5 ms·

The “theatrical backdrops for complex ceremonies relating to status and prestige“ made me wonder if that "myth" has maybe existed the entire time: not as a clea

by usrusr 5y ago

The “theatrical backdrops for complex ceremonies relating to status and prestige“ made me wonder if that "myth" has maybe existed the entire time: not as a clear design rule that would make the opposite formally wrong (e.g. surely an appeal to symmetry would easily overrule it), but as a detail tweak an architect might occasionally bring up to appear clever, or a lord to appear diligent. The entire idea of "primarily for appearance of status and strength, actual military qualities not as important as one might think" is basically today's SUV vs actual off-road. And with that premise "staircase winding direction selected for defense" can very much be both true and a fantasy: it would have been mostly a fantasy already back at the time it was built, but not untrue either. Just like the zombie apocalypse qualities of SUVs that are never used for anything more adventurous than a grocery ruin.

berkes 5y ago
> grocery ruin A very on-topic typo. One that has me wondering what this would look like. A crumbling, mediaeval tower to store harvest, maybe?
- shiomiru 5y ago
  Or one of those abandoned grocery stores in zombie apocalypse films. At least that's the first thing it made me think of.
  - Infernal 5y ago
    In which I suspect I’ll be able to find a few full cans of grape soda (though dented of course) and inexplicably, an entirely unmolested first aid kit.
limbicsystem 5y ago
I think of the USS Nimitz. Everything on that ship is (presumably) there for an excellent military reason. Yet it has probably never been attacked directly and it clearly has an important role in maintaining status and prestige. The two things are correlated, not independent.
- gumby 5y ago
  A nice inverse example is Versailles, which has quite limited protection and couldn’t really be defended from military attack. Yet it was an effective military tool: visiting potentates would see an overwhelmingly expensive palace that sent the message “we are so rich and so powerful that we don’t even need to defend our central palace, so don’t even try to attack us”
Bobylonian 5y ago
Starting from ~15th century, the mightiest castles in Europe were blown with kegs of powder. Most of those magnificent castles or forts are now as ruins in Europe because of those wars. The reason why UK have preserved those castles is that they had no such equally devastating wars and they were not used for real defence, but clearly their only role is left as prestige of something that was preserved from past. It all depends on context - medieval castles lost their meanings as defenses 500 years ago. In modern times they are useless as defences - sometimes not even against squatters...
- rjsw 5y ago
  England blew up a fair number of castles during the English Civil War [1], the ones that are intact were in areas of the country that were not disputed like London. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War
codeflo 5y ago
The “theatrical backdrops for complex ceremonies relating to status and prestige“ is a bit oversimplified I think, at least for continental Europe. In German, for example, we have two words that translate to “castle”: “das Schloss” is a representational building, but “die Burg” describes a military fortress, which often were small, plain, very well fortified buildings with multiple clever layers of defense. There’s no confusion between the two even though many Schlösser had Burg-like features for decoration. It’s perhaps also not a surprise that the article’s examples for representational castles are mostly from England, I think Britain’s military history is a bit different from that of the rest of Europe.
- prox 5y ago
  A castle was mostly for garrisoning and strongholding an area. If it came down to a fight in your castle, it was already precarious for the defender.
- Archelaos 5y ago
  English has the same basic distinction: "Burg" = "castle", "Schloss" = "palace". But upon having a closer look, things become complicated quickely: "Schloss" ist typically used for unfortified residencies starting in Late Middle Ages/Renaissance. But there existed unfortified residencies since the Early Middle Ages inside towns. The term for the early imperial or royal palaces is "Pfalz", which has the same Latin root as "palace": "palatium". Sometimes the term was also used for the residency of a bishop. Then there are castles that were both, strong fortresses but very representative. Nuremberg castle, Trifels and the Wartburg are examples of these, or from a later period Heidelberg. Sometimes a castle was later converted into a sort of palace by tearing down walls. The terminology varies in such cases. The "Heidelberger Schloss" (a strong but also very representative fortress) is called "Heidelberg castle" in English, "Schloss Mespelbrunn" (a converted castle) is called "Mespelbrunn castle". There is also a rarely used standing expression "Veste" ("fortress") used as a title for some specific castles (for example "Veste Coburg"). I agree with the parent that the “theatrical backdrops for complex ceremonies relating to status and prestige“ is a bit oversimplified. But we need to keep in mind that the function of a castle is typically very complex. And the "theatrical backdrops" is an important one. That their defensive value was quite limited could be seen during the German/Austrian passant revolt in 1525 when thousands of castles had been destroyed in a couple of months, while the aristocrates nevertheless won the war in the field. Typically the castles had only a handful of defenders and quickely surrendered, or the aristocrates just fled and did not even try to defend their castles. Only some strong, well-manned fortifications hold out, often just barely like fortress Marienberg in Würzburg.

by usrusr 5y ago

berkes 5y ago

> grocery ruin A very on-topic typo. One that has me wondering what this would look like. A crumbling, mediaeval tower to store harvest, maybe?

shiomiru 5y ago
Or one of those abandoned grocery stores in zombie apocalypse films. At least that's the first thing it made me think of.
- Infernal 5y ago
  In which I suspect I’ll be able to find a few full cans of grape soda (though dented of course) and inexplicably, an entirely unmolested first aid kit.

limbicsystem 5y ago

I think of the USS Nimitz. Everything on that ship is (presumably) there for an excellent military reason. Yet it has probably never been attacked directly and it clearly has an important role in maintaining status and prestige. The two things are correlated, not independent.

gumby 5y ago
A nice inverse example is Versailles, which has quite limited protection and couldn’t really be defended from military attack. Yet it was an effective military tool: visiting potentates would see an overwhelmingly expensive palace that sent the message “we are so rich and so powerful that we don’t even need to defend our central palace, so don’t even try to attack us”

Bobylonian 5y ago

Starting from ~15th century, the mightiest castles in Europe were blown with kegs of powder. Most of those magnificent castles or forts are now as ruins in Europe because of those wars. The reason why UK have preserved those castles is that they had no such equally devastating wars and they were not used for real defence, but clearly their only role is left as prestige of something that was preserved from past. It all depends on context - medieval castles lost their meanings as defenses 500 years ago. In modern times they are useless as defences - sometimes not even against squatters...

rjsw 5y ago
England blew up a fair number of castles during the English Civil War [1], the ones that are intact were in areas of the country that were not disputed like London. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

codeflo 5y ago

The “theatrical backdrops for complex ceremonies relating to status and prestige“ is a bit oversimplified I think, at least for continental Europe. In German, for example, we have two words that translate to “castle”: “das Schloss” is a representational building, but “die Burg” describes a military fortress, which often were small, plain, very well fortified buildings with multiple clever layers of defense. There’s no confusion between the two even though many Schlösser had Burg-like features for decoration. It’s perhaps also not a surprise that the article’s examples for representational castles are mostly from England, I think Britain’s military history is a bit different from that of the rest of Europe.

prox 5y ago
A castle was mostly for garrisoning and strongholding an area. If it came down to a fight in your castle, it was already precarious for the defender.
Archelaos 5y ago
English has the same basic distinction: "Burg" = "castle", "Schloss" = "palace". But upon having a closer look, things become complicated quickely: "Schloss" ist typically used for unfortified residencies starting in Late Middle Ages/Renaissance. But there existed unfortified residencies since the Early Middle Ages inside towns. The term for the early imperial or royal palaces is "Pfalz", which has the same Latin root as "palace": "palatium". Sometimes the term was also used for the residency of a bishop. Then there are castles that were both, strong fortresses but very representative. Nuremberg castle, Trifels and the Wartburg are examples of these, or from a later period Heidelberg. Sometimes a castle was later converted into a sort of palace by tearing down walls. The terminology varies in such cases. The "Heidelberger Schloss" (a strong but also very representative fortress) is called "Heidelberg castle" in English, "Schloss Mespelbrunn" (a converted castle) is called "Mespelbrunn castle". There is also a rarely used standing expression "Veste" ("fortress") used as a title for some specific castles (for example "Veste Coburg"). I agree with the parent that the “theatrical backdrops for complex ceremonies relating to status and prestige“ is a bit oversimplified. But we need to keep in mind that the function of a castle is typically very complex. And the "theatrical backdrops" is an important one. That their defensive value was quite limited could be seen during the German/Austrian passant revolt in 1525 when thousands of castles had been destroyed in a couple of months, while the aristocrates nevertheless won the war in the field. Typically the castles had only a handful of defenders and quickely surrendered, or the aristocrates just fled and did not even try to defend their castles. Only some strong, well-manned fortifications hold out, often just barely like fortress Marienberg in Würzburg.