Talk:Motte-and-bailey castle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMotte-and-bailey castle has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Typo[edit]

For some reason, the article is semi-protected so I can't correct it but there is a typo in the "Initial development, 10th and 11th centuries" section.

By the 11th century, [...] tall, free-standing towers, called bergfried, on lower ground. [...]. In many cases, bergfied were converted [...]

It's written bergfried once (with a link, seems correct) and bergfied the second time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2ED2:1600:8E89:A5FF:FE34:B27D (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting it - I've made the change you've proposed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At "two structures, a motte, a type of mound - often artificial - topped with a wooden or stone structure known as a keep; and ..." punctuation could be: "two structures: a motte, a type of mound - often artificial - topped with a wooden or stone structure known as a keep; and ..."24.11.170.191 (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

why were motte and bailey castles built????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.139.105 (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where was it in the uk and when was it built and what tinme —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.162.24 (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
where did they come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.35.180 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how are they desined —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.35.180 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

INCOMPLETE[edit]

Where are the motte-and-bailey of Sicily? They are so older then british motte (1061 versus 1066). Why there aren't here? Please, adjust this article!--79.52.100.178 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion...[edit]

I've gone through and expanded the article a bit. I've tried to cover off the French literature in the process, but I suspect there's some good articles out there on this topic in German as well (I can't read German at all, sadly).Hchc2009 (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Motte-and-bailey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Angevins redirects to House of Anjou - which of these on the disambiguation page is the correct one?
  1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    The article is well referenced.
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    The article covers the main aspects.
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    The article maintains a neutral point of view.
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    The article does not appear to be subject to any edit warring.
  5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Images are used effectively.
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    A very interesting article and a good read. Harrison49 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help[edit]

I am doing a project about Motte and Bailey Castles but I need 2 know where they were designed and who designed them !? Please help me !? Jacque 11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.33.131 (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look through the article first - you should find the answers you're after there, under the "history" section. If you get stuck, feel free to leave a question on this page. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical error in the History section[edit]

This section needs the word "of" added to it: "there is often a tension among the academic community between explanations that stress military and social reasons for the rise this design." 208.94.30.16 (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I've added it in. Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Müller-Wille[edit]

Is it worth mentioning the Müller-Wille system for classifying mottes, which splits them into categories based on their height? Nev1 (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Probably, yes, that sounds like a good idea. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect info[edit]

There are a couple of geographical errors in this article, I live in the town of Langeais and saw that the following is incorrect:

Langeais castle is not in Angers it's in Langeais (citation 97). Langeais is in the Loire Valley, department 37, the Indre-et-Loire, region Centre, not Normandy. (citation 101)

Carofox (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're spot on -thanks for catching that! Hchc2009 (talk)

Aerial view of a motte-and-bailey castle[edit]

The image to the right is a 3D model of the well preserved earthwork remains of Castle Pulverbatch, a motte-and-bailey castle probably in use in the 11th and 12th centuries. I thought it might be useful for this article because it shows a site which has not been adapted in the later Middle Ages and since it's effectively and aerial view it shows the scale of the site and the earthworks better than pictures from ground level. Would anyone mind if I added it to this article? The model the image is derived from was commissioned by the Castle Studies Trust who I volunteer for so I wanted to check before adding it. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Richard, and thanks for posting this. I think it might make a good addition, and, if appropriate with the DEM article linked in the caption. As for the file on Commons, it might help to add a north arrow or note indicating orientation. I'm taking the liberty of tweaking the description--please make sure I got it right! Eric talk 18:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. How we replace :File:Topcliffe Castle plan.jpg with it? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think they might complement each other well, maybe side by side, as one is a sketch and the other "real"? Eric talk 19:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it's worth keeping the Topcliffe image as it's the only plan on the page. The variety in depictions helps understand this type of castle. I've amended the caption with a bit of detail and made the image a bit wider to accommodate it. How does that read? Good point about include a north indicator. I'll see what I can do. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a pointer accurately might be beyond my skill level as Sketchfab doesn't have a compass direction build in as far as I can see. I could add an arrow pointing roughly in the right direction, but there'd be more than a little uncertainty. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard- I've made a crude attempt at adding a north arrow to the image on Commons. Please revert if you find any issue with it! Eric talk 04:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, pointing in the right direction and nice and tidy. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll move the image into the article. Made a couple tweaks to the caption. Eric talk 18:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All, I cropped the image on Commons in an attempt to show the feature better in thumb view. Feel free to revert if you don't think it's an improvement! Eric talk 19:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy with the change, the closer crop probably shows it better, especially on smaller screens. Thanks for the help. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help, and thanks for the image! Taking it out of this section now. Eric talk 11:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal and re-ordering[edit]

Soerfm, you don't think the DEM was a good addition to the article? I agree that the Carisbrooke reconstruction model might be a better first pic than the sketch that was there before your change, but I think the DEM should remain (see above discussion), so I reverted your edit for now. Eric talk 12:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Motte-and-bailey castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2018[edit]

I would like to edit a mistake you put you spelt bretesche wrong you put bretasche witch is wrong so can I make it right so people don't write that and think its right and its not so thank you so I hope you will allow my request thank you for reading I will be awaiting your answer. Rubymaygocoul12 (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Eric talk 14:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C40D:7000:B43E:FD19:195D:B307 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2018[edit]

2A02:C7D:C40D:7000:B43E:FD19:195D:B307 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

several errors[edit]

I wanted to correct several errors, but after I have seen that this article is simiprotectet FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS after just two childish edits I have to assume someone misuses the protection to "own" the article. This is not in the sense of WP and I will not play along. Just one hint: The German word is "Höhenburg" with Umlaut. Change yourself. 47.71.37.1 (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Thanks for the info. Eric talk 03:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cabal Trump[edit]

I notice that a castle named Cabal Trump is referenced, based on the DeVries’ source book. I don’t have access to that book, but a quick Google brings up only QAnon conspiracies. Could someone with the book source confirm that there’s actually a Castle Cabal Trump and that it’s not just vandalism (of which this page has seen much)?

69.196.72.202 (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The de Vries book is (at least partially) available on Google Books and the reference to Cabal Trump looks to be legit. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly what the DeVries book says, but it appears to be a typo for Cabal Tump. Tump is a fairly common part of a castle name; it means a mound or hill, which is quite appropriate for a motte-and-bailey. That is the name used in Gatehouse Gazetter and:
  • David James Cathcart King (1983), Castellarium Anglicanum: an index and bibliography of the castles in England, Wales, and the islands: Volume I, Anglesey–Montgomery, Kraus International Publications, Wikidata Q46867900
  • David James Cathcart King (1988). The Castle in England and Wales: an Interpretative History. Croom Helm. ISBN 0-7099-4829-8. OL 1888266M. Wikidata Q43758221.
  • David James Cathcart King (1972). "The field archaeology of mottes in England and Wales: Eine kurze ubersicht". Château Gaillard. Etudes de castellologie médiévale. 5: 101-112, 166-179. ISSN 0577-5752. Wikidata Q47089090.
Richard Nevell (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Duh. Of course. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mottes at Western and Central Europe before 1000 A. D.[edit]

Currently, it says that motte-and-bailey style castles had spread "into the Holy Roman Empire in the 11th century". This is definitely wrong as there are various castles of that design in Central Europe, i. e. the Holy Empire, way older than 11th century. In fact, even castle construction program of King Henry the Fowler/ Heinrich I. (first Saxon king of the East-Frankish realm) actually did comprise this type of castle (however, main focus had been on larger fortifications to protect rural population against contemporarian Hungarian onslaught). For more details, please see "Turmhugelburg" which translates to "tower", "mound" and "castle" - which is the motte-and-bailey style castle. 2001:9E8:AA8C:ED00:BD00:3761:526B:69CF (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motte-and-bailey_castle&oldid=1193697761"