Castle Builders

Approaches to Castle Design and Construction in the Middle Ages

Malcolm James Baillie-Hislop

• Publisher: Pen and Sword Archaeology
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781473883963
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: History of Architecture

In Castle Builders, Malcolm Hislop looks at the hugely popular subject of castles from the unusual perspective of design and construction. In this general introduction to the subject, we discover something of the personalities behind their creation - the architects and craftsmen - and, furthermore, the techniques they employed, and how style and technology was disseminated. Castle Builders takes both a thematic and a chronological approach to the design and construction of castles, providing the reader with clear lines of development. Themes include earth, timber and stone construction techniques, the evolution of the great tower, the development of military engineering, the progression of domestic accommodation, and the degree to which aesthetics contributed to castle design.

Chapter 1

Introduction

From a retrospective and art historical viewpoint, the term ‘castle builder’ may sometimes seem synonymous with ‘master mason’. That might be a broadly accurate supposition for the later medieval period, when castle building usually (though not always) meant building in stone. By that time, it was the master mason that normally had overall charge of a substantial castle-building project, while other building crafts played a subordinate role. However, it was not always so, and it is part of the purpose of this book to highlight the roles played by other major contributors to the development of castles, notably the carpenters and earthmovers, who at different times played a more significant part than the mason.

Although we know a good deal about the instigators of castle construction and their motives, we know less about the designers and craftsmen involved; for the most part they remain as anonymous as the builders of most parish churches. What we may be able to do, however, is to trace the influence of certain individuals in the architecture. Without documentary evidence this can be a precarious task, subject to many pitfalls, but the general principle that individual masters had identifiable repertoires of craft traits holds true.

Few building craftsmen worked exclusively on castles, but one specialist that was particularly associated with castles was the engineer. In a medieval context, the term ‘engineer’ is not one that can be readily defined in all cases. The responsibilities of Ailnoth the engineer (fl. 1157–1190), the keeper of Westminster Palace during the reign of Henry II, were primarily architectural, and his recorded building activities are mostly domestic in nature. On the other hand, it is clear that many engineers, including Ailnoth’s contemporary Urricus (fl. 1184–1216), were essentially makers of siege engines.

There are, then, two strands to the title, but there are a number of well-documented instances to show that some engineers, including another of Ailnoth’s later contemporaries, Elias of Oxford (fl. 1186–1203), were adept in the execution of both functions. Indeed, Ailnoth’s own appointment in 1175–1176 to dismantle Framlingham and Walton castles (Suffolk) provides a hint of a background in military engineering. It is reasonable to suppose that the makers of siege engines, who were skilled in the destruction and circumvention of fortifications, might also turn their minds to improving the design of defensive works, on the grounds that expertise in field ordnance involves an understanding of defensive installations and vice versa. Further, once the principle of the engineer as a castle builder had been established, it was perhaps only a short step from the design of a castle’s defences to the design of its domestic buildings.

While it might be expected that makers of timber-framed siege engines would have been carpenters, by Ailnoth’s time the term ‘engineer’ in an architectural sense transcended individual crafts, being applied to both carpenters and masons. Ailnoth’s contemporary, Maurice (fl. 1174–1187), Henry II’s master builder at the castles of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Dover, who we only know as a castle builder, was described as a mason at Newcastle and an engineer at Dover. Ailnoth himself was not identified with any particular craft, but the range of his structural responsibilities included lead roofing, stonework, timberwork and glazing.1 The King’s servant, Elias of Oxford (fl. 1186–1203), was variously styled carpenter, mason and engineer.2 In the last quarter of the thirteenth century and the first quarter of the fourteenth century, Richard the engineer, of Chester, one of Edward I’s key men in his north Wales castle-building programme, was responsible for works in both wood and stone, including bridges, castles and siege engines, although, like Ailnoth, his own craft status is unknown.3

The ambiguous roles of such men are a reminder of how wide a range of skills a medieval master builder might be expected to encompass. One is reminded of the description of William of Sens, the architect of the eastern arm of Canterbury Cathedral from 1174, as ‘a craftsman most skilful in both wood and stone’.4 Familiarity with more than one branch of building craftsmanship was a powerful asset when masterminding a major architectural project, and particularly so where castle building was concerned. The array of expertise encompassed by castle builders at different times included earthwork construction, carpentry, masoncraft and water engineering, as well as all the minor building crafts. While the master builder might be able to call on the services of all kinds of building craftsmen, it was he who had to devise a scheme’s overall strategy and the manner in which the various aspects of the design fitted together.

An interesting document with respect to this topic is the indenture of 1380 between John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and the carpenter, William Wintringham, in which the latter agreed to undertake a major building operation within the duke’s castle of Hertford.5 These buildings were essentially of timber, but Wintringham was to be responsible for all elements of the construction work including foundations, chimneys, tiling and leadwork. The foundations and chimneys would have been in stone, and indeed Wintringham was given permission to obtain stone from the quarries of Hertford. No doubt the construction of the fireplaces and chimneys would have been sub-contracted to a mason, but they were Wintringham’s responsibility and subject to his dictate and approval. This rather unusual delineation of a carpenter’s responsibility for all aspects of the building work is owed to the fact that, in this case, Wintringham was acting as a building contractor rather than a direct employee, but it can only reflect the broad reality that in castles that were substantially of timber the carpenter would have been pre-eminent.

Where stone was the dominant building material, the timber adjuncts could not be designed in isolation, because the stonework had to be fashioned to accommodate them. Offsets, corbelling, sockets and chases were all incorporated in the masonry at one time or another in order to lodge flooring, roofing, hoarding and other timber trappings. Similarly, gateways had to be planned to hold portcullises, gates and drawbridges, all of which were aspects that had to be considered at the design stage. Timber was also used in significant quantities for scaffolding and centring. Erection of the former would have been within the remit of the masons; the latter may have been constructed by the carpenters, but its form would have been dictated by that of the vault and approved by the master builder.

It is reasonable to suppose, then, that the medieval master builder would have had an interest in and knowledge of all aspects of building construction, and may, indeed, have been proficient in more than one of them. The wide-ranging subjects of the early thirteenth-century sketchbook of Villard de Honnecourt, for many years regarded as the work of a master mason, are reflective of the types of themes that might fall within his sphere of concern: building plans and elevations, timber roof structures, practical geometry, mechanical devices including lifting machines and siege engines, figure studies, and decorative detail. The effective master builder needed more than proficiency in a particular craft; he had to be able to see the wider picture and maintain a grasp on all aspects of building construction including the sourcing of materials, recruitment of personnel and logistics.

Regarding the castle builder in particular, defensive considerations encompassed the choice of a tactically advantageous site and the design of the defences to counter whatever siege tactics were current. Fire, escalade, mining and assault by siege engines, including bombardment, were all employed at one time or another. The design of mechanical devices, like the drawbridge and the portcullis, can be recognized as falling within the sphere of a maker of siege engines: they were all machines, the conception of which required the same kind of aptitude. These mechanisms, along with the lifting machines required to manoeuvre heavy building materials into place, were part and parcel of the castle builder’s remit.

On the other hand, attention had to be paid to the domestic practicalities, including heating and sanitation arrangements and facilities for the preparation and cooking of food. The resolution of these issues became more challenging as the medieval period progressed, and the demand for high quality accommodation became more exacting. In the later Middle Ages, a castle architect’s ability to deal with complex spatial planning took precedence over defensive considerations. Thus, Richard Lord Scrope’s Castle Bolton (c. 1377–1395), in the Yorkshire Dales, is primarily a high-rise courtyard house with defensive trimmings, the whole thrust of the design being focused on the planning of the residential accommodation. In castles like this it was skill in domestic rather than military engineering that was required.

There was also an artistic dimension to the castle builder’s work, both in general effect and in architectural detail. In the medieval period, a powerful aesthetic sensibility often went hand in hand with mechanical ability, and the medieval builder would have seen nothing incongruous in the mixture of artistic and technological interests that Villard de Honnecourt’s sketchbook implies; the art of the period was, after all, rooted in technical craftsmanship: in early castles, in which the defences were often blatantly functional, the focus of aesthetic attentions was the great tower, a prestige building that was to a great extent separate from the wider castle. Subsequently, it was rivalled, and in some cases surpassed, as an architectural centrepiece by the gatehouse. In the later Middle Ages aesthetics might be the overriding factor in determining the form of the entire castle.

The Responsibility for Design

The responsibility for design was shared between the patron and/or his servants and the master builder. The patron dictated his requirements and the castle engineer used his technical expertise to accommodate them into his plan. We seldom have any direct references to this relationship and only occasionally do we catch glimpses of the dynamics involved, but design was a two-way process in which the patron issued instructions, the master builder made proposals for the manner in which they might be fulfilled, and the patron either gave his approval or demanded modifications. The patron, then, played an essential role in influencing the design of a castle by expressing his initial vision, preferences and models.

Sometimes the patron took a very personal interest in the enterprise, as did Richard the Lionheart at Château Gaillard (Eure); but then Richard’s noted expertise in war set him in good stead to play an influential role in devising the form that the castle ultimately took. Edward II seems to have been particularly involved in the design of the new keep raised at the royal castle of Knaresborough (Yorkshire) between 1307 and 1312. Edward’s order to demolish the old keep and to build another ‘as we have more fully indicated’ intimates that he had given fairly explicit instructions regarding the new work. The theory is corroborated by subsequent events when the master of works, Hugh of Tichemers, who was a London-based mason,6 left the site on four occasions to find the King, wherever he might be at the time, ‘in order to find out his express wishes and intentions concerning the works’.7

In other cases, possibly the more mundane projects or certain aspects of them, the responsibility for approving the scope and design might be delegated to a third party, as when Henry III asked his brother, Richard, Duke of Cornwall, to advise on fortifications at the royal castles of Dover (1243) and Oxford (1255).8 A project that may have been more appealing to Henry, with its promising of an exciting architectural centrepiece in the form of the new keep, was the reconstruction of the old motte and bailey castle at York. In this instance it was the king’s mason, Henry de Reyns, the man who was shortly to be entrusted with the rebuilding of Westminster Abbey, and his colleague, the royal carpenter, Simon of Northampton, who, in 1244, were sent to view the castle in order to organize the work. Part of their brief was to consult other experts in the field: such a consultative process being fairly common in the field of medieval architecture. Some 200 years later, in 1442, when the royal mason, Robert Westerley, was charged with building a new tower at Tutbury (Staffordshire), a castle of the duchy of Lancaster, it was masons from the fellow duchy castle of Pontefract (Yorkshire), William Hamell and John Swillyngton, who came over to give their advice.

Episodes such as these illustrate the collaborative nature of medieval building design. Exactly what was expected or gained from such meetings is uncertain, and probably varied. However, local knowledge about the qualities of the subsoil, the sources of materials, the recruitment of suitable personnel and other practicalities would have been useful to an outsider, but views on the feasibility of the plan and its structural implications would also have been valuable, particularly if the consultants had been involved in similar projects.

Henry de Reyns and Robert Westerley are unlikely to have spent much time at their respective provincial sites. Both had more important responsibilities elsewhere: at Westminster Abbey and Eton College (Buckinghamshire) respectively. In both these cases there must have been a deputy to whom the day-to-day running of the site was delegated. During Hugh de Tichemers’ absences from Knaresborough, Hugh of Boudon, the master mason of York Minster, took on his responsibilities on site, but where a master had simultaneous charge of more than one building project, so that his visits were of necessity infrequent, there had to be a resident mason. Such was the situation at Kirby Muxloe (Leicestershire) where the master mason, John Cowper, also had charge of Tattershall church (Lincolnshire), a distance of some 100 miles away. In the first building season (May to October 1481) he was at Kirby on four occasions on each of which he stayed for three or four weeks, which, in total, amounted to about half the time that building work was being carried on. His deputy, or warden, initially a man called Robert Steynforth, was present the whole time, and therefore had charge of the work while Cowper was away.9

This kind of arrangement was probably common enough in the later medieval period, but Kirby Muxloe is an exception in the extent and clarity of the documentation. In some other cases we can only make the inference, as in the case of the Durham-based mason, John Lewyn, who, in 1378, entered into major castle building contracts at Castle Bolton (Yorkshire), Carlisle (Cumberland) and Roxburgh (Roxburghshire). The distances between these sites are: Bolton–Carlisle, 60 miles; Carlisle–Roxburgh, 50 miles; Roxburgh–Bolton, 95 miles. They probably imply a two-day ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Dedication
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Earthworks
• Chapter 3: Building In Timber
• Chapter 4: Building In Stone
• Chapter 5: Great Tower Builders Part 1: c. 900–1190
• Chapter 6: Great Tower Builders Part 2: c. 1100–1500
• Chapter 7: Military Engineering Part 1
• Chapter 8: Military Engineering Part 2
• Chapter 9: Domestic Engineering
• Chapter 10: The Castle Builder’s Aesthetic
• Afterword
• Glossary
• Referenced Works
• Notes