“The castle, and all it
represents, will always be with us. Once it was born, once the stone was made
living, the repository of power made real, the idea could never be unmade.”
Early European Castles: Aristocracy and Authority, AD
800-1200, by Oliver Creighton.
I was made aware of this book
via an email from Paul Rosenberg at Freeman’s
Perspective. What piqued my interest was a map (sourced
from the book), depicting the castles of various kings, lords, and nobles in
Catalonia. If I said that there were 200 such structures in this one
province, I would probably be understating the number.
Why do I find this
interesting? Simply because it paints a picture of the decentralized
governance of Europe. I have written of the law, the relationship of
the kings and the Church, the competing authorities, etc. – all evidence of
this decentralization. But for many people, I suspect, a picture
paints a thousand words.
First, a bit of housekeeping:
the term “castle” does not come with a fixed definition, one equally applicable
in all reaches of Europe throughout all of the Middle Ages. Such
structures were not always military, were not always made from stone, did not
spread from some center in France to the outer regions, and did not always
signify the center of a feudal manor.
Second, castles represented a
fundamental transformation in the lives of the Germanic tribes who built them:
they were no longer wandering; they now put stakes in the ground, so to
speak. Status was marked by the structure, no longer by portable,
personal effects.
Finally, castle building was at
its peak in the most peaceful years of the period – once the threats and
attacks from the Saracens, Vikings, and Magyars were dealt with,
castle-building thrived. If one looks only through a military lens,
this does not see reasonable. But if one considers the required
investment of time and resources, it seems wholly sound – how, and why, would
one invest such time and energy when the land under his feet was not even
secure?
Castles did represent the new
aristocracy, signifying power and authority. With the splintering of
the Carolingian Empire, authority inherently was decentralized – to counts and
viscounts, even further to lower lords.
While defense was one reason
for the castle, social competition was another. Another aspect could
be found in the tower:
The notion of the tower
“nailing the valley” (Thompson 1991:23) encapsulates the important figurative
roles of these structures. A tower was an unmistakable presence – an
elevated and iconic architectural feature that forcefully stamped the seigneurial
mark on the locality.
The tower said “I am in charge
around here.” The tower was expensive and omnipresent, yet
inaccessible – permanent visual reminders of status and lordship.
Consistently found were
agricultural instruments – a testimony to the humdrum of life. The
bones of a pig signified wealth, yet venison was considered and even higher
form. Weaponry was found, the use being both for hunting but also
defense; yet the presence of specifically military artifacts – armour, for example
– was limited.
Conclusion
I guess I would put the map of
Catalonia here again. When combined with an understanding of the
law, the role of the Church, and generally accepted traditions, clearly nothing
that can be called a “state” can be derived from this picture.
Epilogue
Completely unrelated to the
main purpose of this piece, but I found the following from the author quite
interesting (emphasis added):
This book has stressed from the
beginning that international research agendas are essential for the long-term
health of the subject – this is the most appropriate scale of enquiry for
understanding a Europeanised aristocratic culture, while it is only thought
trans-national research that the distinctiveness of individual regions comes
into focus. We must make sure that post-modernism does not
dissolve away entirely the grand narrative tradition in archeology.
