• PugJesus@piefed.socialOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Castles were overwhelmingly built for defensibility until the 16th century, at which point you see more of a mixture of elements; and then fortresses emerging as predominantly military again in the 17th century. Royal lodgings and other such estates which would have had more amenities were generally not seriously fortified, and thus are not castles in any traditional sense.

    • EinMensch@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      You gave it exactly backwards. The castle is by definition the combination of residence and fortification. The purely military fortress only really developed after the medieval period.

      • PugJesus@piefed.socialOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Not at all. The notion of a purely military fortress in the sense of being primarily for the permanent garrisoning of troops only really developed after the medieval period.

        Castles were overwhelmingly and in many polities exclusively built for defensive purposes, with the ability to reside in them being only an extension of that insofar as you can’t hold out against a siege if you can’t live there for at least a few nights. It’s why permission to build a castle in the first place is so often restricted by medieval law, requiring the direct assent of the monarch in most medieval polities.