Talk:Castle

Used as a Residence?

The opening sentence seems to suggest that unless the structure was used as a residence for nobles, that it is not a castle. There are countless "castles" thoughout the middle east that were not set up as residences, but merely to project power over a certain area (particularly, though not exclusively built by Crusaders). I've never seen a suggestion by anyone that these "Crusader castles" were not, in fact, "castles." If we are going to split hairs and note that some people did live in them at some point, then the obvious counter is that some people lived in "forts" too.

There's not even a citation for the claim that they *must* serve as residences, just an assertion. There are those who see castles as primarily being permanently garrisoned, heavy fortifications established as a means of projecting power over a region. Under that view "castles" were co-opted as residences (and later castle development diverged down two paths, one line of development being heavier and heavier military fortifications and the other being stylized (but only lightly fortified, if fortified at all) residential palaces that were reminiscent of medieval castles).

Both the "residential" and "military" schools of thought about what makes a castle have their proponents, and the opening statement of this article, in my opinion, gives the false impression that those favoring the "residential" definition have won the debate. 68.173.222.34 17:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Americas?

Are there any castles in the Americas? JIP | Talk 08:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a List of castles in the United States. But whether you actually consider them real castles is another thing. Most of them were built far more recently than those built in Europe in the middle ages. So while they may have the appearance of castles (eg. Boldt Castle) they probably weren't built with any serious defensive purpose. --David Edgar 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your question is yes, there is at least one real castle in the Americas. The Castle is in Chapultepec Park, in the heart of Mexico City. Chapultepec Castle was a residence for Emperor Maximilian of Mexico and his consort Empress Carlota of Mexico. The Castle or Palace, which it is also called, was built in different stages...It was during the Second Mexican Empire in the 1860's that it reached its current state. The Aztecs considered the hill {Chapultepec means 'Grasshopper hill' in Náhuatl) on which it is built to be sacred. Emperor Moctezuma had a summer home there, before European take over. --C.Kent87 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a palace, not a castle. They are two different things as this article attempts to explain. Castles are primarily defensive structures. ::Supergolden:: 09:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The only real castles in America were in New France; the continent's only fortified city is Québec (the Citadelle of Quebec), while some of Montréal's outlying forts where built like the fortified manor houses of France. Fort Longueuil, built in 1695-1698, for example, had conical roofs on round turrets in each corner, and has been described as "the most medieval looking fort built in Canada". The "most substantial castle-like fort" near Montréal was Fort Senneville, of 1692. Both of these, among others, fit the articles description of a defensive "residence and commands a specific territory". --Grimhelm 13:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias

This article barely mention anything about castles and fortresses in Italy... this is unbelievable, as the art of castles there is among the best in the world!! Wanna speak of Castel del Monte? Or Italian Renaissance military architects? Further, it cites all the same, usual castles that are cited in ALL banal sources... ideas for something more detailed and in-deth are welcome!!!... Maybe I shall provide in the futre when I'll have some time, but if you can, you're invited to so something to recover this unfair situation. Bye and good work. --Attilios 23:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is a hodge podge of 100s (1000s?) of editors adding a few words, sentences or occasionally even entire paragraphs over the course of 5 years or so. The subject of castles is so large and diverse that it needs many separate articles. Not only on individual castles, but one on history, regional variations (not just Europe either), building techniques etc.. basically the subject matter is wide open for anyone who wants to take it on. Castles in Italy would be a great start if you know about it. -- Stbalbach 00:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I agree with you, but as the article is now, it should be entitled Castles in Britain... I have a good series of four Italian articles about history of castles, which looks less biased than the stuff here... I'll provide as soon as possible to translate it (don't worry, it si not too much biased towards Italy). Bye and good work. --Attilios 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it should be Castles in England, which is why I suggested moving the big chunk of stuff about 'Britain' to that page. ::Supergolden:: 10:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the number one thing that could be added to this article (in order to address bias) is a section on castles by region, divided into sub-sections that briefly describe specific characteristics of that region's castles, with a link to the main article. (British Castles, Japanese Castles, Italian Castles, etc.) Zzzronnyzzz (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Some cities later emerged from castles founded in this period: a notable example"

is the ending sentence of a section. Yes it really has nothing after that including a period. Some cities later emerged from castles founded in this period: a notable example is <insert city name here>. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.32.125.13 (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Rating

Sadly, I have to rate this article as "Start", as was already the case with the other two WikiProjects. It has the material to be "B" class, but as the core article for the Castles Wikiproject, this centres entirely around Europe. Realistically, it gives more of a list of facts for categorising individual castles rather than giving an logical outline of the development of castles. I have added some information regarding castles in New France, but we still need a lot more about Russia, the Middle-east and Japan.

The material, the potential and the sources are there, but there are virtually no direct references. There were two footnotes before I reviewed this article, and a few inline citations that should have been in footnote style. The style is messy, and this sentence cuts off randomly: "Some cities later emerged from castles founded in this period: a notable example" What? I may never know what this line was trying to tell me. The really sad thing is that I just noticed someone brought this up on 8 January, just before me. It still hasn't been addressed.

This article will have difficulty trying to keep the casual reader interested, and it needs some major cleanup and improvement before we can call this key topic an article. I will vote for Wikipedia:Article_Creation_and_Improvement_Drive#Castle. --Grimhelm 18:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Castle nomination is overdue on WP:ACID, and only one more vote is needed. --Grimhelm 08:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Famous Castles" and "Gallery" sections

I move that these two sections be deleted from the article. "Famous castles" is inherently indefinable, and is just an invitation to anyone to add their favourite. The same can be said of the gallery. Neither section contributes a great deal to the article, except in terms of length. Unless a definitive, unbiased list of the "most famous" castles can somehow be determined, let's remove it altogether. ::Supergolden:: 13:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. If there are no objections I will go ahead with this. The whole point of the gallery is already filled by the Commons, and unless the pictures can be used in a relevant context, there is little point in them being lumped together. The famous castles can also be removed, as it already offers a link to List of castles. --Grimhelm 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Architecture Improvement Drive

I don't advise anyone risk following this up. On your own head be it! Giano 20:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007 changes

Cleaned up some of the text. Provided clearer picture of motte. Reverted image from the Bayeux tapestry, since it is an internationally recognized source for castel development and history. CJ DUB 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of work has been done. I was disappointed to see all the images lined up along the right hand side, instead of staggered left and right per the recommended MoS guidelines. -- Stbalbach 19:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem - take over. I have yet to write one single word. I was about to start on the text today. The lead is dreadful and needs a complete re-write. The whole thing needs ordering and vast chunks of repetitition removing. Some fact are either wrong or plain misleading, and many important ones mising. The pictures were of little use and out of context. The Motte and bailey Image:Tapisserie motte maquette.jpg looked like a work of art brought home from school by a less than talented infant. I've no wish to tread on the expert's toes. Next time a see an improvement drive appeal - I shall no where to put it! Appologies for the ruffled feathers Giano 19:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Museum of Bayeux would like to hear that about their model, since historians do often use these techniques to show battles and fortifications. But since we already have the tapestry image, it probably was redundant. I've tried to realign/reformat some of the pictures per Stbalbach. --Grimhelm 20:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a rubbish image, because it depicts the motte being a mountain, a singular isolated rocky mountain! Maybe there is a castle somewhere in the world where the builders were so fortunate in the landscape. For a limited space encyclopedic article it is not suitable. At small resolution the image is ridiculous. Giano 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

I've been away for a while, so don't know who changed the castle images at the beginning of the article. As often, there's a flood of British castles, as if only in that countries castles could exist. I'll remove one or two to reinstate an international point of view.--Attilios 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea was to have images reflecting techniques described in the text, not plucked at whim because Italy or Spain was yet to be represented. This is an encyclopedic page not Miss World! Giano 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, then please find international examples instead of making this only marginally different from Castles in Britain. Until users'll be able to make such, I think the Globalize mark should remain. Bye. --Attilios 20:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The best illustrative images just happen to be British - I wonder why that is? Bye to you too. Giano 21:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the ones you know... I can't believe that here there's nothing best. For example, Castel Sant'Angelo is clearly more famous than Portchester Castle as a re-use of Roman structures for a castle. Ciao and good work. --Attilios 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Porchester image was the better examample of what I was planning to exemplify! Had I been allowed to finish!. Ciao! Giano 21:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Attilios, Great Britain is not the only place where there are castles...I had a picture of part of the Mexican Castle of Chapultepec...and someone took it down in favor of a British Castle -as if there weren't enough of those......then someone with a German sounding user name put up the Bavarian Castle! Please be fair and grant at least one picture per country with castles! C.Kent87 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Was the page concerned with Mexican castles? Giano 22:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, and you can stop being sarcastic...It was in the Revival Castles article (I'm sure you already know)...Just keep up with your ranting...C.Kent87 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Australia and Uganda are woefully underrepresented as well. You biased eurocentric, you. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose a page name move to Castles visited by Wikipedians on their holidays Giano

Surely that was the original name of this article? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be very interesting to see some pictures of the exploding castles in the 11th century, from no matter what early European states.[1] "In many of early states of Europe, castle-building exploded in the 11th century, as local warlords staked claims to formerly royal prerogatives in their petty states." BLAAAM! Frutti di Mare 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

LOL...haha ; ] C.Kent87 23:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You should also have Korean castles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.134.49 (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Content First

Sorry to be stating the bleedin' obvious - but perhaps it would be better to write the article first and then worry about how to illustrate it? --Mcginnly | Natter 11:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's true. I'd like to point out though, that of the three images of British castles, the Tower of London (England) and Caernarfon Castle (Wales) are quite notable (the latter was influenced by the walls of Constantinople), while the tapestry motte illustrates historical development. We don't need many more British castles, because to be fair and balanced, castles from other countries can be used to illustrate techniques. I would also like to point out that this article did have a large (and rather pointless) gallery, before I removed it to the following page for reference:

User:Grimhelm/Castle_Gallery

And while we're on the topic of content, wasn't a major point of this improvement drive to remove Eurocentric bias? Why was the section on Japanese castles removed? We should at least describe the castles of Japan, Russia and the Middle-east. --Grimhelm 21:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see...that's why you removed the picture of a tower of Chapultepec Castle in Mexico in favor of the German one...I must say, your very wishy-washy. Cali567 02:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... Firstly, Chapultepec Castle is not in Japan, Russia or the Middle-east, which is what I just said we needed. Secondly, "the German one" is better known (for example see the loathed Disney castle), while discussion on the talk page suggested that Chapultepec should be removed for being a palace, not a castle. Thirdly, it should be noted that I removed Inveraray Castle (Scotland) from the section on "Revival castles" to put Neuschwanstein in place, not Chapultepec. [2] The Chapultepec image was of a single 1833 watchtower rather than an effective picture of a whole castle, and when I removed it a week before, I did not try to replace it with Neuschwanstein (in fact, I had put <!-- --> around Neuschwanstein when I removed the "list of famous castle"). [3]

Please be more cautious before making such accusations, especially because I do think we need some content on colonial castles in the Americas (I added the paragraph on those in New France - one of the few to have remained intact during the drive - and hope to add some on castles in the Spanish Main in the future); but these draw on European influences and are not as needed as the three areas I mentioned. --Grimhelm 08:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, those are forts and mansions you are talking about. There are no true castles in North America, there are no castles in the spanish main. This page has only one teeny section for revival castles, and that where most of these Western hemispehere castles belong. CJ DUB 16:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, those are not mansions. You are correct if you mean there were no true castles in the United States of America, but there were castles in the Americas in general. They fulfill all the definition of castles, from both a defensive, architectural and residential perspective; in fact, castles were still dominant in Europe when they were first being built, and they were under the control of lords. The first of the three fort stages (by which I mean defensive structures) in North America were in fact Spanish castles, starting with Fortaleza Ozama:

"Simple but sturdy structures, these castles were essentially European medieval castles transposed to America."

Take a look at the picture on the right: were this 1502 castle in Europe, would you consider it anything other than such? It was only after the 16th century that these castles evolved into true forts in the Spanish Main, and New France built castles alongside forts until the late 17th century (it is just important to distinguish between true castles, true forts, and revival structures). I can (and have) provide sources, and it even falls within the scope of WikiProject Castles.

Not only that, it does belong in the section: "Response to the advent of gunpowder". This is how castle architecture responded to gunpowder in the New World. --Grimhelm 16:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Great point but they stopped building new castles in europe before 1503. The castles they were using in europe up to the 1600s were built in the medieval period. That is the key point. What was built in the new world was either fort or fortified residence or mansion, and they simply meet the needs of the time. Here's a question: I have a house with battlements on it in Africa. I shoot anybody who approches it. Its built on land our family has owned for generations. I have rights over the land and forest. I also have people who work for me. Do I own a castle? CJ DUB 17:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Oh I forgot: the house was built in 1992 and has a big sign that says "Yes. This IS a Castle" on the front.

Another excellent point, but it seems that is because African castle-like structures did not develop from a background similar to European castles, whereas the conditions in America were similar to those in Europe after the fall of Rome (such residential structures were under threat from Indians and other colonies). 1992 "African castles" would not be defined as castles by experts, and would instead be revival castles, whereas the sources I have cited refer to such forts in America as being true castles. Indeed, they follow a "direct line of descent" (if you will) from European castles. Also, it's not necessarily the period that counts: Japanese castles were being built at the same time as castles in the Americas, and these are considered castles.

Even if they weren't true castles, a paragraph on them is important for the development of castles; but in the end, it is the fact that we have reliable sources recognising these buildings as true castles that counts, and that is what will make Wikipedia a reputable encyclopedia. :-) --Grimhelm 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, there is not enough content on "real" (medieval) castles in this article (and what they are), to be going on any side trips to talk about things which are peripheral to the main topic: Castle. Incidentally this is a huge weakness of wikidpedia. for example you could write whole section on the transition from sqaure to round towers, but this isn't even mentioned!! My suggestion is to write a small MAX 2 sentence paragraph on these "late castles" that contributes to the article in a meaningful way. CJ DUB 13:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

re round v square towers, there is a brief mention in para 5 of Castle#Concentric and linear castles. David Underdown 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Great. One of the most significant developments and it gets 1/2 a sentence. CJ DUB 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph on castles in the Americas doesn't detract from the article, as it comes in towards the end when medieval castles (in theory) have already been dealt with. I think the paragraph should not be expanded any further, and just left as it is for the time being while we expand on the other, more important areas of the article. It is perhaps the best referenced part of the article, and we can use it as an example for how the rest of the article should look with source citations. Stbalbach has made the most important point so far; that this is supposed to be the "umbrella article" for main pages on articles by time, place and style. When we have an article discussing "Castles in the Americas" (and distinguishing between what are considered "true castles" and what are forts), we can 'siphon off' some of the less central material here. --Grimhelm 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

British Bias

Regarding the accusations of me being pro-British: Firstly I am not British! Secondly I imported several non British castles to this page. Thirdly I chose the best images to demonstrate what I was going to say in the text to explain the evolution of castles both politically and architecturally, i.e. the fact that northern French and English castles have great similarities for political reasons, as do castles in Italy have affinity with others in various parts of Europe, while the Moorish, Spanish and Sicilian castles have a similar relationship. Then we come to the influence they had on revival castle design in South America, and why that differed from the romantic Gothic employed at the same time in Northern Europe. Then we could have crossed to Australia and seen how they adopted the Scottish baronial to suit their climate [4], and again in New Zealand [5], not to mention the castles of the Crimea. Sadly one was never allowed to get that far because some people insisted on pretty pictures designed to include their favourite holiday snap, or suit their partisan tastes. This is an encyclopedia not a nationalistic ego trip. Giano 09:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha, very good explanation...it works for me. Although, I don't see what stopped you from putting various pictures (countries) in the first place. And you don't have to be British to be Pro-British...that we know. Lastly, Mexico is in North America, not South. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C.Kent87 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I meant South America! Giano 18:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

pros and cons

i need pros and cons for the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.134.49 (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

What do you mean? --Dweller 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I need the good things and the bad things about castles. Pros and Cons —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.134.49 (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

construction

the construction should have the process of making a castle. Such as what parts were built first and why. And also, u guys almost never talk about how to improve the written work but fight over the pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.134.49 (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Multiple articles

The main problem with this article is it does not have enough "Main article" links going to sub-articles. Just about every topic discussed in the article, and on this talk page, should have its own sub article. People are trying to do too much in this article. The subject of castles is vast.. each country should have its own article Castles in Britain for example. Time periods should have their own articles.. Medieval castles.. regions should have their own articles... Japanese castles.. different castles types.. this is a vast subject area. The purposes of this article is a sort of umbrella article that ties it all together. -- Stbalbach 19:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That is the most important point so far about this article. At the moment, it appears that the motte-and-bailey section is the only one to feature a main article. Every section here should have several main articles, and we should start drafting some of these right away. --Grimhelm 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Stuff we may need later

Doing a big edit, trying to get this page to follow logically from start to finish. I am removing this for now cause. while interesting, it kinda goes nowhere re the article: CJ DUB 14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In many of early states of Europe, castle-building exploded in the 11th century, as local warlords staked claims to formerly royal perogatives. Around the year 1100 there were in Europe tens of thousands of castles, belonging to bishops, abbots, marquesses, counts, often small size structures erected by petty lords to mark their new conquest of a small, though prestigious (and sometimes ephemeral) power. The construction and restoration of these structure, as well as the maintenance of the garrisons, was a task of the population, which in exchange obtained the possibility to take shelter within the walls in case of peril. According to Christopher Gravette, "the castle was not just a fortress, it was also the residence of its lord".

WTF? Concentric? Tower houses? Each of these are mentioned MULTIPLE times in the article. LOL. CJ DUB 15:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Too much about the carolingnian problems with vikings, pagans:

The pagans, however, were not the sole threat leading to edification of castles: in 920, the Bishop of Adria received the permission to erect a fortress in Rovigo to "save the people either from the heathens and from evil Christians". Henry I of Germany built a series of fortresses to protect the frontier west to the Rhine: a notable example is that of Werla, in Saxony, erected in 926 as a defence against the Magyars. This consisted in a circular wooden wall, already existing in the 9th century, which the king had surrounded by a stone wall with two gates.

Other stuff that doesn't belong, or could be fit in somewhere:

"; the type met with in the extant castles of Berkeley, Alnwick and Windsor in England. In southern Europe stone castles became predominant from the mid-11th century, spread by the Norman conquests; the same occurred in the Holy Land through the Crusades, although Islamic and Byzantine influences were also present. In Germany, the equivalent of the keep was called the Bergfried.

The Normans introduced two other types of castle. The one was adopted where they found a natural rock stronghold which only needed adaptation, as at Clifford, Ludlow, the Peak and Exeter, to produce a citadel; the other was a type wholly distinct, the high rectangular tower of masonry, of which the Tower of London is the best-known example, though that of Colchester was probably constructed in the 11th century also. But the latter type belongs rather to the more settled conditions of the 12th century when haste was not a necessity, and in the first half of which the fine extant keeps of Hedingham and Rochester were erected. These towers were originally surrounded by palisades, usually on earthen ramparts, which were replaced later by stone walls. The whole fortress thus formed was styled a castle, but sometimes more precisely "tower and castle", the former being the citadel, and the latter the walled enclosure, which preserved more strictly the meaning of the Roman castellum.

During the Middle Ages, a stronger need for security emerged, leading to the building of concentric castles. Concentric castles took far longer time to complete but they provided many lines of defence. Normally the outer wall would be finished first and then the rest; to protect the workers and the people already inhabitating the castle. The most famous example of concentric castle is the Krak des Chevaliers in the Holy Land, provided with no less than three wall lines. The L-plan also emerged in the Middle Ages; this design allowed defenders to fire upon invaders of the neighbouring wing. Examples of this design which have survived to the second millennium are Muchalls Castle and Neidpath Castle. Also, towards the rise in stone castles, many wooden motte and bailey castles would have the wall on the motte covered with a stone barrier, rather than build an entire new castle

Enceinte = curtain wall - or not

Certainly seems pretty similar to the description given at Curtain wall#Medieval curtain wall and is the term I recall from my childhood, maybe nomencalture has changed at a "professinal" level, but i suspect it's a term people will expec tto see, even if only to be told it's wrong. David Underdown 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• The enceinte is the method by which a castle is first enclosed as a measure of defense - a curtain wall linked by bastions is the most common form of an enceinte. Thus an enceinte wall - is an all enclosing wall traditionally of a fortified building. Very, very ocasionally it can refer to an enclosing ditch - (narrower than a moat), it can also refer to the entire area that is enclosed. It is fair to refer to a curtain wall as an enceinte wall, I would always qualify the term by adding wall afterwards. That removes any doubt. Giano 14:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Giano, so the (outermost) curtain wall would be the enceinte (wall) defining the enceinte (the whole fortified enclosure)? Castle#Enceinte could do with a bit of a revamp to sort the two suages. David Underdown 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• No I think I'll leave the revamping to others as it appears I do not have the requisite knowledge [6]. Giano 17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The enceinte is the whole fortified enclosure, including towers, walls, etc. Enceinte wall=curatin wall, it is part of the enceinte CJ DUB 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that was what I said in my second comment. Anyway I've made some small changes to calrify it for others (hopefully). My comprehension skills are normally (I like to think) pretty good, and was struggling to disentangle the original wording, hence my error. David Underdown 09:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Malbork Castle

Malbork Castle is not only lagest brick castle in the world. It is also largest medieval castle in the world. Two largest medieval castle are, Malbork Castle and Prague Castle but the Malbork Castle is larger. I think we should write this information under the picture.--193.109.212.37 08:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we need some external verification of this fact. Even the article on Malbork Castle does not make the claim you are making. How exactly does one define "medieval castle" anway? Brick castle is a much more clearly defined category. If you can find a reference, either on a website (which qualifies as a reliable source) or in a book etc (preferably in English, but this is not absolutely essential) then it can be included. I've had a quick look at the external sources listed ont he article, and none of them make this claim, even the UNESCO listing refers only to a "particualrly fine example fo a medieval brick castle" with no mention of size at all. I've also discovered that a large aprt of the text of the articel seems to be a copryright violation of the castle's own website. David Underdown 11:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the image, but moved it down to where brick is mentioned as a building material. Certainly isn't the first material that springs to mind for me, brought up on British castles, so it seems good to me to have an illustration of it in use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Underdown (talk • contribs) 09:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

worst opening sentence ever

Someone please fix it! --69.219.102.218 18:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicated Information

Duplicate info concerning murder holes was inserted by an IP in an unencyclopedic manner, and I reverted it. Just explaining this better than in the edit summary. Freedomlinux 17:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative castles

Potala Palace in Tibet also looks like a defensive structure. Can it (and similar Tibetan constructions) be considered an exotic form of a castle? Did such Tibetan constructions ever play a defensive function besides their religious and residential functions? Gantuya eng 02:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Parts

Can anybody include an image with the name of the castle parts ? (i.e. enceinte and so on) Thanks in advance.--Mac 13:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Belfast Castle Image

Here's a nice image which may or may not work in: Image:Belfast Castle.png Sagredo^Discussione? 22:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

FA Status, Anybody?

In my opinion, this article needs to be given FA status, it's so cool.--Princess Janay (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Alhambra

This sentence (and the accompanying pic caption) need reworking:

The Alhambra in Al-Andalus incorporated both defensive and residential features, but after the Reconquista unified Spain, its importance shifted and it became a palace under Charles V.

- the world-famous Muslim palace buildings are much more than "residential features"! It was always a palace, and the Renaissance palace is a totally separate building within the outer walls. It is in Granada - Al-Andaluz was a country, not a city. It's importance shifted because Granada ceased to be the capital of a state - the Hapsburg palace saw only occasional visits. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

British English

Shouldn't British English be used here as it is to do with the middle ages? Considering that AE didn't exist back then? --Camaeron (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'd imagine so. I actually don't know the "hot words" to look up to see which type of English this article uses (colour/color, favour/favor, nor civilisation/civilization are in this article), but British English seems to be the most sensible for the topic. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This being wikipedia, we should give equal weight to Eternian spelling. Ok, maybe not. Answering your question, "defence" is a British English word (US variant is "defense"), and has been in use on this article for quite some time. Bazzargh (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• D'oh. That's what I get for opening my big mouth edit tab. I HAVE THE POWER!! -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Windsor castle

Loving the Neuschwanstein pic; it's brilliant! But...shouldn't there be a pic of Windsor castle here? It is the biggest castle in Europe by some but not all measures after all. Not to mention being over 1000 years old! --Camaeron (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Castles by Century

We use Wikipedia for a number of uses, but mostly to research our illustrious ancestral tree. Much of our time is spent sifting through the various European
castles to find out which were build in the various specific centuries. It would be extremely helpful to people like us, if wikipedia could create a page that
lists the various castles by century.

Just today, we were searching for Danish Castles built in the 11th century, but to our misfortune, we could not find one on wikipedia. It would not only save us
hours, days, weeks, and even months of research time, but it would help many others in various forms of research.

If anyone decides to take up this pursuit, we would sincerely appreciate a heads-up at randallancestry@hotmail.com. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharmari (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

there are thousands (literaly!) of castles out there. I'll see what I can do, but its a major project that the commitee whould probably take up if told about it. Right now, I wan't to focus on driving this article to Featured Status. After all, it is a very important article, and shoud'nt be rated "Start-Class" for this long on the assesement scale!

Resident Mario (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Happy Holdays!

Removed external link to my website - Can I appeal the removal?

Hi,

First, I'm newbie at wiki talk so if I disappear it's because I got lost not because I'm trying to be rude.

Yeah, so I had some 'external links' to my website, British Castle, http://www.britishcastle.co.uk, removed from your wiki castle pages. I hoped to add more as I have been pleased with the traffic generated by some other links I've had on wiki castle pages. However, the links were recently removed. Someone did alert me to argue my case at the time but I didn't know how to. So here I am now.

I understand my sites does show ads but then so do quite a few of the external links on other wiki pages. And the decision to remove is also confusing since I have on other external links on wiki pages which have happily served your visitors for maybe a year now; http://www.craigmillarcastle.com, http://www.holyroodhouse.com and http://www.pendenniscastle.com. Over the course of time, I developed the British Castle website and to avoid duplicating content I've since redirected individual castle sites to the (for want of a better word) meta site. Have these links been kept because of the pertinent domain names? I wonder? But then britishcastle.co.uk should have been okay. IMO, there is some quite good and useful content on the site, eg., official website of each castle, easy to use google maps, great stock photos, a useful search facility, eg., what king/castle association can be found and, of course, I must mention some great content from a number of authors from around the world (which I did pay at least UK minimum wage).

Finally, in support of my case, I like to think I apply a good ethical standard to my websites. An example of this, I have always included a link back to Wiki whenever I've been unable to source content commercially, eg., at http://www.britishcastle.co.uk/index.php?pageId=CraigmillarCastle_Surrender (from the photo) or a better example at http://britishcastle.co.uk/index.php?&pageId=GuildfordCastle_theCastle. Indeed, there are some 20 pages and 40 individual links to wikipedia.org pages from the British Castle website.

I'd be pleased to hear your considerations.

Regards, Mike Flynn forthside.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthside (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

edited ( and now signed !? Forthside (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC) )