3 ms·

> 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 societi

by 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.

by foofie 3y ago

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.