HOME | DD
kalaadrius — Uue-Kastre piiskopilinnus ver 0.5
#bishop #castle #fortress #livonia #tartu #emajõgi #dorpat #livonian #kastre #uuekastre #kantsi #oldlivonia
Published: 2015-05-03 09:37:49 +0000 UTC; Views: 7592; Favourites: 97; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
=============================================Pealkiri: Uue-Kastre piiskopilinnus
Title: Uue-Kastre bishop's castle
=============================================
A fictional reconstruction of the medieval bishop's castle of Uue-Kastre. The stone castle is based on the 17th century ground plan, but everything 'above the ground' is pretty much my own fiction.
In medieval times, the river Emajõgi was a part of an important trading route, which connected hanseatic cities with the cities of Old Russia: Pskov and Novgorod. Uue-Kastre (German Warbeck, Warbecke, Warenbecke, Varbek) was a castle controlling the river 12 km from its estuary into the lake Peipus. The location was strategically well-chosen: the castle was situated pretty much "at the edge of dry land", just before the river enters into the great marshlands of the estuary. Due to this strategic advantage, the Uue-Kastre castle probably took over the functions of the Vana-Kastre castle, which was an earlier castle controlling the river, but which was situated "too deep in inland" to properly fulfill its role.
The first written mentions about the castle come from 1392. In medieval times, the castle served both as a defensive outpost of the bishopric of Dorpat (Tartu) and as a toll collecting centre, and there are also mentions about a navigational barrier made of logs next to the castle. It has been suggested that this barrier also gave name to the castle: ~'Warbeck' could have came from German 'Wehre das Baches' ~~ 'weirs of the river'. The castle was probably damaged or destroyed during the Livonian war (1558–1583), but was rebuilt and preserved more or less through the wars of 17th century. It was destroyed in the Great Northern War (1700–1721).
Open questions include:
*) How the navigational barrier really might have looked like? Only example (of a medieval navigational barrier) that I know is the great chain protecting the entrance to the Golden Horn in Constantinople, but the Bishopric of Dorpat probably had no means or needs for such barrier;
*) Proportions of the buildings? The proportions might be a bit off: the castle and the bailey might be a bit too small on the picture;
-----------
Keskaegse Uue-Kastre piiskopilinnuse 'fiktsionaalne' rekonstruktsioon. Kuigi kivilinnuse joonis toetub linnuse asendiplaanile 17. sajandist, on tornide/müüride/ehitiste välised kujud ja kõrgused suuresti oletuslikud.
Uue-Kastre (saksa Warbeck, Warbecke, Warenbecke, Varbek) piiskopilinnus paiknes "Emajõe vasakkaldal 12 km enne Emajõe suubumist Peipsisse." ( et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uue-Kast… ) Tegemist oli strateegiliselt hästivalitud kohaga, kuna linnus paiknes Emajõe suudmeala suurte rabade piirimail: kohas, millest idapool oli raske leida "jalatäit kindlat maad" kindlustuste rajamiseks. Tõenäoliselt võttis Uue-Kastre linnus üle senise Vana-Kastre linnuse funktsioonid (idast tulevate rüüsteretkede tõkestamine ja jõgepidi liikuvate kaupade tollimine), kuna viimane oli rajatud "liiga sügavale sisemaale" ega suutnud seetõttu pakkuda kaitset kõigile Tartust ida pool paiknevatele asulatele.
Linnuse esimene kirjalik mainimine pärineb aastast 1392. On mainitud, et linnuse juures paiknesid "palgid üle Emajõe", mis tõenäoliselt täitsid jõetõkke funktsiooni. On ka oletatud, et linnuse nimigi on sellest tuletatud: ~'Warbeck' tulenevat saksakeelsest 'Wehre das Baches', mis tähendab jõetõket ( register.muinas.ee/public.php?… ). Linnuse käekäik pärast keskaega: Liivi sõjas (1558–1583) sai linnus purustusi või koguni hävitati, ent taastati pärast seda ning säilis rohkemal või vähemal määral läbi 17. sajandi sõdade. Linnus hävis lõplikult Põhjasõjas (1700–1721).
Lahtisi küsimusi:
*) Kuidas palkidest veetõke tegelikult välja võis näha? Ainus keskaegne näide veetõkkest, mida ma tean, on Konstantinoopoli Kuldsarve lahe suur kett-tõke, aga selle ja Tartu piiskopkonna veetõkete vahele on ilmselt raske mingeid paralleele tõmmata;
*) Pildi proportsioonid veidi paigast ära? Vähemalt selline mulje on nüüd, pärast pildi valmimist; tundub, et linnuse / eeslinnuse ehitised võiksid ehk natukene suuremad olla.
-----------
Related:
*) Bishop's castle of Tartu: fav.me/d7s799f
*) Kärkna Abbey: fav.me/d85nsse
*) Vana-Kaste bishop's castle: fav.me/d8c9u8j
*) Otepää bishop's castle: fav.me/d9fubf0
*) Kirumpää bishop's castle: fav.me/davh8uf
*) Map of the prince-bishopric of Tartu: fav.me/dbauswd
Related content
Comments: 7
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Awesome!
Loving the view and perspective!
The little details look great too
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for the comment!
And great thanks for the 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Drawing such reconstructions is a very difficult task, especially in cases when there is hardly anything left of the castle. May I ask, do you have any professional training? It would be great if you could do Vasknarva (Neushloss) or Toolse (Tolsburg).... Anyway, thank you once again - it is always a pleasure to look at your works!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I don't have any professional training. It's just a hobby to me. While I try to use available materials -- ground plans, historical maps, descriptions/analyses of archaeological findings, parallels with other similar castles etc -- as much as I can, I probably do not dig as deep as a historian would dig. So, the final result is much more of a fiction than a realistic reconstruction (that's why I call these "fictional reconstructions"). I guess (for the castles I've done so far) there is also not enough evidence to make realistic constructions at this level, otherwise historians/archaeologists would have done these already
Thank you for the suggestion. Vasknarva and Toolse are both very interesting castles, but I am currently specifically focusing on the castles of the Bishopric of Dorpat. But I'll certainly consider your suggestion after I've done with the castles of the Bishopric.
Great thanks for the comment and
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for the response 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0