OF THE CASTLES OF ENGLAND AT THE CONQUEST AND UNDER THE CONQUEROR.
It has usually been assumed that the rapidity of William’s conquest
was due to the absence of strong places in England. There is, however,
ground for believing that England, in this respect, was exceedingly
well provided,—quite as well provided as Normandy; and that, with the
possible exception of a very few recently-constructed strongholds,
the works in the two countries were very similar in character. The
older sites of the castles of the barons in Normandy are nearly all
ascertained, and are for the most part distinguished by a moated mound
with an appended court or courts also moated. This simple and very
effective form of defence has been shown to have been in use among
the Northern nations, invaders both of England and the Continent, and
in the ninth and tenth centuries was as common on the banks of the
Thames, the Humber, and the Severn, as on those of the Seine and the
Orne. It was in the eleventh century, and chiefly during the troubles
attendant upon the accession and minority of Duke William, that the
Normans seem to have adopted a new and more permanent description
of fortress, and the old-fashioned structure of timber began to be
replaced by walls and towers in masonry, and especially by keeps of
that material. Of these the best-known, because the most durable, form
was the rectangular, of which not above half a dozen examples can be
shown with certainty to have been constructed in Normandy before the
latter part of the eleventh century, and but very few, if any, before
the English conquest; nor is there known to be in Normandy any specimen
of the polygonal or circular form of keep as early as that event. De
Caumont, indeed, attributes the rectangular keep of Langeais, in which
brick is largely used, to the year 992; but there is great reason to
doubt this conclusion, and Du Pin and St. Laurent are probably among
the oldest of this form, and do not seem to be earlier than the reign
of Duke William; and this is true also of Arques and Nogent-le-Rotrou.
In Normandy, as in England, the polygonal or shell keep, though on
the older site, seems usually to be in masonry, which is the later
construction; that of Gisors was built by Robert de Belesme in 1097,
and that of Carentan at about the same time. Many even of the most
considerable mounds, as Briquessart and Vieux-Conches, show no trace of
masonry. The shell keep of Plessis-Grimoult was held by De Caumont to
have been constructed before 1047; but if this be so, it is certainly a
singular exception. Castle-building in Normandy seems to have preceded
the English conquest, if at all, by but a very few years.
The Romans left behind them in Britain many walled towns; but it is not
known to what extent these defences were preserved by the Northmen, or
in what condition they found them. At the conquest, Chester, Lincoln,
Exeter, Hereford, Leicester, Oxford, Stafford, and Colchester, seem to
have been already walled, and the walls of Exeter had been repaired or
rebuilt by Æthelstan. Canterbury, Nottingham, and York were defended
by a ditch. There were also probably some others, and possibly a
few military towers in masonry of English workmanship; but there is
no evidence of there having been anything like a rectangular keep,
notwithstanding the special mention in 1052 of Richard’s Castle, the
work of Richard, the son of Scrob. There is no reason to suppose that
it possessed a tower of that character, which would have been quite out
of keeping with the moated mound which even now marks the spot, and
upon which the remains of the shell keep are still to be seen. Still
less had the English any shell keeps constructed in masonry. What there
really was in the way of military masonry and what was its character
are not so clear. It was said of Dover, by William of Poictiers, that
it was by Harold “studio atque sumptu suo communitum,” and that there
were “item per diversa loca illius terræ alia castra ubi voluntas Ducis
ea firmari jubet”; also in the account of the advance of William from
Canterbury it is added, “Veniens ... ad fractam turrim castra metatus
est,” pointing to a work in masonry, though no doubt it might, as at
York, be Roman. Arundel, named in “Domesday” as having been a castle in
the reign of the Confessor, was probably, from the size of its mound
and the depth of its ditches, as strong as any castle of its type in
Normandy; but no masonry has been observed there, either upon or about
the mound, of a date earlier than the Conquest, if as early.
That there existed in England, at the Conquest, no castles in masonry
of English work it may be too much to assert; but it may safely be
said that, save a fragment of wall at Corfe, no military masonry
decidedly older than that event has as yet been discovered. In 1052,
when the Confessor and Earl Godwin came to terms, and the attack on
London was set aside, it is stated that Archbishop Robert and his
Frenchmen fled, some westward to Pentecost Castle and some northwards
to Robert’s Castle; so that these places probably, like Richard’s
Castle, were in Norman hands, though it does not follow that they were
constructed of the material or in the fashion then coming into use in
Normandy.
“Domesday” mentions directly forty-nine castles as existing at the date
of the survey, and of these at least thirty-three were on sites far
older than the Conquest; and of them at least twenty-eight possessed
artificial mounds similar to Arundel and the castles in Normandy.
“Domesday,” however, is notoriously capricious both in its entries
and omissions on such matters as were not included in its proper
view, and its list of castles is nearly as incomplete as its list
of churches. Neither were required to be noted. “Of the forty-nine
castles recorded,” says Sir H. Ellis, “eight are known, either on
the authority of ‘Domesday’ or of our old historians, to have been
built by the Conqueror himself; ten are entered as erected by greater
barons, and one by an under-tenant of Earl Roger; eleven more, of
whose builders we have no particular account, are noticed in the
‘Survey,’ either expressly or by inference, as new.” The fact is,
however, that although the number of castles actually mentioned may
be only forty-nine, of castles and castelries (which imply a castle)
there are named in “Domesday” fifty-two. The castles reputed to have
been built by the Conqueror himself are Lincoln, Rockingham, Wareham,
two castles at York, Dover, Durham, London, and Nottingham, of which
the last four are not mentioned in “Domesday.” Exeter, also omitted,
is generally reputed to be one of William’s castles, as was Stafford;
which, however, was constructed and destroyed before the date of the
survey. “Terra de Stadford in qua rex percepit fieri castellum, quod
modo est destructum,” a very short period for the construction and
destruction of a work in masonry. Mr. Pearson, who has given great
attention to the subject of Norman castles in England, tabulates the
result of his researches in the atlas attached to his “History.” He
there enumerates, as standing in the reign of the Conqueror, forty-nine
castles belonging to the King and fifty to his subjects. Of these, at
least thirty-eight have mounds. He gives also a list of fifty-three
belonging to private persons in the reign of William Rufus, of which at
least five have mounds. Probably there were of each class many more
than these. Colchester, for example, is not included, nor Farnham, nor
Berkhampstede.
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
places, but by the want of organisation for their defence.
But whatever may have been the character of the defences in use in
England before the arrival of the Normans, it is certain that from
that period they underwent a considerable and probably a rapid change,
though scarcely so rapid as has been supposed. The Normans, who had
so long, in common with the English (probably by reason of their
common ancestry), employed the moated and palisaded mound, proceeded
to carry out in England the important improvements they had already
commenced in Normandy. William’s chief object, having conquered, was
to secure his conquest; and his first care, on obtaining possession
of each division of the kingdom or each capital city or town, was to
regard it from a military point of view, and to order the construction
of such strong places as might be necessary for the holding of it.
How completely, in so doing, he trod in the footsteps of those who
had gone before, is shown by what he found and what he did towards
the covering of London and the maintaining of his communication
with the sea. Thus he found and reinforced castles at Chichester,
Arundel, Bramber, Lewes, Hastings, and Dover. On his road he found and
strengthened Canterbury, Tonbridge, Rochester, and Ryegate. In London
he founded the Tower, an entirely new work; but for the defence of the
basin of the Thames he trusted to the ancient sites of Guildford and
Farnham, possibly Reading, and certainly Wallingford and Berkhampstede.
And so all over the kingdom, such strongholds as were central, in
good military positions, or of unusual strength, or were placed in
the ancient demesne lands of the Crown, were taken possession of or
reconstructed for the sovereign; but every baron or great tenant in
chief was permitted,—and, indeed, at first expected, and was no doubt
sufficiently ready,—to construct castles for the security of the lands
allotted to him, which in the vast majority of instances meant to
remodel the defences of his English predecessors. This was under the
pressure of circumstances; for William seems always to have been awake
to the danger of uniting extensive hereditary jurisdictions, and even
from the first to have contemplated governing the counties through
the intervention of _vice-comites_, or sheriffs, who were appointed
and could be displaced at pleasure. But this policy was at first, in
certain districts, necessarily postponed; though even then William made
it to be understood that the chief castles of the realm, by whomsoever
built, were royal castles; and their actual acquisition was always an
important part of the policy of both him and his successors so long as
castles were of consequence. Thus Windsor, Cambridge, Exeter, Corfe,
Wareham, Winchester, Porchester, Southampton, Carisbrooke, Canterbury,
Dover, Lincoln, Rockingham, Nottingham, Stafford, Guildford, Warwick,
Marlborough, and York were royal castles from the commencement.
Wallingford, Gloucester, Bristol, Oxford, Tutbury, Worcester, though
built by subjects, were not the less claimed and officered by the
Crown. Even Durham, though held by the bishops, and Leicester, Lincoln,
and Huntingdon, by the lords of those earldoms, were from time to time
in the hands of the Crown, whose rights over them were of a far more
direct character than those it claimed to exercise over the lands and
other feudal possessions of the same lords.
Arundel, Shrewsbury, Montgomery, Bridgenorth, and some less important
fortresses, fell to the Crown on the overthrow of the house of Talvas;
and with this event a number of castles on the Welsh border, built by
tenants of Earl Roger, became fiefs _in capite_, dependent directly
upon the Crown. Besides these, there are on record in England about
forty or fifty castles built by local barons, which, when it suited the
Crown, were taken in hand and repaired and garrisoned at its charge.
Of nearly all the castles on record, as existing in the reigns of the
Conqueror and his sons, the sites are well known; and of very many,
fragments of the masonry remain. What is very remarkable is, that of
this masonry there is but little which can be referred to the reign
of either the Conqueror or William Rufus,—that is, to the eleventh
century. Of that period are certainly London and Malling, Guildford,
Bramber, Carlisle, the gate-house of Exeter, the lower story of
Chepstow, the keeps of Chester, Goderich, Walden, Wolvesey, Colchester,
and Newcastle, though this last looks later than its recorded date.
Newcastle was probably on the site of an earlier castle; at least, the
entry in the Hundred Rolls (ii., 119),—“Juratores dicunt quod Vicecomes
... fecit quandam inquisitionem ... super motam castri predictæ
villæ,”—looks like it. There is some reason to regard the keep at
Malling as the earliest Norman military building now extant in England,
and as the work of Gundulf, the architect of the Tower keep. The North
or Gundulf’s tower at Rochester Cathedral is by the same great builder,
and possibly was intended as a military building: if so, it may rank
with Malling. Probably there is more of this early masonry; but not
much. Dover, Rochester, Porchester, and Hedingham, among our finest
examples, are certainly later. Part of Durham Castle is, no doubt, of
the age of the Conqueror; but the shell keep has been rebuilt, and
it is doubtful whether the original work was of the age of the early
Norman chapel and hall attached to it. Speaking generally, those
castles in England which belong to what is called the Norman period are
too late to be the work of the Conqueror or his personal followers, and
too early to allow of any preceding work in Norman masonry (usually
sound and solid), having been constructed and swept away. What is the
solution of this difficulty? Of what character and material were the
great majority of the castles which William ordered to be constructed?
Of what character were those mentioned in “Domesday”?
That William ordered many castles to be constructed is certain; and
among the orders left with Bishop Odo and William Fitz Osborn, when
acting as joint regents of the kingdom, was one specially charging
them to see to the building of castles; and no doubt these orders were
obeyed. But it has been hastily assumed that the castles constructed
were of masonry. The keeps of Dover and Rochester, for example (if
such were erected under the Conqueror), were certainly not those now
standing, which belong to the reign of Henry II.; and so of Norwich,
and probably of Nottingham, now destroyed. And yet the masonry of
William’s reign was of a very durable character, as is seen in the
Tower of London, and in not a few still standing churches. Also it is
stated that William “custodes in castellis strenuos viros collocavit,
ex Gallis traductos, quorum fidei pariter ac virtuti credebat.” This
looks very much as though the castellans were at first, at any rate,
put in charge of existing castles; which must mean that in most
cases some temporary arrangement was made, and the existing works
strengthened until it was convenient to replace them by others more in
accordance with the new ideas of strength and security.
William and his barons evidently employed two classes of castles,—one
always in masonry, and one very often in timber. Where a castle was
built in a new position, as in London, or where there was no mound,
natural or artificial they employed masonry and chose as a rule for the
keep the rectangular form,—a type said to have been introduced from
Maine, and seen at Arques, at Caen, and at Falaise; but where the site
was old, and there was a mound, as at Lincoln, Huntingdon, Rockingham,
Wallingford, or York, they seem to have been content to repair the
existing works, usually of timber only, and to have postponed the
replacing them with a regular shell till a more convenient season,
which in many cases did not occur for a century.
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
site of the second castle, there is neither trace nor tradition of any
masonry at all.
The building of a Norman castle required both time and money. The
architects, overlookers, and probably the masons, had to be imported
from Normandy, and in many cases the stone for the exterior; and as
most of the existing square keeps, and very nearly all the shell keeps,
are of the twelfth century, it seems probable that the Conqueror was
to some extent content with such defences as he found in England;
strengthened, no doubt, very materially by the superior skill and
resources of his engineers. This is quite consistent with the fact that
the art of castle-building did, from the building of the White Tower,
undergo a great and somewhat rapid change. It is true of William, both
in Normandy and in England, as Matthew Paris observes, “ad castra
quoque construenda, rex antecessores suos omnes superabat”; and he,
no doubt, as we are told by William of Jumieges, “tutissima castella
per opportuna loca stabilavit.” Lanfranc, writing to Roger, Earl of
Hereford, before his rebellion, assuring him of William’s confidence,
adds, “et mandat ut quantum possumus curam habeamus de castellis suis,
ne, quod Deus avertat, inimicis suis tradantur”; and in the subsequent
rebellion, it was when Ralph Guader found the men of castles against
him, that he left his wife and children to make terms from Norwich
Castle, while he himself fled. Lanfranc’s despatch informs William,
“Castrum Noruuich redditum est, et Britones qui in eo erant et terras
in Anglia terra habebant, concessis eis vita et membris.” Besides the
Bishop and Earl Warrene, the castle contained three hundred “loricati,”
with cross-bowmen and many artificers of military machines. Also the
same prelate charges Bishop Walcher, of Durham, “Castrum itaque
vestrum, et hominibus, et armis, et alimentis vigilanti cura muniri
facite.”
Castles, no doubt, there were at William’s command, many and strong.
All that is here contended for is, that whatever he may have desired,
William was able to construct but few castles such as London or Durham;
and that the greater number of those that remain and exhibit the Norman
style of architecture belong, some to the close of the eleventh, and a
greater number to the twelfth century. But if William did not actually
build so many castles as is supposed, he and his followers certainly
restored and occupied an immense number, upon which those who came
immediately after him built structures, the ruins of which we now see.
There is much to be learned from the consideration of the positions
of these fortresses. William’s first care, on obtaining possession of
each district, was to order the preparation of such strong places as
might be necessary for the holding of it. But it is evident that he was
influenced also by another consideration: he desired to be regarded
as the legitimate heir of the Confessor, rather than as the conqueror
of the kingdom; and so far as was consistent with his own security,
he strove to administer the ancient laws, and to leave the ancient
tenures and private estates, and even English owners, undisturbed. This
indeed, owing to the strong national discontent, shown by repeated
insurrections and by a general current of ill-will of which these were
the indications, he speedily found to be out of the question. But even
while driving out the native magnates, he was careful to associate the
new men, as far as possible, with the past, in the hope (well founded)
that before long the “successores et antecessores,” as they are called
in “Domesday,” would be looked upon as part of a continued line,—Earl
Roger, for example, as the representative of Edwin of Shrewsbury, Hugh
Lupus of Morcar, and William Fitz Osbern of Ralph the Earl of Hereford
under the Confessor.
And this policy is particularly evident in the sites of the castles.
Where circumstances absolutely required it, an entirely new position
was selected; but this was extremely rare, and probably did not occur
in half a dozen instances, if indeed in more than London and Richmond.
Usually it was found that the English lord had attached to his estate
an earthwork upon which he and his ancestors had lived for centuries,
which was identified with the estate or district, and regarded with
respect and confidence by the surrounding tenantry. It is surprising to
find how completely the leading positions in the country had thus been
occupied. The upland passes; the margins of the rivers; the summits,
where readily accessible, of the detached hills; the spots rendered
strong by cliffs or ravines, or extended or impracticable marshes. Each
had its _aula_, where a succession of lords had identified themselves
with their people, afforded them protection, and received in return
their support. Such were Guildford, Farnham, and Berkhampstede, in
the clefts of the belt of chalk by which London is girdled; Hertford,
Bedford, Wallingford, Tamworth, Worcester, Shrewsbury, Durham, and
York, upon the banks of deep or rapid streams; Windsor, Belvoir,
Lincoln, Corfe, and Montacute, placed on the summit of more or
less detached hills, commanding a broad sweep of country; Dover,
Scarborough, and Bamborough, upon rugged and lofty sea-cliffs, isolated
by deep and formidable ravines; Huntingdon, Cambridge, Ely, and Oxford,
more or less covered by marshy fens at that time almost impassable;
while attached to and so placed as to overawe their adjacent cities or
towns were such fortresses as Exeter, Leicester, Winchester, Chester,
Chichester, Taunton, York, Norwich, and Nottingham. Each, including
many that belonged to the Crown, represented an English estate. To many
of them military service had long been paid; and now into them the
knights and barons from Normandy and the lieutenants and governors for
the Crown were inserted.
So far, the policy was sound and promised to be successful; but when
the new lords began to build castles of stone they became obnoxious to
both sovereign and people. The possessor of a strong castle was ever
ready for rebellion, and was not uncommonly a tyrant even to his own
people, of whom this made him independent: hence, castles properly so
called,—buildings in masonry,—were hated by both king and people. The
old-fashioned residence, half mansion, half fortress, formed of earth
and timber or at best of a rude kind of masonry, such as Scott more
by intuition than inquiry attributes to the Saxon Cedric, was strong
when held by brave men in sufficient numbers for a short time; but
under ordinary circumstances it could easily be attacked, and set on
fire. These fortified residences were out of fashion with the Normans,
and fell into disuse. The English lords were of the same immediate
lineage with their tenants; and if they occasionally squeezed them,
they did it as a man squeezes his own milch cow, tenderly. But the
castle of stone was held by a stranger whose language, arms, and armour
were strange to the people, and by them feared and hated. The Norman
castle was a purely military building. It was not only strong when
well garrisoned, but its passive strength was also great; and when the
bridge was up and the gates closed it was at all times safe against an
enemy unprovided with military engines. Fire, the ordinary and ready
weapon of the populace, against such a wall, for example, as Cardiff
(40 feet high and 11 feet thick), or against such a Tower as London,
could do nothing. The garrison also, composed in the English times
of the tenants of the lord, under the Normans were not unfrequently
mercenaries,—men without ruth or conscience, distrusted even by their
employers, whose trade was war and whose gain was plunder, and of
whom Maurice de Bracy was a very favourable specimen. “Quot domini
castellorum,” it was said “tot tyranni.” No wonder, then, that the
Norman castles came to be regarded as the symbol of rebellion on the
one hand, and of tyranny on the other.
Although the personal attention of the Conqueror was necessarily
confined to the chief cities and central towns of England, to Exeter,
Gloucester, Nottingham, Lincoln, York, or Durham, his western frontier
was not neglected, although he was obliged to depute its ordinary
defence to others. The Welsh, hardened by centuries of constant
warfare, held with tenacity their strip of mountain land between Offa’s
Dyke and the sea, and were ever on the watch to spoil that other
more fertile tract which lay between the Dyke and the Severn and the
Dee, known as the March. Foremost among the barons of the March were
Roger of Montgomery and Hugh D’Avranches, Earl of Chester, to whom
later generations gave the surname of the “Wolf.” The _caput_ of this
latter earldom, protected by the deep and rapid Dee, was posted at
one angle of the old Roman enclosure; and the castle of Earl Roger,
girdled by the convolutions of the Severn, was an almost impregnable
citadel. From these fortresses these great earls exercised more than
regal power over the counties of Salop and Hereford, composing the
Middle March. The border barons, their feudatories, succeeded to no
peaceful heritage; but by degrees they possessed themselves of the
older English possessions upon the border, and along with them of
the fortresses by which in Mercian times the Welsh had been held so
long at bay. That these were numerous is evident from the remains of
their earthworks; and that they were strong and well held against
the Welsh is evident from the English names along and beyond the
frontier. “Domesday,” however, though compiled after Earl Roger had
held the Earldom of Shrewsbury about twelve years, only mentions four
castles upon his border,—Oswestry, Montgomery, Shrewsbury, and Stanton
or Castle Holgate, and the Earl’s house at Quatford. Bridgenorth and
Carreghova were built a few years later, in the reign of Rufus; but
Bridgenorth represented the burgh of Æthelflæda, the remains of which
are possibly seen at Oldbury, as are earthworks of still stronger
type, actually employed by Earl Roger at Quatford. Besides these,
Wattlesborough and Clun exhibit rectangular Norman keeps; and eleven
or twelve more castles in those districts are mentioned in records as
early as the reign of Henry I. Altogether, by the close of the twelfth
century there were from fifty to sixty castles in the county of Salop
alone. Now, although the masonry of these castles, or of such of them
as remain, can very rarely indeed be attributed to the Norman period,
the earthworks show that they existed as fortresses long before that
time; and it seems, therefore, certain that here, as in other parts of
England, Earl Roger and his barons made the most of such works as they
found ready to their hands; and this applies equally to the Palatinate
of Chester and to the southern Marches, where also Norman castles took
the place, with more or less of interval, of strongholds of the English
type.