This is an archive of past discussions about Castle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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.- Sinneed20:39, 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.- Sinneed21:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
hi
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion
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.
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 AgeEurope 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. - Sinneed22:03, 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.- Sinneed22:37, 15 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.- Sinneed17:42, 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)
There were really two purposes of castles, offensive and defensive. The offensive castle dominated an area within a days ride. This is how William conquered England, he built castle after castle within a days ride. The castle itself was defensive in the sense it was non-moveable ie. someone had to come to the castle to fight, even if the people inside the castle were the ones who started the fight, but its purpose was to dominate and control surrounding territory, it was foremost an offensive weapon. Knights could go out and harry the land and people and return after dark without repercussion. The owner of the castle could control the surrounding territory and build a string of castles to expand the reach. Compare with US military bases in Vietnam or Iraq - the whole purpose of building them is to control the surrounding territory. The defensive castle were meant to protect everything inside the walls (and nearby) from outside attackers. Such as a walled city. A monastery. A cathedral. The purpose of a castle could change over time, starting out as offensive, then becoming defensive and then eventually something else entirely (country estates, institutions, etc..), with the architecture changing appropriately along the way. A Norman-era Motte and Baily was clearly an offensive weapon used to conquer territory. An Italian late-medieval walled city clearly a defensive structure. Green Cardamom (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
"There were really two purposes of castles, offensive and defensive". Can you be so sure? Historians and archaeologists who've spent their careers studying the subject might disagree. If you read the article, you'll see that castles were much more than military buildings and were important centres of administration and display. Nev1 (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
..and if you read what I wrote above I agree with you, my comment is not an absolute ultimatum with quotes to be cherry picked. It is re the question were castles offensive or defensive - the answer is, it depends, but castles were very often offensive in nature. It just depends on location and time period. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The behaviour you describe sounds defensive to me - controlling territory already conquered. I think you'll find the harrying was normally done before the castle was built at all. The immediate, tactical function of a castle is to provide safety for the people inside, by keeping hostile people out. That is defensive (contrast a prison, where the immediate function is to keep people held inside from getting out). Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Very often the people inside a castle were the hostiles and the people outside where being subjugated. A territory in the middle ages isn't conquered just because William won at Hastings, he spent decades cementing his rule by brute force - think Nazi's in France. Read any history of the Norman Conquest (post 1066) or the period of rapid castle building in France and Germany. Small fortified castles were typically built so that the owners of the castle could act with impunity and the local population had no recourse. German and French Kings hated castles (except their own) and did what they could to stop castle builders, though they were often too weak to do so. Castle builders were generally looked on disparagingly. They were not just big private stone houses put up to protect from bandits. They were intentional offensive weapons to dominate and control territory (as Nev1 says "centres of administration and display"). Once a castle was in place, it was extremely costly and difficult for a King to get rid of it, meanwhile the owner of the castle could collect "taxes" and basically do whatever he wanted within a zone surrounding it. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It bothers me to no end, that the first sentence of the first paragraph says;
'A castle is a type of defensive structure built in Europe and the Middle East during the Middle Ages.
Then the second sentence of the second paragraph contradicts the above line with;
Castles controlled the area immediately surrounding them, and were both offensive and defensive structures; they provided a base from which raids could be launched as well as protection from enemies.'
Why are castles 'defensive structure(s)' in the first paragraph and in the second they are 'both offensive and defensive structures'?
The word defensive in the first paragraph ought to be changed to fortified or deleted outright, say 'A castle is a type of structure' or 'A castle is a type of fortified structure'
The entire article contradicts the first line, because the first line contains the word defensive.
Why does it HAVE to say defensive structure in the first line?
(Sinneed, I do not understand the correlation between castles being categorized as defensive structures and barns and Hospitals being used for other things. That one is totally lost on me.)
(JohnQposter (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
This editor's posting style seem amazingly familiar. Nev1, if compromise is needed, how about "fortified", instead? I find the argument against using "defensive" to be a bit specious... a space shuttle is primarily a means of lobbing payloads into space, but it can be used militarily, quite effectively, as an offensive weapon.- Sinneed22:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I understand JohnQposter's point now. The article explains that the defensive side of castles was just one of many facets and that giving it top billing in the first sentence perhaps doesn't quite fit with have the situation is presented in the rest of the article. The user's quite right to say that castles were used offensively, and Cathcart king explains how they could be used as bases from which raids could be launched. I initially changed the opening sentence to "A castle... is a type of high-status structure". Correct, it doesn't quite sound right and sounds vague, so I've gone for "A castle... is a type of fortified structure". Nev1 (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Britain's Medieval Castles (2005) by Lise E. Hull, Chapter 1: "Castles as Offensive Weapons". The author devotes the entire first chapter of her book to this notion of castles as being offensive in nature. Chapter 2 is called "Castles as Defensive Weapons". It's well known among scholars that castles were both offensive and defensive weapons. It's sort of basic really. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Wording in lead
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
"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."
I also added a pair of commas. I was trying to read the article with "new eyes" before its front page appearance. - Sinneed23:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Also in the first paragraph, there was no recognition given to the Muslim world, where the crusaders first got the idea for building castles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.5.193 (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The article claims that castles are a European invention and that they were developed around the ninth century. This shows an extreme bias that does not include a worldwide view. Mention of castles in India has been made on this page and the article Japanese castle demonstrate that there is either serious restructuring work to do or else the article should be renamed to show that the focus is on European castles, not castles in general. Wakablogger2 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't support this idea. This is an article about what is referred to in English as a castle. There are certainly direct translations into many other languages, and similar words that refer to some or all of what are called "castles" in English. I think this article represents a global view of this subject. It certainly would not represent a global view of what is meant by all words in all languages that translate into English as "castle".- Sinneed17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Can't believe I missed the work taking this to, and reviewing it at FAC.
Terrific work, all concerned. I remember editing it a couple of years ago when it was a parochial mess with massive WP:WORLDVIEW issues. Sorry I wasn't there to help - seems to have dropped off my Watchlist - I'll correct that now. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
English castles
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
English castles are represented in three out of the first four pictures, and six out of the first ten.
They're beautiful but isn't this a bit too much? Especially in a featured article people should be more sensible about this. --93.45.196.162 (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we are constrained by the images available on Wikipedia. The images have been chosen for their quality and because they represent certain features. Ideally there'd be fewer English castles, but as the English language Wikipedia is the largest version and has the most editors, it should not be surprising that there are more images available from England. When more high quality, fully licensed alternatives become available, some of the ones used now can be replaced. Nev1 (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is a problem to find 4 other pictures of castles not in GB.
Take for example the List of Castles in Germany, there's a huge amount of medival castles to find.
(I can search for some in other countries.)
The whole article focuses much on GB and France, with some spanish and italian references. But there are castles all over Europe.
Especially Germany is mentioned only under neo-castle-building (Neuschwanstein) what is very distortionary, as Germany is the country with the largest amount of castles in all. 80.187.106.124 (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Images are chosen with a particular architectural feature in mind first, quality second, and location last. Simply crowbarring in more images from one country or replacing the current photos without paying attention to the content would not improve the article. Nev1 (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Nev1 (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Rename
Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
The title of this article should be renamed "Western European Castles".
A disambiguated article should be entitled "Castles" - but not this one. All other articles concerning "fortified elite residences" can be drawn to together into one overreaching topic.
As it stands, the naming of this article "Castles" means that (by using only British and a few French examples - because that is obviously a reflection of the sources used e.g. Lidiard) this article ignores (in the Northern Hemisphere) the strongholds of Iberia, Scandinavian, Germanic, Eastern European, North African, Middle Eastern et al.
Lest we forget the ones of India, South East Asia, or China (Korea and Japan).
This article is being used to define a much too broad topic by using a limited selection of examples from Western Europe. There is nothing wrong with the content except the title. These are "Western European Castles" not all "Castles"
Much time has been spent debating the definition of "castle", not just here but by academics. The definition that is generally accepted by them is the one the article uses, and that's how it should be. The Iberian peninsular is mention, as is eastern Europe and, of course, the Middle East. In a general article, there is not time to list each country and detail its little variations when there is so much ground to cover and much commonality. Let's be clear that England, France, and the Outremer were the three most important areas in the development of castles. If those areas figure more prominently in this article, it is because the Normans and Crusaders were such a large part of the castle story. Nev1 (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Typical answer from Nev1 with the "and that's how it should be". These are Western European Castles, which of course are Castles but they do not globally represent culturally all "castles". Are you therefore saying that because we use English that it must be taken as read to be mean only the first identifiable structures to Western people.
So we will just ignore the fact that Japanese Feudal daimyos were living in "seriously defended residency of a lord" since the 7th century...what about the Chinese strongholds in the 1st century BCE? Or is the English language version of Wikipedia just going to sub categorise them too?? This article makes the fallacious assertion that until primarily Westerners developed castles they did not exist anywhere else??
This is classic Eurocentric thinking and borders on reductionist reasoning. The article is dealing with Western European Castles not Castles per se. As I have rightly pointed out, the groupthink that I am trying to challenge (aka the wikiality) is: all Hoovers are vacuum cleaner but not all VCs are Hoovers!?
BTW The Crusader castles in the Outremer were built by the Franks, er who were western Europeans!!
Change the name to "Western European Castles" as this is what the article is all about. using the word "Castles" is certainly not "how it should be". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.0.240 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't support anon's idea. This is an article about what is referred to in English as a castle. There are certainly direct translations into many other languages, and similar words that refer to some or all of what are called "castles" in English. I think this article represents a global view of this subject. It certainly would not represent a global view of what is meant by all words in all languages that translate into English as "castle".- Sinneed17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
If this is an article about what is referred to in English as a castle, where is the mention of such buildings as Osaka Castle and Himeji Castle, buildings in Japan that *any* English speaker would call a castle. And just as British castles developed from Roman buildings, so did Japanese castles develop from an earlier structural style. Yet while the Roman antecedents are discussed, nothing of the antecedents of Japanese castles are discussed. And that is just to speak of Japan. There is a very heavy Western European bias here. This article has excellent content, but unless the name is changed (or the entire article is seriously reconstructed), the article remains severely lacking in a global viewpoint. Wakablogger2 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
"buildings in Japan that *any* English speaker would call a castle" - I believe that you might not speak for all of us.- Sinneed19:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Did you look at the photos of those castles in those articles? If you came across those buildings, what would you call them? And how do they differ from the definitions given in this article for castles? Wakablogger2 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Wakablogger, I cannot read a word of Japanese but it seems pretty clear that the article you are referring to is unreferenced. As I stated above, this article is fully referenced. The definition this article uses is the one used amonst academics. That is explained in the article. What you or I call castles is immarterial. Neither you or I are experts (if I may be that presumptuous). Japanese "castles" and castles are separate entities, hence they have separate articles; Turnbull states that the buildings you are referring to "[have] a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature". Moreover, they were used in a different way. Hence they are excluded from the literature on castles, and I don't just mean Wikipedia's article. However, there are interesting parallels, which is why there is a link in the see also section but that is all that is required. Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to this, which you mentioned earlier. Please take the time to read the article, it is not restricted to Western Europe and I cannot take any such assertion that it is seriously, or any comments by someone who it seems has not bothered to read beyond the lead. Nev1 (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The assumption that I seem to not have *bothered* to read beyond the lead demonstrates that this is not a discussion, but a crusade to keep the bias in the article without changing the name. I will not comment further on this matter unless there is a vote to change the name, which I will vote for. Wakablogger2 (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Well for starters you ignored the inclusion of castles in the Outremer which, contrary to the IP's assertion, were built by both sides. Nev1 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Distinction from Japanese castles (moved from "Rename" section)
Latest comment: 14 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion
The article is titled "Japanese castle", so if this article is not going to encompass Japanese castles it should explain why. This article says that scholars regard Japanese castles as something separate from European castles, but doesn't elaborate on the reasons scholars draw the distinction. A different history is obvious, but what was so fundamentally different about the structures' designs and reasons for being? A. Parrot (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Can't agree, A. Parrot, that is (edit to add: one of the reasons) why we attach sources to text: so that the detail is made available in a useful way to readers who want to know more than fits in the WP article.- Sinneed20:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the division between Japanese and European castles has to be explained somewhere. This article is titled "castle" without further qualifiers, and would give the initial idea that it covers all castles—and a Japanese castle could easily be classed as a castle, because it is a "private fortified residence" which arose in a feudal society. If the article doesn't include Japanese castles, it must explain why. Currently it explains quite well why a castle is different from other types of fortification, but only cursorily covers the European/Japanese distinction even though that distinction is finer. I do understand that distinction; the two structures developed separately, the word was invented to describe the European version, and the word was only later applied to the Japanese version based on analogy. But in the article that is more implicit than explicit. It comes off as rather dismissive, and puts the burden all on the Japanese castle article to explain why a Japanese castle isn't really a "castle". A. Parrot (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the flow thing is too bad. I see your argument. I can't really agree, but Eurocentrism is a trap: I don't think we are in it, but certainly it is always worth watching for. Do you have wording to propose to add and a place you propose to add it?- Sinneed21:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I propose we refactor this to its own section, perhaps "Distinction from Japanese castles (moved from "Rename" section)",immediately below.- Sinneed21:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I separated the section. I'm not sure yet what wording I would add, though the section that already mentions Japanese castles would be a logical place to put it. I'll think about it, but I'm a bit hampered at the moment, partly by real life (darn thing always gets in the way) and partly because I don't have the sources on castles and don't know what they say on the subject.
I'd also like to note that it's unlikely that European and Japanese castles are the only private fortified residences that have arisen in history; it's just that Japanese castles are the only non-European examples I knew of for certain, and are probably the best-known worldwide. I'd be surprised, for example, if feudal pre-Qin China didn't have analogous buildings. I don't know, either, whether any other analogous buildings are actually called castles (if they aren't, we could probably leave them out; if they are, it might be necessarily to briefly mention them alongside the Japanese ones). While I don't go as far as User:Wakablogger2, I do worry that the worldwide parallels haven't been dealt with thoroughly enough. A. Parrot (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
This issue does not appear to have ever been resolved. The origin of a structure, of a particular object, rarely has anything to do with labelling analogous objects within other cultures. Neither Merriam-Webster's nor the American Heritage Dictionary mention "Europe" in their definitions of the word "castle". The definition of a castle regards function, not location. Just as a "palace" is still a lavish residence regardless of what country you find it, a "house" is a modest but permanent residential dwelling, etc. As it stands, the wording of the present entry is not only Eurocentric, but elitist, as it asserts that only Europeans can build "private fortified residences".
The editor states that he is "not sure yet what wording [he] would add", and was not able to modify the entry because he does not possess sufficient knowledge or sources concerning other countries, and because of a busy perosnal life. I have written a paragraph as a modification to the entry, explaining and providing examples that demonstrate why the Japanese fortified buildings are indeed "castles". That's what Wikipedia is about: contributions based on an expanded pool of knowledge. I believe my modification should be allowed to stand. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The issue was discussed at greater length during the article's FAC. Not everyone agreed, but the consensus was that how the article currently deals with the subject is the right way. With regard to Merriam-Webster's nor the American Heritage Dictionary, neither are particularly relevant, and as I explained at he FAC is we're going to use tertiary sources such as dictionaries then Darvill's Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology is far more appropriate, and it does specify Europe. Your changes, while well intentioned, were not adequately sourced and bordered on original research. In a nutshell, castle texts focus on what is covered in the article, but shiro are curiously analogous and deserve a mention. Nev1 (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
After reviewing the discussion in the Article's FAC, I must say, I did not see any consensus on the issue. It appears that the proponents for a more inclusive article simply failed to convince you. It even appears that a minority of the contributors support your view. Even though there is no other recourse and, as you said, the decision has been made, I feel it necessary to make these points. I would also like to point out that in the Japanese Wikipedia entry for "shiro", it covers both Japanese and European castles as well other examples. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
While I cannot read Japanese, the lack of footnotes in the article is concerning. I don't think it should be used as a yardstick to measure this article. Nev1 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I found twelve or thirteen footnotes in the Japanese article, fewer than the English version, but there nonetheless. I also find it irresponsible that the "Castle" article quotes Stephan Turnbull's book "Japanese Castles 1540-1640" out of context as a means to support the Anglo bias (the phrase "completely different..."). Turnbull repeatedly uses the term "castle" throughout his book, as he does in his book "War in Japan 1467-1615". Boneyard90 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There is an article in the Japanese Wikipedia about the English word "Castle" and its meaning? I find that rather doubtful. I do expect there is an article about what is meant by a Japanese word which translates generally to "Castle". However, Wikipedia is not a language translation dictionary. The Japanese word that includes some, most, or all of the meanings of the English word Castle is not terribly interesting here. This is an article about what is meant in English by "Castle", not what is meant in Japanese by a word translating to English as "Castle".- Sinneed07:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
"Not terribly interesting"?? I thought an encyclopedia describes and explains the nature and features of a topic, without confining the description to what an editor finds "interesting". If that were the case, the section on "physics" might be terribly short.
Second, I find the present article not so much about "what is meant in English by 'Castle'", but it is rather about "the structure that English-speakers think of when they think of the word 'castle'". You confine your view to the structures you associate with the word "castle", even though there are others that contain the same architectural features and fulfilled the same purposes. Boneyard90 (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I see two appeals to emotion, but no case for removal of information from the lead of this English language article. I do understand there is a Japanese word that translates as castle that refers to fortified structures in Japan that are similar.
Perhaps, as suggested more than once, above, a section on them? Perhaps title it "Japan". Perhaps a 1st line of "*whatever-the-Japanese-word-is* (jp:pronunciation) (castles) were built from whenever to whenever, and like European castles were..."
On my talk page, you asked how to proceed. 1st, I encourage you to focus here on how you would like to change the article, rather than how misguided I am... I am not in the encyclopedia. Starting with suggestions for the body, which the lead should summarize, would be good. Should you be unable to find support here, and still believe that the broader WP community would have that support, you may want to follow wp:dispute resolution, for example, you might propose an wp:RfC. Hammering content removal into the wp:lead is unlikely to work well.- Sinneed15:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Or, since they have an entire article, possibly change the hat note to point to Japanese *whatever in Japanese* (castles), instead of just to the dismbiguation page, which is ugly. I will update the disamb page, because it does not mention the Japanese castles article at all.- Sinneed15:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry Boneyard, but the article simply reflects the sources. That's the job of an encyclopedia. If you disagree with that, I suggest that you forge a career in academia combining the study of what are widely considered castles and shiro. Until there are reliable sources they shouldn't get more a mention than they currently do. It's represented as what is essentially a minority view because of the dearth of sources; yes there's Turnbull, but the vast majority of castle texts do not include Japan. This may change over time. If this article had been written as little as 10 years ago there would have been little significant material to go into the castle landscapes section. I think the way the article currently deals with the subject is sufficient, and certainly reflects the literature, however Sinneed makes a good suggestion about the hatnote. Nev1 (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
--Gentlemen (I'm assuming you're both male), where to begin? - To Sineed, it was not my intent to suggest you were "misguided", but rather appeal to your sense of reason. Perhaps my own choice of wording was misguided.
---To Nev-1, I think I'll take your suggestion that I "forge a career in academia combining...castles and shiro" as a compliment, though right now my anthropological focus is on Japanese funerary rituals and the translation of epitaphs. Perhaps someday I'll turn my attention to something regarding castles.
--As for the ongoing topic, I pulled several (I believe) very reputable sources on architecture. I've marked certain pertinent passages in Bold that I believe illustrate my point.
Gwilt, Joseph. (1867) The Encyclopedia of Architecture: Historical, Theoretical, and Practical. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.
“A building fortified for military defence; also a house with towers, usually encompassed with walls and moats, and having a donjon or keep in the centre.” (p1168) In a discussion of Norman castles, the author elucidates on the features of the more developed castles, but at no time does he specify England or Europe in general as the sole locations for castles (p170).
Fleming, John, Hugh Honour, and Nikolaus Pevsner. (1999) The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. 5th Edition. London: Penguin Books, Ltd.
“Castle. A fortified habitation. The planning and building of castles is primarily directed by the necessities of defence…” One of the features is the keep or donjon, which is “a tower spacious enough to act as living quarters in time of war for the lord or governor and garrison.” Examples rely on castles in England, France, and Germany, though the definition does not mandate that castles are restricted to any one area (p100). Regarding Japanese castles, it refers to Himeji and Nijo castles without reserve or qualification (p304). Regarding variation, many English castles were “symmetrically composed” (p100), while in Japan, "the fortified castles...[as in Himeji] the asymmetry of its several storeys may have been determined to assist defence.” (p304)
Moffett, Marian, Michael Fazio, and Lawrence Wodehouse. (2004) A World History of Architecture. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd.
Japanese castles of the 16th- 17th centuries were “[b]ased on earlier fortifications…these castles are unusual in that they were built to accommodate and resist firearms that had been introduced by Portuguese traders in the course of the sixteenth century. The castle at Himeji (1609)…shared a number of defensive features with medieval masonry castles in Europe: a strategic location on a promontory, massive foundations for the central donjon, heavily fortified gateways, and walled enclosures protected by moats.” (p106-7) After a description of features, it says that “Like its European counterparts, [Himeji Castle] was meant to dominate the surrounding countryside for which it served as an administrative center.” (107)
On European castles: “Castles were constructed for defense, guarding strategic roads and rivers, and they also served as administrative centers for the surrounding territory. (p267) “From Islamic castles in present-day Syria, the Crusaders learned to build corbelled stone galleries (machicolations) projecting beyond the face of the wall to serve as a fighting platform” (p267).
--As for what should be done regarding the article; the "hat note" suggested by Sineed in one option to consider. I also make a list of proposals, some of which are, I hope, acceptable compromises:
(1) In accordance with the above sources, remove the restrictive wording in the leading paragraphs. I believe my last (undone) edit shows what I mean. Remove "built in Europe" from the first sentence. Paragraph 2: change "European innovation, castles..." to "Castles that were built in Europe...". In the "Origins" section, Line 1: Change "Castles..." to "Castles in Europe..." Modify other, similar phrases to bring them into agreement. Looking at the this Talk page, I can see I'm not the only one who has a problem with the wording as it stands. I count three other contributors in three Topics that have similar critiques; topics "Rename", "Distinction..." and "Front Page". After reviewing the FAC closely, and regarding this issue only, I found three contributors that supported the Europe-only (or European-influenced, i.e. Crusades-era castles in Middle East, Dominica) criteria, whereas I found six in favor of a more inclusive, geographically neutral description.
(2) Remove the Turnbull quote regarding Japanese castles entirely. It's used to support the Europe-only criteria, but as I point out, it's used out of context, which is implicitly conceded by Nev-1 in his last comment.
(3) Remove Japanese castles from the "Defining Characteristics" section. I suggest a new sub-section, or possibly a paragraph in the "Etymology" section, saying something like:
The word "castle" is also applied to fortified structures in other parts of the world, that may have developed independantly, but nonetheless meet the same criteria, contain the same features, and served in the same functions as castles in Europe. Among the more notable are the [Japanese castles|shiro] of Japan, which are popularly referred to as "castles". While there are texts written by professors of history and architecture that do not include geography as a defining characteristic of a "castle", some of which specifically use the terms "Japanese castle" in comparison to "European castles" (reference Fleming et al., Gwilt, Moffett et al, and Turnbull - or another history source), there remains some dispute over the scholarly application of the word "castle", in regard to whether a fortified structure that originated outside of the European sphere of influence in history can be regarded as a true castle (reference something that specifies Europe only).
I know I've written alot here, but if you've made it this far, I thank you for your patience in reading this.
You seem to be struggling to understand a couple of points here. You say "...at no time does he specify England or Europe in general as the sole locations for castles", but England has nothing to do with this; nowhere, either in the article or on this talk page, has it been claimed that castles are exclusive to England so I'd be surprised if the author did. Also, you seem to ignore the fact that the article talks about castles in the Holy Land. In fact, the article quite clearly says "It is generally accepted that castles are confined to Europe, where they originated, and the Middle East, where they were introduced by European Crusaders". So you've misunderstood something somewhere. The point about the bit about castles being generally confined to Europe and the Holy Land is sourced.
While the sources you've provided undoubtedly satisfy Wikipedia's WP:RS policy, they are not particularly better than those already used in the article. For example, Gwilt is well over a century old; castellology has come a long way in nearly 150 years. Pevsner & co (of course highly respected) over simplify matters. For example: "The planning and building of castles is primarily directed by the necessities of defence" is very controversial. There was a whole spectrum of concerns when building a castle, while defence was important and one of the main concerns, it was not the sole concern which The planning and building of castles is primarily directed by the necessities of defence seems to suggest; but that's a whole other discussion. The point is, none of the sources you've provided are primarily about castles. The majority of books on castles, rather than generalisations about architecture, do not include Japan. The information in the quote from the article I gave earlier is sourced from Allen Brown; a military historian who helped found a multi-national journal on castle studies. Certainly better qualified to explain what a castle is than the sources you've provided. That some people call shiro castles is fine, but the sources specifically about castles don't. The article reflects this minority use by mentioning them as intriguing analogous structures. It doesn't matter that some people call them castles, otherwise the likes of Maiden Castle (an Iron Age hillfort) would have to be included, which is nonsense. The weakness of using a general source rather than a castle-specific one is highlighted by Moffett, Fazio & Wodehouse. They claim that one of the features of masonry castles in Europe was a promontory position; this is a popular misconception as castles were more often sited at centres of population or along important communication routes (such as roads) than hilltops which would have provided a natural defence. That's not to say castles weren't sited on promontories, but it wasn't as common as most people assume. The source also says that what set Japanese castles apart from other fortifications was "reliance on timber as the primary structural material"; so... Hen Domen and Sycharth Castle were made from stone? Early Norman motte and bailey castles were not wooden? The first phase of the Tower of London didn't use timber, despite what the sources say? This is the problem of generic texts trying to bite off more than they can chew. I suspect what it may have meant was contemporary fortifications didn't use timber, but it's not clear.
As for the proposed changes to the lead paragraph, you're suggesting ditching sourced information for more vague unsourced original research. I'm afraid that's not acceptable. That pretty much rules out option one. Option two seems a little bare; you want to reduce the amount said about shiro in the article? Option three: that's pretty much original research. Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
PS. 86.172.0.240 (talk·contribs) is a recurrent (used several sock accounts as well as IPs) troll on this page who accused good faith editors of being racist and went so far as to threaten one user with the FBI. Their "opinion" is trolling and should be ignored. And uninformed opinions of editors do not outweigh reliable sources. Nev1 (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"Struggling"? I don't think I'm struggling to understand your explanations, I just find your reasoning is spurious and inconsistent, and your conclusions unfounded. However, I am struggling to understand your obstinacy. But, let us procede:
(1) On the issue of TIMBER: This is another example where you use a quote out of context. Yes, I thought about including that part of the quote as a matter of full disclosure, until I read the description under European Castles: "The earliest such fortifications were wooden…easily visible are the earthworks that accompanied the early wooden castles, motte and bailey (mound and yard) being the most common form of these.” (Moffett 2004:265) So I regarded the whole issue of timber as somewhat irrelevant. Many European castles were made primarily of timeber, Japanese castles retained timber as a primary medium for the main structure. The article in fact states that castles in Denmark as well as "castles in Eastern Europe were usually of timber construction", sourced to Higham and Barker (1992), Timber Castles. The whole issue of timber in castle construction should be completely moot, and so should not disqualify Japanese castles from being mentioned.
(2) On the sources I have cited: I have gathered sources old and new, British and American, yet you refuse to accept them, and with such selective reasoning as pointed out above. But consider this source on the topic, which is more specific than those above: "When considering the design of castles, medievel lords had a fairly consistent set of requirements [including a hall, sleeping quarters, bailey, tower, etc]...But the way these requirements were expressed VARIED ENORMOUSLY and there is little sign of the consistency of layout seen in ecclesiastical architecture. Most castles were in fact an amalgam of seperate buildings, built at different times by different owners, forming an agglomeration of structures rather than a single monumnet. The preference for sites with natural fortifications, on a cliff edge or rocky outcrop, was a further impediment to unified planning" (83) It goes on to say that the keep also had great variety (88), and discusses the evolution of the keep from "wooden towers, some of which are known to have been structures of great complexity", citing the "wooden castle at Ardres" as an example (88). Here is a source on medievel architecture that makes plain that although there are a few architectural features that define a castle, the description of a castle can not be too narrowly confined. He makes several references to wooden castles, and cites examples where the functional emphasis of some castles lay heavier in one direction than in another (military versus residential, or residential versus administrative, etc), with exceptions given for layout or structural features.
Stalley, Roger. (1999) Early Medievel Architecture. Oxford University Press.
(3) On the Turnbull quote already in the article: You still haven't addressed this issue. You have not defended its use, nor disputed my charge that the article irresponsibly quotes Turnbull out of context in order to promote a biased view.
(4) On the Europe-related wording: Yes, I sometimes say "Europe and England" because some people draw a line between the two. People who say "The Continent". Really not too big a deal, when I say Europe, I mean England as well.
(5) Castles in the Holy Land: I'm not ignoring castles in the Holy Land. I mention in one of my sourced quotes: "Islamic castles" and the hypothesis that some technology was taken from the Middle East to Europe (Fleming et al. 1999). The Castle article says "Both Christians and Muslims created fortifications, and the character of each was different". So if there were Muslim castles, and the character of each was different, meaning each side applied its own technology and adapted their castle to their own requirements while maintaining those features prescribed that maintain the defining functions of defense, residence, and administration, then you have a structure that meets all the definitions of a "castle" and indeed IS a "castle", and is RECOGNIZED as a "castle", but not in Europe, in the Middle East. So, if you include the Middle East castles, why not other castles of countries, as long as all requirements are met regarding form and function?
(6) Regarding my proposed paragraph revision: I dispute wholeheartedly the assertion that there is any "original research" there. I have mentioned both sides of the issue, and I have provided sources. I have not even gone into specifics over Japanese castles, rearding form, function, or history. Your accusation of "original research" is misleading, and looks like a dishonest attempt to discredit my proposal. The paragraph revision is not unreasonable. I worded it to be a compromise on the issue, and I think it is perfectly acceptable to both sides.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"Machicolations were stone projections on top of a wall with openings that allowed objects to be dropped on an enemy at the base off the wall in a similar fashion to hoardings". I can make sense of this as it stands, though the word order is odd. I suspect that "base of the wall" was intended. John of Reading (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Well done!
But I don't like the opening!
"castle (from Latin castellum) is a defensive structure associated with Europe and the Middle East during the Middle Ages. The precise meaning of "castle" is debated by scholars, but it is usually considered to be the private fortified residence of a lord or noble."
I realise exactly why this has been worded like this, but "associated with.....during...." is waffle!
The association is a present association. You could say that castles are "associated with the Middle ages in Europe", which means "When a person thinks of castles, they think of the Middle Ages in Europe", but to put it the other way around is a real stretch of the association. What I mean is, one looks at a castle and thinks "Middle Ages". One does not look at a castle and think "Europe and the Middle East".
Let's drop the "associated with..." and say "constructed in...". That is what happened "during the Middle Ages". We don't need use a loose, backward-looking current-thinking verb when we can use one that states what actually took place.
Secondly: "The precise meaning of castle is debated, but it is usually considered to be...."
This reads as if nobody knows what a castle is! It's as if it was some object far out in a distant galaxay that appeared as a blip, or a hazy blob.
It's not the "meaning of castle" that is debated. It is "the definition of the word castle" that is debated.
Or to put it differently: It's not actually the word that is the problem. It is the scope of that category of buildings which ought properly be known as castles that cannot be agreed upon. Scholars agree that some structures constitute castles beyond any doubt. However they do not agree as to the entire scope. Some scholar's notion of what constitutes a castle is much narrower than others.
OK....think...think...think....
How's this?
A castle is a type of defensive structure that was built in Europe and the Middle East during the Middle Ages. While the word "castle" is applied to a wide diversity of buildings, and scholars are not in agreement as to the scope of its definition, a castle is usually considered to be the fortified private residence of a lord or noble.
The addition of the word "type" (of defensive structure) implies and allows for other types of defensive structures, (city walls, fortified manor houses etc).
In the second sentence the word "castle" is used twice. This is not accidental or redundant. It is the difference between what the word "castle" means and the actuallity of was the structure castle is.
How about: While the name "castle" is applied to a wide diversity of buildings etc
I thought I liked Amandajm's longer version better on this page, but in the article I think the shorter version is more appropriate. I did change the quotes on castle to italics, as I *think* that is more wp:MOS-appropriate. I'll defer to anyone with a strong opinion, with appologies.- Sinneed20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think this needs clarification:
"While castles continued to be built well into the 16th century, new techniques to deal with improved cannon fire made them uncomfortable and undesirable places to live."
How? Brutannica (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
As this is from the lead, I don't think much more is needed. It is explained in the rest of the article, but basically the best way to cope with artillery was to build stubbier, thicker walls. Living space was limited by these developments and ornate decoration went into decline. Nev1 (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Note misunderstanding
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I do believe there was some sort of misunderstanding concerning note Number 96 (Chartrand 2005), where (as all can see) only the name of the author of the book is acknowledged, but no page. I do not think the whole book is the note, or is it? Hopefully there'll be some clarification of the matter. --Mortdefides (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
At first it seemed to me to be so too, but then I noticed there're two books from Rene Chartrand - one about French (2005) and the other about Spanish fortresses (2006). Now the reference clearly points to two sentences, only one of which is about French forts, the other about Spanish ones. So... Probably both the books need to be written as notes... if it is at all acceptable to reference a whole book. --Mortdefides (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The quote was actually from the 2006 book on Spanish fortifications, so I'm not sure how that got linked with the 2005 book. The quote is available here. I've not got the 2005 book to hand, but I'll try to find the exact page number. Nev1 (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a million, mate. In the moment I write a translated article and I need all things sorted out. Hopefully, you'll cope with the book on Spanish forts and clarify the mistake [unpunctuality]. Sorry, if I caused any inconvenience, just wanted everything to be completely perfect. --Mortdefides (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Pound sterling
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
There's a current argument going on in BG Wikipedia's castle article whether the pound sterlings in "Construction" are actually normal (contemporary) - in other words the currency of UK now, or medieval? If they're medieval shouldn't there be some sort of clarification (e.g. how much is a medieval pound compared to a contemporary pound)? --Mortdefides (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The figures are medieval. Conversions would be useful, but in this case I opted not to as the website used to convert from old to modern values doesn't go back far enough. This website only goes back as far as 1264, so I think the only value it could be used for is the £80,000 spent on the Edwardian castles. My view is a conversion would be nice, but unless there's a reliable source to back it up and the conversion is applied consistently it's not much use to the reader. The source originally used doesn't give conversions either, so while it might be a niggle, it's one that the academic world has to deal with too. Nev1 (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Is there any reliable source to use as a reference to write down that boiling oil and/or water was or was not used back in the Middle Age? Thanks. --GetFresh (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The article says "It is a popular myth that so-called murder-holes – openings in the ceiling of the gateway passage – were used to pour boiling oil or molten lead on attackers; the price of oil and lead, and the distance of the gatehouse from fires meant that this was completely impractical. They were most likely used like machicolations, to drop objects on attackers, or to allow water to be poured on fires to extinguish them", with a reference to pages 98 to 99 of McNeill, Tom (1992), English Heritage Book of Castles, London: English Heritage and B. T. Batsford, ISBN0-7134-7025-9. It doesn't mention boiling oil or water in general, but that would probably be a decent place to start. Nev1 (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have read about European and Japanese castles, and I came to the "castle" article expecting to find a more general discussion of castles around the world. Instead, I found this weird article with statements about how castles are exclusively a European development. WTF? The "Japanese Castle" article would beg to differ! 24.55.17.191 (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Two Comments
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
First, thanks to Nev1 for reformatting my stuff. Nicely done.
Second, this article is LONG. Should it be broken into several sub-articles?
As I said in one of my edit summaries, that's an interesting piece of information you added and I look forward to reading the article more closely. In the past few months the article has grown by several hundred words. At a bit over 10,000 words the article is indeed long. This partly because of the subject, but perhaps the warfare section can be pruned. It was recently expanded and some of the material may be better off in the article on medieval warfare. Nev1 (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Citations for a minor edit.
Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
I made the following edit which is simple and straightforward. Yet you claim it needs citations. I am trying to understand what citations you need:
But it pains must also be taken to note that fortified palaces, walled citadels and other structures with similar features to European castles were :being built long before the advent of castles in these areas, by the Islamic Empire, Persia, Ancient Armenia and the Byzantine empire. :This includes similar structures built in Spain and North Africa as a result of Islamic conquest.
Are you claiming that the Islamic Conquest of North Africa is something so obscure that it requires more than a wiki reference?
Not to mention the many many fortresses, ribat and mosques dating from the 7th and 8th centuries all over North Africa.
What sorts of citations do you need? It is like saying you need a citation for the fact that the Egyptians built pyramids.
Likewise, the fortresses of the Byzantines are likewise all over Eastern Europe and the Levant, so what is it that is obscure here?
Surely you don't suggest that these things don't predate European castles or that these cultures had palaces, pomp and ceremony and royal prestige assigned to such structures? Common folk and peasants have never ever built fortifications or palaces and these were always a mark of royalty and those connected to it in all cultures throughout history. The Umayyads are not obscure and well known for their architecture and influence in Early Islam. What here is obscure and needs more than a wiki reference? They are well known for building many palaces and fortresses throughout their domains and many still exist even if they are in ruin, like Qasr Mshatta. For example the Desert Castles, not to mention religious structures and towns.
Similarly Persia was at war with the Byzantine Empire for hundreds of years before the crusades and the emergence of European castles.
There are many fortresses and structures built as a result of this history, some of which still exist and existed at the times of the crusades.
Likewise Armenia is a very ancient culture going back thousands of years and during the time of the Byzantines built many important fortified cities and fortresses, many of which directly derive from older traditions of places like Urartu and other cultures. The city of Ani is a perfect example of this. Not to mention that many Christian motifs in architecture and culture derive from the Crusader alliance with Armenia.
Unfortunately the subject of Persia and Armenia is not something that is as widely written about in Europe as in the East, ie. Russia and Eastern Europe. But the facts I stated are really so easily verifiable that they don't need more than a reference to other wiki pages on the subject.
I don't mind getting citations from books if you like but I question your desire to omit contemporary history around Europe to paint a picture that is not accurate.
The point of the edit being that it wasn't as if there was nothing going on in terms of fortresses, palaces and other structures being built by various cultures before the Europeans started building castles. That is totally false and a misrepresentation of history. There was a lot going on.
Big-dynamo (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
In this article you must provide citations even for minor edits because this is a featured article and one of the criteria is "consistent citations". That said, on Wikipedia verifiable sources are always required if you want to make sure the information you add are kept in the article. Without such references your contributions are your opinions. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The article does not of course claim that the European castle represents the first or only type of fortification. There has been a lot of discussion of how much, and what, should be said about other traditions, both before, during and after the period of the castle. I personally agree that there is probably more that could be said about the relationship to non-European traditions around the time the castle developed, but this needs to be carefully done with heavyweight references. Fortified towns and forts that were not the main residence of a leader of some sort were of course very widespread, but not close enough, nor are buildings (like Coptic monasteries for example) with high walls & other elements of fortification enough to deter a raid, but not a serious siege. The scholarly references so far used do not cover this matter much or at all, but I suspect there are others that do somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
But it pains must also be taken to note that fortified palaces, walled citadels and other structures with similar features to European castles were being built long before the advent of castles in these areas, by the Islamic Empire, Persia, Ancient Armenia and the Byzantine empire. This includes similar structures built in Spain and North Africa as a result of Islamic conquest.
There is an entire section on the antecedents of castles, outlining the relevant traditions of fortification in broad strokes. It goes from the start of fortification in places such as the Fertile Crescent, explains that Europe was slow to catch up, and up to the Romans. No where does the article claim that castles were the only fortification of their period, or that there were no other fortifications before. As such, the above text which was added to the article was unnecessary. This article is about castles; the immediate influences are included, there is no need to trace back the origin of crenellations, or arrowloops. Doing so would bloat the article unnecessarily and lose focus on the subject. If a reader wants to know more on the origins of a particular feature they are free to click on the relevant wikilink. Supposedly "The point of the edit being that it wasn't as if there was nothing going on in terms of fortresses, palaces and other structures being built by various cultures before the Europeans started building castles." Well the article makes that clear and I'm confused as to how anyone who has read the article could come to the conclusion that it asserts that medieval Europe has a monopoly on fortification. Nev1 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I added it to the following paragraph because the implications are that a) prior to castles being built by the Crusaders in the Near East, no analogous structures existed and that the only analogous structures were all the way in the Far East in places like Japan. The point being that the distinction between castle and structures built by other cultures is not clearly defined. For example, how is a place for entertaining guests unique to European castles versus other cultures? That is how the paragraph reads as it is currently written. I think that the whole sentence starting with "It is generally accepted that castles..." should be removed or put in its own paragraph as it really is a different subject altogether and should be fleshed out on how castles were distinct from structures in other contemporary cultures, but one sentence of half-baked information is simply misleading.
Sometimes misapplied, the term castle has also been erroneously used to refer to structures such as Iron Age fortifications, for example Maiden Castle, Dorset.[12] A castle could act as a stronghold and prison but was also a place where a knight or lord could entertain his peers. Over time the aesthetics of the design became more important, as the castle's appearance and size began to reflect the prestige and power of its occupant. Comfortable homes were often fashioned within their fortified walls. Although castles still provided protection from low levels of violence in later periods, eventually they were succeeded by country houses as high status residences.[13] It is generally accepted that castles are confined to Europe, where they originated, and the Middle East, where they were introduced by European Crusaders;[14] however, there were analogous structures in Japan built in the 16th and 17th centuries that evolved independently from European influence and which, according to military historian Stephen Turnbull, had "a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature".[15]
The implication is not that there were no structures with similar features in the Middle East, what it says is there were no castles in the Middle East. That is referenced to Allen Brown 1976, pp.2–6. If you believe it is wrong, you need to provide a reliable source saying as much. Please make sure you understand what the article is saying. Nev1 (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, but what does that one citation have to do with Japanese structures and why would you include the two in the same paragraph? They are totally different time periods and totally different cultures. Sure, the sentence on Japanese structures not being castles is cited, but it has nothing to do with the preceding paragraph. I am not saying that Muslim, Byzantine or Persian structures were castles per se, but I am saying that they had structures that served similar roles within their corresponding cultures as castles: royal prestige, warfare, royal residences, etc. If you find it necessary to include Japanese structures from hundreds of years after the first castles in Europe, then why not include structures from much closer by which are within the same time frame? Why include one and not the rest? The implication is that outside of Feudal Japan and the ancient world no other culture in or near Europe had anything anywhere near what you call a castle within the same time frame Europeans were building them.Big-dynamo (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The situation with shiro is because they're not included in major castles texts, however to most readers to see an article called Japanese castle not included in an article called castle needs explanation and to be fair they are analogous. I'm not sure where else it would go really, I thought the section of defining characteristics seemed most appropriate. So while there are structures elsewhere which share features with castles, there's a less pressing need to explain why the article doesn't cover them. Nev1 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is not very good, really!
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Bottom line there should be a tag on all protected articles stating that the reason no one can edit, except the "sacred few" is because it's content is perpetually disputed. Therefore as this is the case, there should be a warning to note that the article contents should be read with a pinch of salt because it contains cherry-picked details that ignore global historiographies. It also pays scant regard to current trends in academic research or present theories. I notice that generally the only people allowed to edit here are those with an agenda, like Mr Nev1, who reverts anything that isn't in a book by Arnold or Cathcart King. It's all very sad.
It's not to difficult to understand the reason for the editing problems, put simply it's because a "castle" is an abstract concept. This article takes a very narrow European definition and extrapolates it to encompass a global perspective. However a castle's structure is only the physical manifestation of its being. A castle can simply not be defined in this way (unless the notion of castle is specified exclusively to one distinct geographical version e.g. British castles, French castles, Spanish castles, Italian castles, German castles and so on etc ).
Look it this way, a steak knife and a Bowie knife are different but are both knives. No one would want to make one article called Knife and then try and describe all knives from one viewpoint, would they? (but using the logic on show here, that could change). By using broad sweeping generalisations, the article to falls into a fallacy of purpose because it is trying to address all things to all men but in effect is only defining what it means to be a European caslte.
Embarrassingly the exclusion of other non-white "castles" is bordering on racism, for instance the scant regard of other fortifications that fulfilled castle-like purposes in the East such as Chinese towers, Forts in India or the Japanese castles of the Nara period. It's like the whole article is written for a white-thinking Victorian audience who have little or no regard for anything not created by Europeans. (Addendum: OMG I have just reread some of the earlier comments from above and I see that Mr Nev1 has accused people of trolling if they bring up racism over the exclusion of cultures types of castle. OMG dude you are being racist. I was a complete neutral until I tried to change an article error and found that I couldn't. It then led me down this horrid rabbit hole of a discussion page to discover that I innocently concluded what has been mentioned many times before. But don't you see, the article is crap so it's going to go on ad infinitum because the article doesn't work you deluded lot. It's polarised to such a narrow extent it's content is almost meaningless. For an idea on how an article can engender scope, have a look at the one on Black people, you'll be surprised they don't all live in Africa you know!!).
I am just stating using occam's razor that the reason this article is protected is because it is wrong on two crucial levels: scope and meaning. If peace is to be restored, it needs to be pulled apart and not pander to the idealogical viewpoints of a small number of white-European editors (and whoever thinks this is a good article need their head examined). If you broke the article up into respective articles that all reflected the many spectrum of what castle is and could be, it would work. There will never be happiness if this jaundiced work continues to try to be an all-encompassing answer as to what a "castle" is.
If you don't change it then this article will need to be protected forever from anyone and everyone who has an abstract vision of what a castle is to them!! Thus failing the very notion that Wikipedia is based on, the one about "good faith". I will end by noting that an English proverb wisely says "Advice is least heeded when most needed." If you want the problems associated with this article to end, then changes are going to have to happen. But in reality that is going to be a definite problem as some people, and you know who you are, are going to be very, very upset if that happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.251.74 (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Scope
Latest comment: 13 years ago31 comments5 people in discussion
Since this continues to attract comment, I think it might be a good idea to expand the 3rd para of "Defining characteristics", perhaps making it a sub-section, further explaining that this is not Fortification and linking to other articles on types of fortified strongholds that approach the "castle" form. I think I suggested something similar round FAC time. As regulars will know, I think the subject as defined, and the title, are perfectly justifiable, but it is clear that this justification is not yet expressed in the article to the satisfaction of many readers. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Something does need to be done to lay this problem to rest. I've started picking up the castle books again (you may have noticed I've been playing around with the warfare section) so will look towards providing a better explanation. I'm not entirely happy with the sudden end to the article, and would like to find some material on conservation, but have not added anything so far as most of the material I've found centres on the UK and Ireland. Anyway, as changes to the defining characteristics are more important, and have generated more discussion on the talk page, I'll post any suggested changes here to see what thoughts are rather than straight into the article. Nev1 (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about moving the following from the third paragraph to the second:
A castle could act as a stronghold and prison but was also a place where a knight or lord could entertain his peers. Over time the aesthetics of the design became more important, as the castle's appearance and size began to reflect the prestige and power of its occupant. Comfortable homes were often fashioned within their fortified walls. Although castles still provided protection from low levels of violence in later periods, eventually they were succeeded by country houses as high status residences.[1]
It's a cosmetic change, but I think would make the section little more coherent with the theme of change restricted to the second paragraph. Would that be ok? Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure. I've also responded at my talk. I think we need to shift the tone a little from "This is what a castle is" to "This is what this article is about. We, and most scholars, define a castle this way". If you see what I mean. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Castle is sometimes used as a catch-all term for all kinds of fortifications, and as a result has been misapplied in the technical sense. An example of this is Maiden Castle which, despite the name, is an Iron Agehill fort, which had a very different origin and purpose.[2] Although "castle" has not become, like chateau in French and schloss in German, a generic term for an English country house, many of these use the word in their name while having few if any of the architectural characteristics, usually as their owners liked to maintain a link to the past and felt the castle was a masculine expression of their power.[3] In scholarship the castle, as defined above, is generally accepted as a coherent concept, originating in Europe and later spreading to parts of the Middle East, where they were introduced by European Crusaders. This coherent group shared a common origin, dealt with a particular mode of warfare, and exchanged influences.[4] However, there were analogous structures elsewhere; while they may share common features of fortification, they originated in different periods and circumstances and experienced differing evolutions and influences. For example shiro in Japan, described as castles by historian Stephen Turnbull, underwent "a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature".[5] While European castles built from the late 12th and early 13th century onwards were generally stone, shiro were predominantly of timber construction into the 16th century.[6] By the time Japanese and European cultures met in the late 16th century, fortification in Europe had moved beyond castles and relied on innovations such as the Italian trace italienne and star forts.[5]Forts in India present a similar case; when they were encountered by the British in the 17th century castles in Europe had generally fallen out of use militarily. The fortifications the British encountered were dubbed forts, and the terminology is widely used today. Like shiro, the Indian forts, durga or durg in Sanskrit, shared features with castles in Europe such as acting as a domicile for a lord as well as being fortifications. They too had a different development from the structures known as castles that had their origins in Europe.[7]
I implemented the change yesterday as it's been a few days. I looks quite big now, especially factoring the images, so I was thinking about splitting the paragraph just before the sentence which starts "However, there were analogous structures elsewhere..." and dropping the however. Any thoughts on that? Johnbod suggested giving the paragraph its own heading and while I agree I'm stumped for ideas at the moment so suggestions are welcome. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
What about the section heading Comparable fortifications, and dividing it as you said, into two paragraphs. Replacing the opening of the sentence that begins with "However", the second paragraph could begin: "In other areas of the world, analogous structures shared features of fortification and other defining characteristics associated with the concept of a castle, though they originated in different periods..." Boneyard90 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The suggested change to the first sentence of what would become the second paragraph works for me and if Johnbod's ok with it I'll make the change. The proposed section title doesn't quite cover the use of "castle" in the names of country houses and the associated material so might not be ideal, but is a step in the right direction I think. Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've split the paragraph with Boneyard90's suggested change to the opening sentence of the new second paragraph. I think I'd go for "use of the term" if that's ok with Boneyard90? Nev1 (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
No objections here. Though I'm wondering if there's a more "academic" term for that phrase; something like "Homophonic use" or "Homonymic use". I'm probably making it more complicated than need be. As I said, no objections here. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that the recent edits while properly referenced still present a somewhat rambling discourse over all. Part of the problem is that you appear to be trying to stick strictly to the modern academic definition of the term, but generally admit that this term has changed over time. Therefore, in that sense it may be better to just state the fact that the definition has changed and provide the appropriate references. For example England has documents and records going back many years and old dictionaries of English which define castles going back at least 200 years. The general definition is a strong fortified place or residence, which does not specifically omit any fortification from any age or any region as being a "castle". The more modern scholarship therefore should be treated as modern scholarship, whereas the general word should be treated as being something that has been used historically to refer to fortifications of all sorts, even though modern scholars may differ on scope. The point being that modern scholars cant say that someone from 1096 who claimed that there were castles elsewhere were wrong as they were absolutely right in their use of the language based on the commonly accepted use of the term. Therefore the article should avoid trying to cling to the word of selected scholars as it is not universally agreed among them all as to the scope of the term and the modern "scholarly" view does not necessarily reflect the historic view. For example, what was the usage and definition of the term in the 1100's versus 1500s and 1600's, the time of Shakespeare? The paragraphs you added could be labeled as "historical usage" or "general usage" to reflect a distinction either between the more scholarly definition, which means limited to scholars, and the more historic or general definition which is a bit more broad. In that same vein, I would suggest cleaning up some of the article and removing redundant bits that say the same thing in multiple places. This will avoid the feeling that this article is trying to support a particular POV (selected scholars) versus being a more general article and reference on the word and its historical usage. If I get time I can provide some suggestions for clean up that don't really take away from the overall thrust of the article.Big-dynamo (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted the last set of changes to the article, and my apologies in advance if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick. My concerns are:
"Nevertheless, some of the earliest castles built by the Normans in France are also called chateaus along with later structures built there by English Kings. Some examples are Château_de_Langeais, Château_de_Loches, Château_de_Montrichard and Château_de_Caen." There are some formatting problems here (plural of chateau is also chateaux, for example), but I really didn't understand this. The Normans spoke French, albeit Norman French, and Normandy is in France. Why wouldn't we expect these to be called chateaux? If what we're trying to say here is something about their naming in the 10th century, then we're looking at Latin sources, who usually call them - as per the original text of the article - castellum. Or is the key point that early English kings called their castles chateaux in France.
" This style of fortification was then carried to England by the Normans as a result of the Norman Conquest of England by the Duke of Normandy, William the Conqueror. The early castles in England feature characteristics typical of Norman Architecture as a result of the large numbers of them built during Norman rule." - leaving aside the repetition of "Norman", again, I didn't quite get the point. The reason that early castles in England have typical Norman features is not because the Normans built lots of castles, but because the only castles built in England during the period were built by Normans (which is what one might expect).
More generally, as an aside, modern scholars don't suggest that someone in 1096 was wrong in how they used the term "castle", its just that for roughly the last century (since the classic 1912 works) the academic community has adopted this form of definition as a way of helping to ensure consistency in modern debate. I don't see this as being an issue of "selected scholars" either - Armitage, R. Allen Brown, Cathcart King, Creighton, even Liddiard, span a century of academic work in this area, and all make use of the concept in various ways.
As I say, I'm not convinced this set of changes improved the existing article, but happy to discuss further here. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The point is that the words Chateaux and Castle have an overlapping usage in French and English because of the fact that the Normans themselves came from France and the style of structures they built in England derive from earlier examples in France. It also points out that later constructions by the Normans in France also are labeled as Chateaux which again reinforces the fact that there is a great deal of overlap between the terms, due to them sharing the same root and because of the historical relationship between the France and England. But I agree that it isn't absolutely necessary to include the added text.
As for the section about the Normans building castles in England, the fact is that the Normans came from France and introduced this style of construction to England from France. If you read scholarship on the subject the facts are that the earliest donjons (keeps) were built in France along with the earliest motte and bailey fortifications and that these were then introduced into Europe by the Normans. The Motte and Bailey structure in the Bayeux Tapestry was in France. The English were not building castles before the arrival of the Normans. As the article itself states, those previous constructs were hill forts or Roman castra and not "castles". Therefore the history of castles starts in France and then moves to England and the rest of Europe after the fall of the Carolingian Empire. I added that to the first paragraph of the section titled origin and early castles because the section spends more time talking about feudalism than talking about actual castles. As I already pointed out above, the article rambles a bit and the reason is because it focuses to much on trying to define and elaborate concepts of feudalism which are not the subject of the article. Feudalism is a heavily debated concept in scholarly circles whereas constructs like castles are easily identified and documented as physical monuments regardless of the overarching social and political structures. More to the point, the significance of the Carolingian Empire is that it spanned the territories of lands that would later become France, Germany and Italy and gave rise to the noble dynasties and lineages that would eventually rule in various parts of Europe. Therefore the breakup of the Carolingian Empire led to the rise of these countries and also to the rise of England through the Normans. And as a result, many of the things that would later characterize Medieval European culture are tied to the political and social events during the Carolingian Empire.
Lastly, as for the last bit about scholarship since 1912, the fact is that castles have a history going back 1000 years and 100 years of scholarship is not going to change the previous 900 years of history and usage of the term. This article should not be giving undue weight to modern scholarship when those scholars can not change how people viewed things and used the term in the past. It spends to much time trying to reinforce and reflect this modern scholarly view, which does not reflect the actual history of the term. That is the point. It is fine to point out that modern historians, especially Coulson, have taken this view, but that is not the full history of the term and therefore it is incorrect to try and make the view of scholars in the 20th century represent the historical meaning of the term when they are not the same. This article is not about feudalism and there is no need to spend so much time on it in order to simply say they were residences for Nobles. Feudalism as a word only existed since the 17th century and is often debated in terms of scope and meaning and spending too much time on trying to elaborate the term only distracts from the subject of the article.
Overall, while I can see that some edits, like that in the etymology section were not necessary, I don't see how reverting a series of edits all together reflects the minor concerns mentioned here. That is not justifiable in my opinion, as many of those edits were based on clear references or simply reworded the existing text to remove a POV slant towards modern scholarship versus actual history. To tell history is to state the facts, but to support a POV means to push a specific interperetation of the facts a certain way. I think the article should avoid the issues of interperetation in terms of modern scholarship and simply state the facts. To me at least, these facts make it clear that the history of castles in the English language starts in France and then spreads to England and the rest of Europe and the article should simply state that and support it with cited facts and references and avoid focus on trying to push a particular scholarly POV.Big-dynamo (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't really see your point here. "Overlaps" in the usage of "chateau" are not relevant here. You have produced no evidence that the usage of "castle" in English has changed significantly in the last 500 years - I rather doubt that it has. Before that we hardly need to worry. The article already made it perfectly clear where castles developed and how they spread to England. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I made a lot of edits, so I am not going to talk in vague. Please be specific. The oldest dictionary of the english language which I can cite states that a castle is a "fortified residence". It does not signify anything about feudalism, lordship, nobles or any of the other things that "modern scholars" attempt to attach to the term. Therefore, the historical definition of the term in English is a bit more broad in usage in scope than what modern scholars propose it should be, which is my point. The historical usage and definition of the term is not the same as that of modern scholars. You can see this definition here: http://www.archive.org/stream/dictionaryofengl01johnuoft#page/n344/mode/1up. That definition from the 1800s is the base definition and the "scholarly view" adds to it the trappings of feudalism and nobility. The article article does not really state the facts of history, in terms of dates and places of actual structures versus spending time elaborating about feudalism, which again reflects this modern "scholarly" view but avoids any critical key facts. Were castles built in England before the Normans? And what about all the castles built in France before the Norman invasion? Since they were in France are you saying they cannot be castles even though they share the same function and were the origin of the stone keep or donjon (which again is French) that became characteristic of later Norman castles in England? The article spends to much time trying to reinforce either or contrasts when historically, especially in the time period of the 11th through 13th century such contrasts were not as evident. And this is the critical time period of the history of castles.
How does this actually state the facts of the origin of castles based on specific points in time and history:
Castles had their origins in the 9th and 10th centuries. This period saw the emergence of a social and military elite in the Carolingian Empire that was based around mounted warfare. Fighting on horseback was a costly and time-consuming endeavour, requiring specialised equipment and trained horses. For their efforts, knights were granted land by the lords for whom they fought. The link between knight and lord was the basis of feudalism, and could go higher up the social scale with loyalties between lords, dukes, princes, and kings. When the Carolingian Empire collapsed in the 9th and 10th centuries, so did effective centralised administration,[8] and it fell to the landed elite to take control. This led to the privatisation of government, and local lords assumed responsibility for the local economy and justice. Although castles were private buildings, lordship was a public office and the holder had a responsibility to protect his peasants.[9] 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.[10] The building of a castle sometimes required the permission of the king or other high authority. Holy Roman EmperorCharles the Bald prohibited the construction of castles without his permission and ordered them all to be destroyed in 864; perhaps 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. Converted into a donjon around 950, Châteaux Doué-la-Fontaine in France is the oldest standing castle in Europe.[11] The Muslim invasion of the Iberian Peninsula in the 8th century introduced a style of fortification developed in North Africa reliant on tapial, pebbles in cement, where timber was in short supply. From an early stage, they used castles to secure their conquests; a particularly good example of early castle built by Muslims in Spain is that of Baños de la Encina, dating from the 9th century.[12]
It starts off saying castles had their origins in the 9th and 10th centuries but then goes off into social and military elites and mounted warfare, which are not castles. It then spends a few more sentences in talking about structure of government and then onto administration and all sorts of other stuff other than castles. Then towards the very end it mentions a French Chateux as the oldest standing castle and then jumps into the Muslims of Iberia. But that contradicts the idea that Chateux aren't castles doesn't it? And the only actual historical fact mentioned about castles is a structure that isn't labeled a castle but is called a Chateux and since it is in France there is no doubt that it was always called either a chateux or donjon not castle. So if the two terms don't overlap, then how does a Chateux become the first castle? The paragraph starts off talking about one thing, goes on to define and elaborate on something else and then ends on a totally different subject. And the relationship between the three is not elaborated at all. In my mind, if you want to elaborate on the feudal structure post Carolingian Europe, you should put it in a different section or article. Likewise, if you want to talk about similar structures in Islamic Spain, you should first elaborate on the English castle before going on to talk about the Islamic fortifications.
So I replaced it with this:
Castles had their origins in the 9th and 10th centuries. This period saw the emergence of a social and military elite in the Carolingian Empire that included various aspects of manorialism, benefice, demesne, villa and Comes generally referred to in scholarship as feudalism. When the Carolingian Empire collapsed in the 9th and 10th centuries, so did effective centralised administration,[8] and it fell to the landed elite to take control. This led to the privatisation of government, and local lords assumed responsibility for the local economy and justice. The fall of the Carolingian Empire in West Francia led to the rise of the Kingdom of France. It is during this period that various nobles began to build some of the earliest recognized castles in Europe, most notably featuring some of the earliest stone donjons, such as those built by Fulk III of Anjou.[13] This style of fortification was then carried to England by the Normans as a result of the Norman Conquest of England by the Duke of Normandy, William the Conqueror. The early castles in England feature characteristics typical of Norman Architecture as a result of the large numbers of them built during Norman rule.
The paragraph still has a lot about feudalism, but it isn't trying to focus elaborating the concept other than to give the background to the rise of the constructions labeled castles in France which was created from the breakup of the Carolingian empire. It also identifies those early structures and those who built them and then goes on to show how that formed the basis for the structures later built in England. So it is straight to the point and based on facts not interperetations and elaborations of unrelated concepts. In fact the rest of the section goes into even more about feudalism before actually citing the time frames for actual structures built in later years. Again, this section is not about the history of feudalism, it is about the history of castles and it only needs to talk about those nobles or dynasties who built castles, at what time period and where. It does not need to elaborate the concept of feudalism at every step as that is not the focus of the article.Big-dynamo (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm little clearer. You can't usefully compare a 2-word dictionary definition with a wide range of modern scholarship, and in any case "fortified residence", as a 2-word dictionary definition, seems entirely compatible with the definition used in the modern scholarship & the article. What's the problem here? Your changes seem to amount to removing a couple of lines expanding on the background to the emergence of the castle, which don't seem at all excessive in a long article. Plus you add a vague and repetitious (and currently ungrammatical) sentence on the architecture of Norman castles. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
How can't I? The point is that in 1762, those "modern scholars" didn't exist and therefore their views were not central to the definition of the term. The term was generally referred to as a "strong house, fortified against assaults". That is not the "scholarly" definition, that is the definition found in any dictionary. Therefore, anything that is proposed by modern scholars does not necessarily reflect the historical usage and meaning of the term. Specifically, there is no attachment to nobility and therefore no specific reference to feudalism or even Europe. If you are going to talk about the history of the term then you can't pretend that modern scholarship reflects the history or usage of the term, as modern scholars more closely tie the word to concepts of European feudalism as a residence of a lord or noble. This is noted in many works on the subject including some of those I listed in my edits, including this one: http://books.google.com/books?id=m-TqPC6cRNYC&pg=PA1&dq=early+french+castles&hl=en&ei=Sc28TbmfK8PogQfeo6ngBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CFEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=early%20french%20castles&f=false
This book clearly explains the relationship between French Castel, Chateaux and Keep and the later castle. It also even points out that some early motte and bailey constructions were not even "castles" according to the definition of Reginald Allen Brown, who is one of those scholars to ties a castle to being a lordly residence. So my point is that the article is not totally accurate, glosses over and omits key facts about historical origins in France, overemphasizes and contradicts itself with the distinctions between the word Castle and Chateaux in that early Chateaux were often synonymous with castles and spends to much time dwelling on things like feudalism which aren't even the subject of the article.Big-dynamo (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I suspect there's three issues here that we need to ensure are suitably reflected in the article; potentially there may be a risk of us confusing them, although they are linked:
The etymology of the word "castle" - how do we get from the original Latin word to the English word "castle" and the other European equivalents.
What modern scholars (1900+) typically mean by the term castle, and why the casual reader will find some locations called castles (or chateaux etc.) which don't match this definition.
How castles (as per the definition above) first emerged, in the post-Carolingian empire of 900AD+. This covers a substantial part of the "feudalism" question.
If we could agree, or amend, these points, it might help subsequent discussion on what these section needs to adequately describe.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
On the first point, while ago I prepared something on the muse of the term château based on the opening of Thompson 1987 about how château began with a similar meaning, but diverged later and château-fort or château-féodal are now more accurate terms when distinguishing castles from country houses in French, although chateau is of course still used, as in Château Gaillard. But I scrapped it as it seemed tangential to this article. It seems that was part of the point of this edit. Perhaps the bit on the meaning of château ("Although these various terms derive from the same root, they are not universally applied to the same types of structures. For example, the French château is used to describe a grand country house at the heart of an estate, regardless of the presence of fortifications.") needs to be removed as it may be confusing the situation? Nev1 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Château has its own article, & we can be very sparing in how much space we devote to it here. I remain to be pursuaded that the definition of a castle of scholars in 1900 was any different from that of 1800 or 1700, or 1600 come to that. Quoting a 2 word definition from an old dictionary does little. Of course the ways of thinking about the overall society that produced castles have changed, but I see no evidence that the application of the term has. Walter Scott's idea of a castle is surely exactly the same as the modern one. It seems to me that all these points are adequately covered already, but no doubt some improvement is possible. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Understood, however, in the critical period of castle development in Europe between France and England, there were many structures built in France both by French and English kings contesting with the French throne and are castles. These castles are very important in the development of castles in Europe and some of the architectural styles of later gothic can be traced to this period, as well as some of the more iconic elements of what we now consider as castle architecture. Therefore those structures, whether called chateaux or not are still castles in every sense of the term and are part of the history of such structures.
And as for the etymology of the word I believe the early use of the word chateaux was for structures that were indeed castles especially in the 10th to 12th centuries and only later did the distinction of a chateaux as a form of palace or manor house take place. The fact is that the first castles in this sense were built in France and they were called chateaux because that was the term used in the French language for those structures at the time. And since they existed before such structures in Europe, which is why the distinction of later use of the term doesn't apply to that early formative period as much as later periods.Big-dynamo (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec)It seems that while the castle was evolving, so was the use of the term at least early on. When talking about the decree of Charles the Bald in The Architecture of castles (1984) Allen Brown tried to explain the situation:
...in 8664 ... Charles the Bald, King of the West Franks, prohibited the construction of fortifications without his permission and ordered their destruction: 'We will and expressly command that whoever at this time has made castles (castella) and fortifications (firmitates) and enclosures (haias) without our permission shall have them demolished by the First of August.' There can be no certainty, however, that this is the first written reference to castles proper, for there is the problem of words, vocabulary and nomenclature, which may be slow to adapt to changes in fact, history and society. At anytime between the ninth century and at least the eleventh, ancient and classical Latin words like castrum, castellum, municipium, munitio and oppidum could of course continue to be used for any kind of fortress, strongplace or town, as well as possibly for the new castle.
Based on the above, I've tweaked what the article says about Charles with a note about use of Latin terms. I'll have to recheck what Coulson said for the part related to "however, this does not necessarily reflect the terminology used in the medieval period". It was added ages ago and I can't remember what he said, but the example Coulson gave of those on the First Crusade falls within the range Brown gave. But, Coulson will have been talking about Latin as was Allen Brown. The meaning of the English word may be another issue. A two word dictionary definition is not a good way to measure what was understood by the word castle in 1785. Nev1 (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you are missing the obvious and trying to hard to word for word recite certain authors and not trying to understand the history. The period between the 9th and 12th centuries was a time when the French language and English languages were developing from Germanic and Latin. It is almost impossible to try and take words as we understand them 1000 years later and apply the same meaning to what was understood then. In fact, I believe you are trying to argue from authority, ie. depending on the word of selected authors to support an unsupportable argument. The words castle, castel, castillo, castellum and so forth were almost interchangeable for a time as these languages developed along with the structures. Rather than trying to focus on that why not focus on simply saying that the modern term castle evolved from this background and that in the early period there was considerable overlap between these words because of the history and the fact that these languages and concepts were still in a formative stage. As you move into the 15th and 16th centuries and later, then yes, much of the distinctions are in place, along with many of the now ubiquitous architectural elements. But you are omitting the actual history of these developments across France, England (and elsewhere) by relying on a taxonomic convention based on what word should be used and totally missing the whole point. Talk about the structures and the development of such and not the word itself as much, because meanings and definitions have changed over time along with the structures. Or as I put it very simply, without all the tedium of getting into this contradictory approach of trying to cling to a "universal" and "unadulterated" "scholarly" view of the word, there was overlap in meaning because of a common historical origin of the term from the latin. Simple and to the point.
And note, according to what you wrote above, it implies that "castella" was actually the term used, not castle. But again, why bog down the article with trying to split hairs over exactly when and where the term was first used as opposed to explaining that this structure, the concept and the word evolved from a background of roman Latin, Germanic and Frankish (French) social and cultural evolution in the area encompassed by the Carolingian Empire and later France, Germany and England. The key is that the Holy Roman Empire and the Carolingian empire were both supported and built with the explicit support of the Church which was the bastion of Roman latin culture and hence a conduit for the evolution of European nobility, culture, national identity and so forth.Big-dynamo (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I've provided the quote from Allen Brown because verifiability is policy. Rather than trying to rephrase it, I thought Brown explained the situation better than I could; that certainly does not indicate an absence of thought on my part. The etymology section is about the evolution of the word castle, the cultural evolution of the structure is not relevant at that point in the article and is covered later. I'm concerned that the final sentence of the etymology section ("Although these various terms derive from the same root, they are not universally applied to the same types of structures. For example, the French château is used to describe a grand country house at the heart of an estate, regardless of the presence of fortifications") is confusing you. Nev1 (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand verifiability but that does not mean that out of all the books written on castles you have to depend on citing word for word the same handful of authors over and over. But anyway, even if you use the same authors, my point is if you read the article it keeps going back to the same thing over and over, but you aren't really clarifying anything. When did castle diverge from castel, castillo, castra and chateaux? And this paragraph is a perfect example of the repetition with no clarification.
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.[53] The building of a castle sometimes required the permission of the king or other high authority. The King of West Francia Charles the Bald prohibited the construction of castella without his permission and ordered them all to be destroyed in 864. This is perhaps the earliest reference to castles being built without permission, breaking the feudal agreement between lord and vassal. However, military historian Allen Brown points out that the wording may be misleading as at the time terms such as castellum and castrum were used to describe any fortification.[54] There are very few castles dated with certainty from the mid-9th century.
The first sentence states the "traditional" view without any citation. OK. But then the next sentence counters the first. So in the end, you haven't really clarified when the first actual "castles" are referenced in any historical texts OR identified when the earliest structures (even if they are only identified in texts but not physical remains) are mentioned. But then I guess you are trying to say that the first reference to a castle is in this reference to Charles the Bald. So why don't you simply say this is the earliest reference to a castle? Oh, but you can't because once again, you turn right around and counter one sentence with another which claims that a castellum is not a castle. Right there you are using a very circular way of saying something that could have been said simply: "Early texts from the 9th century refer to structures which may be the precursor to later castles, such as the edict by Charles the Bald in 850 that prohibited the building of castella.... However, military historian Allen Brown.....". Yes, having permission was important, but that isn't the key point. The key point in a section entitled "Origins and Early Castles" is to cite the earliest references to structures which could be called castles. But what you have now seems more concerned about right to build than pointing out that the usage of the term "castella" is possibly one early example of such a reference. Then you go on to there being no structures from the 9th century that are labeled as castles (which I would argue is not accurate based on my reading). But anyway, then you go to the tenth century. But here again, you mention a donjon and chateaux, which earlier you state is not really a castle, but here it is being built in the 10th century. So is this a castle or not? And is it the only structure built in 10th century France that fits the bill of being a castle? No. Ok. But then what? What happens in the 11th century? Of course the Norman invasion happens, but as I was trying to show with my edits, there is no connection between the "chateaux" you point out from the 10th century and the later structures built by the Normans in England, which is a fundamental historical fact.
At this point I have said it multiple times, you are overly concerned with irrelevant arguments that are not central to the early evidence of actual structures that are can be identified as precursors to or examples of early castles. You seem to be more worried about making 9th century terminology match up with the opinions of a scholar 1000 years later, as if the concept magically popped up as a distinct entity as opposed to slowly emerging from a background of various structures and related terms with similar meanings, which is the historical fact. Obsessing over Mr. Brown and his views only obscures that fact. And if you are going to obsess over Mr. Brown and his "purist" view, then where on the page does the first structure referred to by name as "castle" with the meaning and understanding provided by Mr Brown actually occur (and not chateaux, castella, or non residential forts, etc)?Big-dynamo (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
There are several instances of misunderstanding in the above statement.
"The first sentence states the "traditional" view without any citation": no it does not, the reference is #53.
"...the next sentence counters the first": yes, the juxtaposition is deliberate, illustrating changing trends in academic discourse. I do not view this as a problem. It is useful if a reader comes across this article after having read an old text and wonders why the view is no longer widely held.
"So in the end, you haven't really clarified when the first actual "castles" are referenced in any historical texts": indeed not, but that was not the purpose of the first two sentences. The fourth sentence of the paragraph you quoted addresses the edict of charles the Bald, and I presume this is what you are referring to.
"So why don't you simply say this is the earliest reference to a castle?": It should be clear that the Latin words used had a range of meanings and so it is not certain whether Charles was referring to castles specifically or fortifications in general. Hence this may be the earliest reference to castles, but it is virtually impossible to be certain either way. It is worth noting, and the caveat is worth including.
"you turn right around and counter one sentence with another which claims that a castellum is not a castle": no, what is said is "at the time terms such as castellum and castrum were used to describe any fortification". There is no exclusions of castles in that statement, only a clarification that castellum may refer to fortifications other than castles.
"The key point in a section entitled "Origins and Early Castles" is to cite the earliest references to structures which could be called castles": ...and to give a bit of background. Both of which it does.
"Then you go on to there being no structures from the 9th century that are labeled as castles": I presume this refers to the statement that "There are very few castles dated with certainty from the mid-9th century". The key phrases here are "very few", rather than none, and "with certainty", which means there may be some inaccuracy in the dating. The meaning, therefore, is very different to your interpretation of the sentence.
"But anyway, then you go to the tenth century": ... to mention the earliest surviving castle.
"you mention a donjon and chateaux, which earlier you state is not really a castle": no, what was stated earlier is that the modern term château carries a different connotation to the word castle in English, not that it can never refer to a castle at all. I asked if you were confused by this and you failed to respond. I can clarify in the article that the meaning of château has changed over time if that helps.
"So is this a castle or not?": I would have thought your question was answered by the statement in the article "Châteaux Doué-la-Fontaine in France is the oldest standing castle in Europe".
"there is no connection between the "chateaux" you point out from the 10th century and the later structures built by the Normans in England": on what do you base that claim?
"You seem to be more worried about making 9th century terminology match up with the opinions of a scholar 1000 years later": I think the issue of Châteaux Doué-la-Fontaine shows that is not the case and that you have misunderstood my position on the matter.
"Obsessing over Mr. Brown...": I prefer to call it using a reliable source. If you don't like it, you are free to look up more. Nev1 (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it is because you wrote it that you believe that maybe what you wrote comes across as clarifying something. But it doesn't.
I won't belabor the point, but no your wording and phrasing only obscures the issue versus clarifying it. And as you say in your first sentence you weren't trying to clarify even though the heading of the section implies you are clarifying the history and origin of the term and the structure yet you do neither.
You have a whole paragraph about history and origins but nowhere in it do you clarify the history or origin of the structures and how the word came to be. To me if you have a section labeled as such it should do that and doesn't need circular logic. And to be clear yes you can find enough even in Allen Browns work to suggest when the first occurrence of the word "castle" not castrum, not castellum, not chateaux comes into being. But if you are saying that these terms were interchangeable at that time, then I don't see why you couldn't just say that as I suggested with some of my previous edit. Either they were or they weren't interchangeable and if you scroll up a bit you will see where the contradiction comes in as the article states that castle has a "distinct" meaning from castrum, castella and so forth, yet you turn right around and use them almost interchangeably throughout the article, without explaining how and why this is possible. Now I know you didn't revert anything, but seeing as you are doing most of the work, I just wanted to use these examples to clarify the purpose of my edits. I believe that if you can say it in 10 words then that is better than beating around the bush. But as it stands the article is contradictory, says one thing in one place then says totally the opposite somewhere else. If castella, castrum, chateaux, etc are distinct from castles, then how can the earliest castle be called a chateaux UNLESS there was overlap in the meaning of the term, which is what I said in one simple sentence. The point is that if you read what you wrote that is what you are saying, but you are saying it in a round about and contradictory fashion.Big-dynamo (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Donjon de langeais 994.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
A castle (from Latincastellum) is a type of fortified structure built in Europe and the Middle East during the Middle Ages by European nobility. Scholars debate the scope of the word castle, but usually consider it to be the private fortified residence of a lord or noble. This is distinct from a palace, which is not fortified, from a fortress, which was not always a residence for nobility, and from a fortified town, which was a public defence – though there are many similarities among these types of construction. Usage of the term has varied over time and has been applied to structures as diverse as hill forts and country houses. Over the approximately 900 years that castles were built they took on a great many forms with many different features, although some, such as curtain walls and arrowslits, were commonplace.
Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
I would like to add the following new subsection to the article, probably under "Countryside", as follows:
Classification of castles by topographical situation
Castles may be classified based on the their topographical situation. They fall into two broad types: lowland castles and hill castles. These may be further subdivided as shown.
Are editors content with this? I don't want to mess up a good article, but this information is currently missing. The section can always be expanded later, although I have already created articles for each of the links separately. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
There are a myriad of ways to classify castles, some more useful than others. It would be futile to include them all, and ultimately unhelpful. An unreferenced list isn't really to my liking, and classifying by topographic situation alone would open up the question why there aren't more lists for other types of classification.
That said, there is potential to add a paragraph to the landscape section on siting, perhaps right at the start. I can return to Liddiard, and no doubt Creighton will have plenty on the subject.
The image attached looks interesting, but is there a higher resolution version available? I can't make out the writing and would like to see more detail in the drawings themselves. Without the explanation it won't be useful to most readers. Nev1 (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
If it's not suitable for the main article, then perhaps it just needs adding to the "See also" section. Either way it would seem sensible to provide links somewhere in the article the different castle types. As to the image, it's from Wiki Commons and I don't think we can increase the resolution. However, there is a key in German at Commons which I can translate if need be. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the image really wold need to be higher resolution. Some of the types can be worked into prose, but adding the list to the see also section would open up similar problems and it would end up enormous. As well as the ones listed above, you could have building types: motte and bailey, motte and keep, ringworks, shell keeps, enclosure castles, quadrangular castles, courtyard castle, fortress-palaces, bastles, tower houses, L- and Z-plan castles, and those are just the various terms I can remember off the top of my head. They come in even more combinations. Some of these terms are self-explanatory, others are technical distinctions which are not always rigid. Nev1 (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
It feels like they might work as a separate "list of types of castles" kind of article. I'd agree with Nev1 that adding all the different classifications to this article would make it unwieldy. I'd add to Nev1's additions Urban castles, Edwardian castles, Fake castles and T-Plan castles. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
A separate list of castle types is something I could get behind and could certainly be linked in the see also section. Nev1 (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm think about changing the castle landscapes section to location and landscape and adding the following as an introductory paragraph.
Highland castles such as Château de Montségur in France have become the popular idea of where castles should be found because they are photogenic, where in reality castles were built in a variety of places due to a range of considerations.[14]
The positioning of castles was influenced by the available terrain. Whereas hill castles such as Marksburg were common in Germany, where 66 per cent of all known medieval were highland area while 34 per cent were on low-lying land,[15] they formed a minority of sites in England.[14] Because of the range of functions they had to fulfil, castles were built in a variety of locations. Multiple factors were considered when choosing a site, balancing between the need for a defendable position with other considerations such as proximity to resources. For instance many castles are located near Roman roads, which remained important transport routes in the Middle Ages, or could lead to the alteration or creation of new road systems in the area. Where available it was common to exploit pre-existing defences such as building with a Roman fort or the ramparts of an Iron Age hillfort. A prominent site that overlooked the surrounding area and offered some natural defences may also have been chosen because its visibility made it a symbol of power.[16] Urban castles were particularly important in controlling centres of population and production, especially with an invading force, for instance in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest of England in the 11th century the majority of royal castles were built in or ear towns.[17]
Sadly I can't find any statistics on distribution, and to be fair on a large scale I don't think it would be especially useful. Breaking down all of Europe's castles into highland and lowland sites for instance would mask the fact you're unlikely to find hill castles in the Low Countries. And I don't think that kind of survey has been carried out in any case. I do think it's worth including the statistics from Krahe's Burgen und Wohntürme des deutschen Mittelalters that Bermicourt included in the articles on hill castles and lowland castles. The image (which would replace the current photo of Sidon Sea Castle) has a fairly long caption, and it may be better to move it with the rest of the text, but I'm finding it hard to caption any image as there is no "ideal" place for a castle. I do think the point that the public seems to expect castles to be found in high inaccessible places to be one worth making. Creighton and Liddiard make that point (only Creighton is referenced here though) and while neither mention Château de Montségur I wanted a photo of a castle outside of England to avoid appearing to focus on that country alone.
I'm pretty chilled about how we do this. I just think that somewhere in the article we should link to the articles on the various types of hill and lowland castle. It could be done in the "See also" section in some sort of structured way, but I also think it's worth referring to these castle types in the body of the article. Whilst this sort of classification is not used much in Britain, it is used on the continent and, since Europe has many more castles than Britain, we should at least acknowledge these different types and how they're classified. I have no issue with Nev's words; perhaps a subsequent para could mention the different types and link to them at the same time. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
