9 ms·

Hopefully the book they're working on makes more compelling arguments, as the bullet points listed in this blogpost are pretty weak: 1. "Castles were built for

Hopefully the book they're working on makes more compelling arguments, as the bullet points listed in this blogpost are pretty weak: 1. "Castles were built for prestige not fortification". Regardless of actual use as fortification (frequency of battles), it's pretty self-evident that the intent of much of a castles design is fortification. Even if moats, arrow slits and parapets are just for show, they would still be to show off your defensive capabilities, in which case (at least apparent) defense would still be the primary concern of the architect. 2. "Some turn anti-clockwise" Wherein the author assumes that all wisdom is automatically universally shared and all architects/planners/builders are universally competent. A fact as true today as it ever was. 3. is pretty much the same argument as (2) repeated. 4. An argument against how practical they would be in reality (already superceded by their first point that they were probably just for show). There's very little of substance in this article. Hopefully the book does a better job.

qw 5y ago
I think one of the points in the article is that the walls and moat are the main lines of defence. The castle is protected by the walls. If they breach the walls and actually enter the interior of the castle, they have already lost and no staircase design can save them.
- rtkwe 5y ago
  There were interior defenses though. In some of the more impressive castles there were concentric rings of walls so breeching on wouldn't surrender the whole castle. There were often also keeps. Even in early proto castles you had motte and bailey designs where the main walls defended the low ground (bailey) for an interior fort built on a hill or prominence (the motte). Castles weren't single layer defenses that stopped at the walls, they were definitely designed to continue the fight and protect the nobles even if the enemy did get through the walls. Given that it's not so out of line to think the interior architecture might have been designed to increase defender's advantages.
  - timcederman 5y ago
    Do you have any examples of when this actually happened (a fight "continued, to protect the nobles, once the enemy got through the walls")? What I find most interesting is applying Occam's razor, it's almost certainly not a defense mechanism, yet we have dozens of HN folks defending it, and I'm not sure why? If there was at least one documented account of where this was an effective defense, then maybe there's something there.
    - radford-neal 5y ago
      In 1201, Eleanor of Aquitaine survived in the keep of the castle Mirebeau after attackers were within the walls, until her son King John arrived and captured the attackers, rescuing her.
      - Bobylonian 5y ago
        That's a miracle story, where Superman is arriving in the last second, but still - what it has to do with fights on stairs? If there were no help from outside, next would be keep wall, or most probably lack of food and water for defenders.
    - burnished 5y ago
      Because it is a truth most of us have accepted without question. Further, it is so agreeable to other facts. Left handed people are evil? But of course, they can attack up in castle staircases! Medeival life was one of constant sword-fighting and war time! Also I'll admit the first couple arguments in TFA felt weak. I wouldn't be surprised if that colored peoples readings of the rest, or if they jumped to come comment before finishing the rest.
- chimprich 5y ago
  > If they breach the walls and actually enter the interior of the castle, they have already lost and no staircase design can save them. That's assuming that the castle has fallen by assault. If the attacker was an assassin who had gained access to the castle through subterfuge or a disgruntled worker then interior defences may have conceivably been useful.
mnw21cam 5y ago
> 2. "Some turn anti-clockwise" Surely the best rebuttal of this particular point is: Some people are left-handed.
- Bobylonian 5y ago
  The best rebuttal would be if someone would actually just carry a sword(not to mention about getting in proper medieval outfit of a fighter) on those circular stairs and then when resting and catching breath thought about advantages of sword fights on STEEP staircases, regardless of their direction...
- simias 5y ago
  I feel like right-handed people would prefer anti-clockwise stairs though, because if you're carrying something heavy it's usually harder to climb up than down, and in my experience is more comfortable to carry a bulky object on the outside of the spiral case than on the inside. And as far as I know right-handed people have always been more common than lefties, so having more clockwise than anti-clockwise staircases is counterintuitive to me.
- the_af 5y ago
  How is that a rebuttal? You plan your castle's military features (assuming you do plan them, which sort of begs the question) with the majority of attackers/defenders in mind. Or do you mean "if the mason who planned the castle was left-handed, he would have built anti-clockwise stairs"?
  - Bobylonian 5y ago
    Do not know about staircases, but the toilets on top of the walls is great way to use butts. The only issue is getting to toilet fast enough, but we can come up with theory that people in medival ages were quick runners to toilet...
    - the_af 5y ago
      I like how your comment ties in with "rebuttal". I think we can all agree -- without a trace of irony -- that toilet technology is way more important and has a greater impact on society than warfare.
dmurray 5y ago
The real argument the article makes is that no one seems to have proposed the theory until 1902. If it was generally a design consideration when the castles were built, we'd expect to have contemporary documentation of it.
- simias 5y ago
  Would we? I ask genuinely, not rhetorically. Literacy was a lot lower back then, and even what was written has often been lost in time. I mean I can offer the same argument in reverse: if 70% of these staircases wound clockwise, they clearly favoured this orientation. How come we don't have contemporary documentation of the reason?
  - dmurray 5y ago
    I'm not sure, but no doubt this will be the subject of a 10,000 word post on acoup.blog before long.
  - varjag 5y ago
    Literacy (especially among noble and architects) was not at all uncommon before 1902. We're not talking exactly neolithic age.
    - liamN 5y ago
      Fair, but there may have been security reasons for not recording something like this (if the swordsman theory is true), you wouldnt want enemy castles to be built as well, so you might not write down any defensive design strategies in an effort to horde your knowledge.
      - wokwokwok 5y ago
        Oh come, this is truely gasping at straws. People were not stupid; if there was an actual technical benefit, it would have been known and shared, the same way that people knew and shared other castle construction techniques amongst craftsmen. Tangibly, the absence of evidence for something can’t be magicked away by the “but what if they didn’t record it for a reason because it was a secret!?”. If there’s no evidence, there’s no evidence. You can ponder all day, but it still boils down to, bluntly: there is no evidence that conjecture is correct.
simias 5y ago
I agree, if 70% of straicases wind one way there's got to be a reason, it's unlikely to be random chance. If the author is not willing to explain why he thinks that it's a bad justification, and at the same time can't come up with a better explanation, what's the point? The fact that fights rarely occurred in practice in these staircases is moot: if we assume that the choice of orientation is mostly arbitrary and clockwise stairs offer a theoretical advantage in an unlikely scenario, why not go for it? You don't lose anything by building it that way.
- ghaff 5y ago
  (Weak) convention? Most US cars have the gas cap on the left side but there's no inherent design reason even if some people have preferences and it's by no means universal.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    > there's no inherent design reason The driver sits on the left in the U.S. And, lacking widespread public transit, most driving hours are commuting... alone. Having the gas cap on the left both makes it easier to pull up to the fueling station without being too far or bumping into it, and - having done so - prevents the driver from having to walk around the vehicle.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      That is one point of view. I've also read others who say that they prefer the right because it means that there isn't a gas pump right next to their car door--which means they have to carefully open their door so they don't ding it. I probably prefer left but don't have a strong opinion.
      - bluGill 5y ago
        And still another that says it should be on the right because if you run out of fuel you are away from other traffic while refueling. In truth cars are designed for the entire world. Designers will switch the steering wheel side for the country, but they will avoid having to make changes to something far away there that doesn't need to change.
mcphage 5y ago
> Hopefully the book they're working on makes more compelling arguments What are the arguments for the theory?
wpietri 5y ago
Yeah, I was ready to be convinced; I love punctured myths. But having built too many things based on executive fantasies, it seems all too plausible to me that whether or not the staircase direction made practical sense, various kings would love imagining themselves as heroic defenders on every square foot. Like others, I think the fact that this myth appears to be novel and recent is a much better sign that we shouldn't take this very seriously. And I totally agree with his point about "frequency of its repetition by parents to children". There is so much "Pluto is so a planet" thinking in the world. It's really hard to critically examine beliefs we take on as children.
burnished 5y ago
You didn't read far enough. The author opens with those weak, poorly supported points (I think they suggest that there will be a more spirited defense in an upcoming book). The tracing of the origin of the idea is a much more compelling argument. If some one told you "oh yeah, this 20th century fencer who was obsessed with spirals said that the reason castles were built this way was obviously the sword fighting implications" you'd probably be less likely to believe it.
- lucideer 5y ago
  You're right but that's not really attacking the theory, rather the supposed proposer (ad hominem essentially, mild as it is). People do tend to be very swayed by appeals to "personal credibility" or lack thereof, but it's not substantively related to the plausibility of the idea itself.
  - naasking 5y ago
    Sure the idea is plausible, but it's still true that there's no evidence for it, so it's widespread use is erroneous.
    - MrLeap 5y ago
      It'd be funny if it were an oral history that goes back to when the castles were built.
  - burnished 5y ago
    It is attacking the theory, or at least pointing out that it isn't so much a theory as it is a musing. It seems to have as much credence as my own theory that it was to keep evil spirits out.
bitwize 5y ago
Indeed. > castle specialists have proposed that these buildings were primarily structures intended to be impressive theatrical backdrops for complex ceremonies relating to status and prestige. You know when the Marines do their rifle drill involving twirling and complex maneuvers with their rifles? That's a complex display of prestige too, but: a) rifles aren't made for show (although the rifles the Marines use for drill have been permanently disabled) b) the drill sends a very clear message: "our guys really know how to handle a rifle". So even if a castle was primarily used for ceremony, it wasn't built as a merely ceremonial device. And the ceremony sends a message: our king is rich, and our defenses are pretty fucking strong. Think twice before laying siege to us.
dragontamer 5y ago
> 1. "Castles were built for prestige not fortification". Why not both? A US Supercarrier is both prestige and fortification. Maginot line was also both: it was a great fortification + provided a prestige / morale factor to the troops. (No more dingy trenches! You'll have fresh water and a place to sleep). Just because something is built as a fortification doesn't mean it won't be avoided (ex: Maginot line worked where it laid. But the Germans just ran around the line through Belgium). Similarly, just because a castle was built for fortification doesn't mean it was a _good_ fortification. There probably are lots of "bad" castles as well as "good" ones.
Bobylonian 5y ago
1. If we are nitpicking this article, then castle is not a fort - it is an office, that houses ruler and his court. Castle is a residence to accept high flow of people and not planned for sieges. Castle also would have enough of army to defend it(and siege is not a defence - it happens when there is a lack of it!) - it really is not something that was planned to be sieged, not to mention any fights indoors. 2. What author meant was that 30% of them who were anti-clockwise clearly does not mean that those other 70% were projected by people who thought of using stairs as battle scene. 3. I've mostly visited early medieval castles, that had anti-clockwise stairs, so meh... it looks like a cultural thing. I even doubt that these were used when carrying sword, because those had not much space to have it there, so it looked like something to be used for practical everyday usage - not battles. 4. If a person was wearing armor in medieval times, he was like a tank. If there was a discussion among nobles and one of them got pissed and decided to wear an armor and return to continue discussion... well, pretty much the discussion was over for rest of party, regardless of presence of swords. Though, despite the trope used in cinema, I can't imagine swordfighting in medieval setting between armored opponents on stairs. If the one on top of stairs slipped, the opponent below would be disabled from the weight of opponent above him. They would also not be able to step on those stairs... and if it all comes to that, swordfight is not requirement to rat out enemy - for that was used fire and smoke. Pretty much it is what author was mentioning - if there is a breach, it is game over for defenders and no real reason to continue defending anymore. The only thing they can try is fleeing. Fighting, that involves swords and no armor is very late invention, where fortification defenses were useless and could be blown up by a powder and all the "strategical" stairs would be turned into a rubble.
- jeltz 5y ago
  There were definitely castles which were built to withstand sieges. Like Krak des Chevaliers and other crusader castles. Of course it was preferred if seiges could be avoided but I do not think your pedantry about fortress vs castle matters much since there were many types of both.
  - Bobylonian 5y ago
    On the contrary, I am quite aware of those, but op is not. Krak des Chevaliers might not really fit the profile of castles in clasical meaning, but belong to a very specific niche of fortifications of military monastic orders in Middle East. As for castles in UK - these aparently are representative castles and not really only fortifications. Even the smallests castles in UK were mainly used for something that was manor estate of a local royal family.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sdwr 5y ago
I found the idea fresh and very believable, even though the writing wasn't very crisp. I don't know how to articulate it, but there's a lot to unpack there about symbolic force, ritual, and male expression. Mcluhan, baudrillard, hegel, wittgenstein. Building castles reminds me of building muscle in the gym. The underwriting philosophy is violent, but it requires uninterrupted peaceful effort. Built for an imagined "us vs them" conflict that, in reality, ends up as an "us vs us" status contest.

qw 5y ago

I think one of the points in the article is that the walls and moat are the main lines of defence. The castle is protected by the walls. If they breach the walls and actually enter the interior of the castle, they have already lost and no staircase design can save them.

rtkwe 5y ago
There were interior defenses though. In some of the more impressive castles there were concentric rings of walls so breeching on wouldn't surrender the whole castle. There were often also keeps. Even in early proto castles you had motte and bailey designs where the main walls defended the low ground (bailey) for an interior fort built on a hill or prominence (the motte). Castles weren't single layer defenses that stopped at the walls, they were definitely designed to continue the fight and protect the nobles even if the enemy did get through the walls. Given that it's not so out of line to think the interior architecture might have been designed to increase defender's advantages.
- timcederman 5y ago
  Do you have any examples of when this actually happened (a fight "continued, to protect the nobles, once the enemy got through the walls")? What I find most interesting is applying Occam's razor, it's almost certainly not a defense mechanism, yet we have dozens of HN folks defending it, and I'm not sure why? If there was at least one documented account of where this was an effective defense, then maybe there's something there.
  - radford-neal 5y ago
    In 1201, Eleanor of Aquitaine survived in the keep of the castle Mirebeau after attackers were within the walls, until her son King John arrived and captured the attackers, rescuing her.
    - Bobylonian 5y ago
      That's a miracle story, where Superman is arriving in the last second, but still - what it has to do with fights on stairs? If there were no help from outside, next would be keep wall, or most probably lack of food and water for defenders.
  - burnished 5y ago
    Because it is a truth most of us have accepted without question. Further, it is so agreeable to other facts. Left handed people are evil? But of course, they can attack up in castle staircases! Medeival life was one of constant sword-fighting and war time! Also I'll admit the first couple arguments in TFA felt weak. I wouldn't be surprised if that colored peoples readings of the rest, or if they jumped to come comment before finishing the rest.
chimprich 5y ago
> If they breach the walls and actually enter the interior of the castle, they have already lost and no staircase design can save them. That's assuming that the castle has fallen by assault. If the attacker was an assassin who had gained access to the castle through subterfuge or a disgruntled worker then interior defences may have conceivably been useful.

mnw21cam 5y ago

> 2. "Some turn anti-clockwise" Surely the best rebuttal of this particular point is: Some people are left-handed.

Bobylonian 5y ago
The best rebuttal would be if someone would actually just carry a sword(not to mention about getting in proper medieval outfit of a fighter) on those circular stairs and then when resting and catching breath thought about advantages of sword fights on STEEP staircases, regardless of their direction...
simias 5y ago
I feel like right-handed people would prefer anti-clockwise stairs though, because if you're carrying something heavy it's usually harder to climb up than down, and in my experience is more comfortable to carry a bulky object on the outside of the spiral case than on the inside. And as far as I know right-handed people have always been more common than lefties, so having more clockwise than anti-clockwise staircases is counterintuitive to me.
the_af 5y ago
How is that a rebuttal? You plan your castle's military features (assuming you do plan them, which sort of begs the question) with the majority of attackers/defenders in mind. Or do you mean "if the mason who planned the castle was left-handed, he would have built anti-clockwise stairs"?
- Bobylonian 5y ago
  Do not know about staircases, but the toilets on top of the walls is great way to use butts. The only issue is getting to toilet fast enough, but we can come up with theory that people in medival ages were quick runners to toilet...
  - the_af 5y ago
    I like how your comment ties in with "rebuttal". I think we can all agree -- without a trace of irony -- that toilet technology is way more important and has a greater impact on society than warfare.

dmurray 5y ago

The real argument the article makes is that no one seems to have proposed the theory until 1902. If it was generally a design consideration when the castles were built, we'd expect to have contemporary documentation of it.

simias 5y ago
Would we? I ask genuinely, not rhetorically. Literacy was a lot lower back then, and even what was written has often been lost in time. I mean I can offer the same argument in reverse: if 70% of these staircases wound clockwise, they clearly favoured this orientation. How come we don't have contemporary documentation of the reason?
- dmurray 5y ago
  I'm not sure, but no doubt this will be the subject of a 10,000 word post on acoup.blog before long.
- varjag 5y ago
  Literacy (especially among noble and architects) was not at all uncommon before 1902. We're not talking exactly neolithic age.
  - liamN 5y ago
    Fair, but there may have been security reasons for not recording something like this (if the swordsman theory is true), you wouldnt want enemy castles to be built as well, so you might not write down any defensive design strategies in an effort to horde your knowledge.
    - wokwokwok 5y ago
      Oh come, this is truely gasping at straws. People were not stupid; if there was an actual technical benefit, it would have been known and shared, the same way that people knew and shared other castle construction techniques amongst craftsmen. Tangibly, the absence of evidence for something can’t be magicked away by the “but what if they didn’t record it for a reason because it was a secret!?”. If there’s no evidence, there’s no evidence. You can ponder all day, but it still boils down to, bluntly: there is no evidence that conjecture is correct.

simias 5y ago

I agree, if 70% of straicases wind one way there's got to be a reason, it's unlikely to be random chance. If the author is not willing to explain why he thinks that it's a bad justification, and at the same time can't come up with a better explanation, what's the point? The fact that fights rarely occurred in practice in these staircases is moot: if we assume that the choice of orientation is mostly arbitrary and clockwise stairs offer a theoretical advantage in an unlikely scenario, why not go for it? You don't lose anything by building it that way.

ghaff 5y ago
(Weak) convention? Most US cars have the gas cap on the left side but there's no inherent design reason even if some people have preferences and it's by no means universal.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  > there's no inherent design reason The driver sits on the left in the U.S. And, lacking widespread public transit, most driving hours are commuting... alone. Having the gas cap on the left both makes it easier to pull up to the fueling station without being too far or bumping into it, and - having done so - prevents the driver from having to walk around the vehicle.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    That is one point of view. I've also read others who say that they prefer the right because it means that there isn't a gas pump right next to their car door--which means they have to carefully open their door so they don't ding it. I probably prefer left but don't have a strong opinion.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      And still another that says it should be on the right because if you run out of fuel you are away from other traffic while refueling. In truth cars are designed for the entire world. Designers will switch the steering wheel side for the country, but they will avoid having to make changes to something far away there that doesn't need to change.

mcphage 5y ago

> Hopefully the book they're working on makes more compelling arguments What are the arguments for the theory?

wpietri 5y ago

Yeah, I was ready to be convinced; I love punctured myths. But having built too many things based on executive fantasies, it seems all too plausible to me that whether or not the staircase direction made practical sense, various kings would love imagining themselves as heroic defenders on every square foot. Like others, I think the fact that this myth appears to be novel and recent is a much better sign that we shouldn't take this very seriously. And I totally agree with his point about "frequency of its repetition by parents to children". There is so much "Pluto is so a planet" thinking in the world. It's really hard to critically examine beliefs we take on as children.

burnished 5y ago

You didn't read far enough. The author opens with those weak, poorly supported points (I think they suggest that there will be a more spirited defense in an upcoming book). The tracing of the origin of the idea is a much more compelling argument. If some one told you "oh yeah, this 20th century fencer who was obsessed with spirals said that the reason castles were built this way was obviously the sword fighting implications" you'd probably be less likely to believe it.

lucideer 5y ago
You're right but that's not really attacking the theory, rather the supposed proposer (ad hominem essentially, mild as it is). People do tend to be very swayed by appeals to "personal credibility" or lack thereof, but it's not substantively related to the plausibility of the idea itself.
- naasking 5y ago
  Sure the idea is plausible, but it's still true that there's no evidence for it, so it's widespread use is erroneous.
  - MrLeap 5y ago
    It'd be funny if it were an oral history that goes back to when the castles were built.
- burnished 5y ago
  It is attacking the theory, or at least pointing out that it isn't so much a theory as it is a musing. It seems to have as much credence as my own theory that it was to keep evil spirits out.

bitwize 5y ago

Indeed. > castle specialists have proposed that these buildings were primarily structures intended to be impressive theatrical backdrops for complex ceremonies relating to status and prestige. You know when the Marines do their rifle drill involving twirling and complex maneuvers with their rifles? That's a complex display of prestige too, but: a) rifles aren't made for show (although the rifles the Marines use for drill have been permanently disabled) b) the drill sends a very clear message: "our guys really know how to handle a rifle". So even if a castle was primarily used for ceremony, it wasn't built as a merely ceremonial device. And the ceremony sends a message: our king is rich, and our defenses are pretty fucking strong. Think twice before laying siege to us.

dragontamer 5y ago

> 1. "Castles were built for prestige not fortification". Why not both? A US Supercarrier is both prestige and fortification. Maginot line was also both: it was a great fortification + provided a prestige / morale factor to the troops. (No more dingy trenches! You'll have fresh water and a place to sleep). Just because something is built as a fortification doesn't mean it won't be avoided (ex: Maginot line worked where it laid. But the Germans just ran around the line through Belgium). Similarly, just because a castle was built for fortification doesn't mean it was a _good_ fortification. There probably are lots of "bad" castles as well as "good" ones.

Bobylonian 5y ago

1. If we are nitpicking this article, then castle is not a fort - it is an office, that houses ruler and his court. Castle is a residence to accept high flow of people and not planned for sieges. Castle also would have enough of army to defend it(and siege is not a defence - it happens when there is a lack of it!) - it really is not something that was planned to be sieged, not to mention any fights indoors. 2. What author meant was that 30% of them who were anti-clockwise clearly does not mean that those other 70% were projected by people who thought of using stairs as battle scene. 3. I've mostly visited early medieval castles, that had anti-clockwise stairs, so meh... it looks like a cultural thing. I even doubt that these were used when carrying sword, because those had not much space to have it there, so it looked like something to be used for practical everyday usage - not battles. 4. If a person was wearing armor in medieval times, he was like a tank. If there was a discussion among nobles and one of them got pissed and decided to wear an armor and return to continue discussion... well, pretty much the discussion was over for rest of party, regardless of presence of swords. Though, despite the trope used in cinema, I can't imagine swordfighting in medieval setting between armored opponents on stairs. If the one on top of stairs slipped, the opponent below would be disabled from the weight of opponent above him. They would also not be able to step on those stairs... and if it all comes to that, swordfight is not requirement to rat out enemy - for that was used fire and smoke. Pretty much it is what author was mentioning - if there is a breach, it is game over for defenders and no real reason to continue defending anymore. The only thing they can try is fleeing. Fighting, that involves swords and no armor is very late invention, where fortification defenses were useless and could be blown up by a powder and all the "strategical" stairs would be turned into a rubble.

jeltz 5y ago
There were definitely castles which were built to withstand sieges. Like Krak des Chevaliers and other crusader castles. Of course it was preferred if seiges could be avoided but I do not think your pedantry about fortress vs castle matters much since there were many types of both.
- Bobylonian 5y ago
  On the contrary, I am quite aware of those, but op is not. Krak des Chevaliers might not really fit the profile of castles in clasical meaning, but belong to a very specific niche of fortifications of military monastic orders in Middle East. As for castles in UK - these aparently are representative castles and not really only fortifications. Even the smallests castles in UK were mainly used for something that was manor estate of a local royal family.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sdwr 5y ago

I found the idea fresh and very believable, even though the writing wasn't very crisp. I don't know how to articulate it, but there's a lot to unpack there about symbolic force, ritual, and male expression. Mcluhan, baudrillard, hegel, wittgenstein. Building castles reminds me of building muscle in the gym. The underwriting philosophy is violent, but it requires uninterrupted peaceful effort. Built for an imagined "us vs them" conflict that, in reality, ends up as an "us vs us" status contest.