The Spiral Staircase Myth (2020)(triskeleheritage.triskelepublishing.com)
triskeleheritage.triskelepublishing.com
The Spiral Staircase Myth (2020)
https://triskeleheritage.triskelepublishing.com/mediaeval-mythbusting-blog-2-the-man-who-invented-the-spiral-staircase-myth/
237 comments
I think of the USS Nimitz. Everything on that ship is (presumably) there for an excellent military reason. Yet it has probably never been attacked directly and it clearly has an important role in maintaining status and prestige. The two things are correlated, not independent.
A nice inverse example is Versailles, which has quite limited protection and couldn’t really be defended from military attack.
Yet it was an effective military tool: visiting potentates would see an overwhelmingly expensive palace that sent the message “we are so rich and so powerful that we don’t even need to defend our central palace, so don’t even try to attack us”
Yet it was an effective military tool: visiting potentates would see an overwhelmingly expensive palace that sent the message “we are so rich and so powerful that we don’t even need to defend our central palace, so don’t even try to attack us”
The “theatrical backdrops for complex ceremonies relating to status and prestige“ is a bit oversimplified I think, at least for continental Europe. In German, for example, we have two words that translate to “castle”: “das Schloss” is a representational building, but “die Burg” describes a military fortress, which often were small, plain, very well fortified buildings with multiple clever layers of defense. There’s no confusion between the two even though many Schlösser had Burg-like features for decoration. It’s perhaps also not a surprise that the article’s examples for representational castles are mostly from England, I think Britain’s military history is a bit different from that of the rest of Europe.
English has the same basic distinction: "Burg" = "castle", "Schloss" = "palace".
But upon having a closer look, things become complicated quickely: "Schloss" ist typically used for unfortified residencies starting in Late Middle Ages/Renaissance. But there existed unfortified residencies since the Early Middle Ages inside towns. The term for the early imperial or royal palaces is "Pfalz", which has the same Latin root as "palace": "palatium". Sometimes the term was also used for the residency of a bishop.
Then there are castles that were both, strong fortresses but very representative. Nuremberg castle, Trifels and the Wartburg are examples of these, or from a later period Heidelberg. Sometimes a castle was later converted into a sort of palace by tearing down walls.
The terminology varies in such cases. The "Heidelberger Schloss" (a strong but also very representative fortress) is called "Heidelberg castle" in English, "Schloss Mespelbrunn" (a converted castle) is called "Mespelbrunn castle".
There is also a rarely used standing expression "Veste" ("fortress") used as a title for some specific castles (for example "Veste Coburg").
I agree with the parent that the “theatrical backdrops for complex ceremonies relating to status and prestige“ is a bit oversimplified. But we need to keep in mind that the function of a castle is typically very complex. And the "theatrical backdrops" is an important one. That their defensive value was quite limited could be seen during the German/Austrian passant revolt in 1525 when thousands of castles had been destroyed in a couple of months, while the aristocrates nevertheless won the war in the field. Typically the castles had only a handful of defenders and quickely surrendered, or the aristocrates just fled and did not even try to defend their castles. Only some strong, well-manned fortifications hold out, often just barely like fortress Marienberg in Würzburg.
But upon having a closer look, things become complicated quickely: "Schloss" ist typically used for unfortified residencies starting in Late Middle Ages/Renaissance. But there existed unfortified residencies since the Early Middle Ages inside towns. The term for the early imperial or royal palaces is "Pfalz", which has the same Latin root as "palace": "palatium". Sometimes the term was also used for the residency of a bishop.
Then there are castles that were both, strong fortresses but very representative. Nuremberg castle, Trifels and the Wartburg are examples of these, or from a later period Heidelberg. Sometimes a castle was later converted into a sort of palace by tearing down walls.
The terminology varies in such cases. The "Heidelberger Schloss" (a strong but also very representative fortress) is called "Heidelberg castle" in English, "Schloss Mespelbrunn" (a converted castle) is called "Mespelbrunn castle".
There is also a rarely used standing expression "Veste" ("fortress") used as a title for some specific castles (for example "Veste Coburg").
I agree with the parent that the “theatrical backdrops for complex ceremonies relating to status and prestige“ is a bit oversimplified. But we need to keep in mind that the function of a castle is typically very complex. And the "theatrical backdrops" is an important one. That their defensive value was quite limited could be seen during the German/Austrian passant revolt in 1525 when thousands of castles had been destroyed in a couple of months, while the aristocrates nevertheless won the war in the field. Typically the castles had only a handful of defenders and quickely surrendered, or the aristocrates just fled and did not even try to defend their castles. Only some strong, well-manned fortifications hold out, often just barely like fortress Marienberg in Würzburg.
A castle was mostly for garrisoning and strongholding an area. If it came down to a fight in your castle, it was already precarious for the defender.
Starting from ~15th century, the mightiest castles in Europe were blown with kegs of powder. Most of those magnificent castles or forts are now as ruins in Europe because of those wars. The reason why UK have preserved those castles is that they had no such equally devastating wars and they were not used for real defence, but clearly their only role is left as prestige of something that was preserved from past.
It all depends on context - medieval castles lost their meanings as defenses 500 years ago. In modern times they are useless as defences - sometimes not even against squatters...
It all depends on context - medieval castles lost their meanings as defenses 500 years ago. In modern times they are useless as defences - sometimes not even against squatters...
England blew up a fair number of castles during the English Civil War [1], the ones that are intact were in areas of the country that were not disputed like London.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War
> grocery ruin
A very on-topic typo. One that has me wondering what this would look like. A crumbling, mediaeval tower to store harvest, maybe?
A very on-topic typo. One that has me wondering what this would look like. A crumbling, mediaeval tower to store harvest, maybe?
> It is not the purpose of this blog post to outline all of the evidence against the swordsman theory.
Oh. Okay then … that’s a pity. Kind of pointless advancing a contrarian position unless you’re going to back it up …
> That data will eventually appear in the content of a book that I am working on
Ah.
How mediaeval :-)
Oh. Okay then … that’s a pity. Kind of pointless advancing a contrarian position unless you’re going to back it up …
> That data will eventually appear in the content of a book that I am working on
Ah.
How mediaeval :-)
> How mediaeval :-)
Sir, this is HN. We are not amused.
Sir, this is HN. We are not amused.
You folks would then surely take great comfort, or so I've heard, when I assure you, by Jove, that I did find ample evidence to support my position, yet it is too voluminous to be drawn out here at length within the narrow confines of this commentary box.
> 3. If staircases were genuinely engineered for military purposes, then we should always find that they turn clockwise. However [...] there are a substantial minority of newels which turn anti-clockwise (approximately 30% of all surviving examples).
Couldn't this minority be explained by engineers either doing it wrong, being given bad requirements or being overruled by misguided management? I.e., the clockwise turn was indeed for military purposes and as much as 70% of projects were done correctly but in 30% of projects one or more project management issues led to the staircases being built wrong.
> 4. The direction of a spiral staircase was an architectural decision, not a military one.
Perhaps different stakeholders had different priorities and the military advantage was one of many considerations.
Couldn't this minority be explained by engineers either doing it wrong, being given bad requirements or being overruled by misguided management? I.e., the clockwise turn was indeed for military purposes and as much as 70% of projects were done correctly but in 30% of projects one or more project management issues led to the staircases being built wrong.
> 4. The direction of a spiral staircase was an architectural decision, not a military one.
Perhaps different stakeholders had different priorities and the military advantage was one of many considerations.
Exactly. I found this article a poor rebuttal.
As a lefty who is pretty clumsy on the right, there are many implicit design decisions that favor whatever right handed people do for the simple reason that most people are right handed.
There was accommodations for lefty’s in some ancient battle formations, so while it may be a myth, it may be one with a kernel of truth as conventions for things like castle construction are probably ancient and lost to modern people.
As a lefty who is pretty clumsy on the right, there are many implicit design decisions that favor whatever right handed people do for the simple reason that most people are right handed.
There was accommodations for lefty’s in some ancient battle formations, so while it may be a myth, it may be one with a kernel of truth as conventions for things like castle construction are probably ancient and lost to modern people.
Yeah 3 is pretty weak because it depends on knowledge flowing freely and quickly when you as a noble wouldn't want your fortress builder talking to potential or actual enemy fortress builders improving their defenses. It'd be a better example if they could show the same architect used both directions in different castles or the same castle.
I doubt all architects knew all the details. They would look into how to defend the attacks they expected, and the ones they had given to others.
It is entirely possible that the trope is true, but only for a small minority of castles where they expected such fighting, and in the vast majority it is false because they didn't expect it.
If it is true, you would expect other evidence that in the design that they expected the walls to be breached and thus have to fight in such a way, and also that it wasn't a hopeless idea to fight on. This does seem unlikely based on what I know of historical war, but I'll freely admit what I know is minimal. Any real historians care to comment?
It is entirely possible that the trope is true, but only for a small minority of castles where they expected such fighting, and in the vast majority it is false because they didn't expect it.
If it is true, you would expect other evidence that in the design that they expected the walls to be breached and thus have to fight in such a way, and also that it wasn't a hopeless idea to fight on. This does seem unlikely based on what I know of historical war, but I'll freely admit what I know is minimal. Any real historians care to comment?
Any programmer should be able to spot the syllogism here, yes.
Just because something is a security best practice definitely does not guarantee that it will be followed universally by architects.
Not all the castle builders were up to speed on CVE-1271-53 “left-handed spiral staircases enable swordsman overflow attacks”, and more importantly their clients didn’t know how to evaluate a competent castle architect either. Maybe they should have had some sort of certification scheme. But even then, once a pen tester gets in and tells you your staircases were built backwards, what are you going to do? They’re made of stone and built into structural walls in a tall building.
Just because something is a security best practice definitely does not guarantee that it will be followed universally by architects.
Not all the castle builders were up to speed on CVE-1271-53 “left-handed spiral staircases enable swordsman overflow attacks”, and more importantly their clients didn’t know how to evaluate a competent castle architect either. Maybe they should have had some sort of certification scheme. But even then, once a pen tester gets in and tells you your staircases were built backwards, what are you going to do? They’re made of stone and built into structural walls in a tall building.
In fact, one of the top rated questions on SiegeOverflow in the 1400s was
Should spiral staircases always turn to the right? (1879 points. Locked. Comments on this question have been disabled)
I'm a journeyman castle engineer to a FAANG house, and my master stonemason insists that spiral staircases should always turn to the right. He says they're more secure. But our accessibility team say that a left turn is preferable for carrying heavy loads up the stairs. The designer wants the staircase to have open wooden treads every fifth step. Does that negate the security concerns? Who's right?
Accepted answer (4471 votes)
Why are you using a spiral staircase? A straight staircase is easier to maintain.
(Closed by moderator. Not siege related.)
Should spiral staircases always turn to the right? (1879 points. Locked. Comments on this question have been disabled)
I'm a journeyman castle engineer to a FAANG house, and my master stonemason insists that spiral staircases should always turn to the right. He says they're more secure. But our accessibility team say that a left turn is preferable for carrying heavy loads up the stairs. The designer wants the staircase to have open wooden treads every fifth step. Does that negate the security concerns? Who's right?
Accepted answer (4471 votes)
Why are you using a spiral staircase? A straight staircase is easier to maintain.
(Closed by moderator. Not siege related.)
'Siege overflow' is one of the standard attacks on the security of a fortification system. It often employs ladders while the related 'underflow' attacks use mines. In time, rapidly advancing technology made it feasible to simply overwhelm legacy systems with brute force attacks using gunpowder.
I suspect that FAANG armies have higher numbers of left-handed people, at my PPOE it was around 50%, this could change the argument for spiral staircase direction.
I wish I could upvote this more
My history teacher brought this topic up in my class. He had a less violent theory about the reason for clockwise stairs, which is still related to the majority right-handed population.
That people carrying things up these staircases would be using their right hand to carry the item(s), and so would use their left hand to steady themselves on the wall (or the rope/rail/etc affixed to the wall).
That people carrying things up these staircases would be using their right hand to carry the item(s), and so would use their left hand to steady themselves on the wall (or the rope/rail/etc affixed to the wall).
In my experience, going down is far tricker (and riskier) than climbing up. Especially when carrying things.
So that theory doesn't sound right either.
So that theory doesn't sound right either.
He was specifically thinking of food/drink. Coming down would be empty, going up is full. He also said it'd be servants doing this, which is also why the stairs were always so small.
My experience is the same, from stairs to mountains, descending is much harder (maybe because we are tired of going up?). Anyway, I can see that intuitively, one can imagine that you need help to go up when you are carrying stuff.
I don't think it's because of being tired.
A few hypotheses come to mind:
1. Walking on your toes vs. on your heels
2. What happens if you slip
3. Lean
If you're facing into the stairs, your toes are gripping the next step. Maybe the extra degree of freedom from your ankle makes it easier to get a steady foothold. Whereas if you're facing away, on narrow steps, your toe may be off the step. If you try to balance on level ground on the balls of your feet vs. on your heels, you can tell heels are harder.
If you're going up and you slip, your moving foot just slides onto the same step as your static foot. If you're going down and you slip, your feet are now separated by 2 steps instead of just 1.
All things that move across ground move best if they lean into the direction they're walking. If you're walking down stairs, leaning forward means leaning away from the stairs. Going up, you're just leaning into the stairs as if you're rock climbing. Also it's likely our bodies are just better at leaning forward safely than backwards.
I heard a quote somewhere that "If you go down facing it, it's a ladder. If you go down facing away, it's stairs." Some narrow stairs might be better treated as just strange ladders. 2 of the possible causes would be mitigated.
A few hypotheses come to mind:
1. Walking on your toes vs. on your heels
2. What happens if you slip
3. Lean
If you're facing into the stairs, your toes are gripping the next step. Maybe the extra degree of freedom from your ankle makes it easier to get a steady foothold. Whereas if you're facing away, on narrow steps, your toe may be off the step. If you try to balance on level ground on the balls of your feet vs. on your heels, you can tell heels are harder.
If you're going up and you slip, your moving foot just slides onto the same step as your static foot. If you're going down and you slip, your feet are now separated by 2 steps instead of just 1.
All things that move across ground move best if they lean into the direction they're walking. If you're walking down stairs, leaning forward means leaning away from the stairs. Going up, you're just leaning into the stairs as if you're rock climbing. Also it's likely our bodies are just better at leaning forward safely than backwards.
I heard a quote somewhere that "If you go down facing it, it's a ladder. If you go down facing away, it's stairs." Some narrow stairs might be better treated as just strange ladders. 2 of the possible causes would be mitigated.
Don't over-interpret:
It is just way easier the way we are built, kids learn climbing stairs (and other things) way before they can safely walk stairs downwards. The smarter ones go backwards.
Standing on a step and stepping down is just ... complicated ... and requires considerably more body control.
The risk of toppling forwards and falling down the stairs (or the couch) is considerably higher than "stumbling the stairs upwards".
It is just way easier the way we are built, kids learn climbing stairs (and other things) way before they can safely walk stairs downwards. The smarter ones go backwards.
Standing on a step and stepping down is just ... complicated ... and requires considerably more body control.
The risk of toppling forwards and falling down the stairs (or the couch) is considerably higher than "stumbling the stairs upwards".
Yeah, if you look at body mechanics it quickly becomes obvious that our body has a much less advantageous position for down.
To add to the sibling comments, momentum is also a factor.
When you are going up, if you slip, your momentum will carry you into the slope. If you are going down and slip, your momentum will carry you into space. Then gravity will take over.
When you are going up, if you slip, your momentum will carry you into the slope. If you are going down and slip, your momentum will carry you into space. Then gravity will take over.
I think it is due to the fact that going down stairs requires eccentric muscle contraction which is harder on the joints and also harder to control.
[deleted]
Hopefully the book they're working on makes more compelling arguments, as the bullet points listed in this blogpost are pretty weak:
1. "Castles were built for prestige not fortification".
Regardless of actual use as fortification (frequency of battles), it's pretty self-evident that the intent of much of a castles design is fortification. Even if moats, arrow slits and parapets are just for show, they would still be to show off your defensive capabilities, in which case (at least apparent) defense would still be the primary concern of the architect.
2. "Some turn anti-clockwise"
Wherein the author assumes that all wisdom is automatically universally shared and all architects/planners/builders are universally competent. A fact as true today as it ever was.
3. is pretty much the same argument as (2) repeated.
4. An argument against how practical they would be in reality (already superceded by their first point that they were probably just for show).
There's very little of substance in this article. Hopefully the book does a better job.
1. "Castles were built for prestige not fortification".
Regardless of actual use as fortification (frequency of battles), it's pretty self-evident that the intent of much of a castles design is fortification. Even if moats, arrow slits and parapets are just for show, they would still be to show off your defensive capabilities, in which case (at least apparent) defense would still be the primary concern of the architect.
2. "Some turn anti-clockwise"
Wherein the author assumes that all wisdom is automatically universally shared and all architects/planners/builders are universally competent. A fact as true today as it ever was.
3. is pretty much the same argument as (2) repeated.
4. An argument against how practical they would be in reality (already superceded by their first point that they were probably just for show).
There's very little of substance in this article. Hopefully the book does a better job.
I think one of the points in the article is that the walls and moat are the main lines of defence. The castle is protected by the walls.
If they breach the walls and actually enter the interior of the castle, they have already lost and no staircase design can save them.
If they breach the walls and actually enter the interior of the castle, they have already lost and no staircase design can save them.
There were interior defenses though. In some of the more impressive castles there were concentric rings of walls so breeching on wouldn't surrender the whole castle. There were often also keeps. Even in early proto castles you had motte and bailey designs where the main walls defended the low ground (bailey) for an interior fort built on a hill or prominence (the motte).
Castles weren't single layer defenses that stopped at the walls, they were definitely designed to continue the fight and protect the nobles even if the enemy did get through the walls. Given that it's not so out of line to think the interior architecture might have been designed to increase defender's advantages.
Castles weren't single layer defenses that stopped at the walls, they were definitely designed to continue the fight and protect the nobles even if the enemy did get through the walls. Given that it's not so out of line to think the interior architecture might have been designed to increase defender's advantages.
Do you have any examples of when this actually happened (a fight "continued, to protect the nobles, once the enemy got through the walls")? What I find most interesting is applying Occam's razor, it's almost certainly not a defense mechanism, yet we have dozens of HN folks defending it, and I'm not sure why? If there was at least one documented account of where this was an effective defense, then maybe there's something there.
In 1201, Eleanor of Aquitaine survived in the keep of the castle Mirebeau after attackers were within the walls, until her son King John arrived and captured the attackers, rescuing her.
That's a miracle story, where Superman is arriving in the last second, but still - what it has to do with fights on stairs?
If there were no help from outside, next would be keep wall, or most probably lack of food and water for defenders.
If there were no help from outside, next would be keep wall, or most probably lack of food and water for defenders.
Because it is a truth most of us have accepted without question. Further, it is so agreeable to other facts. Left handed people are evil? But of course, they can attack up in castle staircases! Medeival life was one of constant sword-fighting and war time!
Also I'll admit the first couple arguments in TFA felt weak. I wouldn't be surprised if that colored peoples readings of the rest, or if they jumped to come comment before finishing the rest.
Also I'll admit the first couple arguments in TFA felt weak. I wouldn't be surprised if that colored peoples readings of the rest, or if they jumped to come comment before finishing the rest.
> If they breach the walls and actually enter the interior of the castle, they have already lost and no staircase design can save them.
That's assuming that the castle has fallen by assault. If the attacker was an assassin who had gained access to the castle through subterfuge or a disgruntled worker then interior defences may have conceivably been useful.
That's assuming that the castle has fallen by assault. If the attacker was an assassin who had gained access to the castle through subterfuge or a disgruntled worker then interior defences may have conceivably been useful.
You didn't read far enough. The author opens with those weak, poorly supported points (I think they suggest that there will be a more spirited defense in an upcoming book). The tracing of the origin of the idea is a much more compelling argument.
If some one told you "oh yeah, this 20th century fencer who was obsessed with spirals said that the reason castles were built this way was obviously the sword fighting implications" you'd probably be less likely to believe it.
If some one told you "oh yeah, this 20th century fencer who was obsessed with spirals said that the reason castles were built this way was obviously the sword fighting implications" you'd probably be less likely to believe it.
You're right but that's not really attacking the theory, rather the supposed proposer (ad hominem essentially, mild as it is). People do tend to be very swayed by appeals to "personal credibility" or lack thereof, but it's not substantively related to the plausibility of the idea itself.
It is attacking the theory, or at least pointing out that it isn't so much a theory as it is a musing. It seems to have as much credence as my own theory that it was to keep evil spirits out.
Indeed.
> castle specialists have proposed that these buildings were primarily structures intended to be impressive theatrical backdrops for complex ceremonies relating to status and prestige.
You know when the Marines do their rifle drill involving twirling and complex maneuvers with their rifles? That's a complex display of prestige too, but:
a) rifles aren't made for show (although the rifles the Marines use for drill have been permanently disabled)
b) the drill sends a very clear message: "our guys really know how to handle a rifle".
So even if a castle was primarily used for ceremony, it wasn't built as a merely ceremonial device. And the ceremony sends a message: our king is rich, and our defenses are pretty fucking strong. Think twice before laying siege to us.
> castle specialists have proposed that these buildings were primarily structures intended to be impressive theatrical backdrops for complex ceremonies relating to status and prestige.
You know when the Marines do their rifle drill involving twirling and complex maneuvers with their rifles? That's a complex display of prestige too, but:
a) rifles aren't made for show (although the rifles the Marines use for drill have been permanently disabled)
b) the drill sends a very clear message: "our guys really know how to handle a rifle".
So even if a castle was primarily used for ceremony, it wasn't built as a merely ceremonial device. And the ceremony sends a message: our king is rich, and our defenses are pretty fucking strong. Think twice before laying siege to us.
> 1. "Castles were built for prestige not fortification".
Why not both? A US Supercarrier is both prestige and fortification.
Maginot line was also both: it was a great fortification + provided a prestige / morale factor to the troops. (No more dingy trenches! You'll have fresh water and a place to sleep).
Just because something is built as a fortification doesn't mean it won't be avoided (ex: Maginot line worked where it laid. But the Germans just ran around the line through Belgium). Similarly, just because a castle was built for fortification doesn't mean it was a _good_ fortification. There probably are lots of "bad" castles as well as "good" ones.
Why not both? A US Supercarrier is both prestige and fortification.
Maginot line was also both: it was a great fortification + provided a prestige / morale factor to the troops. (No more dingy trenches! You'll have fresh water and a place to sleep).
Just because something is built as a fortification doesn't mean it won't be avoided (ex: Maginot line worked where it laid. But the Germans just ran around the line through Belgium). Similarly, just because a castle was built for fortification doesn't mean it was a _good_ fortification. There probably are lots of "bad" castles as well as "good" ones.
1. If we are nitpicking this article, then castle is not a fort - it is an office, that houses ruler and his court. Castle is a residence to accept high flow of people and not planned for sieges. Castle also would have enough of army to defend it(and siege is not a defence - it happens when there is a lack of it!) - it really is not something that was planned to be sieged, not to mention any fights indoors.
2. What author meant was that 30% of them who were anti-clockwise clearly does not mean that those other 70% were projected by people who thought of using stairs as battle scene.
3. I've mostly visited early medieval castles, that had anti-clockwise stairs, so meh... it looks like a cultural thing. I even doubt that these were used when carrying sword, because those had not much space to have it there, so it looked like something to be used for practical everyday usage - not battles.
4. If a person was wearing armor in medieval times, he was like a tank. If there was a discussion among nobles and one of them got pissed and decided to wear an armor and return to continue discussion... well, pretty much the discussion was over for rest of party, regardless of presence of swords. Though, despite the trope used in cinema, I can't imagine swordfighting in medieval setting between armored opponents on stairs. If the one on top of stairs slipped, the opponent below would be disabled from the weight of opponent above him. They would also not be able to step on those stairs... and if it all comes to that, swordfight is not requirement to rat out enemy - for that was used fire and smoke. Pretty much it is what author was mentioning - if there is a breach, it is game over for defenders and no real reason to continue defending anymore. The only thing they can try is fleeing.
Fighting, that involves swords and no armor is very late invention, where fortification defenses were useless and could be blown up by a powder and all the "strategical" stairs would be turned into a rubble.
2. What author meant was that 30% of them who were anti-clockwise clearly does not mean that those other 70% were projected by people who thought of using stairs as battle scene.
3. I've mostly visited early medieval castles, that had anti-clockwise stairs, so meh... it looks like a cultural thing. I even doubt that these were used when carrying sword, because those had not much space to have it there, so it looked like something to be used for practical everyday usage - not battles.
4. If a person was wearing armor in medieval times, he was like a tank. If there was a discussion among nobles and one of them got pissed and decided to wear an armor and return to continue discussion... well, pretty much the discussion was over for rest of party, regardless of presence of swords. Though, despite the trope used in cinema, I can't imagine swordfighting in medieval setting between armored opponents on stairs. If the one on top of stairs slipped, the opponent below would be disabled from the weight of opponent above him. They would also not be able to step on those stairs... and if it all comes to that, swordfight is not requirement to rat out enemy - for that was used fire and smoke. Pretty much it is what author was mentioning - if there is a breach, it is game over for defenders and no real reason to continue defending anymore. The only thing they can try is fleeing.
Fighting, that involves swords and no armor is very late invention, where fortification defenses were useless and could be blown up by a powder and all the "strategical" stairs would be turned into a rubble.
There were definitely castles which were built to withstand sieges. Like Krak des Chevaliers and other crusader castles. Of course it was preferred if seiges could be avoided but I do not think your pedantry about fortress vs castle matters much since there were many types of both.
On the contrary, I am quite aware of those, but op is not. Krak des Chevaliers might not really fit the profile of castles in clasical meaning, but belong to a very specific niche of fortifications of military monastic orders in Middle East.
As for castles in UK - these aparently are representative castles and not really only fortifications. Even the smallests castles in UK were mainly used for something that was manor estate of a local royal family.
As for castles in UK - these aparently are representative castles and not really only fortifications. Even the smallests castles in UK were mainly used for something that was manor estate of a local royal family.
I found the idea fresh and very believable, even though the writing wasn't very crisp.
I don't know how to articulate it, but there's a lot to unpack there about symbolic force, ritual, and male expression.
Mcluhan, baudrillard, hegel, wittgenstein.
Building castles reminds me of building muscle in the gym. The underwriting philosophy is violent, but it requires uninterrupted peaceful effort. Built for an imagined "us vs them" conflict that, in reality, ends up as an "us vs us" status contest.
I don't know how to articulate it, but there's a lot to unpack there about symbolic force, ritual, and male expression.
Mcluhan, baudrillard, hegel, wittgenstein.
Building castles reminds me of building muscle in the gym. The underwriting philosophy is violent, but it requires uninterrupted peaceful effort. Built for an imagined "us vs them" conflict that, in reality, ends up as an "us vs us" status contest.
Yeah, I was ready to be convinced; I love punctured myths. But having built too many things based on executive fantasies, it seems all too plausible to me that whether or not the staircase direction made practical sense, various kings would love imagining themselves as heroic defenders on every square foot.
Like others, I think the fact that this myth appears to be novel and recent is a much better sign that we shouldn't take this very seriously. And I totally agree with his point about "frequency of its repetition by parents to children". There is so much "Pluto is so a planet" thinking in the world. It's really hard to critically examine beliefs we take on as children.
Like others, I think the fact that this myth appears to be novel and recent is a much better sign that we shouldn't take this very seriously. And I totally agree with his point about "frequency of its repetition by parents to children". There is so much "Pluto is so a planet" thinking in the world. It's really hard to critically examine beliefs we take on as children.
[deleted]
> 2. "Some turn anti-clockwise"
Surely the best rebuttal of this particular point is: Some people are left-handed.
Surely the best rebuttal of this particular point is: Some people are left-handed.
How is that a rebuttal? You plan your castle's military features (assuming you do plan them, which sort of begs the question) with the majority of attackers/defenders in mind.
Or do you mean "if the mason who planned the castle was left-handed, he would have built anti-clockwise stairs"?
Or do you mean "if the mason who planned the castle was left-handed, he would have built anti-clockwise stairs"?
Do not know about staircases, but the toilets on top of the walls is great way to use butts. The only issue is getting to toilet fast enough, but we can come up with theory that people in medival ages were quick runners to toilet...
I like how your comment ties in with "rebuttal".
I think we can all agree -- without a trace of irony -- that toilet technology is way more important and has a greater impact on society than warfare.
I think we can all agree -- without a trace of irony -- that toilet technology is way more important and has a greater impact on society than warfare.
The best rebuttal would be if someone would actually just carry a sword(not to mention about getting in proper medieval outfit of a fighter) on those circular stairs and then when resting and catching breath thought about advantages of sword fights on STEEP staircases, regardless of their direction...
I feel like right-handed people would prefer anti-clockwise stairs though, because if you're carrying something heavy it's usually harder to climb up than down, and in my experience is more comfortable to carry a bulky object on the outside of the spiral case than on the inside.
And as far as I know right-handed people have always been more common than lefties, so having more clockwise than anti-clockwise staircases is counterintuitive to me.
And as far as I know right-handed people have always been more common than lefties, so having more clockwise than anti-clockwise staircases is counterintuitive to me.
The real argument the article makes is that no one seems to have proposed the theory until 1902. If it was generally a design consideration when the castles were built, we'd expect to have contemporary documentation of it.
Would we? I ask genuinely, not rhetorically. Literacy was a lot lower back then, and even what was written has often been lost in time.
I mean I can offer the same argument in reverse: if 70% of these staircases wound clockwise, they clearly favoured this orientation. How come we don't have contemporary documentation of the reason?
I mean I can offer the same argument in reverse: if 70% of these staircases wound clockwise, they clearly favoured this orientation. How come we don't have contemporary documentation of the reason?
Presumably we also find masonry spiral stairs in contemporary churches, cathedrals, bell towers, monasteries, storage cellars, etc. - do these structures (which one assumes have very different threat models to a castle) exhibit similar bias?
Romans built spiral staircases as well - did they favor a particular direction? What about other cultures unrelated to European castle building traditions?
Honestly, though, if you’ve ever worked on a construction project you would know: even if you had a record of a papal decree mandating that all staircases must turn to the right, multiple books documenting how to build staircases with a right turn and warning against left-turning designs, and original castle drawings showing the architect marked explicitly that the staircase must turn right, it would not be surprising to find that 30% of staircases turn left just because the contractor installed it backwards.
Romans built spiral staircases as well - did they favor a particular direction? What about other cultures unrelated to European castle building traditions?
Honestly, though, if you’ve ever worked on a construction project you would know: even if you had a record of a papal decree mandating that all staircases must turn to the right, multiple books documenting how to build staircases with a right turn and warning against left-turning designs, and original castle drawings showing the architect marked explicitly that the staircase must turn right, it would not be surprising to find that 30% of staircases turn left just because the contractor installed it backwards.
Contractors might have their own individual preferences too.
"This is my contractor John Mason, who likes to build right handed stairs." "And this is his son Mason Johnson, who hates his dad so he builds left handed stairs"
"This is my contractor John Mason, who likes to build right handed stairs." "And this is his son Mason Johnson, who hates his dad so he builds left handed stairs"
Or, I guess, upside down.
70% is an election landslide, but I'm not sure it tells you that one kind of staircase is preferred over another.
If the swordsman theory were correct, it ought to be higher. Either it is really important that you can defeat invaders on stairs, and handedness matters for this, or it's not that big a deal and we can let some other consideration decide, for instance the descending stairs hypothesis.
So if was a big deal you'd think everyone would insist on having the stairs the right way, nearly 100%. If not there might be another weaker reason that leads to 70%.
If the swordsman theory were correct, it ought to be higher. Either it is really important that you can defeat invaders on stairs, and handedness matters for this, or it's not that big a deal and we can let some other consideration decide, for instance the descending stairs hypothesis.
So if was a big deal you'd think everyone would insist on having the stairs the right way, nearly 100%. If not there might be another weaker reason that leads to 70%.
"70% is an election landslide, but I'm not sure it tells you that one kind of staircase is preferred over another."
I think 70% definitely tells you what kind of staircase was preferred assuming there are enough staircases (and assuming that that clockwise (CW) and counter-clockwise staircases had equal probability of surviving and being counted).
Assume there are 40 staircases, and that 70% (28) are CW. The binomial distribution tells us that the probability of there being more than 27 staircases that run CW is less than 0.83% if staircase direction is chosen at random.
Thus, the binomial distribution suggests that it is highly unlikely (<1%) that staircase direction was determined at random.
If you want to play around with the binomial distribution: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=binomial+distribution+...
I think 70% definitely tells you what kind of staircase was preferred assuming there are enough staircases (and assuming that that clockwise (CW) and counter-clockwise staircases had equal probability of surviving and being counted).
Assume there are 40 staircases, and that 70% (28) are CW. The binomial distribution tells us that the probability of there being more than 27 staircases that run CW is less than 0.83% if staircase direction is chosen at random.
Thus, the binomial distribution suggests that it is highly unlikely (<1%) that staircase direction was determined at random.
If you want to play around with the binomial distribution: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=binomial+distribution+...
I actually thought about this exact thing before I wrote my comment. What you forget is this is an adversarial situation you're dealing with. If it really mattered, nobody would leave it to a coin toss as to which way the staircases have to be. Much like in sports, every little edge counts. Yeah, it isn't chance that 70% of them are CW, but it also doesn't make sense that it's only 70%.
The proper comparison is not a 50% cointoss, which is how you might think about some elections, it's a 100% world where every castle maker would tell their apprentices about this important CW swordfighting idea, and people who forget this are castigated for building an obvious weakness into their design.
The only reason it would be somewhat lopsided, but not decisively, is if there was some mild reason why people preferred one over the other, which is what your numbers actually suggest. Something like the "easier to walk down" hypothesis might make sense here, where for instance the CCW staircases are accounted for by aesthetic considerations like symmetry.
The proper comparison is not a 50% cointoss, which is how you might think about some elections, it's a 100% world where every castle maker would tell their apprentices about this important CW swordfighting idea, and people who forget this are castigated for building an obvious weakness into their design.
The only reason it would be somewhat lopsided, but not decisively, is if there was some mild reason why people preferred one over the other, which is what your numbers actually suggest. Something like the "easier to walk down" hypothesis might make sense here, where for instance the CCW staircases are accounted for by aesthetic considerations like symmetry.
>> if 70% of these staircases wound clockwise, they clearly favoured this orientation.
If 70% of surviving staircases are clockwise and they were built in similar numbers then there is clearly an advantage to the clockwise orientation. If they were not built in similar numbers, then its on the author to find a specific reason rather than simply reject the conventional wisdom on the subject.
You don't disprove something like this by pointing to a lack of evidence. You do it by finding compelling evidence for an alternative.
If 70% of surviving staircases are clockwise and they were built in similar numbers then there is clearly an advantage to the clockwise orientation. If they were not built in similar numbers, then its on the author to find a specific reason rather than simply reject the conventional wisdom on the subject.
You don't disprove something like this by pointing to a lack of evidence. You do it by finding compelling evidence for an alternative.
"If 70% of surviving staircases are clockwise and they were built in similar numbers then there is clearly an advantage to the clockwise orientation."
Archeology of 21st century man definitely states that 70% of adults used to eat burgers, then there is clearly an advantage to putting a piece of meat between two slices of bread. The bread must br protecting meat from rain and wildlife. People who put meat on top of bread have clearly died out in the evolutionary game. Even the few surviving specimen of men that put meat on top of bread, always cover it with cheese to confuse predators.
Archeology of 21st century man definitely states that 70% of adults used to eat burgers, then there is clearly an advantage to putting a piece of meat between two slices of bread. The bread must br protecting meat from rain and wildlife. People who put meat on top of bread have clearly died out in the evolutionary game. Even the few surviving specimen of men that put meat on top of bread, always cover it with cheese to confuse predators.
I can attest to the bread working. In the late 20th century the extra grip and mobility the bread surrounding the meat (you could even say it 'sandwhiched' the meat) provided definitely helped me protect it from local wildlife (and by local wildlife I mean my siblings).
> Archeology of 21st century man definitely states that 70% of adults used to eat burgers, then there is clearly an advantage to putting a piece of meat between two slices of bread
I mean, there is! It's easier to eat while holding. Meat tends to be a little wet, but bread is dry, so by putting meat in bread, you don't need utensils.
I mean, there is! It's easier to eat while holding. Meat tends to be a little wet, but bread is dry, so by putting meat in bread, you don't need utensils.
Aren't ~70% of humans right hand dominant? Maybe the local builder just built what the customer wanted.
Right hand rule applied to spiral staircases.
Well, lets consider another reason. How about this one: walking down the staircase is more dangerous then up. When two British people meet, they tend to turn to the left. The one walking down now walks on the safer inside.
Very probably bullocks. But prove me wrong?
I'm not sure, but no doubt this will be the subject of a 10,000 word post on acoup.blog before long.
Literacy (especially among noble and architects) was not at all uncommon before 1902. We're not talking exactly neolithic age.
Fair, but there may have been security reasons for not recording something like this (if the swordsman theory is true), you wouldnt want enemy castles to be built as well, so you might not write down any defensive design strategies in an effort to horde your knowledge.
Oh come, this is truely gasping at straws.
People were not stupid; if there was an actual technical benefit, it would have been known and shared, the same way that people knew and shared other castle construction techniques amongst craftsmen.
Tangibly, the absence of evidence for something can’t be magicked away by the “but what if they didn’t record it for a reason because it was a secret!?”.
If there’s no evidence, there’s no evidence. You can ponder all day, but it still boils down to, bluntly: there is no evidence that conjecture is correct.
People were not stupid; if there was an actual technical benefit, it would have been known and shared, the same way that people knew and shared other castle construction techniques amongst craftsmen.
Tangibly, the absence of evidence for something can’t be magicked away by the “but what if they didn’t record it for a reason because it was a secret!?”.
If there’s no evidence, there’s no evidence. You can ponder all day, but it still boils down to, bluntly: there is no evidence that conjecture is correct.
But if there's no evidence of something, the best you can say is that you don't know. And it's possible that the dominant orientation is just an accident, in which case they wouldn't even have a "reason" to document.
I think the documentation for medieval military architecture choices is extremely sparse. Most of the writers were monks, they weren't so interested in military matters.
The author is making an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" error.
The author is making an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" error.
In general, sources from the middle ages aren't as sparse as people like to think.
He isn't making that kind of error. The burden of proof is on the people making the claim. Otherwise any sort of weakly plausible reason for choosing the staircase direction would be true because there is "only" absence of evidence.
Absence of evidence here means that while you can't rule it out, you can't positively state it either.
He isn't making that kind of error. The burden of proof is on the people making the claim. Otherwise any sort of weakly plausible reason for choosing the staircase direction would be true because there is "only" absence of evidence.
Absence of evidence here means that while you can't rule it out, you can't positively state it either.
-> Absence of evidence here means that while you can't rule it out, you can't positively state it either.
Right, so calling it a "myth", as in the headline, is incorrect. That would imply that you know it to be false. The author is taking the lack of evidence to mean that it can't be true.
And as for the burden of proof, as with any hypothesis, anyone is welcome to try to falsify it. I just don't believe that the evidence here has done that.
Right, so calling it a "myth", as in the headline, is incorrect. That would imply that you know it to be false. The author is taking the lack of evidence to mean that it can't be true.
And as for the burden of proof, as with any hypothesis, anyone is welcome to try to falsify it. I just don't believe that the evidence here has done that.
Military reasons the primary reason we study history. There is the hope that by studying the wars of the past you can learn something - a tactic, strategy, or something else that you can apply to a future battle and win. Some rich person might get interested in something else from time to time and fund the study of that, but nobles always funded military history because it was one of the few ways you could learn if something worked without doing it in a war yourself.
We think of monks as the only literate people in the past, but that was far from true. The common person might not have known how to read (I've seen good arguments they did a little, but I'm not qualified to evaluate them) but the rich did, and they hired scholars who could read to study things that were important to them. Any rich person who didn't have scholars studying military matters wouldn't last long in war as many seemingly obvious ideas don't work in real battles.
We think of monks as the only literate people in the past, but that was far from true. The common person might not have known how to read (I've seen good arguments they did a little, but I'm not qualified to evaluate them) but the rich did, and they hired scholars who could read to study things that were important to them. Any rich person who didn't have scholars studying military matters wouldn't last long in war as many seemingly obvious ideas don't work in real battles.
> The author is making an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" error.
Quite the opposite, the theory he's questioning has no evidence, merely a good story justifying it. In the absence of actual evidence of the motives behind these designs, you should be agnostic, which is what the author is doing.
Quite the opposite, the theory he's questioning has no evidence, merely a good story justifying it. In the absence of actual evidence of the motives behind these designs, you should be agnostic, which is what the author is doing.
I don't think calling it a "myth" and "mythbusting" is agnostic. If the author was agnostic, they would call it a theory. The correct conclusion from the evidence is that we don't know. The incorrect conclusion is to say that it is a myth because there is no documentary evidence.
> ...we'd expect to have contemporary documentation of it.
Are there many surviving documents outlining the reasoning surrounding each design choice?
Are there many surviving documents outlining the reasoning surrounding each design choice?
LOL
I mean, you're lucky when you go looking in version control on a software project from the last couple of years if the documentation surrounding a reason for a design choice is anything more than 'fixed bug'. Expecting more detailed change control documentation from mediaeval castlebuilders seems optimistic.
I mean, you're lucky when you go looking in version control on a software project from the last couple of years if the documentation surrounding a reason for a design choice is anything more than 'fixed bug'. Expecting more detailed change control documentation from mediaeval castlebuilders seems optimistic.
And especially the most obvious ones?
I agree, if 70% of straicases wind one way there's got to be a reason, it's unlikely to be random chance. If the author is not willing to explain why he thinks that it's a bad justification, and at the same time can't come up with a better explanation, what's the point?
The fact that fights rarely occurred in practice in these staircases is moot: if we assume that the choice of orientation is mostly arbitrary and clockwise stairs offer a theoretical advantage in an unlikely scenario, why not go for it? You don't lose anything by building it that way.
The fact that fights rarely occurred in practice in these staircases is moot: if we assume that the choice of orientation is mostly arbitrary and clockwise stairs offer a theoretical advantage in an unlikely scenario, why not go for it? You don't lose anything by building it that way.
(Weak) convention? Most US cars have the gas cap on the left side but there's no inherent design reason even if some people have preferences and it's by no means universal.
> there's no inherent design reason
The driver sits on the left in the U.S. And, lacking widespread public transit, most driving hours are commuting... alone.
Having the gas cap on the left both makes it easier to pull up to the fueling station without being too far or bumping into it, and - having done so - prevents the driver from having to walk around the vehicle.
The driver sits on the left in the U.S. And, lacking widespread public transit, most driving hours are commuting... alone.
Having the gas cap on the left both makes it easier to pull up to the fueling station without being too far or bumping into it, and - having done so - prevents the driver from having to walk around the vehicle.
That is one point of view. I've also read others who say that they prefer the right because it means that there isn't a gas pump right next to their car door--which means they have to carefully open their door so they don't ding it.
I probably prefer left but don't have a strong opinion.
I probably prefer left but don't have a strong opinion.
And still another that says it should be on the right because if you run out of fuel you are away from other traffic while refueling.
In truth cars are designed for the entire world. Designers will switch the steering wheel side for the country, but they will avoid having to make changes to something far away there that doesn't need to change.
In truth cars are designed for the entire world. Designers will switch the steering wheel side for the country, but they will avoid having to make changes to something far away there that doesn't need to change.
Right--a very rare event but still.
The bottom line is that there are weak preferences, weak arguments for right vs. left (or clockwise vs. counterclockwise), and generally weak design asymmetries/constraints for a given situation and you end up with a majority (but by no means universal) choice.
Not saying that's the case related to the OP, but it seems reasonable absent specific evidence to the contrary.
The bottom line is that there are weak preferences, weak arguments for right vs. left (or clockwise vs. counterclockwise), and generally weak design asymmetries/constraints for a given situation and you end up with a majority (but by no means universal) choice.
Not saying that's the case related to the OP, but it seems reasonable absent specific evidence to the contrary.
What's the justification for those cars that fuel up behind the rear license plate? Probably aesthetics, like Jobs insisting the Apple have no vents
As far as I know, those have always been pretty rare. Maybe more the style a few decades ago? I'd probably put my money on designers.
> Hopefully the book they're working on makes more compelling arguments
What are the arguments for the theory?
What are the arguments for the theory?
I wonder if it’s like panic rooms etc. Perhaps the owner, putting the money into the castle and paranoid about their safety, specified a long list of requirements to the builders, who nodded, smiled and complied. So the direction wasn’t really a large-scale defence consideration but rather a “and what if I’m walking down the stairs and an assassin attacks me with a dagger?”.
We know castles had secret passages and other means of evading assassination etc so that could make sense.
We know castles had secret passages and other means of evading assassination etc so that could make sense.
I think this is the case. A siege is just one scenario out of many where someone could be attacking you in a castle. I have also been in several castles in UK where the penultimate step before the roof is deliberately 1 inch higher than all the others. The story is that if you were being chased up the stairs your attacker would trip over onto the roof and you could easily dispatch him. Would this author also claim the rationale of this feature as a myth, and that they just made the same measurement mistake in multiple castles?
Incidentally, if you're not aware of it, a 1 inch difference in stair height will almost certainly make you trip up. I did myself when I was climbing them at first.
Also the notion that once attackers were in a castle it's all over is not true. Late medieval castles were designed to be modular, layered and flexibly defensible. The enemy might get into one part, but you could retreat to another part and defend that. Might give you enough time to be relieved by an external force. Have a look at Caerphilly castle as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caerphilly_Castle
Finally, it seems that no real explanation is given to the bias towards building clockwise staircases. Why would this be the case? Doesn't it just mean that wherever possible they would build the staircase clockwise because there was some inherent advantage?
Incidentally, if you're not aware of it, a 1 inch difference in stair height will almost certainly make you trip up. I did myself when I was climbing them at first.
Also the notion that once attackers were in a castle it's all over is not true. Late medieval castles were designed to be modular, layered and flexibly defensible. The enemy might get into one part, but you could retreat to another part and defend that. Might give you enough time to be relieved by an external force. Have a look at Caerphilly castle as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caerphilly_Castle
Finally, it seems that no real explanation is given to the bias towards building clockwise staircases. Why would this be the case? Doesn't it just mean that wherever possible they would build the staircase clockwise because there was some inherent advantage?
Well, if that was practice, then attackers would know about that. Also, there is possibility for someone who is running away to trip.
However, there is a hole in logic - what roof has any strategical advantage? Perhaps, one person will trip - rest of 99 out of 100, that are chasing you would eventually go through. Were there any further routes from the roof? Death from falling is my guess...
The reason why there would be higher step for roof, might have more something to do with dampness and to prevent wearing of that step, or to prevent leakage from the roof, that would stream down the stairs. SAeriously, who is making those stories, that makes no sense and who are so gullible to believe them? Are there any of those stairs seen on money? Drunks from my native town were telling stories about oak(which is recently planted - no more than 50 years), ythat they claimed were pictured on money... usually they wanted to claim that money after a story, if someone wanted to disprove it and brought their vallet out...
However, there is a hole in logic - what roof has any strategical advantage? Perhaps, one person will trip - rest of 99 out of 100, that are chasing you would eventually go through. Were there any further routes from the roof? Death from falling is my guess...
The reason why there would be higher step for roof, might have more something to do with dampness and to prevent wearing of that step, or to prevent leakage from the roof, that would stream down the stairs. SAeriously, who is making those stories, that makes no sense and who are so gullible to believe them? Are there any of those stairs seen on money? Drunks from my native town were telling stories about oak(which is recently planted - no more than 50 years), ythat they claimed were pictured on money... usually they wanted to claim that money after a story, if someone wanted to disprove it and brought their vallet out...
I think your mental model of a castle is not quite correct. It's not necessarily a simple stone box. A lot of roofs lead to higher points, or to walls.
Your mental model of what can happen in a castle is also not complete. It's not just sieges, there are any number of reasons someone could be chasing you. It could just be one assailant.
Finally, perhaps I didn't describe the step well enough. The step is not the top one, it is the second one down, and the face of it is around 2cm higher than all the other steps. It wouldn't make any difference to the drainage. Don't get angry that there are features of castles that are not adequately explained, and some people try to explain them.
Your mental model of what can happen in a castle is also not complete. It's not just sieges, there are any number of reasons someone could be chasing you. It could just be one assailant.
Finally, perhaps I didn't describe the step well enough. The step is not the top one, it is the second one down, and the face of it is around 2cm higher than all the other steps. It wouldn't make any difference to the drainage. Don't get angry that there are features of castles that are not adequately explained, and some people try to explain them.
> The story is that if you were being chased up the stairs your attacker would trip over onto the roof and you could easily dispatch him
Wouldn't it be equally as likely that while running away in panic, you'd trip on the top stair yourself?
In my opinion, a more realistic explanation is that on plan the stairs were all the same height. But when the builders reached the top, they realised that the roof was an inch higher than planned and just made the final step a bit taller to make the difference?
Wouldn't it be equally as likely that while running away in panic, you'd trip on the top stair yourself?
In my opinion, a more realistic explanation is that on plan the stairs were all the same height. But when the builders reached the top, they realised that the roof was an inch higher than planned and just made the final step a bit taller to make the difference?
If you know the step is there, you get used to avoiding tripping.
It's not the final step, it's the penultimate step. Also everything else in the castle is straight and true, which would imply they knew how to measure things accurately enough. It's also in more than one castle.
It's not the final step, it's the penultimate step. Also everything else in the castle is straight and true, which would imply they knew how to measure things accurately enough. It's also in more than one castle.
I think that the secret passages are more often a way for the servants to do daily maintenance without disturbing the owner and guests. In rare occasions they were used so that the lord/lady can visit a lover without bringing unnecessary attention.
Anecdote: I was attending a drinks party at a friends house and nearly shit when a bit of wood panelling suddenly opened up next to me.... only for a young lady to appear with a tray of canapes.
Here, quite a few large 18th & 19th century houses were built with separate, discrete, servants staircases and passageways.
Here, quite a few large 18th & 19th century houses were built with separate, discrete, servants staircases and passageways.
This is the case for the castle in Versailles (obviously not medieval).
There areplenty of doors (more or less visible) that are used to split the public and private activities (and a way for servants to better navigate the castle).
The doors are not always hidden - they clearly separate these two worlds, and may also led to very nice places that are just not public.
There areplenty of doors (more or less visible) that are used to split the public and private activities (and a way for servants to better navigate the castle).
The doors are not always hidden - they clearly separate these two worlds, and may also led to very nice places that are just not public.
I once had an office (c 1740) with a secret passage. It would only open from inside, so not an access for staff. More like a quick getaway!
Where was your office? I can only speculate with so little information.
A company we were consulting for bought a big old country house here in the UK. It was completely empty when my small team moved in. I took the massive library as my office.
Hah, sounds like a quick getaway unless the tunnel was leading to a private and usually unoccupied bedroom so that sir spending time in reading books did acquire a new meaning.
As others have said, I don't find these arguments very convincing - if castles were mainly residences, then why have crenelations, or arrow slits or a moat, doesn't that argument apply equally to those? The argument that if such a defensive feature was needed, then its already too late, and so it was probably never used is also not a good one imo. Has the CWIS gun on aircraft carriers ever actually been used in combat? Am I to conclude that CWIS has no defensive use and is purely architectural ornamentation?
The only good point is that it wasn't mentioned by contemporary sources, but I don't think this proves anything unless you can show that other defensive features on castles were mentioned. Otherwise maybe we just have bad sources about castle design. But if you can show me some documents about why eg. moats are designed they way they are, then I think you have a point.
The only good point is that it wasn't mentioned by contemporary sources, but I don't think this proves anything unless you can show that other defensive features on castles were mentioned. Otherwise maybe we just have bad sources about castle design. But if you can show me some documents about why eg. moats are designed they way they are, then I think you have a point.
It would be worth noting what percentage of castle from this same period feature a moat or crenelations or arrow slits, right?
The book is about why it's actually a myth. This article is about how stories get started and passed down with no basis in fact, and is really promotional material for the book.
And here we are in 2021, and people are defending a story invented in 1902 about design decisions made more than 500 years prior, and it's unclear how many of them had even heard the original myth before reading this article!
The gnosticism is very strong today.
The book is about why it's actually a myth. This article is about how stories get started and passed down with no basis in fact, and is really promotional material for the book.
And here we are in 2021, and people are defending a story invented in 1902 about design decisions made more than 500 years prior, and it's unclear how many of them had even heard the original myth before reading this article!
The gnosticism is very strong today.
It would make sense that military secrets like opting for right hand spirals would not appear in popular publications.
Even the 70/30 split mentioned in the article is telling. If it truly did not matter then you would expect a 50/50 split, so there is a thumb on the scale somewhere. Maybe some early famous castles had them and the feature was replicated in newer castles? But what if the original castles had them for defensive purposes? The newer castles could have been built with defensive features they didn't fully understand.
Even the 70/30 split mentioned in the article is telling. If it truly did not matter then you would expect a 50/50 split, so there is a thumb on the scale somewhere. Maybe some early famous castles had them and the feature was replicated in newer castles? But what if the original castles had them for defensive purposes? The newer castles could have been built with defensive features they didn't fully understand.
I don't think many people are defending the myth, most just seem to critisize bad arguments. Just because something is not supported by facts does not make all counter arguments automatically valid.
I can't find it now, but I remember watching a YouTube video about how the military aspect of castles was more about projecting power over the local population to prevent and put down rebellion. This article talks about how it was also both a home security system and a status symbol. You technically had to be licensed to fortify your property.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_to_crenellate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_to_crenellate
Well, castles were also used as bases to dominate the country side. And to show of wealth. The dominating part was made easier by bwing easily defended, turning them into ideal bases of operations. How someone could argue castles weren't military buildings, I don't know.
It just seems foolish to generalise about something that existed for a long time in different guises.
It's always struck me as obvious this is a 'factoid'. How much of a sword fight can you have on a spiral staircase?
It's fun though? And a great learning opportunity - you can teach a kid the fun factoid, plus something about how hard it is to find out if a commonly-held belief is true.
It's fun though? And a great learning opportunity - you can teach a kid the fun factoid, plus something about how hard it is to find out if a commonly-held belief is true.
This is what strikes me as well. You probably wouldn't be fighting with a sword, because at best those were side arms for knights in most circumstances in Europe. You'd likely defend a staircase from the top with a barricade, and/or by pushing something down it. Spears or other pole arms would be preferable for defending the space from the top. But as you mentioned, you might as well start a small fire at the bottom to smoke out defenders.
Worst case scenario as an attacker, you could just wait out people on the upper levels, they have limited supplies and you presumably control the gates and ground level.
Worst case scenario as an attacker, you could just wait out people on the upper levels, they have limited supplies and you presumably control the gates and ground level.
And as the article itself mentions, if it's down to that level of desperation you've already lost. I mean the attacker can start a fire to smoke anyone upstairs out, or continue the siege and just wait.
True, but like all security measures the point is to make things harder for intruders.
Security through obscurity is prudent in addition to other measures, so would this. (Regardless of wheather this actually was a thing or not).
Security through obscurity is prudent in addition to other measures, so would this. (Regardless of wheather this actually was a thing or not).
> the point is to make things harder for intruders
If the intruders are at the bottom of your stairs, you've probably already lost, no?
If the intruders are at the bottom of your stairs, you've probably already lost, no?
Depends. Most castles had defense in depth. You could lose a few wings and survive long enough for external defenders to come rescue you.
I don't see why you would fight on the stairs though, as opposed to running to the top where you can close a door behind you, or fight from a flat floor.
I don't see why you would fight on the stairs though, as opposed to running to the top where you can close a door behind you, or fight from a flat floor.
With that attitude one certainly has already lost :)
> castle specialists have proposed that these buildings were primarily structures intended to be impressive theatrical backdrops for complex ceremonies relating to status and prestige
I have seen castles that had only military living in them. Like, they were military outposts build around the time of Turk attacks. They tend to be high on mountain, not comfortably next to city.
> If staircases were genuinely engineered for military purposes, then we should always find that they turn clockwise.
Should they? I don't want to question the history here, but the logic of this does not follow to me.
I have seen castles that had only military living in them. Like, they were military outposts build around the time of Turk attacks. They tend to be high on mountain, not comfortably next to city.
> If staircases were genuinely engineered for military purposes, then we should always find that they turn clockwise.
Should they? I don't want to question the history here, but the logic of this does not follow to me.
It's a definition thing. What you described is a fortress, not a castle.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle :
> A castle is a type of fortified structure built during the Middle Ages predominantly by the nobility or royalty and by military orders. Scholars debate the scope of the word castle, but usually consider it to be the private fortified residence of a lord or noble. This is distinct from a palace, which is not fortified; from a fortress, which was not always a residence for royalty or nobility;
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle :
> A castle is a type of fortified structure built during the Middle Ages predominantly by the nobility or royalty and by military orders. Scholars debate the scope of the word castle, but usually consider it to be the private fortified residence of a lord or noble. This is distinct from a palace, which is not fortified; from a fortress, which was not always a residence for royalty or nobility;
Etimology. Castle is Norman French for Chateau. A special kind of house, typically/historically for a nobleman, i.e. a landowner.
Remember much of English is actually Norman French. After the conquest and all.
Remember much of English is actually Norman French. After the conquest and all.
Okay, but etymology is not meaning. Meanings change quite a bit.
> Castle is Norman French for Chateau
According to my Oxford English Dictionary, both 'castle' and 'chateau' are modern variants of the older Latin 'castellum'.
According to my Oxford English Dictionary, both 'castle' and 'chateau' are modern variants of the older Latin 'castellum'.
My recollection is that castles were designed to be defended by multiple layers of defense. A clear space beyond the moat where approaching attacker would be exposed to archers on high, then a moat, then a strong gate, then a space between the outer wall and the next one where attackers could be slaughtered from above. As the designers were aware that any layer might be ineffective against a sufficiently powerful assault, it would be strange to expect them to neglect prudent provisions for continuation of the defense within the interior.
I visited a castle with an Italian friend. She was quite excited about it. After we arrived and had our first look inside, she disappointedly exclaimed "this is not a castello, it is a fortezza!".
I thought it was still a pretty cool castle.
I thought it was still a pretty cool castle.
They have those historical explanations next to them. They used the word "castle" systematically. "The castle was build" or "the castle was destroyed" or "the castle was rebuild" ...
Could you give an example?
The author of essay is in the UK, and the mentioned castles are all homes for royals, nobility, or bishops, or at least meant to be.
Arundel Castle, West Sussex - that's where the Earl of Arundel has lived (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arundel_Castle)
Newark Castle (Nottinghamshire) - for the Bishop of Lincoln (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark_Castle%2C_Nottinghamshi...)
Norwich - "Norwich Castle was designed to be a royal palace rather than a fortification. However, no Norman kings ever lived in it" (https://www.museums.norfolk.gov.uk/norwich-castle/whats-here...)
Tower of London - I can't tell if William the Conqueror lived there, but the Wikipedia entry says that by 1135 "The castle, which had not been used as a royal residence for some time", implying it was a royal residence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_London)
Caerphilly - given "the castle's luxurious accommodation", I assume Gilbert de Clare lived there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caerphilly_Castle
Conwy - "best preserved suite of medieval private royal chambers in England and Wales" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conwy_Castle)
This is too boring, so I'll let someone else look up Beaumaris, Caernarfon, and Colchester Castle.
The author of essay is in the UK, and the mentioned castles are all homes for royals, nobility, or bishops, or at least meant to be.
Arundel Castle, West Sussex - that's where the Earl of Arundel has lived (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arundel_Castle)
Newark Castle (Nottinghamshire) - for the Bishop of Lincoln (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark_Castle%2C_Nottinghamshi...)
Norwich - "Norwich Castle was designed to be a royal palace rather than a fortification. However, no Norman kings ever lived in it" (https://www.museums.norfolk.gov.uk/norwich-castle/whats-here...)
Tower of London - I can't tell if William the Conqueror lived there, but the Wikipedia entry says that by 1135 "The castle, which had not been used as a royal residence for some time", implying it was a royal residence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_London)
Caerphilly - given "the castle's luxurious accommodation", I assume Gilbert de Clare lived there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caerphilly_Castle
Conwy - "best preserved suite of medieval private royal chambers in England and Wales" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conwy_Castle)
This is too boring, so I'll let someone else look up Beaumaris, Caernarfon, and Colchester Castle.
So do fortresses normally have clockwise staircases?
The logic is based on the idea that right-handed combatants will find it hard to wield their weapon effectively fighting their way up a clockwise staircase as the central column will get in the way, whereas those fighting down the staircase will have plenty of room near the outer wall/bannister to wield theirs. Conversely, an anti-clockwise staircase will give an advantage to right-handed combatants fighting up, and an impediment to those fighting down.
Therefore, given that the majority of people are right-handed (and lefties are often taught to fight right-handed anyway), and the idea that if an attacker manages to enter a castle they will then be fighting their way up the stairs against defenders above, clockwise staircases give an advantage to the people tasked with defending them.
Therefore, given that the majority of people are right-handed (and lefties are often taught to fight right-handed anyway), and the idea that if an attacker manages to enter a castle they will then be fighting their way up the stairs against defenders above, clockwise staircases give an advantage to the people tasked with defending them.
So why were they clockwise?
Here's my guess. Falling down a staircase is way worse than falling up it. If it's clockwise, then if you hug the outer wall (with the less steep steps) as you go down then your dominant hand can hold the wall (and any handrail).
Here's my guess. Falling down a staircase is way worse than falling up it. If it's clockwise, then if you hug the outer wall (with the less steep steps) as you go down then your dominant hand can hold the wall (and any handrail).
From my years playing Minecraft, it's probably got a lot more to do with the layout of the upper room. Like you don't want your spiral ending toward a wall, you want it ending toward the room itself.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You can fall down positioned upwards or downwards.
Unless walking backwards, it is normally more common to trip and fall over forwards; when walking upstairs, you could just fall on your hands, since there's stairs in front of you. It is very difficult to trip and fall over backwards, specially when walking upstairs.
Falling upwards generally comes with less potential for injury. Falling backwards when going up is probably about equally bad regardless of clockwiseness.
One comment was
“it was easier and more natural for a right-handed architect to draw plans for a staircase with a right-handed spiral”
There’s also the claim that 30% of staircases are anti-clockwise. That’s a lot for any statement of always or mostly clockwise.
“it was easier and more natural for a right-handed architect to draw plans for a staircase with a right-handed spiral”
There’s also the claim that 30% of staircases are anti-clockwise. That’s a lot for any statement of always or mostly clockwise.
It might just be because architects / builders copied each other. There are loads of little infrastructure details that vary from country to country with very little reason for the difference other than "that's how they are here". For example the gaps in American toilet stalls, or even the shapes of the toilet bowls - way shallower in the US than the UK. Why? Just tradition I expect.
[deleted]
"there are a substantial minority of newels which turn anti-clockwise (approximately 30% of all surviving examples)."
I wonder how survivorship bias would affect this argument (pro or against). Neat article.
I wonder how survivorship bias would affect this argument (pro or against). Neat article.
Survivorship in what sense? The castles that exist today have not survived because they were better at repelling swordsmen, they survive because someone in the nobility happened to like them and protected them from development and hundreds of years of disrepair.
In England, it's more the case that the castle survived because the occupier didn't do anything to annoy Cromwell.
Indeed, Cromwell tried very hard to destroy castles. The trouble was that they were very hard to destroy. Most of the ruined castles are not in that condition out of neglect; that was simply the "best" they were able to do at destroying them. Eventually, the cost of gunpowder was just too much to continue that campaign.
Yes. Like Corfe Castle in Dorset, which was taken by treachery, and was demolished some time later, when the fighting was done. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfe_Castle#Post-medieval
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfe_Castle#Post-medieval
Nobles who died defending on a staircase that advantaged the attacker don't leave family behind to care for their castle.
I don't know if it is true or not, but your explanation doesn't seem to hold up.
I don't know if it is true or not, but your explanation doesn't seem to hold up.
A modern occurrence of the spiral staircase defense came when a mentally unwell fan broke into the home of Richard Garriott (Lord British) and was held off by Garriott but using an Uzi instead of a sword. Apparently castles aren't build like they used to be as news articles mention that the Uzi "blew a hole through the house".
Do you happen to know whether the staircase rotated clockwise or anti-clockwise? It could have been a deciding factor in how the events played out
I wonder whether clockwise was generally favoured over anti-clockwise (or widdershins [1]) for superstitious reasons. Clockwise is "right" vs anticlockwise as "left".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widdershins
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widdershins
I wonder if you just asked 1000 people to draw a spiral without any other context, would there be some handedness/chirality to the drawings? My guess is there would be.
https://briankoberlein.com/blog/gripping-hand/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27852139/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/658702.pdf
https://briankoberlein.com/blog/gripping-hand/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27852139/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/658702.pdf
Would the defenders necessarily be the ones higher up the stairs anyway? If attackers scale the walls, they'd be fighting their way down the stairs.
They probably wont scale all the way to tower. That would be excessive scalling, since walls are smaller by a lot.
You scale the walls, then go down in the actual castle. Why bother about the getting in the higher parts of the tower itself? People trapped inside a single tower won't last long, as they probably don't have much supply stored there.
The tight spiral staircase thing is about towers. The road toward and from wall was large non-spiral staircase. There is entrance from tower too, but in castles I have seen it was not the only way to get there.
If I were an attacker, with the defendants stuck in the tower, I'd probably just shut the door at the bottom and wait. Maybe start a small fire at the bottom and let the smoke do the rest.
No need to get messy on the actual stairs.
No need to get messy on the actual stairs.
Time is on the defenders side though. They can just wait you you in their well stocked castle, while you need to find food and worry about someone from outside coming to rescue the defenders.
> No need to get messy on the actual stairs.
This would only be a problem if you didn’t bring any lefties.
This would only be a problem if you didn’t bring any lefties.
Slightly related, examples for exceptionally beautiful spiral staircases that turn anti-clockwise are the original [0] and 1930s [1] Bramante staircases in the Vatican, which feature a double-helix design. The original could be used by carriages.
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Bramante...
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Vatican_...
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Bramante...
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Vatican_...
> Secondly, they were lavish residences and only finally was there some consideration of fortification
I would have argued the contrary, the vast majority of European castles were uninhabited or manned by a skeleton crew the majority of the time, and only inhabited when threats demanded it.
There certainly were castles that served as primary residences (like the mentioned Arundel Castle), but this mostly became the fashion after the medieval time, when the transition from the fortified castle to the beautiful and nice-to-live in chateaus happened, with fortification elements that were more symbolic than practical (English lacks a clear distinction in name here, but at least German and French draw a clear line here).
I would have argued the contrary, the vast majority of European castles were uninhabited or manned by a skeleton crew the majority of the time, and only inhabited when threats demanded it.
There certainly were castles that served as primary residences (like the mentioned Arundel Castle), but this mostly became the fashion after the medieval time, when the transition from the fortified castle to the beautiful and nice-to-live in chateaus happened, with fortification elements that were more symbolic than practical (English lacks a clear distinction in name here, but at least German and French draw a clear line here).
I had never heard the spiral staircase/right-handed swordsmen legend before today, though it sounds similar to the description of button location on men's shirt's. Both sound silly, the shirt button location because it doesn't explain button location on womens' clothes and the spiral staircase handedness because if they actually had any interest in defense they would have used a counterbalance staircase that could easily be lifted completely denying access to upper levels.
Not saying that I know for certain that the button-one is not a urban legend, but the tale is usually that the button on womens’ clothes is due to the fact that the lady of the house is dressed more often by the staff. Unlike the gents, which were only helped if they choose to wear armor.
(Edit: the => they)
> The story goes that all castle staircases turn clockwise so that primarily right-handed defenders, fighting downwards, would have an advantage over attackers whose weapon would be impeded by the newel post.
Even if the direction was chosen to give downward fighting defenders an advantage, I don't think that would be the specific advantage given.
Consider a person standing on the staircase. Whichever direction they are facing, the wall side is more impeded as far as swinging a sword goes than the newel side. Proof: imagine you are standing on the center of your step facing forward, with identical swords in each hand, holding them in mirrored positions. As you move the swords around in mirrored motion any time the newel side sword hits the newel the wall side sword will be hitting the wall. But there will be many positions where the wall side sword hits the wall but the mirrored newel side sword does not.
The advantage the newel post side has is that the person going up can can lean the top of their body a little ways over the edge, partly shielding behind the newel post from the point of view of someone going down.
If the newel post is on the same side as their sword then when they take advantage of their shielding they make it harder to use their sword (unless they can lean far enough over to attack around the post). If their sword is on the wall side, then they get the newel post shielding for free.
If you were worried about castle defense when designing your staircase, I'd guess that it is this shielding considering that would lead to clockwise.
Even if the direction was chosen to give downward fighting defenders an advantage, I don't think that would be the specific advantage given.
Consider a person standing on the staircase. Whichever direction they are facing, the wall side is more impeded as far as swinging a sword goes than the newel side. Proof: imagine you are standing on the center of your step facing forward, with identical swords in each hand, holding them in mirrored positions. As you move the swords around in mirrored motion any time the newel side sword hits the newel the wall side sword will be hitting the wall. But there will be many positions where the wall side sword hits the wall but the mirrored newel side sword does not.
The advantage the newel post side has is that the person going up can can lean the top of their body a little ways over the edge, partly shielding behind the newel post from the point of view of someone going down.
If the newel post is on the same side as their sword then when they take advantage of their shielding they make it harder to use their sword (unless they can lean far enough over to attack around the post). If their sword is on the wall side, then they get the newel post shielding for free.
If you were worried about castle defense when designing your staircase, I'd guess that it is this shielding considering that would lead to clockwise.
People clearly have not visited medieval castles and walked on those stairs. They are so STEEP, that your main worry about using those is not to slip on your way down and taking breath, when you are gone through them up to a place where you can rest.
PS those staircases are ideal places to just barricade and set fire and let defenders to die from smoke. People in medieval times were not such morons to fight there...
PS those staircases are ideal places to just barricade and set fire and let defenders to die from smoke. People in medieval times were not such morons to fight there...
It would be way more convincing if the Arthur used primary historical source documents to justify this as a myth. For example, if he could find an old architect who wrote that the spiral staircases were for aesthetic reasons or for making the climb up easier, that would be more convincing.
Instead, the author argues from almost first principles and bulk observations, which seems to be unconvincing logic in establishing historical intent.
Instead, the author argues from almost first principles and bulk observations, which seems to be unconvincing logic in establishing historical intent.
In the article he finds the first written mention of the "purpose" of the spiral going in one direction is in 1902. And explains that this 1902 author was obsessed with spirals and fencing.
I think the fact that there are no primary historical source documents that say "hey, we're building this castle this way just in case it's breached and we have to have a sword fight on the stairs" is one of his main points.
It would be easy to disprove the article author by finding such historical documents. Do they exist?
I think the fact that there are no primary historical source documents that say "hey, we're building this castle this way just in case it's breached and we have to have a sword fight on the stairs" is one of his main points.
It would be easy to disprove the article author by finding such historical documents. Do they exist?
[deleted]
We really need Bret Devereaux of ACOUP [0] fame to weigh in on this--I would trust his judgment and arguments much more than the ones put forth in the article.
0: https://acoup.blog/2021/10/29/collections-fortification-part...
0: https://acoup.blog/2021/10/29/collections-fortification-part...
I would like to hear the opinion of an architect. If staircases being clockwise or anti-clockwise can have some advantages.
From my POV since most people are right handed, an anti-clockwise staircase would feel more natural for going up, since you can make the first step with your right foot and use your dominant hand for the handrail. But for getting down a clockwise staircase would feel more natural.
From my POV since most people are right handed, an anti-clockwise staircase would feel more natural for going up, since you can make the first step with your right foot and use your dominant hand for the handrail. But for getting down a clockwise staircase would feel more natural.
All the church tower climbs I can recall in this moment are on anti-clockwise stairs, so there may be a point here. The decent was never so exciting so I really can't remember if the other stair was twisting the other way around...
Not an architect, but having more than a little experience in house (and staircases) design.
There are some geometrical limits that will make the stair start and land on the same or opposite side, both "top" vs. "bottom" and "left" vs. "right".
Usually (but not always) you want the stair to start and land on the same (bottom vs. top) side and this - generally speaking - implies having a 180° turning of the stair, which itself implies that if you start left, you land right or - viceversa - if you start right you land left.
How much is the height you have to cover?
How large is the staircase diameter?
A typical height of around 3 meters will give you, with steps between 15 (very "plain") and 25 cm (rather steep) anything between 4 and 5 (max 6) steps per meter of height.
If you have a 2 m diameter staircase and a central hub of - say - 40 cm diameter, each step will be 80 cm wide.
On the outer side it will be anything between 25 and 35 cm.
So, let's test what happens with 15 cm high steps and outer side 30 cm.
The perimeter of the staircase is Pix2.00=6.28, with 30 cm on the outside it will give you around 6.28/0.30=~21 steps for a 360° rotation, and 21x15=3.15 height, but you want actually 180° or 540° as you would want to have the stair land on the same side (top vs. bottom), for 180° you have only 10/11 steps, and you cannot make 27/30 cm high steps.
So you either enlarge the staircase (to increment its perimeter) or reduce the max size of the step (but remember that when you decrease the size of the step on the outer size, the size near the hub will also become smaller).
Let's try again with the same 2 m diameter staircase and 25 cm outer step, 180° 3.14/0.25=12,56->13 steps 3.00/13=0.23 cm, steep but doable.
In a "lower left corner" (what you can imagine as a letter "L") it makes sense (to minimize area needed) to have the first step, at the lower level, on the left (but you will land on the right).
In practice you have to decide whether you want around 1 meter space between the outer (left) wall and the step on either the lower or the higher level, it depends, but you want the extra 1 m space at the level where you can possibly put some piece of furniture (a closet, a library, whatever).
There is no particular ergonomical reason (AFAIK) why one would prefere a clockwise or anticlockwise staircase, as you noted if one might feel more comfortable going up, it will feel less so going down or viceversa.
Here is a simple guide on designing:
https://www.granddesignstairs.com/spiral-staircases-design/
There are some geometrical limits that will make the stair start and land on the same or opposite side, both "top" vs. "bottom" and "left" vs. "right".
Usually (but not always) you want the stair to start and land on the same (bottom vs. top) side and this - generally speaking - implies having a 180° turning of the stair, which itself implies that if you start left, you land right or - viceversa - if you start right you land left.
How much is the height you have to cover?
How large is the staircase diameter?
A typical height of around 3 meters will give you, with steps between 15 (very "plain") and 25 cm (rather steep) anything between 4 and 5 (max 6) steps per meter of height.
If you have a 2 m diameter staircase and a central hub of - say - 40 cm diameter, each step will be 80 cm wide.
On the outer side it will be anything between 25 and 35 cm.
So, let's test what happens with 15 cm high steps and outer side 30 cm.
The perimeter of the staircase is Pix2.00=6.28, with 30 cm on the outside it will give you around 6.28/0.30=~21 steps for a 360° rotation, and 21x15=3.15 height, but you want actually 180° or 540° as you would want to have the stair land on the same side (top vs. bottom), for 180° you have only 10/11 steps, and you cannot make 27/30 cm high steps.
So you either enlarge the staircase (to increment its perimeter) or reduce the max size of the step (but remember that when you decrease the size of the step on the outer size, the size near the hub will also become smaller).
Let's try again with the same 2 m diameter staircase and 25 cm outer step, 180° 3.14/0.25=12,56->13 steps 3.00/13=0.23 cm, steep but doable.
In a "lower left corner" (what you can imagine as a letter "L") it makes sense (to minimize area needed) to have the first step, at the lower level, on the left (but you will land on the right).
In practice you have to decide whether you want around 1 meter space between the outer (left) wall and the step on either the lower or the higher level, it depends, but you want the extra 1 m space at the level where you can possibly put some piece of furniture (a closet, a library, whatever).
There is no particular ergonomical reason (AFAIK) why one would prefere a clockwise or anticlockwise staircase, as you noted if one might feel more comfortable going up, it will feel less so going down or viceversa.
Here is a simple guide on designing:
https://www.granddesignstairs.com/spiral-staircases-design/
I never understood the argument that it's easier to swing a weapon with the arm on the wall-side. On the wall-side, there's wall everywhere, and closes in both behind you and in front of you. On the newel-post side, the space opens up both behind and in front, which seems like it would make it a lot easier to manoeuver a weapon.
For the person facing up, their opponent is to their right, which is closed off. They would need to reach up and to the right, and that motion would be blocked by the newel post.
For the person facing down, their opponent is to their left, which is open. They would need to reach down and across their body to the left, unobstructed.
For the person facing down, their opponent is to their left, which is open. They would need to reach down and across their body to the left, unobstructed.
This is the first time I've heard of this and I don't quite buy it either. Having your left side on the wall side also means that you can stabilize yourself against a handrail with your left hand.
"The Spiral Stair or Vice: its origins, role and meaning in medieval stone castles: Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Liverpool for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Charles Ryder February 2011" (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9632028.pdf)
I can't find anything specific about the theory, except quotes like "Simpson notes the presence of spiral stairs throughout this work, though sadly, when describing Colchester Castle, Essex, he falls into the old trap of claiming that the spiral clockwise spiral stair aids the defender" and a reference to a different 1854 source mentioning it.
I can't find anything specific about the theory, except quotes like "Simpson notes the presence of spiral stairs throughout this work, though sadly, when describing Colchester Castle, Essex, he falls into the old trap of claiming that the spiral clockwise spiral stair aids the defender" and a reference to a different 1854 source mentioning it.
There was an article in the New Scientist (YMMV) about this subject about 30 or 40 years back. It described research that found (for what was thought by the researchers to be the relevant period in history) just slightly more that 10 percent (not 30% as this article asserts) of staircases were left-handed, that fraction being approximately equal to the proportion of persons or presumed castle defenders who would have been left handed. It drew the inference, compatible with the idea that castles, being large, might require a large number of defenders and would contain a sufficient number of staircases, that defenses would have been optimized by allocating defenders to staircases according to handedness when the aforementioned fractions were equal.
Castles were built with military defense primarily in mind. Just because they were not constantly involved in siege does not negate that -- take the aircraft carrier example. Because it is a strong military defense, it doesn't often need to be used for that.
You can see hundreds of architectural decisions that were made with military aims -- some of them didn't work, and some of them weren't used.
But, whether staircases were made with the righthanded swordsman in mind is irrelevant. They were created with right-handedness in mind. Because of the placement of railings.
You can see hundreds of architectural decisions that were made with military aims -- some of them didn't work, and some of them weren't used.
But, whether staircases were made with the righthanded swordsman in mind is irrelevant. They were created with right-handedness in mind. Because of the placement of railings.
I'm no expert in medieval warfare, but it seems to me that if an army has breached the outer and inner castle defenses and is fighting its way up the tower stairs, bigger failures have occurred than which direction the stairs turn. As if the lord of the castle is rubbing his hands gleefully, saying, "No matter, wait until they see THE STAIRS!"
Nah, I don't buy it. Random chance or individual preference seems a bit more likely.
Nah, I don't buy it. Random chance or individual preference seems a bit more likely.
Yes once the attackers had got inside the keep it would have been all over. If the builders had been serious about defending the spiral stairs, they'd have added something like a portcullis or replaced the stairs with a ladder.
I've heard this myth a few times and even repeated it myself without question. It's an obviously fanciful idea now I think about it some more.
I've heard this myth a few times and even repeated it myself without question. It's an obviously fanciful idea now I think about it some more.
The most likely source for the assumption:
Straight staircases running against defensive castle walls have intentional design rule where those going up have right hand against the wall. Right handed defender can hack downward freely. They can also have intentionally uneven step length that makes running the stairs difficult.
Similar rule is not as useful inside the castle or tower but, it might have been still used from time to time.
Straight staircases running against defensive castle walls have intentional design rule where those going up have right hand against the wall. Right handed defender can hack downward freely. They can also have intentionally uneven step length that makes running the stairs difficult.
Similar rule is not as useful inside the castle or tower but, it might have been still used from time to time.
So on the one hand we have folklore passed down from generation to generation, and on the other we have a finding of no documentary evidence for it. But no evidence for much of any other explanation either. Not much to go on either way.
In medieval times, the thinking could well have been "we have to favor the right-handed because the left hand is the tool of the devil."
In medieval times, the thinking could well have been "we have to favor the right-handed because the left hand is the tool of the devil."
The photos of these staircases reminded me of the insides of the shells of some spiral-shelled animals. Interesting that as you look into the opening of most such shells, they turn to the left as well. I wonder if this observation was an influence on the early architects of these stair structures.
> substantial minority of newels which turn anti-clockwise
Missed an opportunity to use 'widdershins'.
Missed an opportunity to use 'widdershins'.
HN needs more content like this.
> Within a matter of hours of publishing this post one kind gent on a discussion forum had already publicly declared it as “drivel” – it’s odd what folk will get wound up about on the internet.
> Within a matter of hours of publishing this post one kind gent on a discussion forum had already publicly declared it as “drivel” – it’s odd what folk will get wound up about on the internet.
> It is not the purpose of this blog post to outline all of the evidence against the swordsman theory.
Well then. Bye.
Seriously, why even write a blog post like this if you’re not going to put the necessary information in it to make your point.
Well then. Bye.
Seriously, why even write a blog post like this if you’re not going to put the necessary information in it to make your point.
> why even write a blog post like this
The very next sentence explains why. Did you really not read past the line you quoted?
> That data will eventually appear in the content of a book that I am working on
The blogpost is a teaser for an upcoming book: that's pretty common.
The very next sentence explains why. Did you really not read past the line you quoted?
> That data will eventually appear in the content of a book that I am working on
The blogpost is a teaser for an upcoming book: that's pretty common.
As a right-handed person, I find it is much easier to run down stairs if I can use the wall or railing for support. To me, it sounds as plausible as the sword fight theory.
there's another tale thats gets told a lot about castles or fotified homes and that's about the height of the steps in a staircase
on the staircases most of the steps on the stairs are a constant(ish) height except one or two
the story is if that someone is running fast up or down the stairs (presumingly they're chasing someone who lives/ works in the castle) and this odd step will trip the attackers up - assuming they're not familiar with the odd height of one of the steps
on the staircases most of the steps on the stairs are a constant(ish) height except one or two
the story is if that someone is running fast up or down the stairs (presumingly they're chasing someone who lives/ works in the castle) and this odd step will trip the attackers up - assuming they're not familiar with the odd height of one of the steps
I guess this is a reminder to all of us not to make confident assertions about things we don't really know. Calling BS is a service to those around you.
[deleted]
I agree with the commenter who pronounced it "drivel" and whom the author referenced in his article.
OK, how about the theory that mens shirts have buttons on the right side so that the swordsman would unbutton his jacket with his left hand while drawing with his right?
So basically, if the action is easier to do with the right hand, it's self-explanatory, and if it's easier to do with the left hand, it's because you used to do it while using a sword in your right hand. We can explain an infinite number of chiralities now!
I have better dexterity in my right hand, so I find it easier when the button is on the right side. My left hand only needs to hold the hole steady, while the right hand need more flexibility
It's a mildly interesting topic, but the 'myth' (if it is one) is hardly killed by the accumulated trivia in the article (some of which seems to favor neither side), and the tone is somewhat off-putting - dragging-in sexism and personal quarrels totally unnecessarily:
> Whilst working at or visiting castles I inevitably hear a dad proudly imparting this knowledge to his little boy (and it usually is boys’ talk) and it may be that this familial link creates a strong bond between the myth and its proponents.
>[EDIT: Within a matter of hours of publishing this post one kind gent on a discussion forum had already publicly declared it as “drivel” – it’s odd what folk will get wound up about on the internet.]
> Whilst working at or visiting castles I inevitably hear a dad proudly imparting this knowledge to his little boy (and it usually is boys’ talk) and it may be that this familial link creates a strong bond between the myth and its proponents.
>[EDIT: Within a matter of hours of publishing this post one kind gent on a discussion forum had already publicly declared it as “drivel” – it’s odd what folk will get wound up about on the internet.]
Take a sample of O(10) year olds, pick out the ones interested in knights killing each other in a castle, you will find the selection heavily biased towards boys. Probably similar with parents instead of kids.
It’s hardly sexism, it’s a pervasive fact of societal interest distribution.
It’s hardly sexism, it’s a pervasive fact of societal interest distribution.
> It’s hardly sexism, it’s a pervasive fact of societal interest distribution.
I'm not denying the possible 'societal interest distribution', I simply felt it was an irrelevant strawman that's virtually impossible to argue against without instantly being called-out as a sexist "gent", and had no place in what purported to be a historical discussion about stairways.
I'm not denying the possible 'societal interest distribution', I simply felt it was an irrelevant strawman that's virtually impossible to argue against without instantly being called-out as a sexist "gent", and had no place in what purported to be a historical discussion about stairways.
Well, it's a personal blog about a subject. It is information, sources and prose, really anything the author finds interesting and persistent to the subject.
If a particular myth has a particular following in any identifiable subset of the society, that's interesting to me. In particular, just before the passage you question, the author states
> One reason for [resilience of this myth] might be the frequency of its repetition by parents to children.
so a casual observation about it being more of a father-and-son thing is permissibly relevant in the context of a blog. And it sounds like this guy spends a fair amount of time around castles. You might disagree with it, you might argue it is due to biases involved in raising children, or other things too, but sexism it is most certainly not.
If a particular myth has a particular following in any identifiable subset of the society, that's interesting to me. In particular, just before the passage you question, the author states
> One reason for [resilience of this myth] might be the frequency of its repetition by parents to children.
so a casual observation about it being more of a father-and-son thing is permissibly relevant in the context of a blog. And it sounds like this guy spends a fair amount of time around castles. You might disagree with it, you might argue it is due to biases involved in raising children, or other things too, but sexism it is most certainly not.
Imo, most likely it is sexist remark about dads. If it is not, it is observation that the people visiting castles act in sexist ways.
> Whilst working at or visiting castles I inevitably hear a dad proudly imparting this knowledge to his little boy (and it usually is boys’ talk)
Like common, the "proudly imparting" is there to achieve emotional response on the reader and make dad sounds like funny figure. If you want to keep it factual and objective, most parents (both dads and moms) don't disseminate this sort of trivia "proudly". There is whole range of emotions involved from bored to interested. Sometimes they use funny voice to get kid interested.
And as someone who likes to visit castles, you don't actually overhear it so super often. Nor do you hear it targeted at children as much. Moreover, "little boys", even when interested in fight and swords, they don't really care about technical details of either. They certainly don't care about left turning vs right turning staircase. This is beyond what little kids care about.
> Whilst working at or visiting castles I inevitably hear a dad proudly imparting this knowledge to his little boy (and it usually is boys’ talk)
Like common, the "proudly imparting" is there to achieve emotional response on the reader and make dad sounds like funny figure. If you want to keep it factual and objective, most parents (both dads and moms) don't disseminate this sort of trivia "proudly". There is whole range of emotions involved from bored to interested. Sometimes they use funny voice to get kid interested.
And as someone who likes to visit castles, you don't actually overhear it so super often. Nor do you hear it targeted at children as much. Moreover, "little boys", even when interested in fight and swords, they don't really care about technical details of either. They certainly don't care about left turning vs right turning staircase. This is beyond what little kids care about.
This sort of thing tend to be explained to much younger kids then 10. And I assure you, little girl visiting the castle will listen to exact same trivia with total interest too. I mean, common, castles feature both genders of kids, they all go through all rooms.
> pick out the ones interested in knights killing each other in a castle, you will find the selection heavily biased towards boys
Like really, kids of both genders when being in castle and looking at knight armor are going to listen to you talking about knights fighting. They will be way more biased when picking souvenir toys, there they will follow gender. But the whispered "this turns right because this or that" does not have that large bias of interest.
--------------------
If the author is wrong about this trivia being explained only to buys, then the author is making sexist assumption about dads. Which is possible actually.
> pick out the ones interested in knights killing each other in a castle, you will find the selection heavily biased towards boys
Like really, kids of both genders when being in castle and looking at knight armor are going to listen to you talking about knights fighting. They will be way more biased when picking souvenir toys, there they will follow gender. But the whispered "this turns right because this or that" does not have that large bias of interest.
--------------------
If the author is wrong about this trivia being explained only to buys, then the author is making sexist assumption about dads. Which is possible actually.
The article explicitly states that it is not going to present the evidence against the myth; it isn't trying to demonstrate that the myth is false, it's leaving that for elsewhere.
That's not really a point in the article's favour. Instead it makes it kind of frustrating and pointless. Anyone can write unsupported assertions about anything. Maybe they're right, maybe they're not.
It's not pointless, it's just on a different topic. It's about who first suggested the idea. It's only "frustrating and pointless" if you thought the article was about the the truth or falsity of the idea, rather than who first suggested it; and the opening makes it pretty clear which of the two it's about.
And then he complains that people dismiss his barely evidenced claims.
The point is that he did research and didn't find any evidence to support the claim that the staircases were designed this way for defense. We can't know (without reading his book) whether this research was thorough, but the onus really is on the person making the initial claim - that the staircases were designed for defense - to support it. His claim is simply that there's no evidence to support that initial claim.
Which renders it not worth reading. It's just an ad for a book.
It discusses who first suggested the idea; why is that not worth reading? That's certainly not just an ad for a book.
Ah yes, Fermat articles, I hate them.
How is the article sexist? You have to stop thinking everything you read is related to politics.
This is not twitter.
[deleted]
Yeah so obviously spiral staircases turn clockwise on the way down to give defenders an advantage. This guy claims it isn't true, then offers no evidence, except that he can't find any evidence that it is true.
OP makes a valid point stating the article presents no evidence. Therefore, would those who down voted OP care to explain why they did so?
EDIT: I'm being downvoted for asking a genuine question? Shame on you. This place is turning into another Redit.
EDIT: I'm being downvoted for asking a genuine question? Shame on you. This place is turning into another Redit.
OP claims it's "obvious" that the staircases are designed for defense, contradicting the article while giving no evidence. This despite the fact that the whole point of the article was that there does not appear to be evidence to support this claim.
Yeah the author seems to be approaching their overall argument by first establishing that there's no primary source evidence from the time of castle building that the defense theory is true. He seems to be trying to establish that the argument for it is modern and therefore just as good or bad as any other.
I wish he would delve into things more but it seems reasonable to me to first establish where the defense theory first came from.
I wish he would delve into things more but it seems reasonable to me to first establish where the defense theory first came from.
That theory doesn't have any ground, but I am more interested what makes people believe that there is such theory. Nobody today claims, that everything that is written in a Bible is true, why would there such belief without any doubt to something that someone claimed just 100 years ago?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well, no, it's not obvious at all. It's a neat conjecture that may be true in some cases and false in others. I mean, for all we know there may be castles where staircases spiral a certain way because of some beliefs about the devil.
It's fine to say that we don't have enough information to say anything definite about the subject.
It's fine to say that we don't have enough information to say anything definite about the subject.
I think the point is that this theory was first proposed in the 20th century, and given the structures were designed and built something like 1000 years earlier, it is at this point speculation, and there is no evidence to support the assertion.
It's useful to dig into beliefs and try and find their basis, and it appears that in this case it's not forthcoming. Of course, this doesn't rule out that in the future some academic finds a 12th century french scroll on how to defend staircases that talks about this!
It's useful to dig into beliefs and try and find their basis, and it appears that in this case it's not forthcoming. Of course, this doesn't rule out that in the future some academic finds a 12th century french scroll on how to defend staircases that talks about this!
Your argument is the main point he makes in the intro and is the strongest argument against the theory. But the arguments the author lists himself are not very strong:
1. "The swordsman theory is predicated upon the belief that castles were intrinsically designed as military structures" => "just because most were; there are a lot of castle like fortress that were actively used as defense sitations.
2. If staircases were genuinely engineered for military purposes, then we should always find that they turn clockwise. => No, opposite, since not all were used military it might not have been a priority for all, and also not all builders might have been aware of this strategy.
etc...
1. "The swordsman theory is predicated upon the belief that castles were intrinsically designed as military structures" => "just because most were; there are a lot of castle like fortress that were actively used as defense sitations.
2. If staircases were genuinely engineered for military purposes, then we should always find that they turn clockwise. => No, opposite, since not all were used military it might not have been a priority for all, and also not all builders might have been aware of this strategy.
etc...
The hypothesis is just common sense. If an academic wants to claim that common sense is wrong then it is up to him to provide evidence.
I look forward to his next article where he debunks the myth that doors are for keeping people out. After all, not all doors have locks, and if the author can't find any texts from the 15th century that discuss keeping people out with doors then surely his hypothesis is proven, right?
I look forward to his next article where he debunks the myth that doors are for keeping people out. After all, not all doors have locks, and if the author can't find any texts from the 15th century that discuss keeping people out with doors then surely his hypothesis is proven, right?
The only common sense bit about stairs is that they were likely made to ascend to places and descend from them. Everything else is conjecture.
It'd be the same if people were dead convinced that doors were made to open a certain way to keep the right hand free for attacking people behind the door. There may actually be some doors somewhere made that way for those reasons, but that would be a silly belief to hold for all doors, wouldn't it?
It'd be the same if people were dead convinced that doors were made to open a certain way to keep the right hand free for attacking people behind the door. There may actually be some doors somewhere made that way for those reasons, but that would be a silly belief to hold for all doors, wouldn't it?
I think perhaps what is missing is an understanding of statistics. There are thousands of doors and stairways in castles. If the majority of stairways all go one way, or if the majority of doors all open one way in castles, then it is statistically impossible that this is by chance. There has to be an obvious reason. A reason obvious enough that most people building the castles saw it without too much thought.
> Yeah so obviously...
Why would you say that's obvious? You don't offer any evidence, either. I would say that if you're going to propose that something has been done for a particular reason, you should back that up. It seems like this is a just-so story: people say they're clockwise for defenders because people say they're clockwise for defenders. It's one of those cool "a-ha"-type ideas that sounds plausible, so people assume it's been studied and researched and then repeat it.
They could be clockwise simply because right-handed people tend to think that clockwise is the "right" direction. It could be done for architectural reasons specific to the particular castle (e.g. the stairs wouldn't face or line up properly if it were anti-clockwise). There are many, simpler reasons why 70% of the castles we see today have clockwise staircases. And if the defender theory is true, why do the other 30% have anti-clockwise staircases?
Why would you say that's obvious? You don't offer any evidence, either. I would say that if you're going to propose that something has been done for a particular reason, you should back that up. It seems like this is a just-so story: people say they're clockwise for defenders because people say they're clockwise for defenders. It's one of those cool "a-ha"-type ideas that sounds plausible, so people assume it's been studied and researched and then repeat it.
They could be clockwise simply because right-handed people tend to think that clockwise is the "right" direction. It could be done for architectural reasons specific to the particular castle (e.g. the stairs wouldn't face or line up properly if it were anti-clockwise). There are many, simpler reasons why 70% of the castles we see today have clockwise staircases. And if the defender theory is true, why do the other 30% have anti-clockwise staircases?
The article explicitly states that it is not going to present the evidence against the myth; it isn't trying to demonstrate that the myth is false, it's leaving that for elsewhere.
Do you like teapots? Fine, let us talk about the teapot currently orbiting the sun on the opposite side, so small, we cannot see it, but it is obviously there, ancient books and the elder says so. You do not believe me? Then where is your evidence for its not-existence? You cannot prove it? See: The teapot exist!
If it exists, it doesn't follow, that it is used for a tea, or in this case, that it has any military value over military satellites on the Earths orbit... even if it can disable sattelite, that doesn't follow that it is the best satellite disabler and that teapots function is exlusivelly to disable a satellite.
Sometimes stairs are just used as a stairs and there are no other functions for them, than just walk those steps up and down, up and down - every day.
Sometimes stairs are just used as a stairs and there are no other functions for them, than just walk those steps up and down, up and down - every day.
The entire idea of "primarily for appearance of status and strength, actual military qualities not as important as one might think" is basically today's SUV vs actual off-road. And with that premise "staircase winding direction selected for defense" can very much be both true and a fantasy: it would have been mostly a fantasy already back at the time it was built, but not untrue either. Just like the zombie apocalypse qualities of SUVs that are never used for anything more adventurous than a grocery ruin.