Kenilworth castle essay on Ivan Lapper's interpretation

If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Kenilworth castle essay on Ivan Lapper's interpretation. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Kenilworth castle essay on Ivan Lapper's interpretation paper right on time.

Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Kenilworth castle essay on Ivan Lapper's interpretation, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Kenilworth castle essay on Ivan Lapper's interpretation paper at affordable prices !

History How accurate an interpretation is Ivan Lapper's interpretation of Kenilworth Castle at the beginning of the 1th Century In this essay, I am going to examine Ivan Lapper's interpretation, which he drew in 186, and see if it is an accurate and reliable interpretation of Kenilworth castle in the thirteenth century. I am going to do this by examining written and pictorial sources about Kenilworth and other castles in general, and see if they help me answer the question. I am also going to be looking at the sources and seeing if they are reliable or not and why. I will then consider all of the facts and make a judgement about how accurate an interpretation Ivan Lapper's picture of Kenilworth is.The Keep

Purchase your paper on Kenilworth castle essay on Ivan Lapper's interpretation

Ivan Lappers interpretation ok Kenilworth Castle in the 1th Century shows that the keep was a stone square keep, it had narrow arrow slit windows, and there were crenulations. It also shows that the walls had a plinth and that there were four square, one in each corner. This is because this is only how far castle building had got to. The keep was made from wood at first, but then people realised that it was easily destroyed by fire, whereas stone cannot catch fire. Another thing that it shows is that the keep is on a Mott. Also we can see the entrance to the outer building but not the entrance to the keep. When I went on a site visit to Kenilworth, I saw some evidence, which supports Ivan Lapper. This was that the keep was made out of stone and was square, and that there were four towers. Another thing I saw which backs up Ivan Lappers interpretation, was that it had some narrow arrow slit windows, and that the walls had plinths. Another thing is that the keep was made out of sandstone. However there were some things that did not agree with Ivan Lapper's interpretation. These were that the entrance to the outer building to the keep was on the ground floor, because it was added at a later date. Also, most of the windows were big and were also added after the 1th Century. This is because when the purpose of castles changed, so did the windows, for example, when gunpowder was invented, castles could have easily been blown up, so windows weren't made for defence purposes any more. Another thing that disagreed with Ivan Lapper's interpretation was that the crenulations were not there, which was probably because they had fallen down. Also, the north of the keep was missing. This was because it was destroyed at the end of the English Civil War. Also, the real entrance to the keep, not the one that was added later on the ground floor, is on the first floor. I could see this because the outhouse was gone, which was another thing that disagreed with the interpretation, and the entrance was up there to make it hard to get in when attacking. I am going to look at all of the sources that tell me about the keep. I am going to go through each source and see if it agrees with or disagrees with Ivan Lapper's interpretation.Source Source is a drawing by Sir William Dugdale, drawn in 1656. This source shows me that the keep was square. This source agrees with Ivan Lapper, and also agrees with my site visit, because when I saw the keep, it was square. I can trust this source because it was drawn in 1656, which means it is quite reliable as it was drawn when the castle wasn't a ruin. Also, there is no reason for the author to lie, and the plan has a scale, which suggests that the author has gone all around the castle and measured everything.Source Source is a plan of Kenilworth castle, which was drawn for a teacher's guidebook, published by English Heritage. This source shows me that the keep is square and has four, square, towers. This source is a secondary source, but I think that it's still reliable. This is because it is drawn for a teacher's guidebook, which means that the author had no reason to lie. Also, the plan shows how Kenilworth developed over time, in centuries, so I can just look at the time period I like which is very useful.Source 4 Source 4 is a twelfth century account of the castle of Merchen in Flanders. This source tells me that the top of the moat was surrounded by a wall of logs, and just inside this wall was a keep, which was only accessible via the causeway. This source is not very useful to me, as it describes a different castle to Kenilworth. However, it does give me an idea about how Kenilworth looked during that time period, because most castles during that time period were the same, because castle building hadn't advanced much, so they were normally just the same. This source agrees with Ivan Lapper's interpretation, because it shows that there is a curtain wall, a causeway and a keep in castles during that time period. I can trust this source because it was wrote in the early twelfth century. This means it is primary, and the author probably has no reason to lie.Source 5 Source 5 is an extract from the book "The Archaeology of Medieval England," by Helen Clarke, 186. This source mainly tells me about the keep in the twelfth century. It tells me that stone keeps that had a plinth, replaced wooden keeps, and had small narrow arrow slit windows. This source is very useful because it tells me about the outside of the keep, which is all that I can see from Ivan Lapper's interpretation. This source agrees with Ivan Lapper, because they both say that the keep was made of stone, had a plinth, and had narrow arrow slit windows. However, this source is a secondary source, but it was wrote for information purposes, and is an extract from her book. This means that if she lied hardly anybody would buy her book, so I think that it can be trusted. Also, it agrees with my site visit, as the keep was stone, had a plinth, and had narrow arrow slit windows.Source 6 Source 6, again, is an extract from "The Archaeology of Medieval England," by Helen Clarke, 186. This source doesn't tell me much. All it tells me is that keeps weren't being made defensively anymore, and started to be made more offensively. This probably means that they were being up-graded and probably had battlements, so that the defenders could pour things down onto the attackers. This source doesn't really agree with or disagree with Ivan Lapper. This is because it just tells me that keeps were started to be made more offensively and doesn't really tell me anything else. This source, again, is secondary, but is an extract from a book, and the author has no reason to lie. This is because if she did then not many copies of her book would be sold.Source 8 Source 8 is an extract from the book " Great Medieval Castles of Britain," by James Ford-Johnston, 17. This source tells me that in the early twelfth century, 'the timber works were eventually replaced by stone buildings.' It also tells me that Kenilworth castle is a keep and bailey castle. This source is quite useful, because it tells me that Kenilworth castle was made out of stone, which agrees with my Ivan Lapper's interpretation, and my site visit. The Moat and Mere Ivan Lapper's interpretation shows that the mere is at the bottom of the picture, and the moat goes all the way around the castle and joins the mere at the bottom. The moat would have stopped siege machines, and would also have slowed down infantry. The mere would have stopped most attacks on that side of the castle, but would also let ships attack. However, when I went on the site visit to Kenilworth, the moat wasn't there anymore. This is because the middle of the causeway had been blown out at the end of the English Civil War and that let all of the water drain away. Also, the mere had gone. This was also due to the demolition of the middle part of the causeway. I am now going to look at all of the sources that tell me about the moat. I am going to see whether or not the sources agree with Ivan Lapper's interpretation, and also if they are useful to me.Source Source is a plan of the castle drawn by Sir William Dugdale, 1656. This source shows me that the moat goes all the way round the castle it also shows that part of the moat is as big as a lake, the mere, and it is joined on to the other part of the moat. This source agrees with Ivan Lapper's interpretation, and with my knowledge of castles, as I know that a lot of castles had moats to stop enemies getting close to the castle and also to stop siege machinery from reaching the keep or curtain wall. However, it disagrees with my site visit. This is because when I went on my site visit, the moat and the mere had drained away. This source is quite useful as it shows the moat and mere exactly where Ivan Lapper has put it in his interpretation. It is also a very reliable source. This is because Sir William has put a scale on his plan, which means that he probably went all the way round the castle, measured everything, and took care of his plan while he was drawing it.Source Source is a plan of Kenilworth castle, which was drawn for a teacher's guidebook. This source tells me that the moat went all the way round the castle, and at one point, turned into a 'lake'. This source agrees with Ivan Lapper's interpretation, because the moat is at exactly the same place as it is in the source. This source, however, was drawn a long time after the time period I am looking at, and it is fairly modern. However, this source was drawn for a teacher's guidebook, which was published by English Heritage, and therefore the author has no reason to lie. This means that this source is pretty reliable.Source 7 This source is a piece of writing about the siege of Kenilworth castle, written by a contemporary historian in 17. This source tells me that there was a great lake to the south side of the castle. It is also mentioned as the 'Great Mere'. This source agrees with Ivan Lapper's interpretation, as it says that there was a great lake called the mere, just like in Ivan Lapper's interpretation. However, this does not agree with my site visit, because when I went to Kenilworth, the great lake and the moat had both drained away. However, this source is a primary source as it was wrote near the time period that I am looking at, but the author may have exaggerated, depending on what side they were on during the war. Source 8 Source 8 is an extract from the book "Great Medieval Castles of Britain" by James Forde-Johnston, 17. This source says 'around this first stone castle was a moat. Probably an enlarged version of the one surrounding the original timber-built castle.' This source agrees with Ivan Lapper's interpretation, because in one part it, the moat is widened. Also, this agrees with my knowledge of castle development. I know that when castles were upgraded from timber to stone, the moats were usually widened. This source however is secondary, and was written in 17. This should make it not very reliable, but a modern historian, who should know all about castles, wrote this source and it is part of his book. This means that if the author lied, then not many copies of his book would be sold, so therefore, he has no reason to lie.Source Source is another extract from "Great Medieval Castles of Britain" by James Forde-Johnston, 17. This source tells me that the moat was about three quarters of a mile long and about a quarter of a mile wide. It also tells me that the part of the moat that goes around the rest of the castle is a double thick moat. This source is quite useful to me as it tells me the length and width of the castle. It is also very reliable, because it agrees with my knowledge of castles and agrees with Ivan Lapper's interpretation. The Causeway The causeway is the main entrance to the castle. In Ivan Lapper's interpretation, it is only partially visible. However. I know that most castles in the thirteenth century had a causeway. The causeway was also used as a line of defence for the castle. On my site visit, I discovered that the causeway was about 100metres long, made out of stone, and had two gatehouses at the end of it. This is because this is only how far castle building had advanced to. Causeways were built to give the defenders of the castles a big advantage. This is because it is a long open strip and it would take an army quite a while to get to the end. This means that it gives the defenders more time to get ready. Also, if it was enclosed at both sides, archers could be in or on the walls and they could shoot attackers before they could reach the keep. Causeways ere normally made of stone so it couldn't be burnt. However, some castles didn't have causeways, so you could argue that they were less defensive than the castles with them as it gives an extra line of defence. I will now examine all of the sources that tell me about the causeway, and see if they agree with or disagree with Ivan Lapper's interpretation, and if they are useful or not and why.Source Source is a plan of Kenilworth castle drawn in 1656 by Sir William Dugdale. This source clearly shows the causeway in the bottom right hand side of the plan. This source is very helpful to me as it shows me exactly where the causeway is. It also agrees with my site visit. It is also a very reliable source. This is because it was drawn in 1656, and it even has a scale on, which suggests that sir William had gone all the way around the castle and measured everything and took great care over drawing his plan.Source Source is a plan of Kenilworth castle drawn for a teacher's guidebook, published by English Heritage. This source tells me that the causeway was added to the castle in the thirteenth century, and is in the bottom right hand side of the source, which agrees with my site visit and source . This source is quite useful to me as it shows me exactly where the causeway is. This source is also very reliable, as it agrees with my site visit and source . Also, the author has no reason to lie. This source disagrees with Ivan Lapper, because in Ivan Lapper's picture, the causeway is only partially visible.Source 4 Source 4 is an early twelfth century account of the castle of Merchan in Flanders. This source tells me that when the first castles were built, the only entrance to the Mott was via the causeway. This source is not very helpful to me as it is of a twelfth century castle, that is not Kenilworth, and the castle wasn't even in England. However, most castles in that time period were similar and it shows that causeways were common. This agrees with my knowledge of castles, because I know that early castles did have a causeway on them. This source is also very reliable, as it was written in the twelfth century, and the author had mo reason to lie. Source Source is an extract from the book "Great Medieval Castles of Britain" which was written in 17. This source tells me that the causeway of Kenilworth castle was used to block the stream, which created the Great Lake. It also tells me that the causeway was in the southeast part of the castle. This source is useful to me because it tells me where the causeway is, which agrees with my site visit, but it also tells me that it was used to block the stream to create the Great Lake. This part however, does not agree with my site visit as the middle of the causeway was blown out at the end of the English Civil War, and the Great Lake drained away. This source is quite reliable. This is because it is a secondary source but was written by a modern historian. This means that the author has no reason t lie, because if he did lie, then he would not sell many copies of his book.The Curtain Wall Kenilworth castle, as shown in Ivan Lapper's picture, includes an inner curtain wall. Lapper painted Kenilworth as it would have been in the thirteenth century. Most thirteenth century castles have curtain walls, and these were used as a line of defence, which would help stop enemies entering the castle. They were originally made from wood and were called palisades, but they were easily burnt so they changed from wood to stone. Also, some castles had more than one curtain wall as an extra line of defence. The curtain wall is very thick. It would have been one of the first lines of defence, and would have help to stop siege machines. It would have been very high and would have had a wall walk for archers and lookouts to stand on. Buttresses supported it, and it had crenulations both of these made it easier to defend. All of the towers were there to help defend the castle as well, and these would have been even higher than the wall. The curtain wall had three towers. These were1. Swans Tower. Water Tower. Lunn's Tower These towers also had crenulations on and had narrow arrow slit windows. The towers also had walkways, and this helped archers to fire arrows a very long distance because of the height, and they would have been hard to hit because the crenulations would get in the way, and if they were by a window, then it would be hard to get an arrow through the narrow windows to hit them. However, on my site visit, I saw that the inner curtain wall had gone, and some of the crenulations had fallen off of he towers, but most of them were still there. Also, half of Swans Tower had fallen down. Apart from one of the sides, the outer curtain wall was still intact. I am now going to examine the sources that tell me about the curtain wall and see if they are useful to me in examining Ivan Lapper's interpretation, and how reliable they are and why. Source Source is a plan of Kenilworth castle, drawn by Sir William Dugdale in 1656. It shows me that the curtain wall went all around the castle, and that it had three towers on it. Swans Tower, Lunn's Tower, and the Water Tower. This is helpful to me because it tells me that there are three towers, and that the curtain wall did go all the way around the castle. This source, I think, is very reliable. This is because the author has no reason to lie, and the plan has a scale. This suggests that Sir William has been all the way round that castle and measured everything, but also taken a lot of time over drawing his plan to get the measurements right. It also agrees with my site visit, as there were three towers, and a curtain wall. The only part that doesn't was that one of the sides of the curtain wall was missing. Source Source is a plan of Kenilworth castle, which was published by English Heritage. This source shows me that the curtain wall did go all the way around the castle, and that there were three towers on it. These were Swans Tower, Lunn's Tower, and the Water Tower. It also tells me part of the outer curtain wall was demolished. This source is very useful to me as it tells me exactly where the curtain wall was and where the towers were. It also tells me that part of the wall was demolished which agrees totally with my site visit, which means it is quite reliable. Also, English Heritage published it, and they have no reason to lie, as there work is made for information purposes.Source 4 Source 4 is an early twelfth century account of the castle of Merchen in Flanders. This source tells me about an early built castle in Flanders and it says that the early castles were surrounded by a wall of logs, the curtain wall, and that towers were placed along it. This source isn't very useful to me as it tells me about a castle in the twelfth century, when I'm looking at Kenilworth in the thirteenth century, and it isn't even in England. However, my knowledge of castle development tells me that most castles were the same in that time period, and it suggests to me how Kenilworth would have looked in the twelfth century. This source is also very reliable. This is because it is a primary source written near the time of Ivan Lapper's Interpretation. Source 6 Source 6 is an extract from the book "Archaeology of Medieval England" by Helen Clarke, 186, this source tells me that early, wooden curtain walls were replaced by new stone ones in the early twelfth century. It also tells me that the curtain walls had towers on, and that square towers replaced circular ones. I know that thy made towers circular, to strengthen the weakness of right angles, and so that there is no blind spot when looking down. This source is very useful to me as it tells me about the development of curtain walls and towers on a castle, and it give me an idea of what Kenilworth would have looked like. This source is also very reliable. This is because a modern historian published it, so they would know all about castles, and it is also part of her book. This means that she had no reason to lie, because if she did then she would not sell many copies of her book. Source 8 Source 8 is an extract from the book "Great Medieval Castles of Britain" by James Forde-Johnston, 17. This source tells me that the old bailey of Kenilworth probably occupied the area now taken up by the inner bailey and the stone curtain wall. This source is quite useful to me as it tells me that the old bailey is now the inner bailey and the stone curtain wall which lets me see how Kenilworth developed from the time period that Lapper drawn his interpretation at, to round about the way it is today. This source is also very reliable. This is because a modern historian, who should know all about castles, wrote it and it is part of his book, so therefore, is he lied, not many copies of his book would sell. I conclude that Ivan Lapper's interpretation is quite a reliable source. This is because most of the picture is pretty accurate, but he misses out one key detail. This is the causeway. This is only partially visible in Ivan Lapper's interpretation, but it should be there. I know this because when I went on my site visit, I walked down it, and also, quite a few of the sources agree that it is there. Also, Ivan Lapper shows an inner curtain wall on his interpretation, but that has now fallen down. I know this because it wasn't there when I went on my site visit, and sources and show that there was once an inner curtain wall, but it has now either fallen down or has been demolished. However. It is still a pretty accurate interpretation of Kenilworth castle in the thirteenth century, which means that Ivan Lapper may have also looked at different sources to help him paint, his interpretation. A typical 1th century castle had a stone keep, one or two curtain walls, a moat and a causeway. Therefore, I think that Ivan Lapper's interpretation is quite a reliable source of a typical thirteenth century castle, Kenilworth. Please note that this sample paper on Kenilworth castle essay on Ivan Lapper's interpretation is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Kenilworth castle essay on Ivan Lapper's interpretation, we are here to assist you. Your persuasive essay on Kenilworth castle essay on Ivan Lapper's interpretation will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!