:: wikimiki.org ::

Commune (medieval)

Commune (medieval)

Communes in Europe in the Middle Ages were sworn allegiances of mutual defense among community members of a town or city. They took many forms, no two were alike in organization or make-up. The Late Latin connotations (con+munitii) are those of possessions, stores and preparations that the community held in common.

Origins

During the 10th century in several parts of Western Europe, peasants with a special craft beyond the immediate requirements of their isolated village, or with an entrepreneurial spirit, began to gravitate towards the walled towns. In central and northern Italy, and in Provence and Septimania, the Roman cities had almost all survived—even if grass grew in their streets—largely as administrative centers for a diocese or for the local representative of a distant kingly or imperial power. In the Low Countries, where examples provided Henri Pirenne with a thesis he too widely applied, new towns were founded upon long-distance trade, where the staple was the woolen cloth-making industry. The sites for these ab ovo towns, more often than not, were the fortified burghs of counts, bishops or territorial abbots. Such towns were also founded in the Rhineland. Other towns were simply market villages, local centers of exchange. Such townspeople needed protection from lawless nobles and bandits, part of the motivation for gathering behind communal walls, but the struggle to establish their liberties, freedom to conduct and regulate their own affairs and security from arbitrary taxation and harassment from the bishop, abbot or count in whose jurisdiction these obscure and ignoble social outsiders lay, was a long process of struggling to obtain charters that guaranteed such basics as the right to hold a market. Such charters were often purchased at exhorbitant rates, or granted, not by the local power, which was naturally jealous of prerogatives, but by the king or the emperor, who came thereby to hope to enlist the towns as allies in the struggle to centralize power that was arising in tandem with the rise of the communes. "The burghers of the tenth and eleventh centuries were ruthlessly harassed, blackmailed, subjected to oppressive taxes and humiliated. This drove the bourgeois back upon their own resources, and it accounts for the intensely corporate and excessively organized character of medieval cities" (Cantor 1993 p 231) The walled city represented protection from direct assault at the price of corporate interference on the pettiest levels, but once a townsman left the city walls, he (for women scarcely travelled) was at the mercy of often violent and lawless nobles in the countryside. Because much of medieval Europe lacked central authority to provide protection, each city had to provide its own protection for citizens both inside the city walls, and outside. Thus towns formed communes, a legal basis for turning the cities into self-governing corporations. Although in most cases the development of communes was connected with that of the cities, there were rural communes, notably in France and England, that were formed to protect the common interests of villagers. Every town had its own commune and no two communes were alike, but at their heart, communes were sworn allegiances of mutual defense. When a commune was formed, all participating members gathered and swore an oath in a public ceremony, promising to defend each other in times of trouble, and to maintain the peace within the city proper. What did it mean for a commune member to defend another? Obviously if a commune member was attacked outside the city, it was too late to call for help, as it would be unlikely anyone would be around in time. Instead, the commune would promise to exact revenge on the attacker, the threat of revenge being a form of defense. However, if the attacker was a noble, safely ensconced in a castle (as was often the case), the town commune could not muster the forces to attack him directly; instead they might attack the nobles family, burn his crops, kill his serfs, or destroy his orchards in retribution. The commune movement started in the 10th century, with a few earlier ones like Forlì (possibly 889), and gained strength in the 11th century in northern Italy which had the most urbanized population of Europe at the time, and in what is now Belgium which was also relatively urban. It then spread in the early 12th century to France, Germany and Spain and elsewhere. England never saw much of the commune movement because it was by comparison a well-run kingdom and did not need local protection forces.

Social order

According to an English cleric of the late 10th century, society was composed of the three orders: those who fight, those who pray and those who work (the nobles, the clergy and the peasants). In theory this was a balance between spiritual and secular peers with the third order providing for the other two. The urban communes were a break in this order. The Church and King both had mixed reactions to communes. On the one hand, they agreed safety and protection from lawless nobles was in everyone's best interest. The communes intention was to keep the peace through the threat of revenge, and the Church was sympathetic to the end result of peace. However, the Church had their own ways to enforce peace, such as the Peace and Truce of God movement, for example. On the other hand, communes disrupted the order of medieval society; the methods the commune used, eye for an eye, violence begets violence, were generally not acceptable to Church or King. Furthermore, there was a sense that communes threatened the medieval social order. Only the noble lords were allowed by custom to fight, and ostensibly the merchant townspeople were workers, not warriors. As such, the nobility and the clergy sometimes accepted communes, but other times did not. One of the most famous cases of a commune being suppressed and the resulting defiant urban revolt occurred in the French town of Laon in 1112.

References and further reading

- Cantor, Norman E. 1993. The Civilization of the Middle Ages ((New York: HarperCollins)
- Jones, Philip. 1997. The Italian City-State: From Commune to Signoria. (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
- Lansing, Carol, 1992. The Florentine Magnates: Lineage and Faction in a Medieval Commune. (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
- [http://vialardi.org/VdSF/Statuti.Biella-1.html Sella, Pietro, "The Statutes of the Commune of Bugelle (Biella)"] 1904. 14th century statutes of a Piedmontese commune (Latin and English translations), express the nature of the commune in vivid detail, productions of medieval society and the medieval personality.
- Tabacco, Giovanni, 1989. The Struggle for Power in Medieval Italy: Structures of Political Rule, 400-1400,translator, Rosalind Brown Jensen (New York: Cambridge University Press)
- Waley, Donald, 1969 etc. The Italian City-Republics (3rd ed. New York: Longman, 1988.)
- [http://www.uoguelph.ca/history/urban/citybibIV02.html Guelph University, "The Urban Past: IV. The Medieval City"] A bibliography.

External links

- [http://4.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CO/COMMUNE_MEDIEVAL.htm "Medieval commune"] from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica Category:Middle Ages

Henri Pirenne

Henri Pirenne (December 23 1862, Verviers - October 25 1935, Uccle) was a leading Belgian historian. He also became prominent in the non-violent resistance to the Germans who occupied Belgium in World War I. Henri Pirenne's reputation today rests on two contributions to European history:
- what has become known as the Pirenne Thesis, concerning when the Middle Ages started
- a distinctive view of Belgium's medieval history Henri Pirenne first developed the idea for the Pirenne Thesis in a series of papers written from 1922 to 1923, and then spent the rest of his life refining the thesis with supporting evidence. The most famous exposition appears in his book Mohammed and Charlemagne (The Birth of the Occident, The Fall of the Antiquity, and the Rise of the Germanic Middle Ages) first published in 1937 (1939 in English). Traditionally, historians have dated the Middle Ages from the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, a theory Edward Gibbon famously put forward in the 18th century. Pirenne challenged the notion that Germanic barbarians had caused the Roman Empire to end, and he challenged the notion that the end of the Roman Empire should equate with the end of the office of Emperor in Europe, which occurred in 476. He pointed out the essential continuity of the economy of the Roman Mediterranean even after the barbarian invasions, that the Roman way of doing things did not fundamentally change in the time immediately after the "fall" of Rome. Barbarians came to Rome not to destroy it, but to take part in its benefits; they tried to preserve the Roman way of life. According to Pirenne the real break in Roman history occurred in the 7th century as a result of Arab expansion. Islamic conquest of the area of today's south-eastern Turkey, Syria, Palestine, North Africa, Spain and Portugal ruptured economic ties to Europe, cutting the continent off from trade and turning it into a stagnant backwater, with wealth flowing out in the form of raw resources and nothing coming back. This began a steady decline and impoverishment so that by the time of Charlemagne Europe had become entirely agrarian at a subsistence level, with no long-distance trade. Pirenne says "Without Islam, the Frankish Empire would have probably never existed, and Charlemagne, without Muhammad, would be inconceivable". Pirenne used quantative methods in relation to currency in support of his thesis. Much of his argument builds upon the disappearance of items from Europe, items that had to come from outside Europe. For example, the minting of gold coins north of the Alps stopped after the 7th century, indicating a loss of access to wealthier parts of the world. Papyrus, made only in Egypt, no longer appeared north of the Alps after the 7th century: writing reverted to using animal skins, indicating an isolation from wealthier areas. Pirenne's Thesis has not entirely convinced all historians of the period. One does not have to entirely accept or deny his theory without finding useful elements for understanding the period; and it provides a new way at looking at periodization schemes traditionally seen as accepted facts. Pirenne's other major idea concerned the nature of medieval Belgium. Belgium as an independent nation state had appeared only a generation before Pirenne's birth; throughout Western history, its fortunes had been tied up with the Low Countries, which now include the Netherlands, Luxembourg and parts of north-east France. Furthermore, Belgium lies athwart the great linguistic divide between French and Dutch. The unity of the country might appear accidental, something which Pirenne sought to disprove in his History of Belgium (1899 - 1932). His ideas here have also proved controversial, with many historians preferring to stress the economic unity of the Low Countries as a whole.

References

- Hodges, Richard and David Whitehouse (1983). Mohammed, Charlemagne, and the origins of Europe. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801492629. Influential analysis of the Pierenne Thesis and the role of recent archaeological findings.
- McCormick, Michael (2001). Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce, 300-900. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521661021. A reexamination of the Pierenne Thesis.
- Pirenne, Henri (2001). Mohammed and Charlemagne. Dover Publications. ISBN 0486420116. A recent reprint of the 1937 classic.
- Pirenne, Henri. A History of Europe: From the end of the Roman World in the West to the beginnings of the Western States. Written from memory while interned by Germany during World War I.
- Pirenne, Henri. An Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe.
- Pirenne, Henri. Medieval Cities. Pirenne, Henri Pirenne, Henri Pirenne, Henri ja:アンリ・ピレンヌ

Rhineland

The Rhineland (Rheinland in German) is the general name for the land on both sides of the river Rhine in the west of Germany. A geographical term originally, it has also acquired some political and cultural connotations, becoming a political entity as the Prussian Rhine Province (also known as Rhenish Prussia), and continuing in the names of the German states of Rhineland-Palatinate and North Rhine-Westphalia. The name 'Rhineland' also refers to the area of Germany occupied by Entente forces, then demilitarised under the Treaty of Versailles (see below: #Following the First World War).

Geography

Some of the bigger cities in the Rhineland include Bonn, Krefeld, Aachen, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Duisburg, Koblenz, and Wuppertal.

The political entity

The Rhine Province was created in 1824 by joining the provinces of Lower Rhine and Jülich-Kleve-Berg. Its capital was Koblenz; it had 8.0 million inhabitants (1939). In 1920, the Saarland was separated from the Rhine Province and put under French administration. In the same year, the districts of Eupen and Malmedy were made part of Belgium (see German-Speaking Community of Belgium). In 1946, the Rhine Province was divided up between the newly-founded states of North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate. Today, the German region of Rhineland consists of the states of Saarland, North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate. It is one of the prime German industrial areas, containing significant mineral deposits (coal, lead, lignite, magnesium, oil and uranium) and easy water transportation. Agriculture is also important and there are highly valued vineyards in the Rheinpfalz and Rheingau.

Following the First World War

Following the Armistice of 1918, Allied forces occupied the Rhineland as far east as the river with some small bridgeheads on the east bank at places like Cologne. This lasted until the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 (formally ending World War I) specified the de-militarization of the entire area to provide a buffer between Germany on one side and France, Belgium and Luxembourg (and to a lesser extent, the Netherlands) on the other side. Allied forces then, more or less promptly, withdrew. In violation of the Locarno Pact and the Treaty of Versailles, Nazi Germany reoccupied the Rhineland on March 7, 1936. The occupation was done with very little military support and could easily have been stopped had it not been for the appeasement mentality of post-war Europe. The remilitarization of the Rhineland was very popular with locals, because of a resurgence of German nationalism and harboured bitterness over the Allied occupation of the Rhineland until 1930 (Saarland until 1935).

The 1945 military campaign

In early 1945, after a long winter stalemate, military operations by the Allied armies in Northwest Europe resumed with the goal of reaching the Rhine river. From their winter positions in The Netherlands, the First Canadian Army reinforced by elements of the British Second Army, under General Henry Crerar drove through the Rhineland beginning in the first week of February 1945. Operation Veritable lasted several weeks, with the end result of clearing all Germans from the west side of the Rhine river. The supporting operation by the First US Army, Operation Grenade, was planned to coincide from the River Roer, in the south. This was delayed for two weeks however, by German flooding of the Roer valley. On March 7, 1945 a company of armored infantry of the US 9th Armored Division captured the last intact bridge over the Rhine at Remagen. General George Patton's Third US Army would also make a crossing of the river the day before the much anticipated Rhine crossings by 21st Army Group (First Canadian Army and British Second Army) under General (later Field Marshall) Bernard Montgomery in the third week of March 1945. Operation Varsity was a massive airborne operation in conjunction with Operation Plunder, the amphibious crossings. By early April, the Rhine had been crossed by all the Allied armies operating west of the river, and the battles for the Rhineland were over. In the British and Canadian armies, the term Rhineland often refers only to fighting west of the river in February and March 1945, with subesquent operations on the river and to the east known as "Rhine Crossing". Both terms are official Battle Honours in the Commonwealth forces. Category:Regions in Germany Category:Provinces of Prussia ja:ラインラント

Walled city

.]] A defensive wall is a fortification used to defend a city from potential aggressors. In ancient to modern times, they were used to enclose settlements. Generally, these are referred to as city walls or town walls, although there were also walls, such as the Great Wall of China and the Atlantic Wall, which extended far beyond the borders of a city and were used to enclose vast regions. Walls are usually made of stone or clay and are generally as tall as a man's own height, although oftentimes much taller. Depending on the topography of the area surrounding the city or the settlement the wall is intended to protect, elements of the terrain (e.g. rivers or rocks) may be incorporated in order to make the wall more effective. Walls may only be crossed by entering the appropriate city gate and are often supplemented with towers. In the middle ages, it was a privilege to be granted to build a defensive wall, and was granted by the so-called "right of fortification". The practice of building these massive walls, though having its origins in prehistory, was refined during the rise of city-states, and energetic wall-building continued into the medieval period and beyond in certain parts of Europe.

History

Defensive walls are an evolved form of the palisades and other defensive measure employed to protect early settlements. From very early history to modern times, walls have been a near necessity for every city. Exceptions were few - notably, ancient Rome did not have a wall for a long time, choosing to rely on its legions for defense instead. In Central Europe, the Celts built large fortified towns known as oppida, whose walls seem partially influenced by those built in the Mediterranean. The fortifications were continously expanded and improved, until the Celts were driven away by the immigrating German tribes. Initially, these fortifications were simple constructions of wood and earth, which were later replaced by mixed constructions of stones piled on top of each other without mortar. The Romans fortified their cities with massive, mortar-bound stone walls. The most famous remainder of this type is the Porta Nigra in Trier, though there also some left in Regensburg and Cologne. Apart from these, the early Middle Ages also saw the creation of some cities built around castles. These cities were only rarely protected by simple stone walls and more usually by a combination of both walls and ditches. From the 12th century AD hundreds of settlements of all sizes were founded all across Europe, who very often obtained the right of fortification soon afterwards. The founding of cities was an important means of territorial expansion and many cities, especially in eastern Europe, were founded precisely for this purpose during the period of Eastern Colonisation. These cities are easy to recognise due to their regular layout and large market spaces. The fortifications of these settlements were continously improved to reflect the current level of military development.

Composition

At its simplest, a defensive wall consists of a wall enclosure and its gates. For the most part, the top of the walls were accessible, with the outside of the walls having tall parapets with embrasures or merlons. North of the Alps, this passegeway at the top of the walls even had a roof. Occasionally, instead of a passageway, loose rocks were placed on top of the wall - these warned the defenders when the assailants were trying to climb the walls. Examples of this can be found in the fortifications of the cities Seßlach and Fladungen. In addition to this, many different enhancements were made over the course of the centuries:
- City ditch: a ditch dug in front of the walls, occasionally filled with water.
- Gate tower: a tower built next to, or on top of the city gates to better defend the city gates
- Wall tower: a tower built on top of a segment of the wall, which usually extended outwards slightly, so as to be able to cover the walls.
- Pre-wall: wall built outside the wall proper, usually of lesser height - the space inbetween was usually further subdivided by additional walls.
- Additional obstacles in front of the walls, e.g. hedges. The defensive towers of west and south European fortifications in the Middle Ages were often very regularly and uniformly constructed (cf. Avila, Provins), whereas Central European city walls tend to show a variety of different styles. In these cases, the gate and wall towers often reach up to considerable heights, and gates equipped with two towers on either side are much rarer. Apart from the purely military, defensive purpose, towers also played an important representative and artistic role in the conception of a fortified complex. In many senses, the architecture of the city thus competed with that of the castle of the noble men and city walls were often a manifestation of the pride of a particular city. Urban areas outside the city walls, so-called Vorstädte, were often enclosed by their own set of walls and integrated into the defense of the city. These areas were often inhabited by the poorer population and held the "noxious trades". In many cities, a new wall was built once the city had grown outside of the old wall. This can often still be seen in the layout of the city, for example in Nördlingen, and sometimes even a few of the old gate towers are preserved, such as the white tower in Nürnberg. Additional constructions prevented the circumvention of the city, through which many important trade routes passed, thus ensuring that tolls were payed when the caravans passed through the city gates, and that the local market was visited by the trade caravans. Furthermore, additional signalling and observation towers were frequently built outside the city, and were sometimes fortified in a castle-like fashion. The border of the area of influence of the city was often partially or fully defended by elaborate ditches, walls and/or hedges. The crossing points were usually guarded by gates or gate houses. These defenses were regularly checked by riders, who often also served as the gate keepers. Long stretches of these defenses can still be seen to this day, and even some gates are still intact. To further protect their territory, rich cities also established castles in their area of influence. A famous examples of this practice is the Rumanian "Dracula Castle" Bran in Törzburg, which was intended to protect Kronstadt (today's Brasov). The city walls were often connected to the fortifications of hill castles via additional walls . Thus the defenses were made up of city and castle fortifications taken together. Several examples of this are preserved, for example in Germany Hirschorn on the Neckar, Königsberg and Pappenheim, Franken, Burghausen in Oberbayern and many more. A few castles were more directly incorporated into the defensive strategy of the city (e.g Nürnberg, Zons, Carcassonne), or the cities were directly outside the castle as a sort of "pre-castle" (Coucy-le-Chateau, Conwy and others). Larger cities often had multiple stewards - for example Augsburg was divided into a Reichstadt and a bishopal (clerical) city. These different parts were often separated by their own fortifications. With the development of firearms came the necessity to expand the existing installation, which occured in multiples stages. Firstly, additional, half-circular towers were added in the interstices between the the walls and pre-walls (s.a.) in which a handful of cannons could be placed. Soon after, reinforcing structures - or "bastions" - were added in strategically relevant positions, e.g. at the gates or corners. A well-preserved example of this is the Spitalbastei in Rothenburg. However, at this stage the cities were still only protected by relatively thin walls which could offer little resistance to the cannons of the time. Therefore new, star-shaped forts with numerous cannons and thick earth walls reinforced by stone were built. These could resist cannon fire for prolonged periods of time. However, these massive fortifications severly limited the growth of the cities, as it was much more difficult to move them as compared to the simple walls previously employed - to make matters worse, it was forbidden to build "outside the city gates" for strategic reasons and the cities became more and more densely populated as a result.

Decline

In the wake of city growth and the ensuing change of defensive strategy, focussing more on the defense of forts around cities, most city walls were demolished. Nowadays, the presence of former city fortifications can often only be deduced from the presence of ditches or parks. Furthermore, some street names hint at the presence of fortifications in times past, for example when words such as "gate", "wall, or "glacis" occur. In the 19. century, less emphasis was placed on preserving the fortifications for the sake of their architectural or historical value - on the one hand, complete fortifications were restored (Carcassone), on the other hand many structures were demolished in an effort to modernise the cities. An notable exception in this is the "monument preservation" law by the Bavarian King Ludwig I., which led to the nearly complete preservation of many impressive monuments such as the Rothenburg ob der Tauber, Nördlingen and Dinkelsbühl . The countless small fortified towns in the Franken region were also preservered as a consequence of this edict.

Modern Era

Walls and fortified wall structures were built in the modern era, too. They did not, however have the original purpose of being a structure able to resist a prolonged siege or bombardment. The Berlin's city wall from the 1730s to the 1860s was partially made of wood. Its primary purpose was to enable the city to impose tolls on goods and, secondarily, also served to prevent the desertion of soldiers from the garrison in Berlin. The Berlin wall was a different form of wall, in that it did not primarily serve the purpose of protection of an enclosed settlment. It's primary purpose was to prevent the crossing of the Berlin border between the DDR and the BRD exclave of west-Berlin. Further walls of the 20. century are found in Israel where many exclaves of Jewish settlements are surrounded by fortified walls. Additionally, in some countries, different embassies may be grouped together in a single "embassy district", enclosed by a fortified complex with walls and towers - this usually occurs in regions where the embassies run a high risk of being target of attacks. Most of these "modern" city walls are made of steel and concrete. Vertical concrete plates are put together so as to allow the least space in between them, and are rooted firmly in the ground. The top of the wall is often protruding and beset with barbed wire in order to make climbing them more difficult. These walls are usually built in straight lines and covered by watchtowers at the corners. Double walls, i.e. two walls with an interstitial "zone of fire" (cf. the Berlin wall) are rare.

Africa

- Zinder, Nigeria was well known for its city wall, the remains of which can still be seen.

Austria

- Vienna (destroyed)

Canada

- Quebec City, Quebec is the only fortified city north of Mexico whose walls still exist, in the Americas.

China

- Great Wall of China
- Chinese cities occasionally have remnants of city walls that were built in the Ming Dynasty and designed to withstand artillery bombardment. Chinese cities generally outgrew their walls, which fell into disrepair in the Qing dynasty. The city of Xi'an has well-preserved walls with a water filled moat that is a tourist attraction incorporating small parks surrounding a busy and modern area of the city.
- The walls of Beijing were demolished during the 1960s to open large streets around the city. A metro line also follows the location of the former city walls.
- Jingzhou
- Pingyao
- Walled villages can still be found in Mainland China and Hong Kong.

Croatia

- Dubrovnik has well-preserved city fortifications including towers, gate, rampart walk and two citadels guarding the docks.
- Stone walls built in 14th-16th century, at the isthmus of the Pelješac peninsula, to the north of Dubrovnik; 890 meters long town wall and 5 km Great Wall outside the town
- Karlovac city walls, built in 1579 as a six-point star with bastions.
- The town of Split retains much of its ancient wall.

France

- Aigues-Mortes
- Arles (partial remains)
- Avignon
- Carcassonne
- Dinan
- La Couvertoirade
- Langres
- Maginot Line
- Saint-Malo's old town

Germany

Saint-Malo]
- Ahrweiler
- Annaberg-Buchholz
- Amberg
- Andernach
- Bad Münstereifel
- Bautzen/Sa.
- Berching/Opf.
- Bernau bei Berlin
- Blankenburg (Harz)
- Boppard
- Brandenburg
- Büdingen
- Dettelbach/Ufr.
- Dinkelsbühl/Mfr.
- Dollnstein/Altmühltal
- Donauwörth/Bay.
- Ebern/Ufr.
- Eibelstadt/Ufr.
- Eichstätt/Altmühltal
- Fladungen/Rhön, Ufr.
- Forchheim/Ofr.
- Freiberg/Sa.
- Freinsheim
- Frickenhausen/Ufr.
- Fritzlar/Hess.
- Gerolzhofen/Ufr.
- Greding/Altmühltal
- Heidingsfeld(Würzburg)/Ufr.
- Ingolstadt/Obb.
- Iphofen/Ufr.
- Jena
- Karlstadt am Main/Ufr.
- Kaufbeuren/Allgäu
- Korbach
- Kronach/Ofr.
- Landsberg am Lech/Obb.
- Mainbernheim/Ufr.
- Memmingen/Allgäu
- Merkendorf/Mfr.
- Mühlhausen/Thür.
- Müncheberg
- Münnerstadt/Ufr.
- Nabburg/Opf
- Neubrandenburg
- Neuburg an der Donau/Obb.
- Neustadt an der Saale/Ufr.
- Nördlingen
- Nürnberg
- Oberwesel/Rhein
- Ochsenfurt/Ufr.
- Ornbau/Mfr.
- Pappenheim/Altmühltal
- Rodach/Ofr.
- Rostock
- Röttingen/Ufr.
- Rothenburg ob der Tauber/Mfr.
- Schongau/Obb.
- Seßlach/Ofr.
- Soest
- Sommerhausen/Ufr
- Stralsund,
- Templin
- Ulm an der Donau
- Vellberg/BW
- Warburg (Westfalia)
- Wemding/Bavaria
- Weißenburg/Mfr.
- Wittstock
- Wolframs-Eschenbach/Mfr.
- Würzburg/Ufr.
- Zerbst/Sa.-Anh.
- Zeil am Main/Ufr.
- Zons
- Zwickau
- The German Democratic Republic claimed that the Berlin Wall (and the whole DDR border system) was defensive; but it was rather intended to prevent unauthorized emigration.

Greece

- Thessaloniki
- Iraklion
- Rhodes
- Monemvassia
- Ioannina This is just a short list

Hungary

- Buda

Israel

- Jerusalem's Old City Walls
- The walls of Akko (Acre) - 18th century modern Ottoman fortification able to withstand cannons attack. The wall has been restored and now includes rampart for tourists.

Ireland

- Pale

Middle East

- Jericho's Ancient City Walls - probably the most ancient stone wall ever discovered.

Morocco and Western Sahara

- In the 1980s, Morocco built a system of sand wall defenses, the Moroccan Wall (also known as the "Western Sahara walls" or "berm"), to keep the Polisario out of the Western Sahara.

the Netherlands

- 's-Hertogenbosch
- Maastricht

Philippines

- Intramuros - partially preserved, partially restored after WWII. Original walls are still on are well preserved.
- Fort San Pedro - in Cebu
- Fort San Antonio Abad - in Manila
- Fort Pillar- a Spanish defence fort in the island of Mindanao Mindanao

Poland

- Warsaw - partially preserved, partially restored after World War II, barbican restored
- Kraków - only the barbican and some traces preserved
- Zamość - complete renaissance and 19th century walls preserved
- Toruń
- Grudziądz
- Włocławek
- Tyniec

Spain

- Ávila
- Barcelona has portions of a Roman wall.
- Girona
- Lugo has a complete ringwall, some parts dating back to Roman times.
- Toledo

Sweden

- Visby
- Gothenburg has a part of the western city wall left, the bastion Carolus Rex at Esperanto platsen (Esperanto square) and most of the city moat is still left.
- Stockholm has a small remainder of the medeival city wall preserved.

Turkey

- Istanbul

United Kingdom

- Fragments of London Wall, the wall that once surrounded the Roman town of Londinium, are still visible just outside the Museum of London and at Tower Hill.
- The extensive remnains of the York city walls are both a shortcut above the streets and, as in many places, a tourist attraction.
- The walls of Coventry were demolished in 1662 and now only a few fragments survive.
- Berwick-upon-Tweed
- Canterbury
- Chester
- Chichester
- Conwy
- Londonderry
- Stirling
- Warwick
- Antonine Wall
- Hadrian's Wall

United States

- Wall Street, in New York City, is named after New York's old city wall, long since dismantled.

Revenge

Revenge or vengeance consists of retaliation against a person or group in response to perceived wrongdoing. Although many aspects of revenge resemble or echo the concept of making things equal, revenge usually has a more injurious than constructive goal. The vengeful wish is to make the perceived wrongdoer go through what they put the victim through or to make sure the wrongdoer can never do what they did again. Revenge is a hotly contested ethical issue in philosophy. Some feel revenge is necessary to maintain a just society. In some societies, it is believed that the damage inflicted should be greater than the original one, as a punitive measure. The Old Testament philosophy of "an eye for an eye" (cf. Exodus 21:24) tried to limit the allowed damage to avoid a series of violent acts that spiral out of control. Detractors argue revenge is more like the logical fallacy "two wrongs make a right." Some Christians interpret Paul's "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" (Romans 12:19, King James Version) to mean that only God has the moral right to exact revenge. Of the psychological, moral, and cultural foundation for revenge, philosopher Martha Nussbaum has written: "The primitive sense of the just — remarkably constant from several ancient cultures to modern institutions . . . — starts from the notion that a human life . . . is a vulnerable thing, a thing that can be invaded, wounded, violated by another's act in many ways. For this penetration, the only remedy that seems appropriate is a counterinvasion, equally deliberate, equally grave. And to right the balance truly, the retribution must be exactly, strictly proportional to the original encroachment. It differs from the original act only in the sequence of time and in the fact that it is response rather than original act — a fact frequently obscured if there is a long sequence of acts and counteracts" ("Equity and Mercy," in Sex and Social Justice [Oxford University Press, 1999], pp. 157-58). Vendettas are sequences of acts and counteracts motivated by revenge and carried out over long stretches of time by groups in a quest for justice; they were an important part of many pre-industrial societies, especially in the Mediterranean region, and still persist in some areas. The Middle Ages would not regard an insult or injury as settled until avenged: the story of Wimund the Bishop illustrates the typical implacability of the time: its hero, though blinded and imprisoned, would avenge himself against his enemies if he had even but the eye of a sparrow. In Japan's feudal past the Samurai class upheld the honor of their family, clan, or their lord by katakiuchi (敵討ち), or revenge killings. These killings could also involve the relatives of an offender. Today katakiuchi is mostly pursued by peaceful means, but revenge remains an important part of Japanese culture. The goal of some legal systems is limited to "just" revenge. However, a system evolved that substituted the damage of revenge with reparations like blood money or forcing a rapist to marry his victim. Modern Western legal systems usually state as their goal re-education or re-insertion. Even in these systems, the notion of justice as revenge is held by part of the society. A thwarted psychological expectation of revenge may lead to issues of victimhood.

Revenge in art and culture

Revenge has been a popular theme for art and culture throughout history. Many popular motion pictures have used it as a central theme, including Payback, Death Wish, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, Kill Bill and OldBoy. Classic literary examples of revenge stories include The Oresteia, Hamlet, The Merchant of Venice, Chushingura, Don Giovanni, La Forza del Destino, Moby-Dick, The Cask of Amontillado, and The Count of Monte Cristo. Many works show disapproval for revenge:
- In Moby-Dick, Ahab's absurd desire for revenge against the white whale, an animal with no concept of this human emotion, leads his ship and crew to ruin.
- In the Batman: The Animated Series episode, Heart of Ice, Mr. Freeze pursues a vendetta against a callous business executive, Harvey Boyle, whose interruption of a life saving, if unauthorized, procedure killed Freeze's wife and created his deadly intolerance of above freezing temperatures. Batman foils Mr. Freeze's attempt at vengeance, but gives him closure by taking Boyle to the police.
- In the Disney animated feature Brother Bear, a young man starts a cycle of violent vengeance that brings more suffering to the loved ones around him that only ends when he realizes he had been wrong to start it.

Quotations on revenge

- Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. - Leviticus 24:20, King James Bible
- Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. - Romans 12:21
- But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you. - Matthew 5:44
- Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. - Romans 12:19
- If we practice an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, soon the whole world will be blind and toothless. - Mahatma Gandhi
- Revenge without respect to the example and profit to come is a triumph, or glorying in the hurt of another, tending to no end (for the end is always somewhat to come); and glorying to no end is vain-glory, and contrary to reason. - Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan
- Revenge is a dish best served cold. - suggesting that emotional detachment and planning ("cold blooded") are best for taking revenge. The earliest well-known example of this proverb in print appears as "La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid" in the novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses (1782) by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos. The saying exists in many cultures, including Sicilian, Spanish and Pashtun, making its ultimate origin difficult to determine. The modern English wording is attributed to Dorothy Parker. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (and, in reference, Kill Bill) it is said to be a Klingon proverb and was quoted by Khan Noonian Singh. In comic books it is often associated with Batman's enemy Mr. Freeze.
- In the fifth season of the HBO series The Sopranos, Tony Soprano states that Revenge is like serving cold cuts. To this, his psychiatrist Dr. Melfi offers the traditional Parker/Khan phrasing.
- James Bond in For Your Eyes Only: 'Melina, the Chinese have a saying: "Before you set out on revenge, you first dig two graves."'
- Revenge is best dealt with by forgetting it. - Japanese Buddhism (Pure Land school) in advice of a King about to be executed, to his son concerning his enemy, about to execute his father, the King.
- "Vengeance on a dumb brute!" cried Starbuck, "that simply smote thee from blindest instinct! Madness! To be enraged with a dumb thing, Captain Ahab, seems blasphemous." . . . "Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I'd strike the sun if it insulted me. For could the sun do that, then I could do the other." - Moby-Dick

External links

- [http://www.avenging.info/ Extensive articles of revenge tactics and consequences]
- [http://www.ekran.no/html/revenge Useful and interesting advice on revenge tactics]
- [http://www.thepayback.com/ Inspiration for revenge by providing stories and selling items]
- [http://http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/I2SS21BNF0MU/102-3601331-3652949 List of movies with revenge themes]
- [http://www.stopthatracket.com Revenge on your noisy neighbors]
- [http://www.ubersite.com/m/61908 Ultimate Weapon for Exacting Revenge On Co-workers]

Castle

:The article describes the fortified building. See also castle (disambiguation) castle (disambiguation)]] A castle (from the Latin castellum, diminutive of castra, a military camp, in turn the plural of castrum or watchpost), is a fort, a camp and the logical development of a fortified enclosure. The term is most often applied to a small self-contained fortress, usually of the Middle Ages, though traditionally in Britain it has also referred to prehistoric earthworks (e.g. Hollingbury Castle, Maiden Castle). "Castle" sometimes denotes citadels (such as the castles of Badajoz and Burgos) or small detached forts d'arrêt in modern times. In Spain, a fortified dwelling on a height for the administering authority retains its Moorish name of alcázar (see illustration, right). A French castle is a château-fort, for in French a simple château connotes a grand country house at the center of an estate. When European castles were opened up and expanded into pleasure dwellings and power houses from the late 15th century, their "castle" designations, relics of the feudal age, often remained attached to the dwelling, resulting in many un-castlelike castles and châteaux. Castles also figure prominently in Japanese history, where the feudal daimyō inhabited them. daimyō, Japan]]

Medieval European castles

Under its twofold aspect of a fortress and a residence, the medieval castle is inseparably connected with the subjects of fortification (see also siegecraft) and domestic architecture. As the size of local communities grew, it became necessary to provide both a larger and stronger fortification, which would provide for a very strong perimeter defense. Castle walls, together with lodgings (keep) suitable for a Baron, as well as lower grade housing within the walls to accommodate some of the key population of the local area, served this purpose. Castles were also developed to defend key part of the countryside such as a mountain pass or river estuary, and often made use of the natural geography to support the defensive walls through exploitation of cliffs, rivers, hills, and the like. By their very nature they were very permanent structures and many survive through to the modern day; they are now mostly considered monuments. Baron]] Some well known examples include:
- Edinburgh Castle
- Prague Castle
- Leeds Castle
- Tower of London
- Warwick Castle
- Windsor Castle For a more complete list see List of castles. In addition to the castle walls, other defensive features include towers at the angular direction changes of walls, moats, drawbridges, battlements, portcullises, etc. The traditional mechanism used to occupy a castle would normally be to lay siege whereby a surrounding army would camp out of range of attack and wait for the internees to run out of either food or water. Offensive techniques would include the use of catapults, siege engines, battering rams and later mortar and cannon. The word "castle" (castel) was introduced into English shortly before the Norman Conquest to denote a type of fortress, then new to the country, brought in by the Norman knights whom Edward the Confessor had sent for to defend Herefordshire against the inroads of the Welsh. Richard's castle, of which the earthworks remain and which has given its name to a parish, was erected at this period on the border of Herefordshire and Shropshire by Richard Fitz Scrob. The essential feature of this type was a circular mound of earth surrounded by a dry ditch and flattened at the top. Around the crest of its summit was placed a timber palisade. This moated mound was styled in French motte (in Latin, mota), a word still common in French place-names. It is clearly depicted at the time of the Conquest in the Bayeux Tapestry, and was then familiar on the mainland of western Europe. Europe] A description of this earlier castle is given in the life of John, bishop of Terouanne (Ada Sanctorum, quoted by GT Clark, Medieval Mil. Architecture): "The rich and the noble of that region being much given to feuds and bloodshed, fortify themselves ... and by these strongholds subdue their equals and oppress their inferiors. They heap up a mound as high as they are able, and dig round it as broad a ditch as they can ... Round the summit of the mound they construct a palisade of timber to act as a wall. Inside the palisade they erect a house, or rather a citadel, which looks down on the whole neighbourhood". St John, bishop of Terouanne, died in 1130, and this castle of Merchem, built by a lord of the town many years before, may be taken as typical of the practice of the 11th century. But in addition to the mound, the citadel of the fortress, there was usually appended to it a bailey or basecourt (and sometimes two) of semilunar or horseshoe shape, so that the mound stood on the line of the enceinte. The rapidity and ease with which it was possible to construct castles of this type made them characteristic of the Conquest period in England and of the Anglo-Norman settlements in Wales, Ireland and the Scottish lowlands. In later days a stone wall replaced the timber palisade and produced what is known as the shell-keep, the type met with in the extant castles of Berkeley, Alnwick and Windsor. Windsor]] But the Normans introduced also two other types of castle. The one was adopted where they found a natural rock stronghold which only needed adaptation, as at Clifford, Ludlow, the Peak and Exeter, to produce a citadel; the other was a type wholly distinct, the high rectangular tower of masonry, of which the Tower of London is the best-known example, though that of Colchester was probably constructed in the 11th century also. But the latter type belongs rather to the more settled conditions of the 12th century when haste was not a necessity, and in the first half of which the fine extant keeps of Hedingham and Rochester were erected. These towers were originally surrounded by palisades, usually on earthen ramparts, which were replaced later by stone walls. The whole fortress thus formed was styled a castle, but sometimes more precisely "tower and castle," the former being the citadel, and the latter the walled enclosure, which preserved more strictly the meaning of the Roman castellum. Hedingham]] Reliance was placed by the engineers of that time simply and solely on the inherent strength of the structure, the walls of which defied the battering ram, and could only be undermined at the cost of much time and labour, while the narrow apertures were constructed to exclude arrows or flaming brands. At this stage the crusades, and the consequent opportunities afforded to western engineers of studying the solid fortresses of the Byzantine empire, revolutionized the art of castlebuilding, which henceforward follows recognized principles. Many castles were built in the Holy Land by the crusaders of the 12th century, and it has been shown (Oman, Art of War: the Middle Ages, p. c20) that the designers realized, first, that a second line of defences should be built within the main enceinte, and a third line or keep inside the second line; and secondly, that a wall must be flanked by projecting towers. From the Byzantine engineers, through the crusaders, we derive, therefore, the cardinal principle of the mutual defence of all the parts of a fortress. The donjon of western Europe was regarded as the fortress, the outer walls as accessory defences; in the East each envelope was a fortress in itself, and the keep became merely the last refuge of the garrison, used only when all else had been captured. Indeed the keep, in several crusader castles, is no more than a tower, larger than the rest, built into the enceinte and serving with the rest for its flanking defence, while the fortress was made strongest on the most exposed front. The idea of the flanking towers (which were of a type very different from the slight projections of the shell-keep and rectangular tower) soon penetrated to Europe, and Alnwick Castle (1140-1150) shows the influence of the new system. But the finest of all castles of the middle ages was Richard de Lion's fortress of Château-Gaillard Les Andelys. Here the innermost ward was protected by an elaborate system of strong appended defences, which included a strong fte-de-pont covering the Seine bridge (see Clark, i. 384, and Oman, p. 533). The castle stood upon high ground and consisted of three distinct enceintes or wards besides the keep, which was in this case merely a strong tower forming part of the innermost ward, The donion was rarely defended ci outrance and it gradually sank in importance as the outer "wards" grew stronger. Round instead of rectangular towers were now becoming usual, the finest examples of their employment as keeps being at Conisborough in England and at Coucy in France. Against the relatively feeble siege artillery of the 13th century a well built fortress was almost proof, but the mines and the battering ram of the attack were more formidable, and it was realized that corners in the stonework of the fortress were more vulnerable than a uniform curved surface. Château Gaillard fell to Philip Augustus in 1204 after a strenuous defence, and the success of the assailants was largely due to the wise and skilful employment of mines. An angle of the noble keep of Rochester was undermined and brought down by John in 1215. The next development was the extension of the principle of successive lines of defence to form what is called the "concentric" castle, in which each ward was placed wholly within another which enveloped it; places thus built on a flat site (e.g. Caerphilly Castle) became for the first time more formidable than strongholds perched upon rocks and hills such as Château Gaillard, where the more exposed parts indeed possessed many successive lines of defence, but at other points, for want of room, it was impossible to build more than one or, at most, two walls. In these cases, the fall of the inner ward by surprise, escalade, vive force, or even by ordinary siege (as was sometimes feasible), entailed the fall of the whole castle. The adoption of the concentric system precluded any such mischance, and thus, even though siege engines improved during the 13th and 14th centuries, the defence, by the massive strength of the concentric castle in some cases, by natural inaccessibility of position in others, maintained itself superior to the attack during the latter middle ages. Its final fall was due to the introduction of gunpowder as a propellant. In the 14th century the change begins, in the 15th it is fully developed, in the 16th the feudal fastness has become an anachronism. The general adoption of cannon placed in the hands of the central power a force which ruined the baronial fortifications in a few days of firing. The possessors of cannon were usually private individuals of the middle classes, from whom the prince hired the matériel and the technical workmen. A typical case will be found in the history of Brandenburg and Kingdom of Prussia (Carlyle, Frederick the Great, bk. iii. ch. i.), the impregnable castle of Friesack, held by an intractable feudal noble, Dietrich von Quitzow, being reduced in two days by the elector Frederick I with "Heavy Peg" (Faule Grete) and other guns hired and borrowed (February 1414). The beginnings of orderly government in Brandenburg thus depended upon the guns, and the taking of Friesack is, in Carlyle's phrase, "a fact memorable to every Prussian man." In England, the earl of Warwick in 1464 reduced the strong fortress of Bamburgh in a week, and in Germany, Franz von Sickingen's stronghold of Landstuhl, formerly impregnable on its heights, was ruined in one day by the artillery of Philip of Hesse (1523). Very heavy artillery was used for such work, of course, and against lighter natures, some castles and even fortified country-houses or castellated mansions managed to make a stout stand even as late as the great castles erected by Henry VIII, especially those at Deal, Sandown and Walmer (c. 1540), which played some part in the events of the 17th century, and of which Walmer Castle is still the official residence of the lord warden of the Cinque Ports. Viollet-le-Duc, in his Annals of a Fortress (English trans.), gives a full and interesting account of the repeated renovations of the fortress on his imaginary site in the valley of the Doubs, the construction by Charles the Bold of artillery towers at the angles of the castle, the protection of the masonry by earthen outworks, boulevards and demi-boulevards, and, in the 17th century, the final service of the medieval walls and towers as a pure enceinte de sfireti. Here and there we find old castles serving as forts d'arret or block-houses in mountain passes and defiles, and in some few cases, as at Dover, they formed the nucleus of purely military places of arms, but normally the castle falls into ruins, becomes a peaceful mansion, or is merged in the fortifications of the town which has grown up around it. In the Annals of a Fortress the site of the feudal castle is occupied by the citadel of the walled town, for once again, with the development of the middle class and of commerce and industry, the art of the engineer came to be displayed chiefly in the fortification of cities. The baronial "castle" assumes pan passu the form of a mansion, retaining indeed for long some capacity for defence, but in the end losing all military characteristics save a few which survived as ornaments. Examples of such castellated mansions are seen in Wingfield Manor, Derbyshire, and Hurstmonceaux, Sussex, erected in the 15th century, and nearly all older castles which survived were continually improved and altered to serve as residences.

Influence of Castles in British History

Sussex]] Such strongholds as existed in England at the time of the Norman Conquest seem to have offered little resistance to William of Normandy, who, in order effectually to guard against invasions from without as well as to awe his newly-acquired subjects, immediately began to erect castles all over the kingdom, and likewise to repair and augment the old ones. Besides, as he had parcelled out the lands of the English amongst his followers, they, to protect themselves from the resentment of the despoiled natives, built strongholds and castles on their estates, and these were multiplied so rapidly during the troubled reign of King Stephen that the "adulterine" (i.e. unauthorized) castles are said by one writer to have amounted to 1115. In the first instance, when the interest of the king and of barons was identical, the former had only retained in his hands the castles in the chief towns of the shires, which were entrusted to his sheriffs or constables. But the great feudal revolts under the Conqueror and his sons showed how formidable an obstacle to the rule of the king was the existence of such fortresses in private hands, while the people hated them from the first for the oppressions connected with their erection and maintenance. It was, therefore, the settled policy of the crown to strengthen the royal castles and increase their number, while jealously keeping in check those of the barons. But in the struggle between Stephen and the Empress Matilda for the crown, which became largely a war of sieges, the royal power was relaxed and there was an outburst of castle-building, without permission, by the barons. These in many cases acted as petty sovereigns, and such was their tyranny that the native chronicler describes the castles as "filled with devils and evil men." These excesses paved the way for the pacification at the close of the reign, when it was provided that all unauthorized castles constructed during its course should be destroyed. Henry II, in spite of his power, was warned by the great revolt against him that he must still rely on castles, and the massive keeps of Newcastle and of Dover date from this period. Under his sons the importance of the chief castles was recognized as so great that the struggle for their control was in the forefront of every contest. When Richard made vast grants at his accession to his brother John, he was careful to reserve the possession of certain castles, and when John rose against the king's minister, Longchamp, in 1191, the custody of castles was the chief point of dispute throughout their negotiations, and Lincoln was besieged on the king's behalf, as were Tickhill, Windsor and Marlborough subsequently, while the siege of Nottingham had to be completed by Richard himself on his arrival. To John, in turn, as king, the fall of Château Gaillard meant the loss of Rouen and of Normandy with it, and when he endeavoured to repudiate the newly-granted Magna Carta, his first step was to prepare the royal castles against attack and make them his centres of resistance. The barons, who had begun their revolt by besieging that of Northampton, now assailed that of Oxford as well and seized that of Rochester. The king recovered Rochester after a severe struggle and captured Tonbridge, but thenceforth there was a war of sieges between John with his mercenaries and Louis with his Frenchmen and the barons, which was specially notable for the great defence of Dover Castle by Hubert de Burgh against Louis. On the final triumph of the royal cause, after John's death, at the Battle of Lincoln, the general pacification was accompanied by a fresh issue of the Great Charter in the autumn of 1217, in which the precedent of Stephen's reign was followed and a special clause inserted that all "adulterine" castles, namely those which had been constructed or rebuilt since the breaking out of war between John and the barons, should be immediately destroyed. And special stress was laid on this in the writs addressed to the sheriffs. In 1223 Hubert de Burgh, as regent, demanded the surrender to the crown of all royal castles not in official custody, and though he succeeded in this, Falkes de Breauté, John's mercenary, burst into revolt next year, and it cost a great national effort and a siege of nearly two months to reduce Bedford Castle, which he had held. Towards the close of Henry's reign castles again asserted, in the Baron's War, their importance. The Provisions of Oxford included a list of the chief royal castles and of their appointed castellans with the oath that they were to take; but the alien favourites refused to make way for them till they were forcibly ejected. When war broke out it was Rochester Castle that successfully held Simon de Montfort at bay in 1264, and in Pevensey Castle that the fugitives from the rout of Lewes were able to defy his power. Finally, after his fall at Evesham, it was in Kenilworth Castle that the remnant of his followers made their last stand, holding out nearly five months against all the forces of the crown, till their provisions failed them at the close of 1266. Thus for two centuries after the Norman Conquest castles had proved of primary consequence in English political struggles, revolts and warfare. And, although, when the country was again torn by civil strife, their military importance was of small account, the crown's historic jealousy of private fortification was still seen in the need to obtain the king's licence to crenellate (i.e. embattle) the country mansion.

Purpose of castles

crenellate]] Castles were built not only as a defensive measure from hostile enemies, but as an offensive weapon. This article in general discusses castles as a defensive fortress, while this section examines the role of castles as an offensive weapon during the middle ages. During the Middle Ages, in particular the High Middle Ages (the height of castle building in Europe), lords and kings often built castles for offensive reasons: territorial expansion and control of a region. A castle was a stronghold from which a lord or baron could control surrounding territory. The story of Hugh of Abbeville in the last decades of the 10th century illustrates this: :Because [Hugh of Abbeville's peers] were not all lords of castles, [he] became more powerful than the rest of his peers. For he could do what he liked without fear, relying on the protection of the castle, while others, if they tried anything, were easily overcome as they had no refuge.(Hariulf, Gesta ecclesiae Centulensis) In the wake of the Norman Conquest, Norman lords constructed castles across England to control and conquer. During the Investiture Controversy in Germany during the 11th century, and the resulting decline of the German kingdom, castle building exploded as local warlords staked claims to minor kingdoms from behind newly-built castles. It is for this reason that so many castles were built throughout Europe: they were an offensive weapon that any warlord with ambitions could employ to control and conquer regional territory.

Castle building

The keep is the strong central tower of the castle. Castle building was a very common task as boundaries were pushed and territory conquered. The walls would most commonly go up first, so nothing could hurt the castle while it was being built. Then came the castle so the Town Lord could govern easily. Then a cathedral would be built. This would often be the longest job, due to the intricate artwork that went into it. Then the villagers would be left to build their houses and shops, often with a separate kitchen building. Fields would be built and crops harvested. A castle town is built. Castles, on an average, took 10-15 years to complete. Nevertheless, this varied greatly since a castle built on top of a hill would generally take much longer to build that a castle situated on an easy-to-build terrain. As time passed, stronger castles were built. During the Middle Ages, a stronger need for security emerged; thus the building of concentric castles. Concentric castles took much longer to complete but they provided many lines of defense. Normally the outer wall would be finished first and then the rest; to protect the workers and the people already inhabitating the castle.

Bibliography

GT Clark, Medieval Military Architecture in England (2 vols.), includes a few French castles and is the standard work on the subject, but inaccurate and superseded on some points by recent research; Professor Oman's Art of War in the Middle Ages is a wide survey of the subject, but follows Clark in some of his errors; Mackenzie, The Castles of England (1897), valuable for illustrations; Deville, Histoire du Château-Gaillard (1829) and Château d'Argues (1839); Viollet-le-Duc's Essay on the Military Architecture of the Middle Ages was translated by M Macdermott in 1860. More recent studies will be found in JH Round's Geoffrey de Mandeville (1891); "English Castles" (Quarterly Review, July 1894); and "Castles of the Conquest" (Archeologia, lviii., 1902); St John Hope's "English Castles of the 10th and 11th Centuries" (Archaeol. Journal, lx., 1902); Mrs Armitage's "Early Norman Castles of England"; (Eng. Hist. Review, xix. 1904), and her papers in Scot. Soc. Ant. Proc. xxxiv., and The Antiquary, July, August, 1906; G. Neilson's "The Motes in Norman Scotland" (Scottish Review, lxiv., 1898); GH Orpen, "Motes and Norman Castles in Ireland" (Eng. Hist. Review, xxi., xxii., 1906-1907).

External links

- [http://www.medieval-castles.org Medieval Castles and their information.]
- [http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=25955 Medieval Castles in Finland]
- [http://www.castlexplorer.co.uk British Castles on www.castlexplorer.co.uk]
- [http://www.castelos.com.pt/alfa-texto.html Portuguese Castles on www.castelos.com.pt]
- [http://www.castillosnet.org Spanish Castles on www.castillosnet.org]
- [http://www.languedoc-france.info/1207_castles.htm Cathar Castles in the Languedoc]
- [http://www.scottishsundials.co.uk Scottish Sundials] - an essential part of a Scottish Castle
- [http://www.castlewales.com/home.html Castles of Wales] Category:Fortification ja:城 ko:성 (건조물) simple:Castle

Serfs

Serfdom refers to the legal and economic status of some peasants under feudalism, specifically in the manorial (also known as seigneurialism) economic system. A serf is a laborer who is bound to the land. Serfs formed the lowest social class of the feudal society. Serfs differed from slaves in that serfs were not property themselves and could not be sold apart from the land which they worked. Serfdom is the forced labour of serfs, on the fields of the privileged land owners, in return for protection and the right to work on their leased fields. Serfdom involved work not only on fields, but various agricultural-related works, like forestry, transportation (both land and river-based), work in craft and even in manufactures. Serfdom evolved from agricultural slavery of Roman Empire and spread through Europe around the 10th century. It was dominant during the Europe's Middle Ages. In England serfdom lasted up to 17th century, in France until 1789. In most other European countries serfdom lasted until the early 19th century. The last European country to abolish serfdom was Russia, in 1861.

Etymology

Serf is derived from word servus, Latin for slave or servant.

Details

All land was owned by various landowners - nobility, Church and monarchs. Serfs and their families were allowed to farm some of the land to support themselves. Serfs were taxed on the produce and profits of their holdings. In addition, they had to devote a fair amount of time and labor to working the landowner’s demesne land, the section of the manor kept directly under the landowner’s control and not used by other tenants. The status of a serf was somewhat better than that of slave, for a serf had some rights and was not a property himself — no one owned him. But he was in various ways tied to a plot of land, the land was owned by someone else and could change owners. Typically, when serfdom prevailed, the land itself could not be sold because it was associated with political powers (just as the Monarch of Great Britain cannot sell Great Britain). Instead, the land was transferred via war, marriage, and the like. A serf was a peasant. While most serfs were farmers, some serfs were craftsmen - like the village blacksmith, miller or innkeeper. They were bound to the place and could not leave without the landowner's permission. They also owed work to the landowner; normally they were expected to farm the landowners' estates as well as their own, owed in addition some portion of their own harvest to the landowner, and were further required to perform other labor services upon demand. Their social and legal status was hereditary. Within these constraints, a serf had some freedom. A serf might accumulate personal property and wealth, and some serfs became wealthier than their lords - although this was rather an exception to the general rule. Serfs could raise what they saw fit on their lands, and sell the surplus at market. Their heirs were guaranteed an inheritance. The landowner could not dispossess his serfs without cause and was supposed to protect them from outlaws or other lords, and he was expected to support them by charity in times of crop failure. The restraints of serfdom on personal and economic choice were enforced through various forms of manorial court and the manorial administration. Specifics of serfdom varied greatly through time and region. In some places, serfdom was merged with or exchanged for various forms of taxation. The amount of serfdom required varied, for example in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 13th century it was few days a year; in the 14th century, one day per week; 4 days in the 17th century and 6 days in the 18th century, and early serfdom was most limited on the royal territories (królewszczyzny). The Russian system of serfdom was based on the principle that the lord owned the peasant under his control, so he could dispose of his serfs as he wished: he could even separate them from their land. Sometimes, serfs served as soldiers in the event of conflict and could earn freedom or even ennoblement for valour in combat. In other cases, serfs could also purchase their freedom, be manumitted by their enlightened or generous owners, or flee to towns or newly-settled land where few questions were asked. Laws varied from country to country: in England a serf who evaded recapture for a year and a day obtained his freedom. In many cases, serfs had to obtain permission from the landowner of their manor to marry a partner from off the manor. They could also be obliged to pay fines: on inheritance, on becoming a priest or monk or on having their children leave the manor and go to cities. Furthermore, serfs had to pay to use the lord’s grain mill and bread oven and were charged for miscellaneous services such as using the lord’s carts to haul their produce.

History of serfdom

Social institutions similar to serfdom were known in ancient times. The status of the helots in the ancient Greek city-state of Sparta resembled that of the medieval serfs, as did the condition of the peasants working on government lands in ancient Rome. These Roman peasants, known as colini, or "tenant farmers", are some of the possible precursors of the serfs. The Germanic tribes invading the Roman Empire for the most part displaced wealthy Romans as the landlords but left the economic system itself intact. However, medieval serfdom really began with the breakup of the Carolingian Empire around the 10th century. The demise of this empire, which had ruled much of the western Europe for more than 200 years, was followed by a long period during which no strong central governments existed in most of Europe. During this period powerful feudal lords encouraged the establishment of serfdom as a source of agricultural labor. Serfdom, indeed, was an institution that reflected a fairly common practice whereby great landlords are assured that others work to feed them and are held down, legally and economically, while doing so. This arrangement provided most of the agricultural labor throughout the Middle Ages. Slavery persisted right through the Middle Ages, but it was rare, diminishing and largely confined to the use of household slaves. Parts of Europe, including much of Scandinavia, never adopted many feudal institutions, including serfdom. In the later Middle Ages serfdom began to disappear west of the Rhine even as it spread through eastern Europe. This was one important cause for the deep differences between the society and economy of eastern and western Europe that has lasted down to our own day. In the Western Europe, the rise of powerful monarchs, towns, and an improving economy weakened the manorial system through the 13th and 14th centuries, and serfdom was rare following the Renaissance. Serfdom there generally came to an end in the 15th and 16th centuries, largely because of changes in the economy, population, and laws governing lord-tenant relations. The enclosure of manor fields for livestock grazing and for larger arable plots made the economy of serfs’ small strips of land in open fields less attractive to the landowners. Also, the increasing use of money made tenant farming by serfs less profitable; for much less than it cost to support a serf, a lord could now hire workers who were more skilled and pay them in cash. Paid labor was also more flexible since workers could be hired only when they were needed. At the same time, increasing unrest and uprisings by serfs and peasants, like Tyler’s Rebellion in England in 1381, put pressure on the nobility and the clergy to reform the system. As a result serf and peasant demands were accommodated to some extent by the gradual establishment of new forms of leasing the land and increased personal liberties. Another important factor in the decline of serfdom was industrial development - especially the Industrial Revolution. With the growing profitabilty of industry farmers wanted to move to towns to receive higher wages than those they could earn working in the fields, while landowners also invested in the more profitable industry. This also lead to the growing process of urbanization. urbanization Serfdom reached Eastern European countries relatively later than Western Europe - it became dominant around the 15th century. Before that time the population density of Eastern Europe was much lower than that of Western Europe, thus the lords of Eastern Europe created a peasantry-friendly environment to encourage migration east. Serfdom developed in Eastern Europe after the Black Death epidemics, which not only stopped the migration but depopulated Eastern Europe. The resultant large land-to-labor ratio combined with vast, sparsely populated areas gave the lords an incentive to bind the remaining peasantry to their land. With increased demand for agricultural products in Western Europe during the later era when Western Europe limited and eventually abolished serfdom, serfdom remained in force throughout Eastern Europe during the 17th century so that nobility-owned estates could produce more agricultural products (especially grain) for the profitable export market. Such Eastern European countries include Prussia (Prussian Ordinances of 1525), Austria, Hungary (laws of late 15th/early 16th century), the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (szlachta privileges of early 16th century) and the Russian Empire (laws of 16th century). Russian EmpireThis also led to the slower industry development and urbanisation of those regions. Generally, this process, referred to as 'second serfdom' or 'export-led serfdom', which persisted until the mid-19th century, became very repressive and substantially limited serfs' rights. In many of these countries serfdom was abolished during the Napoleonic invasions of the early nineteenth century. Serfdom persisted longest in Russia, where it remained the practice until February 19, 1861 (Russian Serfdom Reforms). It's worth to mention, though, that de-facto serfdom was fully extinguished in Russia as late as in 1974 (Changes to Passport system, decree #677 by the USSR government), when peasants were for the first time granted identification documents, together with an unrestricted right to move within the country. Russian serfdom was perhaps the most unique among the Eastern European experiences, as it was never influenced by German law and migrations, and the serfdom and manorialism systems were forced by the crown (Tsar), not the nobility.

External links

- [http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~atpc/heritage/history/h-life/peasant.html An extraction from the book "Serfdom to Self-Government: Memoirs of a Polish Village Mayor, 1842-1927"]
- [http://66.188.129.72:5980/History/PreModernEurope/pl-9trade.htm The Granary of Europe - serfdom in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth]
- [http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001447.html The Causes of Slavery or Serfdom: A Hypothesis], discussion and full online text of Evsey Domar (1970), "The Causes of Slavery or Serfdom: A Hypothesis," Economic History Review 30:1 (March), pp. 18-32
- [http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&an=4524448 The Estabilishment of Serfdom in Eastern Europe and Russia], Richard Trethewey, American Economist, Spring 1974, Vol. 18 Issue 1
- [http://cyberspacei.com/jesusi/peace/abolitionism/serf.htm Serfdom]
- [http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/serfsup.html SERFS UP!] Category:Feudalism Category:Labor Category:Slavery

10th century

As a means of recording the passage of time, the 10th century was that century which lasted from 901 to 1000.

Overview

Events

1000, India, during the 10th century.]]
- The beginning of the Medieval Warm Period
- Viking groups settle in northern France - Norse become Normans
- Foundation of Cluny, first federated monastic order
- Incursions of Magyar (Hungarian) cavalry throughout Western Europe (47 expeditions in Germany, Italy and France, 899 - 970)
- Mieszko I, first duke of Poland, baptised a Christian in 966
- Khazar kingdom is attacked and defeated by Kievan Rus (965)
- Collapse of the central lowland Maya civilization. End of Classic Maya period, begin Post-Classic Maya.
- Rise of the Toltecs in Mexico.
- Collapse of Great Moravia
- Buddhist temple construction commences at Pagan, Myanmar
- Laguna Copperplate Inscription, Kavi script, inscribed in Luzon, Philippines, dated Saka year 822 (AD 900).
- The medieval Croatian state becomes a unified kingdom under Tomislav
- Twentieth century Belgian astronomer Jean Meeus asserts that the orbits of all nine planets were within the same 90% arc of the solar system on 1 February, 949. The next time it is thought this will occur is on 6 May, 2492.
- Coastal cities on the Malay Peninsula are the seed for the first recorded Malay kingdoms.
- The Fatimid dynasty arises in eastern Algeria.
- Swedish influence extends to the Black Sea.
- The Christian Nubian kingdom reaches its peak of prosperity and military power. (Early history of Sudan)

Significant people

- Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl, semi-legendaric Toltec ruler, (exact years of his life are unknown).
- Nicephorus II, Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire (lived 912 - 969, reigned 963 - 969).
- Otto I the Great, Holy Roman Emperor (lived 912 - 973, reigned 936 - 973).
- King Edmund I of England (lived 921 - 946, reigned 939 - 946).
- John I Tzimisces, Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire (lived 925 - 976, reigned 969<