This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of home-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Home LivingWikipedia:WikiProject Home LivingTemplate:WikiProject Home Livinghome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Once again, the subject of the article has been flagged. Yes there are things other than the subject structures that are called castles. But the subject of the article remains the English-language fortified-residence castle. I am sure that in languages not English, the word that is often translated to "Castle" in English may well need to refer to a very different set of structures. "Castle" is an English word that refers to (haha) castles. It also can simply refer to any magnificent/old mansion. But the subject of the article remains. I think if there is adequate interest, it might be that we need articles like (I don't think we do but...) "Castle (mansion)", "Castle (Japan)" or some such. But in English language literature, castle immediately invokes a crenelated, often moated, fortified residence. Unless there is support for leaving them in, I will remove the 2 "citation needed" items when I pass back through in weeks/months.Shajure (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article about the structure we call House in English. It includes examples of the variation in construction materials and form, and there are examples from Europe, North America, East Asia, and other parts of the world. The subject is not limited to the English-speaker's mental and cultural image of a "house". It includes all structures, no matter what they are called in the language(s) of the home cultures, that fulfill the criteria of the definition of the English word "house". The word "house" is not a proper noun, so it is not restricted to one specific building. The generalized, inclusive article House does not preclude the need for more detailed or specialized articles on structures such as mobile home, townhouse, mansion, and other structures that may be identified as, or fall within the parameters, of a house; nor does it necessitate articles on houses in each culture and language, because in many cultures, the word for "house" still denotes a permanent structure with four walls and a roof, intended as a residence, and so most such articles would become redundant. All of this applies to the term castle. - Boneyard90 (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are French expressions like "maison forte", and stronger "chateau fort", to emphasize a really permanent structure, appropriate to live in and appropriate to be defended by the inhabitants. German expression "Festes Haus" for a smaller castle, a fortified house easy to defend, means the same. Similar expressions are "Turmhof" and "Turmhaus" ("tower (farm) yard" / "tower house") or "Weiher Haus" ("house in a pond"). Castles had been built in response to challenges and threats, as well as in accordance to military necessities, representative purposes and adminstrative tasks. A lot of castles had been remodelled as circumstances changed and time went by: For example, a Norman motte-and-baily style castle originally had been appropriate for a smaller number of inhabitants, but could easily been expanded over the decades and centuries. Some old motte style castles have been expanded to impressive sizes continously until today, as shows Windsor Castle. 2001:9E8:AA8C:ED00:BD00:3761:526B:69CF (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"A castle is a type of fortified structure built during the Middle Ages predominantly by the nobility or royalty and by military orders."
This should be changed to:
"A castle is a type of fortified structure typically built during but not limited to the Middle Ages predominantly by the nobility or royalty and by military orders."
Castles had been existing in Britain, as well as in almost all other European regions, at least since early Celtic times. However, as late as end of 11th century, the motte style castles came to Britain due to an invasion by William the Bastard, a self styled "Norman" warrior and as "William the Conqueror" new "king of England". So any statement that there had been no castles in Britain before 1066 are mere nonsense. Please correct this.2001:9E8:AA8C:ED00:BD00:3761:526B:69CF (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! However, as ancient Britain had been part of the Celtic culture, there had been castles way before. As "castle" is derived from Latin and the Romans had conquerred Celtic Europe, including what became England in later centuries, David James Cathcart King either must have been ignoring Latin sources or he misunderstood what he found. Of course, specific motte style castles had only become predominant in England after 1066, however there had been an enormous amount of castles built n other styles/ according to other concepts before. A castle always had been built for specific needs and due to specific challenges. For example, king Alfred the Great did build castles, and so did his noble men, according to the threats and fortification necessities of their time. Genereally speaking, in Europe, building fortifications might have started as soon as at the end of Neolithicum/ Younger Stone Age - and Britain had already been in close contact with Central Europe in this time.
I have visitied a lot of castles so far, and in fact, a lot of castles are way older than the structures you see today. There has been quite a lot of research on this: E. g. archeologist Carl Schuchhardt had dedicated his whole life to do scientific research on castles. He had been one of Europe's best experts during his time. However, in Britain some of the research work done by people on the continent might have been ignored? 2001:9E8:AA8C:ED00:BD00:3761:526B:69CF (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting issue which comes down to how castles are defined - where is the line drawn between what is a castle and what isn't?
Castle studies in England, Wales, and Scotland draws a distinction between castles and other types of fortifications. The burhs built by Alfred do have some relation to castles - indeed some later had castles built within them - but are typically treated as separate entities in the literature and have been since the early 20th century (summarised briefly in "The Origins of the Castle in England the Institute's Research Project"). Hillforts again are treated separately.
While the term castle is derived from Latin, I don't think that's a particular problem. Words change meaning over time through different usage and different context. The Latin derivation isn't coincidental of course. The medieval elite would often deliberately co-opt the Roman past, so blurring the line between castle and Roman fort isn't accidental. Castles were established within or just on the edges of Roman forts at Pevensey, Portchester, Chester, and Leicester.
I'm not familiar with Schuchhardt's work, though I see his 1931 book, Die Burg im Wandel der Weltgeschichte, is available online. I am unfortunately entirely reliant on Google Translate to work with German sources. It looks like an interesting read!
Transfer of ideas across languages can be much slower than amongst researchers with a shared language. There are at least regular conferences such Chateau Gaillard are an important forum for exchanging ideas. The bi-annual publication regularly contains papers in French, English, and German (I think I've seen other languages as well), and Burgen und Schlösser published by the German Castles Institute is primarily German-language but has included articles in English. It is worth noting that "castle scholarship has, with rare exceptions, been pursued within the confines of particular countries and regions. Broader geographical approaches are neglected". The same source notes that burhs weren't always large communal fortifications, an aspect which set them largely outside the somewhat porous definition of a castle, so there may be scope for more integration of burhs into discussion of castles. At this stage, I think we'd need sources which contextualise the historiography to guide the content of the article should such a change be made. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are endless discussions in the 6 archives, and the FAC, over the definition. Don't let's go there again - it's not really an "interesting issue", especially 5th time around. The article is written to cover a particular definition and scope, but of course other definitions exist. An article that tried to cover all of them would be a sprawling mess. It was decided years ago that people searching for "castle" were most likely to want European medieval castles etc, and this seems still correct to me. If people want Japanese castles, Celtic hillforts and so on, they will most likely use other search terms. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the article is that it implies that 1) Romans only built castellum in Britain or Germany, when they didn't. 2) That the Calingians were responsible for evolving the style of earlier Roman castellum into castles when they weren't. 3) That all aspects of castle architecture therefore come from 1 and 2 which all completely false.
First, the Romans built castellum all over Europe, the Levant and North Africa and therefore those structures and the terms used to describe them influenced more than just the English language. So to argue that what makes a "castle" limited to the history of the English language is a nonsensical, non historic argument. For example, in Spain, the word castillo also exists as a derivation of the Roman Castel and also applies to similar structures. And many early Islamic and Christian castles were built on top of older Roman or Visigothic ruins.
Which then leads to the second point that the Carolingians were not the main social organization and culture responsible for first building castles in Europe. As there are no Carolingian castles, since most of them are simply palaces based on old Roman style Basilicas and Villas. Again, the actual earliest history of the use of vassals and nobles to defend various regions with their own fortified residences are found in Spain, from Muslims and then Christians.
Thirdly the idea that these combinations of battlements, curtain walls, terrain and geography as part of castle architecture originated with the Carolingians based on Roman precedents is also false. Again, both Christians and Muslims in Spain have been using terrain and various ancient traditions of architecture including earlier Roman works to build Castles long before anything anywhere else in Europe. This includes castles on strategic terrain, such as hilltops and spurs, castles near rivers and so forth.
Suffice to say, if this is simply an issue of language and distinguishing the history and derivation of the English term "castle" then that is one thing. But to argue that this language derivation represents the complete history and extent of buildings in Europe with features called "castles" in English is simply dishonest.
Note that the wiki claims that Château de Doué-la-Fontaine is the oldest when there is nothing remaining that shows anything like what is being called a castle based on language or architecture.
The opening section of the page literally says the origin of castles lay in the disintegration that took place in the late Carolingian empire which led to the rise in feudal lords. "European-style castles originated in the 9th and 10th centuries, after the fall of the Carolingian Empire resulted in its territory being divided among individual lords and princes. These nobles built castles to control the area immediately surrounding them and the castles were both offensive and defensive structures: they provided a base from which raids could be launched as well as offered protection from enemies." Yet there is no citation nor example of any kind from the Carolingian or post Carolingian kingdoms that show this evolution of Castle type structures. Not to mention, later it goes on to state that the defining characteristic of a castle is being a residence of a noble or lord, but again, Carolingian palaces were based on the earlier Roman basilica, palatial or villa architecture and not fortified. So if there are scholars and experts that supposedly are the source of this claim, then where are the citations and examples? Because again, the earliest examples for the evolution of this kind of structure are not in Northern France and Germany, but in Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big-dynamo (talk • contribs) 11:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the citations you are looking can be found in Castle#Origins (9th and 10th centuries) where more detail is given. The lead is a summary of the main body of the article, using necessarily broad strokes. The origin of castles is a complex topic with lots of uncertainty, and even the addition detail in the body doesn't address it in full. It could be a standalone article, but I'm not sure how much appetite there is for that (I certainly don't have time!). Richard Nevell (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is flawed because it is Euro-centric. It hardly mentions castles outside Europe. But there are castles everywhere: in the Middle East, Japan, China, Iran, India and in many other places and cultures. The article even lacks images of such castles. There are a few links to non-European castles in the "See also"-section, but this is not enough to justify that this article be called just "Castle". Either the name should be changed to "Castle (Europe)" or the article should at least dedicate a paragraph to castles in other continents, eg. as an introduction to other, more detailed articles. Loranchet (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a starter, I added a picture of Himeji, one of the most famous non-European castles.Loranchet (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat myself from last year:
There are endless discussions in the 6 archives, and the FAC, over the definition. Don't let's go there again - it's not really an "interesting issue", especially 5th time around. The article is written to cover a particular definition and scope, but of course other definitions exist. An article that tried to cover all of them would be a sprawling mess. It was decided years ago that people searching for "castle" were most likely to want European medieval castles etc, and this seems still correct to me. If people want Japanese castles, Celtic hillforts and so on, they will most likely use other search terms. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, would anybody mind if the first image would be changed to:
Dating back to the early 11th century, Burghausen Castle, Germany, is one of the most distinctive castles in Europe. It is the longest castle complex in the world (1051 m), confirmed by the Guinness World Record company, and the third largest.
The image of Burghausen Castle seems to be a bit more spectacular than the one of Segovia, also because of the nice houses that can also be seen. Burghausen Castle is 100 years older and furthermore it is the longest castle in the world (Guinness world record), as well as the third-largest.
Other possible images would be:
It's worth pondering, though I think some consideration needs to go into the choice. What does an image of Burghausen convey that other images do not currently? Bodiam matches the popular idea of what a castle is. The Alcazar of Segovia gives a different landscape setting, and a different scale (much as Burghausen does, so in that sense the two are interchangeable). The Alcazar contains influences of Islamic architecture - which granted may not be obvious from the thumbnail or caption.
I would also recommend not using Guinness World Record as a source. Being the longest castle is not especially noteworthy, and I would look for something more authoritative to confirm. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying. I think the Segovia image just is not thaaaat special and does not evoke an "oh my god how beautiful is that" feeling. Although the Burghausen image might not either, it's just more likely to evoke that feeling when looking at it, i believe. The islamic influences are indeed not visible at least on this specific picture, while the Burghausen image would add the following value to the article: i think more people would click on the article if the Burghausen image were the one that appears as preview. While the image retains the castle as its centerpiece, there are also nice little houses visible on it, and therefore, although the article is about castles, it's just nicer to look at. It is very likely that it is the longest existing castle, and one of the largest, while the Segovia one seems to be more random and not that special. The Segovia castle might be special for Spain, but it looks like a random castle in Central Europe. The first image could indeed also show a random castle as example, but overall i think that it would be nicer to show a more stunning example of a castle as first impression. It's unbelievable how long this castle stretches along the mountain it sits on. The castle could also be included as panoramic image somewhere else in the article.
Yes, they would! I don't much like the Segovia pic, because much of the castle (which I've been over) is a 19th-century "restoration". I think Burghausen is rather too large, and perhaps also partly post-medieval. Its length is actually a disadvantage here - it is rather more a "citadel" than a typical castle. We should on no account have a night-time image; the fact you can suggest one destroys your credibility with me, I'm afraid. There have been lengthy previous discussions on this, and there are other possibilities. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem here. Castle Burghausen is neither a fake restoration like you said Segovia is, because it hasn't ever been destroyed. Nor does a night-time picture have to be used, nor is it a citadel. The very name Burghausen itself means "Castlehouses". Some of the pictures i suggested do not show the castle in its entire length, but they show a castle how most people would expect a typical castle to look like. All in all, if we compare the two images, the Segovia one seems to be more boring and uninteresting. And actually, just as an image, the second one looks even better but it's not so much focused on the castle. And if not as first image, i still would like to include a panoramic image of the castle, just because of its uniqueness.
Essentially, I think it's too big to take in easily in a small WP photo. I must say, few of the windows look at all medieval, so I'd imagine there's been a good deal of extending and/or rebuilding, probably mostly in the Renaissance. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Renaissance would still be older than 19th century and to me the castle is perfectly visible on the pictures. So the picture would at least be a step forward. And concerning fake 19th century castles, there are also more stunning examples than Segovia, like Hohenzollern Castle.
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
