Historians can also look at Warwick during the 14th century when the concentric ideas were beginning to develop. The towers are good examples of this. Although parts of the towers may have been changed but the pure fact that the towers are still standing shows the castle did undertake some concentric changes. Also the barbican and the gate house were added for defence and these still stand. Primary sources that I have looked at which help us to understand this are the evidence we have seen at Warwick castle itself. We can also gather a good idea of this from looking at images drawn of Warwick from over time periods and cross referencing them to how the castle looks now.
The final stage of Warwick castle is the most questionable of the development stages. This is the manor house period of the castle. You can see that this would have been ideally for luxury and comfort but not for defence because of the many luxurious state rooms, an electric generator, formal gardens and the large glass windows. All of these features would have been useless when it came to defence, and this shows us that the castle has become a status symbol showing wealth and power. But from all of these physical features we cannot be totally sure what exactly it would have looked like at this a stage of time back then. The castle has been vastly restored and probably refurnished since then so we must use other non physical sources to decide what the castle was really like.
We now need to look at these sources taken at the time when the castle was built. In general, primary sources are useful because they tell us what people were thinking and what it was like at that time. However these sources may not be 100% reliable as they could be used to make someone like or dislike the castle. They are most likely to be reliable but could be biased depending on who they are written or drawn by. These primary sources can be of any sort, from a speech to an art piece. Many of the primary sources will be engravings by various artists. The first source made in 1729 is a picture of the castle which is a positive drawing but it also has some negative points. The artist has drawn the towers and the large glass windows from this time well. However we have to take into account that the source is an engraving which are very difficult to draw and can not be fully accurate. The second engraving was done by Holler in 1652. The difference with this source however is that it dates back to before the first source. Even though there is this time gap, we can see the similarities between the two. In this source we can see that the castle is still being used for defensive purposes, these visible features include the arrow slits and crenulations. We can see that the castle carving would have been an artist’s impression because of the fact that this time period would have been just after the civil war, and there are no damages to the castle. Another part of the carving that shows us it is an impression is the fact that there is a huge forest where the river should be on the one side of the castle. From these sources, even though they have their faults, we can tell that the castle has undergone a series of change including a change of purpose.
The next source is a very good and reliable source to analyse. It is a quote by a man named Orderic Vitalis; he said it in the early 12th century. The quote tells us that the kin had made many castles and where he had built them. Also this man was around at the time of the castle development stages so he would have witnessed first hand what was happening. The only problem which we can see by this source is that he does not specify which type of castle he is talking about. But from other sources we can tell that it was the period of the motte and bailey castle. A similar source to this is a quote from 1072 by William of Jumieges. From this quote we can now see why and how he had built the castles. He says that he had built them to try to take control of England. The main problem with this source though is that we cannot be sure if it is reliable as it was written by a French man in favour of the French king at that time. These two sources help us to find out about the first stages of Warwick castles development. It also tells us who built them and why.
The final three primary sources which I have looked at are all floor plans of Warwick castle. I think that these sources are accurate in most aspects because they are all the original floor plans of the manor house. The first one is from 1900. It was made to show a pretty accurate floor plan of how the manor house was going to look and we can see this from visiting the castle as most features drawn on the floor plan are still there today. We no these sources were from the manor house period, because of the fact that they have a ‘water room’, which is the first of its kind. You would need to be very rich to get water pumped into your house, so this shows that the owner is a man of wealth and power. The next floor plan is of the upstairs of the manor from the same year, and it shows us that there are grand luxurious bedrooms and servants rooms. One point which shows us that the plans are not fully reliable is that the towers have been missed off, but they are not needed in the manor house. The final source is of the same house again but in 1851. We can see that the general layout is the same as the first two sources but not so much luxury. These sources further show us how castles have changed and developed over time.
Now we come to the secondary sources. These are copies of the original written or drawn sources. The problems with these sources are that they are redone to look better and will be made by what the artist or author thinks it should be like. The first secondary sources are the redone drawings from different periods. The first one is from 1550 and shows Tudor style buildings, which does fit as the Tudors were ruling England at this time. Defensive parts of the castle were clearly shown such as the arrow slots and the crenulations. There is also a brew house and kitchen visible in the picture which shows that the castle was in fact starting to be used for comfort and entertainment. The second reconstruction from 1700 shows that the brew house and kitchen has now been removed and there is just a luxurious manor house with very few visible defensive features left. This shows us that the site has now fully become a home fully for entertainment and comfort.
The next source by Asa Brigs describes the first castles built. It not only tells you which types of castles they were, but also tells you how the castles were built. This source backs up the previous engravings and also how the king built the castles. The source by Fiona Macdonald also fits in nicely with this source as it tells us the reasons why the king actually built the castles. If we were to cross-reference this source with the primary source G, we can see that both of these sources tell us similar information and therefore back each other up. And finally, all of the secondary sources two, four, five and nine all concentrate on the ways in which the castle changed and developed over time to finally become more luxurious and comfy. These four sources talk about castle details such as how the water mill generates electricity for lighting and other reasons. They also tell us about how over time the castle has changed its purpose and has became less defensive but is now more of a symbol of wealth and power.
In a final conclusion about all of these primary and secondary sources we can see that there are in fact a lot of reliable sources present but also a few unreliable sources. We can piece all of these reliable sources together and find out the entire history and development of Warwick castle over time. We can see how the castle has changed and developed its defensive features from a motte and bailey castle right the way up to a fully defensive stone fortress and then finally changed into a luxurious manor house used for comfort and as a status symbol. By using the physical, primary and secondary sources, we can use all of the information gathered to find which sources are reliable and which are not. And this is why it is important for historians to use all of the possible information gathered to collaborate their ideas.
2) From looking at the guidebook, you would expect the Warwick castle information for to be unreliable because it is written for entertainment and tourists, so the writers may lie so that the readers would think that Warwick castle is a lot more interesting and exciting than it is. From glancing through the book, you can see that there are many pictures throughout and it is not all information. These pictures are generally included to attract people to purchase the guidebook and they aren’t really reliable sources of information about Warwick Castle. The Warwick guidebooks are produced to make money, so the editors will not have any interest in adding vast majorities of relevant information. Their purpose is to attract somebody to purchase the book that’s why the main element is presentation. In the Warwick Castle guidebook, there is quite a good timeline of what developments Warwick went through over its existence, from when it was a Motte and Bailey until it became a luxury home. The info given on the timeline is accurate when matched with dates in textbooks so therefore I would say that this is in fact a reliable source of information. The fact that all of the dates given in the guidebook are reliable is because the English heritage trust would have given them all of the relevant information needed.
Even though the book can be seen as useless in some aspects, it is also quite useful at times because there are a lot of relevant facts and figures and quite a detailed history of the Castle in general, but not that much to do with castle developments. There are some primary sources dotted around the guidebook and I think that this is good because it shows that it isn’t all made up. The main primary sources shown are the sketches made of the castle at different periods of its developments, but there isn’t enough detail put into why the castles changed and how their purpose changed. At one point in the Warwick guide book, there is a story about the ghosts of Warwick castle. For me, this proves that the guidebook is used solely for entertainment purposes. There are no sources or information that these ghosts have ever actually been proven. People would see this story of ghosts in the guidebook and then may be prompted to buy the guidebook; again this shows that this is written with entertainment in mind. The stories about the ghosts would have been passed around visitors by word of mouth and there will not be any historical primary or secondary evidence that could back these stories up.
The guidebook doesn’t have much information about Warwick Castle before the 18th and 19th centuries. I think that this is mainly because it wouldn’t be very entertaining to read, which again shows the majority is about entertaining and making the most amount of money. They have mainly devoted half of the Warwick guidebook to just 200 years of history between the 18th century and the present day. More things happened in this period and would have been more interesting and entertaining than before the 18th century. This again proves that the guidebooks sole purpose is to entertain people. The writers have left things out that they think would not appeal to a tourist or visitor of the castle. If the guidebook is exciting then more people would buy the guidebook and be attracted to visit Warwick castle and because the guidebook is written to entertain people, it is obvious that there will be an element of lying or over-exaggeration throughout. A wide majority of the written information in the book is bound to be exaggerated as this will make the guidebook more appealing and more fun to read. Most of the stories in the Warwick castle guidebook actually have no sources or evidence to back them up so there is no proof of any of the information being correct. Therefore because of the fact that the guidebook miss-forms people about facts and information, I would say that on the whole I could not trust a majority of the booklet.
On the other hand though, the guidebook can be helpful because the timeline at the start is very accurate and the dates in it do match with the primary evidence that I have analysed. We can see from this that Warwick Castle’s structure and purpose do develop over time and the sources support the dates, so I would say that this section of the guidebook can be very useful. The guidebook does in fact look further into important events such as party’s and dinners that may have happened and does give explanations of why and when these events happened, and I would say that these were also quite reliable sources of information.
So generally, I think that the guidebook is not extremely accurate in the sense that it is misleading and has been produced with entertainment in mind, but on the other hand I think that the guide book does give some quite good information in the sense that all of the dates on the timeline match up to primary sources that I have read myself. Some of the stories that are actually true stories from the past have been slightly exaggerated to make them exciting and fun for the readers, which is fair enough to make the money. Another main problem is that the Warwick guidebook only just about helps people understand why the castle developed overtime, even though this is one of the main facts about the castle. Really the only two good things about the guidebook is the timeline at the bottom of the first few pages because there is no need to lie about what happened on the certain dates and the reader can see what happened that could have caused Warwick castle to change its purpose, and also the fact that dates and names match up to other primary sources outside the book.
