3 ms·

> The only way that could happen is if they were effective. I think most castles were built mainly as status symbols, and not the result of a regional or natio

by foofie 3y ago

> The only way that could happen is if they were effective. I think most castles were built mainly as status symbols, and not the result of a regional or national defense strategy. Castles are imposing buildings in places that dominate the landscape, built by local leaders to project their power and influence. You see a few castles being built in the US in non-feudal times for similar reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_castles_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_castles_in_the_United_... Afterwards the defensive purpose of these structures started to gave way to the more opulent side. Some manor houses featured defensive structures mainly for show, although they served the same purpose.

samus 3y ago
You're contradicting yourself. Building them to protect local leader's power and influence and national defense are very much the same thing in feudal societies.
- foofie 3y ago
  > You're contradicting yourself. Building them to protect local leader's power and influence and national defense are very much the same thing in feudal societies. I said "project", not "protect". Meaning, one is a kin to peacocking, while the other is literally building moats and draw bridges to keep the enemy at bay.
  - samus 3y ago
    Project vs. protect actually doesn't make a difference here. It's a fortified base from where sorties can be sent out into the surrounding area, projecting the noble's power. To stop that from happening, one has to capture the castle or be friendly with the garrison. This creates problems for anyone passing through, be they farmers, merchants, unfriendly neighbors of the noble, or an army passing through. Peacocking might have happened, but castles would be a useful form of peacocking. Be as that may, they were still mostly uncomfy money drains, barely earning back their running costs via tolls, and usually funded by major nobles who then sent their underlings to actually man the place. If at all possible, one would rather build two castle in useful locations than a single redundant one.
    - bonton89 3y ago
      This is an amusing argument because I feel like you're both right. Castles sort of gradually transformed into beautiful manor houses when they weren't useful for defense any longer that certainly were just to project outward wealth and prestige. But earlier castles were often hideous utilitarian structures which I doubt anyone particularly liked living in. You could of course argue the newer structures weren't castles at all of course, even if they were called that.
      - samus 3y ago
        Of course, later "castles" like Schloss Neuschwanstein were dedicated showpieces. I think the argument is about whether nobles built such purely representational castles already in the, let's call it Castle Age. But I'd argue that such usage only became common when nobles started to centralize their power to turn their fiefs into proper states.
        WalterBright 3y ago
        I'd love to live in Neuschwanstein.
inglor_cz 3y ago
"I think most castles were built mainly as status symbols, and not the result of a regional or national defense strategy." I think you are mixing up more than 1000 years of architectural history in a few lines. Medieval castles were very much defensive installations, which is clear from their a) layout, b) locations, c) the fact that medieval history of warfare is chock-full of castle sieges, while pitched battles like Crécy or Grunwald were spectacular, but rare. Fancy 19th century castles (re-)built in opulent style were mostly conspicuous consumption, as you say. But by that time, nobility preferred chateaus/palaces anyway. Much more comfortable to live in.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  It's also clear if one toured an older castle. It's obvious they meant business. For example, lack of windows through the walls. For another, the thickness of the walls. Status castles have windows in the walls, and thin walls.

by foofie 3y ago

samus 3y ago

You're contradicting yourself. Building them to protect local leader's power and influence and national defense are very much the same thing in feudal societies.

foofie 3y ago
> You're contradicting yourself. Building them to protect local leader's power and influence and national defense are very much the same thing in feudal societies. I said "project", not "protect". Meaning, one is a kin to peacocking, while the other is literally building moats and draw bridges to keep the enemy at bay.
- samus 3y ago
  Project vs. protect actually doesn't make a difference here. It's a fortified base from where sorties can be sent out into the surrounding area, projecting the noble's power. To stop that from happening, one has to capture the castle or be friendly with the garrison. This creates problems for anyone passing through, be they farmers, merchants, unfriendly neighbors of the noble, or an army passing through. Peacocking might have happened, but castles would be a useful form of peacocking. Be as that may, they were still mostly uncomfy money drains, barely earning back their running costs via tolls, and usually funded by major nobles who then sent their underlings to actually man the place. If at all possible, one would rather build two castle in useful locations than a single redundant one.
  - bonton89 3y ago
    This is an amusing argument because I feel like you're both right. Castles sort of gradually transformed into beautiful manor houses when they weren't useful for defense any longer that certainly were just to project outward wealth and prestige. But earlier castles were often hideous utilitarian structures which I doubt anyone particularly liked living in. You could of course argue the newer structures weren't castles at all of course, even if they were called that.
    - samus 3y ago
      Of course, later "castles" like Schloss Neuschwanstein were dedicated showpieces. I think the argument is about whether nobles built such purely representational castles already in the, let's call it Castle Age. But I'd argue that such usage only became common when nobles started to centralize their power to turn their fiefs into proper states.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        I'd love to live in Neuschwanstein.

inglor_cz 3y ago

"I think most castles were built mainly as status symbols, and not the result of a regional or national defense strategy." I think you are mixing up more than 1000 years of architectural history in a few lines. Medieval castles were very much defensive installations, which is clear from their a) layout, b) locations, c) the fact that medieval history of warfare is chock-full of castle sieges, while pitched battles like Crécy or Grunwald were spectacular, but rare. Fancy 19th century castles (re-)built in opulent style were mostly conspicuous consumption, as you say. But by that time, nobility preferred chateaus/palaces anyway. Much more comfortable to live in.

WalterBright 3y ago
It's also clear if one toured an older castle. It's obvious they meant business. For example, lack of windows through the walls. For another, the thickness of the walls. Status castles have windows in the walls, and thin walls.