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
Of the ninety-nine castles enumerated by Mr. Pearson as belonging to
the reign of the Conqueror, at least fifty are on old sites. These are
Arundel, Berkeley, Bramber, Cambridge, Carisbrook, Chester, Clare,
Clifford, Caerleon, Coningsburgh, Dover, Durham, Dunster, Dudley, Eye,
Ewias, Guildford, Hastings, Huntingdon, Launceston, Leicester, Lincoln,
Lewes, L’wre, Marlborough, Montacute, Norwich, Oxford, Pevensey,
Pontefract, Quatford, Raleigh, Richard’s Castle, Rochester, Rockingham,
Shrewsbury, Striguil, Stafford, Stamford, Tickhill, Tonbridge,
Trematon, Tutbury, Wigmore, Windsor, Wallingford, Wareham, Warwick,
Worcester, and York. Almost as many are doubtful, and probably not more
than two or three, such as Richmond, London, and possibly Malling,
were altogether new. The fact is, that all these lists, however
valuable they may be as showing what castles were taken possession of
or re-edified or strengthened by the Normans, give no adequate idea
of the fortresses already existing in England, and omit scores of
earthworks as large and as strong as those occupied by the Normans in
England or left behind them in Normandy, of a date long before the
reign of William,—probably before the end of the tenth century. If, as
said by William of Newbury, the castles were the bones of the kingdom,
it must be admitted that the English skeleton was a very perfect
one. Every part of England, much of Scotland, and the accessible
parts of the Welsh border, were covered with strong places, which
were, no doubt, defended, and well defended, with palisades, as more
suitable to made ground than work in masonry such as was more or less
in use for ecclesiastical purposes. If, at the Conquest, no English
stronghold held out, it was not that such places were less capable of
defence than those in Normandy, but that England was broken up into
parties. Harold’s seat was too insecure and the few months of his
reign far too brief to allow his great administrative talents to come
into play; and his early death left the English without a leader. The
power of the other earls was local. There was no organised opposition.
Notwithstanding the assertion of Orderic that the English were mere
tillers of the soil, a convivial and drinking race, they by no means
submitted quietly to the Norman rule; but their efforts for freedom,
boldly devised and gallantly executed, were ill-timed and ill-combined,
and were in consequence put down in detail. Under such circumstances,
the strongholds of the country availed little. Dover, Lewes, Arundel,
Bramber, Tonbridge, Rochester, Guildford, Farnham, Wallingford, and
Berkhampstede, had their strong earthworks been held in force, would
have rendered William’s advance too imprudent to have been attempted;
and that these and other not far distant positions were well chosen
is shown by the fact that they were all adopted by the Conqueror. The
conquest of England was made possible, not by the absence of strong
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