Talk:Castle

Pre-FAC comments

I think this is pretty good, but some comments based on a quickish skim:

As a social etc centre. The text rightly says "recent trends to view castles less as military institutions and more as social structures has lead to calling into question the current definition" - but there is little on this (obviously huge) subject.

In other cultures. The Japanese castles presumably have no direct connection, but are certainly a remarkable case of parallel evolution. I would add a section on them and other cases, such as the Tibetan/Bhutanese Dzong architecture (fortified monasteries, still the centre of all government offices in Bhutan), and distinguishing them from Kremlins and Chinese city walls etc, which are much larger citadels or fortified cities. The see also section could largely be cleared out. Perhaps mention briefly "fortresses" into WWI, with links - 1914 invasion of Belgium etc.

Maybe a section on some major sieges, successful & unsuccessful, which define the rise & fall of the castle.

An OR thought. Historians are very apt to be rude about the practical utility of some late medieval fortifications. Just because eg an English castle could not expect to survive a siege by a royal army with cannon & other machinery does not mean it might not provide great comfort in the face of a persistent low-key threat from rag-tag bands of retainers of some local magnate, or revolting peasants, minor rebellions, roving bands of Scots or Welsh raiders etc etc. See the Paston Letters. Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and for just a quick skim they're pretty pertinent. I disagree that there's not much on castles as social centres rather than military institutions: the landscapes section is pretty much about how castles affected the area around them in a non-military sense. I also thought that the information about licenses made it clear that castles were important as status symbols. This is one example of how the social side is integrated into the article rather than hidden away in a separate section (landscapes is a different section because it doesn't necessarily fit into the chronological nature of the history section, but is a very important subject). Another is the use of brick, or the great cost of castle building in stone (although this is more implied). More may need to be woven into the article though as, for example, Cathcart King (one of the sources I have relied heavily on) is writing before the change of views of the 1990s. Thinking about it (completely OR in this instance) Coulson is one of the new breed of historians emphasising the non-military side of the castle, and yet he didn't mention its role as a status symbol when recounting the castle's origins, so there is still a lot of inherent bias for castle historians to counter.

Shiro may be castle like, but I have yet to come across a source that calls them proper castles. And while I have naturally tended towards sources in English, so with a bias towards England, the journal Chateau Gaillard is an international publication with articles in several languages and a leading castellology periodical. From a skim of the contents page of about a dozen of their journals (there aren't very many as it's biannual and has only been going since the early 60s), Japanese "castles" are not mentioned. This isn't exhaustive, but if it were a part of castle studies, I would have expected at least one article to show up as there are dozens on Denmark, which isn't especially know for its castles. Equally, I have not found a source that explicitly states that shiro are not castles, although I suspect that this is because it's easier to define what is a castle than list everything that is not. Any source seriously discussing Japanese "castles" would have to start with an explanation of why they should be considered castles and that would have to be explained in this article, however I wonder if it can be found. An offhand description somewhere of shiro as castles is not enough, because it could be lazy writing and the explanation is perhaps the most important part. Until someone can provide a good source about it (and I have looked myself with little success), I don't think they can be included in the article despite their apparent similarities. That's what the see also section is for. That said, I'd love to get rid of the see also section (I think it should at least be trimmed with a heavy hand) as I don't think it's terribly helpful and is prone to sprawl.

While I can understand mentioning WWI (some castles such as Pevensey were refortified with pill boxes) I think it's important to refer back to the definition of a castle: "a private fortified residence". Although Pevensey was refortified, it was more due to the importance of its location than anything else, and it was a state initiative rather than that of a feudal lord. Refortification might deserve brief mention in the revival section (which would have to be given a broader title to include modern usage).

Despite the obvious use of castles in warfare (some wars were essentially just a series of sieges), after reading about a dozen sources I don't feel that a section on defining sieges would work, mainly because you don't get many defining sieges. One of the most important sieges in medieval warfare was the siege of Constantinople in the 1450s where the power of the cannon was demonstrated to all of Christendom. But that wasn't a castle siege, it was a city. The innovations in castle technology weren’t the result of a single siege, and as is evident from the innovation and scientific design section, change was often slow to happen in any case.

Regarding your final point, you're right (I recall seeing something very similar written elsewhere, I should have made a note of it) and it had occurred to me that I have neglected Scottish and Irish tower houses and bastles which were built along the as late as the 17th century to give protection against raids but aren't considered true castles because they're not "seriously" fortified, but that should be fairly easily fixed with an extra sentence or two. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you've covered landscaping & castles as status symbols, but nothing on castles as centres of administration, justice, and social and cultural life. Courtly love, and the much-hyped role of the chatelaine running the castle while her husband was away crusading or whatever. Nor anything on the touring lifestyle of medieval monarchs and magnates. There also is only a few words on the (very diffuse) topic of how well garrisoned castles were kept - contrary to the popular image many seem to have had next to no effective military personnel in place most of the time; other were kept well-garrisoned. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the history section is more focussed on changes in the structure rather than what happened within its walls. I'm not sure if the section should be expanded and the information integrated or if it should be given a separate section. The current layout of the history section makes sense in my opinion, and the administrative role might not fit into a chronological timeframe, but I'm concerned that by separating the information into another section it may seem peripheral. What approach do you think would be better? Nev1 (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a section before or after the landscape one would work well. Court (royal) is pretty poor, but should be linked. I think we are generally pretty poor in this sort of area. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How's this for the defensive practicality of some later castle like structures? Also, I have some more information on garrisons ready to add to the article (I just need to copy and paste from Word) and I was going to add it to the warfare section, but it feels too hidden away. It's a popular misconception that castles had large garrisons all the time, and I'm tempted to move the section higher, but I'm wary of giving it more weight that the aspects of symbolism and administration. As an alternative, would it be enough to mention the garrison in the warfare section, leaving it where it is, but make a note in the lead?

As for the social and administrative role of the castle, part of the problem is that castellology is dominated by archaeologists. Stuff related to the workings of the court doesn't leave much of an impression on the archaeological record, at least not when compared to the military and symbolic side (especially landscapes). Therefore, research in this area is a bit sparse, as demonstrated by leafing through John Kenyon's bibliographies. The most promising source look like J & F Gies' Life in a Medieval Castle (1975) and Johnson's Behind the Castle Gate, although I've been able to make a start with some of the books I already have. Nev1 (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 

And how's this for the social side of castles and lordship? Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've provisionally made this edit regarding the garrison. Nev1 (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• The new section is certainly an improvement, but some rather expected, if still worth saying. There is a lot on this from the literary angle, especially from the French - the chatelaine left in charge as princesse lointaine and so on. I've been meaning to sit down with Georges Duby ed.,A History of Private Life, Vol 2 Revelations of the Medieval World, 1988 (English translation), Belknap Press, Harvard U, pp. 397-423 "Civilizing the Fortress, C11-C13" & 470-475 on the Palais des Papes, surely the grandest castle residence to survive largely intact (it was actually besieged for several months). Both look good on the interaction of design & social rather than military requirements. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added some stuff on the chatelaine (although I've not used that name as it can also refer to the keys to the household and I don't want to overcomplicate things by having to explain the significance of that). You're right about that more is needed on the influence of the household on architecture, such as the great hall. I think I should be able to find something on that. The library I'm using only has volumes 1 and 4 of A History of Private Life, so any assistance in that respect would be very welcome. That said, Palais des Papes is a papal palace, if the source describes it as a castle then fair enough, it would make a great example, but otherwise I’d be wary of including it. In fairness, even buildings called castles aren't necessarily castles, so being called a palace doesn't preclude Palais des Papes being a castle. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a point they make, saying it's a fortified palace, like the medieval Louvre, the Château de Vincennes (which still looks like a castle) & others. I'll try to add a bit; of course they are mostly using French examples. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

French examples would be great. I think a statement on how expansive the architecture could get (backed up with an example or two) in the social centre section would perhaps round it off well not that I've added some more without getting off topic. Nev1 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

More pre-FAC comments...

Concerns -

• I"ve thrown up cite needed tags where I felt they could be done.
• You need to account for English royal castles, which are classified as castles but were not owned by a "feudal lord". Also applies in Normandy, where they are "ducal castles". Although English castles were often built by local magnates, they were held to be the king's and the kings went to great lengths to ensure they could control the castles, thus making them outside the "definition" being used here. Almost all the Welsh castles of Edward I were royal constructions, not by local lords, so are they no longer "castles"?

Well according to the confected definition being insisted upon here, those structures in Wales are actually "fortresses" whose names include the word ".... Castle".122.106.255.204 (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought this too - also most Crusader Kingdom castles belonged to the orders or the monarch, even if a lord was sometimes appointed to run them. I suspect the same may be true of other places, especially for those built to control strategic points. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Origins
  • Ooooh... Problem. There is now a school of historical thought that isn't sure that "feudal" society developed in the 9th-10th century. It's not so simple as it was once thought. (see Susan Reynolds)
  • "Previously, warfare in western Europe was mostly infantry based, however mounted fighting developed." Developed when? Why? Context is missing and this sentence doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
  • "not introduced to the British Isles until the 11th century by the Normans, shortly before their invasion of England in 1066" hm... a bit too simplistic here. Better to say "introduced into England shortly before the Norman Conquest in 1066" and leave out the other bits, as some feel that it was the English lords that introduced them, or the English king who introduced the Normans who introduced the castles. Stick with simple here.
  • "The motte and bailey – a motte with an outer enclosure – remained the dominant form of castle in England, Wales, and Ireland well into the 12th century, although after 1154 it was very rare for a motte castle to be built in England." Makes no sense. Either it was rare after 1154 or it wasn't, and if it wasn't. While I understand what you're trying to say here... it needs a better way of wording it.
  • Isn't the White Tower in London a donjon???
  • "Although England suffered internal strife such as the civil war during the reign of King Stephen (1135–1154), states such as England, Castile, and parts of Scandinavia were generally free of this localised warfare between lords due to strong monarchies." Again, confusing, because you first mention civil war in England then negate that by saying it was generally free of civil war. Better to do something like "Generally states such as England, Castile and the Scandinavian countries were free of localized warfare between lords due to their strong monarchies, England did suffer a small period of warfare during the reign of King Stephen." When, incidentally, a number of local castles were built by lords. Also, Scandinavia and strong monarchies in this time frame? Really?
• Sourcing... this ties into the above. The R. Allen Brown book is really just a reprint of the revised 1977-76 edition and you need to be careful in using it for information as some of it has been superceded or at least challenged to some degree. And do not use Tuchman, she's a popular historian and will not pass must at FAC in regards to the "high quality" sources given how much else is available. I strongly suggest obtaining a few more of the "further reading" books and using them to some degree.

I disagree that Tuchman, Barbara (1979), A distant mirror : the calamitous 14th century, Macmillan, ISBN 0333197526 is unacceptable as such at FAC. At least Wilkinson, Philip (1997), Castles, DK Children, ISBN 978-0789420473 no longer seems to be used, & could be removed! Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with Tuchman, but there are some others who probably will (it might not get raised, but it should be easy to source to other more scholarly sources). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sourcing cont. - Suggest trolling through the Royal Historical Society Bibliography on Castles for additonal sources.

These are just some off the cuff comments, I really dont' have time to do an indepth reading so concentrated on the areas I'm most familiar with. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments Ealdgyth, I'll get to work on them. While it is correct that Allen Brown has been challenged, it is often more in regard to his interpretation of castles as primarily military structures and his opinion that the 13th century Edwardian castles were the pinnacle of castle building, after which it declined. Despite this, his seminal book is still relevant, and there's a spirited defence at the start of the 2004 reprint. When using Allen Brown as a source I did so with caution that his ideas could be outdated. For instance, the definition of castles he framed is still widely used today, although often with caveats and clauses that make it much less memorable. As a general rule, it works most of the time. Perhaps one instance in which I failed to exercise enough discretion regarding Allen Brown as a source is the link with feudalism. (Also, Allen Brown includes kings in feudalism, thereby getting round the problem of royal castles. Royal castles most certainly are castles, and it is my poor explanation of feudalism that has generated a problem, but hopefully it should be easily fixed. It's lucky you pointed that out as I knew what I meant, but reading it again it needs some work.)

I'm happy to get rid of the Tuchman reference as it adds nothing to the article and I was left wondering what made her a reliable source and was toying with the idea of removing her as a reference anyway. There's already the example of how many people it took to build Beaumaris Castle so another is not necessary. Thanks for the link to the RHS bibliography; I had looked through John Kenyon's three-volume bibliography (which I really should have added to the further reading section), but while a fourth is planned it isn't out yet and the current lot runs out at about 1989. While the article has a 19-strong bibliography, I'm assuming you're concerned that the article relies on eight or nine books in particular. As I've already mentioned, Allen Brown is a good introduction and still relevant although should be treated with caution. Cathcart King is given a lot of weight but, I feel, with good reason. He fills in a few gaps that many English authors have overlooked, especially beyond Britain. In the course of building this article I've found that many English language sources focus on England, with little context, however Cathcart King is much more broad. (This is presumably because he's a polyglot and has a wider range of sources to work from than most authors. When he quotes a German or French source he doesn't bother to translate so seems to take it for granted that it's legible. It's annoying, but my only real objection to his work.) Although he was writing in the 1980s, he is still very relevant and I believe that is backed up by Coulson 2003, Castles in Medieval Society, who seems to agree with much of what Cathcart King says, although Coulson puts stronger emphasis on the role of symbolism in castle architecture so I'll go back to his book to bring a little more of the social side of castle development to the article. That said, Johnbod has raised some points above that will probably lead to the addition of further sources to the article.

While a wide range of source is of course desirable, I could use four different sources to back up the same sentence which seems superfluous when one would suffice. Friar is used a lot because in most books on castles terms such as curtain wall, donjon, machicolations etc are taken for granted, but the Friar book gives a brief description of the features of a castle (along with a lot of other stuff) and is a very useful reference. Friar is the perfect book with which it establish what is essentially the vocabulary of castle studies (essentially the common features section and the explanation of concentric fortification) without being either too brief or too detailed, and in the process of doing so he gives some examples of a type of site or something that is used as a supplement elsewhere in the article. While I have chosen to defend a few of the sources used in the article here, it is because I was aware that I was using them a lot as I was building the article and thinking “is this justifiable”. I think the answer is yes because these books are generally not outdated and are still referred to in castle studies, while something like Friar provides a central point to refer back to for the basics. The sources have been used discriminatingly, for example while Cathcart King's books are in my opinion fine sources, they do not focus on stuff like how the castle affected its landscape. That is a more modern development (1990s onwards), and authors such Robert Liddiard and Oliver Creighton are at the forefront of such subject areas so I think it's acceptable to use them as the main sources in such sections.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean about the White Tower. It is a donjon, and it's only mentioned once in the article when it's described as a keep, but the two terms are essentially synonymous. Nev1 (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The section on Origins I was reading implied that the donjon type didn't start up in England until later.... the "The elaboration of the main tower in this period is also demonstrable in England, with the construction of sites such as Castle Rising in 1138." gives the impression that this must be the first donjon type in England, since you mention it instead of an earlier one. As for the sourcing, be prepared to be grilled on why you didn't use a particular source when you get to FAC. (For an example see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mandell Creighton/archive1) It's becoming a trend... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Crikey, I'd not seen that! However destructively put, I think his question is a very valid one about what seems to be the only major modern book on a small topic, like most on FAC (increasingly so). If one of your medieval guys had recently received a quasi-full-length biography, I'm sure you wouldn't FAC him without using it. But this is a big, big topic, and I don't myself believe that any single book can be considered indispensible in this way. Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a very big difference I think, in that the topic of that book is the Creighton's marriage, not Mandell Creighton per se. However, I digress. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The "quasi-" above was for that. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, I see. It would be easiest to get rid of Castle Rising as an example and just explain in the image caption that Castle Rising was one such donjon in the more elaborate style. Would that make it clearer? The section doesn't imply that donjons were a new development does it? It's not meant to as they were more an evolution of existing keeps. I'm prepared to justify my choice of sources; it is something I've thought about while writing the article as there are so many books on the subject. Nev1 (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it implies that donjon's were a new development or not, I've read quite a lot since then. (For my sins, not only do I have MC above, but I have Catholic Church on my watchlist too... and am involved in trying to stay abreast of things there.) I was just wanting to point out to you the possible pitfalls before you hit FAC (grins). HOpefully, I'll have time to hit the article with a good readthrough in the next couple of days. But the whole feudal treatment is a bit too simplistic and I really suggest at least attempting to read a couple of very recent overview works on military/social history before going to FAC. Morillo's Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings treats castles and warfare in their whole context, as does Prestwich's Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: the English Experience, which might give a bit more background. And Johnbod's going to be excellent on the art/architecture background here, I'd listen carefully to what he has to say (He's who I pester about those subjects before I go to FAC). Kaufman & Kaufman's The Medieval Fortress is also excellent and has a wider range than just England, as well as discussing forts and cities in combination with castles. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I got hold of Reynold's book, but it's probably not the best place to start as it doesn't seem to deal with the origins of castles. In her own words, the purpose of the book "is most emphatically not to prove feudal-vassalic relations or institutions were less important than is generally thought, nor to trace their rise or say when and where they appeared... These seem to me meaningless subjects. My object is to explore modern concepts of the fief and of vassalage on the one hand and the evidence of property law and of social and political relations that I find in medieval source on the other" (p. 14). The part in italics (my own emphasis) makes me think that while she may have heralded a change towards the subject of feudalism, what I am looking for is elsewhere, and as such I have not properly read the book. I'll keep looking. Nev1 (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't personally agree with the statement that "Generally states such as England, Castile, and the Scandinavian countries were free of localized warfare between lords due to their strong monarchies, England did suffer a small period of warfare during the reign of King Stephen", but that is essentially what Martin Aurell says. I don't know much about Scandinavia or Castile, but England suffered a few rebellions by barons so the assertion doesn't quite ring true for me. But it's a multi-author volume and part of a series with a main editor so presumably Aurell isn't on his own in that opinion. I'd be happy to remove the statement, although I think the preceding sentence (ie: "Historians have interpreted the widespread presence of castles across Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries as evidence that warfare was common, and usually between local lords") needs an alternative view to balance it. I'm sure Charles Coulson will have something to say on the matter. Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to sort out the explanation of feudalism, but hopefully this edit makes things a little clearer. I don't want to go into too much detail because although import, it could get a little off topic. I'm letting Charles Coulson take the lead in this instance as he's pretty recent (2003) so should be on top of the arguments about the origins of feudalism etc. He is slightly reluctant to use the term, and sometimes it's almost conspicuous in its absense, but I think this reflects how the argument about the origins of feudalism impacts on castle studies. Nev1 (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Progress?

How far have Ealdgyth's and Johnbod's concerns been addressed? If I can get the thumbs up from both, I'd like to take the article to FAC (I've started copy editing to iron out the prose). Nev1 (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to add more, from Duby & maybe another book, but they will not be huge additions & things seem slow at FAC these days, so don't wait for me. Johnbod (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You've addressed most of my concerns. One thing you might point out is that castles aren't just built by laymen, but by churchmen also. Bishops and abbots held castles in England, and built them. (In fact, Rochester Castle was built by a bishop and there are several other bishops who were known as architects of castles). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Chapultepec Castle - inclusion dispute/discuss

In Mexico, the 18th-century Chapultepec Castle was built in the Gothic Revival style, and utilized a central tower, turrets, merlons, < ref >"File:DSC00621.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org. 2006-11-19. Retrieved 2009-11-12.< /ref > and a mock curtain wall of rock.< ref >http://www.luxuriousmexico.com/wwwluxuriousmexico/Luxurious%20Mexico/Circuits/Deluxe%20fascinating%20Mexico/The%20Chapultepec%20Castle%20in%20Mexico%20City%20Photo%20by%20visitmexico.jpg< /ref >< ref >http://alpha.furman.edu/~rfriis/chapultepec-castle.jpg< /ref >< ref >Antecedentes históricos (in Spanish), Museo nacional de historia, retrieved 2009-11-05< /ref >

This was killed as wp:OR. While I can't agree with that argument, I do support the removal. The castle has its own article, and we already have a list of castles. That seems adequate coverage. I don't see how its addition here helps this article, which is large... and there are many, many *MANY* castles, many of which have wonderful stories... and they can't all be listed here. I oppose its addition unless there is more reason to include than meets the eye.- Sinneed 04:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - it's certainly not Gothic Revival (except the gatehouse), but castle-like. It gets points for being perhaps the only castle bombarded by the US army (Spanish link), but ultimately I have to agree with Sinneed. I couldn't get link 2 to work. Johnbod (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it has an article of its own means nothing, and there is no search for "coverage". Every other structure listed also has an article of it's own and is listed as well. The fact that it is in North America, however, is to its benefit - Is the aim of this article only to cover those structures in Europe? There's no reason for that. C.Kent87 (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed Chapultepec Castle as original research because the sources did not specifically state that it was part of castle revivalism. This may seem overly pedantic as the sources do state it's Gothic, but revival castles were only one part of the Gothic Revival. The sources for the current examples explicitly link them to the revival movement and were influenced by castle architecture. Pictures were produced as sources, but that is precisely what original research is: drawing your own conclusions from the evidence. Sure, Chapultepec has turrets and crenelations, but who are we to say that the architect wasn't inspired by the walls of Constantinople or a Roman fort, or hadn't been to the east and seen the fortifications there? It isn't enough that Chapultepec is called a castle as Maiden Castle is just one examples of many structures that are called castles but are most definitely not. The vast majority of people who use Wikipedia (both readers and writers) are not experts, and that's why Wikipedia has its no original research policy.

Even sourced properly, the inclusion of Chapultepec had started to turn the later use and revival castles section into a glorified list, and I also agree with its removal for that reason. Nev1 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, the only difference being that the "glorified list" was of British castles. Assuredly, it is not exclusive to that area of the world. There is also no weight in your equation of it to a mound in the countryside. And there are sources on architects who worked on Chapultepec and other revival castles. Those architects specialized in Medieval and Gothic revivalism. In other words: Castle architecture. Also interesting is that Chapultepec Castle was built by Maximilian I of Mexico - of the House of Habsburg whose Wittelsbach cousin built Neuschwanstein Castle - twenty years after. Also as a source states "...Gothic was especially suited to this aim. Scores of houses with battlements and turrets in the style of a castle were built in England during the last years of the 18th century."[1] How is Chapultepec any different? As I've stated before, a reason for its inclusion would be the fact that its in North America - to explore the Castles infuence on other parts of the world. C.Kent87 (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an argument for inclusion there.- Sinneed 07:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There are many connections between other revival castles and Chapultepec - "...Carl Gangolf Kayser, an Austrian architect who worked for the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico was member of the sculpture class at the Academy of Fine Arts of Vienna and Munich. Later he specialized in Mediaeval and Gothic revival architecture. [2] He worked on castles such as Kreuzenstein, Hardegg, and Liechtenstein Castle and was one of the architects that planned Chapultepec Castle.

It is also a fact that Chapultepec Castle and Neuschwanstein Castle (the very castle pictured in the article), along with Herrenchiemsee Castle, were planned by a common architect, Julius Hofmann [3], others being Ramon Rodriguez Arangoity, Manuel Agustín Mascaró, and Eleuterio Méndez. Chapultepec has even been used as a model of castle architecture to design other buildings such as the 13th Regiment Armosry (Sumner Armory), Bed Stuy, Brooklyn [4] - An 1894 article [5] calls it "fortress-like" which, naturally, is because it had been a fortress in the past - That was the medieval origins of a castle, no? As for the "storming" of the Castle of Chapultepec - It was "carried out by the United States troops, who, after severe hand-to-hand fighting, penetrated to the fortress and made their way to the turret, to haul down the banner upon which the colours of Mexico, and the eagle, serpent and cactus were displayed." [6]. Chapultepec is absolutely "part of castle revivalism" as User:Nev1 puts it, and as to expand the knowledge of the reader about Castle revivalism - and its influence on other countries - should be included.. C.Kent87 (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is all very interesting, and seems to be a great justification for, and possibly content for the article on the structure itself. But it already has an article. I read your post on my talk page (I encourage you to make them here, you don't need to convince me, you need to convince the community), and I think I understand your points, and see them as interesting, but I don't see them as swaying me to agree with your case that this structure needs to be listed here.- Sinneed 07:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does any structure need to be listed? (And that is not sarcasm) They are included in this article so that the reader can understand the scope of castle revivalism and to learn it's influence. The inclusion of Chapultepec Castle in Mexico would illustrate the "later use" as the title implies - it was a North American Castle used to house sovereignty - and the only one with that designation. It would illustrate to the reader that Castle-influenced architecture had a life outside of Britain and other European countries. The inclusion of the British castles is great. Inclusion of those in other areas would make it even better. Chapultepec Castle is the best candidate for that. C.Kent87 (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a source explicitly stating that Chapultepec is part of castle revivalism? I have already explained in this thread why those links you just provided constitue original research. Nev1 (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to look at the refs again, but it seems pointless to deny that the building is indeed a revival castle-ish palace. But as to whether it should be mentioned here, it's best claim is surely that it was attacked, defended, & actually stormed by the US army, which the architect surely never anticipated or planned for. A couple of lines on the irony of this would make an amusing point. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Some text was re-added, with one bad source and one that just doesn't seem to help. I killed the photography site... pretty pictures but it isn't an authority on castles that I can see. The other is a mention of the museum that is in the castle today. I am not killing this, but I don't support its being added.- Sinneed 08:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'photography site' listed biographical information about Carl Gandolf Kayser (and a hundred others) - "Born February 12, 1837 in Vienna, died September 2, 1895. He was an Austrian architect and worked for the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico, a member of the sculpture class at the Academy of Fine Arts of Vienna and Munich. Specialized in Medieval and Gothic revival architecture, announced as court architect for Mexican Emperor, planned the remodelling of the Palacio Nacional in Mexico City and Chapultepec Castle. After the Mexican Empire collapsed in 1867 he returned to Austria and worked on several medieval buildings for example the castle of Kreuzenstein, Hardegg or Liechtenstein Castle." - And not meant as an "authority on castles". I've added another source cementing it as a castle. C.Kent87 (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)"one of the few revival castles" is cited to [7]. Please provide a quote, as I don't see that.- Sinneed 17:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this makes much of this debate obsolete - Can you let us all know where exactly we might find "revival Castle" in a dictionary or encyclopedia? Is it an actual term? For instance, we find a glossary such as this one about castle architecture [8], but one can't find the term. Or perhaps looking here [9]... but one finds no mention of it either; the closest to describing a "revival castle" is this - "Even the United States claims hundreds of modern "castles" built by wealthy businessmen". And Chapultepec Castle doesn't fit into that definition, as it has an ancient and historical past (roughly ranging from the (corresponding) medieval period to the 18th and 19th centuries, even before Neuschwanstein Castle was planned).

Let's take the following sentence, "------ is a 19th century Gothic Revival castle"... the terms "gothic revival" are found to mean anything from these 7 definitions [10]. However, the latter two words used together get no clarification - Does the term exist? If it doesn't, how do we obtain a source that explicitly states it for any or all hypothetical "revival castles".

Using Merriam-Webster [11], we enter 'revival castle' where it says "Enter Word or Phrase" - Nothing comes up. Again, using Encyclopedia Britannica[12], we get nothing. Is it a loose term, does it exist officially at all? How about the term User:Nev1 uses - "castle revivalism"? Maybe you can enlighten us? If it does not exist, technically, we have no obligation to use the term or a source that states it. C.Kent87 (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)While I support the version rolled back to, (and think it is better) I can't agree with calling it "consensus".- Sinneed 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but Kent removing properly referenced material without a rationale is not the way forward. I have conceded that the palace can be included in the article without creating too much cletter, do we really need more changes? Nev1 (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for that. The changes that Nev1 took for clutter, actually made things simpler - it took an extra castle out, the word "particular" ('common' already explains it), and made it clearer that "other countries" also have these buildings. "Elswhere" gives the impression that revival castles are first and foremost "British", and that they "may also be found elswhere". Having four British castles, and a comment on the "last of its kind" in that country(as before), is what should be considered "clutter".

As it is, we have 2 sentences (one is practically a run-on) devoted to that country, yet only one sentence trying to explain two others? The clutter certainly isn't the last sentence. As for "consensus", where?

I propose, at the very least: "Revival or mock castles, most of which were country houses, can be found in many countries. Examples include Edwin Lutyens' Castle Drogo in Great Britain, Chapultepec Castle in Mexico, and Neuschwanstein Castle in Germany." The countries should all get the same mention. Any other ideas? C.Kent87 (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, so you're worried there's too much emphasis on Britain. Thank you for explaining your concerns. How about this. I've removed reference to Eastnor Castle and Castell Coch, although I've retained mention of Castle Drogo as it rounds the previous bit off, but have merged it with the previous sentence. Now there is only one example from Britain. I've also removed "particularly" as it was unnecessary. I was unaware that "elsewhere" indicated exclusion and that it was suggesting there are only mock castles in Britain, I merely thought it meant somewhere else as opposed to an implied location beyond the norm; anyway, I've removed "elsewhere". Chapultapec and Neuchwanstein are referred to without the suffix "castle" to avoid repetition (the word would be used about four times in one sentence otherwise), do you find this acceptable? Also, would you object to me mentioning that in Britain the "castle style" had an emphasis on the picturesque with a link to how the structure appeared in the landscape which has been described as "a peculiarly English mode" (Thompson 1987, 162)? Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Better, I know Britain offers many great examples and a list of great buildings is never long enough. But, yes, this gives it a more rounded feeling. I think leaving out "castle" on the Mexican/German ones is ok for now (as the sentence is). Can you provide an example for your idea about the "English mode"?

Even with this better arrangment, the entire section is a bit muddled. How do you feel about the paragraph changes I've made here? All of the information is the same - just tweaked a bit. The artificial ruins and follies should be mentioned after the castles (which they stand near). I've also fixed links and added one to artifical ruins. Please let me know if this flows better... C.Kent87 (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I think the bit about the "English style" is unnecessary in this article and would be a bit biased. The section looks a little odd with three short paragraphs (I'm tempted to merge them all) but otherwise it looks good to me. Nev1 (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Expansion?

I don't think so. Can I suggest renaming to something like Castles of the Western European tradition. I am considering renaming the article Cathedral architecture of Western Europe or whatever it's called. Maybe they could match? Amandajm (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. "Castle" is obviously preferable for all sorts of reasons.... but there you are. Amandajm (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a reasonable suggestion, but I don't think it's worth it to chase the bronze star. Moving the article to a new name would create a big dent in the 60,000 or so views the article gets each month. The subject's important and I think it needs to be located here. Nev1 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. a hatnote would be another approach, but i don't really think its necessary. A more clearly defined scope in the lead, with a link there to Japanese castle might be better. Cathedrals are defined by function rather than architectural form, in a way not true of castle, but true of "fort" or even "walled city". Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This might go some way to easing things. Nev1 (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope. To my non-expert eye, the Forts in India, several of which I have visited, actually look & functioned far more like castles than the Japanese ones, but of course they are never called castles, so have escaped the notice of FAC reviewers except Fowler (except see the ref at the Indian article, but this is clearly non-standard). Some link or mention for them should be added. The article conentrates more on the palace side than the fortified. Of course they are mostly enormous by European standards, & typically later in their current form. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Cryptic C62

Resolved issues.

"Over the extended period of time that castles were built they took on a great many forms with many different features, some of which, such as the curtain wall and arrowslits, were commonplace." It isn't clear if this is saying that curtain walls and arrowslits were common among various styles of castles or common among various structures including non-castles. I suspect it is the former. Suggested rewrite: "Over the extended period of time that castles were built they took on a great many forms with many different features. Some features, such as the curtain wall and arrowslits, were commonly found in castles from different time periods and regions." or some such. I'm sure you can come up with a better wording than mine. "A European innovation, castles originated in the 9th and 10th centuries when the fall of the Carolingian Empire led to the division of the empire's territory among individual lords and princes and an emphasis on personal defence." It isn't clear how "an emphasis on personal defence" fits into this sentence. If it is a crucial idea, I suggest splitting off into its own sentence and expanding it. "Castles controlled their immediate areas" As a native English speaker, I have never heard the term "immediate areas". Perhaps "immediately surrounding areas"? "they provided a base from which raids could be launched as well as protection from an enemy" Inconsistent pluralization. Suggestion: "they provided a base from which raids could be launched as well as protection from enemies" "Although their military origins are often emphasised" Emphasised where? Perhaps "in modern writing"? "but had their defences replaced later by stone equivalents." If stone offers better protection than timber, how can there be such a thing as a "stone equivalent"? "and rural castles were often situated near elements such as a mill, integral to life in the community." I find "element" to be an odd word choice here. Suggested rewrite: "and rural castles were often situated other structures, such as a mill" Also, which is integral to life in the community? The castle or the mill? "Urban castles were used to control the local populace and important travel routes, and rural castles were often situated near features in the landscape that were integral to life in the community, such as mills." Much better, but I think "features in the landscape" may imply only natural features. Assuming that natural features are important here, I suggest swapping this phrase out for "architectural and natural features" and then adding an example of a natural feature after "mills". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Ok, it now reads "situated near architectural and natural features... such as mills and fertile land." Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The third paragraph is somewhat confusing because it explains the "new" defense systems before the "old" defense systems, not to mention the boundaries between the two are somewhat unclear. I suggest rearranging to give a clearer timeline. I have made these changes. In some cases, it was simpler just to cut out a bit as it may have been mentioned earlier. As for the third paragraph, it describes changes in around the 13th, broadly chronologically after the previous paragraph with castle origins and the final paragraph with the end of castles. The paragraph is linear, but does mention influences for the changes, which might be causing the confusion. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I really think the third paragraph should explain the old castle features (natural defences, curvilinearity) before explaining the new ones. As this is currently written, it isn't clear whether concentric defenses were part of the old system or the new. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Ok, how about this? It's now a bit more straightforward, but may require further tweaking. Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC) "Castles do not show adaptation to resist bombardment by cannons until the 15th century, when artillery became powerful enough to break down walls." The phrasing "do not show adaptation" seems a bit unnatural. Suggest replacing with "were not adapted". Also, does the phrase "break down walls" include stone walls? If so, I suggest inserting "stone". If not, I suggest inserting "timber". Good point, I've replaced "did not show adaptation" to "were not adapted" and clarified that the walls concered were "stone", wood wasn't such a worry by then. Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC) "Although castles were built across Europe well into the 16th century, new techniques to deal with improved cannon eventually led to them becoming uncomfortable and undesirable places to live, and so true castles went into decline, replaced by artillery forts with no role in civil administration, and country houses that were indefensible." This is a very long sentence. I suggest splitting it into two sentences, perhaps after "went into decline." The sentence now reads "Although castles were built across Europe well into the 16th century, new techniques to deal with improved cannon-fire eventually led to them becoming uncomfortable and undesirable places to live. True castles went into decline and were replaced by artillery forts with no role in civil administration, and country houses that were indefensible." Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC) "new techniques to deal with improved cannon" Eh? You mean "improved cannon fire"? Or something? Yep, I've added in "fire". Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC) "Frankish armies encountered walled settlements and forts that they indiscriminately called castles" The use of "called" implies that the Frankish armies were speaking English, which I doubt is true. I think "referred to as" would be a better choice, but perhaps there are other ways to reduce this ambiguity. Agreed, I've changed it to your suggested phrasing. Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) "Castles were established by Norman invaders of England as both defensive and offensive tools to pacify the inhabitants" The inhabitants of what? I understand that it refers to the inhabitants of England, but some may misinterpret this as meaning the inhabitants of the castle. It now read's "...to pacify the country's inhabitants". Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) "During the Middle Ages, castles tended to lose their military significance and became more important as residences and statements of power" I feel like this sentence is missing a piece of information. Why did they tend to lose their military significance? Or at what point in a castle's lifetime would it lose its military significance? I've expanded it slightly so that it now reads "Towards the end of the Middle Ages, castles tended to lose their military significance due to the advent of powerful cannon and permanent artillery fortifications;[10] as a result, castles became more important as residences and statements of power". Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) "Sometimes misapplied, the term "castle" has also been erroneously used to refer to structures such as Iron Age fortifications such as Maiden Castle, Dorset" I'm not a fan of the double "such as" construction. How about employing "e.g." or something else? Fair point, although I've chosen "for example" rather than "ie:" as I'm sure there's a particular way in MOS of formatting that but I can't find it. Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) "A castle was not only a bastion and prison" The "not only" construction implies that the reader should already be familiar with the bastion and prison. I have no idea what a bastion is, nor has this article previously mentioned that castles served as prisons. It now reads "A castle could act as a stronghold and prison but was also a place where..." (I'm not sure whether "but" should be used instead of "and", but I think military uses contrast with social uses; it's not a big issue and I'd be happy to swap the word though). Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) ""a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature"." Where is this quote taken from? Turnbull 2003, p. 5, the reference is immediately after the quote. Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) That seems so obvious now. I'm not sure how I managed to overlook that :P However, if the source itself is notable enough that it should be quoted directly, then the article should explicitly mention who said it: "which had, according to Dr. Janzoons McQuade Turnbull, "a completely..."." If the source isn't notable, then I suggest simply paraphrasing instead. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC) I did something similar the other day when I was sure that someone had written "soared" instead of "soured", completely changing the meaning of the sentence. It happens to the best of us ;-) I've clarified that it was Turnbull who said that. Nev1 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC) "A motte was a mound with a flat top. It was often artificial" I think it should be made clear within the first sentence that these are mounds of dirt. Some readers might think "artificial" refers to synthetic materials. Good point, changed. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC) "The motte was accessed by a flying bridge" Always? Also, what is a flying bridge? Flying bridge isn't a relevant article. I've clarified that the flying bridge was used commonly as the source states. Regarding what it actually is I've added an explanation, although it's a bit clunky. There's a picture of Chateau Dinan further down the page so anyone unsure can look at it and understand (this is one of those times I wish I could just write "see fig 1" on Wikipedia, but I don't think it's really done). Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC) "while the bailey was the home of the rest of the lord's household and gave them protection. The barracks for the garrison, stables, workshops, and storage facilities were often found in the bailey." The use of the singular "bailey" in these sentences implies that each castle only had one bailey, whereas other sentences in this paragraph explicitly state that there were often multiple baileys per castle. I see what you mean, but I don't think it's an issue. There's going to be some number disagreement somewhere as castles could have one or several baileys, but using the singular is more general than the plural. I think it's made sufficiently clear that there can be more than one bailey without confusing the reader. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC) "The terms "bailey" and "enceinte" are linked," I find it a tad confusing to mention the linkage between these two terms before "enceinte" is properly introduced. Some vague discussion is given, but it isn't entirely clear what exactly an enceinte is. I've switched round the parts of the sentence (ie: it now explains what an enceinte is before mentioning the term is linked with "bailey"), but the explanation will probably have to stay that way. That it's the main defensive enclosure is about as accurate and concise as you can get. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC) "A keep was a great tower and usually the strongest point of a castle" Strong how? Made with the best building materials? The most well-defended? It now reads "A keep was a great tower and usually the most strongly defended point of a castle". Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC) ""Keep" was not a term used in the medieval period ... and "donjon" was used to refer to great towers" The use of "and" here is a bit confusing. Consider rewriting to include the word "instead". Perhaps it would be easier if the sentence were split and the dashes removed. Using "instead" works in my opinion so that's what I've gone for. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved issues

• ""Motte" and "moat" derive from the same Old French word" What word would that be?

• I'll have to track down a source for what the word was as although Friar makes the connection I don't think he states what the word is (I read somewhere that it's mota or motta but infuriatingly can't remember where). Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The OED "Moat" says it comes from OF "motte", with a "transfer of meaning" from embankment to ditch perhaps occuring in Norman French. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• " for many structures, choosing the appropriate term can be difficult, and the highest residential storeys have large windows" I don't understand how these two facts are related.

• Changed, I think two sentences got merged slightly there. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I still don't understand how large windows are related to the difficulty in choosing an appropriate term. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Because castles are supposed to have small windows, & houses big ones. Does that help? Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Helpful for me, yes. That isn't made clear in the article though. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the windows, but the merging of the functions generally, from which the windows follow on. Do others find this unclear? Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• "to rain missiles on enemies below" A somewhat unencyclopedic phrasing, and its meaning may not be clear to those unfamiliar with English idioms. Suggest rewriting to "to fire missiles upon enemies below". Also, couldn't the battlements also be used as a vantage point from which to spot far-away enemies?
• "and battlements gave them further protection" Gave who further protection? The defenders or the walkways? If the former, it doesn't really make sense to use "further" since the battlements are the first form of protection mentioned.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been a while since I've seen any activity in this section, so I'm going to unwatch this page and work on some other stuff. If at any point you'd like to continue this review, feel free to leave a note on my talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I got sidetracked once I returned the books to the library. I'll keep working through the list, but it will be slow as I have other commitments. Any comments at all are well, and I will make efforts to address them. Nev1 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Awadewit's comments on prose

Resolved issues.

Over the extended period of time that castles were built they took on a great many forms with many different features, some of which, such as the curtain wall and arrowslits, were commonplace. - It would be best to include the period of time over which castles were built, especially since this is the first paragraph of the lead. It's only an estimate (900 years), but I've added it to the lead. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC) I added the word "approximately". Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Urban castles were used to control the local populace and important travel routes, and rural castles were often situated near elements such as a mill, integral to life in the community. -"Elements" doesn't seem like quite the right word. "features", "assets"? Johnbod (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Sentence now reads "Urban castles were used to control the local populace and important travel routes, and rural castles were often situated near features in the landscape that were integral to life in the community, such as mills", although it may change in response to Cryptic's comments above. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC) The origin of these changes in defence has been attributed to a mixture of influence from the Crusades – where castle technology was advanced such as the new type of concentric fortification – and drawing on earlier defences such as Roman forts for inspiration - Awkward syntax for the last clause "drawing on..." Also the Crusades are not a place. The origin of these changes has been attributed to a mixture of influences from the advanced castle technology developed in the Crusades, such as the new type of concentric fortification, as well as earlier defences such as Roman forts Johnbod (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) There was a progression for lords to build more comfortable accommodation for themselves within the bailey, which resulted in the creation of another bailey that separated the high status buildings – such as the lord's chambers and the chapel – from the everyday structures such as the workshops and barracks. - I don't think "progression" is quite the right word here - would "tendency" work better? Also, this sentence is a little long. How's this? The problem with phrasing here is because the lords accomodation was not in the bailey from the start, but in the keep. The sentence has also been split. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC) The term "donjon" is used several times in the article before it is defined. Since this is an uncommon word, I suggest defining it upon its first usage. As donjon and keep are essentially interchangable terms, and the first occurences are in the section on common features (which essentially explains the jargon) I've replaced them with keep. This will require Johnbod's input though, as the additions were his and it's possible the sources may have been using a more nuanced term than keep, but usually they are interchangable. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC) No, Bathelemy emphasizes the difficulty of fixed terms, & gives up on nuance, so regard them as interchangeable. He is of course translated from the French so uses "donjon", or often "aula" for houses. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Initially this was only the usual pattern in England, when after the Norman Conquest of 1066 the "conquerors lived for a long time in a constant state of alert";[25] elsewhere the lord's wife presided over a separate residence (domus, aula or mansio in Latin) close to the keep, and the donjon was a barracks and headquarters. - The first phrase in this sentence is awkward and confusing. one of mine. I can't really see the problem. Is This was initially only the usual pattern in England.. better? Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Seems to make it worse. The problem is the "initially ...only ... usual". I'd suggest simply dropping the "usual" from the piece Awadewit quotes: "Initially, this was the usual pattern in England ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC) That's dropping the "only", which is the main point of the phrase. How about:At first this was only the usual pattern in England.... or At first this was only usual in England...., or "typical of". Johnbod (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) ... then it looks like what you mean is "At first, this was the usual pattern only in England". --Malleus Fatuorum 11:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC) yes - elegance apart, I don't see how any other meaning could be extracted, but I now think "pattern" is distracting. Done anyway. Johnbod (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Holy Roman Emperor Charles the Bald prohibited the construction of castles without his permission and ordered them destroyed; this could be the earliest reference to castles being built without permission, breaking the feudal agreement between lord and vassal, however there are very few castles dated with certainty from the mid-9th century. - Not sure what "this" is referring to. Change "this could be" to "perhaps". A new sentence at "However" too, maybe. Johnbod (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Yes. Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Done Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC) This is evidenced by the continual maintenance of timber castles over long periods, sometimes several centuries; at the start of the 15th century Owain Glyndŵr’s castle at Sycharth, founded in the late 11th century, was a timber structure. - I think the second half of this sentence can be better written. Perhaps it can more clearly reflect the idea of maintenance over time? Changed so that it's less awkward and emphasises the aspect of maintainence. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) I've tweaked further. Awadewit (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC) The castle builders of western Europe were aware of and influenced by Roman design as demonstrated by the reuse of Saxon shore forts in England, a late Roman innovation despite their name, and in Spain the wall around the city of Ávila imitated Roman architecture when it was built in 1091. - A bit convoluted I've split the sentence which hopefully makes it less long winded. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) It's Saxon Shore, because the buggers kept landing there! Tweaked a bit - in fact the SS defences were on both sides of the Channel & went from Brittany through Belgium nearly to the Dutch border - no doubt some Continental ones were also reused. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Their design was very similar to a Roman fort or Byzantine tetrapyrgia: a square curtain wall with towers in each corner, also usually square and not projecting much beyond the curtain wall. - Awkward syntax, "also usually square..." Simplified. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Handguns were not recorded until the 1380s; they were unpredictable and inaccurate weapons. - Feels stilted Changed to "Handguns, which were initially unpredicatable and inaccuarte weapons, were not recorded until the 1380s". Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) This form is very common in castles adapted for guns, found in Egypt, Italy, Scotland, and Spain, and elsewhere in between. - Since this sentence begins a new paragraph, it is unclear what "this" refers back to. It might seem like a bit of a non-sequitor because those two paragraphs were originally one, but it was split to allow space for the image. Now it's on the right, I've reconnected the paragraphs. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) These could be built from earthier earth or stone and were used to mount weapons. - What is "earthier earth"? Looks like I got distracted halfway through writing that sentence and an extra word slipped in. Gone now. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Around 1500, the innovation of the angled bastion over curved was developed in Italy - Awkward syntax I've removed "over curved" as that was the bit causing problems. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Developments such as these led to Italy pioneering the way in permanent artillery fortifications, which took over from the defensive role of castles - Wordy ("pioneering the way in...") Simplified. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) However, some true castles were built in the Americas by the Spanish, English, and French colonies. - It is unclear to me why the paragraph that begins with this sentence starts with "however". Good point, I've removed "however". Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) The term "slighting"/"slighted" is never defined in the article. Since this is a specialized term, I would suggest defining it when it is first used. Done. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Although their cost varied according to factors such as their complexity and transport costs for material - Slightly awkward Changed to "The cost of building a castle varied according to factors such as their complexity and transport costs for material. It is certain that stone castles...". Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Medieval machines and inventions, such as the treadwheel crane, became indispensable during construction, and techniques of building wooden scaffolding were improved upon from Antiquity - It is probably best to specify what "Antiquity" means. I've added a wikilink to Classical antiquity, will this suffice? Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Yes. Awadewit (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Finding stone for shell keeps and castle walls was the first concern of medieval builders, and a major preoccupation was to have quarries close at hand. - "major preoccupation" doesn't seem like quite the right phrase Changed to "a prominent concern". Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) In England, brick production proliferated along the south-east coast due to an influx of Flemish weavers and a reduction in the amount of available, leading to a demand for an alternative building material. - Awkward syntax, "a reduction in the amount available" The word "stone" was missing after available. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) The capitalization of "East" and "West" seems inconsistent - I'm not sure why it is being capitalized in some places but not others. This has now been made consistent. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) There is a traditional view that feudalism was a tool of social disintegration that contributed to the downfall of the Carolingian Empire, however modern academic opinion is that it was a successor to previous government rather than a rival - Awkward syntax Changed to: "There is a traditional view that feudalism led to the break-down of society that contributed to the downfall of the Carolingian Empire. However, modern academic opinion is that feudalism was a successor to previous government rather than a rival". Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) The emphasis in the design of donjons changed from utilitarian to decorative in order to impose upon the landscape as a symbol of lordly power. - Awkward syntax, "in order to impose..." How about: The design emphasis of donjons changed to reflect a shift from functional to decorative requirements, imposing a symbol of lordly power upon the landscape." Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC) That's much etter than anything I was coming up with, so I've used you suggestion. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) This was not universal as in some countries the monarch had little control over lords, or required the construction of new castles to aid in securing the land – as was the case in England after 1066 and the Holy Land during the Crusades – so was unconcerned about granting permission. - The hyphenated phrase interrupts the sentence too much. I've moved the parenthetical bit to the end of the sentence to avoid the interruption. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Where artillery was not as developed as on the battle-fields of Europe, some of Montreal's outlying forts were built like the fortified manor houses of France. - Structure is not logically consistent - the first phrase refers to the Montreal area and the second phrase describes forts - they both need to have the same subject. Changed to "In Montreal the artillery was not as developed as on the battle-fields of Europe, some of the region's outlying forts were built like the fortified manor houses of France". Nev1 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Castles such as Exeter and Gloucester were often given figures of between £20 and £50 annually in the late 12th century for constant repairs. - Wordy Changed to "For example, it is documented that in the late 12th century castles such as Exeter and Gloucester were given figures of between £20 and £50 annually for constant repairs". Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Still wordy - why "were given figures"? Why not just "cost between", for example? And why "constant repairs" and not just "repairs"? Awadewit (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Fair enough, done. Nev1 (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC) He relied on the support of those below him, as without the support of his more powerful tenants, a lord could expect his power to be undermined - As this article is using "undermined" to mean something specific in relation to castles, I would suggest a different word here. Good point, I've changed it to weakened. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Not just a utilitarian structure, as social centres castles were also important places for display. - Awkward syntax in the first half of the sentence Simplified to "As social centres castles were important places for display" as there was no need for the first bit. Nev1 (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC) It was sometimes in private and was expressed through chivalric events such as tournaments. - Confusing Changed to "Though sometimes expressed through chivalric events such as tournaments, where knights would fight wearing a token from their lady, it could also be private and conducted in secret." Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Even elements of castle architecture that have usually been interpreted as military can be highly symbolic. The water features of Kenilworth Castle in England – comprising a moat and several satellite ponds – forced anyone approaching the castle entrance to take a very indirect route, walking around the defences before the final approach towards the gateway. - The second sentence doesn't actually explain the symbolism. "Symbolic" was probably the wrong word to use, and I've replaced it with "could be used for display". It was a symbol of power, as anyone approaching was forced to take a roundabout route and had to spend a long time looking at the very impressive castle, but "symbolic" was over simplifying it. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Projectile weapons had been used since antiquity and the mangonel and petraria – from Roman and Oriental origins respectively – were the main two that were used into the Middle Ages. - I thought we didn't use the word "Oriental" any more. Good point, changed to "Eastern" (Oriental was the word the source used and slipped through). Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Towers proliferated, with an emphasis on flanking fire, and many new castles were polygonal, while previously they had exploited natural defences and were curvilinear, or relied on concentric defence – several stages of defence within each other that could all function at the same time, thereby maximising the castle's firepower. - Wordy - I would suggest breaking this up. It now says "In the late 12th and early 13th centuries, a scientific approach to castle defence emerged. This led to the proliferation of towers, with an emphasis on flanking fire; many new castles were polygonal or relied on concentric defence –several stages of defence within each other that could all function at the same time to maximise the castle's firepower", although the second sentence may still be too wordy. Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I just added another full stop. Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Moats were often crossed by a drawbridge, although these were often replaced by stone bridges. - "often" twice in one sentence Replaced the first with "usually". Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Contained within the building was a series of defences to make a direct assault more difficult than battering down a simple gate. - Awkward syntax "making"? Johnbod (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) That would be better, yes, but I think that the biggest problem is the delay in getting to the "meat" of the sentence.Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC) It now reads "The gate house contained a series of defences to make a direct assault more difficult than battering down a simple gate". Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) They differed from their eastern counterparts through the use of earthworks rather than stone as a building material. -Slightly awkward syntax, with "the use of earthworks..." Is "They differed from their Eastern counterparts in that they used earthworks" ok? Nev1 (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Yes. Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC) In a time of social unrest, a lord would wish to protect his home or hall, and the greatest threat was that of fire as they were usually wooden - A bit covoluted Changed to "The greatest threat to a lord's home or hall was that of fire as they were usually wooden structures".Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Tweaked a bit for grammar. Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC) The elite who were responsible for castle construction were forced to choose between the new type which could withstand cannon-fire but as a result was ugly and uncomfortable to live in, or to stick with an earlier more elaborate style which had more aesthetic appeal and was more of a status symbol. - A bit convoluted How's this: "The elite responsible for castle construction were forced to choose between the new type which could withstand cannon-fire but as a result was ugly and uncomfortable to live in, or to stick with an earlier more elaborate style; the later had more aesthetic appeal and was more of a status symbol"?Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Perhaps two sentences? Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC) How about "The elite responsible for castle construction were forced to choose between the new type which could withstand cannon-fire or to stick with an earlier more elaborate style. The first was ugly and uncomfortable to live in, and the later had more aesthetic appeal and was more of a status symbol but was less secure"? Nev1 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC) My suggestion: "The elite responsible for castle contruction had to choose between the new type that could withstand cannon-fire and the earlier, more elaborate style. The first was ugly and uncomfortable, but the latter was less secure, despite its greater aesthetic appeal and its value as a status symbol." --MalleusFatuorum 20:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I like Malleus' version. Awadewit (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) That's what I've gone for. Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The benefits of castle building on settlements was not confined to Europe; when Safad Castle was founded in Galilee, in the Holy Land, during the 13th century, the nearby town benefited from its presence as people could now move freely in the area and the 260 villages locally became profitable. - Wordy How about "The benefits of castle building on settlements was not confined to Europe. When the 13th-century Safad Castle was founded in Galilee in the Holy Land, the 260 villages benefitted from the inhabitants newfound ability to move freely"?Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Symbolism in relation to castles and their setting was very important, as demonstrated by the proximity of high status features such as fish ponds. - Awkward syntax It now reads "The location of castles in relation to high status features, such as fish ponds, was a statement of power and control of resources".Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Also often found near a castle, sometimes within its defences, was the parish church.[140] This has been interpreted as a relationship between the church and feudal lords, where the lords patronised the church, which was one of the most important institutions of medieval society. - Wordy It now reads "Also often found near a castle, sometimes within its defences, was the parish church.[142] This signified a close relationship between and feudal lords the Church, one of the most important institutions of medieval society". Nev1(talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As I promised at the FAC, I am going to list some of the problematic sentences in the article here.

• The front of the gateway was a blind spot, so to allow the defenders to see the gate without exposing themselves projecting towers were added on each side of the gate, in a style similar to that developed by the Romans. - Awkward syntax, with the "so to allow..."

• Simplified. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Two "this's" in a row - I'll take a stab at this later. Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• What about something like this: "The front of the gateway was a blind spot. In a style similar to the Romans, projecting towers were built on each side of the gate as compensation." Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Converted into a donjon around 950, Châteaux Doué-la-Fontaine in France is the oldest standing castle in Europe. - This sentence just seems tacked on to the end of the first paragraph of "Origins and early castles".

Seems ok to me, but after the last point we could have "However there are very few castles dated with certainty from the mid-9th century; Châteaux Doué-la-Fontaine in France is the oldest standing castle in Europe, and was converted into a donjon around 950." by semi-coloning into the previous sentence. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused by the dates - the first part of the sentence is talking about 9th century and the second is talking about the 10th. Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not my text, but I presume the difference is "standing" - older ones are ruined or rotted away, or rebuilt over. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Builders took the opportunity to draw on symbolism to evoke a sense of chivalry that was aspired to in the Middle Ages amongst the elite. - What kind of symbolism?

• More should be forthcoming from the Coulson article, but at the moment I only have two pages of it so this is the best I can do until tomorrow. Nev1 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• A bit more is still needed. No rush, though. Awadewit (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• The purpose of marriage between the medieval elites was to secure land, not for love; girls were married in their teens, but boys did not marry until they came of age. - It would probably be best to say when boys came of age, as not all readers will know that.

Done! Awadewit (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Flow

Maybe its me, but the positioning of the sections Common Features and History seem to be in the wrong order (switch them). In most articles isn't the history section before most others? After the first section on Definition, maybe we can rearrange and put the History - as it has information on its antecedents, etc, then on to Common features (after that its construction). C.Kent87 (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to have the "Common features" section first, since that section is helping readers to understand what castles are, just like the "Definition" section. Once readers understand the basics, they can read the history of those basic concepts. Awadewit (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the common features section is like a detailed glossary. It needs to be very early in the article to explain terms which the average reader might not otherwise understand. Nev1 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did my Jacobite sentence get deleted?

I added a sentence that some castles also saw usage during the jacobite rebellions (1689-1745) which is 100 % true. Why was this taken out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.235.24.2 (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who removed your additions and there are a couple of reasons, first of all it was unsourced and secondly how important is it? According to Friar, the English Civil War was the last significant use of castles in Britain in a military campaign, so although they may have been used in the Jacobite Uprising, the implication is that it wasn't important. Also, there is the issue of British bias: the English Civil War was given as an example of later conflicts where castles were reused. More than one example could give the impressiont that the page is preoccupied with Britain, which isn't the case. The importance of citing sources is that a reader can then trace the information back to where it came from and check that it's correct (Wikipedia isn't usually reliable, but published peer-reviewed sources are) and can find more information if they want. If you have a source that states that casltes were used in the Jacobite rebellions it would be worthwhile adding that information to castles in Britain where it is most relevant. Nev1 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. It might be more relevant to cite another period of "re-use" in a different country. Walled towns were important in the French Wars of Religion, but I don't know about castles. When was the last real siege of a castle proper in Europe, I wonder? Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a home?

Might this statement be misleading: "This is distinct from a fortress, which was not a home...", but correctable by "intended to be", "constructed as", "conspicuously" or the like, considering that fortresses were indeed their homes to many people residing therein, unless I'm quite mistaken, no matter how unintentionally so? Can it be that fortresses are strongholds, redoubts, of various sizes and intentions, and residences, and refuges in times of trouble, but different from other things built to be the residences of prominent occupants? Consider those fortresses wherein people do, and "did" reside; are they to lose the otherwise rightful name of "fortress"? Cannot any edifice, defended by fortification, be regarded as "fortress", even in addition to, in conjunction with, other words pertinent to them, their appearance, function, their originally intended reason for being, etc.? Was it not even true that prominent residents were kept, or took refuge, in fortresses, whereas they housed numerous "lesser" inhabitants, as well? Unfree (talk) 07:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Bodiam image

My argument here comes down to wp:LIKE, I fear. I think the image replaced better shows the situation of the structure on the water. I also simply don't find it the new image as pleasing visually. I support the older image.- Sinneed 20:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to use either image as the first one is still of good quality (it's used in the article on Bodiam Castle itself) so I've undone the edit. In the second image is less dark, partly because the distracting leaves are absent. Also, the change of angle is important. The first image is focussed on the rear of the castle, whereas the new one is of the front; the front would have been the high-status entrance and the rear was much less important, as can be seen from looking at the architecture. I don't mind an argument which might seem to boil down to "I like it", because I prefer the visuals of the second image and that's what prompted me to make the change. Images should of course be informative, but ideally in the lead they should also be interesting and make the reader want to learn more. I think the second image does this better as there's more going on, but both versions work. At the start, good visuals are important. As I said, I'm happy to use either, but thought I should explain myself. Nev1 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to make you insta-revert. You have done magnificent work on this article, and I don't think the front image is bad, at all. As I said, I really just like the back/water-side view... perhaps it is purely a romantic appeal to me. Thanks for all your work here.- Sinneed 21:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

hi

a catsle is not built in these days174.23.155.89 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not generally, no. I think this is probably adequately covered in the article.- Sinneed 21:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with first paragraph.

The very first line says a castle is a defensive structure, the article goes on to say that a castle is also used for offensive or political purposes.

I say it should be a fortified structure, One could delete the word defensive from the first line, so as just to say a castle is a structure.

The first paragraph says that castles are found in Europe and the Middle East (Middle East should be replaced with a more specific location) and then the article goes on to say that there were castles in the Americas.

'Fortaleza Ozama in the Dominican Republic was the first castle built in the Americas.' - (JohnQposter (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

It is a defensive structure... but like any structure can be used for many purposes (say... hospital... barn... automobile storage...).

" with the Middle Ages, found in Europe and the Middle East" how about " with the Middle Ages of Europe and the Middle East" or " with Middle Age Europe and the Middle East". My thinking in placing the "the" in the brackets is that I have seen many maps labeled "The Middle East"... This is not done with Europe, Asia... you don't see The Europe, though you do see "The European Region" or similar.

More modern usage is to refer to the region as "Southwest Asia". I wonder if this might be more appropriate than the becoming-antique Middle East usage. - Sinneed 22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at recent discussion at "Middle East" and "Western Asia" and associated projects, it seems to me that "Middle East" is still appropriate for most English-speakers, as of 2009 early 2010.- Sinneed 22:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Version 3.0 - " with the European and Middle Eastern Middle Ages"

Version 4.0 - " with Europe and the Middle East during the Middle Ages" - Sinneed 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

but I hate the Middle...Middle... *shrug* - Sinneed 22:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts at all? Good, Bad, Indifferent, Boring? - Sinneed 14:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If "Middle Ages" is causing repetition, "medieval period" works just as well. (I've got very limited time for editing myself at the moment.) Nev1 (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the "middle" ... "middle" that I think scans poorly. I don't see a solution, just an unfortunate co-appearance of the word.- Sinneed 17:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to change. Obviously any fortification is tacticly defensive, though it may well be strategicly offensive at the same time. The true home of the castle is Europe & the Middle East, though there are outliers as to both time & place - see above & the FAC ad nauseam. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wording in lead

"The origin of these changes in defence has been attributed to a mixture of influence from the Crusades – where castle technology was advanced such as the development of concentric fortification – and drawing on earlier defences such as Roman forts for inspiration."

seems a bit unwieldy. I propose:

"These changes in defence have been attributed to a mixture of castle technology from the Crusades such as concentric fortification and inspiration from earlier defences such as Roman forts."

Any objections? Main page linkage scheduled in short hours according to the page top here.- Sinneed 21:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That sentence has been problematic. Your suggestion sounds good to me. Nev1 (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I also added a pair of commas. I was trying to read the article with "new eyes" before its front page appearance. - Sinneed 23:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)