The European Middle Ages were marked by innumerable conflicts. Confrontations whose nature was changing and modifying throughout the thousand years that covers that time. Anyone who thinks of the Middle Ages and violence will immediately think of the castles. However, within that period, there was a time when those constructions became owners of the space almost hegemonically. That time that starts around the year one thousand and extends several centuries. Here we are going to deal with the XI, XII and XIII, that is, that time that has come to be called the High Middle Ages. Throughout these centuries, the castles will change, as well as their functions and morphology, all of which will be discussed below.
Functions
During the High Middle Ages, Western Europe saw how its landscapes were populated by castles, fortresses, citadels… that is, by strongholds. This phenomenon occurred in those areas where the Christian kingdoms settled. But also in the spaces towards which they expanded: the south of the Iberian Peninsula, the east of Germany and the Holy Land. Thus, it is clear that something impelled those people to design and build fortified places. The reasons for its existence are more complex than, a priori, might be believed. The reasons to which those constructions respond are intimately linked with the functions they performed, which were not few.
defensive functions
The most obvious function of all is defensive; this was one of the main ones, but not the only one fulfilled by the castles. This defensive role made sense both on the borders of Christianity and in those areas that formed the heart of it.like France. And it is that, despite the attempts of the Church to control violence, this will be a daily reality in practically all of the Christian West. Based on these dangers, the strongholds (mostly castles) provided security. A) Yes, a common pattern of behavior when an enemy was detected approaching was to take refuge in the castle (Garcia Fitz 1998: 181). The people, the few objects that had value and, above all, the cattle. Once safe, there was nothing left but to wait for the enemy troops to withdraw.
It is true that the attacking contingent could start a siege, but this did not always happen. The cause lies in two aspects: on the one hand, the clear superiority of the defensive elements compared to the offensive tactics put in place by the attackers; on the other: the resources needed to launch an assault on the walls or an encirclement. In fact, specialists such as Lawrence Marvin have calculated that the number of attackers needed to reduce a fortress was four or five attackers for each defender (Marvin 2019: 52). Expeditions were often designed to punish enemy territory rather than conquer it.
The moment of the siege arrived, a castle should be well equipped to meet such a challenge. Sufficient food, weapons and a sufficient number of men had to be accumulated in them to pose an effective defense. If all that came together, a fortress could be very difficult to seize (Garcia Fitz 1998: 177-178). Aware of this, the Crusaders in the Holy Land tried to keep their castles well equipped. As new fortresses were erected, large spaces were allocated for granaries and cisterns. In this way, it was sought that the supplies of water and food were sufficient to withstand a long siege. This would last until the arrival of allied reinforcements or until the enemy contingent lifted the siege due to their inability to take the place (DeVries and Smith 2012: 548).
A matter of great interest is the “defensive systems”. This designates a set of fortresses erected on a nearby territory connected in order to achieve a specific objective. However, authors such as García Fitz affirm that one cannot speak of defensive systems oriented towards a common defense of the territory. This is because no interconnections related to this issue are detected; in this way: “it seems to refer more to the establishment of a logistical and organizational system, capable of guaranteeing financing, supply… than to the existence of an authentic operational articulation of defense” (García Fitz 1998: 191). However, there are other authors who defend the opposite, explicitly in the case of the Baltic and implicitly in what refers to the Holy Land (Turnbull 2003: 23; DeVries and Smith 2012: 548).
In any case, both in the Holy Land and in the Baltic or the Iberian Peninsula, the construction of fortified border posts was a constant. For example, for the Latin East: “Castles were built along all major routes and in every major mountain pass, along the deserts, the mountains, the rivers, the lakes, and the sea” (DeVries and Smith 2012: 548). There, once the main Latin domains were established, they tried to defend the three main borders: with Damascus, with Egypt and the coastline.
In the case of the Baltic, Prussia and Livonia were populating themselves with castles so that between them there was not even a day’s march. This was intended to prevent possible sieges from succeeding, while each fortress could receive reinforcements urgently. However, the pagans could continue to enter those territories, as in fact they did. But if the siege of the castles was unsuccessful, they could not conquer them, so they could not maintain control of the territory either. Thus, no matter how far they went into the Order’s domain, their results would be meager.
Nevertheless, The problem with talking about fortresses in border places is that it is possible to misunderstand what a border meant in these contexts and what role it played. The truth is that the border as it is understood today has little to do with the form that a border adopted in medieval times. They were much more permeable then than now, they were not closed borders, and therefore they did not impede the transit of people and goods, so they did not prevent enemy incursions much less (García Fitz 1998: 193).
The borders could not prevent small incursions due to the speed with which they moved. A party of a few dozen men was difficult to intercept. By the time the defender went looking for him, the attackers could be back in his territory, out of range of his pursuers. In the event that the incursion was greater, the border castles could not do anything either, since they did not have enough power to stop it (García Fitz 1998: 195). In this way, some specialists have pointed out that: “If we take the word ‘control’ in this sense, the castle could not do so beyond where its crossbows reached” (Rojas Gabriel in García Fitz 1998: 195).
By virtue of this, It might seem that the border strongholds are of little importance, but this is not the case.. Although they could not control that the enemy parties entered their territory, they deeply conditioned their way of acting. In this way, these groups could only pillage what the inhabitants had left behind, they could not gain control of the territory unless they planned a siege campaign. But those campaigns were big words, speaking colloquially.
Also, Although the fortresses could not offer an individual response, it does not mean that they could not make the presence of the enemy uncomfortable.either through attacks on their supply train, hindering their lines of advance, or directly joining each other to give a joint response through the surname (name to designate a defensive operation). But beyond that, the defensive character of the fortresses is undeniable insofar as the conquest of a territory was exercised from the overthrow of a good part of those structures. So, to maintain them, was to maintain the dominion of space. Thus, the conquest and annexation of territories required time, and time, resources, and in the Middle Ages there was no unlimited credit for the former, much less for the latter.
Even when large operations were organized to dominate the territory and the enemy’s castles and fortresses were overthrown, the space would not be totally dominated until the aggressor took control of that area that supplied men and supplies around him, that is, the cities. For example, this can be seen in the case of Toledothe Almoravids took practically all the castles in their surroundings between 1095 and 1119 with frequent campaigns, practically annual, but they did not manage to take control of Toledo, for which reason all the positions they had taken were subject to the fact that from this central point a counteroffensive (Garcia Fitz 1998: 199).
offensive functions
But at the same time, and not secondarily, fortresses served as bridgeheads from which to launch offensives into enemy territory or consolidate conquests. So the castle had a double offensive function.
There are numerous examples in which a castle appears as a bridgehead. This can be perfectly verified in the Iberian Peninsula or in the Baltic scenario. One of the best peninsular examples is that of the castle of Aledo, located more than a hundred kilometers behind the Muslim lines, it was a constant nuisance for the Muslims in the area. From that fortress, the Christians carried out horseback rides throughout the area, harassing the surrounding populations and supplying themselves with what they collected. However, this is an extreme example, since it is common for Christian fortresses to be found in Christian territory and vice versa. In the case of the Baltic scenario, the Christian Crusaders used the castles, generally dominated by the Teutonic Order, to launch offensives on the Lithuanian positions.
Regarding the second of the offensive functions, that is, the one related to the consolidation the conqueststhe best example that can be offered is that of the Norman invasion of England by William the Conqueror. After Hastings’s victory, his power spread throughout the kingdom. However, he was not guaranteed effective control so he devoted his efforts to building a whole network of strongholds (DeVries and Smith 2012: 507). As a result, more than half a thousand motes were built, although some consider that this number could be even higher.
This attitude shows that Guillermo did not trust the loyalty of that land he had conquered, and in order to secure it, he wove a whole network of strong points that would help him in case of problems, as in fact happened, since the north of the kingdom was rose on several occasions. This same strategy will be followed by the Teutonic Order after conquering Prussia. In this way, you can see such as castles or strongholds, they were fundamental in defense, but they also maintained…