Destroying castles

Albannach · Dec 16, 2009

Two questions.

First, there is a specific word for tearing down a castle and I just can NOT remember what it is. Can anyone help me out here? I just HATE that.

Second, how would you go about doing it in the middle ages? In the Scottish War of Independence it was a regular policy as the only way to keep castles out of English hands to tear them down. But they didn't tend to do detailed descriptions of that kind of thing and I'm at a loss how you would go about it. Roxburgh Castle for one was destroyed. Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Sirius · Dec 16, 2009

"'Tis the sport to have the engineer hoist by his own petard" but I think they came later. Dig trenches undermining the foundations and stuff barrels of gunpowder inside, once you've got gunpowder, I suppose.

Also, I'd say "raze" for destroying a castle.

cooeedownunder · Dec 16, 2009

In the middle ages wouldn't they have just been burnt down?

cooeedownunder · Dec 16, 2009

http://www.medieval-castles.net/

pdr · Dec 16, 2009

Before Gunpowder...

manpower literally tore the walls down. Oxen, battering rams and sheer physical hard work!

waylander · Dec 16, 2009

The term used later on in the English Civil War for destroying a castle was "sleighting" (sp?)

Albannach · Dec 16, 2009

Stone doesn't burn well.

Only the interior floors burned and they were too easy to rebuild if they were burned.

The Scots didn't have any siege equipment (a chronic problem for them) so using that wasn't going to work. Darn little gunpowder (although it did exist but wasn't exactly common) around 1310 which is when I'm working. I should have been more exact as to date. The "middle ages" lasted a LONG time.

Thanks for the suggestions. There is another term for it but I'll look that one up.

How would you go about using physical hard work to destroy one though? Crow bars? I just am having a crisis of imagination here! LOL

angeliz2k · Dec 16, 2009

Albannach said:
Stone doesn't burn well.

Only the interior floors burned and they were too easy to rebuild if they were burned.

The Scots didn't have any siege equipment (a chronic problem for them) so using that wasn't going to work. Darn little gunpowder (although it did exist but wasn't exactly common) around 1310 which is when I'm working. I should have been more exact as to date. The "middle ages" lasted a LONG time.

Thanks for the suggestions. There is another term for it but I'll look that one up.

How would you go about using physical hard work to destroy one though? Crow bars? I just am having a crisis of imagination here! LOL

I think stone can "burn". Or at least, fire can destroy a stone building. At the Museum of London, the musuem's guide said that the stones of old St Paul's burst from the heat of the flames. St Paul's was a very large stone structure destroyed by fire. So it seems that it can be done!

And...

...sledge hammers. Big-ass sledge hammers. Or battering rams. Or anything big and bulky. Crow bars seem like them may not bee to effective. Once you knock them loose (with whatever you can do it with), it's just a matter of carrying the stones away.

Puma · Dec 16, 2009

Castles made of stone? From an engineering standpoint, if you could remove stones at key points, the walls might come tumbling down. For example, an arch, the stone at the top of the arch is fitted into place and holds both sides upright - if it's removed, the arch should / may collapse and might bring down what's above it. Removing key stones and lower stones would be risky, but ... How else to remove them - if stone, what type of stone - limestone, granite, or ? If the walls are limestone or other sedimentary stone, the stone isn't that hard. A few well directed blows with something like a sledge hammer might pulverize them (and if a fire is hot enough, some sedimentary stones will shatter and might even turn to dust/ash/powder.) My thoughts. Puma

cooeedownunder · Dec 16, 2009

A couple of our early Churches made of stone were also destroyed by fire.

Albannach · Dec 16, 2009

I think you can assume it isn't stone that would be easily pulverized. You didn't want them to fall down at the first blow of a siege machine--and heaven knows sieges happened often enough in Scotland. You didn't run up and hit it with a sledge hammer and knock a hole in it.

I think it would take an extremely hot fire to pulverize stone and you simply didn't get one hot enough by setting a castle on fire. St. Paul's was destroyed in the midst of a huge massive fire that cracked stones from the heat. Get them hot ENOUGH and they'll crack and shatter.

As an example: when Sir James Douglas burned Douglas Castle he piled everything (furniture, grain, everything) in the cellars, poured on oil (added a few bodies for good measure) and set it afire. Stories said that it burned for days but the stone was not damaged since rebuilding by the English apparently only involved replacing the interior.

The next time he totally destroyed it. The same was done to Roxburgh and numerous other castles across Scotland.

Edit: A building can be destroyed by a HOT ENOUGH fire. The London fire was a raging inferno fed by houses that were wood. But the stone doesn't burn and you can't destroy a castle like that. It simply doesn't contain enough wood.

See above.

They can't be burned. It isn't how they did it and they did it all the time during the years between 1308 and 1314. Many of the castles in the lowlands were torn down.

Anyway, thanks for the suggestions.

I still can't figure out how they did it. Maybe I can find an architect with a suggestion. LOL

Swordswoman · Dec 16, 2009

I think you may need to be a little more precise before an architect can help you.

Do you have a specific castle in mind, for instance, and was it wood or stone or both? As you know, some were still built of wood at this time (eg Owen Glendower's famously was, and stayed standing through to the 15th century) - and they, of course, were indeed susceptible to fire.

Also, did it have a moat? The chief reason for moats (at least in France, which is my own area) was to prevent 'undermining the walls', which the enemy would do by literally digging under them - we still use the word 'mining' in that sense today. The digging was to gain access in the first instance, but also to literally dig out the foundations of the walls -which wouldn't do the structure itself much good.

Most importantly, while yes, castles were indeed destroyed at this time, I can't think at the moment of any that were permanently so. This isn't my period so I could be wrong, but Roxburgh is a good case in point. It was supposedly 'destroyed' about 1312, but we find it still being held by the English in the 1350s - it wasn't totally destroyed until 1460 (ish) when cannon were already in wide use. The general pattern of castle destruction seems to have been a temporary one before this point - destroy it, rebuild it, destroy it, rebuild it - and only after cannon reached England in the 1320s do we see complete destruction from which a rebuild is impossible.

To me, that suggests the early so-called 'destructions' were no such thing. The castles merely suffered extreme damage so that the enemy wouldn't be able to make much use of it without rebuilding. Fire could indeed achieve that result, and so would undermining of the walls.

The usual word for taking and damaging a castle is 'reduce'. That in itself is, I think, significant...

Louise

Albannach · Dec 16, 2009

They destroyed literally dozens of castles.

Let me explain something because this IS my period.

This isn't my period so I could be wrong, but Roxburgh is a good case in point. It was supposedly 'destroyed' about 1312, but we find it still being held by the English in the 1350s

No it was not destroyed in 1312. It was captured by the Scots (by Sir James Douglas again to be exact) on the night of 19-20 February 1314 and was TOTALLY destroyed. Yes, totally. The one held by the English in the 1350s was a new castle. The one by that name there now (actually in a slightly different location) is not the one that the Scots destroyed.

THEY WERE NOT BURNED.

When James Douglas took Roxburgh castle in 1314, King Robert sent his brother Sir Edward Bruce WITH HIS ARMY to destroy Roxburgh castle--hardly necessary if you're going to burn it.

When James Douglas burned Douglas Castle in 1307, it was re-built by the English within months. Rebuilding a burned castle takes months at most. It doesn't help.

And reducing a castle means capturing it--not destroying it. The term used in English texts is sleighting. The Scots are NOT so stupid we don't know the difference. And I know the definition of the word mining--thanks.

Almost all of the stone castles in Scotland today date from AFTER the reign of King Robert. Many were rebuilt on the old locations and go by the old names. They are NOT the old castles. There is a tiny bit of the old wall of Lithlingow that still exists in the newer structure. The site of Forfur Castle still exists--nothing more than a mound.

Gah... never mind.

ishtar'sgate · Dec 16, 2009

Sirius said:
"'Tis the sport to have the engineer hoist by his own petard" but I think they came later. Dig trenches undermining the foundations and stuff barrels of gunpowder inside, once you've got gunpowder, I suppose.

Also, I'd say "raze" for destroying a castle.

An older method was to do the same, digging far under the foundations and propping the stones overhead with timbers. Once you'd gone under far enough you simply set fire to the timbers and hightailed it out of there!When the timbers burned the wall collapsed.

Swordswoman · Dec 16, 2009

Whoa there, Albannach, we're just trying to help!

No, this isn't my period, but we do take facts seriously in this forum, and I did have a brief check before posting. There is clearly some confusion out there, as I'm sure you know - and all of us here are familiar with the problem of sources disagreeing with each other.

For instance, on this official site of Scottish government records I found this about Roxburgh Castle, which also cites its sources: (the bolding is mine)

As the castle was continuously occupied during the four and a half centuries previous to its final destruction in 1550, and was alternately held and besieged by the forces of the two kingdoms, there must necessarily have been much repair and alteration, only a few particulars of which have been recorded (Calendar of Documents, J Bain ed. 1888; Rotuli Scotiae 1819;
L F Salzman 1952). But an account of the castle as it stood in 1416, when in the hands of Henry V, is preserved in the Public Record Office, London.

I'm seriously not doubting what you say for one moment - it is your period and I totally respect that. But I'm sure you can see why the question was raised?

Also, I'm sorry if I offended you in asking for more information, but it would enable us to help you better if we knew exactly what type of castle it was that was meant to be destroyed, and the level of destruction your sources say it was. Otherwise we can only offer you guesses - or indeed suggestions like my own.

It's also useful in the historical forum to mention the sources you've already tried, particularly as we have a number of members writing in this period who may be able to suggest others. I can't help you there since it's out of my area, but there are people here who can. Also if you were able to give us that bit more detail as to what those sources actually said, it might save you from getting answers as irritating as mine clearly was.

Louise

Deb Kinnard · Dec 16, 2009

English history cites several castles that were taken down to the ground during the middle ages. Sheen Castle near Richmond comes to mind. I don't think it was taken down for military purposes, though, but in order to rebuild it, and exactly how it was destroyed I don't know.

During the Civil War, the army liked to fire cannon at castle walls and breach them. The point was to make them untenable for military use. Many beautiful buildings such as Caerphilly Castle have great holes in the fabric for this reason. Such a pity from our perspective, but I suppose each era has its own valid reasons for what they do.

L.C. Blackwell · Dec 16, 2009

Have you tried a search for medieval siege engines, such as the catapult or trebuchet? I just Googled, and got a bunch of results, including a page from NOVA Online (PBS) that looked like fun. Especially the game called Destroy the Castle. ;-)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/trebuchet/

L.C. Blackwell · Dec 16, 2009

P.S. There's also a NOVA/PBS film called Medieval Siege. I don't know what they cover from the early 14th century, but it might be interesting to watch.

cooeedownunder · Dec 16, 2009

I think Swordswoman pointed out a very valid point. I'm still lost as to what the castle we are trying to pull down was made of?

Albannach · Dec 18, 2009

I apologize for being grumpy but being told that I don't know what I'm talking about tends to do that to me. I don't mind admitting it--when I don't, which is certainly sometimes the case. In this case I do.

The information on Roxburgh Castle is pure and simple wrong. Most of that information is meant for tourists and doesn't particularly refer to the fact that these castles were destroyed time after time which makes continual occupation a bit difficult. *shakes head*

Even Wikipedia gives a more accurate description of the castle's history than that although not very detailed.

The sources I've used? The Brus by Johne Barbour, Scotichronicon (terribly inaccurate for this period--never depend on it) by Bower, Chronicle of the Scottish Nation (also with many inaccuracies) by Fordun, Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland by GWS Barrow, The Black Douglas by I. M Davis, The Black Douglas by David R. Ross, The Wars of the Bruces by McNamee, The Castles of Scotland Series by Saltire

Those are my main references although heaven knows I've referred to others.

The castles were stone. Specifically the sleightings I will describe will be that of Douglas Castle in 1308 and Roxburgh Castle in 1314.

Here is a brief description of what happened after the capture of Roxburgh by the Scots from Ross's The Black Douglas, typical of references to this occurrence:

The king then [when he received word of the castle's capture] sent his brother Edward south with a great company to dismantle and tumble down the walls of Roxburgh, making it uninhabitable to the forces of occupation.

You don't send a "great company" if you're just going to breach a hole or two in the walls, I think you'll agree and for that matter Douglas and the Stewart were already there with their men so it was a substantial force sleighting it.

It was unfortunately rebuilt not long after but little of the old castle was in the new one, as is the case with Linlithgow. Bruce even slighted Edinburgh Castle--which I ASSURE you, you will not find in the official government descriptions. Let's not go into the political reasons for conveniently forgetting actual history.

Edit: I apologize if I offended anyone. I know you were just trying to help and I shouldn't have been short tempered.

Swordswoman · Dec 18, 2009

No worries - honestly. I know how irritating it can be when it feels as if people are questioning your knowledge - I should have phrased my questions better.

And this new information really helps - particularly that about the large body of men being sent for. I've had a quick scour of some archaelogical and architectural sources with that in mind, and found one reference that might be revealing. This is from the Journal of the British Archaeological Association Volume 15, and although the report quoted is way, way after your period (1648 to be precise) the technique sounds as if it hasn't changed much in 300 years:

Whereas, the committee of the militia of the countie of York, did formerly give directions for calling the inhabitants of the Wapentake of Claro to labour in the sleighting of the castle of Knaresbrough, according to the severall orders of parliament in that behalf; and being now informed that divers of the said inhabitants do neglect to send in men to assist in that work, and such labourers as are sent from any towne, do for the most part neglect the service, coming late, going away early, and standing idle whilest there, so as the castle is at present in danger to be surprised, if any enemie should attempt it; and in regard, the said committee doth not act as formerly; it is therefore ordered, that everie pettie constable within the said weapentake doe, upon the eight day of January instant, send a certain number of able labourers with spades, shovels, pick-axes, hacks, mattocks, or gavelocks, proportioning their numbers according the book of rates, (that is to say), one labourer for everie pennie charged on the constablerie in the said book of rates, each labourer to work from half hour after seven a clock in the morning, and to continue untill half hour after four a clock in the afternoon, resting only for one hour at dinner time.

The mention of these specific implements suggests the sleighting was done both by undermining and also by tearing down the walls themselves by sheer weight of manual labour.

I haven't yet found anything specific to your period, but I've got a lot of this stuff lying around and I'll keep looking. Hope at least it helps affirm you're on the right lines.

Louise

ETA I've just done a Google Book search for more of this kind of thing, and it looks as if the transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Association Vol 20 may have more. There's an annoyingly snippet view about a castle being sleighted over months - 'it was not until December 22nd of the same year that the keep fell down'. I've no idea which castle, but it gives some idea of timeframe and the way in which they went about it. Another volume of the Archaeological Journal of the BAA describes 200 men working over 12 days on the sleighting of Dunster Castle.

Albannach · Dec 18, 2009

I'm sure no offense at all was intended. Thank you so much for looking that up!

I think I've seen the reference to the 22 December one. If it's the one I'm thinking of, they took from May until December, but since it "fell down" I have a feeling they just undermined it or weakened the walls and let nature take its course. Mind you, that's just an supposition.

By late April or early May, the entire Scottish army army was in the Torwood practicing a new technique with the schiltron prior to the Battle of Bannockburn. So I can see that a couple of weeks arriving and then traveling back would give them the time. That Dunster Castle sleighting is very helpful. You're right that it sounds like the technique had not changed that much by the 17th century. Pure muscle power, it sounds like. We moderns are just used to using machines for everything. LOL

So I'll just assume that undermiming the walls and used picks, etc. Also perhaps once they're partially undermined, using grappling hooks and animals to tumble them down. The keep itself could be burned. Even though that doesn't destroy the keep, with the walls gone it would be much more difficult to repair. If the walls are totally tumbled and the keep at least severely damaged it wouldn't be likely to be repaired. The chronicler of Lanercost thought they were razed to the ground but that doesn't have to be TOO literally interpreted, I suppose.

Many of these were rebuilt, of course. But others weren't. The ruins of Roxburgh are quite picturesque, by the way.

Edit: This technique goes very much against our assumptions of what they would have done. But if you keep in mind that they were conducting what they called "secret warfare" and avoiding full-scale battles whenever possible, it makes a lot of sense.

The only battles that were by any means what one thinks of as traditional were the Battle of Loudoun Hill in 1307 and, of course, the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. They went 7 years avoiding pitched battles during which time they forced the English out of Scotland. It was a fascinating example of a guerrilla uprising fairly unique in medieval warfare.

Albannach · Dec 19, 2009

To show more clearly what I am talking about here is a translated excerpt from the Chronicle of Lanercost, one of the major "original sources" (always my preference in research) regarding the Scottish War of Independence. He was even in Berwick-on-Tweed during one of the later Scottish attempts to retake that town and castle. It is unusually accurate and since Lanercost is only a short distance from the Scottish border (it was at times occupied by the Scots) the monk writing it usually had a lot of knowledge about what was happening. I highly recommend reading it to anyone interested in either 13-14th century England or Scotland.

Anyway here are some of the good monk's comment (or one of them) on the subject:

In the same season of Lent they captured Edinburgh Castle in the following manner. In the evening one day the besiegers of that castle delivered an assault in force upon the south gate, because, owing to the position of the castle there was no other quarter where an assault could be made. Those within gathered together at the gate and offered a stout resistance; but meanwhile the other Scots climbed the rocks on the north side, which was very high and fell away steeply from the foot of the wall. There they laid ladders to the wall and climbed up in such numbers that those within could not withstand them; and thus they threw open the gates, admitted their comrades, got possession of the whole castle and killed the English. They razed the said castle to the ground, just as they had done to Roxburgh Castle.

So perhaps that shows you why I say--they razed the castles to the ground.

BAY · Dec 19, 2009

Albannich,

Maybe this might help: Other than razing a 'slighting' of a castle could be negotiated. Slighting rendered a castle militarily useless, by making gaps in the curtain and razing just one wall of the keep.

Albannach · Dec 19, 2009

I don't know what you mean by negotiated so I may be missing your point with that. But the contemporary accounts are quite clear:

They razed the said castle to the ground, just as they had done to Roxburgh Castle.

Another bit from the Chronicle of Lanercost which covered the period between 1201 to 1346 and was actually written WHILE all this was taking place:

Now at the beginning of Lent [19-20 February 1314] the Scots cunningly entered the castle of Roxburgh at night by ladders, and captured all the castle except one tower, wherein the warden of the castle, Sir Gillemin de Fiennes, a knight of Gascony, had taken refuge with difficulty, and his people with him; but the Scots got possession of that tower soon afterwards. And they razed to the ground the whole of that beautiful castle, just as they did other castles, which they succeeded in taking, lest the English should ever hereafter be able to lord it over the land through holding the castles.

Razing the castles TO THE GROUND is not my opinion. All of the contemporary accounts show that was what happened.

Destroying castles

AW Addict

Grateful for the day

Grateful for the day

Who's going for a beer?

AW Addict

never mind the shorty

Retired and loving it!

Grateful for the day

AW Addict

Resilient and kind

AW Addict

living in the past

Resilient and kind

Keeper of Fort Blanket

Keeper of Fort Blanket

Grateful for the day

AW Addict

Resilient and kind

AW Addict

AW Addict

AW Addict