|
Author
|
Topic: Number of castles still in existence worldwide?
|
jonathanatos
Member
|
posted 09-18-2000 05:16 PM
  
I'd like to get a good estimate of how many castles(loosely defined) are still in existence worldwide(including recognizable ruins). I'm just a bit curious. I figure there might be a few of you that have a good idea. Also, how many period-style cathedrals & abbeys do you suppose there are? Thanks.
Jonathan |
Red Dragon
Member
|
posted 09-19-2000 12:19 AM
There are over 500 hundred castles, ruins, sites in wales alone. |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 09-19-2000 11:14 AM
When does a ruin become recognizable?
Just one question which makes your question unanswerable. In short no one knows. Though there are many thousands recorded, there may be just as many unrecorded. ------------------
'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. |
jonathanatos
Member
|
posted 09-19-2000 04:53 PM
A recognizable ruin is one that is still distinguishable from rocks/terrain. I'm interested in the number estimated to be known or on record. I am fully aware there are many thousands unknown/overgrown/destroyed(not recognizable). Is there somewhere I can find estimates by region? Thanks.
JonathanHurrah Wales!
[This message has been edited by jonathanatos (edited 09-19-2000).] |
duncan
Senior Member
|
posted 09-19-2000 05:54 PM
Not counting the many types of fortified buildings around the world which does not fit the name.
What are you in reference of when you say "loosely" a Castle? A moat and Baily with rock for the inner core of its walls, a ring work that was built on rocky ground, a 18c folly, a stone farm house with a metal studded wooden door, a timber hoarding on a hill with a stone foundation, or even Stonehinge that has been called a castle? When does what you are looking for become recognizable from other forms of buildings or what is left from one that has gone back to nature?
Your criteria is far to broad for an answer and needs to be refined before any one can be of real help.
And to answer a part of your question about regions, Gordon has written a very good book plus his research over the years has helped in the writing of others about the Castles of Scotland.Ralph Duncan
DUNCAN CASTLE |
jonathanatos
Member
|
posted 09-19-2000 06:53 PM
"Loosely" is meant to provide inclusion for modern buildings (last 200years) in regions such as the U.S., those which provide little genuine fortification & built more for architectural variation, & designs that lack a few common castle design qualities.
Can we not play semantics? These questions were meant to be basic, not ambiguous thesis study topics. The question refers to those structures which are generally considered castles.
According to Gordon,there are approximately 300 in west central Scotland, Red Dragon has about 500 in Wales, & a link to this site has roughly 3000 in Belgium alone. These are good rough estimates, good information. I dont expect exact numbers. Thanks for your help.
Jonathan[This message has been edited by jonathanatos (edited 09-19-2000).] |
duncan
Senior Member
|
posted 09-20-2000 06:04 AM
If you are only looking for published numbers then here are a few more,
Philip Davis has over 598 in Wales and 2378 in England.
Castles of Wales site has over 500 in that country alone.
There are hundreds of sites on the web and i suspect that some of the names are duplicated on the many lists. There is also a problem in counting from one country to another due to the many names a castle may have. Let alone the age old question of "what is a castle".
|
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 09-20-2000 07:19 AM
The only way you could get an answer which satisfies you would be to search through the castle collections link, and a few others and estimate the total yourself. Even then you would miss those which are not listed. As for my 300, my list is now approaching 340, though given your criteria, I should point out that of these, there are about 230 with no discernable remains. The same applies to most lists of castle sites, Philips list for instance will have much more than 50% of entries of which there are no remains-excluding them from your list. Your 'loose'definition brings into play many other factors also. If you wish to include unfortified buildings carrying the title castle, then I should point out that most british lists, including those I have been involved in and Philips, excluded many hundreds of victorian and georgian mansions. These remain uncounted though off the top of my head and without further research I could easily double my list.
Before you can count them you have to list them, and having some experience in this field I can assure you that deciding what to include and what to omit, even on the widest criteria, is no simple task. Take my word on it.
Incidently, the totals for Scotland including those with no remains, and excluding non fortified structures, now stands just short of 2000. Again this does not include mottes,ringworks, brochs, duns or hillforts, which in wider definitions could be included.------------------
'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 09-20-2000).] |
jonathanatos
Member
|
posted 09-20-2000 11:09 AM
This is great information, wurdsmiff & Duncan. Are Victorian & Georgian mansions sometimes considered castles to make them more marketable for tourism, or do they perhaps have a few design qualities normally assigned to castles (some of both I guess)?
Are those other items you listed(mottes, brochs, ringworks, duns, hillforts, etc) outposts? How are these defined or where could I find more specifics about them? This is very interesting info. Thanks for your help. Are Gordon & Duncan the site designers? Great site. Thanks again.
Jonathan |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 09-20-2000 02:48 PM
The debate on what gains classification as a castle has gone on for long and weary, and I shall not re-enter it here. However the buildings to which I referred were simply mansion houses built by the wealthy, and often given the title castle to provide a romantic feel, and improve the status of the house and it's address.Superficially some of them have architecture which resembles that of castles. However the definition is varied.
Go to http://www.castlesontheweb.com/quest/Forum6/HTML/000020.html
for a flavour of the debate. (sorry guys)
For information on motte and bailey castles (and more), go to http://www.castlesontheweb.com/quest/Forum9/HTML/000139.html
Ringworks could be described as variation on mottes, having a ditch and rampart surrounding the whole, though without a motte.
Brochs are double shelled stone towers built in ancient times in Scotland, used as bolt holes for the community when threatened.
Duns are ancient hillforts of the dark ages and beyond.
Check out the glossary linked at the foot of the page, and read some of the old mails.
Duncan and I are simply members who have been given a much debated title, and facilitate the smooth passage of data, as are Levan and Philip Davis. castles On The Web was set up and designed by The Scribe, CQ is a part of that. Follow the link to the Introduction at the foot of the page. Indeed check out all the links, there's a lot more to castles and Castle Quest than you think.
Go forth and enjoy. ------------------
'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 09-20-2000).] |
Merlin
Senior Member
|
posted 09-21-2000 05:05 AM
I could estimate the number of "still recognizable" castles in Switzerland, but only the medieval ones. I'm sorry, but your question doesn't make much sense to me. If you count everything as a castle that anyone ever named a castle, even buildings of our century, then no answer is possible. Because everyone can name his or her luxurious built mansion or villa a 'castle' these days.
But if you define a castle as a medieval structure with specified functions (such as fortification, representation, control over an area or a strategical important point, mostly connected with legal rights over fields, woods, villages, people etc.), then you won't find any castles in the U.S. or in the last 200 years.Merlin |
duncan
Senior Member
|
posted 09-21-2000 05:35 AM
What about the castles that have been brought over to the US from other countrys? If they were Castles where they were built why are they not now?
The area that most castles helped to control was rather small due to the size of the population in and around the villages.
Provanhall in Scotland watched over it's own farm lands. I'm sure not as big or grand as what you have in your country, but none the less a castle. The UK has many more of these small ones then the huge and i wonder if all of yours have disapeared or if they have not been found.
I think of a castle as being built for defence and at the very least utilizing 3 of the major items that are found in all castle designs. My thoughts are that a folly or a house with a cute name does not constitute a true castle.
Can a real castle be built today? O' yes! If it is built with the same materials and in much the same ways as they were ages ago. After all, every castle had to be born at some time.[This message has been edited by duncan (edited 09-21-2000).] |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 09-21-2000 02:36 PM
....And in some areas of the world the natives remain distinctly hostile, so the defensive motive in construction remains valid.------------------
'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. |
Merlin
Senior Member
|
posted 09-22-2000 04:15 AM
Ok, ok.I think we've got a little language problem here. In german, there are the two words, BURG and SCHLOSS, that can be translated in english as 'castle'. A BURG is 'per definitionem' a medieval structure with fortifications, a symbol of feudalism. A SCHLOSS is a castle with representative but no military functions. There are many castles that once have been a BURG but are a SCHLOSS now, because they've been changed or rebuilded in later centuries. In my opinion, you can't build a real BURG-castle today, because medieval-styled fortification would be just for show, the building wouldn't be connected to any feudal rights, etc. I mean, you could build any building that looks like a BURG, but it would be not more real than every Disney castle for Snowhite. So it would be a SCHLOSS-castle. The building of such structures didn't end with the middleages, they even survived the fall of feudalism and everyone is free to build himself such a thing as soon as he's got the money for it, in every architectural style he likes, even a medieval one. To be honest, this type of buildings do not interest me very much...
Looking forward to hear your reservations: Merlin |
duncan
Senior Member
|
posted 09-22-2000 05:52 AM
Let me try to understand this, a castle is not a castle when it's political or military function is over? Leven's castle has the merlons blocked in to form a rampart, is it now a schloss?
Does it not still protect the people who live there, so isn't its function as a castle still intact?
I try to respect every ones opinion and i agree that language can be a problem at times.
For the most part the castles being built today are follys, {a word from the 17th and 18th cen.} which for the most part only look like a castle on the out side.[This message has been edited by duncan (edited 10-12-2000).] |
Merlin
Senior Member
|
posted 09-22-2000 07:31 AM
Well, sometimes it's very hard to tell the difference, the line between CASTLE and SCHLOSS can't be drawn too clearly. But only with those castles, that realy had some of the functions mentioned above in medieval times!
If you build a medieval-styled fortification today on any hill in Scotland or elsewhere, it makes, in the view of a historian, no sense at all: Because there is no need for this kind of protection today, and also because nothing would make a difference between your 'castle' and any other house - only the architecture.
So what I tried to say is that a BURG cannot be defined just by it's architecture. I mean, it's the same thing as if you would build an antique-styled greek temple today and make no difference between this new and the old ones that once had a religious function.Merlin |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 09-22-2000 02:29 PM
Gentlemen, there are cultural differences in what defines a castle, as well as international differences. There are also individual interpretations. We all have our own opinions, and we all have the right to hold those and to adapt them as our scope of interest widens. The important thing is that we all have to accept that these differences exist, and that despite many megabites having been used up on this topic, we still have never come to a definitive statement upon which we can all agree.(but can we?- a challenge!)
I personally can see the force in both arguments, though my interest lies in fortified structures.
The definitions given by Merlin would certainly fit with definitions in many european countries, though would indeed exempt many of the fortified houses of Scotland, Ireland, and northern England. However, we have a much wider membership which extends beyond Europe, and although Duncan tends toward the Scottish definition, adapted by eliminating restrictions of certain eras, generally the term castle describes a wider range of structures when taken in a world wide sense.
Burg and Scloss are quite specific terms in German, which roughly coincide with Castle and mansion as defined in Britain with the exceptions mentioned, however they do not translate that well. Generally speaking the castles of America and Canada, and a few other places, are quite different entities, and would be defined in all but name as mansions in the UK, excepting those translocated. However, we are a world wide forum, and have to work with the differences
between cultures, and accept that the interest here is often in structures which are outwith our personal interest. the important things, as has been said before are the castles, whatever that may mean. We will have to live with our differences, since none of us can change our educational backgrounds, though we can extend our understanding. Having said that , debate is the spice of Castle Quest.------------------
'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 09-22-2000).] |
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 09-24-2000 09:51 AM
A few quick points;The definitons of what is a castle is not a semantic argument. It is serious matter and my belief is that any definition that does not include private ownership and defensive features is bogus. I'm quite clear that many american castles are no more castles than The Castle Inn is. Actually most castles in England and Wales do have some remains although these remains are often purely earthworks which would look like grassy mounds (which can look much like other natural or artifical mounds to the unexpert eye - and some sites are the matter of debate to the tutored eye). I would guess that only about 10% of English and Welsh castles have been completely lost. Despite Wales being called the land of castles the density of Castles in England and Wales is relatively low compaired with Western Europe. Germany may have had upto 50,000 castles and France nearly as many, how many of these survive I have no idea. Japan has a limited number of castles (since building of castles was highly controlled). But what is the count of castles in India? During the various periods of anarchy in Chinese history were castles built, do any survive? Finally there are modern castles. The drug barons of world live in fortified sites (you could even make an argument that some such barons run feudal states), wealth paranoics (such as some american survialists) also build private fortified houses designed to keep more than just run of the mill thieves out of the house. Not suprisingly the details of these such properties tends to be very difficult to obtain. As a final answer to the original question, recongising the answer has no value what so ever, my guess of the number of private fortified residences which exist in whole or part in the world would be somewhere between 100,000 to 1,000,000. ------------------
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 |
jonathanatos
Member
|
posted 09-24-2000 04:43 PM
Semantics do, in fact, define meanings and so defining castles IS a semantics argument. My broad querie was just that, broad and just how serious the issue is depends on how serious one takes it.
This evolved side discussion, however, is much more interesting than the original question. |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 09-25-2000 02:07 PM
Jonathon, these old debates may also be of interest. http://www.castlesontheweb.com/quest/Forum12/HTML/000054.html http://www.castlesontheweb.com/quest/Forum6/HTML/000021.html
They throw up many points which should stimulate your interest even further, and highlights the diversity of interpretation.
You will also find that my personal preference as to definition is similar to that offered by Philip, though the interest stimulated by this web site is of much wider variety.As a result I'm not confident at all that such a wide ranging definition could be found, and that was the point of my challenge. Whatever phrase was to be offered as a definition, it could not overcome the cultural interpretations laid down by the history of different nations, and could not describe the primary purpose of the castle in Europe, an integral part of the definition in this part of the world. To even the non enthusiast castle means defence and conjures up images of siege and knights in armour.
We at CQ live with the differences, and welcome all to indulge their interest in castles, in all their varied forms and definitons.
------------------
'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 09-25-2000).] |
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 09-26-2000 03:27 AM
jonathanatos is quite right about semantics. I was assuming that he was using the common but incorrect defination of semantics to mean wordplay. The definition of what a castle is has many difficulties, mainly because the factors that limit the definition are not simple but sliding scales. Take defense as an example, this can slide from no defense (unlocked doors) to completely defensive with passive and active defensive features. putting a lock on a door is a defensive feature but of such weakness as to not justify calling such a house a castle, putting a moat around a house however becomes a more important and difficult issue. The medieval definition was the existence of crenellations, and the implied wallwalk that goes along with crenellation (the existence of a wall walk implies a wall of a least 3 foot thickness).
Another sliding scale factor is size and some authors don't consider smaller properties to be castles. A 20th century example might show the limits of this. A concrete pill box, such as the nice example in the grounds of Bodium castle, is a highly defensive structure but much to small to be a castle. Some authors sub divided castles from the smaller fortified manor house but at what size does this occur? Some motte and bailey castle clearly had much less living space than many fortified manors but 11th century houses were much smaller than the 14th century social equivalents (ie A large 11th house would only be a medium 14th house) so size is also affected by sliding scales of time and national wealth.
Even private ownership (an important factor in my definition of what a castle is) is not a clear matter. Under the feudal system all land ultimately belonged to the king and private baronial castle could be and were repossessed, and the question of when were royal castle the private possessions of the king or the possessions of the state is one that also arises.
A final factor is social class. Most definitions of what a castle is include something on the lines of it being the home of a lord (Lord being a scale from king to ???). Thus the strong house of a cattle thief such as the one at the old Roman fort at Housesteads, although much larger in area than many barons castles would never be a castle. Some vicar's pele towers are comparable in size to scottish baronial castles. The title castle is given to some large houses of aristocrats just to show the status of the owner. I suppose american castles might justify the title if americans admitted to having an aristocracy.------------------
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 |
jonathanatos
Member
|
posted 09-26-2000 06:41 PM
Wurdsmiff, the links you provided to the previous conversations were much enjoyed & rather enlightening. Your web page & Philip Davis' were great to see as well.
I was further wondering that if one were to design a 'home', modern, but in a castle style, & build great walls(with a security alarm system to defend against intruders)& were to include arrow holes(pardon my vocab ignorance-arrow loops?), though they be merely for design purposes, would it not qualify categorically? Using defence & style as the primary qualifications, it seems as though it might. The authenticity could certainly be questioned, but perhaps the definition deserves evolution. Looking into the future hundreds of years, people might look back with difficulty distiguishing the original & authentic with the facsimile, even as we now lump the earlier with the later & more manorly estates. [This message has been edited by jonathanatos (edited 09-26-2000).] |
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 09-27-2000 03:09 AM
Since the definition of what a castle is is so vague you could build almost anything, put some battlements on it and some would call it a castle or you could build an exact replica of a medieval castle and some would say it was not a castle. (Actually the very popular Castel Coch -see http://www.castlegate.net/castles/coch/index.htm is basically such a construction and Lise Hull lists it as a castle whereas Bolsover Castle - http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/tpau/projects/bcd/ , which is a 17thC example of the same thing is called a mock castle.)
Personally I would build a copy of an actually medieval castle with modern materials and modern methods (although there would be much value to doing a historical reconstruction to expand our knowledge of medival building techiques - but the cost would be massive) and adapt my living to suit the building and not care a lot if the building was called Castle Davis or 1075 High St.------------------
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 09-27-2000 04:29 AM
I would tend toward the argument that your defensive features would require to be functional, since defence was the primary motive in castle construction. There are many many buildings which could qualify simply on architectural style, carrying a few castle type features purely as decoration such as arrow loops and crenellations(without a wall walk), even machicolations(used as drainage from the roof), but which lack true defensive intent, since other features undermine their defensive integrity(thin walls and large windows). I am thinking here of an architectural style we have here known as Scots Baronial - common in the 'castles' of the industrial aristocracy of years past.
They are beautiful buildings which allude to a more romantic version of castle style, but which despite modern security systems are prone to being vulnerable to intruders, particularily in urban areas.
I do however agree that it is possible to build a castle nowadays, and have been convinced that it may be necessary in some parts of the world due to almost anarchic situations where the local constabulary are less than effective. These structures are not necessarily built by paranoics as Philip suggested, but by people who have genuine need to protect their property from hostile natives when society is failing to do so.
There are a few modern homes dotted around Scotland which boast the most intense high tech security systems,however the popular perception of these is of 'fortress' like homes, and no one would perceive them as being castles.However it is difficult to draw the line when dealing with houses of the transitional period when the need for defence declined and that of comfort increased.In such cases each site has to be looked at on it's own merits.------------------
'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. |
duncan
Senior Member
|
posted 09-27-2000 06:28 AM
Gentlemen
I have read an extensive Definition of "what is a castle" and only wish that my pc and scanner were able to give it to you. I'll work on the problem and post as soon as i can. For now i'd like to tell you in paraphrase form what this early writer had to say about the question.
#1 A fortified dwelling intended for purposes of residence and defence.
#2 To exclude the military buildings that were not intended for residence. ie Those built for small garrisons as in a mural tower on a Roman wall or those on the enceinte wall of the Tower of London. Or i presume a block house, of todays armys.
#3 A castle must, however complicated in its internal arrangements, be a unit in its self. It may exist inside of a town or adhering to the walls but must be able to stand on it's own.
# 4 With regard to proprietoship, it may belong to an individual {as many have over the ages} or to the government.
I hope that this may being us alittle closer to a set of standards for our definition of "what is a castle". |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 09-29-2000 12:30 PM
Plantagenet Somerset Fry defines a castle (within a very long discussion on the matter), as 'a properly fortified military residence'. He clarifies by explaining that since each knight owed military service to his superior, then the castle as his defended residence has a military function. I would agree however with Duncan's author in his exclusion of purely military structures. Castles also had some form of domestic function, being a family home to someone, whether the king or a lesser lord or landowner, although not necessarily on a continuous basis.
Oxford Popular English Dictionary- castle 'large fortified residence'
------------------
'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 09-29-2000).] |
Merlin
Senior Member
|
posted 10-03-2000 07:32 AM
Looks like most of us agree on the point that 'fortification' and 'residence' are the most important functions of a castle. Let me make just one other approach and have a look at the intentions of the people who builded castles in medieval times:1) They needed a save place for their households in times of war or revolt. 2) They needed an architectural symbol for their social AND political (= feudal) status (representing just personal knighthood or even the power of a whole kingdom - not just the amount of money they had!). 3) They needed a protected administrative centre for the lands that either belonged to them directly or over which they had the right to judge and rule (although this landmark could indeed be very small). 4) Very often they also needed a place from where they could control an important road, a bridge, a pass or part of a frontier. In my opinion, nobody builds a castle these days with all four intentions in mind, or at least the first three. (Sorry that I'm not yet satisfied - but I think the whole discussion very interesting...) Merlin |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 10-03-2000 12:22 PM
No need to apologize Merlin, and yes this is always an interesting topic when ever it crops up.
The points I would add to yours would be these;
In order to include some buildings which in the UK are most definately castles, the matter of scale should be accounted for. Many castles are comparitively small, and the estates for which they were the administrative centre often no larger than small farms. Even the modern household has an administrative function.
Many castle/land owners had not even received the acolade of knighthood.
Power and wealth in some nations was not necessarily a monetary matter, manpower, influence and landholding denoted wealth, particularily in countries which did not have much free money, rents etc often paid in goods or service (medieval Scotland in some periods is a good example).------------------
Demeure par la verite
- Mason family motto.
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm Gordon.
|
Merlin
Senior Member
|
posted 10-05-2000 05:24 AM
I agree.I only mentioned 'money' in my definition to exclude a special type of modern 'castles', buildt with the only intention to represent a large bank account. I'm also aware that knighthood wasn't a condition for owning a castle. But at least in my area, one had to be a nobleman, at least more than an ordinary farmer, to have the right to build a castle (until about 900 AD, castlebuilding in Germany and France was the exclusive right of the king). Merlin
|
miley#1fan
Member
|
posted 05-07-2008 11:19 AM
i would like 2 know promptley how many and were they located |
miley#1fan
Member
|
posted 05-07-2008 11:27 AM
i would like 2 know promptley how many castles there are and were they are located. |
Queuxgropius
Senior Member
|
posted 05-09-2008 04:51 PM
Well, I was pleased to see this discussion pop up again , since I had never read the thread originally.
As for the topic, I have come across these bits of information at various times although how accurate these estimates is a good question.
Scotland, according to one source, has 714 surviving castles;Poland-450, Belgium-900 and Spain-2,500. |
nikos777
Member
|
posted 04-26-2011 02:47 AM
In Rhodes island Greece there is the castle in the old city for than 1500 years! fantastic to see it still today | |
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
Castle Quest
