 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
 Castle Quest
 School Projects
 castle style comparisons
|
| next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: castle style comparisons |
|
gretak Member |
posted 04-30-2000 05:01 PM
 
I am currently working on a research paper for English class. I'm trying to decide what European country built the best overall castles based upon superior feudal defense structure, the nicest ornamental architecture, and healthiest general living conditions. I am sixteen years old but this is an honors course. I've already read your comparisons between France and England architecture and anything more like that would be helpful. Thanks for everything and I hope to hear from you soon! |
|
wurdsmiff unregistered |
posted 05-01-2000 03:13 PM
Firstly my apologies if parts of this answer seem a little obvious or below your level of knowledge, however you have said that you are studying English, and I am not aware how much castle knowledge you ( or your tutors)have. To go into the pros and cons of each style of castle, and the relative merits of castle design in different nations then come to a decision on the questions you ask is well nigh an impossible task. The answers to the questions you pose are for us all a matter of opinion, and so long as you can justify your answer with reasoned argument then you should gain credit. There is no absolute answer to your questions, as I'm sure you know, and this is reflected by the level of education you have reached. However a few pointers to think about. Define 'best, nicest, and healthiest'- what measure are you going to use to decide. Is best the country which has the greatest numbers of castles which were considered to be impregnable? Remember that era is also a matter to consider here. The effectiveness of a castles defences would be measured by the ability of those within to defend themselves against attack, and the means of defense necessary would be determined by the weaponry available to the attacker. As Weaponry developed so did the architecture of castles, as it had to be adapted to meet new needs. So it follows that a once impregnable castle may not have been impregnable after the development of gunpowder, for instance. My feeling is that this would really be a question to be directed toward individual sites, rather than nations 'Nicest', a matter of taste surely, do the many turretted castles and beautiful castles of France meet your taste, or is it a scenic backdrop with ruined castle of obvious strength and ruggedness typical of Scotland and Ireland you are looking for? Do you prefer the great defensive piles of the fortresses of England and Wales? I will add a few URLs at the end so that you can browse. Healthiest- medieval knowledge of medicine was primitive and their ability to create a healthy environment contradicted by their own waste disposal systems, which generally encouraged disease. These improved with time as comfort rather than defense became the prioity, though the positive effect on health was probably more accidental. remember that the discovery of the microbiological sciences came long after the heyday of the castle. I hope this helps in some way, but my impression is that you have a lot to think about. http://www.castlesontheweb.com/quest/Forum9/HTML/000064.html http://www.castlesontheweb.com/quest/Forum12/HTML/000093.html
------------------ Gordon. |
|
Philip Davis unregistered |
posted 05-02-2000 04:52 AM
Oh if you insist. Actually I think Savoy has presented a clear and well argued case with which I find no fault beyond it's basic premise that the original question could have an answer. I agree with wurdsmiff that the answer to the question is entirely subjective. Savoy has produced a wonderful, subjective, answer. Certainly looking at castle today few english castles match those of France and those that do are royal. (The situation in the medieval period was different although if I accept that we are talking about non-royal castles then the weakness of the French king meant that non-royal castles in France were stronger than the equivalent English castles. However, I do feel defining feudal to mean non-royal is very dubious although I see where Savoy is coming from. - Perhaps gretak will let us known what feudal means in the context of the research paper). I also hope that Zanarchy, Ted, Levan and Marko will argue the case for their various countries. The case for England lies with the 11C and 12C Norman castles. These, though derived from French models, were outstanding buildings of their time. The great royal castle the Tower of London was both a strong defense and a grand palace on a scale previously not seen. Norwich has wonderful blind arcading decoration to show it's palacial function, as does the nearby baronial castle at Castle Rising. The greatest defensive castle of the late 12C in western europe was, arguably, the royal castle at Dover. On a smaller scale the chevroned arch that is a feature of the great hall of the relatively small baronial castle at Castle Hedingham is an outstanding example of secular Norman architecture. I'm afraid I've not argued my case as eloquently as Savoy but I'll give you the following links so that you can see pictures to help you make a judgement. ------------------ |
|
Merlin Senior Member |
posted 05-02-2000 05:52 AM
Sorry guys, but I think this discussion is a bit absurd. It does'nt make any sense to compare the castles of different nations or states (as they are defined today), because medieval kingdoms so often changed their appearance and borders. You also have to consider that the size and architecture of a castle depends a lot on its location and the reason why it was built. You can find realy big castles not only in France, England or Germany, but also in Spain, Italy, eastern Europe or even in Skandinavia. Not to forget the realy big and impressive ruins of the crusader-castles in the 'holy land'. As I am swiss, I also have to mention the three-castle-system of Bellinzona, no doubt one of the biggest and most beautiful fortresses of the world. It's history reaches back to the roman Empire, later it was in the possesion of the langobardian, carolingian and german kings and emperors. The three castles and a strong connecting wall (the 'Murata') made it possible to control the whole valley and so most of the very important routes from Italy to Raetia and the german Empire. Have a look: http://www.swisscastles.ch/Tessin/bellinzona.html But it's impossible to say which 'nation' built Bellinzona, because there are italian, carolingian, german, italian and, from later centuries, even swiss elements in it. Just to think about the lines of your discussion ... Cheers - Merlin. |
|
duncan Senior Member |
posted 05-02-2000 06:21 AM
Maybe not absurd, but only subjective, and that being dependent upon ones loyaltys. |
|
wurdsmiff unregistered |
posted 05-02-2000 04:15 PM
Which would be your favourites Duncan? ------------------ Gordon. |
|
Levan Moderator |
posted 05-03-2000 01:26 AM
Here's my subjective three-halfpence-worth! From a military perspective, it's not necessarily valid to evaluate castles on an individual basis. Many castles, such as those in Wales, were built as a chain and so collectively were immensely strong. In Scotland, one of the reasons for having many small towers rather than a few large bastions was to reflect the different manner in which England and Scotland mustered their armies. England's preference was for large disciplined (Roman-style) forces, where Scotland tended more to mobile guerrilla forces. Scotland was shocked into considering an alternative to the building of a few large castles by the dire consequences of having these castles captured and then strongly garrisoned by its English enemy. The military theory behind building small castles was that they posed a high nuisance factor to an advancing army, couldn't be ignored and consumed a disproportionate amount of resources to lay to siege. Once captured, these small towers were not large enough to accommodate or protect the invading army, and again, if garrisoned, would weaken the resources available for the remainder of the advancing army. If that weren't enough, a mile or so further along the road would be yet another small tower! Considering the relatively small population of Scotland, this strategy and the castle building program associated with it had served Scotland very well. In the end, some would argue that Scotland’s independence was ‘defeated’ not so much by its military strategy or by weak defensive structures, but rather by political in-fighting, the self interests of a privileged few and the economic expedience of a union with England. In summary, ‘best’ is not just an individual castle issue, but dependent upon the context in which the castle(s) stood (in this sense, it could be argued that Scotland's castles are 'best'). This applies not only to the military perspective briefly covered above, but also to the castle’s political and geographic function too (in some cases even climatic conditions are a factor). Still, I’ve written enough for now, so I’ll jot down a few thoughts on these issues on another occasion! Levan |
|
wurdsmiff unregistered |
posted 05-03-2000 03:54 AM
A good summary for the case for Scotland. If I may elaborate slightly on the strategy. Indeed it was Robert the Bruce who first perceived the dangers of having large fortresses spread across the land, and had the majority demolished precisely for the reasons mentioned. However the initial rise in popularity of the tower house was a result of the infighting you mentioned, as the crown perceived a need to reduce the power of the great lords. The first burst of building activity occurred after the 1401 act, which took under crown control all baronies of earldoms which fell to the crown. This allowed the breaking up of these vast estates, and they were redistributed amongst lesser lords who then held their lands directly of the crown. This then diminished the power of the great nobles, providing a large number of lesser lords who to protect and display their new found wealth built tower houses. The next direct action on national strategy occurred following a second act of 1535, which obliged all landholders 'on the borders and inland' to build a barmkin, with tower if required as residence. This led to an intense building programme in the following two years. So the enemy was indeed perceived as much as within as abroad ( and England is still very much perceived as abroad !), with Scotland's independance defeated not just by the potential for economic improvement, but by the receipt of pensions from the English monarchs by Scottish nobles from the time of the reformation. A surprisingly large amount of money passed north of the border to an influential few particularily around the time of the Act of Union, as did many newly created titles. Much of this money was invested in the expansion of castles into grand mansions, and so we now have the great expansive 'castle' mansions which typify that era. It is also worth noting that a few gave up our independance for an alarmingly small reward. From my perspective small can be beautiful,the smaller houses often having a more personal touch, and I certainly agree that the distribution and numbers of castles add to the attraction, as does the scenery. However it remains a matter of personal taste which reflects the background and culture of each of us as individuals. Thank goodness for variety. ------------------ Gordon. |
|
duncan Senior Member |
posted 05-03-2000 07:17 AM
I favor the small castles or tower houses of Scotland and Ireland. The large ones do impress with their overawing influence and most stager the mind in the construction aspect. But yet they don't have the touch of the people that lived in the smaller tower houses. These famliys {Clans} depended only on them selfs to help in a time of need. This led to new ways for defending a home and farm. |
|
Levan Moderator |
posted 05-03-2000 11:49 AM
Thanks, Gordon, for your elaboration of the background to the construction of Scottish tower-houses. I have heard mention of the 1535 act before (and its requirement for land holders to build a strong tower and provide soldiers) but have so far failed to get hold of a transcription of its text. I don't suppose you are aware of a suitable source? In respect to healthy living conditions. I can't speak for other castles, but Castle Levan in Scotland (current structure started 1430 and extended 1565) was constructed with decent sanitation, a fresh water supply (together with fresh air, rarely a shortage in Scotland) and fireplaces in each room - fairly luxurious for its time. Levan |
|
wurdsmiff unregistered |
posted 05-03-2000 02:51 PM
Levan; I got the information on the 1535 act from a variety of sources,Tranter, McGibbon & Ross etc. though Chris Tabrahams book 'Scotland's Castles' was probably the most helpful in his description of the aftermath of the act. As far as transcripts of Scottish Acts of parliament go prior to the Union, Exchequer Rolls and copies of the surviving acts are I believe stored at the Scottish record Office, at HM General Register House, Edinburgh. There may be copies at the National Library of Scotland. I've no idea whether transcripts can be purchased. I can appreciate that there is no shortage of fresh air at Levan. Regarding sanitation; Although the provision of garerobes provided a disposal for waste out of the house, the potential for disease was still not appreciated, and since in many cases waste gathered just outwith the buildings, or was used as fertilizer, then contamitation spread, occasionally to water supplies. In many areas ale was the main fluid intake because the people had learned through experience that drinking water made them ill, though they still lacked the understanding as to why. Because of this they could not take effective action, and although they could take steps to avoid smells and filth, they could not avoid the spread of disease causing bacteria. As I said in my initial response, healthier living conditions were created more by accident rather than planned, and as so often, it was the wealthy who benefitted most. ------------------ Gordon. |
All times are PT (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Contact Us | Castles on the Web
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.40
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.
