THE MOTTE AND BAILEY CASTLE, _c._ 1066-_c._ 1100
As is well known to students of English history the Norman influence
began to prevail in this country some time anterior to 1066. The court
of Edward the Confessor owned a fairly large proportion of Normans, the
sympathies of that monarch being strongly in their favour. They obtained
from him grants of estates in return for feudal duties, and, the Welsh
being at that time a source of annoyance, some of the land so allocated
was situated on the borderland.
[Illustration: THE TOWER OF LONDON.]
So far as is known, the earliest castle to be erected by a Norman in
that locality was built by Richard Fitz-Scrob, _c._ 1050. _Richard's
Castle_, as it is termed, stands in the northern part of Herefordshire;
a second example was thrown up at Hereford, and a third at the southern
entrance to the Golden Valley. If we may trust contemporary documents
a similar work was erected about the same time at Clavering Castle in
Essex by a Saxon native of the county, Swegen the Sheriff, and also,
probably, the castle at Dover, which appears to have been in existence
prior to the Battle of Hastings. Of this little group of pre-Conquest
castles the strongest was conjecturally that at Hereford, erected in
1055 by Harold, Earl of the West Saxons, consisting of a Motte and
Bailey similar to the rest, but only a small portion of the bailey
remains at the present time, as the mound has been removed and the ditch
filled up.
As regards the construction of a castle of the Motte and Bailey type, it
was commenced by the excavation of a deep ditch enclosing, as a rule, a
circular space. There are a few exceptions which approximate to the
oval, and the oblong form is not unknown. The whole of the ballast
excavated was thrown up inside the ring until a high mound, flattened at
the top, and with sides as steep as the "angle of repose" of the
excavated material would allow, had been formed. The last portions of
the superincumbent earth thrown up were consolidated by ramming. Around
the edge of the area upon the summit of the mound a breastwork of
timber was placed, either of thick vertical planks driven deeply into
the soil and firmly strengthened behind, or of timber and stone as
previously described in connection with fortified hill-tops (Chap. II.).
Upon the summit and occupying the centre, as a rule, a wooden castle was
erected known as the "bretasche," and varying in size and accommodation
according to the available space. We may safely infer that the height of
the bretasche was not less than two stories, and this, added to the
elevation of the mound which occasionally reached to 60 feet, would
afford a coign of vantage for a view over the whole area below. Upon the
outer edge of the fosse a vallum occurs in many examples, thus still
further adding to the depth of the defence and giving increased height
to the counterscarp; it also afforded a means for erecting a palisading
of stakes if advisable. To afford ingress and egress to the fort a
narrow flying bridge of wood was erected reaching from the top of the
mound to the outer edge of the fosse.
[Illustration: CLIFFORD'S CASTLE, NORTHANTS.]
Such was the method of construction of the simplest form of this type,
of which Bures Mount in Essex, The Mount, Caerleon, and Clifford's
Castle, Northamptonshire, are examples; but it is extremely questionable
even if these cited cases were made without an accompanying bailey,
although no traces can now be discerned. The accommodation would be so
extremely limited, and the danger of starvation to the garrison so
imminent, seeing that no room could be afforded for any cattle or sheep
upon the motte, that, unless intended to be of a temporary nature or
hastily raised in an emergency, we are justified in assuming that these
forts, of which not very many occur, are in an incomplete condition.
_Clifford's Castle_, at Little Houghton, three miles east of
Northampton, is an example of the Motte and Fosse; it is one of those
defending the valley of the river Nen--Earl's Barton and Wollaston being
similar companion defences. The hill is of large circumference,
presenting imposing proportions, and may be compared with important
works like those at Ongar and Pleshey in Essex, or with Thetford in
Norfolk. It rises to a height of over 50 feet above its surroundings,
and lies upon part of a small natural ridge. A ditch surrounds the base,
the ballast from which was taken to the top of the hill in order to
increase the height; the summit there, however, is level. In order to
increase the efficiency of the fosse it was converted into a moat, water
being admitted from the adjacent river. At the present time no traces
whatever of a bailey are discernible, nor of any enclosure with masonry
walls. This does not prove that these additions have never existed; the
natural place for them would be upon the eastern side where high ground
is situated, and if they have been built at any period they would
present features similar to those at Thurnham in Kent. The summit of the
mound would in that case be reached by a flying bridge of wood.
The Bailey, or base court, was an enclosed piece of land lying at the
foot of the motte; a ditch surrounded it, the ballast from which was
thrown up inside the area so as to make a rampart for palisading. The
two ends of the ditch joined the fosse encircling the motte, generally
upon opposite sides of the latter. In the bailey the buildings for the
garrison, stables, offices and domestic buildings were erected, while
the bretasche afforded accommodation for the lord of the castle, his
family, and immediate attendants. In those cases where a second bailey
occurs it is generally extended beyond the first on the face remote from
the motte, as at Ongar Castle, Essex; but sometimes, though more rarely,
both baileys will abut upon the mound, as at Newton in Montgomeryshire,
while in a limited group of castles, including Windsor and Arundel, the
motte occupies the centre of the whole defence.
It is not difficult to understand the almost universal rule that the
mound is placed upon the outer edge of the enceinte; it was without
doubt the strongest part of the position, and the refuge to which the
besieged retreated when the bailey, or baileys, had been lost, and in
the last extremity it afforded a means for escaping to the open country.
This disposition of the mound with regard to the bailey should be borne
in mind when dealing with those castles which have been erected in later
times upon a pre-existing Motte and Bailey fortress, the mound, as a
rule, with its accompanying enclosures serving as a nucleus around which
masonry defences could be grouped.
Through the agency of the plough, and aerial forces of degradation of
various kinds, baileys present but scanty traces at the present day in
many instances, and this may be taken as proof, if any were needed, that
earth and wood were the only kinds of material employed during the early
Norman period in the construction of forts. No traces of stone have been
discovered which can be assigned to that period with absolute
certainty, and not only does this well-established fact corroborate the
assertion, but documentary evidence points in the same direction.
It is quite possible that other Motte and Bailey castles besides the few
enumerated may eventually be ascribed to the fifteen or twenty years
preceding the Norman invasion, for there was nothing to prevent a
wealthy Thegn from erecting one of this type which he may have observed
on the Continent where many scores were in existence. The Bayeaux
tapestry shows Dinant as being defended by a Motte and Bailey castle;
the usual wooden tower is seen upon the top of the mound, and the
enclosed bailey is stockaded. It also shows the construction of such a
castle at Hastings, besides four similar examples in Brittany and
Normandy.
Certain it is that almost immediately after 1066 a rapid construction of
these fortified posts occurred in many parts of England and Wales, not
necessarily equally distributed, but more thickly dotted in those places
which the military instinct of the great Conqueror led him to deem
desirable. Thus the Welsh borderland is remarkably rich in examples,
Herefordshire alone containing thirty-two, as compared with
Leicestershire four, Nottinghamshire five, and Hertfordshire four. It is
remarkable, however, that many highly developed examples of this class
are to be found in the eastern counties where no borderland existed, and
we can only account for this anomaly by supposing that a Norman lord, to
whom a grant of land had been assigned in recognition of his military
services, hastened to consolidate his occupancy by the erection of a
castle, and that such building might possibly not have any reference to
the defence of the kingdom as a whole.
Thus the castle became the accredited centre of a feudal barony, and a
Motte and Bailey in almost every case is connected with places mentioned
in the Domesday Book as being the residence of a Norman landowner. For
example, Berkhampstead, owned by Robert Count of Mortaign, boasts one of
the most perfect specimens to be found in the country; the manors of
Nigel de Albini at Cainhoe in Bedfordshire, Robert de Malet at Eye in
Suffolk, William Fitz-Ansculf at Dudley in Staffordshire, Geoffrey
Alselin at Laxton in Nottinghamshire, William de Mohun at Dunster in
Somersetshire, Robert le Marmion at Tamworth in Staffordshire, Robert
Todenei at Belvoir in Leicestershire, Henry de Ferrers at Tutbury in
Staffordshire, Roger de Busli of Tickhill in the West Riding, and Ilbert
de Lacy at Pontefract in Yorkshire, all exhibit the same feature.
These castles in many cases became the centre around which sprang up the
dwellings of traders and agriculturists which subsequently developed
into boroughs, while in not a few instances ecclesiastical settlements
occurred which finally expanded into stately monasteries.
Again, many barons threw up castles in the centre of, or adjacent to,
pre-existing towns, the subsequent fortifications of which became an
integral part of the whole scheme of defence, as at Warwick, Nottingham,
and Leicester. Wherever a castle was built for the double purpose of
overawing a town and defending it against a common enemy, it is
generally found placed upon the city defences or immediately adjacent
thereto; and as the settlement had invariably originally sprung up in
the vicinity of, or upon the banks of, a river, the fort is usually
found placed at the junction where the borough and the river defences
meet. A fortress situated in this position would be able to afford
material help to a relieving army, while at the same time in the event
of the town being captured and given to the flames it would occupy the
best possible position, short of being entirely outside the walls, for
the garrison to escape the effects of the conflagration. This position
of the castle with respect to the town walls and other defences will be
recognised in the cases of Warwick, Hereford, Stamford, Cambridge,
Bedford, Chester, Shrewsbury, etc.
[Illustration: KENILWORTH CASTLE, WARWICKSHIRE.]
The Motte and Bailey castle was, as a general rule, placed upon the
banks of a river, which thus ensured immunity from attack upon one side,
while at the same time supplying the water for the ditches defending the
other three sides. In many examples, however, the defence depended upon
dry ditches. The proximity of high land apparently had no bearing upon
the choice of position, unless of course it was dangerously near; it was
only upon the introduction of gunpowder that the presence of commanding
spots in the neighbourhood became of importance in the selection of a
site. We find, however, that the positions usually chosen enabled the
garrison to command a view over the surrounding country, and this
feature is a prominent one at Richard's Castle, which affords a wide
extent over the northern part of Herefordshire. This is also the case at
Belvoir, which occupies a similar position with respect to the great
plain of Nottinghamshire. There were naturally a number of points which
had to be taken into consideration in the selection of a site, but those
enumerated were among the most important; one fact is forcibly borne in
upon the mind when viewing the positions of these ancient fortresses,
namely, that the builders had a keen eye for the recognition of salient
points in the ichnography of a district.
In an invasion of the British Isles at the present day the unwelcome
intruder would probably hasten to entrench himself and render his
position safe by pits, earthworks, and an elaborate entanglement of
barbed wire; and in the same manner as these could be rapidly prepared,
so we find that the Conqueror, directly after Hastings, threw up the
defence which would be the most expeditious in the making and the
cheapest in construction. The Motte and Bailey castle fulfilled both
conditions inasmuch as it was only necessary to obtain, by fair means
or otherwise, an adequate number of Saxon labourers to ensure the rapid
erection of the mound, while simultaneously the local trees were being
felled and roughly hewn into shape by native carpenters for the
palisades and bretasche. To give an idea of the speed with which these
fortresses could be made, we find that in a brief campaign of less than
two months, in 1068, the king founded eight of considerable importance,
including those at Nottingham, Warwick, Lincoln, Huntingdon, and York;
in the following year the erection of a second castle at York only
occupied eight days, and Baile Hill, the mount of the defence in
question, sufficiently testifies to the magnitude of the work. One great
advantage of the system should not be forgotten, namely, the possibility
of adequate defence by a small garrison because of the narrow front
exposed to an attack, and the immunity from harm of the besieged while
the defences stood intact.
_Windsor._--The Royal Castle of Windsor originated in one of the Motte
and Bailey type erected by the Conqueror upon the striking eminence near
the Thames. It was one of those that were hastily thrown up in order to
consolidate his power, as it is mentioned as early as 1070, and in
Domesday Book in 1086. It is one of a small and exclusive type by reason
of the dominating motte occupying the centre of the enclosure instead of
the usual position at the side or end; this peculiarity is shared by
Arundel, Nottingham, and one or two others. It is quite reasonable to
infer, however, that one, or even both, of the baileys were added at
some time subsequent to the throwing up of the mound. It was
sufficiently advanced in strength in 1095 to be the prison of de
Mowbray, Earl of Northumberland, and the extensive additions made by
Henry I. enabled the Court to be held there in 1110. John seized on
Windsor during the absence of his brother, but was besieged in it by the
loyal barons, and forced to surrender. Windsor has been stated as the
place of imprisonment of the de Braose family in 1210, who were
deliberately starved to death by the inhuman John. In the reign of Henry
III. very extensive building operations occurred, and a number of
towers, including the Barbican, were added, but probably Edward III.
left a greater mark upon the castle than any monarch preceding him,
possibly by reason of a natural affection for his birthplace.
Upon the great motte which his Norman ancestors had reared he built that
magnificent Shell Keep which forms such a fitting centre for the grand
range of buildings encircling it. The works commenced about 1348 and
lasted for twenty years, the celebrated William of Wykeham, subsequently
Bishop of Winchester, being the architect. They included the whole of
the walls of the enceinte, the great Hall, various lodgings for
officials, and St. George's Chapel.
In 1347 two notable prisoners were confined here, David Bruce and John,
king of France. In the reign of Richard II. St. George's Chapel was
found to be in an insecure condition, and Geoffrey Chaucer was appointed
Clerk of the Works. Windsor was the scene of the imprisonment of the
Scottish king James I. under Henry IV. and V.
Edward IV. commenced the re-building of St. George's Chapel, which was
not completed until the reign of Henry VIII., while to the latter
monarch is due the great gateway which bears his name. The Castle
suffered but little structurally during the Civil War, but all the plate
and many of the priceless relics were the objects of plunder. Charles
II., William III., and Anne probably did more to destroy this gorgeous
monument of antiquity than any preceding monarchs; with the idea of
adapting it to modern requirements buildings were dismantled, old
landmarks were removed, and trashy innovations of an unworthy age
substituted in their place. There are but few marks of commendation
attached to the name of George IV., but among them the restoration of
the Castle upon the ancient lines, when £700,000 were expended, must be
placed to his credit. In spite of the vandalism of recent centuries
there still remain many interesting examples of medieval masonry.