|
Author
|
Topic: Castles to defend castles?
|
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 03-20-2001 12:47 AM
I've been thinking about a few small earthwork castles that seem a little anomalous being very soon superseded by stronger masonry castles, namely Boley Hill by Rochester castle, The Dane John by Canterbury castle, The Mount by Lewes castle and possible also Ravenger's, if this was a separate castle from the The Tower of London, and the reported second castle in Lincoln. It seems to me that one of the important functions of these earthworks would have been to protect the site and materials of the masonry castle when it was vulnerable during it's construction.
However, I've never seen this idea put forward in print.What do you think of this idea, has anyone come across it before and if so where and do you have any other examples? ------------------
And the astronomyours beheldyne the constellacions of hys bryth by thare castle, and foundyn that he sholde bene wyse and curteyse, good of consaill
Secreta Secretorum Visit Castellarium Philippis
|
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 03-20-2001 03:20 AM
The ditch around Bothwell was constructed prior to the begining of the stone castle, archaological evidence shows that it was supported by a strong wooden palisade, and it is supposed was an integral part of the structure during building. When the Wars of Independance broke out in the late 13thc, only the Donjon, Prison tower, and the portion of wall between had been completed, though the ditch and palisade would have protected them.
This may be why the Donjon acquired the by-name of Valance's Tower, as opposed to Valance's Castle when the English appointed governor made it his residence. The ditch of course remains, though the castle was eventually completed to a smaller scale than originally intended, not utilizing all of the ground available within the perimeter of the ditch. The foundations unearthed at the end of the 19thc, of an intended gatehouse and latrine tower are thought never to have reached higher than they are now, construction having ceased at the outbreak of war, and never (for these towers) being resumed.
See http://www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/Val.htm
------------------
Demeure par la verite
Visit my revised web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm Gordon.
|
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 03-21-2001 12:13 AM
I'm sure that for most stone castles the way to defend the building works was to build some sort of palisade directly around the site as at Bothwell. This must be the simplest solution and the one that is easiest to manage in that you don't have to move things from one site to another. However, it does mean you can't have strong earthworks, since these would get in the way of building work. |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 03-21-2001 07:02 AM
Mmm, the ditch at Bothwell would have been quite an obstacle, particularly with the palisade. I don't see how it would have been much of an obstacle to the building, apart from the intended entrance becoming rather busy at times. Bothwell was intended to have a very large internal area, and even it it's final form had a large courtyard which could have formed the building site, perfect for guarding against theft of materials- the further on the construction the higher the walls. Materials could be transported into the site across drawbridge or ramp to the site by carts, whilst guarded access designed into the construction of ditch and palisade. Similarly Earthworks around most castles had to provide access to the site once completed, the same arrangements would apply during construction, so really all that would have been required was a few extra guards and a good traffic management system. |
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 03-21-2001 03:39 PM
Yes. As I said I'm sure that most castles were defended by palisades during building. I should have added banks and ditches. The examples I gave of castles next to castles are mainly mottes. A motte could well get in the way of building. I know you're trying to be helpful wurdsmiff but I think you're missing the point of my post. Now if you would like to expand it out to a more general discussion of how castle building sites were defended that's fine and could be very interesting but that's not what my posted question was about.The issue I'm trying to get information on here is not how castles were defended during their construction but very specifically if anyone has previously had the idea that small earthwork castles were built, at least in part, with the idea of defending closeby masonry castle building sites. Is this;
- A new idea?
- At all a sensible idea?
- If it's not sensible what are the flaws?
- Are there other examples of possible such castles?
|
AJR
Senior Member
|
posted 03-22-2001 01:40 AM
Philip,
As far as I am aware (and correct me if I'm wrong), Boley Hill in Rochester contains evidence of being used in the pre-historic era, and was re-used by the Normans who chose to erect a motte and bailey castle here. They used it as a siege castle to attack the city of Rochester. I cannot comment on any of the other places mentioned.------------------
The broken stones, the ruined walls,
'Tis few who know where hist'ry falls.
|
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 03-22-2001 04:15 AM
In my experience the proximity of earthwork castles to stone castles generally reflects the natural progression from one to another.
Whilst in many cases the stone castles was built upon the motte, there are equally many at which the two stand in close proximity.
This may well be because the motte was still in use during construction, for both domestic and security reasons, however I can agree that I have not seen the protection role being specifically mentioned in any particular case, though it would be a common sense approach.
I cannot offhand relate any other information on fortifications which were specifically built to defend a construction site,
I discussed Bothwell because it seemed relevant to your point as stated. |
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 03-22-2001 05:19 AM
I wasn't aware of a prehistoric base to Boley Hill, but the Normans certainly were happy to reuse preexisting structures. I know that there is some debate as to if the Dane John at Canterbury was ever used as a motte but that seems to be of Roman or earlier origin.
The signficance of the sites I mentioned , was that, it seems to me, the stone castle was planned from the start and the site chosen but that the earthworks were erected first, partly for all the usual castle functions but also additional to protect the stone castle building site. However, without documentation, I suppose it would not be possible to prove that this was the intent or differentiate this from the large number of castles where an earthwork castle was later superceeded by a masonry castle as the lord had the funds and inclination to do so. |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 03-22-2001 11:41 AM
It could be possible to imply, if impossible to prove, when archeological digs produced fragments of organic material which when carbon dated matched the evidence for the start date of construction on the stone site.
It is a very interesting point, and I would be very curious as to whether the archeologists wished to take it up. ------------------
Demeure par la verite
Visit my revised web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm Gordon.
|
Peter
Member
|
posted 03-22-2001 12:37 PM
I don't think this is fresh idea, but it it is not an idea that seems to have been discussed in depth.
So many stone castles still have the original earth motte within their structure.
Yet this is not really found in places like the Welsh Marches. All the places mentioned are major sites, yet not sites surrounded by Welsh, Scots or Irish trying to burn them down.
We have many instances along the Marches were partly built Mottes are burnt & destroyed before being completed. In major sites I think that it is merely a matter of extension, when the cramped conditions of the original no longer suit a Lord's status.
We all know that a motte was built as a symbol of power and refuge for an invading army. It had to be built quickly. So not all of them were built in the best of places.
In Postern 11, an article by Dewi M Edwards discussed the three close sites at Hamstead Marshall. Two of them so close, you could fire an arrow from one into another !
Never a siege castle sir, but why ?
AJR has read this article, and could also comment on its strangeness.
It is also obvious that an extention to a castle would still have the original motte for living quarters, if not for defence.
A very interesting topic. |
AJR
Senior Member
|
posted 03-23-2001 01:01 AM
My info comes from a book by John Guy called "Kent Castles". I have seen Philip's (I think they were his anyway) on John Guy's "Castles of Sussex", and it maybe that, while it is clear that it was in use at least before the Roman times, John Guy, as an "amateur" historian, may be technically incorrect. He may be indicating that rather than being prehistoric, it was only "pre-historic", ie. with its origins before historical records were started. The hyphon may give the phrase a completely different meaning. | |
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
Castle Quest
