How were European forts or castles built in overseas lands?

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,710
Sydney
#32
Forts are military structures , Castles are residence and administrative focus
the use of the term forts became exclusive for fortification by the 16th century about
fortified castles are of middle age usage ,
later they were not fortified at all
 
Jan 2018
384
Sturgeon Lake Mn.
#33
Btw anyone know what’s the difference between castles & forts? That might be worth discussing!
I consider a castle a type of fort. As Sparky said they had administrative and residential functions as the seat of a lord that made them castles. I don't consider non fortified manor houses to be castles.
 
Sep 2017
119
Pennsylvania
#34
Wasn’t New France very vast in territory, making up a good big fraction of the area of North America & the Caribbean? Wouldn’t there have been plenty of quarries within that territory?
Indigenous North American peoples didn't do much with stone, they also didn't develop the kind of infrastructure needed to transport stone from quarries to sites. So, while there "were plenty of quarries in the territory" there really weren't any quarries in the territory.

In order to make use of local stone in many instances the Colonial powers would have had to:

1. Find and map the site.
2. Develop the infrastructure needed to quarry the site (roads.)
3. Quarry, cut and transport the stone.

The costs in both money and time required to make the first two steps a reality would usually exceed the cost of just shipping the stone from established European quarries by several orders of magnitude. Further more, in order to accomplish the second step, the Colonial powers would have been required to negotiate with local tribes, something that they had very little experience with and even less incentive to do. Never mind the fact that all of these things are rendered almost impossible because there is no secure fortification to project power from in the interim.