Retaining Wall War Castle 

• Also note that I have not shown the wall or crenalations that would be at the top of the Gallery Wall or War Wall. I figure the wall would be 4 feet tall with crenalations going higher from the wall top side. The walls would be 8 to 6 feet tall on the outside with the 4 foot crenalated wall above that.

• Wade's Realm
• Wade's Projects
  
• Credits
• Disclaimer
• Contact
  

Features:

The first feature to note is the appearance. The Retaining Wall War Castle if done even halfway decently will look impressive. Whether done in concrete, field stone, cinderblock, caste concrete blocks, or even perhaps wood like a stockade it will look impressive.

The next feature is the relative simplicity of it. Essentially the castle will consist of three retaining walls, each with a purpose. As I envision construction, each level will be levelled stacking any earth removed to later be used as fill behind the retaining walls. There are probably a number of ways to actually construct the retaining wall proper with advantages and disadvantages for each method. Engineering will be simplified as for the most part it will not be a free standing wall. The area above the wall will be level with the ground of that terrace.

Further features will be discussed when the corresponding parts of the Castle are discussed.

Note that in the diagram the terrain slopes upward from the lower right to the upper left. The brown lines give some indication of the elevation at that point with the orange lines showing the general slope of the hill before the structure was built. The slope should be relatively unaffected to either side of the structure. Access to the different levels would be on either side of the walls in addition to the sloping ramps through the gates.

I show the sloping ramps widening out substantially from the narrow confines of the arch. This would be to allow for a gradual exit or entrance. Perhaps the gates need not be under arches, but they would greatly add to the feel of things.

Probable/Potential Problems

Materials and construction

War Field

This is the current War Field  between the creek and the current War Castle.

Low Wall

Starting at the bottom you have the current war field coming to the base of the Low Wall. The Low Wall I envision as being only 3 or 4 feet tall. It will be built where the slope of the hillside begins and is more gentle. Perhaps this low wall will not have the crenelations of the higher walls. It will pose an initial defence from which the "besieged" army can fight before withdrawing behind the War Wall.

After the holding army has withdrawn the besieging army can use the slight shelter of the Low Wall as some protection from missile fire from the War Wall. There would be a sloping ramp between the two centre towers leading to the area between the Low Wall and the War Wall.

Though I have shown the tower and wall tops with a wood grain pattern, this does not mean that those areas have to be floored with wood. I think in fact it would be best just to continue the normal ground cover that covers the war field and slope. The sloping ramps would also be surfaced with the normal ground cover.

Moat Field

The Moat Field lies between the Low Wall and War Wall. I call it the Moat Field simply because it would be an interesting place to mark out a Moat. A shallow, 1 foot dry moat could be created here, though perhaps just having one marked out might be interesting.

War Wall

The War Wall is much more impressive than the Low Wall. It should definitely be crenelated to protect any behind it. I see it being between 8 and 12 feet tall. Between the centre "gate towers" will be an archway leading to a ramp that slopes up to the level of the Upper Field. This ramp would provide for an excellent defile to fight through.

Light troops could work from the top of the War Wall using it's crenelations for protection. Attacking forces would be able to take some refuge from this from behind the Low Wall. The War Wall and its towers could provide safe vantage points for non-combatants to view the war from fairly close up in none missile scenarios.

Upper Field

The Upper Field would provide for smaller field battles in addition to a place where tourney fighting could take place or perhaps other activities. Perhaps even a temporary archery range could be set up parallel to the Gallery Wall.

Gallery Wall

Above the Upper Field is the Gallery Wall. This wall provides a boundary to the Upper Field and is intended as a safe viewing area for the populous to watch the combat below. Provision could be made for storage of equipment (armour bags and such) as well as providing a base for Marshals, Water Bearers and Chirgeons.

An important feature of the Gallery Wall would be archery netting that would be raised above it's crenelations. This is one thing that would allow for safe relatively close viewing of even scenarios involving missile combat. I envision there being flag poles along the Gallery Wall. From these flag poles in addition to appropriate standards, banners and ensigns would hang the archery netting. It would be set up so that raising the netting would be as simple as raising flags. I would think that the net should be raisable separately from the ensigns.

top

Materials

• field stone and mortar
• cinderblock and mortar
• brick and mortar
• poured concrete with surface treatment for appearance
• cast concrete blocks
• timbers
• logs
• combinations of the above

Construction methods:

• Rubble filled walls
• Stone/brick/concrete faced timber
• Compacted earth
• Barrel vault arches
• Culvert arches
  

Problem Areas

Drainage and erosion:

One potential problem would be drainage. Water might build up behind the retaining wall saturating the soil behind it and causing a build up of pressure on the wall. This could be prevented perhaps by drainage tile behind the wall and outlets for water through the wall. Water build-up behind the wall could also cause saturation of the wall and problems when freezing weather comes.

Erosion might be a problem with water running through the gates and closely around the ends of the walls. Perhaps the gates might have to be staggered and not aligned as they are shown in these diagrams.

On the other hand terracing is often used for farming on slopes and to prevent erosional problems.

In all I think care will be needed in materials used and planning the walls.

There has been a problem with vandalism in the past culminating with the previous castle being hauled down by vandals using vehicles.

I think that the more substantial construction of this design will thwart some attempts at vandalism short of the use of construction tools and vehicles like back hoes, bulldozers, and jackhammers.

Likely there will be problems with graffiti and such. It might mean that the War Castle would have to be painted periodically. It might affect the choice in construction materials. Nice stone walls might look great when built, but be difficult to deal with graffiti.

The flagpoles/masts that the archery net is hung from would also be a target for vandals, though this might be thwarted through the expediency of merely taking the poles down for storage.

Cost and Labour:

With a project such as this one there is the issue of cost involved versus benefit gained.

There are many ways to go about this project. Time, Labour, Material, Cash all are a part of the cost.

When my Father and I built our stone retaining wall, averaging 4 feet in height and 40 feet long, we bought nice landscaping rock and sacks of cement in addition to sand. We had plenty of gravel in the yard. We mixed the mortar by hand and did the whole thing with just the two of us and no power tools whatsoever. Shovels, wheelbarrow, trowels, hammer and chisel were all we used. (Oh yeah we did have a passing cement mixer pour the footing, though we could have done it by hand as well. We also inserted plastic hose through the wall in places and laid "Big O" drainage pipe both behind and buried in front of the wall.)

Alot of the work could be done by hand and many hands would make the work go faster.

A bit of work with a back hoe to dig in to the hill in a few places and to do some levelling of the terraces would greatly speed things up. Probably no more than a day's worth.

Cement would have to be obtained to mix into mortar and of course sand. I am not sure how easy it would be to gather enough stone on site to create a stone retaining wall held together by mortar. Likely there will be need for timbers. Perhaps dead falls might provide that wood? Some sections of culvert might be helpful in creating the two arches at the gates.

Bricks or cast concrete blocks might be used, but at increased expense. It could be possible to build the structure using timbers as well.

Fill from digging into the hillside if placed above the retaining wall would be more easily back filled behind the completed wall.

Strength and Design Issues:

Of course I'm not engineer and these retaining walls will be more substantial than what I have been involved with building. (Other than the Low wall which is comparable.)

I suspect that the retaining wall would best be wider at the base and taper up towards the top of the wall rather than have walls that go straight up. The taper also might help in case someone fell over the edge of the wall. Instead of a 10 - 12 foot drop directly to the ground below the person falling over would slide down the slope of the wall even if it is quite steep.

It might also be necessary to add reinforcing rods into the  wall construction and possibly timber extending into the hillside.

Legal Issues:

Of course permission of the property owners is necessary. They also will gain possession of anything built permanently on their property.

There might also be zoning consideration and permits needed. Changes in drainage will have to be considered with regards to the watershed for the town of Clinton. The terracing shouldn't cause an increase in sediment flow and erosion, but I am no expert by any means.