The Castles of North America
- Thread starter Blue Moon
- Start date
jahenders
Banned
I think they're most definitely castles, though not of the medieval form the thread seems to suggest. Star Forts (and the like) are post-gunpowder castles.
The main aspect where someone might draw a distinction between these forts and (other) castles is that castles were traditionally (but not always) places for populations to live and/or take refuge, while (most of) these types of forts are more solely as fortification, put in place as a strongly defended (man made) geographic feature.
Other than that, the only differentiation I see is that some definitions of castle include towers (understandably absent in the star fort).
The main aspect where someone might draw a distinction between these forts and (other) castles is that castles were traditionally (but not always) places for populations to live and/or take refuge, while (most of) these types of forts are more solely as fortification, put in place as a strongly defended (man made) geographic feature.
Other than that, the only differentiation I see is that some definitions of castle include towers (understandably absent in the star fort).
Blue Moon
Banned
Perhaps in this world the final form of the castle is something other than a star fort ?
Let's see about fortifications in North America--------------------------------------
1 Wooden forts= They were used throughout the frontier up till Edwardian times. These were more or less the castles of historic North America.
2 Spanish missions= Especially in the Southwest! They were partly built for protection against hostiles. And much like Old World castles, they still look good even if they might be decaying and has some romanticism and mystique.
3 Cliff dwellers- The buildings of the Ancient Puebloan people were built for defense against invaders. Kept up pretty well.
1 Wooden forts= They were used throughout the frontier up till Edwardian times. These were more or less the castles of historic North America.
2 Spanish missions= Especially in the Southwest! They were partly built for protection against hostiles. And much like Old World castles, they still look good even if they might be decaying and has some romanticism and mystique.
3 Cliff dwellers- The buildings of the Ancient Puebloan people were built for defense against invaders. Kept up pretty well.
The classic castle was the product of a specific set of political, social, and military realities. These simply did not apply in the Americas. You did not have a medieval social system where the lord of the manor needed that sort of protection against his own peasants as well as enemies. Against a siege, even with trebuchets, a well stocked castle was an excellent protection against an attacking/besieging army. Against gunpowder weapons, the classic castle was ineffective - hence the development of star forts, the Vauban system.
The fortifications in the New World were not castles, although some of the ones in Spanish possessions looked more like castles as they were designed/built before the Vauban system. Almost all of the major stone fortifications in the New World were coastal fortifications defending harbors or coastal cities. Against Native Americans that sort of elaborate fortification simply isn't necessary - at most they had small arms, never any cannon. Wooden forts were adequate against those threats.
Had Britain not defeated France in Canada, you might have seen inland star forts along the French/British divide. Castles, no.
Basically absent the social and technological conditions that caused castles to be created, and don't forget castles were an expensive investment in a society that did not have tones of excess capital.
The fortifications in the New World were not castles, although some of the ones in Spanish possessions looked more like castles as they were designed/built before the Vauban system. Almost all of the major stone fortifications in the New World were coastal fortifications defending harbors or coastal cities. Against Native Americans that sort of elaborate fortification simply isn't necessary - at most they had small arms, never any cannon. Wooden forts were adequate against those threats.
Had Britain not defeated France in Canada, you might have seen inland star forts along the French/British divide. Castles, no.
Basically absent the social and technological conditions that caused castles to be created, and don't forget castles were an expensive investment in a society that did not have tones of excess capital.
dissentcontinues
Banned
Yeah, more traditional ones north. The Mesoamerican and Andean empires are in a better position to not get totally taken over but there are upheavals and the Varangian equivalent begins to become the power behind the throne in Mesoamerica, though eventually they go native so it evens out.
So we need much greater population densities to support feudal lords and idle soldiers to protect against neighbouring tribes that try to steal
Your food stores in time of drought, famine, etc. Greater population density requires the Mayans and Incas to flourish for a few more centuries, expand up the Mississippi River, etc.
Your food stores in time of drought, famine, etc. Greater population density requires the Mayans and Incas to flourish for a few more centuries, expand up the Mississippi River, etc.
I've always thought the term "castle" referred to a very specific form of fortress that was the permanent residence of the regional ruler, lord, or warlord that could also be used as a temporary refuge for his subjects in time of siege. Do star-design fortresses built by Britain, France, Spain, or the US really qualify as castles? There are examples of these in many areas of North America, but to my knowledge their purpose is mainly military, with a lesser emphasis on trade with and protection from indigenous peoples or other European states? For old world examples, were Hadrian's wall or the Great Wall of China built as "castles" or as the specialized border fortifications of organized states?
I would imagine that western stockade forts come closer to the concept of "castle", but actually the walled towns and elevated earthworks of pre-contact and early contact Mississippian cultures come closest. These structures often enclosed only the civic and ceremonial centers of these towns (ie: where the high status ruler, his family, his religious and civic officials and retainers lived) while presumably the people who lived in farmsteads and hamlets immediately outside of the stockade could take refuge in them during war.
Without assuming a much earlier European discovery and settlement of the Americas during the early middle ages (pretty unlikely), I'd look to native cultures as providing the likeliest source for the evolution of something like the European castle in America.
I would imagine that western stockade forts come closer to the concept of "castle", but actually the walled towns and elevated earthworks of pre-contact and early contact Mississippian cultures come closest. These structures often enclosed only the civic and ceremonial centers of these towns (ie: where the high status ruler, his family, his religious and civic officials and retainers lived) while presumably the people who lived in farmsteads and hamlets immediately outside of the stockade could take refuge in them during war.
Without assuming a much earlier European discovery and settlement of the Americas during the early middle ages (pretty unlikely), I'd look to native cultures as providing the likeliest source for the evolution of something like the European castle in America.
Deleted member 67076
No Mongols, perhaps?
The introduction of gunpowder into Europe (and subsequent development into effective field cannons) is delayed while at the same time, the Indian Ocean trade routes continue to remain the primary source of trade, thus there's no shift to overland routes meaning sailing technology continues to develop. Additionally, the much higher population of the Islamic world thanks to the lack of a Mongolian Empire keeps demand for trade and bulk goods higher than it was historically.
We get carracks and other shipping breakthroughs decades ahead of schedule, and thus- enter the exploration head possibly up to a century earlier. From there on, Europeans bring their castles and military methods across the Ocean, leading to a boom in Castles in North America.
The introduction of gunpowder into Europe (and subsequent development into effective field cannons) is delayed while at the same time, the Indian Ocean trade routes continue to remain the primary source of trade, thus there's no shift to overland routes meaning sailing technology continues to develop. Additionally, the much higher population of the Islamic world thanks to the lack of a Mongolian Empire keeps demand for trade and bulk goods higher than it was historically.
We get carracks and other shipping breakthroughs decades ahead of schedule, and thus- enter the exploration head possibly up to a century earlier. From there on, Europeans bring their castles and military methods across the Ocean, leading to a boom in Castles in North America.
Its actually more than gunpowder needed. Have a look at the Red Fort in Agra or Japanese defensive architecture both 17th century.
Its perfectly feasible to build a large ( I means large) stone fortress to defend against artillery and feasible to take them with really massive artillery cast in place and firing stone balls. The Fort normally wins though.
The issue is that in parts of Europe - the Low Countries and the Po Valley the water table is so high that massive stone walls sink.
So you get a different style of fortification - Italian Trace technically. Which happens to be more effective than really big walls which will crumble vs comparatively small but high velocity guns firing metal balls, like the sort you mount on warships.
Have an organised society resist the Spanish ( especially) early on and castle building works and its not until someone brings along very late 17th century and 18th century pieces that they have a problem. At which point you add an outer curtain with bastions covered by demi lunes and hornworks at the apex with detached ravelins
Ahh redoubts, bonnettes and lunettes, tenailles and tenaillons, counterguards and crownworks and hornworks and curvettes and fausse brayes and scarps and cordons and banquettes and counterscarps.
Thats proper building.
Its perfectly feasible to build a large ( I means large) stone fortress to defend against artillery and feasible to take them with really massive artillery cast in place and firing stone balls. The Fort normally wins though.
The issue is that in parts of Europe - the Low Countries and the Po Valley the water table is so high that massive stone walls sink.
So you get a different style of fortification - Italian Trace technically. Which happens to be more effective than really big walls which will crumble vs comparatively small but high velocity guns firing metal balls, like the sort you mount on warships.
Have an organised society resist the Spanish ( especially) early on and castle building works and its not until someone brings along very late 17th century and 18th century pieces that they have a problem. At which point you add an outer curtain with bastions covered by demi lunes and hornworks at the apex with detached ravelins
Ahh redoubts, bonnettes and lunettes, tenailles and tenaillons, counterguards and crownworks and hornworks and curvettes and fausse brayes and scarps and cordons and banquettes and counterscarps.
Thats proper building.
No gunpowder would be the best way to do this. Gunpowder meant that a lord could no longer rebel against his liege and hold up in his castle and since it was generally only a king that could afford the great expense of cannons it would increase the importance of feudalism (although it would still continue to decline). This could lead to nobility being of more use in the New World as the reliance on the armies and retainers that they could bring in would have played a part in conquering the New World. They could then be granted land and with that new land they would need defensive places. Basically mirroring what had being going on in the Old World for centuries.
I shit you not, I actually had a dream that must have slipped from such TL once. I was 14 and was travelling with a 10 year old sister by foot (not an actual sister of mine, and BTW, I had this dream when I was an adult). We were in a country, our country, that I knew was in eastern North America, but we didn't call that. Tech and dress was early to mid 19th century but there were castles from the 1300s and I knew that they had been built by Templars during crusades against Native Americans. This was centuries before though. The country was independent now and some kind of republic/oligarchy but not a democracy. And I don't know why were travelling but we wanted to stay away from the castles and the big guys there.
Blue Moon
Banned
So there was a tv show about this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Castles
and the wiki list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_castles_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Castles
and the wiki list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_castles_in_the_United_States
Castles consisted of walls (bailey/enciente) and a gatehouse as a minimum. In other words, a stockade or fort. Which are scattered all over the USA, even if they no longer stand in their original form.
The earliest castles were just timber walls, earthworks or a combination of both. The fancy stone and/or brick ones came much later.
The earliest castles were just timber walls, earthworks or a combination of both. The fancy stone and/or brick ones came much later.