There is no physical evidence at Rochester except for the present Rochester Castle being on a slight mound. This mound might have been made for the present Rochester Castle to be placed on or it might be the remains of the mound that the Motte and Bailey Castle was built on. This might be possible as Source E says, “King Henry 1 gave Rochester Castle to the Archbishop of Canterbury and gave him permission to build a tower there.” This is therefore suggesting that the same land was used to build the present Rochester Castle on, as was used for the Motte and Bailey if there ever was one. However we can not prove this for definite because we are not sure if the Archbishop did actually use the same land. There is a lot of written evidence and with the knowing that it is a good strategic point, I would say that it is quite likely that there was a Motte and Bailey castle at Rochester. However we can’t be completely definite and we are still unsure of the location as sources B and C disagree about this.
When was the keep of Rochester Castle first built?
Motte and Bailey Castles had many weaknesses for example they were built of wood. This rotted easily and could be set on fire by enemy soldiers. They were also cramped, draughty and uncomfortable. The Normans had only built Motte and Bailey Castles temporarily, as they were quick and easy to build and helped to control newly conquered land. And so after about 1100 stone castles were built instead.
The rounded arches, the chevron moulding, the battlements, the pillars, the timber hoardings, the spiral staircases and the square towers are all 12th century castle features. There is only one rounded tower, which may have been built later on, so there is no reason to believe that the castle had been built in the 13th century.
Source E says, “In 1126 King Henry 1 gave Rochester Castle to Archbishop of Canterbury and gave him permission to build a tower there.” This suggests that the castle was built after 1126. This cross-references with Source F, which shows that the ground floor basement was begun in 1127. Both of these sources are reliable as a monk, who was not biased, wrote Source E and Source F appears in the Castle Guidebook, so it must be accurate. Source G, a secondary source, shows a Norman Keep, which was built in 1180. It is very similar to Rochester Castle, as it is on a square, with four corner towers and it has the same entrance, therefore we know that both of these castles were built at approximately the same time. Source I then tells us that the castle was attacked in 1215, so we know that the castle had been built by 1215. The date is very unlikely to be wrong, as it says, “It was probably written close to the time of events.”
From the sources, I have come to the conclusion that the castle was most probably built between 1126 and 1215. However the physical evidence such as the chevron moulding and the rounded arches suggest that it was built late 11th century, early 12th century. I would therefore say that the castle was most probably built in the early 12th century.
What can we tell today about the rooms and domestic facilities inside the keep?
From the Joist holes, which were made in the walls of the castle to hold the wooden flooring, I have come to the conclusion that there were three floors and a basement. The basement was probably used for storage as there were no windows or fireplaces, so it would have been very cold, damp and dark. However there was a well on this floor, this meant that if there was ever an attack on the castle they would not run out of water. The main entrance was at the ground floor so that the enemy could not climb through any windows into the castle. There was a portcullis at the entrance of the castle; this had to be guarded, so there might have been a guard’s room here. Behind the central wall of the castle there were fireplaces and windows. I would suggest that this room was the kitchen, as it was not very grand. There is also reason to believe that there was a bigger kitchen outside, and so only basic cooking would take place in this kitchen and if the castle was under attack then it would have to be used. The first floor had a higher ceiling, than all of the other floors, this meant that there were twice as many windows, which made the room a lot lighter. There was also an upper gallery running around the ceiling, the fireplaces, arches and windows were also highly decorated with the chevron moulding. I therefore think that this room was the Great Hall, where everyone ate, because it was too grand to be used as a kitchen or as sleeping quarters. The second floor room in the forebuilding was probably used as a chapel because the room was facing East, towards Rochester Cathedral, the room also had more windows, which would make the room a lot more lighter. The ceiling of this room was also dome shaped this made the room more elaborate it also suggests that the room was divided into two, perhaps into a nave and a chancel. The third floor was probably then used for sleeping. Behind the central wall the fireplaces and windows were much more grandly decorated, I therefore think that this part of the floor was the Lord’s room, where the Lord and his family could be private. The other part of the floor, where it was less grand, must have been where everyone else slept. The toilets were then placed above each other in the tower, and had a central drain that opened on the outside of the keep.
Source H, a secondary source, shows us the typical layout of a Norman Castle. It shows a great similarity with Rochester Castle. For example the physical evidence at Rochester Castle suggests that there might have been a guards room and a kitchen on the ground floor. Also that the Great Hall was on the first floor, with the chapel also on this floor in the forebuilding and finally that everyone slept on the second floor. However we cannot we completely definite about this.
“Major rebuilding work was carried out at Rochester Castle in the early 13th Century.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
I agree with this statement because there is a lot of physical evidence to suggest that rebuilding did take place. For example the southeast corner is round and rounded towers were not developed until the 13th century and we have reason to believe that the rest of the castle was probably built in the early 12th century. The bailey wall also shows signs of being rebuilt as it has arches built into it, which were a 13th century feature. There is also evidence of obvious rebuilding inside the castle, as there is an archway, which is half blocked, where someone has started rebuilding it. There is also a portcullis and these were also 13th century features.
In Source I it says, “With a great roar the whole roof gave way, the castle walls cracked and the whole tower fell down.” The castle has four towers today, so this tower, which fell down, must have been rebuilt. Source I is a reliable source as it has Source J to support it, as Source J says, “We order you to send us night and day 40 bacon pigs of the fattest and those less good for eating to use for bringing fire under the tower.” This siege took place in the 13th century and so it probably took place in the south-east tower, which is now round, and as rounded towers were not developed until the 13th century it is very likely that the south-east tower was rebuilt. This also cross-references with Source F, which suggests that rebuilding of the southeast tower took place in 1226-7, one year after the siege.
A different type of stone has also been used to build the southeast tower with, which suggests that it was built at a different time from the rest of the castle. Sources L and M, also show how close the southeast tower was to the curtain wall, which makes it even more likely to believe that the siege took place on this tower. This is because King John was more likely to choose this tower to mine under and set alight than any other tower, as it would take less time.
