re: 67 – Anglo Saxon Construction

Home Forums Questions and Feedback re: 67 – Anglo Saxon Construction

This topic contains 2 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Chris 5 years, 7 months ago.

  • Author
  • #15748


    Recently listened to “67 – Anglo Saxon Construction”.  You mentioned that people started moving to wood construction versus stone construction… and that they were very skilled carpenters.Isn't stone building better?  If so, why not continue using it?  Is it because stone quarries weren't in use anymore (lost skill)?  Or the labor pool couldn't support it?  Too expensive?  Too difficult to heat?  "Passe?"Was building upon existing stone structures practiced?  Or did they just abandon the roman stone structures?Were the feast halls 100% wood, or did they use any stone?  Block stone or brick(stacked rocks)&mortar?  (I know information is limited).  Speaking of that... the roman structures, were they brick/mortar or block?Relying on my vast Agricola (board game) knowledge, I know stone structures are better than wood and clay.  ;-)-Patrick

  • #18686


    That's actually a really complicated question.  But the short answer, is that to build a home out of stone requires tremendous amount of labor in comparison with a wood building.  And if you've ever had stone or concrete walls on your home, you probably have noticed how terrible they are at insulation.  ;)

  • #18687


    Relying on my vast Agricola (board game) knowledge, I know stone structures are better than wood and clay.  ;-)

    How so? I guess this statement is relative to a particular context. Yes, stone will most likely last longer but stone was also incredibly hard to work and took more manpower and money to construct. If you are looking at Roman villas, some of them were vast. Imaging how much effort went into building one of those compared to a series of hardy wooden structures in a village. Trees were way more abundant than they are these days (not much forest left in Britain) and while both types of material-use has pros and cons, nothing lasts forever anyway so providing it served its purpose can we really say one is better than another? So, in effect, it essentially comes down to preference at the time of those building the structures.After the Romans left the gradual move from the bigger towns and stone buildings to the more rural villages and smaller wooden structures became more apparent. This shows that the Anglo-Saxons preferred building in wood, which simply worked better for them. In that context wood is better. It very much depends how we look at it, but I think taking an historical approach to the subject rather than using modern ideals keeps an open mind  ;)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.