Lets carry on here where we left off.

 

Here's a close-up of the entrance and portcullis.

ok...I'll ask again.... How do you put the castle in the middle of a moat so it looks like the thing is in the water without flooding and other water problems that would ruin the structure?

Sorry Laureen, I WAS getting round to it - maybe

 

The idea is to find a natural lake that does NOT have a river feeding it. Plenty of these around - even some with natural islands in the middle. There will certainly be times when the waters rise, but if properly built, as Bodiam and Leeds castles are, there should not be a problem with flooding. Most man-made moats were built with "overflow" channels, just as you might have an overflow pipe in your cistern.

 

I can't speak for Bodiam, but with Leeds Castle (which is about 8 miles from where I live), it is built in a valley which DOES sometimes flood. The castle is built sufficiently high enough on the islands for this not to be a problem, except in extreme cases.

 

With the global warming, the lack of water is becoming the greater problem. With the lake having less water than normal, the ground dries out, cracks, and results in subsidence. Fortunately the castle has a good foundation, but over the years, I suspect the problem will become more severe.

 

You are unlikely to find many castles build in river-fed lakes. The majority of moats were man-made, not just for defence, but also as a source of food (fish).

 

IF flooding were found to be a major problem, the usual solution was to "up sticks" and rebuild elsewhere nearby, as in Montgomery, central Wales. At this location, the first castle, now known as Hen Domen, was built on a man-made motte, just a few metres from the normal ground level. Later, a replacement was built on the nearby natural hill, the now Montgomery Castle - and that is some walk up too.

 

I can't think that ANY structure could last too long submerged in water - years, that is. Even rock would eventually erode, but not for some time. Castle builders tended to choose their sites very carefully - not so with man nowadays, who, particularly in England, is choosing to build many houses on floodplains, then wonder why the area gets flooded during heavy rains.

 

Bodiam will last a lot longer than the average house. Repairs will always be necessary, but it's not as bad as you might think.

 

Andrew

no prob...I just didn't want it to get overlooked....I know from my own experience that it is easy to miss posts...especially if a few people post in the forum all in the same day....

 

 

Thank you very much for that answer....now I get it. I didn't think I was all that stupid...you just confirmed what I thought the answer was.

Iwas making reference to the fact that its not built, so... WHERES THE BEEF??

What? is there some aauthoritty that determines what classifies as being a castle?

 

Yes several organizations and other factors....the beef is out doors in the pasture..I hope!....and I made reference that to some authority's Bodiam is not a castle where at it is to others, it's a point of view or contention.

It's still a castle to me no matter what and one of the better layed out ones too.

IS TO!!!

 

But I see your point.

Glad Ive seen this data. his has been helpful.

Andrew, thats the best shot Ive seen of Bodiams portculis so far. Thanks.

You must have undestood what i meant when i said the stonework surrounding it, judging from the centering of tthe pic. thanks.

What would you call it if not a castle? A Big Stone House? Was it all for decor and not for defense? I'm just curious as to what the experts think...

The "age-old" question of the definition of a castle !

 

There are many different schools of thought on this, but personally I define a castle in Britain as a structure used not only for fortification and defence, but also for domestic purposes, in use between 1000 and 1700 AD. If such a structure existed in these times and has been modernised or altered, I still classify it as a castle, and the same applies to older sites that were subsequently built upon during the above period.

 

There are many fortifications that were solely built for defence, and while called castles, I believe should be classified separately. It does not mean that they are not of interest though.

 

Under this definition, Bodiam is a castle.(sorry Duncan) It's origins date back to the 1370s, when England was suffering attacks from the French. Sir Edward Dalyngrigge was granted a licence to crenellate Bodiam on 20th October 1385.

 

He was given permission by Richard II "to strengthen and crenellate his manor house of Bodyham near the sea in the County of Sussex with a wall of stone and lime, and to construct and make thereof a castle in defence of the adjacent countryside and for resistance against our enemies".

 

The castle was completed in 1388. It was involved in "active duty" in 1483, when it surrendered to the Yorkists, albeit without a fight. In 1644 the castle is was taken by Parliamentary forces and partially dismantled or "slighted".

I wonder if I can get permission to strengthen and crenellate my house...

 

Andrew, does the size of the structure have anything to do with it qualifying as a castle? I ask because some castles look to be the size of a city while others seem the size of manors or mansions...not incorporating an entire village.

Permission to crenellate ones castle was received by Royal decree, and was only given if it were considered that the castle would be used for the benefit of the defence of the land.

 

Of course, there were some who went ahead anyway, without permission. Things haven't changed much in all this time, as in England people still build structures without obtaining the necessary planning applications. Local government red tape !!!!!

 

As for the size of a castle, this depended on what the owner could afford. Most of the really large castles beonged to the Crown. Small castles, such as the fortified houses and towers in Scotland or on the England/Scotland border are just as much castles. They served the same purpose, but the owner had limited resources, or found it easier to defend a single tower with the few men on hand, rather than a larger village-sized castle. Of course, most of the very large castles still had the central Keep to which they could eventually fall back to and defend should the outer defences of the castle be breached.

 

I love these small towers on the Borders. I took a trip a six years ago and visited 96 sites in a week. Not all the owners were happy to let me take photos, and on a number of occasions I had to resort to underhand tactics (considered trespassing - but there is no trespass law in Scotland). On one occasion I was caught, and the owner sent his estate manager, complete with 4X4 and gun, to see my Dad and myself off his land. Never did get a photo. After that any underhand tactics I did myself.

 

4 years ago I did a similar trip to the English / Welsh borders, but only managed 66 castles that week.

 

On both occasions, and with other trips to private castles, my tactic has been to walk boldly up to the front gate / door, and ask permission to photo the castle. I would discreetly take a photo on my way up, just in case they refused, so at least I would have one picture - hopefully. If there was no-one in, I would take a few photos and leave quickly.

 

This is not recommended, and had I been caught, particularly in England or Wales, I could have been prosecuted. However, I'm still a free man. The number of times I've furtively crossed muddy fields or rolled under electric fences just to get my photo. My wife despairs sometimes ::no-no.gif .

 

Anyway, I have digressed from the point (which I always manage to do). As for you obtaining permission to crenellate your castle, I'm not familiar with the US planning laws, which I suspect differ from state to state anyway.

Andrew