Mediæval Military Architecture in England, Volume 1 (of 2)Clark, George Thomas
History
Mediæval Military Architecture in England, Volume 1 (of 2)
Clark, George Thomas
Architecture -- England; Architecture, Medieval; Military architecture
In considering the limited and very inconvenient accommodation afforded
by a Norman keep, it should be remembered that it was not meant for
a residence, save during an actual siege, and that at such times it
often only received the baron’s armed tenants, and not his mercenaries.
Indeed, the builders of some of these keeps seem to have mistrusted
their own troops as much as they feared those of the enemy. The
staircases and galleries are often contrived quite as much to check
free communication between the several parts of the building as between
its inside and its outside. Further, the excessive jealousy in guarding
the entrance, the multiplied doors, the steep and winding staircases,
the sharp turns in the passages, although they helped to keep out an
enemy, or, if he got in, placed him at a disadvantage, also rendered
impracticable the rapid re-entry of the garrison, so that if the court
or outer ward were taken by assault, the defenders had scant time
to retire into the keep, which was thus liable to a _coup de main_.
Otherwise, with a sufficient and faithful garrison, and ample provision
and military stores, a Norman rectangular keep was almost impregnable,
so great was its passive strength. Its windows were too small or too
high for their shutters to be reached by fire-balls, and its walls
were too thick to be breached or mined, if properly defended from the
summit. This, indeed, was the true method of defence. An ordinary loop
in a thick wall, however widely splayed, admitted of but little scope
for an archer, or space to draw his bow. The lower loops were entirely
for air, not for defence. Higher up, with larger windows, a bow could
be used with advantage, but there were no flanking defences, for the
angles had no considerable projection, and the shoulders, or lateral
faces of the pilasters, were not pierced. With military engines for
throwing heavy stones and masses of rock from the roof much might
have been effected, but in the early keeps this was not contemplated,
and probably not to any great extent in the later ones. An arrow shot
from a battlement 50 feet or 70 feet high would lose some of its force
in the descent. Of the siege of Rochester certain particulars are on
record, and the account of the operations of the besiegers is confirmed
by the evidence afforded by the existing keep. Rochester keep stands
but 10 feet or 12 feet from the south-east angle of the outer wall, the
angle of the keep corresponding with that of the wall. The angle of
the wall and part of the adjacent curtain have evidently been removed
and rebuilt, with the capping tower, in a later style. Opposite and
behind this newer work, the lower part of the angle of the keep has
also, at some remote time, fallen away, and with it a few yards of the
adjacent sides. These parts have been rebuilt in a rude and slovenly
manner, and the junction of the old and new work is very evident. This
keep was built about 1130, and besieged by King John for three months
in 1215.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account