4 ms·

This is well worth a visit if you're remotely near the area. We visited a few years back, and the kids thought it might be worth going back for a second day. O

This is well worth a visit if you're remotely near the area. We visited a few years back, and the kids thought it might be worth going back for a second day. One bit of interest -- if constructed back in the 1300s, it would have probably taken 4 years or so. Funding is the biggest difference, historically it would have been built from a rich patron's pockets with no desire to wait 25 years for the protection and image it would provide.

wongarsu 2y ago
Another important difference is that in the 1300s the overwhelming majority of Europe's population were farmers. Sure, they did a lot of things besides farming, but you could get a lot of workers for cheap during summer and winter when they weren't needed on the fields.
- Gibbon1 2y ago
  Speaking of farmers I've read here and there that sometimes getting skilled workers in the trades you want was a real problem. So if you want a fitted stone building in a place where buildings are only wattle and dub or rocks and mud it might take a lot of wheedling to get the guys you need to take the gig.
  - pmontra 2y ago
    Nothing changed. Getting skilled workers in the trades you want is still a real problem. I'm learning to do more things myself because of that.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Note that here they are using "square" for the face of the walls, but the inside are just whatever they can fit. Less skill needed for the bulk of the stone. Square in quotes because they are not very close, but still a more or less flat sides for out, up, and down. The doors and windows have much better quality stone with a much nicer finish - good tolerances matter here so your door/window fits (though the window probably was just open air or a shutter)
  - spenczar5 2y ago
    An interesting case of that is the stave church builders of Norway. Stave churches are marvelous woodworking achievements, and too many of them sprung up too quickly in the historical record. The current theory is that there were traveling bands of master craftsmen who would start the project, do the hardest parts, and teach the local peasants how to finish the job. Then they would move on to the next parish.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  and in some places that was mandatory -- the Corvée system, or similar, were commonly implemented. essentially you owed the local lord a fixed number of days of work, and/or a tax; days could be traded for tax and vice-versa. usually things like clearing, roads, and bridge building, etc.
Animats 2y ago
That's the problem with oversized hobbyist projects, such as restoring steam locomotives. Jobs that should take weeks or months take years. The Pacific Locomotive Association has had 10-year restorations. Here's how it was done in 12 days in the heyday of British steam.[1] Of course, the repair works had 6,000 people. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ3AN-kd66g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ3AN-kd66g
- tivert 2y ago
  > Of course, the repair works had 6,000 people. Who were also experts working full time, with plenty of practice with that specific model, and loads of specialized equipment. vs. a handful of hobbyists.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - spenczar5 2y ago
    We can overly fetishize specialization in the past, too, though. Those 6,000 workers were aiming for speed. Amateurs tend to aim for perfect quality. Sometimes when you look at old things, it can be shocking how “sloppy” the workmanship is, but you have to realize that they were not trying to get perfect paint jobs or smooth castings. They were trying to make money.
    - _yb2s 2y ago
      You can still see this nowadays with boats- the craftsmanship of the best homemade boats is on a much higher level than any commercial product. The pros could not make a profit if every detail had to be perfect like a hobbyist taking a decade to complete the project. However an even higher level of quality is the pros that are called in to do one off custom projects for wealthy customers that pay by the hour and don’t care what it costs. Ultimately, the perfection of the work is basically a tradeoff between time and quality- and the pros produce a lot more quality per unit time. But it is amazing how a really careful amateur can still do impressive looking work if they just go really really slow.
eleveriven 2y ago
Feels like there history feels alive
hommelix 2y ago
> One bit of interest -- if constructed back in the 1300s, it would have probably taken 4 years or so. Funding is the biggest difference, historically it would have been built from a rich patron's pockets with no desire to wait 25 years for the protection and image it would provide. From visiting the site a couple of years ago, the team is about 30 people, so they are looking at a 25-30 years timeframe to build it. In 13 century, the builder would hire about 70 people (typical small lord could not afford to pay for more) and it would take 10-15 years.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  And 10-15 years, at a time when most were lucky to make their mid forties, is roughly 25-35 years for us today. Building a stone castle was always a generational endeavour.
  - jrmg 2y ago
    As I understand it, the low life expectancy back then is, if not a myth, at least misleading. The average adult lived to what we’d still consider old age - the average life expectancy of all humans was ‘just’ low because child mortality was high, and even most child deaths occurred at very early ages.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Average adult male. Women commonly died in childbirth.
  - adamsilkey 2y ago
    > most were lucky to make it to their mid forties This is a common misconception. Life expectancy at birth being low reflects high mortality for infants and children. If you can make it into adulthood, most people lived for a relatively long time. https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-not-a-modern-phenomenon.php#:~:text=In%20medieval%20England%2C%20life%20expectancy,in%20medieval%20England%20was%2025.7 https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-n....
bluGill 2y ago
In the 1300s this would have most likely been built out of wood, thus making the 4 year building plan much easier. Wood covered in "whitewash" (limestone based paint) looks enough like stone from a distance and is good enough for the local defense needs. Of course some castles were built from stone, and since wood rots or burns only the stone ones remain today. Building a wood castle in 4 years seems perfectly reasonable for the crew in question and would have been affordable for the small lord attempting it. The small lord who attempted a stone castle probably did need a lot longer 4 years. That lord probably bankrupted himself from the cost (though a nice castle remains). Or the Lord build the wood castle and then slowly the family upgraded it to stone over the next 400 years or so - each using their own vision of how they want their house to be (and also often adjusting to the latest military technology/defense)

wongarsu 2y ago

Another important difference is that in the 1300s the overwhelming majority of Europe's population were farmers. Sure, they did a lot of things besides farming, but you could get a lot of workers for cheap during summer and winter when they weren't needed on the fields.

Gibbon1 2y ago
Speaking of farmers I've read here and there that sometimes getting skilled workers in the trades you want was a real problem. So if you want a fitted stone building in a place where buildings are only wattle and dub or rocks and mud it might take a lot of wheedling to get the guys you need to take the gig.
- pmontra 2y ago
  Nothing changed. Getting skilled workers in the trades you want is still a real problem. I'm learning to do more things myself because of that.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Note that here they are using "square" for the face of the walls, but the inside are just whatever they can fit. Less skill needed for the bulk of the stone. Square in quotes because they are not very close, but still a more or less flat sides for out, up, and down. The doors and windows have much better quality stone with a much nicer finish - good tolerances matter here so your door/window fits (though the window probably was just open air or a shutter)
- spenczar5 2y ago
  An interesting case of that is the stave church builders of Norway. Stave churches are marvelous woodworking achievements, and too many of them sprung up too quickly in the historical record. The current theory is that there were traveling bands of master craftsmen who would start the project, do the hardest parts, and teach the local peasants how to finish the job. Then they would move on to the next parish.
red-iron-pine 2y ago
and in some places that was mandatory -- the Corvée system, or similar, were commonly implemented. essentially you owed the local lord a fixed number of days of work, and/or a tax; days could be traded for tax and vice-versa. usually things like clearing, roads, and bridge building, etc.

Animats 2y ago

That's the problem with oversized hobbyist projects, such as restoring steam locomotives. Jobs that should take weeks or months take years. The Pacific Locomotive Association has had 10-year restorations. Here's how it was done in 12 days in the heyday of British steam.[1] Of course, the repair works had 6,000 people. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ3AN-kd66g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ3AN-kd66g

tivert 2y ago
> Of course, the repair works had 6,000 people. Who were also experts working full time, with plenty of practice with that specific model, and loads of specialized equipment. vs. a handful of hobbyists.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- spenczar5 2y ago
  We can overly fetishize specialization in the past, too, though. Those 6,000 workers were aiming for speed. Amateurs tend to aim for perfect quality. Sometimes when you look at old things, it can be shocking how “sloppy” the workmanship is, but you have to realize that they were not trying to get perfect paint jobs or smooth castings. They were trying to make money.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    You can still see this nowadays with boats- the craftsmanship of the best homemade boats is on a much higher level than any commercial product. The pros could not make a profit if every detail had to be perfect like a hobbyist taking a decade to complete the project. However an even higher level of quality is the pros that are called in to do one off custom projects for wealthy customers that pay by the hour and don’t care what it costs. Ultimately, the perfection of the work is basically a tradeoff between time and quality- and the pros produce a lot more quality per unit time. But it is amazing how a really careful amateur can still do impressive looking work if they just go really really slow.

eleveriven 2y ago

Feels like there history feels alive

hommelix 2y ago

> One bit of interest -- if constructed back in the 1300s, it would have probably taken 4 years or so. Funding is the biggest difference, historically it would have been built from a rich patron's pockets with no desire to wait 25 years for the protection and image it would provide. From visiting the site a couple of years ago, the team is about 30 people, so they are looking at a 25-30 years timeframe to build it. In 13 century, the builder would hire about 70 people (typical small lord could not afford to pay for more) and it would take 10-15 years.

sandworm101 2y ago
And 10-15 years, at a time when most were lucky to make their mid forties, is roughly 25-35 years for us today. Building a stone castle was always a generational endeavour.
- jrmg 2y ago
  As I understand it, the low life expectancy back then is, if not a myth, at least misleading. The average adult lived to what we’d still consider old age - the average life expectancy of all humans was ‘just’ low because child mortality was high, and even most child deaths occurred at very early ages.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Average adult male. Women commonly died in childbirth.
- adamsilkey 2y ago
  > most were lucky to make it to their mid forties This is a common misconception. Life expectancy at birth being low reflects high mortality for infants and children. If you can make it into adulthood, most people lived for a relatively long time. https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-not-a-modern-phenomenon.php#:~:text=In%20medieval%20England%2C%20life%20expectancy,in%20medieval%20England%20was%2025.7 https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-n....

bluGill 2y ago

In the 1300s this would have most likely been built out of wood, thus making the 4 year building plan much easier. Wood covered in "whitewash" (limestone based paint) looks enough like stone from a distance and is good enough for the local defense needs. Of course some castles were built from stone, and since wood rots or burns only the stone ones remain today. Building a wood castle in 4 years seems perfectly reasonable for the crew in question and would have been affordable for the small lord attempting it. The small lord who attempted a stone castle probably did need a lot longer 4 years. That lord probably bankrupted himself from the cost (though a nice castle remains). Or the Lord build the wood castle and then slowly the family upgraded it to stone over the next 400 years or so - each using their own vision of how they want their house to be (and also often adjusting to the latest military technology/defense)