Where did feudal lords usually live?

[Dan Howard]

Unlike the Scottish towerhouses these Dutch examples apparently have no military function at all. The walls aren't thick enough, they don't have a bread oven, there is no internal water supply, the battlements are purely cosmetic. There is only one recorded occasion when one of these tower houses was attacked and it was entered easily. I'm guessing that they were built to try and emulate the upper nobility who had real castles but were never intended to provide any kind of defence.

[Dan Howard]

Not that strange that is where the Lords visiting family slept.

So what was this floor used for the rest of the time?

[Thomas Powers]

A large fireplace *was* the kitchen many places. Downhearth cooking was the norm!

[Donal Mac Ruiseart]

There are castles in England that appear to have been built more as status symbols than as actual defensive structures. Herstmonceux and Bodian come to mind, the latter being described as an old sodlier's dream house. In England a Royal Licence was required to "crenellate," it being a mark of the King's trust in one's loyalty. To build a castle, therefore, was a boast not only of wealth, but of Royal favour.

[Cap'n Atli]

There are castles in England that appear to have been built more as status symbols than as actual defensive structures. Herstmonceux and Bodian come to mind, the latter being described as an old sodlier's dream house. In England a Royal Licence was required to "crenellate," it being a mark of the King's trust in one's loyalty. To build a castle, therefore, was a boast not only of wealth, but of Royal favour.

These days it's more about the zoning board than Royal favor!

[Thomas Powers]

Living in the "low country" like you do Atli; I would have thought the Dutch would be the first place you checked for examples!

[RandallMoffett]

Dan,

No they left the windows open in the winter and closed in summer for preparation of unexpected visitors.


Donal,

I doubt both of those are truly not fortifications. As Dr. Matthew Johnson has said it is the equilibrium between accomodation and fortress. They might make some concessions but for the danger or threat likely the fortress is still sufficient. Having been to many of these supposed non fortresses I think those offering these comments do not understand conflict of the time. Some have false crenels and battlements but many reasons given are simply silly. A big window is hardly a major issue on the other side of 50 yards of water and 20-30 feet in the air for most issues small fortresses dealt with.

For hundreds of years, thousands even, a moat and dirt wall was a formidible defense. These far exceed this and are comfy to boot. For 90% of likely conflict a little wall presents a big obstacle. Few if any fortresses could sustain a major siege if the attackers are prepared and determined.

RPM

[Dan Howard]

A large fireplace *was* the kitchen many places. Downhearth cooking was the norm!

I'm aware of that. But unlike Scottish towerhouses the Dutch examples have no bread oven, no pantry, no buttery, no water source, etc. Unlike a Scottish towerhouse the Dutch examples cannot function for any length of time on their own. They require a farm nearby where all of the daily chores were performed. They were built purely for residential and entertainment purposes with little thought to defense. The moat was likely a status symbol, not an active defensive measure. Considering where these buildings were located and that there is no history of the buildings being attacked (only one recorded incident ever apparently), it makes sense.

[chef de chambre]

Fortifications are built with an eye to the likely threat. In the case of the Dutch examples, a lightly armed mob or a quick raid was likely the largest threat.

Not enough of these exists to say wether they could weather a small storm or not, who is to say that some did not have some light outerworks?

In regards to the towerhouses on the Anglo-Scottish border (and there were as many, if not more English examples than Scots...), the actual barmkin of a Pele wasn't much more able than to keep out a casual raid - many were not crenelated in any way - peles contemporary to these Dutch examples in England, from Archaeological evidence were little more than rammed log and sod structures and earthworks. I can't think of a masonry pele on the Anglo-Scottish border, extant or ruinous, that dates prior to the 14th century.

[Cap'n Atli]

Any comments or comparisons with Chateau d'Hougoumont at Waterloo? It seems to me that even minimal obstacles and minor fortifications can stymie an attack when the defenders are properly motivated. So, did the Dutch have grouchy neighbors prone to an occasional raid or revenge?

The towers are certainly too small for strategic defense, but they may have had some local tactical value. Certainly, when I barred the door at night, I might feel a little more secured. (Hey, some of these could have been considered "gated communities."

Apart from that (and to steal a theme from Tolkien that always appealed to me) perhaps, from the top of the tower, you could see the sea.

[Thomas Powers]

Perhaps for signalling to your neighbors that they should stop by for a piece of pie and a sortie

Just like a lot of medieval locks look like they were only there to prevent a "grab and run" type of theft

[Russ Mitchell]

Kosseg is as about as tiny as it gets, with a courtyard ALMOST as big as my living room, and that stopped Suleiman for two inexplicable months...

[Dan Howard]

I've been trying to find a decent illustration of the castle at Kosseg as it looked during the siege and haven't had any luck.

[Russ Mitchell]

Misspelt it on you, too, because I'm a moron: Koszeg. The aerial shot in wikipedia makes it look SO much larger than it actually is... I could pass a basketball back and forth the long way in that central courtyard without wearing out my arms in the slightest.

btw, I don't have time to do into details, but the wikipedia entry on the subject (under the German name), like a lot of stuff dealing with Hungary but dependent on english-language secondary literature, is embarrassingly wrong and unreliable.

[Dan Howard]

Hi Russ. Most sources call it Jurisics Castle but this hasn't helped me find details about its layout. Can you point me in the right direction? Do you have access to a book with a floorplan? The Wikipedia entry says that the garrison held out for 25 days against Suleiman. Is that wrong?

[Russ Mitchell]

Don't have one -- and never actually saw one in Hungarian, either, though one may exist.

Don't have time to get into a wikipedia critique, but the long and short of it is that even with his big guns elsewhere Suleiman could have levelled Koszeg more or less by blowing kisses in its direction. Instead, the defending commander taunted them for attacking such a small fort, dare them to come inside and get him, and managed to get into the other guy's head until it turned into a dick-measuring contest rather than a purely rational exercise. Which was brilliant. Because, like I said before, dinky doesn't begin to describe this place.

[Buster]

Dan,

No they left the windows open in the winter and closed in summer for preparation of unexpected visitors.


Donal,

I doubt both of those are truly not fortifications. As Dr. Matthew Johnson has said it is the equilibrium between accomodation and fortress. They might make some concessions but for the danger or threat likely the fortress is still sufficient. Having been to many of these supposed non fortresses I think those offering these comments do not understand conflict of the time. Some have false crenels and battlements but many reasons given are simply silly. A big window is hardly a major issue on the other side of 50 yards of water and 20-30 feet in the air for most issues small fortresses dealt with.

For hundreds of years, thousands even, a moat and dirt wall was a formidible defense. These far exceed this and are comfy to boot. For 90% of likely conflict a little wall presents a big obstacle. Few if any fortresses could sustain a major siege if the attackers are prepared and determined.

RPM

Castles like Herstmonceux still had some functional defenses, but I think those were really more houses with castle styling.

[Buster]

Also, does anyone know how common was it to have the masonry whitewashed? I heard most castles originally did.
Some castles have very nonuniform, rubble-looking masonry, that you'd probably want to cover, while others have neat, uniform blocks. (like Bodiam.)

[chef de chambre]

The "rubble looking masonry" is more likely the rubble core of a wall, left behind wile the worked stone in front of it and behind it was carted off. Again, if you are looking at English castles, most of them are ruinous.

[RandallMoffett]

Buster,

More or less but the idea of trying to defortify castles is an all or nothing approach often. The issie as many of us are saying is fortresses are built in preparation of threat that is likely with consideration to comfort. People said the same thing about Caister castle, which ironically defeated several French raids....

RPM

[Dan Howard]

There is a continuum with two conflicting aspects. On one end you have defense. On the other you have comfort. Most castles are constructed somewhere in the middle. My point is that Lunenberg is a lot closer to the comfort end than many examples.