Most of Ludlow Castles’ defences are typical but it has a few which are original. For example the 100ft drop. I think Ludlow’s defences are very strong and it would be hard to conquer.
Sirrvet Bukhari 11W Ludlow And Dudley Castle Coursework
(2) Chapel— “ It is possible to reconstruct a picture/description of the chapel from the physical evidence”
This was one of the most important buildings in the castle. Most of the chapel is still standing and we can see the main shape of the chapel. But all of the chapel cannot be constructed if we rely only on the physical evidence.
There is evidence of two walls that connected with the curtain wall this gives us a clearer picture of what the chapel may have looked like. There is evidence that the rectangular part of the chapel had a gable roof because we can see the shape on the chapel. (See pictures)
With physical evidence we cannot construct what the roof may have looked like because there is no physical evidence. The roof can only be made if we use other sources of evidence.
The building was made in the Norman, 11th – 12th century because the doorway has a dog tooth carving and arcade. The inside is very decorative it has pillars and faces on the wall, which might have held flowers or plants.
Everything inside was symmetrical apart from one window, which is converted. This may have connected to the other building that also has a window, which, is now blocked off. (See picture)
In conclusion we could reconstruct the building but we cold not construct all of it, as we would need other sources to construct parts of the chapel. I think that there is no or not enough evidence to restructure from just the physical evidence.
Part C How valuable were the ruins (physical evidence) in comparison to other sources in helping you decide what this building was like.
Explain your answer fully
The ruins of the chapel were very valuable and can show some pieces of information that aren’t included in other sources. For example we can tell that the Chapel was built around 1066 –1100s (11th–12th century) because it has rounded arched doors and windows and it also had dogtooth carving. But in the Castle guidebook, which is a good source, it reads, “The date of the chapel at Ludlow is uncertain”.
I think that sources like the castle guides were more useful because the guides tell us information that we wouldn’t know by just looking at the physical evidence. For example we cannot tell what the roof of the chapel looks like by just looking at the physical evidence. But by looking on the information board and by referring to your guidebook you can tell what the roof really looked like.
By looking at physical evidence we can also tell that there was a window on the Chapel why was enlarged but we don’t know why it was enlarged. By looking at the guidebook we know that it had a bridge, which linked the gallery with the great chamber block.
Other Sources like the teacher and the information board were also important. The teachers gave us a lot of points, which were very useful. They know quite a lot because they have studied castles toughly and know every fact. Comparing teachers to other sources I think teachers are most experienced and provide us with a lot of information. But the guidebook does give us all the background information about when it was built and what it was used for then. The guides provide us with pictures and drawings; the pictures give us a clear view of what the chapel really looked like.
The information board were useful as well but were not as helpful as the teachers or the guidebook. The information was written on stone and sometimes it was difficult to read. The Internet site that I looked at had the same information as that was in the guidebook, I did not find that of any use.
Overall I found the guidebook and the teacher were most informative than the chapel itself. The Chapel was a good experience but if we just look at the physical evidence on its own we will not be able to tell what the Chapel really looked like. The physical evidence would be valuable but only if we looked at other sources as well as the ruins.
Part C 2
It can be argued that ruined castles do not need to e preserved as evidence as we can learn about them from history books, websites and reconstructions. Do you agree? Explain your answer fully.
I think that ruins are very important and that they should be preserved. If ruins were not preserved in the first place we wouldn’t have known that they even existed. We can learn a lot of information by just observing the ruins.
History books and websites are also important to because they give us background information on what the ruins are all about. If the ruins were not preserved they will be no evidence left for the future citizens that the history books are correct. This could lead to people may not believing that castles once existed.
Castles also need to be preserved because many people still visit these ruins and it is interesting to see that these buildings were once used for royal families. The castle holds a lot of events e.g. Shakespeare’s plays and sporting events, this attracts many tourists.
If the ruins were to be destroyed then no one would be able to make the same castle and a remarkable building would be lost.
However if the castle ruins were destroyed then there could be more room for houses and homelessness could be resolved as the castle ruin does take up a lot of space. Factories and schools could also be made there to make use of the land. But demolishing the huge castle would need a lot of money.
If we don’t preserve the castle we wouldn’t be able to experience it and we could not visualise it. Pictures and drawings are not the same and seeing it yourself is a very memorable experience.
