"Norman barons - castle-building?" Topic

Hi all,

Anyone have any notion of how many castles the Normans threw up in England in the first ten or twenty years of the conquest? With the exception of the Tower of London and a few others including Colchester, almost all of these were of wood, and some were presumably temporary – but presumably we know roughly how many went up, even if they didn't ultimately get converted into stone?

Additionally, who was building them? If there were about 200 landholders whom we could define as 'barons', how many of the castles were built by them and how many by the king or his lieutenants (meaning men operating primarily in that capacity rather than in their capacity as baronial landowners)? And did baronial castle-builders generally build one castle each? Or did some prolific barons build several and many build none at all?

Any observations gratefully received!

Cheers,
Redcoat

"It is thought that as many as 1,000 wooden motte and bailey castles were constructed by the Normans in England."
link

how many by the king?

About a dozen by William. See:
link

William "okayed" most of the castles. In his early years consolidating his hold over Normandy, one of his most important changes was eradicating the illegal castles (either by pulling them down or assuming control of them), which had proliferated during his minority. In England, no castle was put up without his permission, either before or after the fact.

Iirc, even the Tower was at first a wooden structure. All of them were. It may not have been the exact same spot, because the temporary motte and bailey would go up, then a stone castle begun soon thereafter.

"Hundreds" is probably as accurate as we will get. Close to a thousand is probably reasonable.

The Conqueror granted the feudal holdings of his followers. It must have been assumed that each lord of each demesne would construct a castle. Without such a stronghold, the Franco-Normans could never have lived securely on the conquered land. Each landholder was responsible for the construction of his own castle.

The attendant risk of rebellion was an acceptable, even an unavoidable one. Without the castles the Conquest would never have been permanent. Such rebellions as there were (few enough) until the time of Stephen, were localized and minor, or scattered and easily cut off from each other. The Anglo-Norman kings could run the rebels to ground and starve them into submission….

Later Kings would wind up tearing most of the non-Royal Castles down to secure their hold on the land.

Later Kings would wind up tearing most of the non-Royal Castles down to secure their hold on the land.

How then do you explain the large number of castles that still exist in England?

That's brill, many thanks folks!

Can anyone suggest the name of a particularly prolific castle-building baron, who is know to have built several castles?

I'd be very grateful!

Cheers,
Redcoat

Later in the Middle Ages a baron had to have a "license to crenellate" from the Crown in order to build a fortification (although some in remoter regions -e.g. the northern borders- they went ahead anyway).

The existence of large numbers of castles in England today can be explained by the fact that they were built on the ruins of previously demolished castles.

The existence of large numbers of castles in England today can be explained by the fact that they were built on the ruins of previously demolished castles.

Can you cite any evidence for that? Most English castles exhibit multiple phases of building and continuous occupation.

Blistering barmkins!

Bamburgh – Calally – Durham – Barnard Castle – Chipchase – …

Feel free to fill in the rest.

Bamburgh:
"The Vikings destroyed the original fortification in 993.

The Normans built a new castle on the site, which forms the core of the present one. William II unsuccessfully besieged it in 1095 during a revolt supported by its owner, Robert de Mowbray, Earl of Northumbria. After Robert was captured, his wife continued the defence until coerced to surrender by the king's threat to blind her husband.

Bamburgh then became the property of the reigning English monarch. Henry II probably built the keep. "
link

No evidence for the destruction of the castle except by the Vikings. But I thought we were talking post Norman invasion?

Calally:
"It is situated near the site of a 12th-century motte castle and an Iron Age hill fort. A pele tower was built in the 14th or 15th century and this was subsequently incorporated, as the west wing, of a new house built by John Clavering in 1619. "
link

No evidence for a new castle being built on the ruins of a previous one…

Durham:
"Construction of the Castle began in 1072 under the orders of William the Conqueror, six years after the Norman Conquest of England, and soon after the Normans first came to the North.

The construction took place under the supervision of the Earl of Northumberland, Waltheof, until he rebelled against William and was executed in 1076.

The castle then came under the control of the Bishop of Durham, Walcher, who purchased the earldom and thus became the first of the Prince-Bishops of Durham, a title that was to remain until the 19th century, and was to give Durham a unique status in England."
link

Again, no evidence for a new castle being built on the ruins of a previous one…

Barnard Castle:
"Set on a high rock above the River Tees, Barnard Castle takes its name from its 12th century founder, Bernard de Balliol. It was later developed by the Beauchamp family and then passed into the hands of Richard III. "
link

Chipchase:
"A rugged border castle of the 14th century consisting of a great Pele tower with corner turrets added to later in the 1620s and more comfortable lodgings which were themselves altered in the mid-18th century. Mid-19th century dining room furniture by Mein of Kelso. "
link

Not even a Norman castle…

There is an element f truth to both points here. There were a large number of Norman castles in England, but that translates to a much smaller number of stone casles in the 14th and fifteenth centuries. For density of castles look to Wales where insecurity continued into the 15th century, or the Scots border.
Jowady is quite right, lots of English castles were torn down by the king, particularly those thrown up in the Stephen and Matilda civil war. Others were developed over the years into grand houses . If they made the progression from an earthern motte to a stone tower or shell keep then the dressed stone would be robbed out to build the house or improve the church. As the English nobility moved from occupying army to lords of the land they wanted more comfort and style and living in a cold tower would not appeal to the missus. If the castle was in a meaningful military position and justified the investment then the tower of stone would be kept, the bailey built in stone and decent living accomodation put up within it.

Jowady is quite right, lots of English castles were torn down by the king, particularly those thrown up in the Stephen and Matilda civil war.

What castles were "thrown up" in the Stephen and Matilda civil war?

I'm curious about that one too.

Castles during William the Conqueror's reign were predominantly recognized officially. I think that any "border" fortresses in any age would include a number of unsanctioned or "illegally built" castles. These would not go unnoticed, but there is truth behind the saying, "it is easier to receive forgiveness than permission." If permission ended up not being granted, the castle in question would either be razed or taken over by the crown. Redundant castles would be ignored later unless they formed the stronghold of rebellion. Then their fate would be to be pulled down, either by deliberate destruction, or by enforced abandonment and turning to ruins….

If permission ended up not being granted, the castle in question would either be razed or taken over by the crown. Redundant castles would be ignored later unless they formed the stronghold of rebellion. Then their fate would be to be pulled down, either by deliberate destruction, or by enforced abandonment and turning to ruins….

If anyone can provide examples of this actually happening, then I would be most interested …

I can't speak for lower England, but I know for certain the Scots destroyed most castles in lower Scotland/upper England. The reasoning was twofold. They didn't believe they had the manpower or the ability to man all the castles as their army was one of hit and run, and they knew that if and when the English did return the castle provided for a strong base of operations. Source: The Black Douglas (great read btw)

Also, I know that many castles that stand today aren't very reminiscent of how they were structured back in the 1200-1300's. Many of the castles today have had major renovations and additions throughout the years that would make them drastically different.

I can't speak for lower England, but I know for certain the Scots destroyed most castles in lower Scotland/upper England.

Scotland is not at issue here. Not sure what you mean by "lower" or "upper" England? ave you any examples of castles in England destroyed by the Scots?

Also, I know that many castles that stand today aren't very reminiscent of how they were structured back in the 1200-1300's.

That's mostly because of a little matter we know as the English Civil War when many castles were "slighted".

Many of the castles today have had major renovations and additions throughout the years that would make them drastically different.

That is exactly the point I have previously made. But major renovations and additions do not usually require the complete destruction of a castle and the rebuilding of a new on the ruins of the old.

When I was station at RAF Alconbury I was driving around with my girlfriend at the time and drove thru the village of Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire. Since I loved playing the boardgame Kingmaker I knew there was a castle nearby, but couldn't find one. Finally asked a local and he directed me to this.
link
The local man said they tore it down because the villagers hated the owner. The article says it fell into disrepair and so it was tore down.

If anyone can provide examples of this actually happening, then I would be most interested …

Me too. I have only read of this common fate of castles, but without providing specific examples. And now I'm not even able to recall a specific source where I learned of this. Hmmm….

The local man said they tore it down because the villagers hated the owner. The article says it fell into disrepair and so it was torn down.

The castle was abandoned after 1625 (but this was not an enforced abandonment) and had fallen into disrepair, so it was not deliberate destruction and not by the king either. It was never rebuilt.
link

Maverick, you really don't know that 'for certain'….largely because it's not true. I cannot, offhand, think a single castle destroyed in Scotland – though the 'Perpetual Peace' treaty agreed by Robert I and Edward II did provide for one 'new-build' castle in England to be dismantled.
Scottish forces were no more 'hit and run' than English ones. The 'normal' pattern of war for both sides was one of small parties of men-at-arms competing for control of the countryside.
Several (though not all)Scottish castles – mostly in the southern counties – were, indeed, slighted, but that consisted of no more than a creating a gap in the walls or compromising the gatehouse, which is why it took little effort for Edward III to restore Edinburgh castle during his ill-fated attempt to conquer Scotland.
I'm guessing that the 'Douglas' book you refer to is the Davies one? If so, you'd be much better of with Michael Brown's 'The Black Douglases'.

For more substantial references than the superficial links above try:

The Early Norman Castles of the British Isles, by E.S. Armitage

Borderland Castles and Peles, by R Hughill

For more substantial references than the superficial links above try:

The Early Norman Castles of the British Isles, by E.S. Armitage

Borderland Castles and Peles, by R Hughill

Thank you, but can you cite any specific examples where a castle was built on the ruins of a previously demolished castle?

Major B,
Well there wer two castles round here that were 'thrown up' in the Stepen/ Matilda war. One at Malmesbury, where the Bell hotel now s, ne at Curencester using the Roman amphiteatre. There were others around the country, but I am not greatly motivated to do a detailed check.

ecastles.co.uk/somerset.html

Ths is par of a larger site that is worth a look . It gives brief histories.

In reply to the earlier question about castles being knocked downband either rebuilt as castles or as grand houses, you can find quite a few.

Armitage and Hugill cite specific examples, if you care to look. There's also:

Slighted Castles and the License to Crenellate, by Marjorie Bamsare

Malmesbury:
Built in 1118 by Roger le Poer (Bishop of Salisbury). so not "thrown up in the Stephen / Matilda war."
link

Cirencester:
A square keep was built in 1107, so again, not "thrown up in the Stephen / Matilda war."
link

We are specifically looking for examples of a castle that was knocked down and subsequently rebuilt on the ruins. Can anyone suggest any such examples?