quapitty said:
Do you know which time this reconstruction claims to imitate?
It's Tarnovgrad, so 13th-14th c.
quapitty said:
Well, I don't know. But You are right with the proportions. I'd say it looks like they put something on an existing tower - which might be just what happened also in the past. But why are they plastered? And why do they have windows instead of arrow loops (or are they supposed to be arrow loops?)? ... And they might be plastered because the walls are not made of stone but of mud or clay, which is also cheaper and lighter. Therefore they have the wooden beams.
Yeah, that's one of the reasons why I ask - I can understand why they look so white (whitewash - a common "desinfection and refreshment paint" until very recently ago; though I wouldn't want to be the one hanging there and whitewashing those walls
), but it looks very similar to a
Bulgarian Revival house (which became very popular across the Ottoman Empire, though the roots of that type of building are said to be from Byzantine times). Though, indeed, why windows instead of arrow slits? Maybe it's supposed to be a "housing" part for the tower garrison? Or in the case of the Patriarchate (my second pic) - normal monk cells, kinda like
these two houses-on-walls? Anyway, it confuses me particularly for the battle towers - whitewash can't be used on stone or even wood, so the walls would indeed have to be made of (or covered with) some kind of plaster, which would make them much more easily destroyable by enemy siege weapons (though at least they should stop most arrows).
Similar tower-tops are made by the same guys (and
another by other guys) also for the royal palace in Tarnovo, though these ones are rather wooden. A similar case they've also made for
Lovech and again wooden in
Kaliakra. Though both on Kaliakra and on this pic of
Cherven (including this
wider plan of it made by other guys) we can see roofed/enclosed towers made only out of stone. So I'm wondering could there be any advantage of having such light-weight structures as tops (similar wooden cases can be seen also in M&B), besides being cheaper and easier to build and repair? Maybe another stone-floor would get too heavy and crumble the towers, while this lighter structure can at least offer an additional advantage in height? And is there any advantage of having closed tower-tops in general (f.e. all examples on
these fortress plans are open-roofed)? Opened ones can be used for stationing defensive siege weapons, while the closed ones give better protection to the troops against arrows maybe?
Btw, what do you guys think of a placeholder scene loosely based on
Kaliakra here (the one in the left)? Some docks here and there, some suburbs and an ever narrowing town/castle with the lord's keep at the nose of the cape. I'm sure there'd be at least a handful of guys who'd climb to the top and try to make a Titanic pose.