Mediæval Military Architecture in England, Volume 1 (of 2) — John Shaqi
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
It is further to be remarked that moated mounds corresponding precisely
in pattern to those in England, are very numerous in Normandy. In
size they vary within much the same limits. All have or had a proper
ditch, some, as Briquessart and Des Olivets, stand in the centre of
the court, some at one end, others on the edge. The court is sometimes
circular, most commonly oblong, very rarely indeed rectangular. The
outer enclosures have their ditches, which communicate with those of
the inner defences. M. de Caumont gives a list of fifty-four of these
mounds, within a radius of sixty miles from Caen, and since he wrote
many more have been observed. These also were, from an early period,
the seats of great landowners, and from very many of them came the
knights and barons who accompanied William to England, and there
settled in posts very similar. Sir F. Palgrave gives a list of 131 of
these fortified residences in the Cotentin, the Avranchin, and the
Bessin, which includes only six of those mentioned by de Caumont. A
large number of those earthworks seem never to have had, at any time,
defences of masonry. Others, upon the mounds, had Norman shell keeps.
Besides the British theory, these mounds have been claimed as
sepulchral. It is of course possible that such mounds as Arundel
or Marlborough may have been originally sepulchral, and therefore
older than their defensive additions. To few if any has the crucial
experiment of opening them been applied; but this is not a very
probable explanation, and could certainly not be applied to those
mounds as a class. Among many other reasons for taking this view, it
may be observed that sepulchral mounds are always artificial, whereas
moated mounds are often natural, and still more frequently partly
so. No one could suppose Hawarden, or Dunster, or Montacute, to be
sepulchres, and yet these are as much moated mounds as Arundel and
Tonbridge. Moreover, sepulchral mounds are not often placed where
a defensive work is obviously needed, and most rude nations are
superstitious, and would object to dwell upon or around a grave. The
Tynewald in Man, Cwichelmsley Knowe in Berkshire, and a work upon
the Clyde in Lanarkshire, are the only known sepulchral mounds which
have been employed for other purposes, and of these the two former
are judicial, not residential. The barrows round York, though smaller
than most burhs, are big enough to have carried residences, but do not
appear to have been so employed. Moreover, the common testimony of the
country has generally given to the moated mounds some name, such as
Castle Hill or Burh, indicative of their military origin.
It has been observed that moated mounds are usually near the parish
church. This might be expected, since the parish, like the manor, was
usually a private estate, and the church was originally provided by the
lord for the accommodation of his tenants and himself.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account