The features seen at Bodiam Castle give us primary evidence of some defensive methods that may have been used in the 14th century. This is useful in knowing about castles from this specific time period. However, the written documents give us a broader sense of the development of castles over many years, and some information about what changes took place and why.
In the interior of Bodiam Castle, there are the remains of many features that appear not to be created for defence. These amongst other things can help us piece together a picture of the original Bodiam Castle. For instance, the location of fireplaces in the walls that are still standing give clues as to how many floors there once were (i.e. three floors, four storeys.) Changes in the brickwork and the placement of windows also help this.
The kitchens show remains of firstly a very large fireplace compared to the others in the castle. This suggests that food may have been roasted for the inhabitants here, possibly over a spit. There are also the remains of what seems to be a bread oven opposite this. The bars covering it seem to be added much later – they would not have been needed when it was in use, so they may act as a safety barrier. Items of food would have been cooled in a buttery.
Adjacent to the kitchens, there are step which lead down to a large well. This is strategically placed (water would have been needed for cooking and domestic purposes) More importantly, in the event of a siege, fresh water would have been vital.
The presence of several garderobes in Bodiam Castle suggests that people would reside in it for some time, e.g. guards, and that it was designed for comfort to some extent.
The fact that a chapel is still partly in existence in the interior is further proof that the castle was designed for people to live in; a chapel would mean that people could carry out religious practices without leaving the castle. There is also a large chapel window that has remained almost intact. The Lord and ladies quarters show too, that people apart from guards once occupied Bodiam Castle. The position of the windows in these quarters is interesting; they are very low which implies the floor may have once been a couple of feet deeper.
If you were to observe the interior walls of the castle, you would notice that there are holes or recesses in many, which could indicate the position of the original floorboards. The windows were also designed strategically; as in they were narrow from the outside, yet opened up on the inside to let a large quantity of light in. There would be no need to do this unless it was needed for comfort purposes.
From this information, we can learn much more than from the exterior that really, the castle was like a large home. It seemed not intended for attack, but rather defence from potential attackers.
The earliest knowledge we have of castles in Britain is of the Motte and Bailey type. As these were mostly wooden, they would be easily subject to destruction by fire, undermining and over time, rot, and could collapse even if they were not directly attacked. They were used at first because they were quick, cheap and easy to build.
A development for Motte and Bailey castles was shell keeps. As the wooden towers were so easily destroyed, new, rectangular stone towers were constructed. However, these too had a weakness; their corners could easily be attacked, causing them to collapse. They were further protected therefore by circular ‘shell keeps’ that heightened their defence.
Subsequently, stone shell keeps were built and were a great deal stronger than wood. Some of the earlier Motte and Bailey castles were strengthened with stone also for better defence. Although stronger, they were still subject to attack by battering ram, undermining and destruction of the right-angled towers. trebuchet
Square stone keeps developed with square stone walls that improved their resistance. However, they could still not withstand the battering ram, mangonel or trebucket. Due to double curtain walls, fire and catapults would be used in attacked, incorporating Germ Warfare at this stage (e.g. victims of the Black Death of other deadly diseases could be catapulted into the castle in the hope of killing it’s residents). This was an advantage to enemies, as they would not have to physically invade it. This meant they would be distanced from the killing and raise the chance of all their troops surviving.
Concentric castles developed from this, and these had far more effective round towers, with no weak points (i.e. angular sides) As they were more difficult to attack and conquer, enemies would rather lay siege to the inhabitants of the castle, and starve them into surrender/cut off their water supply. They were also vulnerable to gunpowder post 1340.
Bodiam was among the last castles to be built in England, and encompassed all the other developments thus far. As a result, it could not be undermined due to it’s moat, although it could be subject to catapults (again, Germ Warfare) and by this time, cannons – although these were not very accurate. It stood a good chance of defence against most attacks, and the round drum towers did not provide easy access into the castle.
The information I have about chronological castle development would not be available from visiting Bodiam Castle. Although the primary evidence that remains on the site is useful in a number of ways, written information can tell us much about why castles developed. From just going to Bodiam Castle, we cannot tell what it was like at the time when it was built, and the reasons for doing so.
During my study of castle development, I have examined many document sources about castles in general. I will analyse these sources and question their value.
From the First source, which is from ‘The Tower of London Information Pack’, I can tell that Motte and Bailey castles were the earliest castles to be built in England, and further information about their founders (the Normans) and the external structure. This information is valuable in that it explains what features this type of castle had and what they were like. However, from this source alone, we can only assume the purpose of the features listed. It does not mention what they were used for, or why the Normans introduced castles in the first place (did they specifically need defence?) It also does not tell us if or how castles developed from the Motte and Bailey.
The Second source is a scene of the Bayeux Tapestry, and includes writing and an illustration. It gives information about why William the Conqueror thought it was important to build castles with fortifications for defence. It shows that castles were a primary way of defending the Normans from their ‘Anglo-Saxon enemies’, as it is put here. The illustration shows clearly that William the Conqueror’s time was indeed troublesome, and war, or battles were inevitable. It is valuable as firstly, it has two types of information, and also it tells us a lot about why castles were useful. It also suggests why castles were built in England (i.e. because of the Norman Conquest). The source does not mention whether more castles were built after William the Conqueror’s time, or whether any castles existed for reasons other than defence.
The Third source comes from The Tower of London Information Pack. It informs us about castle built in the 12th century. The descriptions it gives tell us what materials were used to build castles of this time, and some fortifications they had. Although short, the source is valuable as it mentions some of the difference between castles of the same type, i.e. some had a shell keep instead of a ‘great tower’. However, it lacks information about who built such castles, and why ‘more and more’ were built of stone. It does not mention the functions of the features listed.
The Fourth source is a map of castles built in part of the British Isles between 1066 and 1071. It shows that there were many castles built in this period of time (as can be seen from the key) and the range from which they were built of each other, this I can tell by using the scale. It shows that in certain areas, many castles were built close together. The value of this is that it gives geographical information about where castles were built. However, it lacks vital information about the other symbol on the map, and we can only assume that this represents other castles. It does not tell us anything about how, if and why castles developed, so it is only possible to speculate on this.
The Fifth source is some written and visual information about ‘the Building of The Tower of London’. This shows how the Tower developed over two hundred years, i.e. that it was made structurally stronger, features that were added, etc. It also gives the dates certain developments were made, and the written information that explains that the new defences were in fact effective, and could be used as a type of safe. It is valuable in that we can see what changes took place exactly, and that although the inner castle was maintained, its surroundings grew. However, the source neglects to mention why the Tower changed at regular intervals, and whether this was commonplace with castles, or it was just this occurrence.
The Sixth source is a plan that includes a key of a Motte and Bailey castle. It shows each part of this castle, as it is labelled, and includes the ramparts and ditches around it. It also gives an idea of the size of the castle. Its value is that it tells us what room existed in a Motte and Bailey castle, and how big each part was (due to the scale). It suggests that this castle may have been used for defence as, e.g. a ‘fighting platform’, but also gives the impression that it may have provided comfort, e.g. the ‘living quarters’. The source lacks any historical information, however, and does not tell us who built the castle, where it is or was and why it was built.
The Seventh source is a large amount of written information and diagrams about ‘The building of the Tower [of London]’ It gives an insight into the historical side of the Tower. For instance, it tells us who reigned when it developed, and why this happened (e.g. in 1285 the new entrance was defended by the ‘Lion Tower’) This source is valuable as it explains why alterations were made to the Tower. It shows just why fortifications were needed; indeed, why the Tower was built in the first place. It also explains the purpose of each defensive feature listed, and this gives a good idea of what was considered a good defence at various times in English history. This source tends to lack any general information about castles – most of it is specific to the Tower of London. We can see many good examples of castle development and defensive features, but we do not know if they were used in most castles or just the Tower.
The Eighth source is from Ordericus Vitalis ‘Ecclesiastical History’ Book IV c.1125. It informs us where and why certain castles in England were built and fortified under the orders of William the Conqueror in the 1000s. It is valuable as it gives an account of how needed and useful castles were, i.e. because of ‘the uncertain issue of battle’, which would cause more to be built and therefore need for castle development. It also shows how castles affected the people, i.e. the castles mentioned here seemed to force the men of York ‘into ‘unconditional surrender’. This source lacks value as it only describes one specific time period, and does not link this to events prior or after William the Conqueror built these castles. Therefore we cannot tell if castles continued to be built and fortified from this source alone.
The Ninth source is from William of Poiters ‘The Deeds of William Duke of the Normans and King of the English’. Although it is short, we can draw some information about the reason for castles being built at this time. The source gives the impression that castles were built so the Normans could maintain power, not just defence. It is valuable as it offers a certain point of view from the time, and shows that castles were valuable, and were not placed in the charge of anyone who was thought less than trustworthy. However, this source does not tell us anything about the physical aspects of the castles mentioned, such as how they advanced and what features they had. It is very much just the human side.
The Tenth source comes from the ‘Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’. Although it has been written from a biased point of view, it gives a relatively informative account of the human aspect of castle development. From reading this source, we can understand that a part of why castles developed was due to the people who resided within (in this case the Normans) using their power to dominate the Anglo-Saxon population; a form of oppression. It gives a valuable insight into opinions of the time, i.e. castles were built as an opportunity to attack the Anglo-Saxon king. However, as it is biased, it could be historically unreliable; it only suggests one side of a story so we cannot get a complete picture.
The Eleventh source comes from ‘the Siege of William De Mohun at Dunster Castle, Somerset,’ by King Stephen and Henry De Tracy, 1139. This source has also been written from an opinionated point of view, but there is much information to be gained about castle development. For instance, the source tells us that castles of the time were scattered all over England. This was apparently due to William’s fury and the fact that he ‘persecuted’ those who were far away as well as near. This shows that castles were needed for defence and were built at a time of danger and uncertainty. This source is valuable because it gives a point of view from the time. It also describes what castles were physically like, i.e. the fortifications such as having a castle surrounded by water. It is clear from this account that this was an effective defence and such defences were important. In contrast, this source lacks a neutral account of event concerning William De Mohun, so it is possible that it is untrustworthy.
The Twelfth source is from the Tower of London Information Booklet. It tells us information about the structure of castles from the late 12th century, and lists the purpose of specific features. It is valuable as it tells us not just how, but why castles had reason to develop, e.g. angular towers needed to be changed to rounded ones. This is useful as it illustrates how the previous features were weaker, e.g. the flat tower surfaces ‘took the full impact of missiles’. The source lacks, however, any information about who would attack 12th century castles or what circumstances were in England to cause the castles to need better defence.
The Thirteenth source was written by S. Dwyer in 1996, on Late Medieval Castles. It informs the reader why there was no longer a cause for castles in military affairs after 1400. It explains to us how castles gradually became less important in battles, and were finally just used for residences. It is valuable as it gives a short history of events leading to the loss of fortresses, and also describes a specific castle called the Raglan Castle that existed for livery ands maintenance. It lacks to explain how castle were used for defence before 1400 to make them lose their ‘military importance.’
The documents I have previously analysed all have some value singularly. However, when combined, they create a detailed picture of castle development over several hundred years. Collectively, the document sources tell us much information about the type of people who lived in castles, how and why they were built and how they were used for defence. These sources give a much broader history of castle development in general, while Bodiam Castle has only specific evidence, making this its weakness. The document sources provide diagrams of different parts of castles, illustrating how certain features operated, which may not be apparent just by looking at features (e.g. machicolations) at Bodiam Castle itself. Within the sources, there are also several incidences of documents written from the times when castles were used; giving a valuable insight that Bodiam Castle could not provide. As there are many formats of information presented in the sources, such as maps, diagrams, text and plans, the information is varied, giving a better history of castle development. They can even show us similarities between Bodiam Castle and other castles, such as the Eleventh source, ‘the Siege of William De Mohun at Dunster Castle, Somerset,’ by King Stephen and Henry De Tracy, 1139. This shows that Bodiam was not the only castle to use a surrounding of water for defence, as it mentions that a certain castle employed this defence, making it ‘inaccessible on the one side’. We could not make this comparison from visiting Bodiam Castle alone, so in this respect it is weaker than the document sources.
However, even the document sources compiled cannot replace the physical evidence of Bodiam Castle. The castle itself can actually show, and give a sense of what a real castle is like, to historians, which no document source could do. The sources are not primary evidence; they could give the experience of a view from one of Bodiam Castle’s towers or the exploration of the castle. From written sources, historians could not observe the site on which Bodiam Castle was built, or speculate on the remains of its defensive features. The document sources are restrictive in that they can only give a certain amount of information. A visit to Bodiam Castle can show us the size of it, how strong it is, how well equipped for its purposes it was, and this can give real sense of how castles had developed to get to this stage in the late 1300s.
In conclusion to my analysis of castle development, I can evaluate that each type of source, both physical (Bodiam Castle) and written (documentary sources) are equally valuable. Both have elements that the other cannot provide, and put together they are very useful to a historian studying the development of castles, as they show primary evidence and explanations of how Bodiam Castle, among others came to be built and fortified. From all the evidence, we are provided with a detailed, thorough chronology of castle development until the 14th century, and we even know why castles were not used as much after this time. Neither type of evidence on its own is sufficient to provide a historian with a complete history castle development. For example, Bodiam Castle alone can only show a castle from a particular time period; it cannot show what came before (e.g. Motte and Bailey castles), which the written sources can. Obviously, more document sources could give information in more detail, but what we do have is detailed, concise and useful. Bodiam castle alone is enough physical evidence of a castle that has developed over many years since castles were first built; it has employed all the features that changed for the better, such as rounded towers, and is a good example of a well-defended structure from the 14th century. Together with the written information, a historian is presented with the full picture of castle development in England.
