Transcriber’s Notes:—
Italic text is denoted _thus_.
The spelling, hyphenation, punctuation and accentuation are as the
original, except for apparent typographical errors which have been
corrected.
Further transcriber’s notes can be found at the end of the book.
MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN
ENGLAND DURING THE MIDDLE AGES
[Illustration:
_Frontispiece_
ROCHESTER: GREAT TOWER.]
MILITARY ARCHITECTURE
IN ENGLAND DURING THE
MIDDLE AGES
BY
A. HAMILTON THOMPSON
M.A., F.S.A.
Illustrated by 200 Photographs, Drawings, and Plans
HENRY FROWDE
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON, NEW YORK, TORONTO, AND MELBOURNE
1912
_Printed at_
THE DARIEN PRESS
_Edinburgh_
PREFACE
Apart from the late Mr G. T. Clark’s _Mediæval Military Architecture_,
published in 1884, the greater portion of which is a series of
monographs dealing with individual castles, there has been no attempt,
until within the last few years, to apply systematic treatment to
this branch of science. Recently, however, more than one book has
been published upon the general subject of the castles of England.
Mr Alfred Harvey has lately given a lucid account of the growth of
the castle, with a valuable essay upon English walled towns; and the
present year has seen the appearance of a book in which Mrs Armitage
has embodied the result of labours of the utmost importance, extending
over many years. In addition to works of a general character, a
number of separate monographs, indispensable to students, have been
published during the last twenty years, in the transactions of various
archæological societies. The contributions of Mr W. H. St John Hope to
the study of castle architecture take a foremost place among these,
with papers such as those by Mr J. Bilson on Gilling castle and by
Mr Harold Sands on Bodiam and the Tower of London; and the late Mr
Cadwallader Bates’ unfinished _Border Holds of Northumberland_ contains
accounts of Warkworth and Bamburgh, as well as of smaller castles and
peles, which must take rank among the classics of the subject.
In the present volume an attempt is made to trace the growth of the
general principles of medieval fortification, with special reference
to castles, in which, within their limited area, the most complete
illustration of those principles is given. In order to give greater
clearness to the account of their evolution, a prefatory chapter deals
generally with earlier types of fortification in Britain, and the
critical period of Saxon and Danish warfare is treated in the second
chapter with some detail. This leads us to the early Norman castle of
earthwork and timber; and the stone fortifications to which this gave
place are introduced by a brief account of the progress of siegecraft
and siege-engines. The Norman castle and its keep or great tower are
then described. The developments of the later part of the twelfth
century and the arrangements of the thirteenth-century castle, with
those of the dwelling-house within its _enceinte_, follow and prepare
the way for the castles of the reign of Edward I. which represent
the highest effort of military planning. In the last two chapters
is related the progress of the transition from the castle to the
fortified manor-house, which followed the introduction of fire-arms
into warfare and preceded the Renaissance period. It will be seen that
the castle is taken as the unit of military architecture throughout;
but illustrations are constantly drawn from walled towns, which are, in
fact, the castles of communities, and in the eleventh chapter extended
allusion is made to the chief features of their plan and defences.
In speaking of the walled town, however, as the castle of the
community, it must not be forgotten that the castle is, in its origin,
the stronghold of a single owner. That origin is still to some extent
a vexed question; for the well-known theory of Mr G. T. Clark, that
the castle of Norman times was identical with the _burh_ of the Saxon
Chronicle, was accepted as a dogma by the antiquaries of twenty-five to
fifty years ago, and a theory thus established, however precipitately,
is not easily shaken. The patient and thorough work of Mrs Armitage,
which deserves the admiration of every scholar, has done much to
disturb the foundations on which Mr Clark built his hypothesis; and
Mr Neilson, Dr Round, Mr St John Hope, and others, have contributed
their share to the discovery of the real character of the evidence,
and the formulation of a sounder theory. The present writer has
devoted much time to the study of the original authorities for Saxon
and Norman military history, and it is his conviction that the weight
of documentary evidence is entirely upon the side of the views upheld
with so much ability and originality by these recent investigators. At
the same time, the earthworks of early castles still present several
difficult problems; and the discredit into which Mr Clark’s theory
has fallen is a warning against the too confident acceptation of the
conclusions of a more critical age, and against the danger of forcing
exceptions into the service of the rule.
In the earlier part of this book, some allusion is made to methods
of Roman warfare; and the main points of two of the sieges conducted
by Cæsar and his lieutenants are summarily described. It need hardly
be said, in view of what follows, that the methods of military
architecture in the middle ages have, for the most part, their
exact prototypes in Roman and Byzantine history. The student of the
siege-campaigns of Philip Augustus will be constantly reminded, for
example, of the relation by Ammianus of the exploits of Julian the
Apostate. Too much emphasis cannot be laid on the importance, first,
of the contact of the Northmen who overran England and France with the
traditional expedients of Roman siegecraft, as they existed in the
eastern empire, and secondly, of the influence of the Crusades upon the
development of medieval fortification. The conditions of our military
architecture in the middle ages were naturally governed by the methods
of attack employed by a besieging force. As these had been brought
to a high state of perfection in the east, an advance upon which was
hardly possible, the history of English fortification, from the Norman
conquest to the general adoption of fire-arms in warfare, is that of a
progress towards a system of defence in which western Europe lagged far
behind the older centres of civilisation.
It is to be noted that, although the architecture of the castle and the
fortifications of towns naturally took its share in the formal progress
of Gothic art, the laws under which it was evolved bear no resemblance
to the principles of construction, in obedience to which the medieval
cathedral assumed its characteristic form. Ribbed vaults, Gothic
mouldings, and traceried windows afford a clue to the dates of the
various parts of a medieval castle, as they do to those of a church;
but they are merely incidental to a type of construction to which the
solid and impregnable wall is all-important. The cases are rare in
which the builders of castles paid much attention to elaborate detail
in the minor parts of their building: their decorative work is used
with the economy and simplicity appropriate to the massive construction
which their fortresses demanded.
A vast amount of work still remains to be done in the exploration
of our military buildings and the reconstruction of their history;
and, until that is accomplished, no thoroughly satisfactory general
hand-book can be written. Nevertheless, it is hoped that there is room
for books which may serve as general indicators to what has been done,
up to the present time, in this direction. The bibliography which will
be found preceding the text of this volume includes a selected list
of monographs or articles upon individual castles, many of which have
appeared in the transactions of various archaeological societies.
These vary considerably in value; but, taken as a whole, they serve to
enlarge our knowledge of the history and architecture of the buildings
with which they are concerned.
The author desires to express his thanks, first to his wife, without
whose constant help in the preparation of the book and in the provision
of drawings and plans to illustrate its pages, it could hardly have
been written. Mr Francis Bond, the editor of this series, has aided
the author with unfailing kindness, by reading through the proofs,
making suggestions as to the general form of the book, and arranging
for its adequate illustration. To the following, who have kindly
allowed the use of photographs, special thanks should be returned: Mrs
Jessie Lloyd, the Revs. J. Bailey and G. W. Saunders, and Messrs Harold
Baker, F. Bond, J. P. Gibson, F.S.A., G. J. Gillham, G. Hepworth, P. M.
Johnston, F.S.A., R. Keene, W. Maitland, E. A. and G. R. Reeve, F. R.
Taylor, and G. H. Widdows. The editors of the _Archaeological Journal_
have sanctioned the use of various plans from the annual programmes
of the Archaeological Institute. Mr A. Hadrian Allcroft and Messrs
Macmillan have given consent to the reproduction of three illustrations
from Mr Allcroft’s _Earthwork of England_. Permission to found the plan
of Chepstow castle on one in the official _Guide_ to that building
was kindly given by his Grace the Duke of Beaufort, through Mr Noel
H. P. Somerset. MM. Camille Enlart and Auguste Picard have permitted
the insertion of a plan of Château-Gaillard, founded on that in M.
Enlart’s _Manuel_. Mr R. Blair, F.S.A., has authorised a similar use of
illustrations founded on those of Dr Bruce’s _Roman Wall_. Thanks are
also due to the editor of the _Yorkshire Archæological Journal_ for the
plan of Sandal castle, and to Mr W. G. Watkins, jun., for his plan of
Lincoln castle. Special acknowledgments are due to Mr Godfrey L. Clark
for his liberality in putting at the disposal of the writer valuable
plans and drawings from his father’s work. The author much regrets that
questions of space and cost have prevented him from taking advantage of
more than a limited number of the generous offers of illustration which
reached him during the preparation of the book for the press.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
PREFACE vii
BIBLIOGRAPHY xiii
I. EARLY EARTHWORKS AND ROMAN STATIONS 1
II. THE SAXON AND DANISH PERIOD 21
III. THE ENGLISH CASTLE AFTER THE CONQUEST 35
IV. THE PROGRESS OF ATTACK AND DEFENCE 58
V. THE BEGINNING OF THE STONE CASTLE 83
VI. THE KEEP OF THE NORMAN CASTLE 110
VII. THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION: CYLINDRICAL TOWER-KEEPS 160
VIII. THE DWELLING-HOUSE IN THE CASTLE 188
IX. CASTLES OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY: THE FORTIFICATION
OF THE CURTAIN 212
X. THE EDWARDIAN CASTLE AND THE CONCENTRIC PLAN 252
XI. MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN THE LATER MIDDLE
AGES: FORTIFIED TOWNS AND CASTLES 287
XII. THE AGE OF TRANSITION: THE FORTIFIED DWELLING-HOUSE 334
INDEX OF PERSONS AND PLACES 369
INDEX RERUM 381
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Chief Original Authorities cited.
ABBO, De Bello Parisiaco libri tres (Migne, _Patrologiae Cursus
Completus_, vol. 131 (1853), pp. 722-62).
AMIENS, GUY OF. Carmen de Hastingae proelio (Chroniques
Anglo-Normands). Rouen, 1836-40.
ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE, ed. C. Plummer. 2 vols. Oxford, 1892-9.
ANNA COMNENA. Alexias, ed. A. Reifferscheid. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1884.
ANNALES BERTINIANI (Annales Francorum, vulgo Bertiniani dicti),
ed. Dom. M. Bouquet, _Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la
France_, vols. vi. (1749), 192-204; vii. (1749), 59-124; viii.
(1752), 26-37.
ARDRES, LAMBERT OF. Extracts in Bouquet, _Recueil des historiens_,
vols. xi. (1767), 295-307; xiii. (1786), 423-53; xviii. (1822),
583-8.
BEDE. Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. C. Plummer. Oxford, 1896.
BRETON (LE), GUILLAUME. Philippidos libri xii., ed. Bouquet, _Recueil
des historiens_, vol. xvii. (1818), 117-287.
CAESAR. Commentaries, ed. B. Kübler. 3 vols. Leipzig, 1893-6.
COLMIEU, JEAN DE, canon of St Martin, Ypres. Vita beati Joannis
Morinorum episcopi (_Acta Sanctorum_, January, vol. iii. 409-17).
DICETO, RALPH DE. Historical Works (Ymagines Historiarum and
Abbreviationes Chronicorum), ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols. (Rolls Series,
No. 68).
DOMESDAY BOOK (Record Commission). 4 vols. Lond., 1816.
HENRY VIII., LETTERS AND PAPERS, ed. Brewer and Gairdner, vol. iv.
HOVEDEN, ROGER OF. Chronicle, ed. W. Stubbs. 4 vols. (Rolls Series,
No. 51).
JOINVILLE, JEAN, SEIGNEUR DE. Histoire de Saint Louis, ed. N. de
Wailly. Paris, 1874 (translation of Chronicle by Sir Frank Marzials,
London, 1908).
MONTE, ROBERT DE (Robert de Torigny, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel).
Cronica (continuation of Sigebert of Gemblours), ed. Migne,
_Patrologiae Cursus_, vol. clx., 423-546.
ORDERICUS VITALIS. Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. A. le Prévost. 5 vols.
Paris, 1838-55.
PATENT ROLLS, CALENDARS OF, 1216-66, 1271-1364, 1377-1485. 47 vols.
(in progress).
PETERBOROUGH, BENEDICT OF. Chronicle, ed. W. Stubbs.
2 vols. (Rolls Series, No. 49).
PIPE ROLLS. Pipe Roll Society Publications. 27 vols. (in progress).
London, 1884, etc.
RYMER, THOMAS. Foedera. 20 vols. London, 1704-35.
STUBBS, WILLIAM, D.D. Select Charters and other Illustrations of
English Constitutional History, 8th edit. Oxford, 1905.
SUGER. Gesta Ludovici Grossi, ed. A. Molinier. Paris, 1887.
VEGETIUS. Epitoma Rei Militaris, ed. C. Lang. Leipzig, 1885.
VETUSTA MONUMENTA, vol. vi. (Bayeux Tapestry). London, 1842.
VILLEHARDOUIN, GEOFFROI DE. De la Conqueste de Constantinople par
les Barons François associez aux Venitiens, ed. N. de Wailly. Paris,
1872-4 (trans. Sir Frank Marzials, London, 1908).
VITRUVIUS. De Architectura, ed. V. Rose. Leipzig, 1899.
WENDOVER, ROGER OF. Chronica sive Flores Historiarum, ed. H. G.
Hewlett, 3 vols. (Rolls Series, No. 84).
2. General.
ALLCROFT, A. HADRIAN. Earthwork of England. London, 1908.
ARMITAGE, ELLA S. Anglo-Saxon burhs and early Norman castles (_Proc.
Soc. Antiq. Scotland_, xxxiv. 260-88).
—— The Early Norman Castles of England (_English Historical Review_,
xix. 209-45 and 417-55).
—— The Early Norman Castles of the British Isles. London, 1912.
BRUCE, J. C., LL.D., F.S.A. Hand-book to the Roman Wall, ed. Robert
Blair, F.S.A., 5th edition. London and Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1907.
CHRISTISON, DAVID, M.D. Early Fortification in Scotland: Motes,
camps, and forts. Edinburgh and London, 1898.
CLARK, G. T., F.S.A. Mediæval Military Architecture in England. 2
vols. London, 1884.
CLEPHAN, R. COLTMAN, F.S.A. An Outline of the History of Gunpowder
and that of the Hand-Gun, from the epoch of the earliest records to
the end of the fifteenth century (_Archaeol. Journal_, lxvi.
145-70).
—— The Military Handgun of the sixteenth century (_Archaeol.
Journal_, lxvii. 109-50).
—— The Ordnance of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (_Archaeol.
Journal_, lxviii. 49-138).
CODRINGTON, THOMAS. Roman Roads in Britain. London, 1903.
D’AUVERGNE, EDMUND B. The Castles of England. London, 1907.
—— The English Castles, London, 1908.
DIEULAFOY, M. Le Château-Gaillard et l’architecture militaire au
XIIIᵐᵉ siècle (_Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions_, tom.
xxxvi., part. 1). Paris, 1898.
ENLART, CAMILLE. Manuel d’Archéologie française, vol. ii. Paris, 1904.
HARVEY, ALFRED. The Castles and Walled Towns of England. London, 1911.
HAVERFIELD, Prof. F. J., LL.D., D.Litt., V.P.S.A. The Romanization of
Roman Britain. London, 1905.
—— Roman Britain (_Cambridge Medieval History_, i. 367-81: see
_ibid._ 666-7 for bibliography of various articles by the same
writer).
HOCHFELDEN, G. H. KRIEG VON. Geschichte der Militar-Architektur in
Deutschland. Stuttgart, 1859.
HOPE, W. H. ST JOHN. English fortresses and castles of the tenth and
eleventh centuries (_Archaeol. Journal_, lx. 72-90).
MACKENZIE, Sir J. D. The Castles of England, their Story and
Structure. 2 vols. London, 1897.
NEILSON, GEORGE. The motes in Norman Scotland (_Scottish Review_ xiv.
209-38).
OMAN, Prof. C. W. C., F.S.A. A History of the Art of War in the
Middle Ages. London, 1898.
ORPEN, G. H. Motes and Norman castles in Ireland (_Proc. Royal Soc.
Antiq. Ireland_, xxxvii. 123-52).
PARKER, J. H., and TURNER, T. HUDSON. Some account of domestic
architecture in England. 3 vols, in 4. Oxford, 1851-9.
ROUND, J. HORACE, LL.D. The Castles of the Conquest. (_Archaeologia_,
lviii. 313-40).
—— Feudal England, Historical Studies on the XIth and XIIth Centuries
(new edition). London, 1909.
SAINT-PAUL, ANTHYME. Histoire Monumentale de la France, 6th edition.
Paris, 1903.
TURNER, T. HUDSON; _see_ PARKER, J. H.
VAN MILLINGEN, A. Byzantine Constantinople. London, 1899.
VIOLLET-LE-DUC, E. Dictionnaire Raisonné de l’Architecture française
du XIᵉ au XVIᵉ Siècle. 10 vols. Paris, 1854, etc.
—— Essai sur l’architecture militaire au moyen âge. Paris, 1854
(translated by M. Macdermott, Oxford and London, 1860).
—— Histoire d’une forteresse. Paris, n.d.
WARD, W. H. French Châteaux and Gardens in the XVIth Century
(drawings reproduced from Androuet-du-Cerceau). London, 1909.
WESTROPP, T. J. Irish motes and alleged Norman castles (_Proc. Royal
Soc. Antiq. Ireland_, xiv. 313-45, and xv. 402-6).
3. Special Monographs, etc.
ACTON BURNELL. Hartshorne, C. H., F.S.A. (_Archaeol. Journal_, ii.
325-38).
ALNWICK. Clark, _Mediæval Mil. Architecture_, i. 175-85.
—— Knowles, W. H., F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A. The Gatehouse and Barbican of
Alnwick Castle (_Archaeologia Æliana_, 3rd ser., v. 286-303).
AMBERLEY. Clarkson, G. A. (_Sussex Arch. Coll._, xvii. 185-339).
ARUNDEL. Clark, i. 195-203.
AUCKLAND. Rev. J. F. Hodgson (_Archaeologia Æliana_, xix. 89-92).
AYDON. Knowles, W. H. (_Archaeologia_, lvi. 78-88). _See_ also Bates,
_Border Holds_.
BAMBURGH. Bates, _Border Holds_; Clark, G. T. (_Archaeol. Journal_,
xlvi. 93-113).
BARNARD CASTLE. Clark, i. 204-13.
BEAUMARIS. Clark, i. 213-17.
BELSAY. Bates, _Border Holds_.
—— Middleton, Sir Arthur E., Bart. An account of Belsay castle
(privately printed). Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1910.
BERKELEY. Clark, i. 228-39.
BERKHAMPSTEAD. Clark, i. 223-38.
BERWICK-ON-TWEED. Norman, F. M. (Commander R.N.): Official Guide to
the Fortifications. Berwick, 1907.
BODIAM. Clark, i. 239-47.
—— Sands, Harold, F.S.A., in _Sussex Archaeol. Collections_, xlvi.
114-33.
BOTHAL. Bates, _Border Holds_.
BOWES. Clark, i. 259-64.
BRIDGNORTH. Clark, i. 273-81.
BRISTOL. Harvey, Alfred, M.B. Bristol, a historical and topographical
account of the city. London, 1906.
—— (castle). Pritchard, J. E., F.S.A. (_Proceedings of Clifton
Antiquarian Club_, iv. 17-19).
BRONLLYS. Clark, i. 283-6; _Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 3rd ser., viii.
81-92.
BROUGHTON. Lord Saye and Sele (_Berks, Bucks, and Oxon. Archaeol.
Journal_, new ser., vii. 23-5).
BUILTH. Clark, i. 304-8.
CAERPHILLY. Clark, i. 315-35.
CALDICOT. Bellows, J. (_Cotteswold Field Club_, vi. 263-7).
CALDICOT. Cobb, J. R. (_Clifton Antiq. Club_, iii. 35-40).
CAMBRIDGE. Hope, W. H. St John (_Camb. Antiq. Soc._, xi. 324-46).
—— Hughes, Prof. T. M‘Kenny, F.S.A. (_ibid._, ix. 348).
CARCASSONNE. Viollet-le-Duc, E. La Cité de Carcassonne. Paris, 1858.
CARDIFF. Clark, i. 336-50; Ward, J., F.S.A. Cardiff castle, its Roman
origin (_Archaeologia_, lvii. 335-52).
CAREW. Cobb, J. R. (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 5th ser., iii. 27-41).
CARISBROOKE. Beattie, W. (_Journal Archaeol. Assoc._, xi. 193-205).
—— Stone, P. G., F.S.A. (_Proc. Soc. Antiq._, 2nd ser., xvi. 409-11).
CARLISLE. Clark, i. 350-8
CARNARVON. Clark, i. 309-15.
—— Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeol. Journal_, vii. 237-65: _Archaeologia
Cambrensis_, 3rd ser., i. 242-6).
CHÂTEAU-GAILLARD. Clark, i. 378-85; Dieulafoy, M., _see_ General
Bibliography.
CHEPSTOW. Clark, G. T. (_Bristol and Glouc. Archaeol. Soc._, vi.
51-74).
—— Wood, J. G., F.S.A. The Lordship, Castle, and Town of Chepstow.
Newport, 1910.
CHESTER. Cox, E. W. (_Archit., etc., Soc. Chester and North Wales_,
v. 239-76).
CHILLINGHAM. Bates, _Border Holds_.
CHIPCHASE. Bates, _Border Holds_.
—— Knowles, W. H. (_Archaeologia Æliana_, 3rd ser., i. 32-4).
CHRISTCHURCH. Clark, i. 385-92.
CILURNUM. An Account of the Roman Antiquities preserved in the Museum
at Chesters, 1903.
CLUN. Clark, i. 402-9.
COLCHESTER. Clark, i. 418-31.
—— The History and Antiquities of Colchester castle. Colchester,
1882. _See also_ _Archaeol. Journal_, lxiv. 188-191.
CONISBROUGH. Clark, i. 431-53.
CONWAY. Clark, i. 453-60.
—— Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, new ser., v. 1-12).
CORFE. Blashill, T. (_Journal Archaeol. Assoc._, xxviii. 258-71).
—— Bond, T. History and Description of Corfe Castle. London and
Bournemouth, 1883.
—— Clark, i. 461-75.
COUCY. Clark, i. 476-87.
—— Lefèvre-Pontalis, E. Le Château de Coucy (with special
bibliography). Paris, n.d.
—— Viollet-le-Duc, E. Description du Château de Coucy. Paris, n.d.
DENBIGH. Ayrton, W. (_Chester Archit., etc., Soc._, ii. 49-60).
DOLWYDDELAN. Barnwell, E. L. (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 4th ser.,
xiv. 174-5).
DOMFRONT. Blanchetière, L. Le Donjon ou Château féodal de Domfront
(Orne). Domfront, 1893.
DOVER. Blashill, T. (_Journal Archaeol. Assoc._, xl. 373-8).
—— Clark, ii. 4-24.
DUFFIELD. Cox, J. C., LL.D., F.S.A. (_Derbyshire Archaeol. Soc._, ix.
118-78).
DUNSTANBURGH. Bates, _Border Holds_.
—— Compton, C. H. (_Journal British Archaeol. Assoc._, new ser., ix.
111-16).
DURHAM. Clark, ii. 32-5, and _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxix. 1-22.
—— Gee, H., D.D., F.S.A. (_Proc. Soc. Antiq._, 2nd ser., xx. 17-18,
and _Trans. Durham and Northumb. Archaeol. Soc._).
EXETER. Clark, ii. 44-7.
FALAISE. Ruprich-Robert, V. Paris, 1864.
GILLING. Bilson, J. (_Yorks Archæol. Journal_, xix. 105-92).
GUILDFORD. Clark, ii. 53-71.
—— Malden, H. E. (_Surrey Archaeol. Soc._, xvi. 28-34).
HADDON. Cheetham, F. H. Haddon Hall. London and Manchester, 1904.
HALLATON. Dibbin, H. A. (_Proc. Soc. Antiq._, 2nd ser., vii. 316-21).
HARLECH. Chapman, F. G. W. (_Journal British Archaeol. Assoc._ xxxiv.
159-67).
—— Clark, ii. 72-81.
HASTINGS. Clark, ii. 82-88.
—— Dawson, C., F.S.A. History of Hastings Castle. 2 vols. London,
1909.
HAWARDEN. Clark, ii. 88-99.
HELMSLEY. Clark, ii. 100-8.
KENILWORTH. Clark, ii. 130-53.
—— Knowles, E. H. The Castle of Kenilworth. Warwick, 1872.
KENTISH CASTLES. Sands, Harold. Some Kentish Castles (_Memorials of
Old Kent_, 1907).
KIDWELLY. Clark, ii. 153-62.
KNARESBOROUGH. Clark, ii. 168-76.
LANCASHIRE CASTLES. Fishwick, H. Lancashire castles (_Lancs. and
Chesh. Antiq. Soc._, xix. 45-76).
LANCASTER. Cox, E. W. (_Hist. Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire_, new ser.,
xii. 95-122).
LANGLEY. Bates, C. J. (_Archaeologia Æliana_, x. 38-56).
LEEDS. Clark, ii. 176-8.
—— James, F. V. (_Archaeologia Cantiana_, xxv. pp. xlix-liii).
LEICESTER. Clark, ii. 182-8.
—— Thompson, James. Leicester Castle. Leicester, 1859.
LEWES. Clark (_Sussex Archaeol. Collections_, xxxiv. 57-70).
LINCOLN. Clark, ii. 189-201.
—— Sympson, E. Mansel, M.D. Lincoln, a historical and topographical
account of the city. London, 1906.
LLANSTEPHAN. Williams, Sir John (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 6th ser.,
vii. 108-18).
LONDON, TOWER OF. Clark, ii. 203-72.
—— Sands, H., F.S.A. (_Memorials of Old London_, London, 1908, vol.
i. 27-65).
LUDLOW. Clark, ii. 273-90.
—— Hope, W. H. St John (_Archæologia_, lxi. 258-328).
LUMLEY. Dodd, J. (_Journal British Archaeol. Assoc._, xxii. 45, 46).
MANORBIER. Duckett, Sir J. (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 4th ser., xi.
134-145, 286-91, xiii. 166-73).
MIDDLEHAM. Clark, ii. 293-300.
MITFORD. Clark, ii. 300-3.
MONTGOMERY. Clark, ii. 303-12.
MONT-ST-MICHEL. Corroyer, E. Description de l’abbaye du
Mont-Saint-Michel et de ses abords. Paris, 1877.
—— Massé, H. J. L. J. A short history and description ... of Mont S.
Michel. London, 1902.
NEWARK-ON-TRENT. Blagg, T. M., F.S.A. A Guide to Newark, 2nd ed.,
1911.
NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE. Bates, C. J. (_Archaeologia Æliana_, ix. 120-9).
—— Heslop, R. O., F.S.A. (_ibid._, xxv. 91-105; _Journal of British
Archaeol. Assoc._, new ser., xii. 137-8, 214-5).
—— The Castle of Newcastle, a short descriptive guide. Newcastle,
1906 (4th ed.).
NORHAM. Bates, C. J. (_Archaeologia Æliana_, v. 52-5).
—— Clark, ii. 322-35.
—— Jerningham, Sir H. E. H. Norham Castle. Edinburgh, 1883.
NORTHAMPTON. Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeol. Journal_, iii. 309-32).
NORTHUMBRIAN CASTLES. Bates, Cadwallader J. The Border Holds of
Northumberland (_Archaeologia Æliana_ [Newcastle-on-Tyne], xv.
1-465).
—— Hartshorne, C. H. Feudal and military antiquities of
Northumberland and the Scottish Borders (_Memoirs of Brit. Archaeol.
Inst._, Newcastle, vol. 2, 1858).
NORWICH. Hartshorne, A., F.S.A. (_Archaeol. Journal_, xlvi. 260-8).
—— The Walls of Norwich (report of corporation). Norwich, 1910.
NOTTINGHAM. Green, Emanuel, F.S.A. (_Archaeol. Journal_, lviii.
365-97).
OAKHAM. Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeol. Journal_, v. 124-42).
—— Thompson, A. Hamilton, F.S.A. (_Rutland Magazine_, v. 80-88).
ODIHAM. Clark, ii. 336-45.
OLD SARUM. Clark, ii. 447-458.
—— Hope, W. H. St John, and Hawley, Lt.-Col. W., in _Proc. Soc.
Antiq._, 2nd ser., xxiii. 190-200 and 501-17.
ORFORD. Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeologia_, xxix. 60-9).
—— Redstone, V. B. (_Trans. Suffolk Archaeol. Inst._, x. 205-30).
OXFORD. Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeol. Journal_, viii. 354-65).
—— Hope, W. H. St John (_ibid._, lxvii. 363-6).
—— Lynam, Charles. The Crypts of the Churches of St Peter in the
East, and of St George within the Castle, Oxford (_ibid._, lxviii.
203-17).
PEAK CASTLE. Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeol. Journ._, v. 207-16).
—— Hope, W. H. St John (_Derbyshire Archaeol. Soc._, xi. 120-6).
—— Kirke, Henry (_Derbyshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, xxviii.
134-46).
PEMBROKE. Clark (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 3rd series, v. 1-13,
etc.; vi. 1-11, etc.; vii. 185-204).
—— Cobb, J. R. (_ibid._, 4th series, xiv. 196-220, 264-73).
PEVENSEY. Clark, ii. 359-67.
—— Salzmann, L. F. (_Sussex Archaeol. Collections_, xlix. 1-30, etc.).
PICKERING. Clark, ii. 368-75.
PONTEFRACT. Clark, ii. 375-88.
—— Hartshorne, C. H., _Journal British Archaeol. Assoc._, xx. 136-55).
PORCHESTER. Clark, ii. 388-400.
PRUDHOE. Bates, _Border Holds_.
RABY. Scott, O. S., Raby, its Castle and its Lords. Barnard Castle,
1908.
RAGLAN. Beattie, W. (_Jour. Archaeol. Assoc._, ix. 215-30).
—— Bradney, J. A. (_Bristol and Glouc. Archaeol. Soc._, xx. 76-87).
RICHMOND. Clark (_Yorkshire Archæol. Journal_, ix. 33-54).
—— Curwen, J. F., (_Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol.
Soc._, vi. 326-32).
—— _Yorks Archæol. Journal_, xx. 132-3.
RISING. Beloe, E. M., F.S.A. (_Norfolk Archaeology_, xii. 164-89).
—— Clark, i. 364-77.
ROCHESTER. Beattie, W. (_Journal Archaeol. Assoc._, ix. 215-30).
—— Clark, ii. 405-23.
ROCHESTER. Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeol. Journal_, xx. 205-23).
—— Payne, G. (_Archaeologia Cantiana_, xxvii. 177-92).
ROCKINGHAM. Bigge, H. J. (_Assoc. Archit. Soc. Reports_, xi. 109-18).
—— Clark, ii. 423-46.
—— Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeol. Journal_, i. 356-78); and privately
printed, Oxford, 1852.
—— Wise, C. Rockingham Castle and the Watsons. London, 1891.
SANDAL. Walker, J. W., F.S.A. (_Yorks Archæol. Journal_, xiii.
154-88).
SCARBOROUGH. Clark, ii. 458-67.
—— Stevenson, W. H. (_East Riding Antiq. Soc._, xiv. 13-17).
SKENFRITH. Bagnall-Oakeley, E. (_Bristol and Glouc. Archaeol. Soc._,
xx. 93-6).
—— Clark, ii. 467-72.
SOUTHAMPTON (town walls). Clark, ii. 472-81.
—— Hope, W. H. St John (_Proc. Soc. Antiq._, 2nd series, xvii. 221-4).
STOKESAY. De la Touche, G. (_Journal British Archaeol. Assoc._, xxiv.
238-40).
—— J. G. D. (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, xvi. 299-304).
SUFFOLK CASTLES. Redstone, V. B. Suffolk Castles (_Suffolk Archaeol.
Inst._, xi. 301-19).
SUSSEX CASTLES. Blaauw, W. H. Royal licences to fortify towns and
houses in Sussex (_Sussex Archaeol. Collections_, xiii. 104-17).
SWANSEA. Capper, C. (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 5th series, iii.
302-7).
TAMWORTH. Clark, ii. 481-8.
TATTERSHALL. Sympson, E. Mansel (_Memorials of Old Lincolnshire_,
1911, pp. 179-97).
TICKHILL. Clark, ii. 494-9.
TRETOWER. Clark, ii. 499-503.
TUTBURY. Clark, ii. 505-8.
WARK. Bates, _Border Holds_.
WARKWORTH. Bates, _Border Holds_.
WELLS (bishop’s palace). Davis, C. E. (_Journal British Archaeol.
Assoc._, xiii. 177-86).
WINGFIELD. Cox, J. C. (_Derbyshire Archaeol. Soc._, viii. 65-78).
—— Edmunds, W. H. Guide to Wingfield Manor.
YORK. Clark, ii. 534-48 (The Defences of York).
—— Cooper, T. P. York, The Story of its Walls and Castles. London,
1904.
—— —— The Castle of York. London, 1912.
YORKSHIRE CASTLES. Thompson, A. Hamilton. The Castles of Yorkshire
(_Memorials of Old Yorkshire_, 1909, pp. 236-64).
MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND DURING THE MIDDLE AGES
CHAPTER I
EARLY EARTHWORKS AND ROMAN STATIONS
The history of military fortification in England begins with those
strongholds which, at vast expense of labour, the early inhabitants
of Britain hewed out of the soil, surrounding defensible positions
with ramparts of earth, divided by deep fosses. The approximate date
of these earthworks can be determined only by excavation, and a vast
amount of work remains to be done in this direction. The number,
however, of those which can be proved to be earlier than the Roman
occupation is very large; and, of this number, a considerable portion,
including some of the most stupendous examples of fortified hill-camps,
may have been the work of neolithic man some two thousand years before
the Christian era. Relative dates in this connection concern us less
than principles of fortification. The hill-camps of pre-Roman Britain
may be divided roughly into two classes. In the first place, there
are those which occupy the summit of a promontory of high land, which
slopes so steeply on all sides but one that artificial defence is
necessary on that side alone. The second class is that of the so-called
“contour forts,” in which the summit of a hill is utilised for the
camp, and encircled by trenches following the contour of the ground.
[Illustration: Maiden Castle]
In each case the defences provided by the inhabitants consist of
earthen banks, the materials of which have been dug from the fosses or
ditches which surround their outer face. An earthen bank and fosse,
thrown across the neck of land between the promontory and the plateau
beyond, convert the extremity of the promontory into a fortified
enclosure. Well-known examples of such fortresses are the three camps,
one on the east and two on the west side of the river, which guarded
the valley of the Avon at Clifton. The labour necessary for the
construction of these was naturally far less than that which went to
the making of the great contour fortresses, of which so many splendid
examples remain in Somerset, Wiltshire, Dorset, and in the chalk
districts generally. In these cases, the whole area, or at any rate the
greater part of it, stood in need of entrenchment. There are points
at which the slope is so precipitous that the bank and ditch were
dispensed with, or, as in part of Cissbury camp near Worthing, only a
single bank or ditch was necessary.[1] Also, the steeper the ground,
the less was the labour required in constructing the entrenchments.
But these positions often took the form of enclosures surrounded by
double or triple lines of defence, often of stupendous size. For the
greater part of its extent, the _vallum_ or bank of the oval camp of
Cissbury is double, and along the outer edge of the encircling fosse
is a formidable counterscarp or parapet. Poundbury, which lies on the
high ground west of Dorchester, has a single bank and ditch on its east
and south sides. On the west side the bank is doubled; but the north
side, where the hill falls almost perpendicularly to the Frome, was
left without artificial defence. The superb fortress of Maiden Castle
(2), which crowns an isolated hill, 432 feet high, south of Dorchester,
shows a bewildering complication of plan. The oval central space is
ringed by a number of banks and ditches, which varies from three on the
north side to as many as eight about the western entrance.
[Illustration: Maiden Castle; plan]
These early camps form merely the preface to our subject, and attention
need be called only to some general features. Their character, like
that of the medieval town or castle, was strictly defensive. They
were the strongholds of races whose weapons were of a very primitive
description, and could carry to no great range. What their inhabitants
needed was an impregnable fortress, within which they and their herds
could be well sheltered from attack. They belong to a day before siege
operations were possible. To carry them, a determined onset and a
hand-to-hand fight were necessary. Their strength therefore depended
on the complexity of their defences. No enemy could hope to scale the
flanking banks of Maiden Castle, one by one. The entrances to the camp,
at its eastern and western ends (3), were so elaborately concealed
by the overlapping ramparts, that even on a ground-plan they are far
from obvious; and it was almost inevitable that an attacking force,
without a guide acquainted with the ground, would be decoyed into a
_cul-de-sac_ and overwhelmed by the missiles of the defenders on the
ramparts.
[Illustration: Old Sarum
(From Mr Hadrian Allcroft’s _Earthwork of England_ by kind permission
of Messrs Macmillan & Co.)]
The steepness of the bank itself constituted a formidable means of
defence. At Maiden Castle the great northern banks rise to a height
of 60 feet or more. The top of the outer bank of Old Sarum (4) is
106 feet above the level of the ditch below.[2] In many cases, and
probably in all, the inner bank was crowned by a stockade, consisting
of a series of upright stakes, between and round which was twined an
impenetrable hedge of thorns. The plateau or berm which was sometimes
left behind the parapet of the bank, where there was more than a single
bank and ditch, was a valuable asset to the defenders of prehistoric
strongholds, forming an advance post from which they were able to wield
their missiles freely; while sometimes the summit of one or more of the
outer banks was made for the same purpose into a broad platform, which
allowed greater freedom of movement. The parapet or counterscarp of
the outer ditch was probably defended by a stockade, and it is known
that in some cases sharpened stakes or stones were fixed firmly in the
bottom of the ditches.
[Illustration: Bury Ditches]
The impregnable character of the _enceinte_ was thus ensured. But
further skill was necessary to defend the entrances of the camp. Of
these there was usually more than one, and these were necessarily
formed by cuttings through the banks. As in the case of Maiden Castle,
the path of entry could be converted into a labyrinth by multiplying
the banks and ditches. Every inch of this circuitous path is guarded
by tall ramparts: there are seven or eight points in its course at
which fatal error was possible, and one at any rate where an attacking
army could hardly fail to rush securely upon destruction. The eastern
entrance is so guarded by transverse banks that the path is almost
equally difficult to find. It was seldom, however, that entrances were
so elaborately protected. At Old Sarum the western entrance is covered
by a semicircular outwork, on the flanks of which are the two inlets to
the passage through the outer _vallum_. On the east side the entrance
is through a narrow passage which runs for some distance between the
parapet of the outer ditch and an outwork, and is at right angles
to the actual passage through the bank. The most common method of
defending the entrance was to make a diagonal path, usually from right
to left, through the banks. Each bank would thus overlap the next: the
summits above the path would be broadened out into platforms, capable
of occupation by bodies of defenders; and the right flank of the
enemy, unprotected by shields, would be exposed to their missiles. The
entrance, however, might be substantially protected by giving an inward
curve to the inner bank on each side of the path; and this is a plan
very frequently employed.[3] Where outworks were specially constructed,
their form differs considerably: we have seen them employed in two ways
at Old Sarum—as a kind of horn-work thrown out in front of a passage,
and as a spur projecting at right angles in front of an entrance. In
both cases an absolutely straight approach is precluded. Occasionally,
where an approximately direct approach was permitted, it is guarded on
one side by a spur thrown out at right angles to the bank. At Blackbury
castle, an early earthwork in south Devon, the main entrance has a
straight approach guarded on either side by a triangular outwork, which
is formed by a most ingenious arrangement of banks and by prolongations
of the main ditch (7). At the actual entrance the main bank is curved
outwards, with broad platforms at the top. The hollow interiors of the
outworks might serve as guard-houses, or the attacking force could
be driven into them from the gateway of the fort, and penned in a
position from which escape was impossible. Sometimes hollows were made
in the bank or in a projecting outwork near the gateway to serve as
guard-houses. On either side of the main entrance, the bank was often
slightly raised. At least one instance is known in which the main gate
was concealed by making a break in another part of the rampart, and
raising the bank on either side. The enemy, making for this point,
would miss the real entrance, and run the risk of losing his life in a
_cul-de-sac_ purposely constructed within the rampart.
[Illustration: Blackbury Castle
(From Mr Hadrian Allcroft’s _Earthwork of England_ by kind permission
of Messrs Macmillan & Co.)]
In these fortresses, the defences of which were due to instinctive
skill in the face of constant danger, it is impossible not to recognise
how many of the most scientific features of medieval fortification
were anticipated. The concentric plan of Caerphilly castle (270), with
its easy provisions of egress, and its difficulty of access; the spurs
which guard the approaches to Beaumaris (277) and Conway castles; the
barbicans which form so prominent a defence of Alnwick castle (243),
and the gateways of York have prototypes, of which their engineers were
probably unconscious, in the huge earthworks of prehistoric Britain.
Through a long interval, in which military art pursued a very gradual
evolution, the wheel came full circle. The devices of the earthwork
builders were translated into stone with far greater economy of labour.
Although the most conspicuous examples of early earthwork are found in
hill fortresses, camps were not confined to hilly sites, nor were their
defences always composed of earthwork. There are districts where the
hard nature of the soil forbade the construction of earthen banks and
fosses; and consequently there are many camps which are surrounded by
walls of rough uncemented stone, originally kept in place by facings
and bondings of larger and smoother stones.[4] These camps are usually
not large. They occur very commonly in the north of England: a good
example is that known as the Castles, in the valley of the Bedburn,
seven or eight miles west of Bishop Auckland. The enclosure, situated
on a boggy slope, is surrounded by shapeless masses of _débris_, the
ruins of the dry-built ring wall, which has lost its facing and so
has fallen to pieces. Stone was also used in the ramparts of some of
the camps on the rocky hills of Somerset, as in the camps on either
side of the Avon at Clifton. The great fortress of Worlebury, above
Weston-super-Mare, was surrounded by an immense wall of uncemented
stone, brought to great thickness by building several walls, each with
its own set of facing stones, up against each other. On its eastern
front, separated from the main rampart by a deep ditch, cut in the
solid rock, was another wall of stone; and this again was protected by
a series of outer earthworks (9). Dolebury, at the western extremity
of the Mendips, is surrounded by a double wall of loose limestone.[5]
In these cases, as in the Welsh strongholds of Penmaenmawr and Tre’r
Ceiri, geological conditions made the earthen bank an impossibility,
and the stone of the neighbourhood took its place.
[Illustration: Worlebury
(From Mr Hadrian Allcroft’s _Earthwork of England_, by kind permission
of Messrs Macmillan & Co.)]
It has often been argued that these prehistoric fortresses were merely
places of refuge, to which, in time of war, the dwellers in the levels
below betook themselves and their flocks. But it is much more probable
that they were the permanent habitations of communities, not merely
camps, but fixed settlements, chosen for habitation on account of their
strong position, and gradually fortified by labour which may have been
the work, in the more elaborate examples, of many generations. The
need of permanent protection for themselves and their flocks and herds
seems to have been felt by the early inhabitants of Britain to such an
extent that their regular settlements naturally took the semblance
of fortified camps. This is very evident in the case of those camps
which are found in positions where the natural advantages are very
small—positions which might be chosen by people in search of an abode,
but would hardly be chosen merely as a refuge. Camps in these positions
are never so imposing as those which crown hill-tops: the labour of
excavating the ditches and heaping up the banks was not aided by the
natural slope of a hill, and the earthworks, being slighter and nearer
the more recent haunts of men, are more liable to destruction. But the
defensive nature of such settlements is unmistakable.
The Roman invaders brought to England new methods of military
construction and the tradition of an architecture of dressed and
cemented stone. Their whole system of warfare was far in advance of
that pursued by the British tribes. They had developed the art of
siege to a high pitch. Their operations in open field were orderly and
scientific. Their walled strongholds were constructed with a view which
took into account, not only the mere strength of the ramparts, but
also the capacity of the defenders to man them. Men, not fortresses,
were the main asset of Roman warfare; and consequently their earthwork
was far less imposing than that of the Britons of the prehistoric age.
Their camps and permanent stations were usually surrounded by a single
fosse of no great depth: the rare cases in which traces remain of more
than a single fosse are camps upon the exposed northern frontier of
Roman Britain, where the onrush of the barbarian enemy was stayed by
a series of trenches, either covered with brushwood or filled with
sharp stones or stakes. Camps were hastily constructed of earthwork;
bank, ditch, and parapet playing their part. But where a camp became
a permanent station a stone wall took the place of the earthen bank.
The most important relic of the Roman occupation in Britain, the great
frontier wall from the Tyne to the Solway, was preceded by a _vallum_
of turf, a temporary defence which was superseded by permanent masonry.
No system of connected operations can be traced between prehistoric
forts. Each of these was probably an isolated stronghold. Roman
stations, on the other hand, were military posts manned by detachments
of one army, and connected by strategic roads. This is seen very
clearly in the case of the great wall already mentioned. The wall can
be traced for about 73 miles, from Wallsend (Segedunum) on the Tyne
to Bowness on the Solway. It is built in the usual Roman method, with
a core of cemented rubble between ashlar facings. Its breadth varies
between 7 and 9½ feet: the height appears to have been originally
from 16 to 18 feet.[6] Its northern face is defended by a ditch, marked
_a_ in the section below; but, as it follows the highest ground in its
course, and runs for some distance along the edge of basaltic cliffs
which dip northward, the ditch at these points becomes unnecessary and
is dispensed with. There were twenty-three stations in its length,
each garrisoned by a cohort of infantry or squadron of cavalry, chosen
from the Roman auxiliary troops of Gauls, Spaniards, Moors, &c.[7]
These were connected by a paved military road (_c_) along the south
side of the wall. At distances of a Roman mile from one another were
placed rectangular forts, now known as mile-castles, built against
the wall upon its south side; and the interval between each of these
was strengthened further by turrets, apparently two in number, which
also projected southward, but encroached slightly upon the thickness
of the wall. The south side of the military road was defended by an
earthen _vallum_, marked _d_,[8] the course of which is not directly
parallel to the wall, but is in places as much as half a mile distant,
keeping to lower ground where the wall prefers the summit of the basalt
ridge. This bank has a ditch (_e_) on its southern side, divided from
it by a level space or berm: the ditch has a southern parapet (_f_),
and another bank beyond (_g_). In certain places the ditch has also a
northern parapet; but the general arrangement of the earthen ramparts
is as described. Of the controversy as to the relative date of the wall
and its flanking earthworks nothing need be said here. Its military
purpose is abundantly clear. It provided not only a strong means of
defence against the attacks of the northern tribes, but a base of
operations for offensive warfare. Each of the stations and mile-castles
has a northern gateway in addition to its other entrances; and two of
the Roman roads which met the wall at intervals from the south passed
through it on their way to the Scottish border.
[Illustration: Section of Roman Wall and _Vallum_.]
The object of the great system of Roman roads was purely military.[9]
Along these broad paved “streets” the troops from the various stations
could be mobilised with great quickness. They kept as a rule to high
ground, choosing a convenient ridge, like that which runs from end to
end of Lincolnshire, and preserving as straight a line as possible.
The most important stations were placed at the crossing of rivers or
at the junction of roads. In the early days of the Roman occupation,
the operations of the army were directed entirely against the native
tribes. No system of coast defence was adopted. The necessity for
this came later, when Britain, under Roman dominion, was attacked by
bodies of Saxon pirates. A chain of fortresses was then constructed
along what was known as the Saxon shore, from Branodunum (Brancaster)
in north Norfolk to Portus Adurni in Sussex or Hampshire. The remains
of the walls of Gariannonum (Burgh Castle in Suffolk), Rutupiae
(Richborough in Kent), Anderida (Pevensey in Sussex), and Portus Magnus
(Porchester in Hampshire), are, next to the great wall, perhaps the
most interesting relics of the Roman epoch which we possess. The forts
of the Saxon shore were placed, for the most part, at the mouths of
estuaries, for which the foreign pirates would naturally make.
[Illustration: Cilurnum]
In several cases a Roman station was founded on the site of a British
settlement. It was, however, more compact in plan, and occupied only
a portion of the site. The earthworks defending the west side of the
settlement which preceded Camulodunum (Colchester) are two to three
miles beyond the Roman wall of the city, which occupied merely the
north-east angle of a very large and straggling enclosure. The original
Roman station at Lincoln may be taken as a typical example of a walled
town of this epoch.[10] It was a rectangular enclosure, with its longer
axis from east to west, occupying the south-west angle of the high
ridge above the valley of the Witham. In each of the four walls was a
gateway. The inner arch and the postern, with part of the side walls,
of the northern gateway still remain, and of the southern gateway there
are still substantial fragments; the line of the street which led from
one to the other is still fairly, though not accurately, preserved.
The positions of the east and west gateways are known: the line of the
street from the east gate to the centre of the city was deflected in
the middle ages, but its continuation to the west gate is represented
by the course of a street, much widened in modern times. Close to the
meeting of the four streets was the market-place or _forum_. This, in
the early days of Roman Lincoln, was the _praetorium_, or military
headquarters of the camp. But the legion quartered at Lincoln was
removed to York, as it seems, in the time of Vespasian, and the city
settled down to a civil and commercial existence. Round the _forum_
were clustered the chief public buildings of the city, and the
foundations of a large colonnaded building are still to be seen below
the present ground level. At Gloucester, Chichester, and Chester, the
course of the four main streets has been little, if at all, disturbed,
and their present meeting-place nearly represents the centre of the
Roman city. The arrangements of the _forum_ of a Romano-British town
have been made out very clearly by the excavations at Calleva Atrebatum
(Silchester) in Hampshire.[11] It was a closed rectangle, entered by
a gateway and surrounded by public buildings, in front of which were
colonnades; one side at Silchester was occupied by a great basilica,
which served the purposes of a hall of justice and mercantile exchange.
[Illustration: Borcovicus]
The stations on the Roman wall were of a more purely military character
than the towns which have been mentioned. They have the general
characteristic of a rectangular plan, with the angles rounded off, and
with a gateway, flanked by guard-houses, in each of the four sides. In
the two largest stations, however, Amboglanna (Birdoswald) and Cilurnum
(Chesters), there were, in addition to the main gateways, two smaller
gateways in the east and west walls respectively.[12] The walls of
the stations are generally 5 feet thick, and are built, like the wall
itself, of a core of cemented rubble, with facings of dressed stone.
The main gateways have a double passage, divided by a longitudinal
wall, which is pierced by a narrow passage in the centre. Their inner
and outer openings were spanned by arches, and closed by gates which
were hung on iron pivots fixed in the jamb of each opening next the
wall. At Borcovicus (Housesteads) there was no dividing wall through
the passage between the outer and inner openings of the gateway; but
each of these openings is composed of two arches, divided by a square
pier (15).[13] Each gateway had a stone sill, raised above the level
of the stone pavement. The interior passage was flanked by rectangular
guard-houses. The gateways of Borcovicus show interesting signs of
reconstruction, which point to the fact that, not long after its
construction, the station was seized by an enemy. At a subsequent time,
its Roman occupants reduced the width of the gateways by walling up
one half of the double openings. This was done apparently at different
times, the east gateway bearing signs of being treated in this way
at an earlier period than the others. The west gateway was walled up
with great ingenuity. Of its outer entrances, the northern, and of its
inner entrances, the southern, were blocked; so that a foe, choosing
this face of the station for attack, had to press his way through an
elbow-shaped, instead of a straight passage.
[Illustration: Borcovicus; West Gateway]
[Illustration: Pevensey]
The wall of a Roman station, between the gateways, was often flanked
by a series of towers, each projecting from the wall in the form of
a semicircle or rather more than a semicircle. This was the case
in some of the large Gallo-Roman cities, like Autun.[14] While the
rounded form of these towers made them difficult to undermine or
batter down, their summits served as standing-ground for the large
_ballistae_ or catapults, from which javelins or stones could be
hurled upon the attacking force. Their projection at regular intervals
made it possible for the defenders to command the whole line of wall
between each pair of towers; so that the besiegers’ attack would
necessarily be concentrated upon the towers themselves. At Pevensey
(16), where the enclosure of the station is almost oval, and not, as
usual, rectangular, in shape, there are remains of twelve solid round
towers, including those which flank the south-western gateway. At
Burgh Castle there are four towers in the east wall, two of which are
angle-towers.[15] Owing to the scarcity of good building stone in the
district, the walls at Burgh Castle are unfaced, and are built of flint
with bonding courses of tiles; only the upper portions of the towers
were bonded into the walls. A bed of concrete, with a platform of oak
planks above, formed the foundation of the towers.[16] The angles of
the wall of Roman York were strengthened by large polygonal towers. A
large portion of one of these, a magnificent example of Roman masonry,
remains; it formed the north-western angle of the city, and was hollow,
with an internal as well as an external projection (17). No outward
projections appear to occur upon the Roman wall or in the walls of
its stations. The “mile-castles,” as already noted, are built against
the inner side of the wall. At Cilurnum (13) and Borcovicus there
are foundations of square towers against and inside the containing
walls, while the angles of the stations are simply rounded off. The
western part of the north wall of Borcovicus has also been doubled in
thickness, apparently to give a safe foundation for a large catapult
planted on the top of the wall. The thickening was accomplished, at
a date later than the original building, by constructing an inner
wall, and filling up the space between this and the outer rampart with
clay. At Cilurnum, which appears to have been in existence before the
great frontier wall was made, the original east and west gateways were
left on the north side of the wall, which intersects the station.
As they were thus insufficiently protected, they were filled up
solid with masses of rubble, and were probably used as platforms for
catapults,[17] smaller gateways being made on the south side of the
wall.
[Illustration: York; Multangular Tower]
[Illustration: Borcovicus; Praetorium]
In the interior of the station, as at Lincoln, York, and Borcovicus,
the main street, or _via principalis_, led directly from the north
to the south gate.[18] The centre of the station, west of the _via
principalis_, was occupied by the _praetorium_, the headquarters
of the commander of the legion, answering to the space where, in a
temporary camp, the tents of the general and his staff were pitched.
As we have seen, the place of the _praetorium_ was taken in commercial
towns by the _forum_. The _praetorium_ at Borcovicus consisted of two
rectangular courts, open to the sky in the centre. The outer court,
with its main entrance facing the eastern street or _via praetoria_,
was surrounded on three sides by a colonnade. A doorway, immediately
opposite the main entrance, opened into the eastern colonnade of the
inner court. This had no northern or southern colonnades, but had
doorways to north and south: its western side was occupied by a line
of five rectangular chambers, the central one of which was the chapel
where the standards, with the other sacred treasures belonging to the
cohort,[19] were kept. The _praetorium_ faced the eastern street of
the station, which led to the east gate or _porta praetoria_. The gate
at the end of the western street was called _porta decumana_.[20]
The remaining buildings of the station consisted of straight blocks,
intersected by lanes: the majority of these buildings would be used as
barracks. It should be noted that, in the planning of a Roman station
or walled town, the _praetorium_ or _forum_ was taken as the central
point: the _via principalis_, in order to run clear from gate to gate,
was thus on one side of an axis of the rectangle, and the north and
south gates[21] were not in the centre of their respective walls.
It is clear that, as time went on and the power of Rome in Britain
grew weaker, the defensive character of the great wall and that of the
stations which it connected were emphasised at the expense of their
character as bases of active warfare. But it must be repeated that
Roman stations in Britain were not planned to form impregnable shelters
for communities mainly pastoral. They were centres for bodies of
fighting men, linked to each other by a splendid system of roads. The
Roman station at Dorchester, the lines of which are so well preserved
to-day, was founded, not within the ramparts of Maiden Castle or
Poundbury, but on the lower slopes near the passage of the Frome. The
single rampart and single ditch of a Roman town were almost invariable.
Free egress as well as entrance, provisions for attack as well as
defence, were necessary; and, with these objects in view, immense
earthen defences, such as those of Maiden Castle, would be cumbersome.
Bodies of Roman troops, as at Lincoln or Colchester, occasionally
occupied part of the _enceinte_ of a British settlement; but it is very
rarely that, as in the case of Old Sarum, we find a British hill fort
which also probably served as a Roman station. In this instance, the
occupation of the fort was due, doubtless, to its neighbourhood to the
military road: the road would not have been brought out of its way to
include the fort in its course. Roman stations, although they differed
in size, were small and compact, when contrasted with the large and
straggling areas occupied by the British settlers. Suburbs naturally
grew up outside their walls, and sometimes, although not very often,
the walled enclosure was extended to include a growing outer district.
This is supposed by many antiquaries to have happened at Lincoln, where
the original Roman station occupied the summit of the hill north of
the great bend of the Witham, which here turns from its northerly
course due eastward. After the city of Lincoln had settled down to
civil life, practically the whole slope of the hill south of the first
_enceinte_ was included within the city and encircled by a wall.
Part of the east wall of this later enclosure is still visible: the
Stonebow, the medieval south gate of the city, about a hundred yards
from the river and the bridge, appears to be on the site of the later
south gateway of Roman Lincoln.[22]