Might consider using the Chewintin Fanon and the 10L Towers (Actually 40L+) as a guide line since a Baron could afford that.
Size of your buildings and thickness of your walls determine so much. How much stone, timber, skilled laborers and unskilled laborers.
A visionary might use small stone "Bricklaying" construction method where a three to five foot stone wall be very effective against anything but an army with siege equipment which would require fewer masons. Use modern bricklayers for production.http://search.aol.com/aol/search?q=bric ... o-ab-en-us
Might be worth shooting an email to one of the projects for an estimate. Bottom third includes a few yard sticks on cost and income for the average king although bigger than what you want.
Using The Keep you could calculate the square feet of rock needed with a solid foundation. Determine how much the average teamster can haul.http://www.cas.sc.edu/hist/faculty/edwa ... ylife.htmlThe Keep
. Near the center of most medieval castles was the keep, which served as the main storehouse and residence and the tower of last resort. As such its structure was quite formidable; generally the tallest structure by several stories, its walls frequently measured 12-15 feet thick. The multi-story structure also reflected its varied functions. The bottom story was a cellar located half underground. Here was stored all of the castle's basic supplies including a portion of its water. Like the cellar, the next floor was entered through an external staircase. The floor itself consisted of two great rooms with smaller side rooms, service areas, and even a bed chamber or two coming off of these rooms. For example, someone entering this story at Dover castle in England could go into a rectangular hall approximately 20-25 feet wide and 40 feet long. In the middle of that hall was a doorway which led to another such hall that was only slightly narrower. Off of the first hall were privies, a guard room, a chapel, a service area, and possibly a kitchen, while off of the second hall, were two bed chambers and another privy. The largest hall would serve as a banquet and meeting room, and the smaller hall would house more private assemblies and serve as a sleeping chamber for soldiers and servants. Only the most highly ranked visitors in the castle would have separate bed chambers, and even then their closest servants would probably sleep in the same room. In many castles, these rooms were all that were available. A major castle, such as Dover, had another floor above this in the keep, and this third floor was in many cases a duplicate of the one below it. Finally, the top of the keep itself was a look-out post and could serve as sleeping quarters on hot, summer nights. By the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, great lords often felt that the facilities of earlier keeps, such as the one just described, were insufficient to support their more elaborate lifestyles. In this case they built additional halls which followed the design of manor houses alongside the castle walls. Even in this case, however, personal space was still at a premium in the medieval castle.
Description of a medieval castle based on the
History of the Counts of Guines, by Lambert of Ardres:
The castle Lambert of Ardres describes ... was not one of the newer masonry structures but the old motte-and-bailey timber fort of the tenth century. It had its hall and attendant service rooms (larders, pantry, and buttery) on the second floor, above the ground-level storerooms with their boxes and barrels and utensils. Adjoining the hall were 'the great chamber in which the lord and lady slept' and 'the dormitory of the ladies-in-waiting and children,' in other words, the nursery. The attic, designed mainly for the adolescents, was divided into two sections, evidently outfitted with pallets. On one side the sons of the lord stayed 'when they so desired,' and sometimes the watchmen and servants; on the other the daughters 'because they were obliged' --where they could be watched over until they were suitably married. There was only one 'great chamber'; the castle was not designed for more than one married couple. The heir could not marry until his father died, unless he found an heiress and won a house and bedchamber of his own.
From Gies & Gies, Marriage and Family in the Middle Ages, 143. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 120533.htm
ScienceDaily (July 3, 2012) — Entirely in keeping with medieval construction methods, a castle is being erected in the Austrian town of Friesach. The project, which is scheduled to last 30 years, is being accompanied by a number of historians. On July 5th, the corner stone for the visitors' centre will be laidhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/zei ... 22375.html
Beginning in 2013, a Carolingian monastery town will be built here using only the materials and techniques of the 9th century. From the mortar to the walls, the rain jackets to the menu, every aspect of the operation will be carried out as just as it was in the days of Charlemagne. "We want to work as authentically as possible," says Geurten.Overall, the construction site will have 20 to 30 permanent staff in addition to volunteers
. There has already been a lot of interest. "From Lufthansa pilots to a teacher, all kinds of people have applied." One candidate even sent his application written in medieval German on a real roll of parchment. Meanwhile, schools will likely be allowed to join in with the site's work for as long as a week. "We are developing a plan that will enable the children to prepare for their experience in the classroom first," says Geurten.
It will take about 40 years until the final stone is laid in the monastery church. By then it is highly unlikely that Geurten will still be alive. But he doesn't mind. "I just want a founding father's tomb in the crypt. Then they could come and light candles for me," he says.
Carts carrying building materials will be pulled by Hinterwald cows. With a height of around 115 to 125 centimeters (3' 9" to 4' 1")and weighing between 172 and 218 kilograms (380 and 480 pounds), these working animals come the closest to those used during the time of Charlemagne. "They are descended from the Celts' cattle," says Geurten.
Not just workers will have to adjust to medieval conditions, though. The plan also includes a special experience for visitors, who will walk a lengthy distance from the parking lot before reaching the construction site. "They should feel like they journey in time and leave the present behind them," says Geurten. If they get hungry, the monastery town will have a 9th-century menu. "The potato was unknown," says Geurten. "And there will be no coffee around to drink." Everything that the tradesmen and visitors will eat will be grown in the soil near the construction site.http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/st ... astles.htm
The use of stone allowed stone keeps to be built in an entirely different way from motte and bailey castles. Stone was a strong building material that allowed the builder to build up. Motte and bailey castles were built out of weaker wood and builders were limited to the size and height they could go to.
However, with a strong foundation, stone keep castles could be built high. This gave them the great advantage of visibility – allowing the defenders to see if an enemy was coming when they were still a distance away – thus allowing the castle to get its defences ready. Rochester Castle has views across the Medway estuary, so any attack by river would have been easy to spot.
Stone keeps had other defensive mechanisms. Motte and bailey castles were open to being set on fire. This was possible with stone keeps but it was much more difficult to set a stone keep alight. Whereas motte and bailey castles were surrounded by a wooden fence, the stone keeps could rely on outer walls made of stone (curtain walls). William’s stone keeps also had their ‘front’ door on the first floor. Wooden steps led up to it. If it was attacked, these steps would be knocked down. Those inside the keep would be isolated but those seeking to attack it, would have to get inside it somehow.
The most famous stone keep castle must be the White Tower at the Tower of London.
To the people of London, the completed building must have represented an awesome sight. The White Tower was, at 90 feet tall, the highest building in London. The thickness of the walls varies from 15 feet thick at the base to 11 feet thick in the upper storey. The White Tower was massively strong - it was never taken in combat and only fell to an 'enemy' in 1381 during the Peasants' Revolt when sympathetic guards let in the rebels. In military terms, the castle was never taken, and it is difficult to see how an enemy could have taken the White Tower with the weapons that existed in Medieval England.
The White Tower was built out of stone brought from Caen in northern France. William did not 'trust' Saxon stone and brought in stone from his own lands. He also used architects and builders he could trust while the heavy unskilled work was done by the English. Caen stone was a creamy yellow and gave the White Tower its nickname. However, in 1241, Henry III had the whole of the outside whitewashed so that it definitely became the White Tower!
William ensured that the White Tower had everything he needed kept within it. There was a well for fresh water, dormitories for sleeping, royal chambers for himself, a private chapel, huge open fires and guarderobes (toilets), kitchens etc. Should the keep ever be put in a position whereby it was isolated, William believed that it and he were in a position to defend themselves.
Rochester Castle is even higher than the White Tower standing at 113 feet - the highest stone keep castle in England. The walls of this castle are between 11 and 13 feet thick. Gundulf was again the chief architect here and he built the castle along the same geographic lines as a Roman fort that had been built at Rochester. The castle at Rochester was originally built for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Square keep castles cost a fortune to build. A king in Medieval England, on average, had about £10,000 to spend each year. The castle at Dover cost £4000. Rochester Castle cost about £3000 - i.e. a third of the king's annual income each year. This was at a time when a skilled labourer earned just 2 pence a day.