OF THE CASTLES OF ENGLAND AT THE CONQUEST AND UNDER THE CONQUEROR.

IT has usually been assumed that the rapidity of William’s conquest was due to the absence of strong places in England. There is, however, ground for believing that England, in this respect, was exceedingly well provided,—quite as well provided as Normandy; and that, with the possible exception of a very few recently-constructed strongholds, the works in the two countries were very similar in character. The older sites of the castles of the barons in Normandy are nearly all ascertained, and are for the most part distinguished by a moated mound with an appended court or courts also moated. This simple and very effective form of defence has been shown to have been in use among the Northern nations, invaders both of England and the Continent, and in the ninth and tenth centuries was as common on the banks of the Thames, the Humber, and the Severn, as on those of the Seine and the Orne. It was in the eleventh century, and chiefly during the troubles attendant upon the accession and minority of Duke William, that the Normans seem to have adopted a new and more permanent description of fortress, and the old-fashioned structure of timber began to be replaced by walls and towers in masonry, and especially by keeps of that material. Of these the best-known, because the most durable, form was the rectangular, of which not above half a dozen examples can be shown with certainty to have been constructed in Normandy before the latter part of the eleventh century, and but very few, if any, before the English conquest; nor is there known to be in Normandy any specimen of the polygonal or circular form of keep as early as that event. De Caumont, indeed, attributes the rectangular keep of Langeais, in which brick is largely used, to the year 992; but there is great reason to doubt this conclusion, and Du Pin and St. Laurent are probably among the oldest of this form, and do not seem to be earlier than the reign of Duke William; and this is true also of Arques and Nogent-le-Rotrou. In Normandy, as in England, the polygonal or shell keep, though on the older site, seems usually to be in masonry, which is the later construction; that of Gisors was built by Robert de Belesme in 1097, and that of Carentan at about the same time. Many even of the most considerable mounds, as Briquessart and Vieux-Conches, show no trace of masonry. The shell keep of Plessis-Grimoult was held by De Caumont to have been constructed before 1047; but if this be so, it is certainly a singular exception. Castle-building in Normandy seems to have preceded the English conquest, if at all, by but a very few years.

The Romans left behind them in Britain many walled towns; but it is not known to what extent these defences were preserved by the Northmen, or in what condition they found them. At the conquest, Chester, Lincoln, Exeter, Hereford, Leicester, Oxford, Stafford, and Colchester, seem to have been already walled, and the walls of Exeter had been repaired or rebuilt by Æthelstan. Canterbury, Nottingham, and York were defended by a ditch. There were also probably some others, and possibly a few military towers in masonry of English workmanship; but there is no evidence of there having been anything like a rectangular keep, notwithstanding the special mention in 1052 of Richard’s Castle, the work of Richard, the son of Scrob. There is no reason to suppose that it possessed a tower of that character, which would have been quite out of keeping with the moated mound which even now marks the spot, and upon which the remains of the shell keep are still to be seen. Still less had the English any shell keeps constructed in masonry. What there really was in the way of military masonry and what was its character are not so clear. It was said of Dover, by William of Poictiers, that it was by Harold “studio atque sumptu suo communitum,” and that there were “item per diversa loca illius terrÆ alia castra ubi voluntas Ducis ea firmari jubet”; also in the account of the advance of William from Canterbury it is added, “Veniens ... ad fractam turrim castra metatus est,” pointing to a work in masonry, though no doubt it might, as at York, be Roman. Arundel, named in “Domesday” as having been a castle in the reign of the Confessor, was probably, from the size of its mound and the depth of its ditches, as strong as any castle of its type in Normandy; but no masonry has been observed there, either upon or about the mound, of a date earlier than the Conquest, if as early.

That there existed in England, at the Conquest, no castles in masonry of English work it may be too much to assert; but it may safely be said that, save a fragment of wall at Corfe, no military masonry decidedly older than that event has as yet been discovered. In 1052, when the Confessor and Earl Godwin came to terms, and the attack on London was set aside, it is stated that Archbishop Robert and his Frenchmen fled, some westward to Pentecost Castle and some northwards to Robert’s Castle; so that these places probably, like Richard’s Castle, were in Norman hands, though it does not follow that they were constructed of the material or in the fashion then coming into use in Normandy.

“Domesday” mentions directly forty-nine castles as existing at the date of the survey, and of these at least thirty-three were on sites far older than the Conquest; and of them at least twenty-eight possessed artificial mounds similar to Arundel and the castles in Normandy. “Domesday,” however, is notoriously capricious both in its entries and omissions on such matters as were not included in its proper view, and its list of castles is nearly as incomplete as its list of churches. Neither were required to be noted. “Of the forty-nine castles recorded,” says Sir H. Ellis, “eight are known, either on the authority of ‘Domesday’ or of our old historians, to have been built by the Conqueror himself; ten are entered as erected by greater barons, and one by an under-tenant of Earl Roger; eleven more, of whose builders we have no particular account, are noticed in the ‘Survey,’ either expressly or by inference, as new.” The fact is, however, that although the number of castles actually mentioned may be only forty-nine, of castles and castelries (which imply a castle) there are named in “Domesday” fifty-two. The castles reputed to have been built by the Conqueror himself are Lincoln, Rockingham, Wareham, two castles at York, Dover, Durham, London, and Nottingham, of which the last four are not mentioned in “Domesday.” Exeter, also omitted, is generally reputed to be one of William’s castles, as was Stafford; which, however, was constructed and destroyed before the date of the survey. “Terra de Stadford in qua rex percepit fieri castellum, quod modo est destructum,” a very short period for the construction and destruction of a work in masonry. Mr. Pearson, who has given great attention to the subject of Norman castles in England, tabulates the result of his researches in the atlas attached to his “History.” He there enumerates, as standing in the reign of the Conqueror, forty-nine castles belonging to the King and fifty to his subjects. Of these, at least thirty-eight have mounds. He gives also a list of fifty-three belonging to private persons in the reign of William Rufus, of which at least five have mounds. Probably there were of each class many more than these. Colchester, for example, is not included, nor Farnham, nor Berkhampstede.

Of the ninety-nine castles enumerated by Mr. Pearson as belonging to the reign of the Conqueror, at least fifty are on old sites. These are Arundel, Berkeley, Bramber, Cambridge, Carisbrook, Chester, Clare, Clifford, Caerleon, Coningsburgh, Dover, Durham, Dunster, Dudley, Eye, Ewias, Guildford, Hastings, Huntingdon, Launceston, Leicester, Lincoln, Lewes, L’wre, Marlborough, Montacute, Norwich, Oxford, Pevensey, Pontefract, Quatford, Raleigh, Richard’s Castle, Rochester, Rockingham, Shrewsbury, Striguil, Stafford, Stamford, Tickhill, Tonbridge, Trematon, Tutbury, Wigmore, Windsor, Wallingford, Wareham, Warwick, Worcester, and York. Almost as many are doubtful, and probably not more than two or three, such as Richmond, London, and possibly Malling, were altogether new. The fact is, that all these lists, however valuable they may be as showing what castles were taken possession of or re-edified or strengthened by the Normans, give no adequate idea of the fortresses already existing in England, and omit scores of earthworks as large and as strong as those occupied by the Normans in England or left behind them in Normandy, of a date long before the reign of William,—probably before the end of the tenth century. If, as said by William of Newbury, the castles were the bones of the kingdom, it must be admitted that the English skeleton was a very perfect one. Every part of England, much of Scotland, and the accessible parts of the Welsh border, were covered with strong places, which were, no doubt, defended, and well defended, with palisades, as more suitable to made ground than work in masonry such as was more or less in use for ecclesiastical purposes. If, at the Conquest, no English stronghold held out, it was not that such places were less capable of defence than those in Normandy, but that England was broken up into parties. Harold’s seat was too insecure and the few months of his reign far too brief to allow his great administrative talents to come into play; and his early death left the English without a leader. The power of the other earls was local. There was no organised opposition. Notwithstanding the assertion of Orderic that the English were mere tillers of the soil, a convivial and drinking race, they by no means submitted quietly to the Norman rule; but their efforts for freedom, boldly devised and gallantly executed, were ill-timed and ill-combined, and were in consequence put down in detail. Under such circumstances, the strongholds of the country availed little. Dover, Lewes, Arundel, Bramber, Tonbridge, Rochester, Guildford, Farnham, Wallingford, and Berkhampstede, had their strong earthworks been held in force, would have rendered William’s advance too imprudent to have been attempted; and that these and other not far distant positions were well chosen is shown by the fact that they were all adopted by the Conqueror. The conquest of England was made possible, not by the absence of strong places, but by the want of organisation for their defence.

But whatever may have been the character of the defences in use in England before the arrival of the Normans, it is certain that from that period they underwent a considerable and probably a rapid change, though scarcely so rapid as has been supposed. The Normans, who had so long, in common with the English (probably by reason of their common ancestry), employed the moated and palisaded mound, proceeded to carry out in England the important improvements they had already commenced in Normandy. William’s chief object, having conquered, was to secure his conquest; and his first care, on obtaining possession of each division of the kingdom or each capital city or town, was to regard it from a military point of view, and to order the construction of such strong places as might be necessary for the holding of it. How completely, in so doing, he trod in the footsteps of those who had gone before, is shown by what he found and what he did towards the covering of London and the maintaining of his communication with the sea. Thus he found and reinforced castles at Chichester, Arundel, Bramber, Lewes, Hastings, and Dover. On his road he found and strengthened Canterbury, Tonbridge, Rochester, and Ryegate. In London he founded the Tower, an entirely new work; but for the defence of the basin of the Thames he trusted to the ancient sites of Guildford and Farnham, possibly Reading, and certainly Wallingford and Berkhampstede. And so all over the kingdom, such strongholds as were central, in good military positions, or of unusual strength, or were placed in the ancient demesne lands of the Crown, were taken possession of or reconstructed for the sovereign; but every baron or great tenant in chief was permitted,—and, indeed, at first expected, and was no doubt sufficiently ready,—to construct castles for the security of the lands allotted to him, which in the vast majority of instances meant to remodel the defences of his English predecessors. This was under the pressure of circumstances; for William seems always to have been awake to the danger of uniting extensive hereditary jurisdictions, and even from the first to have contemplated governing the counties through the intervention of vice-comites, or sheriffs, who were appointed and could be displaced at pleasure. But this policy was at first, in certain districts, necessarily postponed; though even then William made it to be understood that the chief castles of the realm, by whomsoever built, were royal castles; and their actual acquisition was always an important part of the policy of both him and his successors so long as castles were of consequence. Thus Windsor, Cambridge, Exeter, Corfe, Wareham, Winchester, Porchester, Southampton, Carisbrooke, Canterbury, Dover, Lincoln, Rockingham, Nottingham, Stafford, Guildford, Warwick, Marlborough, and York were royal castles from the commencement. Wallingford, Gloucester, Bristol, Oxford, Tutbury, Worcester, though built by subjects, were not the less claimed and officered by the Crown. Even Durham, though held by the bishops, and Leicester, Lincoln, and Huntingdon, by the lords of those earldoms, were from time to time in the hands of the Crown, whose rights over them were of a far more direct character than those it claimed to exercise over the lands and other feudal possessions of the same lords.

Arundel, Shrewsbury, Montgomery, Bridgenorth, and some less important fortresses, fell to the Crown on the overthrow of the house of Talvas; and with this event a number of castles on the Welsh border, built by tenants of Earl Roger, became fiefs in capite, dependent directly upon the Crown. Besides these, there are on record in England about forty or fifty castles built by local barons, which, when it suited the Crown, were taken in hand and repaired and garrisoned at its charge.

Of nearly all the castles on record, as existing in the reigns of the Conqueror and his sons, the sites are well known; and of very many, fragments of the masonry remain. What is very remarkable is, that of this masonry there is but little which can be referred to the reign of either the Conqueror or William Rufus,—that is, to the eleventh century. Of that period are certainly London and Malling, Guildford, Bramber, Carlisle, the gate-house of Exeter, the lower story of Chepstow, the keeps of Chester, Goderich, Walden, Wolvesey, Colchester, and Newcastle, though this last looks later than its recorded date. Newcastle was probably on the site of an earlier castle; at least, the entry in the Hundred Rolls (ii., 119),—“Juratores dicunt quod Vicecomes ... fecit quandam inquisitionem ... super motam castri predictÆ villÆ,”—looks like it. There is some reason to regard the keep at Malling as the earliest Norman military building now extant in England, and as the work of Gundulf, the architect of the Tower keep. The North or Gundulf’s tower at Rochester Cathedral is by the same great builder, and possibly was intended as a military building: if so, it may rank with Malling. Probably there is more of this early masonry; but not much. Dover, Rochester, Porchester, and Hedingham, among our finest examples, are certainly later. Part of Durham Castle is, no doubt, of the age of the Conqueror; but the shell keep has been rebuilt, and it is doubtful whether the original work was of the age of the early Norman chapel and hall attached to it. Speaking generally, those castles in England which belong to what is called the Norman period are too late to be the work of the Conqueror or his personal followers, and too early to allow of any preceding work in Norman masonry (usually sound and solid), having been constructed and swept away. What is the solution of this difficulty? Of what character and material were the great majority of the castles which William ordered to be constructed? Of what character were those mentioned in “Domesday”?

That William ordered many castles to be constructed is certain; and among the orders left with Bishop Odo and William Fitz Osborn, when acting as joint regents of the kingdom, was one specially charging them to see to the building of castles; and no doubt these orders were obeyed. But it has been hastily assumed that the castles constructed were of masonry. The keeps of Dover and Rochester, for example (if such were erected under the Conqueror), were certainly not those now standing, which belong to the reign of Henry II.; and so of Norwich, and probably of Nottingham, now destroyed. And yet the masonry of William’s reign was of a very durable character, as is seen in the Tower of London, and in not a few still standing churches. Also it is stated that William “custodes in castellis strenuos viros collocavit, ex Gallis traductos, quorum fidei pariter ac virtuti credebat.” This looks very much as though the castellans were at first, at any rate, put in charge of existing castles; which must mean that in most cases some temporary arrangement was made, and the existing works strengthened until it was convenient to replace them by others more in accordance with the new ideas of strength and security.

William and his barons evidently employed two classes of castles,—one always in masonry, and one very often in timber. Where a castle was built in a new position, as in London, or where there was no mound, natural or artificial they employed masonry and chose as a rule for the keep the rectangular form,—a type said to have been introduced from Maine, and seen at Arques, at Caen, and at Falaise; but where the site was old, and there was a mound, as at Lincoln, Huntingdon, Rockingham, Wallingford, or York, they seem to have been content to repair the existing works, usually of timber only, and to have postponed the replacing them with a regular shell till a more convenient season, which in many cases did not occur for a century.

Nor was the postponement very serious, for the native fortresses, if well manned, were strong, at least for a limited time. The attacks of the Danes upon Towcester, Bedford, and Wigmore are on record; and yet these, of all of which the earthworks remain, were not burhs of the first class, and certainly would not contain a hundred men,—or, even if the base-court were occupied, more than thrice that number,—and the Danish army could scarcely be less than ten times as numerous. The fact is, however, that such a mound as Arundel or Tonbridge, palisaded, could be held for a short time by three or four score of resolute men against a sharp attack from any number, armed as men were armed in the tenth and eleventh centuries. No doubt, towers of masonry were more secure, because less dependent upon the vigilance of the garrison, less obnoxious to fire, and less liable to be taken by surprise. But the Normans were stout soldiers, well disciplined, and could from the first expect no quarter from the insurgent English.

Among the castles ordered by William to be built, one of the most important was York. The order was given in the summer of 1068; and it is known that the new castle was to be upon the old English site, which contained a moated mound of the first class, commanding and protected on one side by the Roman city, and on the others by the swamps and waters of the Ouse and Foss. William’s castle was to be garrisoned by three leaders and five hundred knights, which implied a considerable following. Its area, therefore, must have been spacious, and no doubt included with the mound its ample base-court as seen at the present day. In 1069, the castle was attacked by the citizens in revolt, and was even then capable of being held, and was held, till William came to its assistance. He then ordered a second castle to be constructed upon the Bayle Hill, the mound still to be seen on the opposite or right bank of the river; and this was completed in eight days, before he left the city. A few months later, before September, 1069, the citizens, aided by the Danes, again attacked and burned the castles, which in 1069–70 were again renewed. Now, York was the metropolis of the most disaffected half of the kingdom. There, if anywhere, a castle of stone would be desirable, and stone could readily have been brought by water; and yet York Castle was constructed and made capable of being defended in a few months, and its subsidiary fortress in eight days; and both soon after were taken and burned, and at once ordered to be reconstructed. It is clear, from the time occupied by the whole sequence of events, that these castles were not of masonry. Moreover, the masonry of the present York keep contains nothing that can be attributed to the eleventh century; but much that is far too early to have replaced a really substantial keep or curtain of Norman date had such been built. Upon the great and artificial mound of Bayle Hill, the site of the second castle, there is neither trace nor tradition of any masonry at all.

The building of a Norman castle required both time and money. The architects, overlookers, and probably the masons, had to be imported from Normandy, and in many cases the stone for the exterior; and as most of the existing square keeps, and very nearly all the shell keeps, are of the twelfth century, it seems probable that the Conqueror was to some extent content with such defences as he found in England; strengthened, no doubt, very materially by the superior skill and resources of his engineers. This is quite consistent with the fact that the art of castle-building did, from the building of the White Tower, undergo a great and somewhat rapid change. It is true of William, both in Normandy and in England, as Matthew Paris observes, “ad castra quoque construenda, rex antecessores suos omnes superabat”; and he, no doubt, as we are told by William of Jumieges, “tutissima castella per opportuna loca stabilavit.” Lanfranc, writing to Roger, Earl of Hereford, before his rebellion, assuring him of William’s confidence, adds, “et mandat ut quantum possumus curam habeamus de castellis suis, ne, quod Deus avertat, inimicis suis tradantur”; and in the subsequent rebellion, it was when Ralph Guader found the men of castles against him, that he left his wife and children to make terms from Norwich Castle, while he himself fled. Lanfranc’s despatch informs William, “Castrum Noruuich redditum est, et Britones qui in eo erant et terras in Anglia terra habebant, concessis eis vita et membris.” Besides the Bishop and Earl Warrene, the castle contained three hundred “loricati,” with cross-bowmen and many artificers of military machines. Also the same prelate charges Bishop Walcher, of Durham, “Castrum itaque vestrum, et hominibus, et armis, et alimentis vigilanti cura muniri facite.”

Castles, no doubt, there were at William’s command, many and strong. All that is here contended for is, that whatever he may have desired, William was able to construct but few castles such as London or Durham; and that the greater number of those that remain and exhibit the Norman style of architecture belong, some to the close of the eleventh, and a greater number to the twelfth century. But if William did not actually build so many castles as is supposed, he and his followers certainly restored and occupied an immense number, upon which those who came immediately after him built structures, the ruins of which we now see.

There is much to be learned from the consideration of the positions of these fortresses. William’s first care, on obtaining possession of each district, was to order the preparation of such strong places as might be necessary for the holding of it. But it is evident that he was influenced also by another consideration: he desired to be regarded as the legitimate heir of the Confessor, rather than as the conqueror of the kingdom; and so far as was consistent with his own security, he strove to administer the ancient laws, and to leave the ancient tenures and private estates, and even English owners, undisturbed. This indeed, owing to the strong national discontent, shown by repeated insurrections and by a general current of ill-will of which these were the indications, he speedily found to be out of the question. But even while driving out the native magnates, he was careful to associate the new men, as far as possible, with the past, in the hope (well founded) that before long the “successores et antecessores,” as they are called in “Domesday,” would be looked upon as part of a continued line,—Earl Roger, for example, as the representative of Edwin of Shrewsbury, Hugh Lupus of Morcar, and William Fitz Osbern of Ralph the Earl of Hereford under the Confessor.

And this policy is particularly evident in the sites of the castles. Where circumstances absolutely required it, an entirely new position was selected; but this was extremely rare, and probably did not occur in half a dozen instances, if indeed in more than London and Richmond. Usually it was found that the English lord had attached to his estate an earthwork upon which he and his ancestors had lived for centuries, which was identified with the estate or district, and regarded with respect and confidence by the surrounding tenantry. It is surprising to find how completely the leading positions in the country had thus been occupied. The upland passes; the margins of the rivers; the summits, where readily accessible, of the detached hills; the spots rendered strong by cliffs or ravines, or extended or impracticable marshes. Each had its aula, where a succession of lords had identified themselves with their people, afforded them protection, and received in return their support. Such were Guildford, Farnham, and Berkhampstede, in the clefts of the belt of chalk by which London is girdled; Hertford, Bedford, Wallingford, Tamworth, Worcester, Shrewsbury, Durham, and York, upon the banks of deep or rapid streams; Windsor, Belvoir, Lincoln, Corfe, and Montacute, placed on the summit of more or less detached hills, commanding a broad sweep of country; Dover, Scarborough, and Bamborough, upon rugged and lofty sea-cliffs, isolated by deep and formidable ravines; Huntingdon, Cambridge, Ely, and Oxford, more or less covered by marshy fens at that time almost impassable; while attached to and so placed as to overawe their adjacent cities or towns were such fortresses as Exeter, Leicester, Winchester, Chester, Chichester, Taunton, York, Norwich, and Nottingham. Each, including many that belonged to the Crown, represented an English estate. To many of them military service had long been paid; and now into them the knights and barons from Normandy and the lieutenants and governors for the Crown were inserted.

So far, the policy was sound and promised to be successful; but when the new lords began to build castles of stone they became obnoxious to both sovereign and people. The possessor of a strong castle was ever ready for rebellion, and was not uncommonly a tyrant even to his own people, of whom this made him independent: hence, castles properly so called,—buildings in masonry,—were hated by both king and people. The old-fashioned residence, half mansion, half fortress, formed of earth and timber or at best of a rude kind of masonry, such as Scott more by intuition than inquiry attributes to the Saxon Cedric, was strong when held by brave men in sufficient numbers for a short time; but under ordinary circumstances it could easily be attacked, and set on fire. These fortified residences were out of fashion with the Normans, and fell into disuse. The English lords were of the same immediate lineage with their tenants; and if they occasionally squeezed them, they did it as a man squeezes his own milch cow, tenderly. But the castle of stone was held by a stranger whose language, arms, and armour were strange to the people, and by them feared and hated. The Norman castle was a purely military building. It was not only strong when well garrisoned, but its passive strength was also great; and when the bridge was up and the gates closed it was at all times safe against an enemy unprovided with military engines. Fire, the ordinary and ready weapon of the populace, against such a wall, for example, as Cardiff (40 feet high and 11 feet thick), or against such a Tower as London, could do nothing. The garrison also, composed in the English times of the tenants of the lord, under the Normans were not unfrequently mercenaries,—men without ruth or conscience, distrusted even by their employers, whose trade was war and whose gain was plunder, and of whom Maurice de Bracy was a very favourable specimen. “Quot domini castellorum,” it was said “tot tyranni.” No wonder, then, that the Norman castles came to be regarded as the symbol of rebellion on the one hand, and of tyranny on the other.

Although the personal attention of the Conqueror was necessarily confined to the chief cities and central towns of England, to Exeter, Gloucester, Nottingham, Lincoln, York, or Durham, his western frontier was not neglected, although he was obliged to depute its ordinary defence to others. The Welsh, hardened by centuries of constant warfare, held with tenacity their strip of mountain land between Offa’s Dyke and the sea, and were ever on the watch to spoil that other more fertile tract which lay between the Dyke and the Severn and the Dee, known as the March. Foremost among the barons of the March were Roger of Montgomery and Hugh D’Avranches, Earl of Chester, to whom later generations gave the surname of the “Wolf.” The caput of this latter earldom, protected by the deep and rapid Dee, was posted at one angle of the old Roman enclosure; and the castle of Earl Roger, girdled by the convolutions of the Severn, was an almost impregnable citadel. From these fortresses these great earls exercised more than regal power over the counties of Salop and Hereford, composing the Middle March. The border barons, their feudatories, succeeded to no peaceful heritage; but by degrees they possessed themselves of the older English possessions upon the border, and along with them of the fortresses by which in Mercian times the Welsh had been held so long at bay. That these were numerous is evident from the remains of their earthworks; and that they were strong and well held against the Welsh is evident from the English names along and beyond the frontier. “Domesday,” however, though compiled after Earl Roger had held the Earldom of Shrewsbury about twelve years, only mentions four castles upon his border,—Oswestry, Montgomery, Shrewsbury, and Stanton or Castle Holgate, and the Earl’s house at Quatford. Bridgenorth and Carreghova were built a few years later, in the reign of Rufus; but Bridgenorth represented the burgh of ÆthelflÆda, the remains of which are possibly seen at Oldbury, as are earthworks of still stronger type, actually employed by Earl Roger at Quatford. Besides these, Wattlesborough and Clun exhibit rectangular Norman keeps; and eleven or twelve more castles in those districts are mentioned in records as early as the reign of Henry I. Altogether, by the close of the twelfth century there were from fifty to sixty castles in the county of Salop alone. Now, although the masonry of these castles, or of such of them as remain, can very rarely indeed be attributed to the Norman period, the earthworks show that they existed as fortresses long before that time; and it seems, therefore, certain that here, as in other parts of England, Earl Roger and his barons made the most of such works as they found ready to their hands; and this applies equally to the Palatinate of Chester and to the southern Marches, where also Norman castles took the place, with more or less of interval, of strongholds of the English type.

---