# Talk:Oxford Castle

The following description of Oxford Castle was featured in  The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction  Volume 12, No. 328, August 23 1828. The text is in the public domain.
Gentle, courteous, and patient reader—to understand the above plan, it is requisite that you carry your mind's eye back to those troublous times when men enjoyed no protection, but in opposing force to force; and to a period when every man's house was his castle, though not in the metaphorical sense we have since been accustomed to apply these words, viz. to the protection and security of British subjects.
We learn that Alfred the Great lived here; and Harold Harefoot was crowned and resided here; and one of Alfred's sons struck money here. Hearne has likewise identified this fact by the very ancient and original arms of Oxford, which have a castle represented, with a large ditch and bridge. Upon the same authority we learn that Offa "built walls at Oxford," and by him, therefore, a Saxon castle was originally built at Oxford.
Leland, Dugdale, and Camden, on the other hand, affirm that the castle at Oxford was built by Robert D'Oiley, who came into England with William the Conqueror; and the Chronicles of Osney Abbey, preserved in the Cottonian library, even ascertain the precise date of this great baron's undertaking, viz. A.D. 1071. No question, therefore, can remain, but that this illustrious chieftain either repaired or rebuilt the castle; but as we have shown, upon equal authority, there was a Saxon castle, fit for a royal residence at Oxford, long previous to D'Oiley's time. About the year 1794, several Saxon remains were discovered here; but our image represents the castle in Norman times, with Robert D'Oiley's magnificent additions, and is a facsimile of a plan by Ralph Agas, in 1538, which, allowing a little for bad or unskilful drawing, may be taken as a perfect specimen of Norman military architecture, and will, we are persuaded, be received by our readers as a popular and interesting illustration of the warlike character of the age in which the castle was erected.
For the description we are indebted to a manuscript account of Anthony Wood, in the Bodleian library, who informs us that at one of its entrances was "a large bridge, which led into a long and broad entry, and so to the chief gate of the castle, the entry itself being fortified, on each side, with a large embattled wall; and having several passages above, from one side to the other, with open spaces between them, through which, in times of storm, whenever any enemy had broken through the first gates of the bridge, and was gotten into the entry, scalding water or stones might be cast down to annoy them."
On passing through the gate, at the end of this long entry, the fortification stretched itself, on the left hand, in a straight line, till it came to a round tower, that was rebuilt in the 19th of Henry III. [The sum of 144l. 5s. was expended in the rebuilding.] And from thence went a fair embattled wall, guarded for the most part with the mill-stream underneath, till it came to the high tower joining to St. George's church. [By an odd mode of expression in the manuscript, it should seem as if this tower itself, or at least some building adjoining it, was formerly made use of as a royal residence, for the words are, from hence went a fair embattled wall, guarded for the most part with the mill-stream underneath, till it came in the high tower, going under St. George's College, and the king's house employed formerly as a campanile belonging to that church.]
From hence, says the manuscript, the wall went to another gate, now quite down, opposite to the abovementioned; and leading to Osney, over another bridge; close to which joined that lofty and eminent mount, sometime crowned with an embattled tower. The manuscript adds, that for the greater defence of this castle, there was, on one of the sides of it, a barbican; which seems to have not merely been a single tower, but (according to an ancient deed) a place, or outwork, containing several habitations; and from other accounts it further appears, that there were more barbicans than one.
The ruins of certain other towers of the castle, besides the barbicans, and those already described, are also said to have been standing till 1649; when they were pulled down to erect new bulwarks for the parliamentary garrison.
This is an abstract of Anthony Wood's manuscript, which agrees with Agas's drawing, except that in his sketch, the tower between the gate-tower and St. George's, is represented square instead of being round. Antiquarians also infer that in the drawing it was intended to represent the great keep-tower as standing upon the top of the mount, and not by the side of it. [Grose fell into an error on this point, in his 3rd volume of Antiquitica, for in his copy of Aga's plan, he placed a large keep tower just at the foot of an artificial mount—an anomaly in fortification. The same punster who described fortification as two twenty fications, would call this a Grose blunder.]
Some discoveries made in 1794, throw much light on the history of the castle, and warrant a conclusion that in its area were several buildings. Wells were then cleared out, and among the rubbish were found horses' bones, dogs' bones, horse-shoes, and human skeletons; the appearance of the latter is not easily accounted for, unless they were the bodies of malefactors, who had been executed on the gallows placed near the castle, in later ages, that might have been flung in here, instead of being buried under the gibbet. We must however pass over many interesting facts, and content ourselves with a mere reference to the empress Maud [Matilda] being besieged here in 1141, and her miraculous flight with three knights, all escaping the eyes of the besiegers by the brightness of their raiment; Maud [Matilda] having just previously escaped from the castle of the Devizes, as a dead corpse, in a funeral hearse or bier. The reader will not be surprised at the decay of the castle, when he is informed that it was in a dilapidated state in the reign of Edward III.
The castle was situated on the west side of the city of Oxford, on the site of the present county gaol. In 1788 little remained except the tower, which was for some time used as the county prison, and part of the old wall could then be traced 10 feet in thickness. In the castle-yard were the remains of the ancient sessions-house, in which in 1577, a plague outbreak known as the Black Assize, the lieutenant of the county, two knights, eighty esquires and justices, and almost all the grand jury, died of a distemper, brought thither and communicated by the prisoners; and nearly one hundred scholars and townsmen fell victim to the same disorder.
We have been somewhat minute in the preceding description, but we hope not more so than the exhaustless curiosity of the public on such subjects appears to warrant. Indeed, these interesting details are only a tithe portion of what we might have abridged. The warlike habits of our ancestors are always attractive topics for inquirers into the history of mankind, and their study is not dull and crabbed as some fools suppose, but a treasury or depository of useful knowledge, by enabling the inquirer to draw many valuable inferences from the comparative states of men in the several ages he seeks to illustrate. The enthusiasm of such pursuits is, likewise, an everlasting source of delight; for who can visit such shrines as Netley Abbey, St Albans Abbey, or Melrose, without feeling that he is on holy ground; and although we are equally active in our notice of the architectural triumphs of our own times, we must not entirely leave the proud labours of bygone ages to be clasped in the ponderous folio, or to moulder and lie neglected on the upper shelves of our libraries.
I removed this text from the main article because it interrupted the flow of the article and several details were inconsistent with other pieces of evidence. It is in the public domain. Capitalistroadster 04:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through and given the article a scrub. I've also added a map; this is slightly problematic as I couldn't find a definitive one; the classic one used in Tyack is based largely on the later maps from the 1500s, and so doesn't include the barbican etc., so I've included the detail from Hassall's archaeological diagrams as well. I've removed some of the unsourced detail on the use of the castle as a film set, as it felt unnecessary in the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added a couple of images/maps from the 16th and 17th centuries to show 1, the location, and 2, the appearance of the castle with its towers and keep at that time. Tony 1212 (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oxford Castle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 04:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments

The first D'Oyly uses that name, except at the Role in the Anarchy and Barons War section, where there is a name Robert. Do they refer to the same person? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 04:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
There are, unhelpfully, two Robert D'Oyly's; the first built the castle, the second one, his nephew, inherits the castle and is involved in the years of the Anarchy (there's a line at the beginning of the "Role in the..." section). I'm keen to make the distinction between the two clearer if possible! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you get my meaning; Robert D'Oyly the younger, Robert's nephew, inherited the castle by the time of the civil war of the Anarchy in the 1140s., where above: St George's chapel was endowed with a college of priests by Robert d'Oyly and his close friend, Roger d'Ivry in 1074.... That makes 3 distinct Roberts... clarify which one is meant in the first sentence I gave here. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 22:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
A couple of clarifications made - does that help at all? The first Robert D'Oyly the senior lives until 1091, builds the castle and the chapel. Robert D'Oyly the junior (his nephew), then takes over in the early 12th century. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it does.
Cossley is listed in the biblography but not in the citations.
Joy is listed in the citations but not the biblography. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 15:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Should be both fixed now. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Section Today should be a level 3 under History. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 21:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
At the end of the war the constableship of Oxford Castle was granted to Roger de Bussy before being reclaimed by Henry D'Oyly, Robert's son, in 1154. Which Robert does this refer to? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 21:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Should be sorted now. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Aside from that, I think the article can be passed. Good job. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 23:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!  Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Although the Abingdon Chronicle has Oxford Castle founded in 1071, it might be worth mentioning that it's not mentioned in the Domesday Book. Of course this doesn't mean it wasn't around at the time, but it's omission is interesting. If Hchc2009 thinks it is worth including I was thinking of tweaking the opening of the construction paragraph to read:

According to the Abingdon Chronicle, Oxford Castle was built by the Norman baron, Robert D'Oyly from 1071-3. D'Oyly had arrived in England with William I during the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 and was granted extensive lands in Oxfordshire. Oxford had been stormed during the invasion with considerable damage, and William instructed D'Oyly to build a castle to dominate the town. In due course D'Oyly became the pre-eminent landowner in Oxfordshire and was confirmed with a hereditary royal constableship for Oxford Castle. Oxford Castle was not amongst the 48 mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086, however not every castle in existence at the time was recorded in the survey.

Harfield, C. G. (1991), "A Hand-list of Castles Recorded in the Domesday Book", English Historical Review, 106: 371–392
It's more of a curiosity than a necessity, but thought I should raise it here. Nev1 (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. As you say, the Domesday Book is generally poor on listing castles, partially because it was listing revenue sources, and castles were primarily items for expenditure. I like the idea of building this in though, because it adds texture to why it can be difficult date these early structures. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've gone ahead and made the change. I think it's useful to show that the Domesday Book is a handy source when used carefully, but not being included obviously doesn't mean a castle (or anything else omitted) didn't exist. Nev1 (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I have added several historic and one modern image/s and a historic map (Speed, 1605) which show more details of the Castle through time plus its location, which I think assist the reader to picture the complete building more clearly. Also I note several recent references to St. George's Tower being more than likely a Saxon survival which was re-used within the Norman castle; I have modified the text to reflect this as needed and added a range of references. Additional comments welcome... Tony 1212 (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I found a number of recent/authoritative references that now represent the Tower as Saxon, so have firmed up the text as needed in this regard such as "is now believed to be" as opposed to "may be", etc.

Also, I took the opportunity to replace the previous worthy, but somewhat lacklustre lead image with this one, which has more colour and context and is generally more aesthetically pleasing (though not, unfortunately, available in very high resolution):  - hoping that this does not offend anyone's sensibilities. Tony 1212 (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi all,

I have lifted the castle outline in Figure 5 of Poore et al.'s 2009 article in Oxonensia and superimposed it over the modern streetscape based on OpenStreetMap, to form a new image for the article. It conflicts a little with User:Hchc2009 's previous hand drawn map but am guessing that it corresponds to current archaeology. Hope it is useful, cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I now note the "speculative" plan in Booth et al. is a better fit with that currently in the article than the one from Poore et al. as used for the recent composite map just prepared. I will have a go at re-creating the composite using the Booth et al. plan as a replacement. Tony 1212 (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Plan now replaced with improved version based on Booth et al. map Tony 1212 (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

From the current lead: "Most of the original moated, wooden motte and bailey castle was replaced in stone in the 11th century." Should this not read 13th century, since it now excludes St George's Tower, which is of an earlier date. Tyack, p.8 dates the surviving base of the round tower to 1235, and merely notes that the remainder of the walls and towers were in existence by 1578 (date of the Agas map). Booth et al., http://oxoniensia.org/volumes/2003/booth2.pdf, who appear to have the best archaeology for the site to date, say clearly: "In the first half of the 13th century', a stone curtain wall was built. On the west side of the castle this linked St. George's Tower with the motte..." (p. 421). If no one objects, I will make this change in the several places it is needed.

OK, I have adjusted the text to read late 12th-early 13th century for the rebuilding in stone, as no more precise dating appears to be currently available. Tony 1212 (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)