Sieges of the Middle Ages

Philip Warner

• Publisher: Pen & Sword Military Classics
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781844152155
• eBook ISBN: 9781473818200
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

In the Middle Ages the castle was an important military and administrative centre, essentially utilitarian in its design and in the purposes it served. Because it played so central a role in medieval history, and because the wealth of material is so great, the author has concentrated on English seiges undertaken in the period from the Norman Conquest to the War of the Roses. This includes many dramatic actions fought on the continental dominions of the English Crown such as Chateau Gaillard and Rouen. Drawing from contemporary records and his own inpsection of sites, Philip Warner's narrative explores the skills of the architect, the engineer and the miner, as well as the courage of troops and their commanders.

Contents

Preface

1. Introduction

2. The Development of Siege Warfare Techniques

3. The Castle as an Instrument of Conquest: William I and William Rufus

4. The Castle as an Instrument of Government: Henry I

5. ‘The Nineteen long winters when God and his saints slept’: Stephen and Matilda

6. The Plantagenet Warriors: Henry II and Richard I

7. The Small Gains and Large Losses of John

8. The Long Reign of Henry III

9. The Great Era of Castle-Building: Edward I

10. Favourites and Foreign Wars: Edward II and Edward III

11. Lancaster replaces Plantagenet: Richard II and Henry IV

12. War in France: Henry V

13. The Wars of the Roses: Henry VI, Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III

14. Conclusion

Glossary

Notes on Sources and Authors

Select Bibliography

Index

Preface

ANYONE who writes a book on castles soon finds himself owing a large debt of gratitude to many people. There are librarians who track down obscure and rare books, kind friends who take photographs, owners of land on which castles once stood, and people who make encouraging and helpful suggestions. Among so many it may seem unjust to single out names but I find it necessary and just to mention one or two. First, there is Brigadier Peter Young, D.S.O., M.C., who suggested I should write this book, and secondly, there is W. L. McElwee, M.C. who convinced me I could. Both have been extremely liberal with their encouragement and criticism. Few books can have had as much constructive and varied criticism as this for it has had to pass the scrutiny of my family who claim to represent the ‘general reader’. My daughter Diana in particular took every sentence and shook it to see if it would fall to pieces.

Professor Dorothy Whitelock very kindly gave me permission to quote from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which she edited with Professor David Douglas and Miss Susie L. Tucker. Mr K. R. Potter very kindly gave me permission to quote from his translation of Gesta Stephani, and Mr J. T. Appleby from his translation of Richard of Devizes.

I am particularly grateful to Mrs Blanche Ellis who took enormous trouble over maps, diagrams, and illustrations; whenever possible she drew from the original weapon or piece of machinery.

My special thanks are due to Richard Warner who spent part of his holidays translating difficult mediaeval Latin texts, John Warner, who helped with research, and all those kind people who, hearing I was writing about castles, sent me pamphlets, cuttings, or photographs, in the hope that I would find them interesting, which I invariably did. Nothing was too much trouble for Colonel Alan Shepperd, M.B.E., and his splendid staff at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst Central Library, and no one could have been more patient with my difficult requests than the Librarian and staff of the County Library at Camberley. P. W.

* 1 *

Introduction

THE word ‘castle’ is charged with emotion. To some it represents a gallant survival of a romantic and chivalrous past, to others it is the symbol of an Englishman’s pride and liberty (his home is his castle), for others it represents a golden age when everyone knew his place and kept to it. Wildly inaccurate though they be, the existence of such beliefs is not surprising. The castle appears to offer an easy entry into the past, it looks both romantic and independent, and it belongs to an age in which class barriers were approved and enforced.

Standing on the battlements of a castle the humblest person feels a sense of power and grandeur. He is back in the past and feels a kinship with the original owners. In all probability this kinship is genuine, though remote. Every family that was in England in 1087 is now related thirteen times over to every other family in the country at that time; he is thus related both to the mighty baron and the most downtrodden villein. But this thin tie of blood is the only link he has with an age that ceased to exist five hundred years ago.

It is almost as difficult for him to imagine that world as it would be for a twelfth-century knight to visualize a modern city. It is not just the way of life that is different, it is the whole process of thought. In studying any feature of the Middle Ages it is essential to keep this difference in mind.

The function of a castle was to provide a refuge, and dominate an area. It also served as a residence, storehouse, administrative headquarters, gaol, barracks, symbol of authority, and observation point. Castles had uses which varied according to the place they occupied, and the countryside they controlled. Some were for an attacking strategy, such as Henry II’s in Ireland, others were for deep defence in remote Welsh valleys. They could be manned by small forces, yet in time of need would accommodate a large number of troops. In forward positions they could gain priceless time while the countryside to the rear was being prepared against an invader: if bypassed they could be a perpetual menace to enemy communications. They were one of the most useful devices ever invented but they had one great drawback; they were expensive and difficult to build, and once built they were always in need of costly adaptation or development. In the course of time many powerful castles have disappeared without trace; Reading, Newbury, and Farringdon are examples.

Surviving castles fall into two categories. Some have been modified for residential purposes, and surrounded by attractive gardens: Windsor and Warwick are of this type. Others, such as Dinas Bran (North Wales), and Lewes, are ruins and are too far gone to give a clear picture of what they were once like. Both types are so quiet and dignified the visitor hesitates to raise his voice.

But in their day castles were centres of noise and bustle. In peacetime the castle wards would be like a noisy market; in wartime they would be like factories, piled high with stores, and with a host of supporters backing the front-line defence. To-day the peaceful walls that crown a steep hill give an entirely false impression of the castle as a form of passive defence; a retreat in which one would be protected by difficulty of access. Access was indeed made as difficult as possible for the unwelcome, but the overriding thought in castle strategy was not passive defence but action and destruction. Shutting oneself up in a castle was not an attempt to avoid conflict, but a manœuvre to make the enemy fight at a disadvantage. Along the castle approaches would be chosen ‘killing grounds’ where its attackers would be exposed to fire without being able to return it effectively. Even an incompetent and cowardly commander would benefit by the lessons built into stone by his predecessors. The defence had an enormous advantage. To an invader time would be vital, and it would be important to maintain the full strength of his army lest he should be outnumbered on the battlefield. Detaching small forces for sieges would ultimately leave him numerically inferior. The enemy might be an invading army, anxious to press on but unwilling to leave an uncaptured fortress on its line of retreat. The castle would have to be besieged, and perhaps taken, but the designer, who had probably also chosen the site, would have tried to ensure that the siege would be costly in time and lives. It would not always be so, for fixed defences often defy careful military calculation. With few exceptions, such as Kenilworth and Harlech, castles did not stand long sieges; starvation saw to that. But besiegers had their own problems which sometimes became so pressing that a siege was abandoned. They were exposed to the weather, they lost men through desertion, and might be shorter of food than the people they were besieging, for the latter would have cleared the countryside of supplies before pulling up the drawbridge. They might even be besieged themselves, as happened at Wallingford in 1152. Furthermore, they might be given a thoroughly unpleasant time by those they were trying to besiege. Froissart describes the siege of Aiguillon in 1346 when the English were surrounded by a large host of French.

The French battered them with missiles from twelve engines ‘but, they within were so well pavised (protected) that never a stone of their engines did them hurt. They within also had great engines, the which brake down all the engines without, for in a short space they brake all to pieces the greatest of them without.’

Not content with mere counter-fire, there were frequent sallies of a hundred or so men. As these were intent on bringing in supplies they were usually engaged by the French at some point in their foraging. On the majority of these occasions the attackers received the worst of the encounter.

But, if life was difficult for the besieger outside the castle perimeter, it was doubly so once he came closer. The moat might be wide and deep, and contain sharpened stakes; a hail of missiles would rain down on him from the battlements, and if he broke through the walls he might well find himself in a trap. Finally, within the inner ward, he would have to fight his way up steep winding stairways where every advantage was conferred on the defenders. Yet, in spite of all these hazards, there was never an impregnable castle. Not all castles were captured, because some were never attacked, but the lesson of history was that no man can make a defence that other men cannot break through. Château Gaillard, the brilliant construction of Richard I, was thought to be impregnable, but what happened to it is described later in this book. The best that a besieged castle could hope for was to raise the price of victory to a point which the besiegers would be unwilling to pay, a price not only of men and time but also of siege materials, which might have to be brought a hundred miles or more. Some of the equipment used in the siege of Rochester came from the Forest of Dean. Caerphilly, a masterpiece of castle design, was a ‘high-price’ siege, and was left alone after 1327.

Steep slopes and isolated positions tend to be associated with castles nowadays because that is where ruins have survived. But many strong castles were built on flat ground or gentle slopes. Shirburn, Wallingford, and Boarstall are examples; the last of these is in a hollow and probably blocked the main trackway across a marsh. It does not look very formidable to-day but in its heyday the moat was 60 feet wide and the other defences in proportion. Such castles relied on strong walls, or large garrisons, or marshy approaches, or wide moats, for their ability to disconcert the attacker. They enjoyed several advantages over their more lofty counterparts. They were more comfortable residences, they could not quickly be starved into submission; and supplies were more easily brought in during peace. But however attractive these amenities the invader of mountainous country like North Wales would have to forgo them, or he would himself be assailed from nearby peaks.

Anyone who writes about castles relies heavily on the work done by architects and archaeologists who have elucidated and explained features that might have been misunderstood or neglected. The fact that some of their deductions have been disproved does not make their technical descriptions less valuable and many of their theories are at least as tenable as those of their historian critics. But the castle can only be appreciated if it is seen from its beginning to its decline in the military and political setting that caused its rise and decay. In that process it served many different purposes.

The English castle, as we know it, has French origins. It first appears in this country before the Conquest, when in Herefordshire, and perhaps elsewhere, a few Normans, invited over by Edward the Confessor, built mound castles and attracted the hatred of the local people. Richard’s Castle, built by Richard Fitz Scrob, near Ludlow, had a motte 70 feet high, with a flattened top 30 feet in diameter. Around it was a deep ditch; outside this was a palisade and then a smaller ditch. This type of defensive/offensive structure had been developed in France nearly two centuries before, and differed from fortifications in this country in that it was held by a single owner, who in turn held it from the king. It symbolized the feudal structure of the state as a pyramid with the king at the top. Castles were built and held under royal licence. Their owners were tenants of the king; they in their turn had tenants owing allegiance to them. At the highest level the ‘rents’ were not particularly onerous; Weston, in Warwickshire, was held for a brach (hound) and 7d each year.

The Norman concept of defence was vastly different from what had preceded it in this country, but was not, at first, an advance. Prehistoric earthworks, as found at Maiden Castle, Dorset, Cissbury in Sussex, Old Sarum, Wiltshire, and Black-bury Castle, Devon, show ingenious arrangements of diversions in which an attacker could be trapped and exterminated. Some of these ‘earthworks’ (occasionally built of stone) incorporated military sophistications that were not seen again until English castle building reached the height of its achievement in the fourteenth century. In that period English designers skilfully incorporated the lessons of 4000 years, and built fortifications superior to any in the world.

Roman...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents