The years between 1066 and 1100 saw the rise of the Anglo-Norman castle,

with the numbers of castles increasing dramatically, before declining after 1100. 1 It
may be no coincidence that these were the years of the Norman Conquest and
settlement. But what role did castles play in these events? Recent historical opinion
has cast doubt on the military role of castles, arguing instead for their symbolic
roles. Yet, as we shall see, the castles of the conquest were able to fulfill both martial
and symbolic roles. Moreover, once we move beyond the limitations of these labels,
castles proved to be invaluable to the Norman Conquest, contributing to the
relations, integrations and interdependencies of post conquest social landscapes,
while also contributing to the power dynamics between the conquerors and the
conquered.

There are two fundamental problems facing an inquiry into the role of castles
in the Norman Conquest of England. The first is the lack of available sources. As
Robert Higham demonstrates in a study of timber castles, the majority of conquest
castles were made of wood, and thus they have perished or been replaced by later
stone buildings.2 Elizabeth Popescu’s study on Castle Mall reveals the difficulties in
retrieving evidence of the wooden castles, as this often requires a long time and the
destruction of a motte or castle site.3 Consequently, most studies on castles have
relied on evidence above the surface, using later stone structures to form their
views. Yet, despite the lack of primary evidence, it is possible to gain new insights
into the castles of the conquest by studying the contemporary written sources. The
written sources reveal not only how castles were used, and when, they can also
reveal more complex patterns of contemporary perceptions and reactions – as both
Leonie V. Hicks and Elisabeth van Houts have shown in their respective studies on

1
R. Eales, ‘Royal Power and Castles in Norman England’, in Anglo-Norman Castles, ed. R. Liddiard
(Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2003) p. 51.
2
R. Higham, ‘Timber Castles: A Reassessment’, in Anglo-Norman Castles, ed. R. Liddiard (Woodbridge,
Suffolk, 2003) pp. 105-118.
3
E.S. Popescu, ‘Norwich Castle: Excavations & Historical Survey 1987-98’, East Anglian Archaeology,
132 (2009).
the Norman and English imagination.4

The second problem has to do with recent historical opinion, as Anglo

Norman castles have been subject to serious reconsideration. Previous to their
reassessment, castles were understood to be ‘defensive’ residences: their thick walls
securing those within, while crenellations and arrow slits allowed for an onslaught
onto any invading enemy.5 However, the military functions of castles have been
questioned by the likes of Charles Coulson, Oliver Creighton and Robert Liddiard. 6
These historians argue that the thick stone walls and crenellations were not used for
military purposes, but were motivated by exhibitionism, as lords attempted to
display their authority in material form. Thus, the debate has become a dichotomy,
with those arguing for military functionalism on the one side, and those focused on
lordly symbolism on the other.7 Both sides, however, have largely based their
evidence on castles built after 1100. In light of this, it would be imprudent to apply
either argument to the castles of the conquest period, without first examining each.
Moreover, it will prove constructive to move beyond the boundaries set by the
historiographical debate, as castles contributed in various other complex ways to
the Norman Conquest of England.

First, Norman castles did play an important role in the military conquest of
England. Many recent studies have ignored the military aspects of castles, or have
argued against their martial functions. For instance, Coulson has proposed that ‘it is

4
L. V. Hicks, ‘Magnificent entrances and undignified exits: chronicling the symbolism of castle space
in Normandy’, Journal of Medieval History, 35 (2009); E. van Houts, Memory and Gender in Medieval
Europe 900-1200 (London, 1999).
5
J. H. Beeler, ‘Castles and Strategy in Norman and Early Angevin England’, Speculum, 31 (1956), p.
586.
6
C. Coulson, ‘Cultural realities and reappraisals in English castle-study’, Journal of Medieval History,
22 (1996) p. 181; O. H. Creighton and R. Liddiard, ‘Fighting Yesterday’s Battle: Beyond War or Status
in Castle Studies’, Medieval Archaeology, 52 (2008) pp. 161-169.
7
C. Platt, ‘Revisionism in Castle Studies: A Caution’, Medieval Archaeology, 51 (2007) pp. 83-102.
occasions of [castles built for] defensive precaution which require proof.’ 8 The proof
is in the written record. In a brief survey of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle (ASC),
between the dates of 1066 and 1100, castles are mentioned in nineteen out of
thirty-five years.9 In fourteen of these entries, castles are directly associated with
military tactics.10 The association of castles with military strategy is also evidenced
by numbers, as conquest castles were most frequently and rapidly built in times or
places of unrest. For instance, William I built over forty castles in response to the
revolts of 1067-68.11 Similarly, large clusters of castles appeared on the much-
disputed borders of England.12 In fact, the number of castles built or fortified
seemingly corresponds with the dates of military conquest and later settlement.
Richard Eales argues that over five hundred castles were built in the first decade of
conquest, after which, castle numbers gradually increased until circa 1100, when
they became disused and figures dropped dramatically. 13 Evidently, castles were of
great importance to the events of the conquest.

Yet, it is still unclear as to why castles played such a significant role in the
conquest, and here it is essential to question previous assumptions about the
military role of castles. Historians have often thought of castles as a foolproof
military tool, a kind of security system set up by the Normans against the Anglo
Saxons. This idea is seemingly ‘obvious’ and ‘natural,’ and historians from Beeler to
Colin Platt to E.B. d’Auvergne have suggested that castles secured the conquest in
the way a stamp seals a letter.14 However, even a brief survey of the chronicles sheds
doubt on these presumptions. Both the ASC and Orderic record the

8
Coulson, ‘Cultural Realities’, p. 176.
9
ASC, s.a. 1066-1100, in English Historical Documents 1042-1189, ed. D. C. Douglas (London, 1953),
pp. 142-167.
10
Ibid.
11
Creighton, ‘Castles’, p. 15.
12
Higham, ‘Timber Castles’, p. 113.
13
Eales, ‘Royal Power’, p. 51.
14
Beeler, ‘Castles and Strategy’, p. 585.; Platt, ‘Revisionism’, p. 84.; E.B. d’Auvergne, cited in Coulson,
‘Cultural realities’, p. 172.
innumerable agitations and disturbances caused by castles, relating how the
castellans Bishop Odo and William FitzOsbern used their fortresses to distress the
local population.15 These disturbances, and the act of castle building itself, often
prompted further unrest, as the local population ‘seethed’ and attempted all number
of sieges against their local fortress.16 Furthermore, castles became a liability when
placed in the wrong hands. There were many instances where a Norman castellan
would rebel against the king, causing even more strife, the principle examples being
the rebellions of 1075 and 1088. In these instances, the rebel castellans fortified
their castles against the king, and used them as a base for the ravaging of the
surrounding lands.17 Similarly, if an enemy force were to take a castle, it would
provide a ready-made powerhouse. Therefore, we must question the notion of a
straightforward defensive campaign, as castles did not always provide greater
security.

One reason why castles were so significant, and thus abundant, during the
Norman conquest of England, was their useful role in the taking and keeping of
lands. Contemporary writings saw castles as an emblem of land ownership: to build
a castle was, in effect, to claim the surrounding landscape. This is apparent in a 1071
writ by William I, who, in giving lands to the church of St Olaf, commands them ‘to
be free of works of castles… as if it were my own demesne.’ 18 Sure enough, in a study
on castle siting in the midlands, Andrew G. Lowerre finds the lands owned by the
church or the king to be free of private castles.19 Furthermore, those areas which
were most contested were also the ones where castellans chose to build their

15
ASC, s.a. 1066, in Douglas, English Historical Documents, p. 146; Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History,
p. 211.
16
Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History, p. 211.
17
Ibid., pg. 311.
18
Douglas, English Historical Documents, p. 431.
19
A. G. Lowerre, ‘Why here and not there? The location of early Norman Castles in the south-eastern
midlands’, Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 29 (2007) p. 139.
castles, as if they were rivaling one another’s claims in architectural form. 20 As an
emblem of land ownership, castles would have played a crucial part in the Norman
conquest of English land. It is notable, here, that The Conqueror acted quickly to
fortify those areas considered as English capitals, claiming them through the
building of royal castles.21 Moreover, castles contributed to the keeping of lands
once they were claimed. Castellans could use their castles as a base for ravaging and
plundering, thus asserting their dominance over the local population. 22 In more
peaceful times, a castle allowed a castellan direct control over his demesne, and
Lowerre has found that castles were often sited in the ninetieth percentile of their
surrounding population, ploughshares, resources, and even visibility. 23 Thus, a well-
sited castle was both an emblem of land ownership, and a locus for wider control. In
fact, the castles of the historical record seemingly fit to a pattern of claim and
control. For example, Popescu has noted that many of the earliest castles were
hurried constructions in wood, which were later extended and rebuilt. 24 It is
possible, therefore, that conquest castles were first used as a means of claiming a
parcel of land, and were then developed to meet the needs of controlling that land.
Finally, to drive the point home, a castle’s power could be neutralised by a siege,
which effectively cut a castle off from its lands and resources, making it into an
island. William I used this technique when dealing with rebel lords, and even went
so far as to build a rival castle beside Bamborough, neutralising the capacities of the
rebel Earl Robert Mowbray.25

In addition to their military roles in the taking and keeping of land, conquest
castles were also used for the promotion of aristocratic and kingly power. Historians

20
Ibid., p. 131.
21
Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History, pp. 181-182, 213.
22
Ibid., pp. 211, 123.
23
Lowerre, ‘Why here’, pp. 127-133.
24
Popescu, ‘Norwich Castle’, chpt. 5.
25
ASC, s.a. 1095, in Douglas, English Historical Documents, p. 172.
such as Coulson and Liddiard argue that castles of a later date were often used as
status symbols.26 In this regard, the castles of conquest were no exception, as
evidenced by the written records. For instance, between the dates of 1066 and 1100,
the ASC mentions castle courts eight times.27 These particular entries refer to the
wearing of the crown by the king, which happened three times a year after 1086,
and which involved a conspicuous display of kingly power in the setting of various
castle courts. William I was well aware of the association between castles and
kingship, even as early as 1066 when he called for a fortification to be built in
London, ‘for the coming of the royal splendor.’ 28 Similarly, at Christmas in 1067,
William held a very public court in London, offering the kiss of peace while smiling
on all the audience.29 And, when troubles began brewing away north, he reacted
with a combination of castle building and harrying, thus creating visible reminders
of his own authority.30 These episodes place doubt upon the recent criticisms of
castles, which, like Huizinga’s vision of chivalry, tend to describe them as ‘fraudulent
pieces of display.’31 Conquest castles were meaningful, not fraudulent. At a time
when William and his Earls would have needed to visibly assert their authority over
the conquered, castles proved a useful tool. Moreover, conquest castles have proved
the dichotomous labels of ‘military’ and ‘symbolic’ to be obsolete, as they fulfilled
both roles: being both power houses, and status symbols.

Furthermore, if we look beyond the labels of ‘military’ and ‘symbolic,’ we can

see how castles contributed to the social relations of post conquest society. Castles
linked the king with his earls, earls with vassals, and altogether linked the upper
echelons with the lower classes. The king’s authority extended to the giving of

26
Coulson, ‘Cultural realities’, pp. 171-208; R. Liddiard ed. Anglo-Norman Castles (Woodbridge,
Suffolk, 2003), pp. 1-23.
27
ASC, s.a. 1066-1100, in Douglas, English Historical Documents, pp. 142-167.
28
Ibid., p. 231.
29
Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History, p. 211.
30
L. V. Hicks, ‘Coming and Going: The use of outdoor space in Norman and Anglo-Norman Chronicles’,
Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 32 (2010), p. 49.
31
M. Johnson, cited in Platt, ‘Revisionism’, p. 89.
castles, and he often ‘appointed strong men… as guardians of the castles. ’32 The
guardians could then build their own castles and appoint their own vassals, a
process called ‘subinfeudation.’33 Arundel castle offers a good example: the King
gave Arundel to Roger of Montgomery, who then appointed Warin the Bald, William
Pantulf and Picot to be sheriffs and keepers of his demesne. 34 The keeping of a castle
by a sheriff was a common occurrence between 1066 and 1100. Ralph Taillebois the
sheriff of Bedfordshire held Goldington, while Eustace sheriff of Huntingdon held
Great Staughton, and William de Keynes sheriff of Northampton held
Farthingstone.35 When inhabited by a sheriff, a castle’s role extended into the realm
of local administration. For instance, W. A. Morris notes that the duties of sheriffs
included the maintenance of public justice, and that they were often benefactors for
the local church.36 In this way, conquest castles also contributed to the management
of the countryside, and some could be likened to a town hall, or council building.

Moreover, castles aided the gradual integrations between the Normans and
the English by creating ties of interdependency. As Creighton has revealed, many
early conquest castles were built within the boundaries of a town. 37 These urban
citadels brought the Normans and the English together, prompting new ties of
patronage. For example, castles were often ‘twinned’ with a local church, as in the
case of the castle at Lewes, where the Warenne family patronized the church of St
Pancras.38 Castles also provided a center for economic activities, and market places
grew around their walls.39 The opportunities for patronage and economic gain may
have prompted people to move closer to their local castle, and Creighton notes that

32
Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History, p. 195.
33
Eales, ‘Royal Power’, p. 58.
34
Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History, p. 263.
35
Lowerre, “Why here’, p. 127-138.
36
W. A. Morris, ‘ The Office of Sheriff in the Early Norman Period’, The English Historical Review, 33
(1918), pp. 145-175.
37
Creighton, ‘Castles’, p. 15.
38
Ibid., p. 14.
39
Ibid.
as many as three quarters of new English towns between 1066 and 1150 adjoined a
castle.40 This proximity, in turn, promoted a cultural integration, best described by
Orderic when relates how urban markets were filled with French wares, and
Englishmen who could be seen emulating the style of the newcomers. 41 On the other
hand, many castles were dependent upon the local population. For example,
Popescu notes that Castle Mall was built with local labor, and continued to rely on
the local people for services in ditch digging, metal work, and guard work. 42
Similarly, Higham Ferrars was reliant on the English plough-teams and sokemen,
who rendered dues and services to castellan there. 43 It is no wonder, then, that
castles were often built in towns, or in the most populated areas of a lord’s demesne,
as a castle and its surroundings seemed to work in a symbiotic relationship.
Altogether, castles contributed to the complex relations, integrations, and
interdependencies between the Normans and the English.

Finally, castles played an important role in the conquest of the English mind.
The Norman Conquest had a large impact on the minds of the conquered, who
struggled to come to terms with what had happened. Van Houts believes that the
emotions of the English are evident in their writings, and argues that the chronicles
of conquest were ‘pervaded with gloom,’ when compared with later writings. 44 She
sees the chronicles as a tool in the processing of emotions. This being so, we can use
them to asses the state of the English mind after the conquest. Possibly the most
important chronicle to analyse is that of Orderic Vitalis, who grew up in the shadow
of Arundel castle, and who later had many dealings with castles and their knights in
France.45 Orderic’s vision of castles is grim. He often equates them with oppression,

40
Ibid., p. 17.
41
Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History, p. 257.
42
Popescu, ‘Norwich Castle’, chpt. 5., p. 3.
43
Lowerre, ‘Why here’, p. 130.
44
van Houts, Memory, p. 129.
45
M. Chibnall, ‘Orderic Vitalis on Castles’, in Anglo-Norman Castles, ed. R. Liddiard (Woodbridge,
Suffolk, 2003), p. 117.
describing scenes in which the English are groaning under a Norman yoke, as the
Norman castellans ‘heaped shameful burdens upon them.’ 46 Here he may be
referring to the practice of forcing local inhabitants to build a castle, as we have seen
at Norwich. Moreover, the building of castles often led to rapid environmental
change, as large areas of a town were destroyed and leveled. 47 Therefore, it is not
surprising that Orderic laments the building of castles; he had seen firsthand this
destruction, as well as the oppression of his peers, forced into building castles
around St Evroul.48 Similarly, the Anglo Saxon Chroniclers lamented the building of
castles, and the petty castellans who ‘distressed the wretched folk.’ 49 When we
compare these to the indifferent descriptions of castles in William of Poitiers, who is
widely considered a ‘Norman chronicler,’ the English chronicles suggest that castles,
and the associated enforced labor, had a great impact upon the minds of the English
people.50

In conclusion, castles played a number of important roles in the Norman

Conquest of England. Castles contributed to the military campaign of the conquest,
not by acting as a security scheme, but by aiding the Normans in their bid to claim
and control new lands. At the same time, the Conqueror, his earls and their
descendants used castles to assert their authority by creating visible reminders of
their power. Evidently, castles could fulfill both martial and symbolic functions,
making the recent debate over these topics obsolete. In light of this, future castle
studies should acknowledge and not ignore the martial dimensions of castles, but
should also aim to move beyond the labels of ‘military’ and ‘symbolic’. When we
move beyond the limitations of these labels, we can find various new insights on the
role of castles in conquest. First, they contributed to the complex social landscapes
of post conquest society. Castles acted as nodes in the hierarchy of government,

46
Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History, p. 203.
47
Popescu, ‘Norwich Castle’, chpt. 5.
48
Chibnall, ‘Orderic Vitalis’, p. 117.
49
ASC, s.a. 1066, in Douglas, English Historical Documents, p. 146.
50
Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History, p. 232; Douglas, English Historical Documents, pp. 217-231.
connecting the king, his vassals, and the appointed sheriffs. Moreover, they
contributed to integrations of the Normans and the English, providing a locus for
patronage, economy, and urban growth while also creating ties of interdependency,
as castles often relied on local populations for dues, services and general benefits.
And finally, castles contributed to the power relations of post conquest society, as
the enforced building of castles, and the use of castles in acts of intimidation such as
harrying, caused them to become potent emblems of oppression in the minds of the
English population.
Bibliography:

Beeler, J. H., ‘Castles and Strategy in Norman and Early Angevin England’, Speculum,
31 (1956), pp. 581-601 (periodical article).

Chibnall, M., ‘Orderic Vitalis on Castles’, in Anglo-Norman Castles, ed. R. Liddiard

(Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2003), pp. 119-132 (chapter in edited book).

Chibnall, M., The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis (Oxford, 2002) (book).

Coulson, C., ‘Cultural realities and reappraisals in English castle-study’, Journal of

Medieval History, 22 (1996), pp. 171-208 (periodical article).

Creighton, O. H., ‘Castles, Lordship and Settlement in Norman England and Wales’,
History Today, 53 (2003), pp. 12-19 (periodical article).

Creighton, O. H. and R. Liddiard, ‘Fighting Yesterday’s Battle: Beyond War or Status

in Castle Studies’, Medieval Archaeology, 52 (2008), pp. 161-169 (periodical article).

Douglas, D.C. ed., English Historical Documents 1042-1189 (London, 1953) (book).

Eales, R., ‘Royal Power and Castles in Norman England’, in Anglo-Norman Castles, ed.
R. Liddiard (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2003), pp. 41-67 (chapter in edited book).

Hicks, L. V., ‘Coming and Going: The use of outdoor space in Norman and Anglo-
Norman Chronicles’, Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 32 (2010), pp. 40-56
(periodical article).

Hicks, L. V., ‘Magnificent entrances and undignified exits: chronicling the symbolism
of castle space in Normandy’, Journal of Medieval History, 35 (2009), pp. 52-69
(periodical article).

Higham, R., ‘Timber Castles: A Reassessment’, in Anglo-Norman Castles, ed. R.

Liddiard (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2003), pp. 106-118 (chapter in edited book)

Lowerre, A. G., ‘Why here and not there? The location of early Norman castles in the
south-eastern midlands,’ Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 29 (2007), pp. 121-
144 (periodical article).

Morris, W. A., ‘The Office of Sheriff in the Early Norman Period’, The English
Historical Review, 33 (1918), pp. 145-175 (periodical article).

Platt, C., ‘Revisionism in Castle Studies: A Caution’, Medieval Archaeology, 51 (2007),

pp. 83-102 (periodical article).
Popescu, E. S. ‘Norwich Castle: Excavations and Historical Survey 1987-98’, East
Anglian Archaeology, 132 (2009) (periodical monograph)

van Houts, E., Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe 900-1200 (London, 1999)
(book).