castles and abbeys - landscape setting
John G Harrison
surrounding parks, gardens, hunting grounds and other, more or less,
ceremonial areas. Is anyone aware of reliable published info on this, peer
reviewed and main stream?
Regards
John G Harrison
Michael W Cook
jo...@aremovebercromby14.freeserve.co.uk wrote on 1/27/02 1:00 PM:
Hi John
I don't know of any book which covers the setting of castles and abbeys
using the criteria you mention, but here are a few of my thoughts on the
matter.
I believe such influences would have been irrelevant for most of the
medieval period, and would perhaps only have become a consideration after
about 1300, but only in certain areas.
The move from the large domineering castle to the fortified manor started
around this period, but only really took off after 1400.
Castles were usually sited for a defensive purpose, not a recreational one,
and the addition of parks, gardens and hunting grounds for the Lord would
have been later additions, once the castle had been established.
Two of the later castles, Bodiam and Bolton, were built first and foremost
for defence, but also incorporated some of the other features you mention.
However, the lands in which they were built on had been held by the family
for generations, and the local populace subservient with little danger of an
uprising or dissent.
In the case of Bolton, it was the Scots who were the threat, and for Bodiam
it was the French, sailing up the Rother from Rye and Winchelsea. In each
case the likelihood of serious attack was minimal, with other more serious
fortifications standing in their way as a buffer, thus allowing certain
pleasures activities to be incorporated into the dwellings and surrounding
area.
As for Abbeys, the majority of these were built on land donated by a Lord,
who more often than not became it's sponsor. In the majority of these cases
the land would have been rough unworked land, not usually within a populated
area. Fountains, Battle, and Crowland are excellent examples of this, with
the chroniclers description of them being almost like hell, with undergrowth
and flooded areas, and certainly not being fit places for human habitation.
They had no choice, but it became the hard work of the Monks who transformed
them into workable areas which could turn in a profit.
Others, in the case of communities settled within a residential areas like
Westminster and some of the great city churches, these were donated land
away from the community, thus the setting of Priories as satellites of these
Abbeys became as important. Westminster and Fountains had lands all over
England, Battle all over Sussex.
I know of only one religious community which was positioned within a park,
and that is Michelham Priory in Sussex. It was built on the site of a former
Saxon and later Norman Hunting Lodge.
Regards
Michael
Michael W Cook
mwc...@crusader-productions.com
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
======================================
Michael W Cook
wrote:
> Thanks very much for this and your interesting thooughts.
You are most welcome John.
I've taken the liberty of also forwarding this to the group.
> Yes, I was aware
> that the ritual may not be primary - but it could well re-inforce the
> importance of a site, I think. And in the case of an important castle, the
> desire for ritual spaces could influence other developments.
I'm not so sure I understand what you mean by this - by 'ritual spaces' do
you mean hunting areas etc ? Like, my castle is situated next to the Forest
of blah, and I just so happen to have the best hunting in the south of
England on my doorstep.
If you do, then I wouldn't think that would have been taken into
consideration really, as I say, the primary positioning would be security or
defensive, not if there is good hunting available.
Take Sussex, an example I know well, after the Conquest the county was
divided up into six 'Rapes'. Each 'Rape' had a carefully positioned castle
in a prominent position - Chichester, Arundel, Lewes, Pevensey, Bramber,
Hastings. These were then supported by smaller satellites - Knepp, Caburn,
Fulking, Midhurst, Crowhurst etc.
In the cases of Midhurst, Fulking and possible Crowhurst, they could fall
into this category, superb hunting would have been available in the local
community. Earl William de Warenne was said to hunt from Fulking, and Old
Erringham was only really a fortified manor house (Hunting Lodge?), but
pulled down in Henry II's reign during one of his 'castle purges'.
So, initially, there was no decent recreation locally, so the Lord had
himself a manor or fortified residence built close by some 20-30 miles from
his main base of security.
> There is also
> the 'wow' factor, you see my castle from miles away and it looks mighty
> impressive, because I do not allow a lot of naff peasants to build huts
> against the walls...etc...
>
Indeed, without doubt, later as the rivalries built up there became the
'wow' factor as you mention. But having an abundant hunting area available
and beautiful gardens to 'wow' your guests, would have been added much later
when times became more secure.
erilar
<jo...@aremovebercromby14.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Real castles were not surrounded by parks or gardens. You seem to be
classifying palaces as castles.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Renia
What period and what country are you talking about? In the English medieval
period, gardens were small enclosed functional affairs with little
relationship to the castle itself. Gardens came much later, with the formal
country house. There were royal deer parks in the medieval period, such as
Bearpark in Northumberland and the New Forest in the south. Some of them still
exist, albeit on a much smaller scale. Others have disappeared, though their
names may remain.
Renia
martin williams
>
> John G Harrison wrote:
>
> > I am interested in the setting of castles, their
> > of reliable published info on this, peer reviewed and main
> > stream?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > John G Harrison
>
> What period and what country are you talking about? In the
> English medieval period, gardens were small enclosed functional
> affairs with little relationship to the castle itself. Gardens
> came much later, with the formal country house. There were royal
> deer parks in the medieval period, such as Bearpark in
> Northumberland and the New Forest in the south. Some of them
> still exist, albeit on a much smaller scale. Others have
> disappeared, though their names may remain.
>
> Renia
Bearpark was an estate of the Priory of Durham (it's 2-3 miles
from the city centre): the name is a corruption of the
Norman 'Beaurepaire'. The ruins of the main buildings
still survive at the back of a farmyard. There are
a number of enclosed hunting parks in County Durham: the
largest being Weardale Forest - of course, given the palatine
status of the County, they were *episcopal* forests.
There may, of course, be other Bearparks...
Pax
Martin
pp
Oswiu
Michael W Cook
ren...@DUMPbtinternet.com wrote on 1/27/02 8:43 PM:
> hat period and what country are you talking about? In the English medieval
> period, gardens were small enclosed functional affairs with little
> relationship to the castle itself. Gardens came much later, with the formal
> country house.
Not quite true Renia.
The oldest garden in England is at Westminster Abbey, and it has been there
and continually used for almost 1000 years.
Admittedly, this is an exception - but you also have the herb and other
gardens in monasteries and priories.
Regards
Michael W Cook
mwc...@crusader-productions.com
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
======================================
Michael
Renia
> in article 3C546773...@DUMPbtinternet.com, Renia at
> ren...@DUMPbtinternet.com wrote on 1/27/02 8:43 PM:
>
> > hat period and what country are you talking about? In the English medieval
> > period, gardens were small enclosed functional affairs with little
> > relationship to the castle itself. Gardens came much later, with the formal
> > country house.
>
> Not quite true Renia.
>
> The oldest garden in England is at Westminster Abbey, and it has been there
> and continually used for almost 1000 years.
Fair enough. But I think it comes under the category below?
> Admittedly, this is an exception - but you also have the herb and other
> gardens in monasteries and priories.
That's what I was referring to. Functional gardens.
Renia
Renia
Thanks for this information. Do you know much else about Bearpark?
Renia
martin williams
I can't quite see it from the front upstairs windows...
As I posted earlier it was an estate of the Priory (Durham
Cathedral's monastery, a priory as the Bishop was
ex officio the abbot). It was often used by monks
recovering from illness. The standing ruins are late
mediaeval: and include 'flushing' latrines (a stream
is diverteable through the bottom of the latrine pit:
the 'drop' (as it were) is from the first floor). They
are in the 'guardianship' of the local authority - visitors
need not expect the manicured lawns and neat hedges of
English Heritage.... The view from the site has much
improved since the pithead and pitheaps were landscaped.
The site was used as the Scottish camp at the battle of
Neville's Cross in 1346: the bridge over the River Browney
nearby is the traditional site of the capture of David II
King of Scots - his captor spotted the reflection of
his armour in the water under the bridge...
Pax
Martin
pp
Oswiu
John G Harrison
"martin williams" <postm...@oswiu.u-net.com> wrote in message
news:3C546DED...@oswiu.u-net.com...
> Renia wrote:
> >
> > John G Harrison wrote:
> >
> > > I am interested in the setting of castles, their
> > > relationship to surrounding parks, gardens, hunting grounds
the Priory of Durham (it's 2-3 miles
> from the city centre): the name is a corruption of the
I am not beiing too tight as to place or period at present though my prime
concern will be with Scotland in the late medieval and early modern.
Initially I need broad views, am happy to look at 'the world' and a wide
time span, for interesting ideas.
But in my context the concrete example is very interesting. Assuming that
Beaurepaire has the obvious meaning - a fine retreat - then I am curious
about what made it 'beau' - its natural situation, enhancement of nature
etc? But mostly I am looking for broad generalisations.
thanks for these thoughts, both of you.
John
Renia
Renia
Michael Kuettner
John G Harrison <jo...@aremovebercromby14.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:a34f0m$nin$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Ah - now the plot thickens.
You're interested in British castles.
If you look at castles in HRE, you'll find that the term "fortress"
wasn't
used without reason. AFAIK, landscape setting didn't play a role in
any of the castles I know over here; but I'll see what I can find.
If you want landscaping, you'll have to look for palaces (like
Versailles or Schoenbrunn) in this part of the world.
Is it palaces (Schloesser) you have in mind ?
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Alex
Yes. "If you can, build it on the top of a hill and save a lot of
money on landscaping". Some of these HRE types were really stingy. Or
simply practical?
>AFAIK, landscape setting didn't play a role in
> any of the castles I know over here; but I'll see what I can find.
> If you want landscaping, you'll have to look for palaces (like
> Versailles or Schoenbrunn) in this part of the world.
> Is it palaces (Schloesser) you have in mind ?
Perhaps the landscape issue can be applied to the castles of an 'intermediate'
period. Let's say, at the time of Francouis I some
residences still had been defined as 'castles' and had some similarities
with those (or had the old castles as a core of the extended complex). They
would have some planned landscape. AFAIK, both Versallies and Schoenbrunn
never had been anything but the palaces. Can't tell about V. but S's landscape
is pretty (the same for Belvedere).
martin williams
>
> "martin williams" <postm...@oswiu.u-net.com> wrote in message
> news:3C546DED...@oswiu.u-net.com...
> >
> > the Priory of Durham (it's 2-3 miles
> > from the city centre): the name is a corruption of the
> > Norman 'Beaurepaire'. ...
>
> though my prime concern will be with Scotland in the late
> medieval and early modern. Initially I need broad views, am
> happy to look at 'the world' and a wide time span, for
> interesting ideas. But in my context the concrete example is
> very interesting. Assuming that Beaurepaire has the obvious
> meaning - a fine retreat - then I am curious about what made
> it 'beau' - its natural situation, enhancement of nature etc?
South facing prospect: small river at the bottom of the hill:
out of sight of the urban area to the east (there's a ridge
between them)...
Pax
Martin
pp
Oswiu
John G Harrison
> prime
> > concern will be with Scotland in the late medieval and early modern.
> > Initially I need broad views, am happy to look at 'the world' and a
> wide
> > time span, for interesting ideas.
> > But in my context the concrete example is very interesting. Assuming
> that
> > Beaurepaire has the obvious meaning - a fine retreat - then I am
> curious
> > about what made it 'beau' - its natural situation, enhancement of
> nature
> > etc? But mostly I am looking for broad generalisations.
> > thanks for these thoughts, both of you.
> > John
>
> Ah - now the plot thickens.
> You're interested in British castles.
> If you look at castles in HRE, you'll find that the term "fortress"
> wasn't
> used without reason. AFAIK, landscape setting didn't play a role in
> any of the castles I know over here; but I'll see what I can find.
> If you want landscaping, you'll have to look for palaces (like
> Versailles or Schoenbrunn) in this part of the world.
> Is it palaces (Schloesser) you have in mind ?
I quite take the point about fortresses not - perhaps always - involving the
landscape. And that 'palaces' do. Perhaps what will emerge is why one
fortress becomes a palace and another does not. And that the landscape
potential is one reason for the difference? I am not looking to prove a
point. But to investigate!
thanks for all the thoughts so far, which are all interesting.
Regards
John
Michael Kuettner
> > Ah - now the plot thickens.
> > You're interested in British castles.
> > If you look at castles in HRE, you'll find that the term "fortress"
> > wasn't
> > used without reason. AFAIK, landscape setting didn't play a role in
> > any of the castles I know over here; but I'll see what I can find.
> > If you want landscaping, you'll have to look for palaces (like
> > Versailles or Schoenbrunn) in this part of the world.
> > Is it palaces (Schloesser) you have in mind ?
>
> I quite take the point about fortresses not - perhaps always -
involving the
> landscape. And that 'palaces' do. Perhaps what will emerge is why one
> fortress becomes a palace and another does not. And that the landscape
> potential is one reason for the difference? I am not looking to prove
a
> point. But to investigate!
> thanks for all the thoughts so far, which are all interesting.
Fortresses *did not* become palaces in this part of the world.
Palaces (Schloesser) were built in rather late times; when
the country was safe and there was no need for fortification.
(I'm talking about HRE, here).
Schoenbrunn (or Fuerstenbrunn) were built as palaces; gardening
played a big part in the design. But no castles were converted
to palaces; it would have been rather counter-productive.
They were hard to reach (on hilltops or mountains) and there
wasn't enough land for gardens around them.
A beautiful sample of fortresses would be Southern Tyrol up to
the Brenner; fortress after fortress built for business.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8e58188.02012...@posting.google.com...
> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
news:<uVk58.55$yL1....@nreader2.kpnqwest.net>...
> > Ah - now the plot thickens.
> > You're interested in British castles.
> > If you look at castles in HRE, you'll find that the term "fortress"
> > wasn't
> > used without reason.
>
> Yes. "If you can, build it on the top of a hill and save a lot of
> money on landscaping". Some of these HRE types were really stingy. Or
> simply practical?
>
> >AFAIK, landscape setting didn't play a role in
> > any of the castles I know over here; but I'll see what I can find.
> > If you want landscaping, you'll have to look for palaces (like
> > Versailles or Schoenbrunn) in this part of the world.
> > Is it palaces (Schloesser) you have in mind ?
>
> Perhaps the landscape issue can be applied to the castles of an
'intermediate'
> period. Let's say, at the time of Francouis I some
> residences still had been defined as 'castles' and had some
similarities
> with those (or had the old castles as a core of the extended complex).
They
> would have some planned landscape. AFAIK, both Versallies and
Schoenbrunn
> never had been anything but the palaces. Can't tell about V. but S's
landscape
> is pretty (the same for Belvedere).
Yep; see my other post.
They were built as palaces from the beginning.
The fortresses remained; I know of no case of conversion over here.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
sophia
Castles I can't help you on so much, but in the case of (English)
abbeys there are lots of primary sources showing what was there. Of
particular importance are account books and private records of
expenses such as the Journal of Prior More of Worcester which often
go into detail about what areas of the estate were used for and the
tasks performed (and paid for) to maintain them from which much
can be deduced. There are also extant surveys, maps, and of course
the records made of the administrators of the Court of Augmentations
which show what the property consisted of at its height.
The cloister and church of a religious house - even a minor one - was
only the centre of a vast complex. There would have been an outer,
public, courtyard, and an inner, semi private one, each with walls and
a substantial gatehouse, plus guesthouses, mills, breweries and a
variety of other industrial buildings, fishponds, gardens, stables,
barns and orchards. As well as gardens for produce there were
extensive ornamental gardens - later in the period the various officials
and their households often had their own private gardens. A rural
abbey would also have buildings associated with working the
demesne and the home farm.
There has been a lot of work on excavating the precinct and industrial
buildings of monasteries over recent years, but there's lots more still
do - Fountains still has many unexcavated surrounding buildings, and
that's one of the best explored sites.
Looking at Fountains would be a good place to start though to
understand an abbey in relationship to its surrounding complex
(though the landscaped 18th century grounds are very deceptive as
to what the valley must have in the monks' heyday). Durham would
be another good place to look as a great urban foundation that has
not been too encroached upon. I'd also suggest St Cross Hospital
near Winchester which avoided the dissolution and probably gives a
very good feel of what a smaller monastery looked like in the later
middle ages, it's almost like the clock stopped in 1535.
Hope this helps.
.
--
Sophia
Faith in Fabulousness
www.arxana.demon.co.uk/
icq: 93834408
Alex
>
> I quite take the point about fortresses not - perhaps always - involving the
> landscape. And that 'palaces' do.
Actually, this statement is not correct if you are willing to look outside
BT. For example, Some Moorish fortresses/castles in Spain had well-developed
landscaping. The best-known example is Alhambra but the same, on a lesser
scale, will go for Alcazars in Cordoba and Seville (perhaps, this list is
much longer). Even the fortress in Malaga has some landscaping and it is
located on the top of a hill.
OTOH, quite a few palaces do not involve any landscaping: they could be
located in the middle of a Medieval Western city with a high density of the
buildings and there was no space. For example (if memory betrayed me, Michael
will come with the necessary corrections), Prince Eugene's _city_ residence
in Vienna does not have any (visible) landscaping. OTOH, his residence
_outside_ the city (Belvedere) has a lanscaped park. I don't know when the
gardens around Hofburg had been planned but they don't look old.
When Wallenstein built his residence in Prague, it supossed to be something
quite unusual for the city: he destroyed few city blocks and built a palace
with the walled park. Contemporaries had been complaining about this
extravagancy.
OTOH, even the summer residiencies of the Russian Tzars (before Peter)
did not involve (AFAIK) any landscaping on an Alhambra or Versallies scale:
there was plenty of space but the architects (or their customers) did not
went beyond little cleaning to provide a better view and, perhaps, putting
some flowers.
Of course, during and after Peter's time, enourmous efforts had been put
into creation of a huge landscaped palace area near St-Petersburg (Petergof).
Results (even after decades of the Soviet-style management and destruction
by Germans during WWII) were very impressive.
> Perhaps what will emerge is why one
> fortress becomes a palace and another does not. And that the landscape
> potential is one reason for the difference?
AFAIK, most of the (famous) palaces did not really evolve from the fortresses.
Some famous 'castles', like Chambord, had been built to remind the real
castles (moat, some semblance of a defensive perimeter with the round 'turrets'
on the corners) but this 'castlishness' is absolutely superficial: too many
big windows looking outside.
Of course, sometimes palaces had been built in the fortress (e.g., in Prague)
but this is hardly the case of fortress evolving into the palace. BTW, I'm
not sure that the palace in Prague has any landscaping _inside_ the fortress
(there are some gardens outside the walls).
Alex
> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.02012...@posting.google.com...
> > "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
> news:<uVk58.55$yL1....@nreader2.kpnqwest.net>...
> <snip>
> > > Ah - now the plot thickens.
> > > You're interested in British castles.
> > > If you look at castles in HRE, you'll find that the term "fortress"
> > > wasn't
> > > used without reason.
> >
> > Yes. "If you can, build it on the top of a hill and save a lot of
> > money on landscaping". Some of these HRE types were really stingy. Or
> > simply practical?
> >
> Nah - can't have been practical; these were the Dark Ages, after all ;-)
IIRC, these Ages had been 'Dark' mostly thanks to the practicality:
people did not wanmt to spent money on the illumination. :-)
>
> > >AFAIK, landscape setting didn't play a role in
> > > any of the castles I know over here; but I'll see what I can find.
> > > If you want landscaping, you'll have to look for palaces (like
> > > Versailles or Schoenbrunn) in this part of the world.
> > > Is it palaces (Schloesser) you have in mind ?
> >
> > Perhaps the landscape issue can be applied to the castles of an
> 'intermediate'
> > period. Let's say, at the time of Francouis I some
> > residences still had been defined as 'castles' and had some
> similarities
> > with those (or had the old castles as a core of the extended complex).
> They
> > would have some planned landscape. AFAIK, both Versallies and
> Schoenbrunn
> > never had been anything but the palaces. Can't tell about V. but S's
> landscape
> > is pretty (the same for Belvedere).
>
> Yep; see my other post.
> They were built as palaces from the beginning.
I know that.
> The fortresses remained; I know of no case of conversion over here.
This trend can be traced, for example, in Sa... well, to avoid the criticism
for inevitable misspelling, in the town, which became famous thanks to
'The sounds of Married with Children' (hopefully, I got this one correctly).
There was a castle on a steep hill (or does it qualify as a mountain?),
which had been a residence of archbishop. The archbishops did a lot to
improve the accomodations and managed to create some 'palatial' halls.
Still, they built a much bigger residence downhill. Perhaps it was too
annoying to drive up/downhill each time you want to visit a coffeehouse
or a Cathedral. Then (or somewhere in between) one of the archbishops built
a summer (?) palace with the 'Mirabella Gardens'. The fortress remained
but the palace inside it was more or less abandoned in a favor of the more
convenient accomodations.
Dick Wisan
was visiting in Britain along about 1966.
The first is a real oddity. At Rothsay, there's a Rothsay Castle
which looks like something I never read of. Mainly, it's a
circlular wall punctuated with circular towers. Circular?
The only normal looking part was a rectangular building which
I think either passed through the circle or abutted it. The
stonework looked older, and, though it was pierced for some
civilized looking windows, it might once have been a keep.
My guess was that there was a small rectangular castle which
never was further developed until some 19th Century person
put his fancy to it. If this place has any history, I'd love
to know.
More interesting was the remains of a castle I can't put a place
to. (We were being driven around by friends who lived in Yorkshire,
but the RR station was Manchester.) It's name is Peveril Castle,
and I tried to puzzle it out. Obviously, it had been built to
take advantage of a triangular hill with two ravines providing
steep approaches on two sides, the hill sloping fairly gently
down to a wall. Now, a place like that might have been turned
into a fortification quick-and-dirty by building a wall to form
the 3rd side, trusting to the two ravines to make the rest
defensible. This wall seemed pretty old, but I doubt it was
the first thing built, because it was too far down the hill &
would have required a pretty large garrison to man it. Possibly,
it was built much later to keep cows in.
At the top of the hill a rectangular keep is (was in 1968) pretty
well preserved. Two stories, with the entrance on the upper floor
reached by a kind of drawbridge. Around the keep, just barely
enough remained of the other buildings to provide a sort of
ground plan. There were several, but I have no idea what the
purposes were. I _think_, but I'm not sure, there was had been
a wall around the complex.
This place never became any sort of major fort, and it was inter-
esting precisely because of its fairly undeveloped nature. But,
what was it? Does anybody know it? The important family in that
part of the country (at some medieval time) to have been the
Foljambe in that part of the country. Possibly they were connected
with the castle?
I'd be interested in any scraps of the history of these two places.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan Email: wis...@hartwick.edu
Snail: 37 Clinton St., Oneonta, NY 13820, USA
Just your opinion, please, Ma'am. No fax.
John G Harrison
"Dick Wisan" <wis...@catskill.net> wrote in message
news:a381q...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> This thread reminds me of two castles which puzzled me when I
> was visiting in Britain along about 1966.
>
> The first is a real oddity. At Rothsay, there's a Rothsay Castle
> which looks like something I never read of. Mainly, it's a
> circlular wall punctuated with circular towers. Circular?
> The only normal looking part was a rectangular building which
> I think either passed through the circle or abutted it. The
> stonework looked older, and, though it was pierced for some
> civilized looking windows, it might once have been a keep.
> My guess was that there was a small rectangular castle which
> never was further developed until some 19th Century person
> put his fancy to it. If this place has any history, I'd love
> to know.
Rothesay (the round part) is one of the oldest castles in Scotland and there
is a good description of Vikings attacking it by cutting through the soft
sandstone with their axes. Gatehouse and some of the subsidiary towers are
much later - 17th century, if I recall. I can email you more detail if that
would be of interest - but not this evening whilst I am in a flap. Send me a
reminder in a few days...
John
erilar
<jo...@aremovebercromby14.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I quite take the point about fortresses not - perhaps always - involving
> the
> landscape. And that 'palaces' do. Perhaps what will emerge is why one
> fortress becomes a palace and another does not. And that the landscape
> potential is one reason for the difference? I am not looking to prove a
> point. But to investigate!
Some castles became palaces, but not the ones that had earlier become
fortresses, at least not to my knowledge. Location was certainly a
factor. Not all castles were built on mountain peaks, nor in
particularly inaccessible locations. Some were built in places of
strategic importance that were easier to reach, modernize, and expand.
One that comes to mind is Schloss Sigmaringen on the Danube. One can
still see a part of the original castle inside the structure. Castles
that have become palaces also may have acquired gardens.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka erilar)
What do you mean, too many books??
------------------------------------------------
William Black
There is the possibility of another way of looking at it.
Some castles are 'social' in that they are designed to tell the locals
exactly who is in charge rather than being any sort of defensive position.
Skipsey Castle didn't defend anything except its occupiers.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Michael Kuettner
> OTOH, quite a few palaces do not involve any landscaping: they could
be
> located in the middle of a Medieval Western city with a high density
of the
> buildings and there was no space. For example (if memory betrayed me,
Michael
> will come with the necessary corrections), Prince Eugene's _city_
residence
> in Vienna does not have any (visible) landscaping. OTOH, his residence
> _outside_ the city (Belvedere) has a lanscaped park.
Now worries - no correction ;-)
I just want to add that you've touched on a different style of palace -
the town residence. It had to be representative on limited land, so
(mostly) no gardens.
It wasn't used that much; only when the owner had to be in town.
AFAIR, an exception was Graz - there the town houses often had
the form of an rectangle with an inner garden; but later the inner
garden was plastered. I don't know if any gardens still remain.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
sophia
Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> writes
>
>
>
>Now worries - no correction ;-)
>I just want to add that you've touched on a different style of palace -
>the town residence. It had to be representative on limited land, so
>(mostly) no gardens.
A very good point. It's worth noting in passing though that many of
the urban palaces which the English nobility possessed in the 15th
century did have extensive gardens. An example would be the vast
palace of Ely Place, residence of the bishops of Ely in London, whose
gardens - and strawberries - are mentioned in the context of that
fateful meeting at the Tower when Richard of Gloucester had Lord
Hastings murdered.
Ely Place was destroyed in the 18th century, though its chapel and
cloisters survive as the beautiful church of St Etheldreda, Holborn.
Lambeth Palace, the mediaeval fortified home of the Archbishops of
Canterbury (and HQ of Anglicanism) is still around, and may be the
only surviving example of the genre, but I don't know much about the
site apart from that the gatehouse is impressive. Undoubtedly the
gardens have gone through many permutations since the middle ages
but there could still be some useful evidence to be found there.
Perhaps someone here could reveal more.
>It wasn't used that much; only when the owner had to be in town.
>AFAIR, an exception was Graz - there the town houses often had
>the form of an rectangle with an inner garden; but later the inner
>garden was plastered.
This design was common in England too. By plastered do you mean
that the garden was later floored over, or that it was given frescos
maybe?
John G Harrison
present so not much time for history - but I continue to watch.
Johnnews:vyD68.45$va2....@nreader1.kpnqwest.net...
Michael Kuettner
John G Harrison <jo...@abercromby14.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a3gpcs$i2k$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Again, thank you Michael. I am away from hom with various family
problems at
> present so not much time for history - but I continue to watch.
> John
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
sophia <sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9E1xETAx...@arxana.demon.co.uk...
> In article <vyD68.45$va2....@nreader1.kpnqwest.net>, Michael
> Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> writes
> >
> >
> >
> >Now worries - no correction ;-)
> >I just want to add that you've touched on a different style of
palace -
> >the town residence. It had to be representative on limited land, so
> >(mostly) no gardens.
>
> A very good point. It's worth noting in passing though that many of
> the urban palaces which the English nobility possessed in the 15th
> century did have extensive gardens. An example would be the vast
> palace of Ely Place, residence of the bishops of Ely in London, whose
> gardens - and strawberries - are mentioned in the context of that
> fateful meeting at the Tower when Richard of Gloucester had Lord
> Hastings murdered.
Well, England had an advantage - no aggressors except for the
border regions with Scotland.
Here in Central Europe one had first Mongols, Huns, Avars and
later Turks.
That meant
a) Fortresses were important and necessary
b) Cities had walls.
b meant limited space inside the walls - so gardens were
rare (except for herbs or vegetables).
Only when the borders were finally safe(r) palaces like in England
or France began to appear.
But AFAIK, no conversions from fortress to palace.
> >It wasn't used that much; only when the owner had to be in town.
> >AFAIR, an exception was Graz - there the town houses often had
> >the form of an rectangle with an inner garden; but later the inner
> >garden was plastered.
>
> This design was common in England too. By plastered do you mean
> that the garden was later floored over, or that it was given frescos
> maybe?
Floored over, sadly.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Paul J Gans
That was true in western Europe too. England was perhaps
(this is just a subjective feeling) the *least* fortified
"country" in western Europe from 1100 on. There was a
spate of castle building under William I and a number built
after, but many towns did not have walls (though walled
towns were not unknown) and castles were usually strongly
controlled by the king.
But the points you make are true of England, Spain, and
France. The Alhambra, cited as a place with gardens, was
a small city inside a wall on top of a hill.
>But AFAIK, no conversions from fortress to palace.
That *did* happen in western Europe, but it wasn't the
classic Edward III Welsh castles that got converted
(with, of course, a few exceptions, most notably royal
residences.)
>> >It wasn't used that much; only when the owner had to be in town.
>> >AFAIR, an exception was Graz - there the town houses often had
>> >the form of an rectangle with an inner garden; but later the inner
>> >garden was plastered.
>>
>> This design was common in England too. By plastered do you mean
>> that the garden was later floored over, or that it was given frescos
>> maybe?
>Floored over, sadly.
Every year we lose more of the Middle Ages. Recently
Jim Marchand noted on a medieval mailing list that a
wooden church in Norway had burned. While there are
photographic records, photos shift color with time.
He hoped that a digital record (with properly encoded
absolute color values) had been made, but it is likely
that it was not.
Similarly, every year there is wear and tear on medieval
manuscripts. They too need to be digitally photographed
with absolute color values -- and in oblique light from
several directions. Even with that sort of preservation
(which just isn't being done because of cost) there is
today no substitute for the original for the determination
of erasures, overwriting, and subtle changes.
---- Paul J. Gans
Michael Kuettner
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:a3hp6o$uc$1...@news.panix.com...
England had an extraordinary status. No *real* fortresses
(Just to annoy Michael ;-)).
But I was talking about Central Europe.
Our original poster asked about gardening and castles.
It seemed to me that he was trying to apply the English
situation to the rest of Europe.
I was pointing out that there are no (known to me) cases
in CE (because of the need for fortification); but as we've seen
there were gardens in England and later in France.
Btw - tomorrow I'll be driving through Southern Tyrol (over
the Brenner down to Ravenna).
Beautiful castles there. I'll see if I can make some photos.
> But the points you make are true of England, Spain, and
> France. The Alhambra, cited as a place with gardens, was
> a small city inside a wall on top of a hill.
>
I've seen a plan of Le Mont St. Michel which shows some
areas which could be gardens; but that is from the 16th
century.
> >But AFAIK, no conversions from fortress to palace.
>
> That *did* happen in western Europe, but it wasn't the
> classic Edward III Welsh castles that got converted
> (with, of course, a few exceptions, most notably royal
> residences.)
>
As I've said, I know it happened in Western Europe; but
not in CE.
> >> >It wasn't used that much; only when the owner had to be in town.
> >> >AFAIR, an exception was Graz - there the town houses often had
> >> >the form of an rectangle with an inner garden; but later the inner
> >> >garden was plastered.
> >>
> >> This design was common in England too. By plastered do you mean
> >> that the garden was later floored over, or that it was given
frescos
> >> maybe?
> >Floored over, sadly.
>
> Every year we lose more of the Middle Ages. Recently
> Jim Marchand noted on a medieval mailing list that a
> wooden church in Norway had burned. While there are
> photographic records, photos shift color with time.
> He hoped that a digital record (with properly encoded
> absolute color values) had been made, but it is likely
> that it was not.
>
> Similarly, every year there is wear and tear on medieval
> manuscripts.
Don't even get me started on that !
But maybe I'll start a thread about palimpsests or
Neglect of archives shown by the example of Corbie.
> They too need to be digitally photographed
> with absolute color values -- and in oblique light from
> several directions. Even with that sort of preservation
> (which just isn't being done because of cost) there is
> today no substitute for the original for the determination
> of erasures, overwriting, and subtle changes.
>
Digitalization :
How much info is on 8 1/2 inch floppies which are
defect or can't be read anymore (because of lack of
equipment) ?
How long does a cheap CD last ?
How many streamer tapes are there which can't be read
anymore because there's no hardware ?
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Alex
> Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>
>
> That was true in western Europe too. England was perhaps
> (this is just a subjective feeling) the *least* fortified
> "country" in western Europe from 1100 on.
Not sure if this is true. IIRC, at certain point of ECW most of the
royalist forces had been wasted on garrissoning the numerous castles,
fortified manors, etc. Perhaps it will be true to say that England
had a limited number of the true fortresses?
> There was a
> spate of castle building under William I and a number built
> after, but many towns did not have walls (though walled
> towns were not unknown) and castles were usually strongly
> controlled by the king.
>
> But the points you make are true of England, Spain, and
> France. The Alhambra, cited as a place with gardens, was
> a small city inside a wall on top of a hill.
>
It's not a small city. It's a big, fortified palace complex and
actually it is not sitting on the top of a single hill because part of
it is on another hill and there are gardens all the way between these
two locations. Happened to visit it couple years ago.
Alex
> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.02012...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
> > OTOH, quite a few palaces do not involve any landscaping: they could
> be
> > located in the middle of a Medieval Western city with a high density
> of the
> > buildings and there was no space. For example (if memory betrayed me,
> Michael
> > will come with the necessary corrections), Prince Eugene's _city_
> residence
> > in Vienna does not have any (visible) landscaping. OTOH, his residence
> > _outside_ the city (Belvedere) has a lanscaped park.
>
> Now worries - no correction ;-)
> I just want to add that you've touched on a different style of palace -
> the town residence. It had to be representative on limited land, so
> (mostly) no gardens.
Exactly my point.
> It wasn't used that much; only when the owner had to be in town.
> AFAIR, an exception was Graz - there the town houses often had
> the form of an rectangle with an inner garden; but later the inner
> garden was plastered. I don't know if any gardens still remain.
The same (judging by the view from the hill) was situation in the city of
'Sound of ...'. The main archbishop's palace was more or less rectangular
and the private section of it had an inner garden. OTOH, a Summer palace
(half a mile further but, AFAIK, outside the old city) had Versallies' style
gardens.
Paul J Gans
Agreed. Two hills more or less linked. But there is no
doubt that they are "up". All you see from Granada
itself is the walls. If you are far enough away you
can perhaps see some buildings poking out above
the walls.
I was there in 92, I think. Or perhaps 93.
---- Paul J. Gans
erilar
am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote:
> The same (judging by the view from the hill) was situation in the city of
> 'Sound of ...'. The main archbishop's palace was more or less rectangular
> and the private section of it had an inner garden. OTOH, a Summer palace
> (half a mile further but, AFAIK, outside the old city) had Versallies'
> style
> gardens.
Are you referring to the real Salzburg or to the odd combinations of
pieces of it in the movie?
martin williams
Persons in the London area may be interested in the following
on (or around) this topic.
Lecture:
Jeremy Ashbee
English Castles as Pleasure Palaces
in the 13th and 14th centuries,
6 February 2002, 5pm
British Archaeological Association (BAA)
Society of Antiquaries of London, Burlington House, Piccadilly,
London W1J 0BE.
Non-members of the British Archaeological Association are
welcome to attend occasional lectures but are asked to make
themselves known to the Hon. Director on arrival and sign
the visitors' book.
Pax
Martin
pp
Oswiu
Alex
> In article <f8e58188.02020...@posting.google.com>,
> am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote:
>
> > The same (judging by the view from the hill) was situation in the city of
> > 'Sound of ...'. The main archbishop's palace was more or less rectangular
> > and the private section of it had an inner garden. OTOH, a Summer palace
> > (half a mile further but, AFAIK, outside the old city) had Versallies'
> > style
> > gardens.
>
> Are you referring to the real Salzburg or to the odd combinations of
> pieces of it in the movie?
Of course to the real town. It has (a) castle on the hill, which initially
served as archbishop's residence, (b) an official residence at the bottom of
the hill (which is more or less town center), which has an inner garden,
(c) a summer (or whatever) residence, which was outside the old town (in
practical terms, it's appr. 10 - 15 minutes of a slow walk from the official
residence; an exibit (c) has the gardens I referenced to ("Mirabella
Gardens") - you can see these gardens (part of them) in the movie. The rest
of the movie views are from the various places near and not so near Salzburg.
Michael Kuettner
> erilar <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:<erilarloFRY-02EF...@news.airstreamcomm.net>...
> > In article <f8e58188.02020...@posting.google.com>,
> > am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote:
> >
> > > The same (judging by the view from the hill) was situation in the
city of
> > > 'Sound of ...'. The main archbishop's palace was more or less
rectangular
> > > and the private section of it had an inner garden. OTOH, a Summer
palace
> > > (half a mile further but, AFAIK, outside the old city) had
Versallies'
> > > style
> > > gardens.
> >
> > Are you referring to the real Salzburg or to the odd combinations of
> > pieces of it in the movie?
>
>
> Of course to the real town. It has (a) castle on the hill, which
initially
> served as archbishop's residence,
In the 9th century Gebhardt built a wooden castle on the site
of Hohensalzburg (no conclusive archaeological evidence till now,
so we can't be sure).
> (b) an official residence at the bottom of
> the hill (which is more or less town center), which has an inner
garden,
At the bottom of which hill ;-) ?
Are you sure that you aren't confusing the monastery with the Residenz ?
> (c) a summer (or whatever) residence, which was outside the old town
(in
> practical terms, it's appr. 10 - 15 minutes of a slow walk from the
official
> residence;
Do you mean Hellbrunn or Fuerstenbrunn or or or ?
There were many others - we had several dukes who became archbishops.
Were you a victim of the "watergames" ? ;-)
> an exibit (c) has the gardens I referenced to ("Mirabella
> Gardens") - you can see these gardens (part of them) in the movie. The
rest
> of the movie views are from the various places near and not so near
Salzburg.
Schloss Mirabell is 17th century (Mirabellgaerten) and on the "new" side
of
town (before XVII the other side of the Salzach wasn't easily
defensible).
Cheers,
Michael "yodelling" Kuettner
Alex
Well, they have a 'reconstruction' of the wooden castle in the Hoh<whatever>,
just as the chstity belts and some rather fancy torchure tools. All
responsibility is their. :-)
>
> > (b) an official residence at the bottom of
> > the hill (which is more or less town center), which has an inner
> garden,
>
> At the bottom of which hill ;-) ?
One on which castle is built.
> Are you sure that you aren't confusing the monastery with the Residenz ?
I don't think so. Now, part of it is a museum (I visited it) and, IIRC, the
part with an inner garden is an university. It is not _immediately_ down the
hill (if this is what you mean) but couple hundred meters from it.
Unfortunately, thanks to the shm rules, can't attach my photos of the place).
>
>
> > (c) a summer (or whatever) residence, which was outside the old town
> (in
> > practical terms, it's appr. 10 - 15 minutes of a slow walk from the
> official
> > residence;
> Do you mean Hellbrunn or Fuerstenbrunn or or or ?
> There were many others - we had several dukes who became archbishops.
> Were you a victim of the "watergames" ? ;-)
No, I was not. And I don't reference to the residence, which is outside
of a modern Salzburg (did not visit it), just one which was out and now in.
BTW, I did not even try to memorize all these names so you are completely
loosing me in this exercise. :-)
The only place when I fall victim of the watergames was Petrgof but it's
rather far from Salzburg (of course, it's nice to know that, regardless
the geography, rulers often had the same, simple and easy to understand,
sense of humor).
>
> > an exibit (c) has the gardens I referenced to ("Mirabella
> > Gardens") - you can see these gardens (part of them) in the movie. The
> rest
> > of the movie views are from the various places near and not so near
> Salzburg.
>
> Schloss Mirabell is 17th century (Mirabellgaerten)
Good, now we identified the site. Hopefully, you'll excuse me not using
German names.
> and on the "new" side
> of
> town (before XVII the other side of the Salzach wasn't easily
> defensible).
>
Which part of it? There are defences dated, IIRC, by the time of 30YW,
on the "other" side of it near ... oops... some monastery. Ah, yes, almost
forgot. They are also on the hill. :-)
Ismael
> >It's not a small city. It's a big, fortified palace complex and
> >actually it is not sitting on the top of a single hill because part of
> >it is on another hill and there are gardens all the way between these
> >two locations. Happened to visit it couple years ago.
>
> Agreed. Two hills more or less linked. But there is no
> doubt that they are "up". All you see from Granada
> itself is the walls. If you are far enough away you
> can perhaps see some buildings poking out above
> the walls.
From the Albaicín (another hill inside the city) you can see the
buildings too. This is the view Clinton defined as "The world's
greatest sunset" :-)
Ismael
erilar
Having been there, I did have to ask. I was with a busload of teenagers
and our bus driver was pointing out some of the disconnected bits and
pieces they pasted together for the movie. I watched the movie just once
after that, looking for the bits I had seen in situ 8-) Some of my
students and I wandered through some garden that must have been the
Mirabella, taking pictures posed with statuary. It's not very pretty in
March, though.
Michael Kuettner
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8e58188.02020...@posting.google.com...
> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
news:<mFE78.50$j23....@nreader1.kpnqwest.net>...
> > Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > Of course to the real town. It has (a) castle on the hill, which
> > initially
> > > served as archbishop's residence,
> > Err, no. The first residence was the monastery St. Peter.
> > In the 9th century Gebhardt built a wooden castle on the site
> > of Hohensalzburg (no conclusive archaeological evidence till now,
> > so we can't be sure).
>
> Well, they have a 'reconstruction' of the wooden castle in the
Hoh<whatever>,
> just as the chstity belts and some rather fancy torchure tools. All
> responsibility is their. :-)
>
The name of the castle is (since you've mentioned the
soundtrack of "Married with Children") Hohenchicago ;-)
> >
> > > (b) an official residence at the bottom of
> > > the hill (which is more or less town center), which has an inner
> > garden,
> >
> > At the bottom of which hill ;-) ?
>
> One on which castle is built.
>
It's called "Festungsberg" (Festung = fortress, Berg = mountain).
But it's only a hill. Ah - hybris everywhere ;-)
> > Are you sure that you aren't confusing the monastery with the
Residenz ?
>
> I don't think so. Now, part of it is a museum (I visited it) and,
IIRC, the
> part with an inner garden is an university.
Before it became an university it was a cloister.
> It is not _immediately_ down the
> hill (if this is what you mean) but couple hundred meters from it.
> Unfortunately, thanks to the shm rules, can't attach my photos of the
place).
>
Not even those from the oldest bordell in town ? ;-)
Seems to date back to 13th or 14th century...
> >
> >
> > > (c) a summer (or whatever) residence, which was outside the old
town
> > (in
> > > practical terms, it's appr. 10 - 15 minutes of a slow walk from
the
> > official
> > > residence;
>
> > Do you mean Hellbrunn or Fuerstenbrunn or or or ?
> > There were many others - we had several dukes who became
archbishops.
> > Were you a victim of the "watergames" ? ;-)
>
> No, I was not. And I don't reference to the residence, which is
outside
> of a modern Salzburg (did not visit it), just one which was out and
now in.
> BTW, I did not even try to memorize all these names so you are
completely
> loosing me in this exercise. :-)
Who does ?
Even I have to look them up because those frigging bastards built
so many of them ;-)
> The only place when I fall victim of the watergames was Petrgof but
it's
> rather far from Salzburg (of course, it's nice to know that,
regardless
> the geography, rulers often had the same, simple and easy to
understand,
> sense of humor).
The refined humour of the upper-class ;-)
>
>
> >
> > > an exibit (c) has the gardens I referenced to ("Mirabella
> > > Gardens") - you can see these gardens (part of them) in the movie.
The
> > rest
> > > of the movie views are from the various places near and not so
near
> > Salzburg.
> >
> > Schloss Mirabell is 17th century (Mirabellgaerten)
>
> Good, now we identified the site. Hopefully, you'll excuse me not
using
> German names.
>
OK, I'll make an excemption for you. And you may also eat meat
on Fridays ;-)
But is Mirabell really transscribed as Mirabella ?
>
> > and on the "new" side
> > of
> > town (before XVII the other side of the Salzach wasn't easily
> > defensible).
> >
>
>
>
> Which part of it? There are defences dated, IIRC, by the time of 30YW,
> on the "other" side of it near ... oops... some monastery. Ah, yes,
almost
> forgot. They are also on the hill. :-)
Yep; Nonnberg for example (Nonne = nun).
But there were fortifications on this hill; but because of the geography
of the place it wasn't part of the city.
If you're interested I'll see if I can dig up an old plan and email it
to
you.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8e58188.02012...@posting.google.com...
> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
news:<joF58.56$562....@nreader2.kpnqwest.net>...
> > Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:f8e58188.02012...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
> > news:<uVk58.55$yL1....@nreader2.kpnqwest.net>...
> > <snip>
> > > > Ah - now the plot thickens.
> > > > You're interested in British castles.
> > > > If you look at castles in HRE, you'll find that the term
"fortress"
> > > > wasn't
> > > > used without reason.
> > >
> > > Yes. "If you can, build it on the top of a hill and save a lot of
> > > money on landscaping". Some of these HRE types were really stingy.
Or
> > > simply practical?
> > >
> > Nah - can't have been practical; these were the Dark Ages, after all
;-)
>
> IIRC, these Ages had been 'Dark' mostly thanks to the practicality:
> people did not wanmt to spent money on the illumination. :-)
>
Sometimes they burned whole towns for a little light ;-)
> >
> > > >AFAIK, landscape setting didn't play a role in
> > > > any of the castles I know over here; but I'll see what I can
find.
> > > > If you want landscaping, you'll have to look for palaces (like
> > > > Versailles or Schoenbrunn) in this part of the world.
> > > > Is it palaces (Schloesser) you have in mind ?
> > >
> > > Perhaps the landscape issue can be applied to the castles of an
> > 'intermediate'
> > > period. Let's say, at the time of Francouis I some
> > > residences still had been defined as 'castles' and had some
> > similarities
> > > with those (or had the old castles as a core of the extended
complex).
> > They
> > > would have some planned landscape. AFAIK, both Versallies and
> > Schoenbrunn
> > > never had been anything but the palaces. Can't tell about V. but
S's
> > landscape
> > > is pretty (the same for Belvedere).
> >
> > Yep; see my other post.
> > They were built as palaces from the beginning.
>
> I know that.
>
I know that you know ;-).
I just wanted to point out the differences between castles
in BT and fortresses and palaces outside BT again.
> > The fortresses remained; I know of no case of conversion over here.
>
> This trend can be traced, for example, in Sa... well, to avoid the
criticism
> for inevitable misspelling, in the town, which became famous thanks to
> 'The sounds of Married with Children' (hopefully, I got this one
correctly).
Yep; you mean Chicago ! Easy to spell, see ? ;-)
> There was a castle on a steep hill (or does it qualify as a
mountain?),
Of course it does qualify as a mountain. But it's only a hill ;-)
(See other post)
> which had been a residence of archbishop. The archbishops did a lot to
> improve the accomodations and managed to create some 'palatial' halls.
> Still, they built a much bigger residence downhill. Perhaps it was too
> annoying to drive up/downhill each time you want to visit a
coffeehouse
> or a Cathedral. Then (or somewhere in between) one of the archbishops
built
> a summer (?) palace with the 'Mirabella Gardens'. The fortress
remained
> but the palace inside it was more or less abandoned in a favor of the
more
> convenient accomodations.
Mirabell was built for a concubine of an archbishop, AFAIR.
I'll look it up.
Ah - found it.
The bishop was Wolf Dietrich; his mistress was Salome Alt.
The name of the first palace was Altenau (1606). It wasn't as
large as the later Mirabell but the gardens were as large as
today from the beginning.
The fortress (and the archbishops quarters within) weren't abandoned
until
very late; these were troubled times. Peasant revolts, Salz^WChicago's
citizens in revolt, some Frogs turning up, usw. ;-)
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Alex
> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.02012...@posting.google.com...
> > "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
> news:<joF58.56$562....@nreader2.kpnqwest.net>...
> > > Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:f8e58188.02012...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
> > > news:<uVk58.55$yL1....@nreader2.kpnqwest.net>...
> > > <snip>
> > > > > Ah - now the plot thickens.
> > > > > You're interested in British castles.
> > > > > If you look at castles in HRE, you'll find that the term
> "fortress"
> > > > > wasn't
> > > > > used without reason.
> > > >
> > > > Yes. "If you can, build it on the top of a hill and save a lot of
> > > > money on landscaping". Some of these HRE types were really stingy.
> Or
> > > > simply practical?
> > > >
> > > Nah - can't have been practical; these were the Dark Ages, after all
> ;-)
> >
> > IIRC, these Ages had been 'Dark' mostly thanks to the practicality:
> >
> Of course they spent money on illumination !
> Sometimes they burned whole towns for a little light ;-)
Usually, this exercise did not cost any money. t least to the person
responsible for illumination.
Ah, as you probably know, BT, especially the offshore part of it, always
was a Land of Miracles and the usual rules hardly ever been applicable
to this misterious spot. :-)
Actually, I think that I found at least one piece of architecture in France,
which more or less fits this evolution pattern. Don't remember it's name
but you can often see it on the screensavers, etc.: it is built on a bridge
over the river. IIRC, the "bridge" (palace) part had been added to the
initial castle, making a whole structure undefensible. This castle/palace
had been presented by Henry II to his lover, Diane de Poitiers.
I suspect that there could be numerous situations like this but probably
none of them made it into a "real" big-scale palace: the old defensive
structures would stay on the way of a future extension.
OTOH, what Hofburg (sp) in Vienna looked like initially? Was it some type
of a defensive structure or a palace from the very beginning? As you
understand, it's rather difficult to tell now.
> > > The fortresses remained; I know of no case of conversion over here.
> >
> > This trend can be traced, for example, in Sa... well, to avoid the
> criticism
> > for inevitable misspelling, in the town, which became famous thanks to
> > 'The sounds of Married with Children' (hopefully, I got this one
> correctly).
>
> Yep; you mean Chicago !
Of course. Are there any other options?
>Easy to spell, see ? ;-)
And to find.... OTOH, why had I flight to it via Zurich? Well, never mind.
>
> > There was a castle on a steep hill (or does it qualify as a
> mountain?),
>
> Of course it does qualify as a mountain. But it's only a hill ;-)
> (See other post)
>
Thanks. Perhaps this hill/mountain thing has something to do with
Imperial Glory (or Gloriette?): even the hills look majestic. :-)
> > which had been a residence of archbishop. The archbishops did a lot to
> > improve the accomodations and managed to create some 'palatial' halls.
> > Still, they built a much bigger residence downhill. Perhaps it was too
> > annoying to drive up/downhill each time you want to visit a
> coffeehouse
> > or a Cathedral. Then (or somewhere in between) one of the archbishops
> built
> > a summer (?) palace with the 'Mirabella Gardens'. The fortress
> remained
> > but the palace inside it was more or less abandoned in a favor of the
> more
> > convenient accomodations.
>
> Mirabell was built for a concubine of an archbishop, AFAIR.
> I'll look it up.
No need. You are right. She born this pious priest some incredible number
of children.
> Ah - found it.
> The bishop was Wolf Dietrich; his mistress was Salome Alt.
> The name of the first palace was Altenau (1606). It wasn't as
> large as the later Mirabell but the gardens were as large as
> today from the beginning.
They are very nice.
> The fortress (and the archbishops quarters within) weren't abandoned
> until
> very late; these were troubled times. Peasant revolts, Salz^WChicago's
> citizens in revolt, some Frogs turning up, usw. ;-)
>
When it came to the froggish period, the castle was not of a big help:
it simply capitulated.
But on the earlier ocassions it served its purpose. It's hard to imagine
how artillery available at these times managed to hit archbishop's quarters
in the castle.
Michael Kuettner
> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
news:<aa_78.48$PK3....@nreader2.kpnqwest.net>...
> > Of course they spent money on illumination !
> > Sometimes they burned whole towns for a little light ;-)
>
> Usually, this exercise did not cost any money. t least to the person
> responsible for illumination.
>
<snip>
> OTOH, what Hofburg (sp) in Vienna looked like initially? Was it some
type
> of a defensive structure or a palace from the very beginning? As you
> understand, it's rather difficult to tell now.
>
(Defensible against some peasants, not a military force.)
<snip>
> >
> > Yep; you mean Chicago !
>
> Of course. Are there any other options?
>
> >Easy to spell, see ? ;-)
>
> And to find.... OTOH, why had I flight to it via Zurich? Well, never
mind.
>
Because your luggage was there ?
> >
> > > There was a castle on a steep hill (or does it qualify as a
> > mountain?),
> >
> > Of course it does qualify as a mountain. But it's only a hill ;-)
> > (See other post)
> >
>
> Thanks. Perhaps this hill/mountain thing has something to do with
> Imperial Glory (or Gloriette?): even the hills look majestic. :-)
>
It's God's Own Glory, man !!!!
They were archbishops ;-)
<snip>
> > The fortress (and the archbishops quarters within) weren't abandoned
> > until
> > very late; these were troubled times. Peasant revolts,
Salz^WChicago's
> > citizens in revolt, some Frogs turning up, usw. ;-)
> >
>
> When it came to the froggish period, the castle was not of a big help:
> it simply capitulated.
Yep; o those of little faith ;-)
> But on the earlier ocassions it served its purpose. It's hard to
imagine
> how artillery available at these times managed to hit archbishop's
quarters
> in the castle.
They weren't able to do so. Before they got into range the
artillery from above had them.
(Because they were man of god, the cannons were loaded with
Leviticus ;-))
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Alex
> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.02020...@posting.google.com...
> > "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
> news:<aa_78.48$PK3....@nreader2.kpnqwest.net>...
> <snip>
> > > Of course they spent money on illumination !
> > > Sometimes they burned whole towns for a little light ;-)
> >
> > Usually, this exercise did not cost any money. t least to the person
> > responsible for illumination.
> >
> Don't you know how expensive matches were in the Dark Ages ? ;-)
> <snip>
They used flints. And charged all expences on the survivors.
> > OTOH, what Hofburg (sp) in Vienna looked like initially? Was it some
> type
> > of a defensive structure or a palace from the very beginning? As you
> > understand, it's rather difficult to tell now.
> >
> Let's call it an easily defensible townhouse.
> (Defensible against some peasants, not a military force.)
>
IIRC, it is within the <nonexisting, courtesy of Nappy> defensive perimeter.
Was this perimeter there at the time the '1st' Hofburg (the core buildings,
which are now surrounded by the more recent ones) had been built? If yes,
there would be no need in the strong defences, except against the Vienna
citizens. :-)
BTW, any idea why was it built close to the walls and not in the city
center? Far from Danube as well.
> <snip>
> > >
> > > Yep; you mean Chicago !
> >
> > Of course. Are there any other options?
> >
> > >Easy to spell, see ? ;-)
> >
> > And to find.... OTOH, why had I flight to it via Zurich? Well, never
> mind.
> >
> Because your luggage was there ?
A good point.
>
> > >
> > > > There was a castle on a steep hill (or does it qualify as a
> > > mountain?),
> > >
> > > Of course it does qualify as a mountain. But it's only a hill ;-)
> > > (See other post)
> > >
> >
> > Thanks. Perhaps this hill/mountain thing has something to do with
> > Imperial Glory (or Gloriette?): even the hills look majestic. :-)
> >
> It's God's Own Glory, man !!!!
> They were archbishops ;-)
A Big Glory, as I suspected. Much greater than the secular one. :-)
>
> <snip>
> > > The fortress (and the archbishops quarters within) weren't abandoned
> > > until
> > > very late; these were troubled times. Peasant revolts,
> Salz^WChicago's
> > > citizens in revolt, some Frogs turning up, usw. ;-)
> > >
> >
> > When it came to the froggish period, the castle was not of a big help:
> > it simply capitulated.
> Yep; o those of little faith ;-)
AFAIK, faith remained undamaged. :-)
>
> > But on the earlier ocassions it served its purpose. It's hard to
> imagine
> > how artillery available at these times managed to hit archbishop's
> quarters
> > in the castle.
> They weren't able to do so. Before they got into range the
> artillery from above had them.
> (Because they were man of god, the cannons were loaded with
> Leviticus ;-))
A very convincing explanation. Unfortunately these insolent rebels managed
to hit the castle. In one of the halls there is a dent made in one of the
columns by a cannonball.
John G Harrison
made it impossible for me to contribute for the last week but the general
discussion has been interesting and germane to my interests even if my
specific needs have not been met.
Regards
Johnnews:ysNyOJAf...@arxana.demon.co.uk...
> In article <a30tn9$jt$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, John G Harrison
> <jo...@aremovebercromby14.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >I am interested in the setting of castles, their relatiionship to
> >surrounding parks, gardens, hunting grounds and other, more or less,
> >ceremonial areas. Is anyone aware of reliable published info on this,
peer
> >reviewed and main stream?
> >
>
> Castles I can't help you on so much, but in the case of (English)
> abbeys there are lots of primary sources showing what was there. Of
> particular importance are account books and private records of
> expenses such as the Journal of Prior More of Worcester which often
> go into detail about what areas of the estate were used for and the
> tasks performed (and paid for) to maintain them from which much
> can be deduced. There are also extant surveys, maps, and of course
> the records made of the administrators of the Court of Augmentations
> which show what the property consisted of at its height.
>
> The cloister and church of a religious house - even a minor one - was
> only the centre of a vast complex. There would have been an outer,
> public, courtyard, and an inner, semi private one, each with walls and
> a substantial gatehouse, plus guesthouses, mills, breweries and a
> variety of other industrial buildings, fishponds, gardens, stables,
> barns and orchards. As well as gardens for produce there were
> extensive ornamental gardens - later in the period the various officials
> and their households often had their own private gardens. A rural
> abbey would also have buildings associated with working the
> demesne and the home farm.
>
> There has been a lot of work on excavating the precinct and industrial
> buildings of monasteries over recent years, but there's lots more still
> do - Fountains still has many unexcavated surrounding buildings, and
> that's one of the best explored sites.
>
> Looking at Fountains would be a good place to start though to
> understand an abbey in relationship to its surrounding complex
> (though the landscaped 18th century grounds are very deceptive as
> to what the valley must have in the monks' heyday). Durham would
> be another good place to look as a great urban foundation that has
> not been too encroached upon. I'd also suggest St Cross Hospital
> near Winchester which avoided the dissolution and probably gives a
> very good feel of what a smaller monastery looked like in the later
> middle ages, it's almost like the clock stopped in 1535.
>
> Hope this helps.
> .