Source 3 is another plan. The English Heritage draws this one for a teacher’s guidebook. It is of the modern castle. It also shows that the keep is square. This supports Lapper’s interpretation of the keep. We can trust this source because it shows the keep as it is now. We can also trust it since I saw it on my site visit and it all agrees with this plan. It is also for teachers to use with pupils so it would not lie
Source 4 describes how the keep was made out of logs and was on a big hill called a motte. It is reliable since it was written in the early twelfth century, in the times of castles. It disagrees with Lapper’s interpretation of Kenilworth since it says that the keeps were made out of wood during the twelfth century, which is only 100 years before Lapper drew his picture.
Source 5 is written by Helen Clarke and originates from a book called the archaeology of Medieval England in 1979. This source is reliable since she is a trained archaeologist and if she lied no one would buy her book.
In the source she describes how the keep was stone, square and had rectangular towers with thick walls. She also explains how it was built to withstand sieges. And how it had no external access. This agrees with Lapper’s drawing because it says that keeps were square, made out of stone. But we cannot tell from the out side if it has thick walls. My site visit agrees with this though.
Helen Clarke also wrote source 6 but this one describes how the keep lost its predominance, which means it was not the main defensive structure. It does not describe the keep at all.
Source 8 was written by James Ford-Johnson who was another archaeologist who wrote a book called ‘Great medieval castles of Britain in 1979’. The source states that the keep is made out of red sand stone. We cannot tell if it was made out of red sandstone in Lappers interpretation, but I know that it is true since I saw it on my site visit to Kenilworth.
Keeps were originally built out of wood. Later on as castles developed they began to be built out of stone. This was because castle builders realized that wood was easily burnt down and stone was very durable. This made castles harder to attack and enemies had to think of new ways of attack.
The moat
Ivan Lapper’s interpretation of the moat is that it was big almost the size surrounded the castle.
Source 2 is a plan of the castle. It shows that the moat was big and surrounded the castle. It is reliable since it was drawn by sir William Dugdale who was there at that time. He went round the castle and measured it and drew it to scale. He also had no reason to lie. In the picture it shows that the moat was almost the same size as a lake. The disagreement is that it was drawn 300 years after Lappers, which brings its reliability into question.
Source 3 is another plan but a modern twentieth century one. It shows the moat going all round the castle. It was from the teacher’s guidebook. So they wouldn’t lie about what it says or people wouldn’t buy it. Also teachers need the books to be reliable, as they have to use them to teach children.
Source 7 is an extract about a siege on Kenilworth in 1272. It tells us that the mere (moat) was very long. We cannot tell if it reliable or not since they might have just exaggerated a little about the size to make Lord Edwards son seem more heroic it is a primary source since it was written around the time we are studying. This source proves that the moat was there in 1272, around the same time as Lapper’s picture.
Source 9 was written by an archaeologist called James Ford-Johnston. It states that the moat was three quarters of a mile long and a quarter of a mile wide. Johnston is a trained historian and wants to sell copies of his books. He would have researched it thoroughly and would have no reason to lie. Therefore we can trust him when he says that the moat was there in the thirteenth century. This agrees with Lapper’s picture.
The Causeway
Ivan Lappers interpretation of Kenilworth does not show a causeway. But I know it was there because on my site visit I walked across it.
It was also a dam to stop the water from the moat escaping. But during the civil war it got destroyed so that the water would drain out. Most castles in the 12th and 13th centuries had causeways. These were used as an entrance into the castle. These were heavily guarded, as this was the easiest way for enemies could get into the castle. Later on, castles did not need causeways as they became self-enclosed structures and were defended from the inside. An example of this type of castle is the concentric castle. However in the 13th century castle development had not got that far so Kenilworth castle was typical of mast castles at that time as it had a causeway.
We have found some sources about the causeway such as source 2.
Source 2 is a plan of Kenilworth in 1656 it was drawn by sir William Dugdale it is useful because it shows that the cause way was there in 1656. It is reliable since sir William Dugdale had no reason to lie, he went round the castle and drew I to scale so we can trust his interpretation of the castle.
Source 3 is another plan of the castle but this is from the 20th century from the English Heritage teacher’s guidebook.
It shows the causeway in the bottom right hand corner. The plan also has a key, which shows that the causeway is from the 13th century, which agrees with Lapper’s picture, but it doesn’t show it on his picture.
This source is reliable since the English Heritage would have no reason to lie about what it looks like. They also want to sell their guidebooks.
The last source about the cause way is source 9, which was a written by James Forde-Johnston. It is an extract from his book ‘Great Medieval Castles of Britain’.
It explains where the causeway was which was on the southeast. And how the main causeway was flanked by the great lake (moat). It tells how it had a barbican in front of the entrance.
This source should be reliable since he is putting the sales of the book on the line if he did lie so no one would buy his book.
Curtain wall
Ivan Lappers interpretation of Kenilworth castle shows that it has 2 curtain walls an inner and an outer one. I know it was there because I saw it on my site visit. I only saw the outer one since the outer one since the inner one was gone and only half the outer curtain wall was there. I can only assume that they had been worn away through time.
Source 2 is a plan of Kenilworth in 1656, it was drawn by sir William Dug-dale. It shows the inner curtain wall going around the keep. It also shows that the outer curtain wall goes to the very edge next to the moat. It is reliable since it was drawn to scale and Dug-dale would have no reason to lie.
Source 3 is another plan but a more modern one. It is from English Heritage and shows that parts of the wall are gone. Ti also shows various watchtowers, on the outer curtain wall. The source is reliable since English Heritage wants to sell copies of its books so they would want to make it as truthful as possible.
Source 6 is an extract from a book by Helen Clarke who is a trained archaeologist the extract states that the curtain walls were added in the 12th century. Kenilworth was a typical 13th century castle so it probably had its curtain wall at the same time. It also states that they had square towers, which eventually got turned circular ones due to the fact that square towers had weak right angles and circular towers didn’t. The square corners on the towers made it easier for attackers to demolish the wall as they shot at the corners and the wall would fall down. As castles developed, castle builders realized that circular towers were better as they were not so easy to attack. This probably why Kenilworth castle’s towers changed. This agrees with Lappers interpretation of the curtain wall. It reliable since Helen Clarke would want to sell copies of her books so she would not lie.
