by Robert de Marmion, the King's Champion, and presumably particularly loyal. Tottenhoe was a short lived castle built during the Anarchy (when the king's rule was particuarly weak) but disestablished when royal rule was resumed. London is, of course, royal. It may be then that there was a specific policy to avoid non royal castle dominating these routes.
However, as I said, this is just an initial impression and a single specific example and I would need to do rather more research to draw a firm conclusion. ------------------
And as I rode by Dalton-Hall Beneath the turrets high, A maiden on the castle-wall Was singing merrily: The Outlaw by Sir Walter Scott
http://www.castlesontheweb.com/members/philipdavis/index.html
[This message has been edited by Philip Davis (edited 05-18-2000).] |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 05-18-2000 01:46 PM
Scotland formed the most north westerly frontiers of the Roman Empire, and was never completely conquered. The country was dominated by the Romans for a comparatively short period, and the majority of their artefacts are found in the region to the south of their old boundary 'The Antonine Wall'which stretches across the neck of the central belt between the Firths of Clyde and Forth. They did make incursions through Perthshire to the north, but were forced to draw back to the south.
In Lowland areas, the distribution of castles and fortified houses is widespread, each landholder having to defend his own property, and so the country is peppered with former castle sites. However, through the hilly country which forms the Southern Uplands, the few travelways which are passable were used by the Romans for road and fort construction. The distribution of castles in these areas roughly corresponds with that of the Roman roads, however that is probably due simply to topography, since in the wider valleys, the distribution of castle sites spreads across the available land. ------------------
'Give me the groves that lofty brave,
The storms, by Castle Gordon'.
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm Gordon.
|
Levan
Moderator
|
posted 05-19-2000 01:55 AM
As far as Scotland is concerned, I agree with Gordon. Topology was by far the greatest influence in the siting of Roman, and more recent fortifications. Even the Romans were unable to build their characteristically straight roads in our area; they had to follow the main river courses, just like everyone before them and since!In respect to the placement of Roman forts. The Romans had a preference for positions alongside or facing the confluence of watercourses. There are many examples of this along the Clyde. There is evidence of Roman fortification on the site of Castle Levan at the confluence of the Levan Burn and the Clyde; it is also a superb vantage point for the confluence of Loch Long, Gare Loch and Holy Loch into the Clyde. Just a little further along the Clyde (also a Gare Loch vantage point) there was a Roman fort at Greenock - this was one the Britain's best examples of a vitrified fort - alas, demolished by the Victorians to make way for tenement flats! Another factor for the placement of Roman forts (and other conquerors for that matter) was to usurp the locations held by previous bases for political and military power. After all, you don’t want the symbolism of a previous regime to be standing alongside yours. Levan
[This message has been edited by Levan (edited 05-19-2000).] |
Levan
Moderator
|
posted 05-19-2000 02:06 AM
Just spotted it - Richard has posted recently a link to Bowes Castle in the Individual Castles Forum:
http://www.castlesontheweb.com/quest/Forum7/HTML/000254.html The linked page states that the Norman Bowes Castle was built on the foundations of the Roman fort of Lavatrae:
http://www.bowes.org.uk/village/castle/ Levan |
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 05-19-2000 03:11 AM
Another example from England. Watling street extended from London to Dover (well actually initial to Richborough but the Dover side road became the main road possible even in Roman times). This route would be a major invasion route into England from France and therefore it can expect to be well protected. There are actually only 11 castles on the 77 mile (124km)road.
These are The Tower of London, Eltham Palace, Stone, Rochester, Milton, Dayford, Tonge, Canterbury, Coldred and Dover.
The Tower, Canterbury and Dover are all major Royal Castles. Rochester, at the strategical important Medway crossing was built and held by the bishops of Rochester and Canterbury and was the site of two sieges during English civil wars.It is a powerful castle. All four places were important towns prior to castles being built and Canterbury and London are clearly more designed to secure Royal power in important cities. Dover and Rochester are strategical importantly with regards to the defence of the Realm. Stone was probably a late small towerhouse, Eltham was an important Royal palace but very lightly fortified. Milton was a probable fortified manor. Coldred and Tonge were motte and bailey earthwork castles of no great strength and Dayford has vanished and I know nothing of it. So this, the most strategical important route in southern England, does have some evidence of castles being sited to protect the route. Dover clearly is, Rochester almost certainly, Canterbury possibly although other reason may have had more influence. Coldred is sited where the road crosses the Downs so probably was, but was relatively short lived. Tonge and Bayford are close to each other at Sittingbourne where the road crosses a small river but I don't know enough to draw a conclusion about the reasons for their foundation.Of the six or seven major, strong castles of Kent three are sited on Watling Street. I personally think the evidence is equivocal and that you could argue that whilst it is clear some castles were built to protect this route it also appears that some effort was made to ensure that the route was not dominated by castles. The similar, non Roman, route from Folkstone to London has 12 or so castles overlooking it, all baronial and two at least of great strength. ------------------
And as I rode by Dalton-Hall Beneath the turrets high, A maiden on the castle-wall Was singing merrily: The Outlaw by Sir Walter Scott
http://www.castlesontheweb.com/members/philipdavis/index.html
|
Merlin
Senior Member
|
posted 05-22-2000 07:36 AM
Thank you all very much for your interesting replies.
It's possible that the roman road-system had more important effects on the building of early royal castles in France, western Germany and Switzerland, because the merovingian and carolingian kings tried to emphasize their role as successors of the roman emperors. A very typical example is the castle of Orbe:
At the point where a byroad to Besançon branched off from the major route from Geneva to the Rhine, existed a roman 'vicus' with extensive estates. The merovingian queen Brunichild lived here for some months in 614 A.D., before she was captured and brought to trial for all her intrigues. So it is very very likely that there already existed some kind of royal palace in the 7th century. I'm sure there was one in the 9th: The roman crossroads made Orbe the perfect place for meetings of the carolingian kings from the french, german and italian parts of the 'regnum francorum' (Such meetings took place here in 856, 864, 865 and 879.). Later it was a residence of the kings of Burgundy and from the 11th century in the posession of the counts of Burgundy and Montfaucon. They converted the old palace to a strong castle (2 towers remaining today).
It's very well known that the Merovingians, Carolingians and even kings of later dynasties preferred to build their palaces and castles on the ruins of old roman structures, also using the old tradition of power that was connected to such places. What about the kings of England? Are royal castles/palaces often built on earlier roman structures? I'm just curious ...Regards. Merlin. |
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 05-22-2000 12:06 PM
Well my view is that the answer is a mixed yes. Firstly there is quite a difference between castles and palaces in this context. Castles are exclusively a Norman feature in England. Therefore they all date to the 11C or later. The major royal castles are generally based in centers of population and there prodominate reason for foundation was to put the populous in awe of the new royal power. Some of these centers of population were originally Roman towns (or Roman towns established on Pre Roman centers), certainly roman material were reused and roman defenses where utilised (Not least at the Tower of London, where initally the Roman wall was part of the defenses - though later additions to the tower have all but destroyed the Roman wall). However, beyond the general recognition of the greatness of Rome (Such as the use of Romanesque architecture) there does not appear to me be any convincing evidence that the Normans were making any reference to them being the the new Rome or of having any link with the Roman emperors.My knowledge of pre conquest England is not that good (But hey, my knowledge of post conquest England ain't that good. I'm just an interested amateur). But again the Anglo-Saxon did reuse Roman sites (but some site have such important geographical reasons for their placement that they are bound to be reused) including siting palaces in some Roman sites, but other palaces are sited where there is no Roman occupation. It used to be argued that there was a positive ignoring of Roman sites by the Saxons, that somehow the sites were specifical out of bounds. But the evidence these days tends to suggest that some site were totally abandoned, others abandoned for a short periods and then utilised in a different way and some Roman site seem to have maintain a continous use (although, of course, with development and change). Once again I can't find any evidence that there was any attempt to cash in on the kudos of Rome by Anglo Saxon kings. So, in brief, royal palaces and castles are built on Roman structures in England but this does not appear to me to be a deliberate policy but just a consequence of the contingencies of the past. (Sorry about the spelling in this. My spell checker ain't working at the moment.) ------------------
And as I rode by Dalton-Hall Beneath the turrets high, A maiden on the castle-wall Was singing merrily: The Outlaw by Sir Walter Scott
http://www.castlesontheweb.com/members/philipdavis/index.html |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 05-22-2000 03:23 PM
Not in Scotland, since the Romans were not in a position north of their other barrier of Hadrians Wall to become so settled. The Roman remains that exist were military in nature, with forts, marching camps, construction camps and so on. In the area between their two walls the occupation did last a little longer, though the position was still a precarious one for them. Their military presence was felt here, though there is little or no evidence that they were settled enough to build the towns and villas that they constructed further south. As explained previously by Levan the Romans tended to have their own requirements of a site, whereas the natives and later castle builders of our medieval kings had a differing view of the qualities required.
The main royal palaces/castles were built upon volcanic outcrops at Edinburgh and Stirling, and repeated at Dunbarton just outside the former Roman frontier, (the Antonine wall terminated a mile or so east on the same shore).
I have no data suggesting that any of the other Royal sites within the Romanised areas of Scotland were once occupied by Roman works, though it must be said that since the majority of these were of earthen construction, the building of a castle on the same site could have destroyed any remains.
The former Royal Castle at Lanark, famously burnt by William Wallace was a motte and bailey very close to the Roman Road system, but not utilizing any Roman works, and the distribution of the other early medieval sites, although following the same watercourse, ie the clyde, seem to have been built on higher ground and further from the water than the Roman sites.
One possible exception is the curiosly titled tower, 'The Bower of Wandel', which stands on a rocky outcrop used for an earlier fortification. This has been variously described by writers as a motte, and a roman staging camp, used when construction of the road was ongoing. This was once a favoured hunting lodge of James V, though it has been suggested that an attractive lady resident of the area was shown the true favour. ------------------
'Give me the groves that lofty brave,
The storms, by Castle Gordon'.
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm Gordon.
| |
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
Castle Quest
