The castles which we now see as substantial earthworks must be approached in a different way from those which have left the remains of stone walls. This is not so much because the castles themselves were essentially different for being built in a different way, but because our knowledge of them is. Indeed, the very distinction between earthworks and stone may be shown to be wrong if excavation discovers the buried walls within what appeared as mounds of earth. To us they are earthworks, because that is how we see and recognise them now, but it is better to think of them as timber castles. Even if the builders used no stone, they were to the contemporary visitor’s eye often predominately timber castles, either because much of the earthwork was revetted or concealed by timber, or because the buildings were of timber (Higham and Barker, 1992). Unless the earthwork sites have been excavated, we have little idea of much of their structure or development. Similarly, there are few, or no, documents that relate to many of the earthwork castles, unlike the stone castles, where normally we know the ownership and sometimes have dates of construction and use.
It is common to think of the timber and earth castles as being more ‘primitive’, and older; that somehow, timber castles were replaced by stone ones as time went on. Many were, but castles continued to use earthworks at all periods, while the use of timber for some of the buildings at least never ceased. Conversely, some of the earliest castles were of stone from the beginning. This said, it is equally true that there was a steady diminution over time in both the amount of timber work used in individual castles and in the number of wholly timber castles built. In particular, the commonest form of earthwork castle, the motte castle, does not seem to have been built beyond the thirteenth century, a matter to which we will return. Timber castles undoubtedly loom larger in the body of castles in Ireland before the mid-thirteenth century than they do later.
It would be convenient if we could equate stone castles with the high status of major capita, with the corollary that timber castles were the castles of the lesser lords and the major tenants. In part this may be true: all the lesser castles identified as such are earthworks now. However, it is also clear that some major castles in Ireland could be built of earth and timber. The castle of Drogheda is now marked by a large motte; the castle of Old Ross by a motte and bailey; a motte probably lies beneath the great tower of Athlone castle (Orpen, 1907b, 263-5); John de Courcy appears to have started to build a motte within the earlier earthwork at Downpatrick. Athlone may not have been a prime royal castle from the first (although it always takes a prominent position in the records), but the rest can be identified with major early capita. Elsewhere in these lordships, less important estates of the lord’s demesne were also marked by earthworks. Clearly, the lords of the first lordships, Leinster, Meath and Ulster, were prepared to erect timber castles as capita of their demesnes in the first instance (Fig. 36). However, they soon proceeded to select one as the caput of the whole lordship, and then build, or rebuild, it in stone. At Carrickfergus, Nenagh or Adare, the lords erected stone buildings from the first: perhaps an earthwork castle was acceptable only as some baronial caput, or perhaps only for a short time.
The nub of the difference between stone and timber castles is the difference in resources, time and commitment required to construct them. In 1212, the Justiciar, John de Gray, apparently conceived an elaborate strategic plan to enforce English control on Aedh Ua Neill, king of Cenel Eoghain in central Ulster. There were to be expeditions from Connacht, Meath and English Ulster, leading respectively to castles built at Narrow Water on the Erne, Clones, Co. Monaghan and Coleraine (Orpen, Normans, II, 288-94). The Pipe Roll of 121112 has preserved an account of the costs involved in the Clones effort. It has always been assumed that the motte and bailey earthwork at Clones represents the structure erected in 1212, and there seems no reason to doubt it. It is not possible to disentangle every item mentioned, between the costs of the castle and those of its garrison and of the army operating in the area, but we can get an approximate idea. The works of the castle itself account for ?19-4-10U of expenditure, as opposed to ?15-4-7 on supplies or ?21-11-0 on carriage of men and materials to Clones. The resources came mainly from Dublin and Meath, but some from elsewhere (Fig. 37).
What these figures show is that the costs of building the castle of Clones were not high. We may compare them with the ?500-1,000 needed to erect a contemporary great tower of stone in Britain, or, indeed, with the ?733 accounted for in the same Pipe Roll as being spent on Limerick castle. That only three kinds of workmen (including the unskilled diggers) are mentioned is significant: timber castles required few skilled men to build them compared to stone ones. While a few of the earthwork castles which we now see were built by great lords on their own estates, the great majority were the castles of their tenants.
World History
