Castle or Not?

EnWorld discussions often wander into "the presence of 'X' will change what a castle looks like" where X might be gunpowder, magic, or what not. These discussions can be fun but often suffer for a lack of a definition of what is a castle.

This thread is not really an attempt to define a castle, more a light-hearted, "I know what a castle is when I see it." I've collected what I hope most will find a survey of castle-like structures, mostly western and limited to 9 (I believe that is the poll limit).

Multi-voting is allowed and my thought is that folks vote for the ones they think are castles in the sense of what they usually mean/think-of when playing a fantasy FRPG. Feel free to offer other exemplars and comments.

Hopefully most of you will recognize what I mean for these sample castles. The links are to the wikipedia article on the subject which you can also find with your own searches if you don't trust my links.

The samples:
Wooden Roman Camp. Roman Republic and Empire
Stone Roman Camp. Roman Republic and Empire
Wooden Motte-and-Bailey. 11th and 12th Centuries.
Caernarfon. Built 1284. Large Edwardian castle.
Star Fort. 1450s to 1600s. This article has a good overview of transition to these forts as gunpowder weapons came into the fore. Vauban created highly refined forts in this theme.
Deal Castle. Built 1540. Crenellated but squat.
Japanese Castle 16th century hey-day for the well known stone ones.
Fort Putnum. Built 1778. US Revolutionary War fort. The wikipedia picture doesn't do it justice; it has big stone walls.
Neuschwanstein Castle. Completed 1892. “Mad” King Ludwig’s palace.

Samples are in chronological order and I tried to cast a wide net.

Remember to multi-vote: vote for any or all you think of as a castle.

I voted yes for all, though I was a big hesitant on the wooden Roman camp.

However, when I think castle, the ideals I have in mind are Caernarfon, Edinburgh Castle, the Tower of London, and Krak de Chevaliers. I might have a slight UK bias.

I can go for any and all but for my "world" I lean to the Roman Wooden camp, Roman Stone Camp and The Japanese Castle. The wooden is the common fort on the outreaches of the wilderness, the stone more trade centers, and then the Japanese castle I use as powerful family compounds within a city.

To me, a castle must be a defensible structure, which also serves a non-military purpose.

A starfort with a governors home and a few gardens built at its center would be fine as a 'castle'. Lacking that, it is 'just a fort'.

Neuschwanstein Castle may not be the best fort of the period, but it is still fairly defensible. (Actually that hill alone is rather defensible.)

Something like Versailles is a palace. It is pretty and elaborate, but isn't any more defensible than a common farm.


Personally I think any GM should think about, and understand the differences between Fortified locations, Palaces, and buildings that do both.

I note that according to the result I see, 3.03% of voters do NOT qualify Caernarfon as a castle. I'd really like to know how those people define a castle, if Caernarfon doesn't fit the bill. . . .

CharlesRyan said:

I note that according to the result I see, 3.03% of voters do NOT qualify Caernarfon as a castle. I'd really like to know how those people define a castle, if Caernarfon doesn't fit the bill. . . .

Click to expand...

Probably a case of "fat fingers"

luckless said:

To me, a castle must be a defensible structure, which also serves a non-military purpose.

A starfort with a governors home and a few gardens built at its center would be fine as a 'castle'. Lacking that, it is 'just a fort'.

Neuschwanstein Castle may not be the best fort of the period, but it is still fairly defensible. (Actually that hill alone is rather defensible.)

Something like Versailles is a palace. It is pretty and elaborate, but isn't any more defensible than a common farm.


Personally I think any GM should think about, and understand the differences between Fortified locations, Palaces, and buildings that do both.

Click to expand...

I would agree with you in general. I think a castle must have some additional purpose beyond being a military fortification, otherwise the two words would be essentially synonyms. Requiring it to be a residence (and not just a barracks) seems to be both reasonable and a common definition. Maybe that's why one person didn't vote for it as a castle although it did replace a motte-and-bailey structure and it did serve as an administrative structure.

And while I prefer my castles to be of stone, there are plenty of examples of wooden fortified residence so that might be extreme to rule out.

Can't concur on Neuschwanstein though but I see your point

If a fortress is a fortified stronghold with permanent military housing, and a castle a fortified stronghold with permanent civilian housing, do the definitions switch places if the people living there do? And what does permanent even mean then? The definitions are based on things that have very little to do with what the structure actually looks like.

jonesy said:

If a fortress is a fortified stronghold with permanent military housing, and a castle a fortified stronghold with permanent civilian housing, do the definitions switch places if the people living there do? And what does permanent even mean then? The definitions are based on things that have very little to do with what the structure actually looks like.

Click to expand...

The difference is that one is constructed with quarters suitable for a lord or other civilian (regardless of who actually lives in it) and one would have barracks. In the former case, this might include a large hall with (in some periods) elaborate apartments, a large chapel, etc. In both the later and the former cases, the troops would often be housed in towers, lower dungeon, etc. So the castle could be a fortification PLUS civilian accomodations.

It is not defined by the presence of the civilians but the presence of the accomodtions. These accomodations do affect what the place looks like.

Taking this one step further, as European fortifications evolved into places with elaborate, low walls, no grand central building, lords and kings probably found them a lot less interesting to live in, in terms of their own personal aesthetics and in terms of their ability to use their residence to awe their population, thus accelerating the separation of fortification and palace.

Anyway, that is one way you could define it. While it doesn't really float my boat it is probably a workable definition and an interesting enough distinction.

I guess another way to define castle might focus on whether it had a strong central structure. This would include, for instances, Japanese fortresses and motte-and-baileys but eliminate many types of forts including most of the Roman ones. But there are plenty of European castle-like structures that are more wall than keep (like Restormel, a castle I've always liked and have cribbed at times). In the end, for gaming purposes, it is a matter of personal taste I suppose.

Only the Roman camp - stone and wood, Starfort and Fort Putnam are NOT castles IMO. All others fit in their appropriate locations and places on the timeline. Of course I understand the premise regarding use of gunpowder, but then I wouldn't play any RPG that had guns as a part of game play. I hate modern RPGs and am quite satisfied with ballistae serving as the largest 'gun' available, otherwise swords and melee for my games only.

Here's a castle 'map' I created for this month's mapping challenge at the Cartographers' Guild - the theme this month, Map a Castle (coincidently enough)... here's what I created... (it isn't a real place...)

GP