Twelfth Century Great Towers - The Case for the Defence - Richard Hulme The Castle Studies Group Journal No 21: 2007-8 209 TWELFTH CENTURY GREAT TOWERS: The Case for the Defence TWELFTH CENTURY GREAT TOWERS angles were initially partially countered by po- The Case for the Defence lygonal towers before it was discovered round I towers provided the solutions. Liddiard also claims: ‘Recent work on castles such as Orford Great Towers: Citadels or Symbols? and Hedingham has completely demolished In 1215 King John’s miners brought down a the idea that the donjon was primarily de- 4 corner of the great tower at Rochester after the signed for defensive purposes’. New theories castle’s defenders had retreated there following emphasise symbolism, displays of wealth, and the capture of the bailey. Even then the defend- elements of theatricality or ‘choreography’ to ers fought on from behind the great tower’s in- reinforce their owners’ power. It is becoming ternal cross-wall. It was a dramatic siege, well a commonplace that towers were not designed documented, with incidental detail such as for defence e.g. ‘the fact that donjons were sel- John’s order for forty fat pigs to help fire the dom designed to be defended tells us more props underneath the tower, and illustrates the about the middle ages than (say) whether traditional view of donjons or tower keeps as Rochester tower was mined with a tunnel or a 5 ‘both the castle’s ultimate military strong point sap’ (Coulson). and principal residence’ (Allen Brown).1 Liddiard seeks to extend this argu- The authors of the History of the ment: ‘Revisionist arguments over the keep are King’s Works (HKW) declared ‘Both (Anglo- critical to our understanding of castle develop- Norman and Anjevin rectangular tower keeps) ment across the whole medieval period, since were designed for passive rather than active if it can be shown that keeps were emphatical- resistance…In an age when the only projectiles ly not raised for utilitarian military purposes were stones, lances, arrows and the like, they (and it should be said that this is still contest- were, however, as nearly impregnable as any ed) then a central – and arguably the most im- form of fortification yet devised’. Thus, ‘the portant – plank of the traditional military 6 keep dominated the twelfth century conception interpretation of castles is removed’. If of a castle’.2 twelfth century towers were designed in mar- tial style (to denote aristocratic rank) rather Recent research has cast doubt on than martial substance it supports Coulson’s these ideas, questioning both defensive capabil- sweeping conclusion: ‘The vast majority of ities and residential use. Some towers, like castles in England, Wales, Ireland, and France Chepstow, lacked latrines and fireplaces, im- have virtually no ‘military history’ of sieges or plying a limited residential role. The Tower of physical conflict across the whole panorama of London possessed latrines and fireplaces but more than five centuries. Rather than being seems to have housed only prisoners. At Hed- built for defence, as was once imagined, the ingham the one-way gallery above the grand majority display a refined aristocratic taste…’ 3 hall suggests a design for ceremonial use. (my italics).7 Forebuildings have been interpreted as proces- sional entrance routes rather than defensive fea- Were great towers designed for de- tures (towers with forebuildings often also had fence, residence, or ceremonial? Were these a secondary entrance). different design criteria incompatible? Major sieges like Rochester were rare II and few great towers were used as places of Ceremonial final refuge, raising the question whether defen- sive considerations were important in tower de- Recent research into Chepstow castle, Gwent, sign. Critics point out tower building suggests the great tower was built by William chronology does not support the idea that mili- the Conqueror in the 1080s. Its unusual niche- tary weaknesses associated with exposed right lined first floor room, interpreted as solely for 210 The Castle Studies Group Journal No 21: 2007-8 TWELFTH CENTURY GREAT TOWERS: The Case for the Defence ceremonial use, for the king to receive homage an exterior castle wall 2.4m thick, was effec- from the Welsh, may never have been used as tively indefensible: the roof and anyone on intended: ‘Perhaps these events (of 1093 – see the wall top would be exposed to archery below) made the Great Tower at Chepstow from high ground 60m away. With serious redundant’.8 The concept of a dedicated cere- disorder in Gwent in the 1090s would monial hall implies there was another domestic Chepstow’s tower have been left uncrenellat- hall in the castle, although versatility and ed? At Colchester temporary battlements multi-functional use was a characteristic of were built on the tower when there was in a structures like Westminster hall, the break in building operations after one storey ‘ceremonial centre of the Anglo-Norman king- was constructed12, probably due to the Danish dom’ (HKW).9 Ceremonial halls, even with invasion scare of 1085. unique features, doubtless functioned as If Chepstow’s tower was intended be ‘normal’ halls. Would Chepstow tower’s hall undefended why are the walls, except the have remained little used? north wall overlooking the river Wye, so thick In 1093 the Normans killed Rhys ap and why are the windows, except one over the Tewdwr, king of south-west Wales, in battle doorway (a useful defensive and practical fea- near Brecon and overran south Wales, estab- ture), concentrated in the north wall? A fur- lishing many castles including Cardigan, Rhyd ther (third) storey was later added, y gors (Carmarthen) and Pembroke. The Nor- necessitating substantial rebuilding of the mans had already occupied Anglesey and the original tower top. Most of the new upper north coast. In 1094 the Welsh fought back, walls on the east and south have disappeared, storming the castle on Anglesey (the motte of so it’s questionable whether any traces of ear- Aberlleiniog) and massacring the earl of ly crenellations would survive. The Chep- Chester’s garrison of 125 horsemen. In the stow researchers accept there are difficulties south ‘the castles of Ceredigion and Dyfed of interpretation in their reconstructions, par- were all taken except two castles, Pembroke ticularly if the two tiny round windows high and Rhyd y gors; and they were all razed to the in the west gable wall are original, as they ap- ground and the spoils carried off’ (Brut Y Tw- pear to be, because they would block a wall ysogyon). In 1095 the Welsh took Hen Domen walk that end at the height postulated.13 (Montgomery) castle, killing the earl of Dixon and Marshall identified Nor- Shrewsbury’s garrison. In 1096 the Normans ham tower’s first phase (of 1121), approxi- abandoned Rhyd y gors but Pembroke with- mately 23m x12m externally with 3m thick stood a long blockade by the Welsh. There walls, within the enlarged mid twelfth century was widespread raiding and counter raiding in structure.14 The upper storey, ‘with little sign Gwent and Brecon. The Brut records two of domestic provision, makes it appear that it Welsh successes in battle, though ‘the castles was a grand ceremonial chamber – a first- 10 were still intact and the garrisons in them’. floor hall rather than part of the living accom- These events doubtless rendered a cer- modation of the bishop’. Although a recon- emonial hall redundant but surely increased the struction drawing suggests a defensive need for defensive effectiveness. Chepstow structure (battlements above a concealed roof) tower’s south wall originally contained no win- they compare it to the Exchequer hall at Caen, dows. Defence would have to be conducted which is thinner walled, had larger windows, from tower top battlements, but because an exposed roof and its main door in a gable ‘Nowhere is there evidence for crenellations in wall at ground level. The Exchequer hall had this phase’, reconstruction drawings assume no defensive pretensions; it lies within the none, postulating a southern parapet some Conqueror’s stone curtain, 50m from Henry 0.7m high.11 Thus the tower’s long south wall, I’s massive great tower.15 At Norham the on- The Castle Studies Group Journal No 21: 2007-8 211 TWELFTH CENTURY GREAT TOWERS: The Case for the Defence ly other early stonework might be the inner assault on William’s siege castle failed. gatehouse. Rebels holding Norwich* surrendered on Bishop Ranulf of Durham built Nor- terms after three months in 1075. In 1076 ham for protection against robbers and Scots. William abandoned the siege of Dol after six In 1138 the Scots besieged it. Many defenders to eight weeks, fleeing in disarray on the ad- were wounded during a vigorous defence and, vance of a relieving force. In 1085 William despairing of help from Bishop Geoffrey, they ordered the abandonment of a long blockade surrendered. The bishop was criticised for in- of Sainte-Suzanne*, where defenders had 18 adequately garrisoning his castle (there were killed or captured numerous of his men. only nine knights) and his knights were criti- William Rufus faced immediate re- cised for their feeble resistance, because ‘the bellion in 1088. He besieged Pevensey *, wall was in good condition (vallum optimum), which surrendered after six weeks; supplies the tower very strong (et turris fortissima), and were running low after sea borne reinforce- their provisions abundant’ (Richard of ments were sunk or captured by royal ships. Hexham).16 Internally Norham’s tower might Rochester* eventually surrendered after have been a ceremonial hall, but externally it plague broke out in the city and it was clear was a turris fortissima. the rebellion had failed.19 In the rebellion of In the eleventh century halls could be 1095 Rufus took the castle at the mouth of strongpoints.