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
Nor was the postponement very serious, for the native fortresses, if
well manned, were strong, at least for a limited time. The attacks of
the Danes upon Towcester, Bedford, and Wigmore are on record; and yet
these, of all of which the earthworks remain, were not burhs of the
first class, and certainly would not contain a hundred men,—or, even
if the base-court were occupied, more than thrice that number,—and the
Danish army could scarcely be less than ten times as numerous. The fact
is, however, that such a mound as Arundel or Tonbridge, palisaded,
could be held for a short time by three or four score of resolute men
against a sharp attack from any number, armed as men were armed in the
tenth and eleventh centuries. No doubt, towers of masonry were more
secure, because less dependent upon the vigilance of the garrison, less
obnoxious to fire, and less liable to be taken by surprise. But the
Normans were stout soldiers, well disciplined, and could from the first
expect no quarter from the insurgent English.
Among the castles ordered by William to be built, one of the most
important was York. The order was given in the summer of 1068; and it
is known that the new castle was to be upon the old English site, which
contained a moated mound of the first class, commanding and protected
on one side by the Roman city, and on the others by the swamps and
waters of the Ouse and Foss. William’s castle was to be garrisoned by
three leaders and five hundred knights, which implied a considerable
following. Its area, therefore, must have been spacious, and no doubt
included with the mound its ample base-court as seen at the present
day. In 1069, the castle was attacked by the citizens in revolt, and
was even then capable of being held, and was held, till William came
to its assistance. He then ordered a second castle to be constructed
upon the Bayle Hill, the mound still to be seen on the opposite or
right bank of the river; and this was completed in eight days, before
he left the city. A few months later, before September, 1069, the
citizens, aided by the Danes, again attacked and burned the castles,
which in 1069-70 were again renewed. Now, York was the metropolis of
the most disaffected half of the kingdom. There, if anywhere, a castle
of stone would be desirable, and stone could readily have been brought
by water; and yet York Castle was constructed and made capable of
being defended in a few months, and its subsidiary fortress in eight
days; and both soon after were taken and burned, and at once ordered
to be reconstructed. It is clear, from the time occupied by the whole
sequence of events, that these castles were not of masonry. Moreover,
the masonry of the present York keep contains nothing that can be
attributed to the eleventh century; but much that is far too early to
have replaced a really substantial keep or curtain of Norman date had
such been built. Upon the great and artificial mound of Bayle Hill, the
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