How accurate an interpretation is Ivan Lapper's interpretation of K Kenilworth Castle at the beginning of the 13th Century?

Authors Avatar

Daniel O’Donnell

1/09/03

                How accurate an interpretation is Ivan Lapper’s interpretation of                                             K                  Kenilworth Castle at the beginning of the 13th Century?

In this essay, I am going to study Ivan Lapper’s interpretation, and see if it is an accurate and reliable interpretation of Kenilworth castle in the thirteenth century. I am going to do this by examining sources about Kenilworth and other castles in general, and see if they help me answer the question. I am also going to be looking at the sources and seeing if they are reliable or not and why. I will then consider all of the facts and make a judgment about how accurate an interpretation Ivan Lapper’s picture of Kenilworth is.

The Keep

Ivan Lappers interpretation of Kenilworth Castle in the 13th Century shows that the keep was a stone square keep, it had narrow arrow slit windows, and there were crenulations. It also shows that the walls had a plinth and that there were four square, one in each corner. This is because this is only how far castle building had got to. The keep was made from wood at first, but then people realised that it was easily destroyed by fire, whereas stone cannot catch fire. Another thing that it shows is that the keep is on a Motte. Also we can see the         entrance to the outer building but not the entrance to the keep.
      W        hen I went on a site visit to Kenilworth, I saw some evidence, which supports Ivan Lapper. This was that the keep was made out of stone and was square, and that there were four towers. Another thing I saw which backs up Ivan Lappers interpretation, was that it had some narrow arrow slit windows, and that the walls had plinths. Another thing is that the keep was made out of sandstone.
       However there were some things that did not agree with Ivan Lapper’s interpretation. These were that the entrance to the outer building to the keep was on the ground floor, because it was added at a later date. Also, most of the windows were big and were also added after the 13th Century. The north of the keep was missing. This was because it was destroyed at the end of the English Civil War.
         
Source 2 is a drawing by Sir William Dugdale, drawn in 1656. This source shows me that the keep was square. This source agrees with Ivan Lapper, and also agrees with my site visit, because when I saw the keep, it was square. I can trust this source because it was drawn in 1656, which means it is quite reliable as it was drawn when the castle wasn’t a ruin. Also, there is no reason for the author to lie, and the plan has a scale, which suggests that the author has gone all around the castle and measured everything.
        Source 3 is a plan of Kenilworth castle, which was drawn for a teacher’s guidebook, published by English Heritage. This source shows me that the keep is square and has four, square, towers, which relates to Ivan Lappers interpretation. This is reliable because it is drawn for a teacher’s guidebook, which means that the author had no reason to lie.
         
Source 5 This source is very useful because it tells me about the outside of the keep, which is all that I can see from Ivan Lapper’s interpretation. This source agrees with Ivan Lapper, because they both say that the keep was made of stone, had a plinth, and had narrow arrow slit windows. It also agrees with my site visit, as the keep was stone, had a plinth, and had narrow arrow slit windows.
           Source 8 is an extract from the book “ Great Medieval Castles of Britain,” by James Ford-Johnston, 1979. This source tells me that in the early twelfth century, ‘the timber works were eventually replaced by stone buildings.’ It also tells me that Kenilworth castle is a keep and bailey castle. This source is quite useful, because it tells me that Kenilworth castle was made out of stone, which agrees with my Ivan Lapper’s

Join now!


The Moat and Mere

Ivan Lapper’s interpretation shows that the mere is at the bottom of the picture, and the moat goes all the way around the castle and joins the mere at the bottom. The moat would have stopped siege machines, and would also have slowed down infantry. The mere would have stopped most attacks on that side of the castle, but would also let ships attack.
          When I got to the castle we could see that the water was no longer there this was because the middle of the causeway had been blown out ...

This is a preview of the whole essay