I don't know how, but I know why they changed stone , its because;
1.they could be burnt down .
2.they could be easily attacked .
3.they weren't very strong and were prone to rotting so they didn't last long.
hope this helps ^^
wooden castles were replaced by stone because they could house more soldiers and were strong which meant they were less likely to get destroyed were as the wooden castles was easier to destroy.
Most castles started out as a motte and bailey. A mont and bailey is a wooden structure built on a higher hill in the area. It had a wooden wall around it and inside would be a main house/structure, barns, and areas for animals. When gun power was introduced to Europe this had to change so they changed the wooden walls to stone. Actually it was a faux wall. They left the wooden part and added stone in front of it. They made walls with a stone front and between the wooden wall and the stone wall they put in the bits and pieces of the construction mateials as a filler so that it looked solid. William the Conqueror changed castles forever. He built stone towers that were hard to attack and could be defended From the stone towers came the shapes we know of castles. Castles became status symbols and a show of power and money as well as for defense
Becuase of me
The could be but they could also be made of stone.
the 12th century castles changed from wooden motte and bailey castles. as you know, wood rots and can burn easily, so they changed some of them in to stone keep castles. these were a lot stronger and did not burn as they were made from stone.
Motte and Bailey castles were first built of wood but, as they evolved they changed into being made of stone. This was because the wooden version burnt down easily and was easily destroyed as wood rotted quickly. The stone castles were then called square keep castles.There was also castles called stone keeps
It is difficult to obtain an exact figure. Some wooden castles were replaced by stone castles on the same spot. Does that count as a wood castle, as a stone castle or both? Ruined wood castles are more likely to disintegrate into nothing whereas stone castles are more likely to leave recognisable ruins, so the number of the former is likely to be underestimated.
Castles were expensive to build, they were expensive to equip, their garrisons were expensive, and they fell apart of their own accord if they were not maintained at some expense. Once cannons were made useful and widespread, castles had lost a lot of their appeal.
Metal wasn't used in building castles. They were wooden Mott and bailey with wooden walls on high hills or outcrops. When gunpowder was invented the castle put stone facade in front of the wooden walls. The would fill the gap between the wood and stone with the leftover stones and the stone facade looked solid and protective.
the motte and bailey was easy to burn and so they went on to stone castles ( wich had more defense but took more time to build)
Motte and Bailey castles were made into 'Shell Keeps'. Usually, they would have a stone crust put on their wooden wall.
Wooden palisades on top of earth mounds with ditches and ramparts.
stone castles were built with stone