Best Castles & Palaces of Europe

[let forever be]

Originally Posted by Newropean

Just because you don't know about "working" castles in other countries doesn't mean that they don't exist. Personally, I couldn't tell many British castles from the others..still they look nice!

Firstly, I NEVER said other countries did not have 'working' castles but rather that a castle, in the traditional sense, had the purposes of defending people from enemies and containing power. Ornamentation of the castle was not of paramount importance.

[Fizmo1337]

Isn't this the typical image we have of a 'castle'? What Neuschweinstein is for fairytail castles, this castle is for medieval castles. It misses a setting (a landscape) but purely architectural it probably is quite close to the 'best' castle.

Gravensteen (Ghent, Belgium)




By the way, some great pics on here.

British castles are architectural quite nice (nice grey and in stone like in the pics above, simple but effective, a more 'ancient' look, look 'more' medieval, more 'natural' castles), it's just that they miss some kind of height or impressiveness (like the one above or several on the pages before).

[erbse]

So - are we talking about fortifications or castles in a wider sense?


In the end it's about the architecture, not the function. F*ck modernist ideals of form following function and architecture representing nothing but mere purposes of itself.

[Clay Hefner]

Originally Posted by let forever be

Kidding about what?

I just found it funny that you would go talk about "working castles" and ornamentation then half of you pics show palaces with lots of little 19th century modifications and ornamentations, little balconies, big windows and decorative tiny towers and all.
Balmoral has a freakin clock on the outside lol.
Never mind.

[let forever be]

Originally Posted by Clay Hefner

I just found it funny that you would go talk about "working castles" and ornamentation then half of you pics show palaces with lots of little 19th century modifications and ornamentations, little balconies, big windows and decorative tiny towers and all.
Balmoral has a freakin clock on the outside lol.
Never mind.

I included those since everyone else was including more 'ornamental castles'. My point remains the same though - castles, by definition were used as fortresses and so were more functional in terms of aesthetics. Recent castles, of the last few hundred years, tend to be more lavish,stately and ornate. Again, my point was in reference to another poster who raised the issue of ornamentation in regards to Britian's castles.

[Langur]

I'm not into all these wussy castles compromised by later additions and softened into palaces. I like them raw, medieval, and military. Here are three straight from the era of the chivalrous knights:



Caernarfon, Wales:




Conwy, also in Wales:




Bodiam Castle, England:

[erbse]

That's exactly the kind I'm talking about. The sad thing 'bout Britain is, that they even continued/repeated to build like that in historist eras. So overall, the country offers a neither diversified nor a very artistic castle scape.


There are few exceptions in building palaces/residences though, like Brighton Pavillon. But they're rare.

[NorthLimitation]

Originally Posted by erbse

That's exactly the kind I'm talking about. The sad thing 'bout Britain is, that they even continued/repeated to build like that in historist eras. So overall, the country offers a neither diversified nor a very artistic castle scape.


There are few exceptions in building palaces/residences though, like Brighton Pavillon. But they're rare.

They are rare, here's one from the Highlands, Dunrobin.

image hosted on flickr


It's just a bit too Disney for me, beautiful as it is.

[Hasse78]

I like these castles from sweden. Not the most impressive or the biggest but just some personal favorites.


Läckö castle






Kalmar castle






Gripsholms castle

[Langur]

Originally Posted by erbse

That's exactly the kind I'm talking about. The sad thing 'bout Britain is, that they even continued/repeated to build like that in historist eras. So overall, the country offers a neither diversified nor a very artistic castle scape.

There are few exceptions in building palaces/residences though, like Brighton Pavillon. But they're rare.

They're not rare at all. You don't know what you're talking about. Britain has hundreds of massive palaces and aristocratic estates built in very varied styles. Most of them I wouldn't describe as "castles", however, rather palaces or great houses (they would, however, be covered by the French word "chateau", which is translated to English as "castle", even though the French meaning is broader). Here's an example, the C16th Burghley House, of a "chateau" but not a "castle":

image hosted on flickr

[let forever be]

Originally Posted by erbse

That's exactly the kind I'm talking about. The sad thing 'bout Britain is, that they even continued/repeated to build like that in historist eras. So overall, the country offers a neither diversified nor a very artistic castle scape.


There are few exceptions in building palaces/residences though, like Brighton Pavillon. But they're rare.

There's nothing sad about Britain.

You are being incredibly ignorant and know nothing of Britain. Saying that Britain "offers a neither diversified nor a very artistic castle scape." is absurd. Edinburgh and Stirling Castle are built on extinct volcanoes. Windsor Castle is built in lush greenery close to the Metropolis of the city of London. That's diverse! Up and down Britain, there are castles which represent our history and unlike many other European countries, we don't feel the need to Disney-fy our castles but rather let them stand as they were intended.

[Clay Hefner]

- there are also those fortresses that simply evolved, because they stayed in use and had to be adapted to the newest siege techniques. I don't see how this should get them any "point deduction".
Also, a number of castles on the continent were "left as they were", but still look "cute" to our eyes today. Half timbering was actually used in the old castles for example. Some local rulers could only afford a small castle, but still wanted it to look representative.
Historicism was just emulating a perceived beauty in old castles that already existed.
That's what Balmoral and some other castles in Britain do as well, don't they?
- In the Renaissance and Baroque eras, going for "cool", imposing and representative looks AND having effective fortifications were not considered mutually exclusive.
Würzburg
image hosted on flickr

source
Quedlinburg

source

- many of the "Fairytale castles" were not simple modifications, but rather new structures built upon very rudimentary ruins (for example, the Rhenish castles were not destroyed in sieges, but blown up by explosives from the inside by invaders). There was often hardly anything left.

Not disputing that historicism often went too far, especially with castles that were still in okay shape. But in many cases historicism also destroyed stuff that we would consider "beautiful" and cute, for the sake of modernization.

[Ønland]

Europe has the best castles in the world`ö´

[erbse]

Good post Clay, there's nothing I'd add. Historism did a great job in evolving historical castles, but modernization didn't always stop short of structures that were worth to conservate.

Originally Posted by let forever be

There's nothing sad about Britain.

You are being incredibly ignorant and know nothing of Britain. Saying that Britain "offers a neither diversified nor a very artistic castle scape." is absurd. Edinburgh and Stirling Castle are built on extinct volcanoes. Windsor Castle is built in lush greenery close to the Metropolis of the city of London. That's diverse! Up and down Britain, there are castles which represent our history and unlike many other European countries, we don't feel the need to Disney-fy our castles but rather let them stand as they were intended.

I'm pretty familiar with the castles of Britain. I explored the country from Shetlands over the Highlands, leaving royal residences behind and down to the southern spas. As I said, there are exceptions and outstanding/unique historist works, but it simply ain't a competition to most of continental Europe.

And I wasn't talking about diversification in landscapes (lush greenery, volcanoes etc.) but architecture. The countries of the crown share a lot more / longer history than those of Germany e.g., which is part of the reason why you won't find the same architectural variety in Britain.

It's a different case for the British colonies though, as local and British architects created some amazing Victorian-colonial style, like that of British India. But that's of course towering above the time when Europeans used to build real "castles".

[DocentX]

Malbork castle (Poland)



Scroll ---->

[Ønland]

Some in Baltic countrys
Latvia

[let forever be]

Originally Posted by erbse

I'm pretty familiar with the castles of Britain. I explored the country from Shetlands over the Highlands, leaving royal residences behind and down to the southern spas. As I said, there are exceptions and outstanding/unique historist works, but it simply ain't a competition to most of continental Europe.

.

I categorically disagree. Britain's castles are older and preserved remarkably well compared to their equivalents in continental Europe. To say that the intrinsic architecture of the structures in Britain are no competition to mainland Europes is simply absurd in my opinion. Nothing that has been shown in this thread, or from my own knowledge, places the architecture of continental Europe's architecture above that of Britain's.

Also, there seems to be a degree of condescension in your tone - saying that there are "exceptions' in our good architecture thus implying most of it is sub-par. You think that Britain has merely one style of architecture as evidenced by your former posts - obviously your extensive travels around the UK never informed you of the many other types of castle/stately palaces which grace the shores of the UK.

[Langur]

Originally Posted by erbse

Good post Clay, there's nothing I'd add. Historism did a great job in evolving historical castles, but modernization didn't always stop short of structures that were worth to conservate.



I'm pretty familiar with the castles of Britain. I explored the country from Shetlands over the Highlands, leaving royal residences behind and down to the southern spas. As I said, there are exceptions and outstanding/unique historist works, but it simply ain't a competition to most of continental Europe.

And I wasn't talking about diversification in landscapes (lush greenery, volcanoes etc.) but architecture. The countries of the crown share a lot more / longer history than those of Germany e.g., which is part of the reason why you won't find the same architectural variety in Britain.

It's a different case for the British colonies though, as local and British architects created some amazing Victorian-colonial style, like that of British India. But that's of course towering above the time when Europeans used to build real "castles".

Sorry but you're talking out of your arse. Why would Victorians build "castles" in the colonies? I challenge you to find a single British colonial castle of the Victorian era!! The Victorians built palaces and great houses throughout the British Empire, but then there are hundreds of these in Britain too, many built during the Imperial era. What's the distinction? Frankly we could bombard your thread with magnificent palaces and stately homes if you want, but we ourselves do not consider them as "castles" (which is, after all, the title of this thread - though admittedly a lot of what has been posted on this thread are not castles at all). In fact I suspect Britain has rather more great houses than most countries of Continental Europe, and a great deal of our land area remains in the ownership of the great estates even today.

[Clay Hefner]

He was talking about historicism in the colonies in general, you need to chill.

[let forever be]

Originally Posted by Langur

Sorry but you're talking out of your arse. Why would Victorians build "castles" in the colonies? I challenge you to find a single British colonial castle of the Victorian era!! The Victorians built palaces and great houses throughout the British Empire, but then there are hundreds of these in Britain too, many built during the Imperial era. What's the distinction? Frankly we could bombard your thread with magnificent palaces and stately homes if you want, but we ourselves do not consider them as "castles" (which is, after all, the title of this thread - though admittedly a lot of what has been posted on this thread are not castles at all). In fact I suspect Britain has rather more great houses than most countries of Continental Europe, and a great deal of our land area remains in the ownership of the great estates even today.

100% agree!

I suspect a little anti-Britishness from some of the posters. Rhetorically speaking, ask yourself, when thinking about castles which ones come to the fore? Edinburgh, Windsor, Eilean donan. Not some 1970's reconstruction in the republic of Macedonia.