0
Motte and bailey castles were primarily built in the 10th and 11th centuries, before the widespread use of cannons in warfare. These fortifications were designed to withstand siege tactics of the time, such as battering rams and siege towers. Cannons became prominent in military use during the late medieval period, particularly in the 14th century, which is after the peak of motte and bailey designs. Therefore, while cannons were used against castles later on, they would not have been employed against motte and bailey castles during their initial period of use.
What else can I help you with?
How do you destroy motte and bailey castles?
Using fire to burn it down
What's the difference between a Motte and Bailey castle and a stone castle?
A Motte and bailey castle is made of mud and wood and a stone castle is made of stone. A Motte and Bailey castle sets on fire easily, Rots and isn't very strong. Stone castles, however Does not set on fire easily, doesn't rot and is very strong. Stone castles also have turrets and extra walls for added safety.
Why were motte and bailey castles not very safe from attack?
the motte and bailey was secure because they had the wooden fence around the whole castle and the motte was high on its hill, which made the enemies not able to climb. The bailey had a d shaped ditch which also made the enemies fall in and not be able to attack.
What the difference between the Mott and Bailey castles and square keep castles?
· A stone castle would not rot whereas a Motte and Bailey would rot easily as it was made from wood. · Motte and Bailey castles could be knocked down with battering rams, but they would not penetrate a stone castle. · Stone castles had battlements which gave defenders something solid to hide behind, Motte and Bailey had no such thing. · The round towers on a stone castle were thought to bounce of any type of missile but they would destroy a stone keep. · Motte and Bailey castles were very prone to rotting and decay, but Stone castles would not rot or decay. · Stone Keeps could not be burnt down very easily as they were made of stone whereas Motte and Bailey castles could be incinerated very easily as they were made of wood. · Stone castles have high up towers enabling the defenders to fire arrows down at the enemy but the enemy could not fire back, Motte and Bailey castles do not have high enough towers to do this.
What are the drawbacks of motte and bailey castles?
The bad things about a motte and bailey castle is it is many made out of wood and there for it can easily catch on fire and back then they had something from the Greeks called Greek fire and it can catch wood on fire really fast and it can be burnt down a motte and bailey castle in about 5-10 minutes because they cant put it out with water it can only be put out with urine.
How strong was the motte and bailey castles?
Strengths: Easy to build Very Cheap Lookout fort at top of motte. Portable Ditch around Bailey Large wooden wall Big artificial defensive motte (hill) Weaknesses: Walls could catch fire easily Could be destroyed by siege weapons. Wall could be destroyed
The disadvantages of motte and bailey castles?
The walls of motte and bailey castles were simple wooden palisades. They could be burned, scaled, or broken through much more easily than the more substantial and taller walls of stone castles. Motte and bailey castles did not last very long, as their walls rotted rather quickly. Also, motte and bailey castles were really more military camps than anything else, so they nearly never had any comfortable living quarters.
Was it the motte and bailey castles that people used to dig tunnels under the earth then set the castle on fire from underneath?
the tunnels were used for storing food because it was cool and as an escape route.I have never been heard of them being used as a way to set the castles on fire but i would have been motte and bailey castle because they were made of wood.
What were the first castles made of?
Wooden palisades on top of earth mounds with ditches and ramparts.
Why were Concentric Castles better than Motte and Bailey castles?
Concentric castles were better than Motte and Bailey castles because concentric castles were made out of stone and Motte and Bailey castles were made out of wood. Stone's better than wood for these reasons: * Wood catches fire easily * Wood rots within a few years * Wood's lighter making it easier to knock down Even though stone is better than wood in those many ways, wood's cheaper and, as explained above, is lighter. The wood being light means that it's easier to built.
What date did motte bailey castles change after time?
Motte and bailey castles began to evolve significantly during the late 11th and 12th centuries, as their design was adapted for better defense and longevity. By the 12th century, many motte and bailey structures were replaced or upgraded to stone, leading to the development of more permanent and formidable castles. This transition marked a shift from the initial wooden designs, which were vulnerable to fire and decay, to stone constructions that offered greater security and durability.
What was the reason of square castles being built?
well the reason for the square castle to be built was that the Motte and Bailey castle were made out of wood so when it starts raining it will rot and also when fights start, fire was the best way to attack the Motte and Bailey castles since they were made entirely out of wood. The fire might be started by building a bonfire against the outer wooden fence (or, more usually, by archers shooting fire-arrows into the castle. As the fire spread through the castle those living inside would be forced to leave allowing the attackers to take them prisoner or kill them. This was one of the reasons why Motte and Bailey castles were soon replaced by Stone Keep castles. Fire has little effect on a stone castle.I hope it helped u
