|
Author
|
Topic: How much to build a castle?
|
Tritoph
Member
|
posted 11-14-99 04:47 PM
  
How much is it to build a "basic" castle? Four towers at each corner, 5 stories high keep + 1 level basement, and a workshop to the left of the keep, 3 stories high.
|
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 11-15-99 12:38 PM
How long is a piece of string?
Cost would be variable according to size of structure, local labour and material costs, design detail, features, facilities etc etc etc. Only a builder could respond with any accuracy, and even then only once he had seen what the architect proposed. I am sure that someone out there could give you the cost involved in building their castle, but it might cost you a lot more, or a lot less.
Take a look at 'food for thought'and the comments under 'School Projects Forum' in Comments and discussion.
|
Tritoph
Member
|
posted 11-15-99 08:01 PM
Thanks!
|
Gothic Builder
Senior Member
|
posted 12-19-1999 07:43 PM
Well Just guessing at the cost? Just in stone about 32.400 dollars. Own yours, Thats on my figures for the cost of stone it is here not includeing cement or labor thats just getting it there. (Limestone) That is the same that I have here and that's on a building of say 40 by 40Ft. 5 stores tall. But I doing ours at 12Ft. walls by 3Ft. and a 36 ft. by 4Ft.tower with a 22Ft. tall interance way by 2Ft. So good luck with your dream!!!
Gothic Builder |
canadab
Senior Member
|
posted 01-10-2000 02:05 PM
Is there a basic castle? If you want the exterior structure, floor and walls of unfinished stone and earth, then you can get appx 4500 sq ft of castle and tower (at 40' for towers and 30' for keep)for a pittance of around $400,000. This is a very very loose estimate. This is if you have a quarry nearby, equipment for assemblage, and a crew of 10 skilled masons, backhoe operators, laborers and an engineer (to oversee construction). Modern construction costs are a nightmare. The bulk of your money will be spent in labor. The above example will give you an unfinished hulk that looks and feels like an abandoned castle (hollow and stark). The finished product (ie liveable) will cost you another $700,000. Why so much? Custom glass, flooring for all floors in the structures, wall finishing, ceiling finishing, plumbing, electrical,septic system, heating, external finishing of the walls, "drying in" the basement, not to mention labor, oh yes,....and the ever present governmental hand outstretched for fees and permits.It's expensive... unless you choose not to use stone... very few castle were stone anyway... and choose rammed earth. Cuts costs dramatically. I am going with stone myself...personal preference.
$ Brian Canada
aka Amberein du la Anair ------------------
If you can dream it, you can make it a reality. |
duncan
Senior Member
|
posted 01-10-2000 02:22 PM
The cost of building as mentioned above varies from place to place let along state to state. Alot of facters play a part.
When you said that very few castles were stone of what were you in reference of? Early motte and baily or maybe a ring fort?------------------
Megan and Ralph
DUNCAN CASTLE |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 01-10-2000 02:41 PM
I also would be interested in the answer to that one. The vast majority of castles built post 1200ad were built of some sort of stone,
whether ashlar or rubble. Motte and baileys were certainly prolific before then, but relatively rare thereafter. Some of these used layers of stone alternated with the earth for stability, and many forts, duns and ringworks also used stone, occasionally vitrified. ------------------
'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. [This message has been edited by wurdsmiff (edited 01-10-2000).] |
canadab
Senior Member
|
posted 01-10-2000 05:00 PM
In actuality most castles were defensive structures built to solidify your hold on a territory and most hastily built at that. The ring forts, wooden barricades around a earthen and stone keep, or composites of rock, cobble, and earth. Stone quarry work to build the 'classic' castle (as seen on TV..hehe had to use the cliche') was time consuming and expensive. Only after you held a region firmly in your grasp could you build a behemoth. William the Conquerer was a prolific castle builder as was Edward I, but look at the time period 1066 +. By the time of the Norman conquest 1000's of earthen works had been built (and destroyed). Of the survivors today, the sites that are the most intact are the classic castles..built as they were on the ruins of an earthen fortification of an earlier time. I think it is therefore safe to say that stonework when compared to the whole represents a minority of the total castles built.BTW Has anyone read Michael Criton's new novel "Timeline"? It feature a pair of castles in Dordogne (Perigorde). READ THIS BOOK! The detail is wonderful. Especially the descriptions of architecture. It is also the first novel I have read that had a 4 page bibliography of references! Brian Canada
aka Amberein du la Anair
|
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 01-10-2000 05:51 PM
You are quite correct in what you say, in that you are describing motte and bailey castles built quickly to secure a hostile area, and that stone castles took time and an element of security to build. But Perhaps some more reading on the subject would be in order? Ring works, and duns or forts were ramparts and ditches built of earth and or stone, normally protecting a series of wooden huts, and perhaps a wooden hall. Keeps were a development of the stone castle era, or the motte and bailey era, though I prefer to refer to the tower atop a motte as a blockhouse or peel, to avoid confusion. As for the numbers, take a look at my site, with a list of over 300(so far) stone castles built in only about one eighth of the landmass of Scotland (2000+ confirmed sites in the whole country) and you will see what I mean. In this same area the number of motte and bailey castles are outnumbered quite considerably, indeed in Scotland there are under 300 confirmed mottes. Castles were built for a further 500 years after the demise of the era of mottes (which lasted about 50-100 years in Scotland), and did not always replace them. Not all castles were built on motte and bailey sites, and those that were are often the least intact because the motte could not support the weight of the later structure. Many stone castles did not survive simply because the stone could be re-used, and was robbed from many a site, though those that do survive still outnumber the remaining mottes. I know of no motte and bailley castle which remains intact, all that remains in the majority is the mound of the motte, and in fewer traces of the bailey. None retains the superstructure in any more than traces of wooden stumps which require archaeological investigation to reveal. Most of the above is also relevant to other countries. So you are quite wrong in much of what you say. Incidently, as I'm sure the moderator of this forum will point out, it is necessary to submit a posting only once. It should also be pointed out that we are not staff, and that our contribution is voluntary, all contributions being by members of one description or another, with the exception of 'The Scribe' whose site this is. ------------------
'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. |
canadab
Senior Member
|
posted 01-10-2000 06:01 PM
Ahhh.. to be called correct with the right hand and then clouted with the left!! Heheh. Thank you Gordon. I have read a good bit but by no means am I an authority. I misused some terminology before and accept my rebuke humbly. Still, Scotland is a fair bit rockier than the southern marches is it not?
I am nonplussed about the history lesson and am happy to read anything that adds to my own understanding. |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 01-10-2000 06:35 PM
I hope you continue to use the site fruitfully. Yes parts of Scotland are rocky, but stone of different varieties was available for castle building throughout the UK. Strange as it may seem, the 'rockier' parts tend to be in the highland areas, where stone castle building was not as prevelant, since the clan system was a little different to the feudal system in force in the rest of the country. Up north it the clan owned the land, rather than an individual, it was less well populated, and the castles were the clan administrative/judicial centres rather than providing a fortified house for the individual landowner. The south was also more likely to be attacked by hostile invasion by land, whereas much of the battling took place via the sea by galley or birlinn on the west highland coast. There the most likely source of attack came from a neighbouring clan, and the people provided the defense, and fortified centres did not require to be so numerous.------------------
'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. |
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 01-11-2000 01:13 PM
There were hundreds of motte and bailey castles built during the Norman reign in England. canadab wording suggests that thousands existed at the time of the conquest in 1066. This is true, but not in England. In England in 1066 there were several fortified towns (Wareham in Dorset is a fine example that still has it's earth ramparts) and possibly a few earthwork castles (Richards Castle in Herefordshire is a supposed preconquest site) William I and his followers built many castles, probably around a hundred, of which a suprisingly large number were of stone from the start. London, Colchester, Chepstow, Exeter all have surviving early stonework. Because these first castles were built in major towns others have long been robbed out. However during the Anarchy, the civil war between Stephan and Matilda, many earthern work castles were erected by more minor lords who both felt the need for extra security and who were not prevented from doing so. These lords did not have the funds for stone castles and they built motte and bailey, ringwork and bailey or simple ringwork castles. At Castle Acre, Norfolk, an unfortified stone hall was fortified, at this time, by the construction of a ringwork and bailey around the hall. In certain parts of England these earthwork castles exist in almost every village. The Welsh marches in particular- I have records of 260 castles in Shropshire and Herefordshire of which the majority are earthworks. An interesting addition to this is the number of roman and iron age fortifications which were reused as castles. So Burgh Castle in Norfolk had a low motte (now erroded flat) in a stone walled 4th century roman fort. A very cheap stone castle!My view is that a strong king confirming his hold on a territory actually builds very strong castles (The welsh castles of Edward I are fine examples of this, but it also true of William I) During periods of weak rule and disorder minor lords build cheap castles. The conquests of South Wales and Ireland were gradual encroucements by relatively minor lords (with royal backing) and these conquests do seem to have produced considerable numbers of earthwork castles. But I consider these 'conquests' to be authorised, limited areas of disrule, tolerated and encouraged by the English kings (whose interests were in France) and not put down by the welsh princes or irish kings who were, anyway, fighting each other. It does also have to be said that geology is an important factor. If you build a castle in a stony area the cost of quarrying is not that high (much of the cost is actually in transport). If you build in the low fens of East Anglia your much more likely to produce the massive earthworks such as at Thetford or Pleshey, not quickly built ringworks but substainly castles of earth. (both date from the time of William I) Therefore, whilst I agree with canadab that earthwork castles are the more numerous castles in England and Wales, I disagree with his rational for this being the case. A conquest requires the building of substancial castles to subdue the population and to deter others from trying to repeat the conquest. A civil war or other period of lawlessness requires the production of quick, cheap castles for protection from raids and to establish a claim to territory for when peace and law returns. My comments refer to England and Wales (and slightly to Ireland), some parts of my comments are probably more generally true (I imagine earthwork castles are more common in North Germany than in Austria) but I don't have the sources or experience to confirm this. |
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 01-11-2000 01:21 PM
My thanks to canadab for posting his posting. In repling I had to consider quite a few things I already knew if a different way. Ths has really clarified for me the difference between the political function of Royal castles, and those of other great landowners, and the castles of minor lords, which were really much more defended homes than anything else.------------------
Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them, Psychiatrists charge the rent, art therapists do the interior design and nurses clean out the garderobes!
http://www.castlesontheweb.com/members/philipdavis/index.html
|
canadab
Senior Member
|
posted 01-11-2000 08:44 PM
I am happy that you give me such credit for thought provoking. Brian Canada
------------------
If you can dream it, you can make it a reality. |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 01-12-2000 08:57 AM
Having my thoughts provoked is certainly one reason why I participate here. From a Scottish point of view, England always seemed in history to be a strong and hostile neighbour. Given Philips reply, it illustrates how insecure even the strongest nations can be. I was aware of the various interludes mentioned above, Stephen and Matilda et al, but having it illustrated by it's effects on castle building and styles is an eye opener.------------------
'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. |
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 01-13-2000 03:43 PM
A little incidental research has uncover a small mistake in my previous posting. Burgh Castle dates from the late 3rd century and not the 4th century as I stated (although it was in use during the 4th century). I appologise for this careless mistake.------------------
Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them, Psychiatrists charge the rent, art therapists do the interior design and nurses clean out the garderobes!
http://www.castlesontheweb.com/members/philipdavis/index.html
| |
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
Castle Quest
