Vikings: how did the feckers get into the round towers?

Rebelheart

Anybody know?

Judgement Day

Ladders?

mcmoustache

I would guess that the round towers wouldn't have sheltered many people. Maybe 50 or so during an invasion and they would be nearly all monks. If memory serves, the door was raised like the Martello towers so one way or another, a viking would need to get a ladder or several and force his way in. Just inside the entrance would be some frightened monks. If I was a betting man, I'd put the money on the vikings winning the doorway encounter. After the first skirmish, they probably have all poured in and beat up a few monks to keep the rest in line.

Disclaimer: I'm not a historian but that was an interesting question. Maybe a real historian can help us out?

brianthebard

I thought the point was that they didn't?

mcmoustache

I grabbed this:

In fact the Viking raids were almost over before the first known date of any round tower church.

from here.

Damn! I thought we were going to have one of those "Who'd win in a fight between superman and Batman?" type threads.

Doozie

Wheather they did or not the feckers were able to set them on fire while the monks were inside and either burn them out or kill them. Towers were effective chimneys!

Eoinp

mcmoustache wrote: »

I grabbed this:



from here.

Damn! I thought we were going to have one of those "Who'd win in a fight between superman and Batman?" type threads.

Yeah, I recall towards the end of my secondary school history course one of our teachers saying something like they were dream chambers not defensive at all. When you see them, that actually makes sense. I mean far better to just build a stout wall around your church or something than a tiny thin tower!

Eoin

Fratton Fred

Eoinp wrote: »

Yeah, I recall towards the end of my secondary school history course one of our teachers saying something like they were dream chambers not defensive at all. When you see them, that actually makes sense. I mean far better to just build a stout wall around your church or something than a tiny thin tower!

Eoin

The only one I have seen is up at Glendalough, but it always struck me that a defensive building it had several flaws.

For starters, all a viking had to do was sit and wait for a couple of days before the poor sods were beging to come out surely?

DublinDes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The only one I have seen is up at Glendalough, but it always struck me that a defensive building it had several flaws.

For starters, all a viking had to do was sit and wait for a couple of days before the poor sods were beging to come out surely?

The Vikings were more grab and run raiders, they didn't tend to hang around in seiges etc.

Are round towers just unique to Ireland ? Are their any found in Scotland or the Isle of Man for instance ? It seems strange they were just built in Ireland as the monks went overseas.

Wibbs

Round towers of the form here are very much an irish vernacular building design. There is one in scotland attached to an old irish monastic site and I think one heavily modified in northern england again attached to an old irish monastic site. They have no real equivalent in europe. Indeed there is much debate where the idea sprung up from. Only later ones show some continental influence mostly in builiding and stone dressing techniques.

They're built on very ancient stone building techniques with the addition of mortar, which was about the only architectural innovation we grabbed from roman europe. We had been building in the round for many thousands of years. Mortar allowed us to build up. Think of the stone forts like dun aeungus and imagine them smaller and much much taller. They also have very shallow foundations. Some only go down a foot. The early ones have lintels in place of the arch. a very ancient way of doing things. As they get younger primitive arches become more common and the latest have very well made arches in the roman style. Some of the early ones even have a lintel but with an arch cut into it aping the roman style. In some ways there is a continuity all the way back from the stone building technique of passage tombs. You see this in other irish monastic sites too. Look at the beehive huts on the skelligs and the early churches with corballed roofing. Because rome and the classical world had so little direct influence I suppose it stands to reason that this long continuity survived. Ironically our survival on the edge of europe away from the barbarians etc insured the classical worlds survival in other ways.

They're designed and built as bell towers. Which is what they're referred to in the annals. There is one reference to a tower that a local chieftain hid in but was burnt out of. Some do show evidence of fire, but many were lost to lightning and lightning strikes on them are reported a lot in the annals, so fire damage is as likely to be "natural".

They may also have been used as storehouses for monastic goods, including valuables like books and altar ware. One theory has it that the high door was maybe used as a showing platform where a monk would show a book or the eucharist to the christian flock. Not all have this high door. at least two are on ground level, though by their structure and design they seem to be the earliest extant ones. So maybe the security aspect evolved.

While useful as the monastic safe against average theives, as defensive structures they would be pretty useless. They're very small inside, with three or four floors decreasing in size and the ladders would take up much of the space. They have few windows so they're very dark and they're tiny. There are no windows above the doors to throw missiles at those attempting to break in the main door. They would be very vulnerable to fire and smoke. Start a fire at the base and the people inside would succumb very quickly, being stuck in what is essentially a chimney.

From a defensive viewing platform they're also useless. The walls are so thick and the windows are so small, you can see very very little. There's no overlap of veiwing angle. Now some were converted. The one in kilkenny AFAIR has a later castleated(sp) top. Now that one you can see for miles and miles. The originals no.

I've been in two and at the top of both and I can tell you that you wouldn't want to be stuck in one for any length of time:)

Amazing structures though and luckily tehre are about 70 left. I think around 30 are fully formed. Most if not all have had their cap replaced though. the exception seems to be the clondalkin one which is very original(except for the hideous later added base). The one in glendalough was fully restored by the office of public works in the late 19th century IIRC. Before that it was broken off near the top and in old photos looks like an old chimney.

Wibbs

Eoinp wrote: »

Yeah, I recall towards the end of my secondary school history course one of our teachers saying something like they were dream chambers not defensive at all. When you see them, that actually makes sense. I mean far better to just build a stout wall around your church or something than a tiny thin tower!

Eoin

Dream chambers eh? Musta been a hippie:D

*EDIT*

mcmoustache wrote: »

I grabbed this:



from here.

They're saxon round towers though, nearly always attached to a church, not freestanding like the Irish versions. They're later too IIRC. They're a different form and likely there was no influence either way. Though they do look similar.

GhostInTheRuins

Great post Wibbs!

Rebelheart

Wibbs wrote: »

Round towers of the form here are very much an irish vernacular building design. There is one in scotland attached to an old irish monastic site and I think one heavily modified in northern england again attached to an old irish monastic site. They have no real equivalent in europe. Indeed there is much debate where the idea sprung up from. Only later ones show some continental influence mostly in builiding and stone dressing techniques.

They're built on very ancient stone building techniques with the addition of mortar, which was about the only architectural innovation we grabbed from roman europe. We had been building in the round for many thousands of years. Mortar allowed us to build up. Think of the stone forts like dun aeungus and imagine them smaller and much much taller. They also have very shallow foundations. Some only go down a foot. The early ones have lintels in place of the arch. a very ancient way of doing things. As they get younger primitive arches become more common and the latest have very well made arches in the roman style. Some of the early ones even have a lintel but with an arch cut into it aping the roman style. In some ways there is a continuity all the way back from the stone building technique of passage tombs. You see this in other irish monastic sites too. Look at the beehive huts on the skelligs and the early churches with corballed roofing. Because rome and the classical world had so little direct influence I suppose it stands to reason that this long continuity survived. Ironically our survival on the edge of europe away from the barbarians etc insured the classical worlds survival in other ways.

They're designed and built as bell towers. Which is what they're referred to in the annals. There is one reference to a tower that a local chieftain hid in but was burnt out of. Some do show evidence of fire, but many were lost to lightning and lightning strikes on them are reported a lot in the annals, so fire damage is as likely to be "natural".

They may also have been used as storehouses for monastic goods, including valuables like books and altar ware. One theory has it that the high door was maybe used as a showing platform where a monk would show a book or the eucharist to the christian flock. Not all have this high door. at least two are on ground level, though by their structure and design they seem to be the earliest extant ones. So maybe the security aspect evolved.

While useful as the monastic safe against average theives, as defensive structures they would be pretty useless. They're very small inside, with three or four floors decreasing in size and the ladders would take up much of the space. They have few windows so they're very dark and they're tiny. There are no windows above the doors to throw missiles at those attempting to break in the main door. They would be very vulnerable to fire and smoke. Start a fire at the base and the people inside would succumb very quickly, being stuck in what is essentially a chimney.

From a defensive viewing platform they're also useless. The walls are so thick and the windows are so small, you can see very very little. There's no overlap of veiwing angle. Now some were converted. The one in kilkenny AFAIR has a later castleated(sp) top. Now that one you can see for miles and miles. The originals no.

I've been in two and at the top of both and I can tell you that you wouldn't want to be stuck in one for any length of time:)

Amazing structures though and luckily tehre are about 70 left. I think around 30 are fully formed. Most if not all have had their cap replaced though. the exception seems to be the clondalkin one which is very original(except for the hideous later added base). The one in glendalough was fully restored by the office of public works in the late 19th century IIRC. Before that it was broken off near the top and in old photos looks like an old chimney.

Really superb post there. I'll have to think about it all and come back next week with questions. Thanks.