« НазадПродовжити »
ages; and by a drawbridge afterwards.* When the moat was thus crossed, the outer ballium was entered through an embattled gateway, usually flanked by two strong towers. The walls encompassing the ballia were embattled, crenellated, or garratted (each of which terms has the same signification in military architecture) and were provided, on the inner side, with a footway (terre pleine) for defendants, ascended by flights of steps at convenient distances. The walls were, likewise, commonly strengthened by towers, well placed for a command of the intervening lines of rampart..
In such terms may be described the general character of a strong hold, used as a dignified residence. Many varieties are noticed in different volumes of the Beauties of England and Wales, and such as are important, in distinguishing between the modes of different eras, are cited in appropriate sections of this introduction.
The various machines used in the attack and defence of these massy fortresses, are enumerated and described in Grose's Military Antiquities, and in the preface to the same author's Antiquities of England and Wales. The researches of that writer were so peculiarly directed to the ancient military history of Bri. tain, that the following extract, from different parts of his latter work, briefly exhibiting the modes of conducting a siege, before the invention of artillery, must necessarily be considered as a desirable appendage to the above descriptive and explanatory remarks:
“ The method of attack and defence of fortified places, practised by our ancestors before, and even some time after, the invention of gunpowder, was much after the manner of the Romans; 2 A 2
* It appears to be unquestionable that the moats round our oldest castles were crossed by bridges of stone. Such occur in the very ancient ca tle of Noruich ; and may be noticed, among other instances, at Casile Rising, Norfolk, (Beauties for Norfolk, p. 301—2,) a building either of Anglo-Saxon, or early Anglo-Norman original. Drawbridges were a refinement in fortification, which only tardily grew into use,
most of the same machines being made use of, though some of them under different names.
“ They had their engines for throwing stones and darts, of different weights and sizes; the greater answering to our battering cantion and mortars; the smaller to our field-pieces. These were distinguished by the appellations of balista ; catapulta ; espringals; terbuchets; mangonas; mangonels ; bricolles; the petrary; the matafunda ; and the warwolf.
" For approaching the walls, they had their moveable towers, by which the besiegers were not only covered, but their height, commanding the ramparts, enabled them to see the garrison, who were otherwise hid by the parapet. For passing the ditch, they bad the cat/us, and sow, machines answering to the pluteus, and vinea, or testudo and musculus, of the Romans: the ram was sometimes, but not commonly, used.
“ Mines, too, were frequently practised. These were either subterraneous passages into some unfrequented part of the fortress; or else made with an intent, as at present, to throw down the wall. Countermines were also in use; and the engineers of those days were not unacquainted with artificial fireworks.
“ The progressive steps taken in attacking fortified places, and the methods opposed thereto, as anciently practised, were, allowing for the difference of engines, much the same as at present. In sınall towns, or castles, the assailauts threw up ne works; but, having hurdles, or large shields, called pavais, borne before them, advanced to the counterscarp; here, some with arrows, slings, and cross bows, attempted to drive the be. sieged from the ramparts; and others brought fascines to form a passage over the ditch, if wet, and scaling-ladders to mount the walls. The besieged, on their part, attempted lo keep the enemy at a distance, by a superior discharge of their missive weapons ; to burn the fascines brought to fill up the ditch; or to break, or overturn, the scaling-ladders. I larger places, or strong castles, lines of circumvallation and contravallation were constructed; the former to prevent any attack or succour from without;
and the latter to secure them from the sallies of the besieged. In both these, small wooden towers were often erected, at proper distances, called bristegia, or rather tristegia, from their having three floors, or stages.
“ When the garrison of the place was numerous, and a vigorous resistance expected, they often formed a blockade, by euclosing it with lines, strengthened by large forts, and sometimes even a kind of town. Of the first, there is an instance in the reign of Stephen; when that king, being unable to take by force the strong castle of Wallingford, surrounded it with a line,
trengthened by forts, the principal of which he called the castle of Craumer ; he also cut off the passage of the garrison over the Thames, by erecting a strong fort at the head of the bridge. It was, however, held by Brier Fitz Corte, till relieved by Henry the Second, then Duke of Normandy; who, on notice of the danger of this important place, set out from France, encamped before it, and, encompassing these works with a line of circumvallation, to prevent Stephen from succouring them, besieged the besiegers. This brought on the conference and peace between those two princes. The latter is mentioned by Froissart, as practised by King Edward the Third, at the siege of Calais; where, not content with blocking it up by sea, and making lines on the Downs, and at the bridge of Nieulay, he also built a kind of city of timber about the place besieged; where, says that author, there were palaces and houses, laid out in regular streets: it had its markets on Wednesdays and Fridays, merceries, shambles, and cloth-warehouses, and all sorts of necessaries, which were brought from England and Flanders: in fine, every convenience was there to be had for money.
“ It seems doubtful whether any thing like approaches were carried on.
It is more probable, that the besiegers took the opportunity of the night to bring their engines and machines as near the walls as possible: batleries were then formed, and covered with an epaulement. “ The mangonels and petraries began uow to batter the walls, 2 A 3
and the working parties to make the passage into the ditch, carrying hurdles and fascines, which, with their bucklers, served to shield them in their approach. They were supported by a number of archers, covered with large targets, arrow-proof, held by men particularly appointed for that service. These archers, by shooting into the crenelles, and other openings, scoured the parapet, and protected the workmen in their retreat for fresh fascines.
easy descent being formed into the ditch, the cattus, or sow, was pushed forwards, where the men, under cover, filled up and levelled a passage for the moveable tower; which being thrust close to the walls, the archers, on the different stages, kept a constant discharge of darts, arrows, and stones; the miners began to sap the wall, or it was battered with the ram. When the mine was finished, the props were set on fire: during the confusion occasioned by the falling of the part mined, which was commonly a tower, the assault was given, and the breach stormed. If there were more works, these operations were repeated. Where no moveable tower was used, both mines were made, and the ram worked under the cattus and sow.
“ On the other hand, the besieged opposed, for their defence, flights of darts, and large stones, shot from their engines; with
arrows and quarrels from their cross bows; sallies, wherein they s attempted to burn or demolish the machines of their enemies; and
mines under their moveable towers, in order to overthrow them. Upon the cattus and sow they threw monstrous weights, to break, and wildfire to burn thein.
“ Upon the front attacked, they placed sacks, filled with wool, which were loosely suspended from the wall; and, to break the stroke of the rain, besides this, divers other contrivances were invented; such as nippers, worked by a crane, for seizing it; and, sometimes, they let fall upon it a huge beam, fastened with chaius to two strong levers.'
• Presa to Grose's Antiq. of England and Wales.
Such are the most important particolars collected by Mr. Grose, in regard to the modes of attack and defence practised while the ancient fortresses of this island constituted the great strength, and dependance, of its factious barons. The length of time required for such tedious operations on the part of the besiegers, when the services of the military were limited in duration, was a circumstance highly favourable to the defensive party; and, when we remember the massy character of the walls, and the elevated situation of the keep, in inany of the ancient castles, we may readily believe that they were nearly impregnable to open assault, conducted in such methods. In respect to the stronger castles, the contending parties, indeed, appear to have chiefly depended, for a result, on the capability of procuring sustenance. A want of aliment for the garrison, more frequently led to the surrender of a distinguished ancient fortress, than the havoc produced by the engines of its assailants.
ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL ARCHITECTURE OF THE ANGLONORMANS.* -The Anglo-Norman style in ecclesiastical archi2 A 4
The term of Anglo-Norman is presumed, in this “ Introduction,” to be applicable to all buildings erected in the reigns of William the First and Second, Henry the First, Stephen, and Henry the Second; or from the year 1066, to 1189.
In ascribing to the Anglo-Norman style, the above date of prevalence, I bave adopted the plan suggested by "A sketch of a Nomenclature of Ancient Architecture,” presented in the first volume of Mr. Britton's Architectural Antiquities. Much difference of opinion, however, prevails as to the period at which this style of architecture may be said to have ceased, as a fashion. Mr. Bentham (Hist. of Ely Cathedral, p. 34.) seems inclined to restrict it to narrower limits; but “thinks we may venture to say,” that the circular mode "was universally used by the Anglo-Normans to the end of King Henry the First's reign.” Dr. Milner (letter to the editor of Taylor's Gothic Essays, p. 13.) considers the pointed style“ to have properly begun in the reign of our first Plantagenet,” Henry the Second. Mr. Millers, on the contrary