Question 3
Are you surprised by how the Victorian paintings show Raglan Castle? (Source D)
After seeing Raglan Castle in various pictures and paintings other than this one, I am very surprised by how the Victorian paintings show Raglan. However, looking at a picture taken in that time (located on page 23 of the guidebook) I can see the resemblance between the castle and the painting. By the time this picture was painted Raglan castle had fallen into ruin, and was overrun by ivy. It was also a popular tourist attraction, hence the people in the pictures. Also considering the type of art that was popular at the time it wasn’t rare to exaggerate certain features and also focus on one main area of the castle, often just sketching in others without looking at it properly. This is shown in the picture, as the castle in question looks nothing like raglan, the only resemblance is the gatehouse, however this is accurate.
The people shown in that certain picture look like they are having a day out at this ruin; this gives a relaxed feel to the picture. There are two men enjoying a game of bowls on a green outside the castle and families socialising underneath the gate. This would have been because Raglan was a very popular tourist attraction as I mentioned earlier. It would have been a very calm and happy environment. It also shows the castle covered in ivy as is supported in the picture on page 23. However, the Raglan shown in this picture is very different to the Raglan of the 1600’s and the Raglan of today.
Question 4
Study sources E and F. Do these sources prove that Raglan was built as a fortress?
Source E (the picture of Raglan Castle painted by Alan Sorrell). This modern day painting shows Raglan as a very well defended stronghold and is very unlike other paintings that depict Raglan as a more palatial building. This picture shows Raglan as a very busy place with soldiers running around and smoke billowing out of chimneys; it also makes it seem like a very intimidating place. The artist who drew this picture would be imagining Raglan around the 1600’s during the siege of Raglan. This is clear as there seems to be soldiers on horseback fighting against each other in the right corner and a siege machine of some sort being wheeled out in the gatehouse. When compared to against the plan of Raglan (source F) this picture does seem very accurate and does give the feel that Raglan did have some military defences. However I do not think that it proves Raglan was built as a fortress, whereas it may not be falling without a fight the facts are it was eventually beaten. I think that a purpose built fortress would have been able to withstand a siege and this castle didn’t.
Question 5
Do sources G, H and I provide reliable evidence that Raglan was built as a fortress?
Source G is an eyewitness account which can be good or bad, depending who is telling it, however eyewitness accounts are almost always biased and also in this case the account is told forty or fifty years after the event it describes. This means it is probably not that accurate as the eyewitness may have a bad memory, or as earlier said, be biased.
Even so, the account does give a good description of Raglan after the great siege. It says of how the forests around Raglan being cut down and taken away rebuild other castles and also of the moat being drawn of water and the fish ponds banks being cut. However, source G states how hard the great tower was to knock down saying that it required a tedious battering. Source H also refers to Raglan in a more military light. It tells us how Raglan withstood the major impact of the attack. Using my own background knowledge of this event I think that Raglan must have been very well fortified to achieve this, which tilts it even more in the direction of being a military fortress.
In source I, you can see that there are three walls of the great tower that have not actually been knocked down. I think that this is because the great tower at Raglan castle was built as a military feature. In addition, the positioning of the great tower would lead me to believe this, as it is in a good position to repel attackers. After cross-referencing sources G, H and I, I found out that they all say the same thing, to a degree. However sources H and I were composed more near the time of the actual invasion, therefore I believe these to be more reliable than G. I think that these sources do provide reliable evidence that Raglan was built as a fortress.
Question 6
Sources J, K and L, these sources have no value to a historian studying the purpose of Raglan, how far do you agree?
Source J tells us that Raglan castle is a beautiful place; this makes me think of it as a more palatial feature because of the language used. It also refers to the moat surrounding the great tower as a “pond and pool”. This type of language makes me think of Raglan as a more palatial feature, rather than a military one, so I believe that this source does have a value to any historian studying Raglan as it provides an alternate viewpoint.
Cross-referencing this with source L I find that this also says the same sort of thing informing us of a faire held there. This would lead me to believe that good entertainment was held at the castle, and although this may have been held at a military stronghold, as a day out for the baron’s people, it would more likely have been held by a lord and lady at their palace, to raise their social status.
Source K also describes Raglan castle as a grand magnificent place, this would lead me to think that it would have been used more for entertaining hosts or as a home for lords and ladies. Stating that was a relict of grand baronial magnificence. Looking at pictures of raglan castle, I would not really say that it deserves that title; however, the castle is in ruins so it may have been much grander when the extract was written. After studying these sources, I think that they could be of use to a historian studying Raglan. They all back each other up by saying the same thing and all of them provide an alternate viewpoint on the history of the castle.
Question 7
Was Raglan built as a home for lords and ladies or as a defensive fortress?
For this question, I will study all of the sources to come to a conclusion about the purpose or Raglan Castle. There is significant argument for both sides of the argument; the sources that swing towards the side of Raglan being a palatial feature are B, C, J, K, and L. Source B, shows the great hall in all of its magnificence. It has a large window that would be of no use when being attacked and the roof of the hall is extremely decorative and fancy. This hall would look more at home in a palace as a room to greet and dine guests, rather than the mess hall of a military structure. Source C is an arrangement of seating in the great hall. I think this also would not be found in a military structure as it is a detailed list of who sits where and it seems very strict. Knights were chivalrous but I do not think they would have gone to such lengths as to map out a table for everyone (except the leader who would have sat at the high table). I think that this seating plan points more towards an organized event that would have been held to entertain guests of the lord and lady, and also used when great feasts were held, implying that the castle was lived in by lords and ladies.
Source J tells us of Raglans fame as a castle and how beautiful everything at Raglan is. I think that a military feature would not really be described as beautiful as it would have constant drills for the soldiers on the grounds, ruining the ground and there would probably have been a blacksmith and stables, which would have been detrimental to the appearance of the castle grounds. Source K and L both speak of how magnificent Raglan is and imply that it was a home for lords and ladies through phrases such as “Baronial Magnificence”. However, the way source L is written does make the castle sound as if it is a bit better than it really is. In addition, some things about the castle give the impression of a palace rather than a fortified structure, like the large oriel window, other large palatial windows and arrow slits where they would be of no use when attacked.
The sources that support the argument that Raglan was built as a military stronghold are sources E, G and H and some of the features of the castle such as the drawbridge, great tower, moat and the well, which would have been used to get water in times of siege. Source E is a modern day picture of Raglan castle. With this, you immediately have the bias of the artist’s opinion as something you have to acknowledge; however, this picture seems quite accurate. It shows Raglan at the time of the siege and it does not seem to be surrendering without a fight. There is fighting going on everywhere and the castle also seems well prepared with its moat, thick walls, great tower, matriculations and soldiers’ charging out of the gate, it would seem Raglan was ready for this siege. Source G, a description of the great tower being brought to the ground after the capture of Raglan describes the difficulty the attackers had bringing the walls of the tower down and in the end only managed to break down one wall before giving up. This tells me that the great tower was obviously built to withstand an attack because of the thickness of its walls and the height of the tower itself, also all the arrow slits and gun loops in it concrete that it was built for defensive purposes, but not necessarily as a part of a defensive structure. The lords of Raglan may have thought one extremely strong tower would have been enough for defensive purposes and if attacked everyone could run in there. This would correspond with the sources that describe it more as a palatial place more than a military structure, as these sources always seem to describe the palaces inner grounds and not the great tower and more military aspects like the outer wall. Also source H’s comment on how Raglan castle “hung on like winter fruit” during the siege would lead me to believe Raglan was quite a strong castle.
However Raglan castles may not have been either a defensive stronghold or an extravagant palace, it might have been a mixture of both. It seems to have a mixture of both military elements and palatial ones, which would lead me to believe that it was built as a palace but with extremely strong defences. Source A backs this up as we see many military features like the crenulations, draw bridge and arrow slits however there is also the courtyard, large palatial windows and grand staircase. I think that Raglan was built as a bit of both, a palace that could impress influential guests in times of peace but also a strong defensive castle which could defend itself when war broke out.
