Muslim conquest of Spain

The single most significant fact about the Muslim empire is that, by around 725, it linked lands from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean. This was the widest strip around the Equator that any empire had yet united. Most of the advances in science, mathematics, and technology that we remember as being from “the Muslims” came from this fact: that they ruled lands that had never been connected before.

During the late 600s, the Umayyad Caliphs had unified North Africa. It began with capturing Byzantine cities like Alexandria and Tunis, but it included subduing and converting the Berber and other nomadic tribes. Muslim historians sourly note that “bandits” were happy to do a surface conversion in order to join the winning army and get some plunder from the wealthy, previously off-limits, cities. North African nomad tribes became the backbone of Muslim military ferocity.

A North African general, Tariq ibn Ziyad, crossed the Straits of Gibraltar in 711. The Roman province of Hispania was loosely ruled by Visigoths, but the kingdoms were weak. The Visigoth aristocrats may have been the most arrogant nobles of all the German tribes. They had never really integrated with the remaining Roman, Jewish and Iberian people they were ruling, nor had they done anything to gain their loyalty. Although the nobles were brave fighters, they were no match for the sheer size of Tariq ibn Ziyad’s army. Conquest was rapid; the Visigoths pulled back into the foothills of the Pyrenees and the northern coast of the Atlantic. A line of small northern Christian kingdoms carried on Visigothic culture.

The peninsula was Muslim from Atlantic to Mediterranean, including the islands, and shortly it branched into modern France. France and Spain, so neatly divided on modern maps, have a large zone of blended and independent language and culture. Their Christians were Arian (and later Cathar). Muslim rule extended over this zone, as far as Narbonne and Marseille. They were defeated by the Duke of Aquitaine at Toulouse in 721, and for about ten years they consolidated power in Spain and waited.

Al-Andalus was just a province of the Umayyad Caliph’s empire. The caliph appointed governors. Andalusia only became independent after 750, with the next dynastic split. In this early period, its cities had not changed much, and the main point of the province was to produce tribute for Damascus. Many Jews, who were vastly more literate than the Spanish Romans, became part of Muslim city governments. The peasants continued to farm as they had done under every other occupation. The tax structure, of course, gave them strong incentives to declare themselves Muslim within a generation or two.

 

Posted in Muslim Empire (old series) | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Ashoura and the Battle of Karbala

Just a news article about violence during the Shi’ite festival. They re-enact the Battle in a ritual way (not very accurately) and whip themselves bloody to show their grief for the deaths of Mohammed’s family.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/at-least-41-killed-in-attacks-during-iraq-shiite-ritual/

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Muslim rule

The early Caliphs were not as interested in governance as in expansion. They wanted tribute; they were content to use force to exact it and then move on. Local rulers were mostly left in place, with local customs. However, as they found by the 3rd Caliph’s reign, it was necessary to have more people on the ground in local government in order to keep down rebellions.

The early Caliphs were also very interested in conversions. Islam already had a short history of co-existence with Jews and Christians. Their ire was reserved for idolaters, for people whose lives were not guided by Abrahamic scriptures. Persian Zoroastrians were a gray area: were they worshipers of fire, or were they philosophical people of a Book? Their treatment shifted, but their eradication by one means or another went much faster than that of Jews and Christians. Sometimes they were taxed, sometimes they were forced.

In their early conquests, the Armies of God went into the mostly Christian lands of Syria and Egypt, and then into Persia and the outskirts of India. By 664, an advance army headed farther east into Sindh, an area of India, and into what’s now Afghanistan. There, local religions were considered idolatry. By 712, all of what’s now Pakistan was Muslim, and some of northern India.

The original tax formula was set up to use conquered people to support the Companions of Mohammed back in Arabia. Everyone paid taxes, but the tax rate was discriminatory against non-Muslims, since they were conquered people paying tribute. Of course, pagans were converted or dead, so non-Muslims were only Jews and Christians. The tribute burden fell on them.

Over time, nominal and opportunistic Jews and Christians became Muslims to get the tax break. After an area had been in the Caliphate for a generation, it was mostly Muslim and the tax revenue headed to Damascus and Mecca dropped. This created a fiscal problem.

There were two other key discriminatory provisions. Since the foundation for truth was that Mohammed was the Prophet, anyone who did not make that confession was already a liar. Non-Muslims were not permitted to testify against Muslims in the city courts. It’s not hard to imagine the commercial discrimination that resulted. The other discrimination was about houses of worship. When churches were not wanted as mosques, synagogues and churches could stand. But they could not be built or rebuilt. Slowly, houses of worship fell into disrepair, making local Jews and Christians ashamed of their religion compared to the mosque-going neighbors.

Discrimination drove military expansion. The tax base had to be expanded in every generation. Local Arab generals in Egypt, Syria and Persia had incentives to push their borders outward. From Egypt, they expanded into Nubia. Military expeditions failed, by and large, in this area (now Sudan). But they concluded a peace treaty and established trade relations; Sudan gradually adopted Islam voluntarily.

Egypt-based armies expanded widely across North Africa, quickly conquering its hinterlands and coastal cities. Using Tunis and Tripoli as naval bases, they conquered the major islands of the Mediterranean: Crete, Cyprus and Sicily, as well as many smaller islands.

Caliph Muawiya (the antagonist of Ali’s family) laid siege to Constantinople, first by taking smaller islands and ports, building up naval power. But Constantinople was able to drive off the attackers by using Greek fire for the first time. Greek fire is the first known chemical weapon. It burst into flame on contact, and water did not quench it. Lobbing Greek fire at the Arab ships, the Byzantines destroyed their navy. A second, more careful, siege in 718 was also defeated. Constantinople prevented the Arabs from entering southern Europe by land. (At this time, modern Turkey was not yet conquered either.)

One hundred years after Mohammed first began to see visions, Arab armies in North Africa were poised to use Morocco as a launching point to begin conquest of Europe. Between 711 and 718, most of Visigothic Spain fell to the invaders.

Meanwhile, Cairo became the chief Muslim city of Egypt, and the Umayyad Caliphs ruled from Damascus.

 

Posted in Muslim Empire (old series) | Leave a comment

Stress lines in the Islamic Empire

From early on, there were three basic tectonic lines that kept Mohammed’s legacy from ever being placid or unified.

(1) Tribal tensions inside Mohammed’s Quraysh tribe, but between different clans. Then tension and aggression between the Quraysh and other Arabs, plus non-Arabs vs. Arabs. It wasn’t racial as such; in those times, “tribal” took care of everything that “racism” means to us today.

(2) Inheritance question: should Mohammed’s family be treated like hereditary royalty, or should the Armies of God be led by whomever could do it well?

(3) Cultural differences between city dwellers and desert nomads, including tax rate unhappiness

By the 3rd Caliph’s reign, there was a revolt in Egypt. The Caliph, Uthman, had displaced Mohammed’s cousin Ali, so already there was a royalist party grumbling in the background. The nomads, some of whose “conversions” were considered suspect by the devout, began to make trouble. They didn’t like the tax burden, so it was easy to blame the non-Sharif Caliph. During a rebellion based in Egypt, which sent an angry delegation to Damascus, Uthman was assassinated.

Ali, Mohammed’s cousin, became the 4th Caliph, and he had two sons to inherit, so it all seemed to be neatened up. It wasn’t, though. There was too much money and power at stake now. Uthman had been from a different clan in the Quraysh tribe, and some of his relations had liked power. His secretary, Marwan, had a son named Muawiya who aspired to be Caliph after Ali.

Muawiya wanted Uthman’s assassins to be put on trial; Ali was afraid it would only create more division. But he was willing to go through a mediation process about the matter, and that by itself was enough to create a division. A hot-headed group of desert tribes “walked away” from the agreement, becoming known as the Kharijites, those who “walked away.” They came back later to assassinate Ali himself.

Muawiya became Caliph, but Ali’s followers and family challenged him. They raised an army and set up his son Hassan as a rival Caliph. The Battle of Karbalah wiped out Ali’s son Hassan as well as the rest of the family. Muawiya re-established his Umayyad clan in power, and their dynasty remained the rulers of Damascus until 750.

However, as we know, Islam was split into a faction that never recognized Umayyad rule. We still have the Shi’ites today; but at that time, they weren’t regionally clustered into Iran. Shi’ite uprisings could happen at any time in any place. During the Middle Ages, there were many factions of Shi’ites who believed that one or another of the descendants of Mohammed’s relatives must be the divinely-inspired Caliph. They were only rarely unified enough to gain political power, but they were always fanatical and tended, often, to be more intensely spiritual than other Muslims.

As to the third fault-line, from the beginning and until the present there has always been a seesaw of power between those who live in cities and the nomads. The first two Caliphs insisted that their followers should stay in tents outside the cities they conquered, but by Uthman’s time, they were permitted to move into Damascus houses. This was one of the original grievances against Uthman, leading to his assassination.

The nomads always prized toughness above everything. They could go long times without food or water, and they could deal with extreme heat and cold. Like all nomads, they owned little: some cooking pots and dishes, their tents, their flocks. Not much else. Their clothing was minimal, as we still see it today: black or white robes and scarves tied onto their heads. A nomad did everything for himself; a city dweller didn’t know how, and had to pay people.

The nomads despised the people of Damascus, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Ctesiphon for owning furniture and huddling next to indoor fires on cold nights. However, after 20 years, their own clansmen were living in these cities. To a nomad, little tax money was needed, but in the cities, they wanted more revenue. Nomads blamed taxes on cities. They also blamed the cities for making people love food, music, wine, physical comfort and safety. All of these things were to blame for high taxes, and they were also sissy.

So it happened over and over, starting with the assassination of Uthman, that some nomad-based group of Muslims would come in and take over. When they did, learning and culture stopped. Vineyards burned. Women got re-veiled and sent home. Slaves were taken, heads rolled.

The Koran was assembled during Uthman’s time, so from then on, depending on whether they owned copies, people could read the stories and sayings of the Prophet. Many of these sayings were generally contradictory, and you could take them as harsh or moderate. The nomads always, but always, took the harshest meaning as correct. Whoever was in power got to decide.

Posted in Muslim Empire (old series) | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Early conquest

The empires of Byzantium and Persia had been fighting over the territory between them since about 570. By 630, many of cities on the front had suffered destruction of walls and crops, and many of the men of fighting age had been drafted for one of the armies or otherwise killed. The area of the front was generally called Syria, covering some of what we now call Iraq, as well as Jordan and Palestine.

It was under Byzantine control when Caliph Umar set out to attack. Between 634 and 636, the Arab army conquered Damascus and won some pitched battles that left all of Syria in their control. At the same time, another army headed into Persia and conquered its capital, Ctesiphon.

The Byzantine bishop of Jerusalem, Patriarch Sophronius, surrendered after a long siege, in 637. Arabs conquered Gaza, and while negotiating a one year cease-fire with Byzantium, incidentally took Antioch. Damascus, Antioch and Jerusalem were the chief cities of Syria, and were the original centers of Christianity. As soon as the truce expired, they finished occupying all of the Holy Land, Mesopotamia, and much of Egypt. Alexandria fell in 642, and the Byzantine Empire was pretty much over.

Umar was the second Caliph, and he died in 644. He had led his armies in all this conquest, but he hadn’t directly participated in the fighting. His focus was on political structure. He kept it minimal, setting up a taxation system and appointing a governor, but otherwise leaving each locality to do things its own ways. His first priority for tax money was to give the other Companions of Mohammed a pension so that they could focus on organizing the Koran and hadiths. His death ended the political unity of Islam, though. More on that later. Conquest continued, under various generals.

Byzantium had controlled North Africa, which was now open for rapid conquest. It was only loosely governed to begin with, and the inhabitants had never felt much allegiance to Constantinople. This was a problem everywhere; Byzantine taxes had been high, and the Byzantine Orthodox church had suppressed local religious sects, Jew and Christian. It wasn’t immediately obvious that new masters would be worse, and they may have been better at first. Muslim histories record the Christian and Jewish residents coming to them freely and swearing allegiance, promising to help dislodge Byzantine rule.

Once Byzantine troops in Tripoli and Carthage were disposed of, the residents didn’t resist conquest at all. In North Africa, the Berber tribes welcomed Islam and joined their armies.

Sicily was invaded in 652; Crete and Cyprus were Arab by 653. Muslims now held much of the former breadbasket of Byzantium, resulting in food shortages there.

By the time the Companions of Mohammed were splitting into factions, they were receiving tribute and taxes from most of the ancient world: Syria, Palestine, Persia, Egypt, Arabia, and North Africa. A lot of money and power was at stake. The Companions agreed that they’d keep power within their own tribe, the Quraysh. But they couldn’t agree on which individual: Ali, Mohammed’s cousin and son-in-law, or Uthman, another influential man. And from this dispute the world has never quite recovered.

Posted in Muslim Empire (old series) | Tagged | Leave a comment

Mohammed

Mohammed, assuming he really lived (which I believe but a few renegade scholars challenge), can be placed in the early 600s. He was a merchant living in Mecca, where the dominant religion was pagan. The Kaaba already existed and was probably a shrine for idols. Its presence had already made Mecca a center of trade. Mohammed was a young man married to an older, wealthier, widow. On marrying Khadija, he took over the merchant business her first husband had left.

Around 610, he began to have visions. Khadija believed and encouraged him. Mohammed told people about the visions, but he never wrote them down; he may have been illiterate. (Arabia may have been mostly pre-literate until 600.) The message of his visions was to adopt something much like the Judaism that also flourished on the Arabian peninsula, to embrace charity for the poor and to reject idolatry. Mecca rejected this message and he left in 622.

In Medina, the extended-family tribes were locked in a dispute they could not settle. Like the later medieval Italian cities that only permitted a genetic outsider to be the mayor to prevent feuds, Medina welcomed Mohammed and asked him to settle the dispute. He and his family settled happily in Medina, where there was a strong Jewish presence. Many of Islam’s similarities to Judaism come from this period, when it wasn’t yet clear that he was going to differentiate “his” religion so sharply from theirs.

The turning point came when the pagan population of Medina accepted Mohammed’s new doctrine, but the Jews saw no reason to make any changes. Mohammed, now the leader of a small city, carried out Jewish pogroms. One tribe was massacred, the other exiled with only what they could carry (a big theme for medieval European Jews, too, as well as modern exiled Jews: always being stripped down to the clothes on your back and an overnight bag).

Mohammed used the resources of Medina to lead a war band on Mecca, where he got revenge for their earlier rejection. The Kaaba became a shrine to Allah. (Muslims believe that this had been its original purpose, that the idolatry period had been a corruption.) Then Mohammed led a successful war to unite the Arabian peninsula under Islam; this was accomplished by the time of his death.

Mohammed died in 632; but Khadija had died some time earlier, leaving him free to remarry not just one but eight wives, mostly widows of the Arabian-unification war. But the best-known wife was Aysha, famously married to the old man when she was only a child. Aisha may have been the prettiest, as well as the youngest. She was also the smartest. Still young when Mohammed died, she used her influence to help shape the Koran. Aysha and the supporters who had been with him from the beginning began to assemble Mohammed’s teachings in written form.

The collected sayings of Mohammed reflect several shifts in his thinking, often without attempting to resolve them. Some of the writings are openly admiring of Jews, while others call curses on them. Some writings command them to keep Jewish law, while others carefully shift the Sabbath to one day before or slightly alter the kosher laws. Some of the writings praise women and others curse them.

Some are harsh on adultery, while others—particularly one rooted in a story about Aisha—dictate moderation. The story: Aysha got lost on a long journey once, turning up a day late with a young man who guided her home. She said she got lost while looking for her dropped necklace, so it’s known as the “Affair of the Necklace.” Many of the Muslims accused her of adultery. Mohammed’s previous dictates were for stoning, but he really didn’t want to lose her. At this time, he had a new revelation: four witnesses are required to establish adultery. This makes it nearly impossible to carry out a draconian sentence of death, which moderates an otherwise harsh ruling.

Mohammed had been the civil ruler as well as the religious authority. With all of his wives, he had no surviving sons, only one daughter, Fatima. Some of his closest supporters (like  Aysha’s father) had married their daughters to him to increase their influence. Now, they used it. Almost immediately, there was a power struggle between one of Mohammed’s closest friends and his cousin/son in law. It’s complicated, but here’s the basic outline:

The Caliph was the “successor” to the Prophet. Within just a few years, there were competing Caliphs. Over several generations, competitors assassinated Caliphs and their families. The Shi’ite branch of Islam believed that only the genetic kin of Mohammed could lead the faithful, while the Sunn’i majority was willing to follow any strong, orthodox leader. So Islam was fractured at its heart very quickly.

The first four Caliphs were Mohammed’s companion: Abu Bakr (Aysha’s father), Umar, Uthman, and Ali (Mohammed’s son in law and ward). Omar ruled the longest and began the program of conquest, setting out to conquer the two empires that had overshadowed Arabia for centuries.

 

Posted in Muslim Empire (old series) | Tagged | Leave a comment

Mediterranean world in 600

Mohammed reported his first vision in the year 610. By 640, his followers had a small, growing empire. Before we trace this explosive growth, let’s look at the world that the Muslims challenged.

The map of Europe in 600 shows mostly scattered tribal homelands, with a few exceptions. If you look at the island of Britain, you can see that the Anglo-Saxons have begun to settle, but for the most part they’re only on the coast, in Kent (Cantware, they called it; here, Cantia). The Frisians, Saxons and Jutes are mostly still on the continent. The Picts, the original residents of Northern Europe, have already been pushed into the margins by the previous invasion of Celts. You can see the Picts only in the north of Scotland, while most of the two islands has Celtic labels. Over the next century, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes will push the Celts into the margins where they’ll merge with the dwindling Picts, but it hasn’t really happened yet.

The Celts in Britain are Christians, but by 600, the Roman Empire’s outposts are ruins. Hadrian’s Wall still runs across the north, marking where the Picts used to carry out raids a few centuries earlier. Some Roman roads are still in working condition, but the buildings at Bath and other settlements are lending building blocks to Celtic projects as they crumble.

The Celts themselves were pushed to the margins of the European continent by Franks. Frankia is one of the largest zones in 600; by this time, the Frankish kings have been ruling since Clovis united them by conquest in 481. In 600, the dynasty is still strong; Chlothar II began ruling as a young teenager. The Franks are officially Christians, converted by Latin missionaries.

Spain is dominated by Visigoths, a related tribe. King Reccared I converted to Catholic Christian (the Visigoths had been previously converted by Arian Christians) as the original Gothic language was dying out. After this time, Catholic bishops held much of the political power, including the right to select a king, whose capital was at Toledo.

The remnants of the Roman Empire are scattered around the eastern rim of the Mediterranean. Since the Goths came to Rome, much of Italy has been settled by Goths or Huns (Attila the Hun fought against Goths). Roman roads are definitely still functioning, as are Roman baths and aqueducts. Many of the towns continue to rule themselves by Roman customs, too. The invading Goths had a weaker culture than the Romans, so apart from names, most Gothic words are no longer used. (The exact opposite happened with the invading Anglo-Saxons in Britain.) Rome is “ruled,” to the extent that it is, from Constantinople. The rule becomes much more effective as you get closer to the city itself, and merchants would tell you the taxes are quite real and very heavy. Constantinople is opulent, crowded, and deep in its “Byzantine” period of kings poisoning each other. Craftsmanship is very fine: silver, gold, jewels, embroidery, painting and sculpture.

To the east of the Byzantine-controlled lands, there is a vast Persian empire. The inhabitants call their Sassanid-ruled land Eran; they are Zoroastrians who worship fire (more or less—let’s not get into theology). Persia is also a place of fine crafts and learning, like Constantinople. In particular, around this time they developed the art of making soft rugs covered with flowers. Persia gets its silk from trading with China, but has a rich vein of minerals to mine.

The first wave of Huns were absorbed into the Goths, and their related tribe, the Avars, have settled at the margins of the map. The large white areas of Eastern Europe are No Man’s Land, occupied by migrants and ruled by no central power.

And far to the south, Arabia is populated by pagan Arabs, with some Byzantine Christians and a strong presence of Jews.

 

Posted in Muslim Empire (old series) | Tagged | Leave a comment

Three 15th century castles

Raglan Castle

Raglan Castle was built in Wales, but long after Edward I’s pragmatic purpose-built castles like Harlech and Conwy. Raglan had no military purpose when it was built in the 15th century. It took two hundred years for its military potential to be realized.

A knight, Sir William ap Thomas, bought the estate in 1432 and began to build the castle. It began with the Great Tower, a hexagon of five stories. the Great Tower was connected to the Gatehouse by a drawbridge over the moat. The construction decisions copied the serious choices of the 12th century, putting no windows in the lower stories. The Gatehouse, built in 1462, had not one but two portcullises!

Sir William Herbert, who married William ap Thomas’s granddaughter, completed the rest of the castle’s design, with two courts, one for the practical daily-life buildings like the kitchen, and one (the Fountain Court) for the fashionable luxurious life. In Tudor times, they added a magnificent stained glass Oriel Window, “water gardens,” and a bowling lawn.

And then….war came to England. The Earl of Worcester was loyal to King Charles I and in 1646, the Parliamentarian Army laid siege to the castle. The siege lasted three months! No central government is going to tolerate a private home that can resist its power as long as that. When the castle fell, the Roundhead army “slighted” the castle: they deliberately made it unlivable. Burning some of the furnishings, they chose walls to dynamite and pull down so that it could never again be used in resistance.

Chateau de Langeais

This castle (chateau) was built first much longer ago than the 15th century. It still has, on a hill nearby, the ruin of the keep built around 990 by Fulk of Anjou. The keep was enlarged and fortified by later owners including Richard the Lion-Hearted, but it was destroyed during the Hundred Years’ War (1300s).

What we see now was rebuilt in the 15th century, starting in 1465. Louis XI’s son, Charles VIII, married the heiress of Brittany there in 1491. Anne was contractually obliged to marry the successor in the case that she and Charles had no children, and so it was, so she became the wife of Louis XII. But this romantic story all began here in the chateau. There’s a life-size diorama of the marriage set up, since the chateau is now just a museum.

It’s been more than 500 years since the castle’s gatehouse and residence were completed, so by 1886, the mansion was in need of repair. A careful 19th century restoration project was carried out; as you can see from the video, the interior still looks pretty authentic.

Is it a castle or a house? Like other 15th century projects, it’s still both. The castle has a drawbridge that once would have crossed a moat, with water brought in from the Loire. The gatehouse is on a serious military plan, with murder holes and machicolations. But once we get past those things at the front, the back opens up to terrace and gardens, like a house. Of course it used to have a wall all around it, leading up to the old 10th century keep.

But even so, the interior buildings were clearly not built with real warfare in mind. Look at those windows going right down to the ground. As contemporary Chaucer might have put it, “…the chambres and the stables weren wyde…” Lots of room for a family and staff to spread out, no need for anyone to bunk down on the hall floor.

Eltz Castle

This entry created 12/12/2024.

Posted in Castles | Comments Off on Three 15th century castles

15th century castles and chateaux

If you do an internet search of “castles for sale,” you’ll always find an array of beautiful stone houses, mostly in France. Most of them are “chateaux,” that is, the word “castle” updated into modern French. As the word changed, so did the building. A chateau is usually made of stone, but otherwise it’s just a large mansion.

People continued to built real castles, but their concerns had changed. Once battles were fought in the field, defending the house itself mattered much less again. And when a battle was fought for the house, fire was a chief concern. The 13th century fighting machines generally had wooden roof structures and sometimes wooden shingles. Many interior parts were made of wood, especially the interior subflooring. When the timbers caught fire, the stones heated and cracked. Some stone held up better to fire, some worse; if the stone block had a pocket of some mineral impurity, it might heat more rapidly and burst the stone.

So if you wanted a fire-proof castle, brick was the way to go. Bricks cost much less, being locally produced. You didn’t have to ship big blocks of stone down a river or drag them from a quarry. You could set up a brickworks very near the site and have your own clay kilned as it was dug from the foundation. Bricks took a long time to make properly, but once cooled, they were impervious to fire. So were roof tiles, made by the same brickworks. A chateau made of brick, with a tile roof and glass windows, was probably a better bet for artillery defense.

Some of the new castles were still made with round towers and moats. They certainly still focused on thick, strong doors. But the old death trap gatehouses were pointless unless they were part of a dedicated military structure. By contrast, some castles ceased to be residences and turned into true forts. Mont Orgeuil, on Jersey Island, was reinforced by extra layers of stone during Tudor times. The stone now had to absorb artillery fire. The castle’s towers were topped with artillery, too. Arrow slits became gun slits, rebuilt to fit the new round barrels.

In the castle houses, the chateaux, round and square corner towers began to have bedrooms as well as staircases. Parapets on top of the towers gave over to tiled roofs. You can still see the castle-like outline in a chateau, but the peaked towers standing higher than the rest of the house no longer have any defensive function. The round towers are for style, not to see around corners. Thick walls are for insulation, not for defense; window seats are for comfort, not for archers.

Posted in Castles | Tagged | Leave a comment

Two 14th Century Castles

Schloss Berlepsch, Germany

    In the 13th and 14th centuries, as the Holy Land Crusades became intermittent exercises in futility, the Crusading spirit moved to the north. Instead of taking back the Holy Land, they could take new pagan lands. The Teutonic Knights created a new Crusader front facing Prussia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

    Berlepsch Castle is right along this line, on the modern border of Poland. It was built in 1368 by the Berlepsch family independently of both the government and the Teutonic Knights. In fact, by 1392, the Landgrave of Hesse sent his army against the castle and ruined it, so that it had to be rebuilt in 1400. In 1461, a knight loyal to the Landgrave further strengthened it, and it became a key stronghold during the Thirty Years’ War (1600s, post-medieval). There was a final set of changes in the late 1800s. The castle was closed to the public until about 2010.

    It’s hard to point to the castle’s features and say “this is definitively 14th century.” In general, we see that it’s a mix of stone and brick. There are glass windows and the upper story of the main building is not done in a super-secure military way, rather it’s timber-and-wattle like civilian houses. We can be sure that inside, the house had house-like features. video

    Chateau de Pierrefonds, northern France

    The first castle at this location was built in the 12th century, so it would have been a standard keep with concentric walls. A massive rebuilding was undertaken in 1393, when it became the seat of the Duke of Orleans, brother of the king. Defenses were updated; the gatehouse still had all of the machinery of war such as murder holes and a portcullis. But inside, more attention was paid to carved stone and comfortable rooms. Here is a map of the castle.

    But in 1617, the castle’s owner joined the side of a prince who opposed the new King Louis XIII, and the result is that Cardinal Richelieu’s army destroyed parts of it so that it could not be used as a rebel stronghold. The castle remained a ruin until Emperor Napoleon III allocated government money to its rebuilding. The architect Eugene Viollet-Le-Duc rebuilt and restored it. The interior was over-restored; it’s even fancier than the 14th century project had made it. The castle has been chosen as the site for filming a number of movies. video of its history

    This entry created 12/12/2024.

    Posted in Castles | Comments Off on Two 14th Century Castles