Golubac

Golubac Fortress is a medieval fortified town that is located 4 kilometers downstream of the modern-day village of Golubac, Serbia. The compound was built in the 14th century to protect an important stretch of the Danube River. It sits at the head of the Iron Gate gorge and was used to control river traffic. In medieval times, a strong chain was placed across the river that connected to a large rock named Babakaj. If a ship wanted to pass, they needed to pay a tax.

Golubac Fortress was the last military outpost located on the Danube River and the final line of defense between Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. For this reason, the fort witnessed dozens of large scale military conflicts, both cold steel and firearm based. The fortification was a key advantage in the world of conquest and warfare. It regularly shifted hands between the Turks, Hungarians, Serbs, and Austrians until 1867, when it was turned over to the Serbian Knez, Mihailo Obrenović III.
Golubac Fortress is split into three compounds and shows signs of heavy reinforcements over the centuries. It has ten towers, two portcullises, and a collection of military outposts. Each tower had a specific purpose, including a citadel, chapel, dungeon, and weapon storage facilities. The fortress used a large moat, which trapped water from the Danube and made it difficult to reach the land. From 1964-72, a dam was built inside the Iron Gate gorge which elevated the river’s water and flooded sections of the fort. Today, Golubac Fortress has become a popular tourist destination. It is one of the most important sightseeing points on Danube boat tours.

Golubac consists of three main compounds guarded by 10 towers and 2 portcullises, all connected by fortress walls 2–3 meters thick. In front of the fortress, the forward wall (I) doubled as the outer wall of the moat, which connected to the Danube and was likely filled with water. A settlement for common people was situated in front of the wall.

As is the case with many fortresses, Golubac's structure was modified over time. For years, there were only five towers. Later, four more were added. The towers were all built as squares, a sign of the fortress' age, showing that battles were still fought with cold steel. Once firearms came into use, the Turks fortified the western towers with cannon ports and polygonal or cylindrical reinforcements up to two meters thick. After the Hungarian raid in 1481, they added the final tower, complete with cannon embrasures and galleries.

Topographical sketch of Golubac Fortress prior to 1972 (symbols referenced in the text)
Upper compound
The upper compound (A) is the oldest part of the fortress. It includes the citadel (tower 1) and the Serbian Orthodox chapel (tower 4). Although it remains uncertain, the chapel has led many to believe that this section was built by a Serbian noble.

Later, during either Serbian or Hungarian rule, the fortress was expanded to include the rear and forward compounds.

Rear compound
The rear compound (D) is separated from the upper compound by both a wall connecting towers 2 and 4, and a steep rock 3–4 meters high. Next to tower 5 is a building (VII) which was probably used as a military barracks and for ammunition storage.

Forward compound
The forward compound was split into lower (C) and upper (B) parts by a wall linking towers 4 and 7. The entrance (II) is in the lower part, guarded by towers 8 and 9. Tower 8 has, in turn, been fortified with a cannon port. Opposing the entrance was a second portcullis that led to the rear compound. Along the path was a ditch 0.5 meters wide and 0.75 meters deep which then became a steep decline. At the outer end of the lower part, and connected to the 9th tower with a low wall, is tower 10, which the Turks added to act as a lower artillery tower. It controlled passage along the Danube and guarded the entrance to the harbor, which was probably situated between towers 5 and 10. There are remains connected to tower 8 which probably formed a larger whole with it, but the lower part did not otherwise contain buildings.

In the wall that separated the upper and lower parts was a gate that led to the upper part. The upper part did not have buildings, but there remains a pathway to the stairs up to gate IV, which is 2 meters off the ground, right next to tower 3.

Towers
The first nine towers are 20–25 meters high. In all ten towers, the floors and stairs inside were made of wood, while external stairs were made of stone. Half of the towers (1, 2, 4, 5, 10) have all four sides and are completely made of stone, while the other half (3, 6, 7, 8, 9) lack the side facing the interior of the fort.

Tower 1, nicknamed "Hat Tower" (Šešir-kula), is one of the oldest towers, and doubles as citadel and dungeon tower. It has an eight-sided base with a circular spire rising from it and a square interior. The next tower to the west, tower 2, is completely circular in shape. The third tower has a square base, with the open side facing the dungeon tower to the north. On the top floor is a terrace that overlooks the Danube and the entrance to the Iron Gate gorge. Down the slope from tower 3 is tower 4, which also has a square base. The ground floor has a Serbian Orthodox chapel that was built into the tower, rather than being added later. The last tower along this wall, tower 5, is the only tower to remain completely square.

The top tower along the front wall of the forward compound, tower 6, has a square base which was reinforced with a six-sided foundation. Working west, the square base of tower 7 was reinforced with a circular foundation. Tower 8, on the upper side of the front portcullis, has an irregular, but generally square, base. It is also the shortest of the first nine towers. Guarding the other side is tower 9, which has a square base reinforced by an eight-sided foundation.

The last tower is the cannon tower. It has only one floor and is the shortest of all ten towers. It was built with an eight-sided base and cannon ports to help control traffic on the Danube. Tower 10 is almost identical to the three artillery towers added to Smederevo fortress.

Paro Taktsang

Clinging to the edge of a 900m cliff, Taktshang Goemba (Tiger’s Nest Monastery) is famous in Bhutan but like so much of the remote kingdom, little-known outside. The monastery is not open to visitors but you can hike to a viewpoint to take in the epic scenery.

LINK

Dún Aonghasa - Ireland

Dún Aonghasa is the most famous of several prehistoric forts on the Aran Islands, of County Galway, Ireland. It is located on Inishmore at the edge of an approximately 100 metre high cliff.A popular tourist attraction, Dún Aonghasa is an important archaeological site that also offers a spectacular view. It is not known when Dún Aonghasa was built, though it is now thought to date from the Iron Age.T. F. O'Rahilly surmised that it was built in the second century B.C. by the Builg following the Laginian conquest of Connacht.

Dún Aonghasa has been called "the most magnificent barbaric monument in Europe." The Proto-Celtic name, meaning "Fort of Aonghas", refers to the pre-Christian god of the same name described in Irish mythology, or the mythical king, Aonghus mac Úmhór.

CITADEL OF JERUSALEM

View of the citadel of Jerusalem. The ancient city of Jerusalem (in Arabian Al-Quds and in Hebrew Yerushalaim, meaning city of peace) was built on two hills separated by the river Cedron. The city was founded in the 3^rd millennium BC and entered history with the Jewish people by the time of King David (1004-965 BC) and King Solomon, the latter of whom built the temple and the royal palace. The Jewish kingdom was divided in 928 BC and Jerusalem became the capital of the realm ofjudah, with fortifications built by Hezekias in 701 BC. Jerusalem was devastated by the Babylonians in 586 BC, and the temple of Solomon was destroyed. After captivity in Babylon, the Jews returned to Jerusalem and rebuilt the temple and fortifications (520-445 BC). After the Greek domination (332-37 BC) and the reign of King Herod, the city was taken by the Romans in 63 BC. Already a holy place in the Jewish faith, Jerusalem as the site of Christ’s death attracted Christian pilgrims as early as the 2^nd century AD. The Roman occupation lasted until 324 AD.

Jerusalem was then occupied by the Arabs in 638 and became an Islamic holy place; the mosque El-Aqsa was erected there in 691. After the first Crusade, Jerusalem became the capital of the Frankish realm Beyond the Sea in 1099, and remained so until 1187 when the city was retaken by sultan Saladin. The fall of Saint-Jeand’Acre in 1291 marked the end of the Crusades in Palestine.

Hill of Tara

The hill of Tara (Irish, Teamhair na Rí, “Hill of the King”) is a low limestone ridge standing at 646 feet (197 m) running near the river Boyne in County Meath, Leinster. Its prominence dates to very ancient times, and it has long held a place of singular significance in Irish legend and lore. In the Lebor gabála Érenn (The Book of the Taking of Ireland), the earliest complete copy of which dates to the 12th century, Tara is named for Téa, wife of Eremon, the first Gaelic ruler of Ireland, in replacing the earlier name of Druim Cain (Cain’s ridge).

The remnants of an oval-shaped Iron Age hillfort known as the Fort of the Kings, or the Royal Enclosure (Ráith na Rig), stand at the summit. Enclosed by an internal ditch and an external bank, two ringforts linked to each other within the fort are known as Cormac’s House (Teach Chormaic) and the Royal Seat (Forradh). In the middle of the latter, a standing stone protrudes, believed to be the Stone of Destiny (Lia Fáil) at which the high kings of Ireland were supposedly crowned and which, when touched by the royal hand, after the claimant to the throne had won a series of challenges, would emit a screech heard all over the island.

The importance of Tara predates Celtic times, and a legendary account names Tara as the capital of the Tuatha Dé Danann.

The list of those bearing the title of “high king of Ireland” goes back to the second millennium b.c.e (though the earliest names are mostly mythical), and although no proof has been found that Tara served as the political and spiritual capital of the earliest Celtic people in Ireland, it is known that the site evolved to become the chief center of these high kings from before the sixth century c.e. It retained that status until sometime during the 12th century, although its splendor declined over time.

LINK

Aberdour Castle

Aberdour Castle is located in the village of Easter Aberdour, Fife, Scotland. Parts of the castle date from around 1200, making Aberdour one of the two oldest datable standing castles in Scotland, along with Castle Sween in Argyll, which was built at around the same time.

The earliest part of the castle comprised a modest hall house, on a site overlooking the Dour Burn. Over the next 400 years, the castle was successively expanded according to contemporary architectural ideas. The hall house became a tower house in the 15th century, and was extended twice in the 16th century. The final addition was made around 1635, with refined Renaissance details, and the whole was complemented by a walled garden to the east and terraced gardens to the south. The terraces, dating from the mid-16th century, form one of the oldest gardens in Scotland, and offer extensive views across the Firth of Forth to Edinburgh.

The castle is largely the creation of the Douglas Earls of Morton, who held Aberdour from the 14th century. The earls used Aberdour as a second home until 1642, when their primary residence, Dalkeith House, was sold. A fire in the late 17th century was followed by some repairs, but in 1725 the family purchased nearby Aberdour House, and the medieval castle was allowed to fall into decay. Today, only the 17th-century wing remains roofed, while the tower has mostly collapsed. Aberdour Castle is now in the care of Historic Scotland, and is open to the public all year.

#

The barony of Aberdour was acquired in 1126, by Sir Alan de Mortimer, on his marriage to Anicea, daughter of Sir John de Vipont.  Sir Alan built St Fillan's Church, which still stands, next to the castle, in around 1140, and his family probably built the original hall house in around 1200, or possibly even earlier. In 1216, another Alan de Mortimer is recorded granting land to the monks of Inchcolm Abbey. There is no record of what happened to the de Mortimers, but in the early 14th century, King Robert the Bruce granted Aberdour to his kinsman, Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray (d. 1332). Moray's grandson granted the barony in turn to Sir William Douglas of Liddesdale (c. 1300-1353), in 1342.

In 1351, Sir William Douglas gave the lands of Aberdour to his nephew, Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith, although he retained the castle for himself until his death two years later. The grant was confirmed by King David II in 1361. In 1386 Aberdour and Dalkeith were combined to form a single barony, with the principal seat at Dalkeith, near Edinburgh, and Aberdour as a secondary residence. James, fourth Lord Dalkeith, succeeded to the joint barony in 1456, and was created Earl of Morton in 1458, prior to his marriage to Joanna, the deaf and dumb daughter of James I. The newly-created earl expanded the existing hall house, heightening and rebuilding the structure to suit his elevated status. The second earl carried out extensions to Aberdour Castle around 1500, building a new stair tower and south block.

Real Middle Earth

Middle-earth. J.R.R. Tolkien’s invented mythology centred on an epic story of the struggle between Good and Evil, but it also included an elaborate backstory, a complex of languages, genealogies, cultures and peoples – and a map.

Created by Tolkien somewhere in the 1930s, the map shows the ‘mortal lands’ of Middle-earth, which according to Tolkien himself is part of our own Earth, but in a previous, mythical era. At the time of the events described in ‘The Hobbit’ and ‘The Lord of the Rings’, Middle-earth is moving towards the end of its Third Age, about 6.000 years ago.

Tolkien didn’t create Middle-earth ex nihilo: ancient Germanic myths divide the Universe in nine worlds, inhabited by elves, dwarves, giants, etc. The world of men is the one in the middle, called Midgard, Middenheim or Middle-earth. That term doesn’t thus describe the entirety of the world Tolkien thought up. The correct term for the total world is Arda – probably derived from German Erde (’Earth’) and only first mentioned posthumously in the Silmarillion (1977); and Eä (for the whole Universe).

The Hobbits are described as inhabiting ‘the North-West of the Old World, east of the Sea’, and therefore it’s tempting to associate their home with Tolkien’s own, England. Yet, Tolkien himself wrote that ‘as for the shape of the world of the Third Age, I am afraid that was devised ‘dramatically’, rather than geologically, or paleontologically.” Elsewhere, Tolkien does admit “The ‘Shire’ is based on rural England, and not any other country in the world.”

Tolkien at least compares his ‘Old World’ with Europe: “The action of the story takes place in the North-West of ‘Middle-earth’, equivalent in latitude to the coastlands of Europe and the north shores of the Mediterranean (…) If Hobbiton and Rivendell are taken (as intended) to be about the latitude of Oxford, then Minas Tirith, 600 miles south, is at about the latitude of Florence. The Mouths of Anduin and the ancient city of Pelargir are at about the latitude of ancient Troy.”

But, as Tolkien states in the prologue to ‘The Lord of the Rings’, it would be fruitless to look for geographical correspondences, as “Those days, the Third Age of Middle-earth, are now long past, and the shape of all lands has been changed…” And yet, that’s exactly what Peter Bird attempts with the map here shown. Bird, a professor of Geophysics and Geology at UCLA, has overlapped the map of Middle-earth with one of Europe, which leads to following locations:

• The Shire is in the South-West of England, which further north is also home to the Old Forest (Yorkshire?), the Barrow Downs (north of England), the city of Bree (at or near Newcastle-upon-Tyne) and Amon Sul (Scottish Highlands).
• The Grey Havens are situated in Ireland.
• Eriador corresponds with Brittany.
• Helm’s Deep is near the Franco-German-Swiss border tripoint, close to the city of Basel.
• The mountain chain of Ered Nimrais is the Alps.
• Gondor corresponds with the northern Italian plains, extended towards the unsubmerged Adriatic Sea.
• Mordor is situated in Transylvania, with Mount Doom in Romania (probably), Minas Morgul in Hungary (approximately) and Minas Tirith in Austria (sort of).
• Rohan is in southern Germany, with Edoras at the foot of the Bavarian Alps. Also in Germany, but to the north, near present-day Hamburg, is Isengard. Close by is the forest of Fangorn.
• To the north is Mirkwood, further east are Rhovanion and the wastes of Rhûn, close to the Ural mountains.
• The Sea of Rhûn corresponds to the Black Sea.
• Khand is Turkey
• Haradwaith is the eastern part of North Africa, Umbar corresponds with the Maghreb, the western part of North Africa.
• The Bay of Belfalas is the western part of the Mediterranean.

THE GREEN MAN IN MYTH

 

When we hear the word “mythology,” we think of stories, fables, and fairy tales. Nevertheless, myth is not make-believe. Myth is based on true events and real people — somewhat exaggerated over time, true — but not fairy tales. Mircea Eliade defined “myth” as “‘living’ in the sense that it supplies models for human behavior and, by that very fact, gives meaning and value to life.” It was only with the predominance of Christian thinking that myth came to mean “fiction” and “illusion,” and worse, as “falsehood.” Eliade noted that myth came “to denote ‘what cannot really exist’” in our contemporary society. The mythology of the Green Man is a living mythology. The “meaning and value” it gives to our lives is fluid and continues to unfold and evolve for us.

The story of Gawain and the Green Knight, which is really a poem, was written in the 14th century — a time when many of the foliate heads were being carved on the cathedrals of Europe. Since the time of Gawain and the Green Knight, a variety of myths and legends of a more contemporary setting have originated. Some of these legends (some that can be defined as “urban legends”) have appeared in the later part of the 20th century — at a time when the foliate head has again become “popular,” occurring in mainstream society via jewelry, wall plaques, statuary and garden decorations. In this chapter, we will look at a few of the older as well as more recent legends of the Green Man. Before we enter the realm of myth and legend, let us consider the importance of green. Is the color itself important in our study? Does the color alone symbolize the underlying meaning of the Green Man?

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

One of the best-known stories of the 14th century is that of the nephew of King Arthur, Sir Gawain. Written during the peak of popularity of the Green Man stone and woodcarvings, the author of this famous poem remains unknown but is believed to have been a resident of northwestern England. The poet is also a sophisticated and talented alliterative stylist, adept in the style that was common during the older Anglo-Saxon period. The poetic story, as summarized by Richard Cavendish:

At Camelot on New Year’s Day there rode into Arthur’s hall a gigantic green warrior on a towering horse, holding a holly branch in one hand and an immense battle-axe in the other. His skin was green, his hair was green, and even his horse was green. He had come to play what he called a game. Any champion who dared could strike him one blow with the axe, on condition that a year later the champion submits to a return blow from the Green Knight. Gawain took up the challenge and struck the Green Knight a blow that cut his head clean off his shoulders and sent it rolling to the floor. The Green Knight calmly picked up his head by the hair and turned the face towards Gawain. The eyelids opened and the mouth spoke, telling Gawain to meet him for the return blow a year later at the Green Chapel.

The year passed and Gawain set out on his journey to the Green Chapel to meet the gigantic Green Knight.

After a long journey he came to a noble castle, where he was welcomed by the jovial Sir Bercilak and his lovely young wife. He stayed there until New Year’s Day, royally entertained by Bercilak and, though sorely tempted, resisting the persistent attempts of Bercilak’s wife to seduce him.

On New Year’s Day Gawain went as he said he would to the Green Chapel. There “the Green Knight appeared and Gawain bravely bared his neck for a stroke of the axe. The Green Knight raised the axe high, but struck Gawain only a glancing blow, which nicked his skin. He then explained that he was Sir Bercilak, transformed into the Green Knight by the magic of Morgan le Fay, who had planned the whole adventure in the hope of discrediting the Round Table. Gawain had been spared because he had honorably refrained from making love to Bercilak’s wife and had shown himself to be the most faultless knight in the world.

An interesting note about the Green Chapel, according to J.D. Wakefield, is that it was not a structure but rather a green mound situated in a valley beside a stream of bubbling water. Wakefield believes that the Green Chapel was, in reality, Silbury Hill — a sacred man-made mound in Cornwall not far from West Kennett Long Barrow and Avebury — two other ancient sacred sites.  Some researchers believe that the Green Chapel was symbolic of a Fairy Mound.

How do we associate the Green Knight to the Green Man? This was obviously a test for Gawain, and one he passed, but this is also a story of “truthbringing” through a mixture of pagan ritual and the confused teachings of medieval Christianity. The poem also is an alliterative telling of the turning of the year, taking place at a time between two winters, which signifies a time of death of vibrant vegetation, and then a changing back to life through renewed growth, and then again, a return to death. The Green Knight is beheaded, and through his sacrifice he shows that life still goes on and, as John Matthews notes, “he challenges us to honor the sacrifice he makes every winter.” In addition, according to Matthews, the poem tells us that “one of the gifts of the Green Man is that he instructs us in how to face our deepest fears and conquer them. In this way he becomes a companion as well as a challenger, a dual role that is present in the archetype in virtually all of its manifestations.”

Other associations with the Green Man are found in the Green Knight’s long hair and beard, both green of course. His beard “is like a bush…his long green hair covers his chest and back…down to his elbows. He carries a holly branch in one hand…”

As the poem reads:

Men gaped at the hue of him

Ingrained in garb and mien,

A fellow fiercely grim,

And all a glittering green.

And garments of green girt the fellow about —

And verily his vesture was all vivid green,

So were the bars on his belt and the brilliants set

In ravishing array on the rich accouterments

About himself and his saddle on silken work.

…Yes, garbed all in green was the gallant rider,

And the hair of his head was the same hue as his horse…

Brian Stone, in his essay on the Green Knight, also discusses this mixture of the Green Knight’s character:

…the Green Knight’s combination of greenness, hairiness, energy, earthiness and mainly rough, imperative speech incline us irrevocably to think of two common medieval types, one an outcast and the other a rural deity. The wild man of the woods, the “wodwose,” was often an outlaw who…had developed sub-human habits and the fierce unpredictable behavior of a wild beast. The green man, on the other hand, was a personification of spring, a mythological supernatural being who persists to this day in English folk dance and in the name of many pubs.

The Green Knight is a mixture of the heroic tales of knights, of Christian value teaching and of the lore of the pre-Christian god of vegetation and the Wild Men. The tale of the Green Knight continues into “modern” times through the festivals of the Mummer Plays. I do not believe that we can interpret the Green Knight’s actions in this poem as easily as Matthews seems to. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight does indicate that the underlying archetype was equally important in the 14th century to the literate and peasant classes in England, through storytelling and carved images, as he is universally important today as exhibited through carvings, novels and other forms of expression.

Professor Christopher Fee believes that the poem is “concerned with decapitation and fertility, and these concerns have important implications regarding comparative British mythology. The Celtic incarnation of the Green Man motif is reflected in this poem’s treatment of the relationship between the beheading of the Green Knight and the changing of the seasons….”

Littleton and Malcor noted that the “Green Knight may derive from Cernunnos, the god of abundance and forests,” which would seem to directly link the mysterious knight to the Green Man and the gods of vegetation.

By Gary R. Varner

CATCH THE WHITE STAG

The White Stag by Ruth Sanderson

Beldane would have found the scene unfolding before him amusing if capturing this legendary creature weren’t so damned important. Legend tells that whoever subdues the magnificent beast will be shown visions of the Fay Enchantress and how to free her from her vile captors.

More shouting and cursing erupted from the undergrowth to Beldane’s right as the White Stag charged forth in a shower of leaves, twigs, and clods of dirt. Two of his peasants chased blindly after the Stag, scrubbing their eyes free of dirt while attempting to throw a dirty sack over the beast’s head. One had a hoof-shaped welt emblazoned on his forehead and his eyes were slightly dazed as he stumbled along.

Beldane tighted his grip on his steed’s reigns.  He wheeled his horse around, nearly clipping one of the Low-Borns under the chin. He had heard shouts in the gloomy distance. Someone has come to rob him of his prize!

#

Erec and Enide by Chrétien de Troyes

Arthur revives the custom of hunting a white stag with the reward that whoever kills it will be allowed to kiss the most beautiful maiden at court. Erec and Queen Guinevere are insulted when a dwarf, attending a knight with his lady, uses a whip on the Queen's maiden and on Erec. Arthur kills the white stag; but the kiss is postponed three days while Erec pursues the armed knight. Erec is given hospitality by a vavasor, impoverished by war, with a wife and most beautiful daughter. Yet this vassal is able to supply Erec with his daughter and the weapons necessary to challenge the knight when he claims his lady is most beautiful and tries to take the sparrow-hawk for the third time. They duel in combat for a long time before Erec gains the advantage and spares the life of Yder, whom he sends to Arthur's court. The beautiful daughter Enide is given a dress by Queen Guinevere and wins the kiss of King Arthur for the white stag. Erec and Enide are promised two castles by his father, King Lac, and they are wed at court in celebrations that last two weeks. In the tournament that follows Erec excels in combat.

LINK

Stone Circles at Castlerigg

If Stonehenge is the most famous stone circle in Britain, the Castlerigg Stone Circle, near Keswick in the Lake District, must be the most atmospheric. Situated in an open bowl between rolling hills, this Megalithic construction appears as a perfect picture postcard. This is the land of Wordsworth, Coleridge and Romantic poetry; but many millennia before, it was home to an equally creative race.

The Castlerigg Stone Circle, also known as Keswick Carle or Druid’s Circle, is one of the oldest in Britain. It was built in around 3,000 BC and comprises 38 stones of various heights placed in a slightly oval shape. The largest stone is over 8 feet tall, but the majority of them are less than 5 feet high. Although five of the stones have collapsed, it is a site in remarkably good condition.

It has a feature unique among stone circles in Britain. Inside the ring of rocks, ten smaller stones are placed in a rectangle in an arrangement called ‘The Cave’. There is also a slight mound in the centre, which, it has been suggested, is a burial chamber. However, the site has never been properly excavated, and perfunctory archaeological studies have only ever uncovered charcoal deposits.

Like Stonehenge, the site has qualities which make it suitable for use as an astronomical observatory, although an unpolished stone blade found near the circle suggests it may have been used as a centre of trade for the area’s Neolithic axe industry. There is also a local legend that says the stones were never built to any design, but were actually men turned to rock by fear of a local monster.

In all likelihood, it probably formed a focal point for the local community, and may have been used for a combination of commercial, religious and tribal purposes. For now, we can only admire the stunning sight of this early man-made structure placed in an area of unique natural beauty.

CASTLES OF GLASS

For years archaeologists try to explain the mystery of vitrified fortresses, without convincing results so far.

Many stones are sintered, but how that happened remains a mystery. The high temperature which is needed for sintering can only be achieved by means of a special oven, not in open air.

Evidence of the very real possibility of such events in our distant past can be seen in the existence of a large number of enigmatic, highly vitrified ruins that can be found in many parts of the world. The scattered nature of these ruins, including areas of Scotland, France, Turkey and the Middle East and the vitrified stones they contain is something that just cannot be easily explained. According to author David Hatcher-Childress, there are at least 60 such vitrified forts that exist just throughout Scotland alone! Among the most well-known of these Scottish ruins are Tap o'Noth, Dunnideer, Craig Phadraig (near Inverness), Abernathy (near Perth), Dun Lagaidh (in Ross), Cromarty, Arka-Unskel, Eilean na Goar, Bute-Dunagoil on the Sound of Bute off Arran Island and the Cauadale hill-fort in Argyll, West Scotland.

Perhaps the best example of them is said to be Tap o'Noth, which is near the village of Rhynie in North-eastern Scotland. The ruins are of a massive fort was built high on the summit of the Tap o'Noth mountain at a height of 1,859 feet. At first glance it appears that the walls of the fortress are made of a blackened, cindery rubble, but on a closer examination becomes strikingly evident that they are actually made of melted and fused together rocks!

What were once individual stone blocks within the walls are now black, and glassy masses that have been fused together by a heat that was in places, so intense that the remains of actual molten rivulets of rock that once ran down the walls like melting wax can still be seen quite clearly.

One early theory proposed was that the forts are located on the remains of ancient volcanoes and that the people used molten stone being ejected from the eruptions to build their settlements. I’m not sure whose brainwave the idea actually was, but it seems somewhat fanciful at best.

That theory however, was soon replaced with the notion that the vitrification was in fact, done on purpose, in order to strengthen the walls. This theory purported that the builders had perhaps designed the forts in that fashion, surmising that fires had been lit so as to temper the stone in order to produce walls strong enough to resist both the invading armies and possibly the dampness of the local climate. It’s an interesting theory to say the least, but one that has a number of serious problems. Firstly, there is no indication that such vitrification does actually strengthen the walls in any way at all and secondly, there is every indication that the fire in fact weakens them substantially. In many cases, the walls of the fortresses seem to have almost totally collapsed because of the fires. Also, since the walls of many Scottish forts are only partially vitrified, it does not seem to have been done purposely as walls that have only been partially completed would hardly have been considered to have been an effective fortification.

It must be appreciated that some of these ruins are massive too, indicating that they were once occupied by extremely large forces. In one section of the book ‘Mysterious Britain’ the authors Janet and Collin Bord discuss the vastness of the ruins of ‘Maiden Castle’ in Scotland which gives a good indication of the enormous size of some of these ancient fortresses:

“It covers an area of 120 acres, with an average width of 1,500 feet and length of 3,000 feet. The inner circumference is about 11.2 miles round, and it has been estimated...that it would require 250,000 men to defend it! It is hard, therefore, to believe that this construction was intended to be a defensive position.” Numerous vitrified remains can also be found in the western United States. One such site was discovered in Death Valley by the American explorer Captain Ives William Walker in 1850. Walker apparently discovered a city about a mile long with the lines of the streets and the positions of the buildings still visible. At the centre of the site was a huge rock, between 20 to 30 feet high, with the remains of an enormous structure atop it. The southern side of both the rock and the building was melted and vitrified. Walker assumed that a volcano had been responsible for this phenomenon, but there is no volcano in the area. In addition, tectonic heat could not possibly have caused such visible liquification on the surface of the rock.

More vitrified ruins can also be found in France, Turkey, India and some areas of the Middle East. Some of the ancient ziggurats of Iran and Iraq also contain vitrified material. Some of the vitrification on these ruins is thought by some archaeologists to have been caused by the very ancient and very mysterious Greek fire.

The vitrified remains of the ziggurat at Birs Nimrod (Borsippa), south of Hillah that were once thought to be the Tower of Babel, are also crowned by a large mass of vitrified stone brickwork and actual baked clay bricks that have all been fused together by some type of truly intense heat.

CARDINAL RICHELIEU: 1585–1642

The name of Cardinal Richelieu, prime minister of France under Louis XIII, has become synonymous with the figure, ‘the power behind the throne’. Thanks mainly to Alexandre Dumas’ The Three Musketeers, and its subsequent film adaptations, the image of Cardinal Richelieu held by most people today is of a cynical, corrupt old man, hungry for power for its own sake. Perhaps his most famous quote is: ‘If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him.’ But what is the truth about this enigmatic figure?

He was born Armand-Jean du Plessis, the third son of the lord of Richelieu, the ancestral estate. Originally he intended to pursue a career in the military, but when his older brother resigned the family bishopric of Luçon, Armand changed his professional direction. He studied theology and was made bishop at just 21. Here his career should have stopped. The Richelieux were a minor noble family, and Luçon a minor provincial diocese. Yet he rose to become the effective ruler of France and one of the most important statesmen in French history.

Richelieu was both ambitious and talented. He worked hard to make a success of the Luçon diocese and spoke well in the states-general, the French equivalent of Parliament. To his growing reputation as a capable administrator he allied political savvy, becoming known as a dévot, a staunch Catholic with pro-Spanish views. Handily this was also the faction of the French regent Marie de Medici, who ruled France in the minority of her son, Louis XIII.

Richelieu came to court in 1615 and soon caught the eye of Marie’s favourite, Concini, who recognised his talents and had him appointed secretary of state for war and foreign affairs. His star was rising, but in 1617 it seemed likely to be extinguished. Concini was assassinated by rivals jealous of his power and that of the regency, and Richelieu was forced to follow Marie into exile in the country. For years he languished in the political wilderness, but after Marie’s escape from her imprisonment he was instrumental in negotiating a reconciliation between Louis and his mother, and in 1622 was rewarded by being made a cardinal. At this time Louis was seeking a new chief minister, and with Marie’s recommendation he chose Richelieu, making him prime minister in August 1624.

Once in a position of power, Richelieu spent the rest of his career relentlessly pursuing his philosophy of proper governance. The power of the king, who embodied France, was all-important, and all other considerations were secondary to the welfare of the state. Richelieu was a firm believer that the end justified the means; he insisted that ‘harshness towards individuals who flout the laws and commands of the state is for the public good; no greater crime against the public interest is possible than to show leniency to those who violate it’. This philosophy essentially made him a nationalist, since he vigorously opposed anything that detracted from the interests of France and the crown. It also made him numerous enemies at every level, from the aristocrats to the peasantry.

To enforce this ruthless pragmatism Richelieu used means fair and foul. He defeated the strong French Protestant faction, the Huguenots, and reduced their stronghold at La Rochelle. He tore down the castles and fortresses of regional princes and nobles to weaken their ability to oppose the crown. He changed his foreign policy to the opposite of his previous dévot stance, making alliances with Protestant nations against Catholic Spain and Austria. For this he earned the enmity of the queen mother. Domestically he replaced the corrupt system of government administration with intendants – agents of the crown. He also instituted an extensive network of spies and informers.

Thanks to these spies he was able to defeat the constant stream of conspiracies aimed at him by disgruntled aristocrats, including Marie de Medici. He had several rivals executed. In general, the king was happy to let Richelieu rule the country in his stead, but in later life the cardinal grew worried that he might lose influence and attempted to bolster his position by introducing an attractive young man to the court. As Richelieu hoped, Henri Coiffier de Ruzé, marquis de Cinq-Mars, became Louis’ lover and favourite. Expecting to be able to control Cinq-Mars as his puppet, Richelieu was dismayed to find that the marquis was actually trying to turn Louis against him, urging the king to have him executed. Richelieu was not to be beaten at his own game, however, and it was Cinq-Mars who lost his head.

Richelieu’s influence on the king held up from beyond the grave. As he felt the icy hand of death approaching, he picked Cardinal Mazarin as his successor and Louis acquiesced. When Louis died in ...., just six months after Richelieu had passed away, his will stipulated that the regents who watched over his infant son must follow Richelieu’s disposition for the governance of France, and Mazarin governed as prime minister for many years, continuing his predecessor’s policies.

Richelieu had ruled France from behind the throne for 18 years, and as he neared death was able to write to his king: ‘I have the consolation of leaving your kingdom in the highest degree of glory and of reputation.’ Although he was a schemer and a plotter, he was not motivated by the pursuit of power for its own sake, only for the sake of France: ‘I have never had any [enemies], other than those of the state.’

MOTTE AND BAILEY

At the beginning of the eleventh century the motte was the most widespread form of castle in northern Europe (except the British Isles and Scandinavia).

The castle was primarily the residence of the lord, but it eventually functioned as a treasury (place where valuable items are kept), armory (storage facility for weapons), and center of local government. Lords first built castles in order to defend their fiefs. The original castles were little more than hills surrounded by ditches and topped with wooden forts. These forts were known as motte and bailey castles. “Motte” was the original term for a “moat,” a deep ditch that surrounded a castle to provide protection from invaders. The bailey was a hill constructed with the dirt that had been removed in digging the motte. Usually located at the fringes of a territory, a castle could be built quickly and was cheap enough to abandon in a hurry.

Motte and bailey castles were only built as temporary measures. As quickly as possible, the Normans began constructing permanent fortresses in stone. In these, the keep, an enormous tower incorporating living accommodation, a chapel, and storerooms, was the most important feature. The White Tower in the Tower of London is a perfect example. A bailey, consisting of a large, well-defended gatehouse and a series of square towers joined by a high wall named the curtain, was next to be built. The whole was then surrounded by a dry ditch or wet moat, crossed by a drawbridge. Experience revealed that the angles of the square towers were vulnerable to siege catapults, so round towers that provided a deflective surface replaced them.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

The Knights Templar

The two principal orders of knighthood of the Crusades were established prior to the launching of the first crusade in 1096 and shortly before the second crusade began in 1146. The fundamental principle on which the new orders were based was the union of monasticism and chivalry. Before this time, a man could choose to devote himself to religion and become a monk, or he could elect to become a warrior and devote himself to defending God and country. The founding of the orders of knighthood permitted the vow of religion and the vow of war to be united in a single effort to free the Holy Land from the Muslims.

The oldest of the religio-chivalric orders was the Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem, also known as the Knights Hospitallers and subsequently as the Knights of Malta and the Knights of Rhodes, founded in 1048. By the middle of the twelfth century, the Hospitallers had become a powerful military factor in the East, and their membership included the most accomplished knights in Christendom. By 1153 they had become the pride of the Christians and the terror of the Saracens. Unfortunately, after a great number of victories for the cross, the moral and chivalric ideals of the order began to become corrupted by the enormous wealth that its warriors had accumulated. In 1187, the Hospitallers were almost annihilated in the disastrous battle of Tiberias, where the Saracen army under the generalship of Saladin (1137–1193), the sultan of Egypt and Syria, thoroughly defeated the Christians and reclaimed Jerusalem.

The second of the great orders of knighthood was founded in 1117 by two French knights and was originally known as the Knights of the Temple of Solomon and later as the Knights Templar or the Knights of the Red Cross. Hugues des Paiens and Geoffrey of Saint-Omer, two compassionate nobles, had observed the hardships endured by Christian travelers en route to Jerusalem and decided to serve as guides and protectors for the defenseless pilgrims. The warrior guides soon gained a reputation for their service to the helpless wayfarers; they were joined by seven other knights who admired their principles. The nine men bound themselves by the traditional vows of obedience, chastity, and poverty, then added the oaths to defend the Holy Sepulcher and to protect those pilgrims who journeyed there. At first the Knights of Saint John, the Hospitallers, lent aid and encouragement to the new society of brothers. There could be no rivalry with this new order of knights who comprised only nine members and were known by others as the “Poor Soldiers of the Holy City.” It was said that Hugues and Geoffrey only had one horse between them when they first began their missions of benevolence.

Then, at the council of Troyes in 1127, St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153) drew up a code for the order and designed an appropriate uniform, consisting of a white tunic and mantle with a red cross on the left breast. Pope Honorius II (d. 1130) approved the following rules of conduct and discipline for the order in 1128:

• to recite vocal prayers at certain hours;

• to abstain from meat four days in the week; to cease hunting and hawking;

• to defend with their lives the mysteries of the Christian faith;

• to observe the seven sacraments of the church, the fourteen articles of faith, the creeds of the apostles and Athanasius; • to uphold the doctrines of the Two Testaments, including the interpretations of the church fathers, the unity of God and the trinity of his persons, and the virginity of Mary both before and after the birth of Jesus;

• to go beyond the seas when called to do so in defense of the cause;

• to retreat not from the foe unless outnumbered three to one.

In addition to the rules of conduct and discipline, humility was one of the first principles of membership in the Knights Templar. The helmet of the Templar must bear no crest; his beard should never be cut; his personal behavior should be that of a servant of others; and his tunic should be girt with a linen cord as a symbol that he was bound in service.

There were four classes of members in the Templars—knights, squires, servitors, and priests—each with their individual list of duties and obligations. The presiding officer of the order was called the grand master and was assisted by a lieutenant, a steward, a marshal, and a treasurer. The states of Christendom were divided into provinces, and over each was set a grand master. The grand master of Jerusalem was considered the head of the entire brotherhood, which grew in numbers, influence, and wealth to become one of the most powerful organizations in the medieval world. Counts, dukes, princes, and even kings sought to wear the red cross and white mantle of the Templar, an honor which was recognized throughout Europe.

In 1139, Pope Innocent II (d. 1143) granted the Templars an unprecedented mark of papal approval: the churches of the Templars were exempt from interdicts; their properties and revenues were free from taxation to either crown or Holy Mother Church. The Templars now had the prestige of being triumphant crusaders. They had the blessing of the pope. They had the gratitude of those whom they had protected on their pilgrimages. They had vast estates with mansions that could not be invaded by any civil officer. Thousands beseeched the order to allow them to become members of the Templars. In the course of time the Knights of the Temple became a sovereign body, pledging allegiance to no secular ruler. In spiritual matters, the pope was still recognized as supreme, but in all other matters, the grand master of Jerusalem was as independent and as wealthy as the greatest king in Europe.

What had begun as the mission of two poor knights with one horse who vowed to watch over Christian pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem had become a privileged order of opportunists bloated with wealth. And in their new quest for power and wealth, the protection of the pilgrims was often forgotten. Even St. Bernard issued a series of exhortations that the order was accepting into its membership too many knights who were but adventurers and outlaws and that a good number of the nobility who had joined the Templars were men who had been regarded as oppressors and scourges by their serfs.

There were three divisions of the Templars in the East—Jerusalem, Antioch, and Tripoli. In Europe, there were 16 provinces—France, Auvergne, Normandy, Aquitaine, Poitou, Provence, England, Germany, Upper and Lower Italy, Apulia, Sicily, Portugal, Castile, Leon, and Aragon. A majority of the Templars were French, and it was estimated by the middle of the thirteenth century that as many as 9,000 manors were held by the Templars in France.

The chief seat of the Templars had remained in Jerusalem from the origins of the order in 1118 to 1187, when it was moved to Antioch after the Christians’ defeat by Saladin in the plain of Tiberias. The Hospitallers and the Templars had been slaughtered in battle and 230 captive knights had been beheaded when they refused the Muslims’ offer to convert to the religion of the Prophet. The grand master established the Templar headquarters in Antioch for four years, then moved to Acre in 1191. A third transfer of the Templar seat was made in 1217 when the grand master moved to the Pilgrim’s Castle near Cesarea. When the Muslims captured Acre in 1291 and overthrew the Christian kingdom, the Templars had bravely fought until they were exterminated almost to the man. The surviving Templars retreated to Cyprus, which they had purchased from King Richard the Lion-Hearted (1157–1199) for 35,000 marks.

Although defeated by the soldiers of the Prophet Muhammad and driven out of the Holy Land, the Knights Templar retained their many estates and their enormous wealth in Europe. However, especially in France, the Templars were becoming diminished in popularity, and the jealousies of the government had been aroused against them. Lords, dukes, and princes were not only envious of the order’s burgeoning treasury, but they fumed over the Templars’ exemption from the burdens of taxation imposed by church and state on others. The self-righteous among the rulers and the people were indignant over the knights’ pride, arrogance, and licentiousness, and rumors began to spread that the order had acquired heretical practices during their time in the East.

In 1306, King Philip IV (1268–1314) of France, called Philip the Fair, sought refuge for himself and the royal treasury in the Templars’ massive fortress in Paris. The unruly mobs were calling for his death, and he feared that the disloyal among his nobles would loot the nation’s wealth. While Philip was in the process of entrusting the treasury of France to the Templars’ protection, he also managed to gain sight of the incredible wealth that the Knights had accumulated. When he fully comprehended that this was only a portion of their immeasurable riches and that the Templars had forts and estates throughout France, each containing its own deposit of treasure, he was awed by the enormity of their riches.

When Philip sat more securely on his throne, he began to perceive the Templars as rivals for his kingdom. The Knights had more money and power than he, the king, and they owed their allegiance only to the pope. Philip met with Pope Clement V (c. 1260–1314) to seek his counsel on how the order might be exterminated. Although the Templars had enjoyed the blessing of the papacy for decades, the pope admitted that he had been made uneasy by accusations that the order had sought to protect their own interests by securing a separate treaty with the Mulis when the Christian kingdom in the East was falling. Clement, however, was reluctant to make any kind of move against the Knights. The king pressed his case with the pope—and made an issue of the fact that the papacy at that time was located at Avignon, which was one of Philip’s territories.

Then Philip found the mysterious Esquire de Floyran, who claimed to have been a member of the Knights Templar. Floyran said that the order had deceived the church and the people for more than a hundred years. What had begun as a pious service to pilgrims and defenders of the cross against the infidels had degenerated into a monstrous blood cult. Principal among the demons they worshipped was Baphomet, the three-headed god of the Assassins, a heretical Muslim sect. Floyran swore that he had seen initiates into the order spitting upon crucifixes, participating in vile rites, even sacrificing babies to demons.

There has never been any conclusive evidence to prove whether de Floyran was a true member of the Knights Templar who had a personal grudge against the order or if he was an imposter on the king’s own payroll, but armed with the supposed insider’s sensational accounts, the backing of the highest church officials in France, and the endorsement of William of Paris, the Grand Inquisitor, King Philip demanded that the pope conduct an investigation into such charges against the Knights Templar. Whether or not Clement believed such stories, he gave his approval that a judicial inquiry be instituted, and the knights were charged with heresy and immorality.

On the night of October 13, 1307, all of the Templars’ castles in France were surrounded by large bodies of men that were led by small parties of priests and noblemen. When the unsuspecting knights were ordered to open their gates in the name of the king, they immediately complied. Taken completely by surprise, about 900 knights were arrested, and all their property and holdings in France were seized. When word of the arrests reached other countries, other nobles and priests quickly followed suit and imprisoned the Templars wherever they might be found.

The Knights Templar were accused of infidelity, Muhammadanism, atheism, heresy, invoking Satan, worshipping demons, desecration of holy objects, and uncleanness. The prosecution had difficulty proving such charges, so they were often forced to resort to torturing the prisoners to obtain confessions. In Paris, the grand master of the Templars, Jacques de Molay (1243–1314), pleaded the innocence of the order against all such charges. In spite of his personal friendship with de Molay, who was the godfather of his younger son, Philip ordered the grand master and the 140 knights imprisoned with him to be starved, tortured, and kept in filthy dungeons.

Although the pope had little problem yielding to pressure and issuing a ban on the order, he hesitated to give his sanction to the extermination of the knights. Philip, however, was determined to see the Templars destroyed and their wealth distributed to the state. For two weeks, the knights imprisoned in Paris suffered the rack, the thumbscrew, the pincers, the branding iron, and the fire. Thirty-six died under torture without speaking. The rest confessed to every charge the Inquisition had leveled against them—the worship of Baphomet, a black cat, and a serpent; the sacrifice of babies and the murders of pious knights who opposed them.

A grand council was called in Paris on May 10, 1310, to review the confessions. But Philip’s victory was sullied when 54 of the knights withdrew their confessions and appealed to government and church officials that they had been tortured. They swore that they had remained true to their vows and that they had never practiced any kind of witchcraft or Satanism. Philip silenced their pleas three days later when he ordered all 54 of the Templars burned at the stake in a field behind the alley of St. Antoine.

In 1312, the pope convened the Council of Venice to weigh the fate of the Templars. It was decided that the order should be abolished and its property confiscated, but Pope Clement chose to reserve final judgment concerning whether the knights were guilty of the heinous charges brought against them. In spite of 573 witnesses for their defense, Templars were tortured en masse, then burned at the stake. The landed possessions of the order were transferred to the Hospitallers, and their wealth was distributed to the sovereigns of various states. Everywhere in Christendom, except in Portugal, where the Templars assumed the name of the Knights of Christ, the order as an organization was suppressed.

In 1314, as he was being burned to death on a scaffold erected for the occasion in front of Notre Dame, the Knights Templar grand master, Jacques de Molay, recanted the confession that he gave under torture and proclaimed his innocence to Pope Clement V and King Philip—and he invited them to meet him at heaven’s gate. When both dignitaries died soon after de Molay’s execution, it was believed by the public at large that the grand master and the Knights Templar had been innocent of the charges of heresy.

Although the Order was officially dissolved by Papal Decree in 1312, the mystique of the Knights Templar still remains strong in the twenty-first century. There are groups claiming an association with the Templar Order around the world. Some only affirm that they are following the ideals of the Knights Templar. Others state that they can trace a historical connection with the original order.

The Militi Templi Scotia or the Scottish Knights Templar point out that the papal Order of Suppression issued in 1312 was not enforced in Scotland because the Scots believed the charges against the Knights were unproven. Under the excommunicated King, Robert the Bruce, Scotland provided a safe haven for any Knights Templar who were able to flee Europe and reach its shores. According to tradition, the Knights who sought refuge in Scotland fought side by side with Robert the Bruce to win independence from England. In turn, the king protected the Order and Temple lands in Scotland.

The Militi Templi Scotia remains active and emphasizes its historical connection to the original Order of Templar Knights. They make a point of proclaiming that they are not a secret society and have even expanded membership to include women. As with the original Order, however, all members must be professing Christians or individuals of “high ideals.”

Another group in the United Kingdom also claims a historical continuity with the original Order because of Knights Templar who managed to reach England. The Supreme Military Order of Temple of Jerusalem of England, Wales, and Scotland states that it is not a secret society and that, as with the Militi Templi Scotia, it has no affiliation with the Freemasons. The order is open only to Christians according to the website http://theknightstemplar.org. Associated with the Supreme Military Order of Temple of Jerusalem is the North American Order of Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon, Knights Templar and can be found at the website http://www.knights templar.org.

Delving Deeper

Ahmed, Rollo. The Black Art. London: Arrow Books, 1966.

Baigent, Michael, and Richard Leigh. The Temple and the Lodge. New York: Arcade, 1989.

Clifton, Charles S. Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1998.

Howarth, Stephen. The Knights Templar. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1993.

Vankin, Jonathan, and John Whalen. The Seventy Greatest Conspiracies of All Time: History’s Biggest

Mysteries, Coverups, and Cabals. New York: Citadel, 1998.

JOTUNHEIM -RPG

Jotunheim is not a place for the faint of heart. It is the land of the Frost Giants, and that makes it a very dangerous place to begin with. Jotuns are only one of its many hazards, though. It is populated by a variety of deadly monsters, and it is in many respects a frigid wasteland where only the hardiest survive for long. A journey to Jotunheim is a momentous undertaking for a god. For a mortal, it is the mission of a fool.

Geography

Jotunheim is one of the largest of the Nine Worlds. It stretches out for many, many miles, encompassing enough land to span all the nations of Midgard and more. It is eternally winter there, and the whole of the realm is made up of snow-capped mountains, glaciers, and tundra. Jotunheim does experience seasonal change, but summer (such as it is) lasts only for a month and is characterized by temperatures only slightly above freezing. Autumn lasts for about a week — just enough time to alert the denizens to the fact that winter is returning. Spring tends to be longer — usually two months — but it features alternating periods of warming and sudden storms that plunge temperatures back down.

The northern and western edges of the realm are studded with enormous mountains that stretch up into the clouds. These forbidding peaks are home to the castles of the most powerful giant jarls. Huge glaciers run down the mountainsides like rivers of ice emptying out into the frozen tundra of the plains below.

Jotunheim is bordered on the east by a large sea that separates it from Asgard. While small communities of giants do live on the shore, there are no ports or cities providing access to or from the harsh land. The terrain between the tundra and the sea is marked by large rolling hills that are difficult to navigate in bad weather owing to the snow that lifts into the air during storms.

Denizens

Jotunheim is the land of the Frost Giants, but they are not its sole inhabitants. A wide variety of monsters also populate the frozen realm. Generally speaking, any creature with the Cold Subtype can be found in Jotunheim. It also makes a good home for monsters with any mountain in their climate description, though keep in mind that the temperatures are universally cold so only monsters that can thrive under those conditions will be found here.

Size

It’s important to note that everything in Jotunheim is big. It is a land populated by giants, and everything around them is giant as well. Many of the creatures on the random encounter tables have been adjusted in size to reflect this. As a general rule, if you want to use a creature that doesn’t appear on the charts, you should adjust its size up one level to reflect the gargantuan nature of the land of the Frost Giants. A Jotun’s dog is a big challenge for a mortal and can cause some trouble for a god owing simply to its size. Use your common sense since some of the creatures in the game are already meant to be “giants.” In general, though, bigger is definitely better.

This applies to everything about Jotunheim. The trees are like redwoods. The mountains are like Everest. Everything is expansive. A giant’s house is a mansion to a puny mortal or god. A giant’s castle is akin to a city by way of comparison. Don’t forget that the Jotuns are very worthy foes to the gods. Everything about Jotunheim is large and challenging and dangerous.

Dundrum Castle

Dundrum, or the Magennis Castle, as it may have looked in earlier times.

This 12th-century castle with its circular four-storey high keep was built by the Anglo-Norman knight John deCourcy on the summit and slopes of a 200-foot-high hill, and was the object of frequent struggles between the invaders and the native Irish.The castle was besieged and taken over in 1210 by king John, and it remained in royal possession until 1227, when Henry III made it over to Hugh deLacy the Younger.

The castle occupies a magnificent location, dominating the surrounding countryside and the sea. It is built on a prominent hill of shale and grit, carved out by the ice during the last Ice Age. Bare rock is clearly visible, especially under the gatehouse and in the defensive ditch which surrounds the castle. Situated on the western shore of Dundrum Inner Bay, it commands a fine natural harbour which offered easy penetration inland, especially to the fertile Lecayle peninsula. This strategic importance, recognised by the builders of the early Christian “dún” or fort, which previously occupied the site, and those of the Anglo-Norman castle, was described by Lord Leonard Grey, who took Dundrum in 1538 as: “one of the strongest holds in all of Ireland, and most commodious for defence of the whole countrie of Lecayle both by sea and land, for Lecayle is environed by the sea, and there is no way to enter it by land but by the said castle”. Although one of the delights of the hill is now its tree cover, the surroundings of the castle must have been far more open at the time it was in use, since trees would have provided unwelcome cover for assailants.

via Dundrum Castle

CASTELLANY

Motte-and-Bailey Castle

Schematic View of a 14th Century Castle. Such a castle was characterized by height and verticality. (1) Ditch (possibly filled with water) creating an inaccessible zone around the fortress. (2) Gatehouse with portcullis (a large iron or wooden grating used to block the passage when released vertically) and drawbridge (provided with a raising-and-lowering mechanism to hinder or enable passage). (3) Tower, projecting combat emplacement also used as lodging and storage place. (4) Wall, also called “curtain.” (5) Wallwalk protected by a crenelated breastwork on top of the wall. (6) Hoarding, also called “brattice”, a wooden balcony fitted with apertures through which the defenders could throw down missiles on enemies. (7) Postern, or sallyport, a secondary access. (8) Pepperpot turret, a small watchtower or lookout post. (9) Bailey, the open courtyard with chapel, well, stables, and other lodging and service buildings. (10) Dungeon, or keep, the most powerful tower of the castle and the dwelling place of the lord.

In theory the whole feudal pyramid of loyalty culminated in the king. But as the kings— until the 12th century — were rather weak powerless rulers, political power was based almost entirely on force of arms. Anyone prestigious enough to gain followers, able to build a castle, and rich enough to garrison it could create his independent state and concentrate in his own hands military, political, juridical, and economic power within his tiny kingdom. Moreover, the holder of a court of justice gained both authority and income as fines paid by offenders went into his coffer. The working unit of government became thus the castellany — the land near enough to a castle that it could be protected, policed, and administrated by the lord of the castle. In the 10th century, most castles were motte-and-baily fortresses. Based on a Viking/Norman design these were made by digging a ditch and piling the dirt into an artificial motte or mound. The edge of the ditch and the top of the mound were fortified with wooden palisades. On the summit of the mound inside the stockade stood a wooden tower which was the residence of the lord and his household. At the foot of the motte there were shallower and narrower ditches and stockades enclosing a bailey, an area which was a small village with houses and workshops for the lord’s servants as well as stables and other outbuildings. In case of danger the baily served as a place of refuge for the lord’s subjects from the neighborhood: the peasants, their families, and stock.

Siege warfare was then quite primitive. The besiegers could make a blockade all around the castle and wait until the hungry and discouraged assieged would surrender. But if attrition did not work, the attacking party would assault the place. The ditches could be crossed, the palisades scaled. After having conquered the bailey, the aggressors would attack the tower on the motte, breaking the palisade with a battering ram, setting the tower on fire, and launching an assault.

Very few people could read, and as the only artificial light available was from smoky torches, the lord was likely to go to bed right after darkness set in. In peacetime, the feudal lord at home got up at dawn, heard mass in his chapel, and got the daily business done with his officials. Some rich lords might hold many estates a considerable distance apart. If so, they might live in different houses at different times, traveling from manor to manor to ensure that their lordship was recognized and respected; they might also grant a manor with estate in fief to loyal sub vassals.

A king, a duke, a count, or any mighty lord would have a household, a court, and various officials to assist him in ruling. The same men who ministered to the domestic needs of the household conducted the business of the fief and participated in warfare. The provost superintended the demesne and collected taxes and dues. In England the Anglo-Saxons kings appointed a shire-reeve or sheriff, a removable agent in each county. The chaplain heard confession and said mass in the chapel. Since the chaplain was a clerk, he did not fight, and, as he was often literate, he held the lord’s written records. In time he was called chancellor and had other clerks under him who served as chaplains and secretaries. The chamberlain looked after the bed chamber, watched over the lord’s valuables, jewels, and clothes as well as archives and charters, and he generally controlled access to the lord. The constable and the marshal were military officers that commanded the soldiers, were responsible for armor and weapons, and saw to the horses and, as such, had a high status in the feudal demesnes showing the importance of horses. The steward was the head of the administration; he was also responsible for the provisioning of the household. The steward was assisted by the butler, who procured the wine, and the dispenser, who supervised the issuance of wine.

Entertainment included solid meals and drinking and possibly more refined shows with minstrels displaying varied talents, storytellers with magnificent tales, tumblers, and dancing bears. Hunting and hawking were the feudal ruler caste’s main pleasure, and the hunting grounds were guarded with jealousy against the depredations of poachers. Penalties for catching reserved animals— such as a deer — were severe and included flaying, mutilation, and even hanging. Hunting was regarded as a sign of great courage and an opportunity to exercise healthiness, knightly qualities, and a display of skill besides providing a valuable addition to the medieval diet. The chasse-a-courre consisted of pursuing on horseback stags, wild boars, deer, and wild cats with the help of a pack of hounddogs. Animals were put to death with spears or swords. Troublesome animals were also hunted — as much for pleasure as for the necessary extermination — including wolves, bears, lynx, elk, aurochs, and bison, which terrorized peasants, ruined their crops, and decimated their cattle. Wild animals could be hunted with bows and arrows. Game birds were hunted by hawking with a trained falcon. It developed into a great art, falconry. Hawks and falcons were valuable and sometimes given as prestigious gifts.

Needless to say the feudal ruler of the 10th, 11th, and early 12th centuries were no model of refinement and gentleness. There was little or no legal restraint on their personal behavior. Castle could be full of mistresses and prostitutes, heavy drinking and rough conduct were common, and servants— and even wives and children —could be beaten, sometimes with savagery. The feudal caste was quite religious though. They accepted without question the basic teaching of the Church, followed the observance, heard mass, and gave alms and donations. However, repentance and atonement were far easier than virtue. Some rich counts or dukes founded religious houses and abbeys; many went on long pilgrimages; some departed to the crusade in the Holy Land. But — on the whole — faith did not seem to interfere with personal conduct. Along with fair rulers, noble gentlemen, and generous lords, there were bad knights, blood-thirsty perverts, and wicked men who terrorized helpless peasants, dishonored ladies, and even desecrated churches. There were countless robber barons, ruthless freebooters, and unscrupulous mercenaries who brought knighthood and nobility into disrepute.

Reign of Fire

By Jeff Koyen

Note: This article originally appeared in issue 18 of the Prague Pill.

Dragons – not nukes – and the end of the world.

Reign of Fire

Directed by Rob Bowman

Written by Gregg Chabot & Kevin Peterka and Matt Greenberg

Starring Christian Bale, Matthew McConaughey, Izabella Scorupco

Reign of Fire is Mad Max by way of Dungeons & Dragons. Not Dungeons & Dragons the disgraceful kid movie released two years ago, but the original role-playing game. D&D: the ultimate symbol of smart-guy disenfranchisement. An evergreen punch line that calls to mind a particular breed of teen nerdboy spending his weekends rolling for damage. And Mad Max: second only to The Blood of Heroes on the list of best post-apocalypse movies, and one of the few movies with a sequel as good as its predecessor. Clearly, director Rob Bowman and his scriptwriters respect both the fantasy and post-apoc genres.

The high concept is thus: What if dragons are real and were reawakened in the modern world? The film opens when a construction team punches into an uncharted cavern deep beneath the streets of London. Quinn, the scrappy son of the forewoman, is on hand and asks to hop into the hole to investigate the dank, creepy HR Giger-inspired chamber. Inside: an honest-to-god, fire-breathing dragon. Quinn’s mother dies in this first dragon encounter, with a good portion of humanity soon to follow.

Twenty years later, dragons rule the earth, and Quinn (Christian Bale) leads a small group of survivors who have turned an old castle into a stronghold. In a nearby valley, they carefully cultivate food, with Quinn trying desperately to convince his starving community not to harvest too soon. Do not feed from the crop until the seeds are mature enough, else we will all starve to death next season, he warns. They are ever watching the sky, and have no hope but to outlast the dragons as they deplete their own food supply, i.e., humanity.

In some movies, you shouldn’t see the bad guys because it’s a letdown. Signs fell apart completely when the mysterious aliens appeared early as lanky men in green leotards. Or take the 1998 Godzilla remake. Almost every monster scene was jittery, dark and rainy because it’s quicker and easier and therefore cheaper to render the computer-generated effects with less detail; somehow, the new American Godzilla was no more realistic than the original Japenese guy in a rubber suit. The Reign of Fire dragons are not hidden in twilight; they are full-frame, day and night. They are as beautifully rendered and as concrete as the best dinosaurs in Jurassic Park.

They’re also bad-ass. These are not fat-bellied, bulky majestics, tossing riddles and verse to frightened hobbits. They are not regal and magical. They are lean and swift omnivores – fire-breathing locusts that feed on death. They killed the dinosaurs by burning them and eating the ash. They soon rendered the planet barren and starved themselves. The strongest went into hibernation.

Once awakened, the small brood reproduce like insects and spread across the globe, consuming everything in their path. The fall of mankind is told by magazine clippings from Quinn’s scrapbook. The first sightings were treated like UFOs, but soon cities were in ruin. The Eiffel Tower and Big Ben are shown swarmed by dragons like bats fluttering around a gothic cathedral. They are the ultimate plague.

Enter the foil: Matthew McConaughey as Van Zan, a brusque, arrogant, cigar-chomping American rough rider, come to British soil to track down the granddaddy of all dragons. He rolls up in a tank with a unit of commandoes and a talent for dragon slaying. The pumped McConaughey – known first for Dazed and Confused and more recently for being arrested naked in his house for playing the bongos a bit too loudly – is pure America. He’s the would-be hero who shows up without being invited, determined to rescue the locals and save the world. Van Zan and his team are heading to London to slay the only male of the species, or so they think.

Reign of Fire is imaginative escapism. At times, even intelligent and imaginative escapism. You’ll see a dragon and a helicopter in a dogfight. You’ll see a man with an American Southern accent wielding a halberd. You’ll see dragons perched on the crumbling spires of a destroyed London skyline. It’s a 100-minute, pure-hearted action movie that, for once, doesn’t take a dragon-sized dump on its audience.

It's really the dragons that are most interesting about this game. All the while players are defending or chasing dragons, they're circling and firing at characters. They appear in several forms. The smallest of them are called Jackals, and they are wingless little creatures resembling Raptors. Apparently, as the dragons grow in size, they evolve from land-based creatures to massive winged beasts, which doesn't make too much sense because there are larger land-based dragons than some of the flying ones. The second land-based character is a massive, fledgling, fire-breathing dragon that quickly crawls around and breaths deadly fire on gamers. There is a small, quick airborne dragon as well as a massive, monster vulture attacker as well. Players will find variations on all of them as they progress through the game, and all are well modeled and textured.

On the other hand, the dragon levels are more fun to play. They control relatively well, with a bit of a learning curve, and they revolve around destroying a whole lot of stuff. Dragons deliver straight lines of fire for closer range attacks or they spout out long-distance fireball attacks. Dragons can also pick up human vehicles, which is a blast. They pick them up and drop them, a tactic around which a few levels are built. The dragon levels are undoubtedly more fun, yet still not explosively great -- just moderately good entertainment.