Historic environment: the White Tower (Tower of London) (2028 exams)

Model answer

The White Tower was a fortress, with a garrison to control London and guard the River Thames. It was also a royal residence, with a hall, chamber and chapel fit for the king.

Model answer

Interpretation A is convincing about some continuities. The English did build in stone: there were many stone churches, and Edward the Confessor's Westminster Abbey, consecrated in December 1065, was built in the Norman Romanesque style with round arches, so the style of the White Tower was not completely unfamiliar. The tower was placed in the south-east corner of the Roman city walls, and the Roman walls formed part of the defences of the first Norman fort there. A is also right that the design was not new to the Normans: stone great towers had been built in Normandy and elsewhere in France before 1066, such as the dukes' tower at Rouen, and Colchester, begun in the 1070s, has a very similar plan. Caen stone and probably Norman master masons brought Norman methods across the Channel.

However, A is unconvincing in saying the White Tower brought nothing new to England. Castles - private fortresses of a king or lord - were almost unknown in Anglo-Saxon England; only a few had been built by Edward's Norman followers, mainly in Herefordshire. English defence had relied on burhs, fortified towns like London itself, defended by their own people. The White Tower was something quite different: a royal stronghold built to let a foreign king dominate a conquered city. Its scale was unprecedented in England - about 36 metres by 32.5 metres and 27 metres high, with walls up to about 4.5 metres thick. Even among Norman castles in England it was unusual, because most were quickly built earth-and-timber motte and baileys. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 1097 shows English shires being forced to work on the wall around the Tower, a burden that reflected the new relationship between conquerors and conquered.

Overall, A is convincing that the White Tower's design came from existing Norman traditions, but unconvincing in its main claim: for England, a castle of this size and purpose was a dramatic change.

Model answer

The materials of the White Tower were important first for its strength. Most of the walls were built of Kentish ragstone, a hard stone quarried in Kent and carried by water down the Medway and up the Thames. Stone walls up to about 4.5 metres thick were very hard to batter or undermine and could not be burned, unlike the timber palisade of the first Norman fort of 1066-67 or the wooden keeps of motte and bailey castles. Using stone therefore made the tower far safer for its garrison.

Secondly, the use of different stones for different jobs mattered. Fine pale Caen stone was shipped from Caen in Normandy for the dressings - the corners, the door and window surrounds and the Chapel of St John - because it could be carved precisely. This made possible the Romanesque details of the tower, such as the round arches and carved capitals of the chapel, and it was probably worked by masons who knew it from Normandy.

Thirdly, the materials sent a message. Bringing stone across the Channel and up the Thames showed the wealth of the king and the organisation of his government, and it tied William's new kingdom to his duchy of Normandy. Stone was also permanent: replacing a timber fort with a great stone tower told Londoners that the Normans were not going away.

However, stone also had costs. The tower took about twenty years to build, from about 1078 to about 1100, compared with days or weeks for a motte and bailey castle, and it needed huge amounts of labour; the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle complains in 1097 about the shires oppressed by the work on the wall round the Tower.

So the materials were important because they made the tower strong and beautiful, and because they showed the wealth, permanence and cross-Channel power of Norman rule.

Model answer

A study of the White Tower strongly supports the statement. It shows new ideas about fortification, power and architecture that the Normans brought to England. However, some of its features built on what was already there - the Roman walls, London's importance and a Romanesque style that had begun to arrive before 1066 - so it shows new ideas building on older foundations.

The most important new idea was the castle itself. Castles - private fortresses of a king or lord - were almost unknown in Anglo-Saxon England; only a few had been built by Edward the Confessor's Norman followers, mainly in Herefordshire. English defence relied on burhs, fortified towns defended by their communities. The White Tower was something quite different: a royal stronghold built to let a foreign king dominate a conquered city, with a garrison that could hold out against the citizens. Its scale was also new: about 36 metres by 32.5 metres and 27 metres high, with walls up to about 4.5 metres thick, it was far larger than any secular building in England. Its design - a great stone tower with an entrance at first-floor level reached by a removable stair, corner turrets, a cross wall, and a well and stores in the basement - followed the great towers built in Normandy and France before 1066, such as the dukes' tower at Rouen, and Colchester was built on a similar plan.

The tower also shows new ideas in architecture and in the relationship between Church and Crown. The Chapel of St John is a fine example of Norman Romanesque on a grand scale, with massive round piers, carved capitals, a gallery, a tunnel vault and an apse, built of Caen stone shipped from Normandy, probably by Norman masons. The building was overseen by Gundulf, a monk from Bec who became Bishop of Rochester, showing how the Normans placed their own churchmen in the English Church and used them in royal service.

However, some features show continuity. The tower was built in the south-east corner of London's Roman walls, and the first fort of 1066-67 used those walls and the Thames as defences, so the Normans adapted older defences rather than starting afresh. The English already built in stone, especially churches, and Edward the Confessor's Westminster Abbey, consecrated in 1065, was already in the Romanesque style. London was already a fortified burh and England's chief city, so the tower built on its existing importance. English labour built the tower and its wall, as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 1097 complains, and William's charter promised Londoners they would keep the laws of King Edward's day.

Overall, a study of the White Tower largely supports the statement. Its Romanesque style was not entirely new, and it reused Roman defences, but the idea of a huge royal castle built to control a conquered people, and the scale and organisation needed to build it, were new to England. The tower shows the Normans bringing new ideas about power and fortification, even while they used the foundations, and the people, that were already there.