What Were The Concentric Castles History Essay

Unlike square support palaces, homocentric palaces had no cardinal support. In many senses, they had no Centre either as all parts of the palace would hold been considered to be a strong point. Each homocentric palace had a really to a great extent defended entryway and the cardinal nucleus was defended by a series of drape walls. The furthest of the drape walls would hold been the smallest in tallness to let the guardians to see an nearing enemy. The drape wall nearest to the palace would hold been the highest to give the guardians the maximal height advantage over those trying to take over the palace.

Towers in palaces such as Beaumaris and Caernarvon were non square such as those found in rock support palaces. The towers at Beaumaris are round while Caernarvon Castle has a assortment of forms ( chiefly polygonal ) – but none of Caernarvon ‘s are square. Round towers were hard for the enemy to delve under with the chance of fall ining them ( called sapping ) and engineers/architects from the clip found that a round form gave towers far more strength than the traditional square 1s. At Caernarvon, towers had towers built within them doing them a formidable defensive characteristic.

However, homocentric palaces had two major failings. They were massively expensive to construct and if an assailing ground forces decided to disregard them, military personnels within homocentric palaces had the pick of either remaining where they were and non affecting themselves in combat or go forthing their topographic point of safety and contending on unfastened land. That stated, homocentric palaces were built in extremely strategic countries and an incursive ground forces would normally hold had no pick but to assail. All of Edward ‘s palaces were built by the sea which allowed boats every bit big as 300 dozenss to acquire right up to the palaces to enable them to be supplied. This meant that the traditional manner of get the better ofing a castle – by beleaguering it – was no longer a feasible option for aggressors. To provide Rhuddlan Castle, Edward ordered that applied scientists divert the River Clywd. Records show that 968 diggers/ditchers straightened the river so that his boats could sail up the Clywd to provide the palace. This technology effort would be a formidable undertaking now, but Edward had it done in merely three summers.

One of the finest illustration of a homocentric palace is at Caernarvon in Wales. Here the walls are, in fact, two walls with the hollow center between them filled in with rubble. The blocks of rock had to be excess big and strong to get by with the immense force per unit area put on them when the debris was put in. This, among many other issues, gives some thought as to the importance Edward I put on Caernarvon. When this palace was finished it had cost Edward & A ; lb ; 27,000 ( thought to be about & A ; lb ; 35 million or more at today ‘s monetary values ) . This was approximately his income for one twelvemonth – invested into merely one palace. The wars against the Welsh had already cost Edward & A ; lb ; 100,000 and to assist pay for all of this he raised revenue enhancements. Edward kept really elaborate records that show how much the palaces cost. Caernarvon, Harlech and Conway cost between them & A ; lb ; 50,000 – this was at a clip when a skilled worker earned between 3p and 4p a twenty-four hours. Caernarvon and the other north Welsh palaces were designed by Master James of St George, an designer from Savoy. It is likely that Edward met Master James as he returned from the Crusades as we know that he stopped off in Savoy and he was besides related to the household that ruled Savoy.

Palaces as places

Edward died in 1307 and Master James in 1309. With these two deceases – one a male monarch who wanted strong well-built munitions, the other a superb designer – palace edifice in England and Wales faltered. By 1327, palace edifice in Wales ended everlastingly. They had merely be excessively much and male monarchs after Edward were more interested in castles as opposed to palaces.

Large rock palaces were built in Europe from about the 1100 ‘s to about the 1500 ‘s. These immense edifices served non merely to support the state from foreign encroachers but as the basic tool in continuing the male monarch ‘s and the Lords ‘ power over the land. The societal system was really stiff in the Middle Ages.

Under Feudalism, the basic societal construction in this clip, all land was held by the male monarch. The male monarch gave pieces of this land to assorted high Lords, in return for their aid in contending his wars or in seting down rebellions. Not merely did the higher Lords have to contend for the male monarch themselves, they had to provide a certain figure of lesser Godheads and other knights to assist battle besides. These higher Lords so gave some of their land to lesser knights, in return for their aid in conflict. Below all the knights were the helot, who really farmed the land. They gave a part of their harvests each twelvemonth to the Godhead who ruled over them, in return for usage of the land and protection.

The male monarch could non be everyplace in the state, particularly with the hapless roads and the limited transit of the Middle Ages. The male monarch ‘s lieges, the Godheads, nevertheless, could be all over the state, with their palaces as symbols of their power for all to see.

A adult male ‘s boy inherited his lands and his duties to contend. As clip went on, heritages became complicated, because there were Godheads who had no life kids, who had merely girls as inheritresss, and who split their heritages among their boies ( seldom girls ) . When the girl of a Godhead married the boy of another Godhead, the immature twosome familial land from both households. If the master from whom they got one piece goes to war with the master from whom they got the other piece-on which side did they contend? If there are two possible inheritors to the throne itself, for whom do they contend? If a higher Godhead Rebels against the male monarch, does his liege battle for the Godhead, or for the male monarch? Who is closer, and more likely to take away his palace and his land? What will the other knights make? Which households is he allied to, by matrimony or other bonds?

The palace was both a abode for the Godhead and his household, and a munition. It was a strong topographic point for the Godhead to support himself against his enemies ( and the male monarch ‘s enemies, and his master ‘s enemies ) , a safe topographic point for him and his knights to return to, and a topographic point to populate which emphasized his power. A few to a great extent armed knights could command a big country, if there was no organized ground forces to travel against them. Not merely did knights battle against foreign enemies, they fought a batch against each other, and they put down rebellions among the provincials. Showing that you had a batch of power sometimes made existent combat unneeded. In Britain, many of the palaces are along boundary lines, to halt foraies by the Welsh and the Scots, and as a footing for busting in return.

Rock and wood were about the lone edifice stuffs available. Slate and thatch ( packages of reeds or other workss in a thick package ) were used for roofs, but non for walls. Fortunately, northern Europe had big sums of both wood and rock. Wood did n’t last as long, but, worse, it could be set on fire by the other side. Rock is really strong in compaction ( rock can keep up a great trade of weight ) . Mortar and gravitation kept the rocks in topographic point. Once a rock edifice is constructed, it needs really small care and lasts a long clip. It is non, nevertheless, really pleasant to populate in-a rock palace is cold, moist and dark. Many pieces were added to better the palace as a abode.

Palaces were built to maintain out enemies. When an onslaught was expected, the lift bridge was raised, the Gatess and portcullis were closed, and bowmans were stationed on the towers. The walls were non merely high, in a well-planned palace, but they were arranged every bit much as possible so that anyone mounting the walls could be shot at from two waies. Many palaces have unusual forms because the palace was designed to suit the terrain, and to catch aggressors in a crossfire.

The palace ‘s defences invited a great trade of inventiveness from the aggressors. Rolling wooden towers, covered with thick fells to halt pointers and kept moistures so they could non be set on fire, were brought up to the walls in an onslaught. Sometimes they even worked. Catapults threw heavy rocks at the walls to do a breach or tonss of stones ( or diseased farm animal, or fire bombs ) over the walls. The buffeting ram-generally used against a door-was an old favourite.

Ideas of these different ‘siege engines ‘ were ever on the heads of the palaces ‘ interior decorators. The palace was frequently built on a raised platform. Roadss to the palace angled and sloped to curtail the easy usage of buffeting random-access memories and the similar. There was frequently besides the traditional fosse ( left behind from delving out the Earth to do the raised platform for the palace ) and lift bridge, merely to maintain things interesting.

Another method of get the better ofing a palace was puting besieging to it, by seeking to hunger out the dwellers, or waiting until they ran out of H2O. If their H2O could be poisoned, they had to give up. A good well was highly of import to a palace.