Medieval facts

[gb2098]

can actually answer some of the OP's questions but currently at work so only going to tackle one.

- were medieval castles bare stone?

generally no. while surviving sources are a little vague on the issue (since most people never bothered to mention things in common practice) and there are few surviving examples that didn't get screwed up by later generations deciding they liked some other aesthetic look and renovated or just abandoned and left to weather, all indications are that medieval castles generally had rather thick coatings of limewash applied to them, partly as a protective feature (reduce weathering, etc) and partly because a (relatively) clean smooth surface was seen as aesthetically appealing at the time. the main colors tended to be white (usually more of a very pale light grey or offwhite) or even a light yellow, depending on the source of the lime and chalk used for the limewash. (there is also evidence that with some castles in the later medieval periods, the owners imported specific varieties of limestone and chalk to get specific colors.) the limewash could also be colored using additives like ochre, and it appears some castles used such colored limewash to decorate parts of the castle for aesthetic effect. the limewash also helped protect the exposed wooden parts of the castle from water and fire, as well as disguise the fact that some bits of the interior were made of wood rather than stone. (it also helped hide damage from sieges and such.. including areas where the walls might be weak due to old damage or shoddy repair)
sadly the Victorian age got around to deciding that bare stone and exposed wood was the more appealing look, and scrubbed off all the limewash from the surviving castles to get that effect. (they also tended to tear down large parts of castles to build all new versions with less defensive minded styles)
there has been some push to re-limewash surviving castles to their original looks, particularly those being used as historical tourist spots, but there has been a lot of people who don't like that idea.
for example:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/...great_hall_illustrates_the_complexity_of.html
Stirling castle.. on the right a hall restored to its original limewashed state (circa records from the 1600's), on the left the bare stone the victorians rendered it into. (which probably wasn't originally quite so dirty)

of course, for most castles it is likely that they only limewashed every couple of years (that would get expensive if the castle wasn't near a ready supply of the materials.. and it would be very manpower intensive to scrape the outer layers off and reapply it) , and would get patchy and stained from the weather (and sieges, if they happen). though any castle the king is in or will be visiting would certainly get a nice fresh coat frequently.




the TL/DR version: medieval castles tended to look rather more like the "fantasy land" versions seen in kids toys and theme parks, with smooth whitish walls and decorative color trim, but later generations disliked that look and turned them into grim edifices of bare stone.

 

[Aginor]

Just to make sure we are on the same page:
Those are not really questions I have, just examples for questions that we can discuss here.

But I like to talk about castles, so thanks for the post!

Castles indeed weren't bare stone in most cases.
People just often think they were because that's how their ruins look now.
There was a lot of wood involved, especially on the inside. Castles could be quite cozy!

 

[Canas]

There's a nice video about wooden castles by shadiversity. The gist of it being that they were far more common than one would think cuz of a couple of reason. First off, wood is a hell of a lot cheaper, Secondly, since castles were generally coated with lime, or something similar, noone could really tell the difference from the outside anyway. And for lesser mobility, or less important strongholds, it'd be more than strong enough to be used as a defensive work anyway. Unfortunatly far less of them would survive seeing as wood tends to rot, and people tended to tear them down and/or renovate every so often.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

There's a nice video about wooden castles by shadiversity. The gist of it being that they were far more common than one would think cuz of a couple of reason. First off, wood is a hell of a lot cheaper, Secondly, since castles were generally coated with lime, or something similar, noone could really tell the difference from the outside anyway. And for lesser mobility, or less important strongholds, it'd be more than strong enough to be used as a defensive work anyway. Unfortunatly far less of them would survive seeing as wood tends to rot, and people tended to tear them down and/or renovate every so often.

Certainly wooden motte-and-bailey castles were the first castles built by the Normans here in England, and they certainly built a lot of them in the years after the conquest to stamp the mark of their authority on English territory because they were far quicker, cheaper and easier to construct. It was only a couple of hundred years later when the owners of many of these castles paid for stone walls to be built in the place of the wooden ones, as stone walls needed much less regular maintenance and would provide stronger and more permanent defences.

 

[Canas]

An important note in his video is also that it weren't just wooden motte and bailey castles. Wooden castles kept being build even later in time. Especially by more minor lords. After all if all you ever had to keep out was the occasional peasant revolt a wooden castle with lime coating would be more than enough to stop em and ultimatly it was a lot cheaper.

 

[gb2098]

yep. plus even in the age of stone castles it wasn't uncommon for many of the inner buildings, even parts of the keep, to be built using (much weaker) brick or even the half timber and daub construction to save costs. plaster and limewash would help hide such cost cutting measures by making it indistinguishable from the stone parts.

 

[LizardWizard]

 

[LizardWizard]

 

[LizardWizard]

 

[LizardWizard]

 

[LizardWizard]

 

[LizardWizard]

 

[LizardWizard]

 

[The Red Devil]

Also, swords (especially those kept by general soldiery) were not kept particularly sharp, as they would be dulled again anyway being battered against chainmail for and hour or two, but were more used as a weighted club with a rather thin point of contact, which could still slash through lighter armours and, of course, flesh.

You kind of contradict yourself here, as if its dull it cant slash through flesh

But no, weapons were kept sharp and they were able to make good enough steel so that the swords/axes could handle a beating without ruining the edge.

Swords were mostly for poking until the middle ages.

If that was true, why would someone even bring a sword when you would be at a significant disadvantage if the opponent had a spear or axe?

It might have to do with the raw fact that one sword contains enough metal for three or four spear tips. For the same investment of resources: arm one guy with a sword? —or— arm four guys with spears?

This is true, a sword required an experienced blacksmith, a significant investment of time for the blacksmith and a lot more metal than for example axes or spear tips. With other words, only the most wealthy in the earlier periods would own a sword.

There is also significant evidence that Scandinavian peoples were trading with Turks near the Caspian sea.

Yes, that is proven by several things, including the steel combination used in some of the swords found, which according to archeologist come from the area that today is Iran. Though most probably that was traded by Sweedish Vikings, as it was they that most commonly went into the rivers through Russia.

 

[LizardWizard]

If that was true, why would someone even bring a sword when you would be at a significant disadvantage if the opponent had a spear or axe?

They were the second arm. Spears were the dominate weapon from most of history as far as we know.

Sickles were the dominate bronze age weapon for slashing. The Persians, Egyptians, Akkadians, ect frequently used sickles as their secondary weapons.The xiphos and gladius were predominately used for stabbing though. In the later Iron Age and Medieval Age swords began to become much more flexible while still maintaining their original forum and thus swords designed for slashing become much more prominent. You really need steel to make a slashing sword. There are some examples from China where straight swords using bronze form the Han region could hold forum and edge while still being adequately flexible though.

 

[Aginor]

Pretty much what @LizardWizard said.
Throughout history in most cases swords were sidearms, not the main weapon.

And yes, even bronze swords were sharp.
It is however true that bronze swords were mainly short, and mainly thrusting weapons, but not all of them. An Egyptian khopesh for example is a cutting weapon, and those were made of bronze.

As for the price of swords:
It depends not only on the period of time, but also on the area. Swords were not expensive in the Roman Empire for example. They were mass produced and there were lots of them.
In earlier ages we don't know. Bronze swords could be cast and only a relatively (compared to steel weapons) low amount of work was required to get them into fighting shape.
Of course you still have the amount of material, so a spear is the more sensible choice.

Meanwhile it seems that Vikings didn't have a lot of swords, and it seems that swords were indeed quite expensive.

In later periods they became cheaper again.
There are medieval sources (from the 15th century) that talk about common prices, and an "old sword" (probably rusty and 50+ years old) could be bought for a day's pay of a common soldier. For a week's pay you could get a decent one.

In the earlier medieval period swords were more expensive.

Here is Matt Easton talking about that topic:

 

[The Red Devil]

You really need steel to make a slashing sword.

Yea, when I think "sword", I was thinking from 600-700AD, so my bad. I should have clarified what age I was thinking from.

They were the second arm. Spears were the dominate weapon from most of history as far as we know.

Yes, when looking at Vikings for example, even if they owned a sword, they also carried at least one spear and an axe in addition to the shield.

It depends not only on the period of time, but also on the area. Swords were not expensive in the Roman Empire for example. They were mass produced and there were lots of them.

True, for any period of time where civilization had an organized army structure they would produce the weapons needed. Though I am not sure the equipment was cheap for that time period standard, i.e. looking at if a peasant could afford it.

 

[Canas]

True, for any period of time where civilization had an organized army structure they would produce the weapons needed. Though I am not sure the equipment was cheap for that time period standard, i.e. looking at if a peasant could afford it.

The moment an empire has a standing organised professional army pretty much everyone would really be able to afford the basic equipment (although buying the entire set of gear in one go might require a loan). Bear in mind that even in these cases soldiers often still had to pay for their own equipment, if the army provided it it just meant they'd deduct the cost from your pay.

On top of that it'd also mean there'd simply be a lot more swords and such around and they'd be far easier to make. If a blacksmith can mass produce them he'l be far more willing to sell a sword on the cheap to a peasant. After all he can just make the one sword together with the batch order for the army.

 

[gb2098]

especially if said cheap sword was one the army rejected due to not meeting quality control. especially since the iron and steel in swords would not be all that easy to re-purpose prior to the development of effective ways to fully melt steel, and unless the sword was seriously badly made, probably not worth the effort. but if it was just off balance or didn't have quite the right shape, it could still be used, just not as well.

though it's worth noting that "mass production" back then was mostly a case of "hiring lots of smiths to produce one type of item all day", something that only kings and similar could afford. our modern ideas of mass production, involving assembly lines, mechanization, etc just aren't really applicable to pre-modern blacksmithing. (especially before the advent of crucible steel)

that said, most armies relied on various types of spears and knives for the bulk of their troops, since making a spearpoint is much less involved than making a sword, and used a lot less iron (not to mention less high quality iron) so a smith could produce a lot more spearpoints then sword. similarly knives, even long or large knives, use less iron than a sword, and don't require quite as much work and somewhat lesser skill, so it would be easier to produce those in larger numbers.)

 

[Canas]

though it's worth noting that "mass production" back then was mostly a case of "hiring lots of smiths to produce one type of item all day", something that only kings and similar could afford. our modern ideas of mass production, involving assembly lines, mechanization, etc just aren't really applicable to pre-modern blacksmithing. (especially before the advent of crucible steel)

You don't need a proper assembly line to achieve better production than just throwing as many blacksmiths as you can at the problem. Merely dividing the work up in a halfway sensible manner would already get you a loads of progress. Have one forge the blades, one forges handles, one combines the two, etc. Plus, when you have a centralized forge you also have a bunch of apprentices around who can do the tedious stuff for you. And lastly there's the benefits that come with scaling (e.g. buy cheaper in bulk). You'd be amazed at the productivity you could reach with pre-mechanized methods.