Talk:Castra

message: I see the article is really too long. Eventually I can address this by shortening the article but meanwhile it would be nice to have some reader suggestions as to how to shorten it. If you really feel strongly, go ahead, shorten it.Dave 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long

message: The picture of the city wall of Istria with main gate is a nice one, but it isn't the topic. The topic is castra. The gates and walls of castra are fair game but not city walls and gates unless they derive from those of the castra. As far as I can tell Istria was not primarily or originally a Roman camp but was a prior city fortified by the Romans. There are some wonderful city gates. Rome had some, but they were not CASTRA gates. So with regret I commented the pic out. One runs into the same sort of situation with rivers. There might not be a picture available of the river you want. You can't put in any nice picture of a river if you are presenting this article as fact. There are some nice city walls at Istria and some great sewer systems. These are too fine for castra and are part of the city's permanent defense system, not its forts.Dave 10:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pics of Istria

message: "Considering that the earliest structures were tents, which were cut out of hide or cloth, one castrum may well be a tent, with the plural meaning tents."  Doesn't "may well be" suggest original research, or at the very least enough doubt that it shouldn't be mentioned in an encyclopaedic article?  I was always taught in my few years of Latin at school that castra was one of those words that simply had no singular form.  And therefore there's no need to try to ascribe a meaning to the singular, especially if it doesn't exist.  Is there a reference to the singular form being used anywhere?  Else I'd suggest removing this bit. 59.167.61.14 12:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you were taught. I was taught the same thing and I have an MA in it. But, as so often happens, what we were taught was wrong. These things get institutionalized you know, and I was taught that too. In graduate school you never use a "handbook." Everyone knows they are wrong. So I was as surprised as anyone when I did my etymological research and found that it just ain't so. The singular is just as good as the plural. Just get yourself any unabridged or comprehensive dictionary, look up the singular, and you will find that I speak rightly. What I wrote there I GOT from the dictionaries. Theirs also is the speculation about the tent. You got to CUT the hide or the cloth, right? Snip snip. I'm sure the topic has been researched many times before. Out there somewhere is an article or articles on which the dictionary conjectures are based. They aren't MY conjectures, my friend. I thought it was too trivial a topic to research heavily but not trivial enough to remove, and that is still my judgement. Currently I'm revisiting the article, which I think is a very good one, not to mention being well-written and well-researched, to match the main facts with the listed sources, which are really very excellent sources, without over-annotating. The tent is a topic of its own I am sure but I am not ready to do an article on tents. That is where any extensive research on tents belongs. So for the time being if I see an article that covers it (and I may) I will throw a note in there. Meanwhile since the dictionaries do cover it I'm going to leave it in. Did you check the dictionaries? Did you check anything at all? Did you read anything at all? Or is your thing that you just mainly go around throwing in comments about what you think off the top of your head might possibly be original research? If you are going to work on Wikipedia, WORK on it, otherwise leave it alone.Dave 13:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology - original research?

message: The plan (Types of castra section) would be better moved to the Layout section or just following it.
 Legionaries were quartered in a peripheral zone inside the intervallum, which they could rapidly cross to
 take up position on the vallum. Inside of the legionary quarters was a peripheral road, the Via Sagularis
How many peripheries can a camp or castra have? In fact the Via Sagularis ran along the intervallum. Apart from that, accommodation for soldiers took up most of the interior - hardly a peripheral zone.
 The vallum was quadrangular aligned on the cardinal points of the compass
I don't know of any camp, fort or fortress in Britain which is so aligned. There may be a few, and a few more are close to it, but they'll therefore be the exception. All the plans I've seen of forts or fortresses in Europe are not so aligned either. In general, forts and camps were aligned to take advantage of the lie of the land, and faced towards enemy territory.
 The "headquarters" building was called the praetorium
The headquarters building was called the principia. The house of the commander was the praetorium, from Praetor, leader or commander. Every book or reference (other than Wikipedia) I've read uses the terms in this context. The via Principalis was so-called because it ran past the principia.
 The central region of the Via Principalis with the buildings for the command staff was called the Principia
Not the region, but the single building, and in the Roman army, as in modern armies, the building occupied by the "command staff" is the headquarters. I note that none of the section I've been discussing contains any relevant references.
Several illustrations have incorrect captions:
 Gateway of a Castra Stativa. Note the battlements, the Roman arch, the
 turres.
This gives the impression that it's an actual gateway. It's the reconstructed gateway at Arbeia Roman Fort in South Shields, near Newcastle upon Tyne. Why not state that?
 Ruins of the Porta Praetoria, or "Headquarters Gate", from a Castra
 Stativa, a more permanent base.
Not ruins at all, but another reconstructed gateway, this time the Porta Praetoria at Kastell Welzheim in Germany.
 Not much remains of these horreae at Arbeia, probably the floors of bins
 between aisles.
Not much indeed, but "probably"? Actually, they are the bases of longitudinal or "sleeper" walls which supported the floor. The gaps were to allow air to circulate freely. Which brings us to -
 Under-floor heated granary at Vercovicium
Granaries didn't have under-floor heating, as the contributor of the photograph makes clear: "The pillars supported a raised floor to keep food dry and free from vermin.... They are not part of a hypocaust"
 The remains of a fort near Housesteads, England, on Hadrian's Wall.
It's the other granary at Housesteads fort, rather than a fort near Housesteads. I've corrected these captions. Rambler24 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few observations 

message: What if we replaced the image of the castrum at Masada, Israel, with this one? It shows a more detailed structure (with a bit of the circumvallation wall) and is fully public domain. Wilson44691 (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there was no objection, I replaced the image. Wilson44691 (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The older image had better contrast, but I'm not sure that either add much to the article to be honest; there just isn't enough detail. In a section entitled wall and ditch, the wall is sadly lacking. Perhaps a plan would be better? There's this free-use image of Ambleside for instance (although there's already a generalised plan further up)? Nev1 (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, this image makes the wall a bit clearer (which I couldn't see before). Nev1 (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That last image you found, Nev1, is better. I went ahead and made the second replacement.Wilson44691 (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A replacement image? 

message: I've taken the liberty of moving this recently-added image from the article to talk, for a number of reasons. The main reason will be that the modern language elements are in German, whereas this is English language Wikipedia, so it's not really a very helpful image as it stands. Also, while I have no reason to doubt that it is a faithful interpretation of Polybius' description of a Roman "marching camp", it is not referenced to a reliable source as such. On the other hand, if these snags were ironed out, I think it could be a very useful image - perhaps someone would like to take that on? In the process, they might like to note that, rightly or wrongly, in English the author's name is rendered "Polybius", not "Polybios". Nortonius (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want, I make you a English version of this picture. The source is the German version of the book of Anne Johnson: Roman Forts of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD in Britain and the German Provinces. In German: Römische Kastelle (made for Germany from Dietwulf Baatz). Baatz is one of the best archeologist for the German Limes. Mediatus (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you don't need my permission, though it seems then that this plan is derived by you from an image in a book published in 1983? Are you sure there are no copyright issues here? Yes, I know, Polybius died more than 70 years ago! Just asking, because Anne Johnson didn't! Otherwise, yes, that would seem to be a good idea. Nortonius (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see: You do not have the book of Anne Johnson. Look at the picture in the Book and than at my file. My file ist very exakt. The picture in the book is more free. So you will not see a trench by Johnson, etc. The map of Polybius will be allways very, very similar, because the specified dimensions are from Polybius himself. And in the book of Johnson are this Data given. : ) Mediatus (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, in my previous comment I was saying yes, if you're happy to do it, and you understand the matter of copyright, you do not need to ask me, so do it! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Marschlager nach Polybios" 

message: I've been invited back to comment on the usage of castra in Latin. All right, I will. But first, I notice that it is still start class. Whatever it is, this article is NOT start. I was a good article when I did it. It is still a good article. I am proud to be associated with you good revisers of this good article and to have had a chance to write it in the first place. I am not going to nominate this as anything. There are gremlins afoot in WP. Whenever you want something they are going to make darn sure you don't get it. Maybe you did not contribute money to WP, or maybe you had the infuriating and intolerable audacity to utter one word of criticism of their material (frankly, I've uttered many), or maybe what you wrote is contrary to German nationalism or CIA policy. Whatever. So, in keeping with the spirit of WP I hereby recommend this article be demoted from a start class and tagged as a stub.
Now, for the word. It appears fully developed in the earliest literature. Both singular and plural are used. Moreover, there is no discernable system, only a most frequent usage. The plural is most frequently used. Over hundreds of years of change you cannot expect this word to conform to any system. On the whole I believe it is most like English fortification(s), which can be singular or plural when applied to anything whatsoever. Anything military or analogous to it is either a fortification or fortifications. Another similar word is water. You can drink either the water of the lake or the waters of the lake, whichever your heart desires. The usage is too big for a discernable system. Any reference to any such ought to be removed.
What you perceive that you may mistake for system is usage: we say this, we do not say that. Why do we? Because that is the way we do it. Lan-caster, Wor-cester, Win-chester, these were all originally the sites of Roman camps and the usage at that time was to name such settlements castra not castrum. Either castra or castrum can be used in any context to mean fortification/fortifications. You could use them both in the same sentence if the context in which you used each conformed to usage. Many times on WP I have had to correct a foreign native who was trying to use a word that is an English word but is just never used in that way. It's part of the vernaculra lingo: this is the singular, this is the plural, this is how you use it, this is how you never use it even though technically correct. Where I appreciate the Roman victorious use of system in the military and our almost universal desire to depict its system, castra is more a part of the language than the military and the language often ain't too systematic. This is about the best I can do for you. What you need here is the unabridged dictionary, that lists every possible use of castrum and castra and the other words that refer to fortifications; oops, excuse me, to fortification; no, I mean, fortifications - oh, to heck with it. If you really want a serious revisit by me I would have to do a line by line edit. If you want to break something out, go by type of fortification - say, permanent camp, summer camp, naval base, fortified wall, etc, regardless of what they may have called it, which in each case undoubtedly varied with time and place. Take our word fort. Is a base a fort? Let's see you answer THAT one.Dave (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably between Start and C class in my opinion. It would not qualify as a Stub given all the content and I don't see why to demote it?! Not sure if you noticed the thread above on Rename. There are some additional notes and views added to the old thread. I left you a note on your page as well about the need to clarify whether to use castra or castrum consistently in article names and categories. I am still not clear as what is the best approach here. Thanks for getting back. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

text: It went from B to start in 2007 here, failing the "B1" criterion. I had thought the Start was harsh & would have changed it, except it was a milhist thing & they have their own ways.  I think C should be non-controversial. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Castra revisited, by the original author

message: I recently created the article on Roman centuriation, translated and adapted from the articles in the Catalan, French and Italian Wikipedias. Each of these articles focuses on centuriation, respectively in Catalonia, France and Italy, whereas I have tried to be more comprehensive, as the system applies to the entire Roman Empire.
In my source articles it says that the east-west Decumanus maximus was traced BEFORE the north-south Cardo maximus, but it is not explained why. I found the answer in :
*  
which is already cited here as an external link.
Bell says:
"This ritual consisted of the choosing of a sacred spot where a priest would place a groma, which was then use to determine the path of the decumanus.  This was achieved by noting the place where the sun rose in order to know exactly where east was.  The cardo was then calculated running at a right angle from the decumanus at the groma."
"Elementary, my dear Watson": the sunrise (presumably on the equinoxes).
Notes 14 and 15 currently read as follows:
Note 14: Cardo is the hinge line of a door and therefore is any main axis. In surveying it was the first line drawn, on which all the others depended. The via principalis would certainly be a cardo.
Note 15: Decumana (feminine of decumanus) derives most likely from decima manus, "tenth part" or "tenfold". As tenfold, it meant "immense." As tenth part, it also meant "across", such as a cross-path or cross-boundary. In surveying it was the first line across the cardo at right angles. The connection between tenth and across remains obscure. The presence of numbered streets makes it less likely that the via decumana  was "cross street" than that it was "10th street."
I assume that the reference to surveying is based on modern practice, where the surveyor is equipped with a pocket compass, so that the north is easy to locate. 
If Bell is right, then these notes should be corrected as follows:
Note 14: Cardo is the hinge line of a door and therefore is any main axis. In surveying it was the first line across the decumanus at right angles. The via principalis would certainly be a "cardo".
Note 15: Decumana (feminine of decumanus) derives most likely from decima manus, "tenth part" or "tenfold". As tenfold, it meant "immense." As tenth part, it also meant "across", such as a cross-path or cross-boundary. In surveying it was the first line drawn, after noting the place where the sun rose in order to know exactly where east was. The connection between tenth and across remains obscure. The presence of numbered streets makes it less likely that the via decumana  was "cross street" than that it was "10th street."
If no one objects, I will make these corrections in the near future, obviously before 21 December 2012, after which it would be too late.LombardBeige (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction of notes 14 and 15: [[Cardo maximus]] and [[Decumanus maximus]] 

message: My understanding reading the Italian wiki page is that the two plans were similar, but not identical. For instance, in this article it is stated that the via Preatoria, the cardus maximus in a military camp, was not interrupted. This is not true, because the via praetoria takes its name by the fact that the tent/accommodation of the Praetorius was exactly interrupting it. This apparently had a defensive function: the main gate of cardus maximus was built facing the enemy, hence, if it was breached, the enemy could not sweep through the camp. Cities did not require this.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.252.66 (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Planning for camps/cities

message: For those interested, there is a request for deletion on Template:Infobox castrum, currently used in a series of articles on Roman castra. For example Porolissum.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for discussion: [[Template:Infobox castrum]] 

message: I took out the Dubious tag, replacing the existing with the suggested rewording. It seems more NPOV to describe what the policy was, rather than giving the presumed justification for the policy.--Wcoole (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage & Family 

message: Hi all, as part of the GLAMwiki Yorkshire Network Project, there has been a generous first donation from Rotherham Museums of a video of their 3D animation of Templeborough Roman fort. 
I hope that you might find it useful on here or on other articles and you are obviously welcome to cut and annotate it as necessary. There will hopefully be more Roman-related material from Rotherham soon and there is also a large amount amongst the Yorkshire Museum collections that might be useful. Let me know if you have any suggestions or queries! Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the video myself. I'm inclined to leave it there as a creative feature. It would not have the same visual impact as an external link.Botteville (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D animation of Templeborough Roman fort 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Castra. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060825045351/http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/old_fotm/old_fotmo98/ to http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/old_fotm/old_fotmo98/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618184027/http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/contents/text/technica/veg1.htm to http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/contents/text/technica/veg1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622110221/http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/glo_military_glossary_a.htm to http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/glo_military_glossary_a.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060612234608/http://exeter.gov.uk/timetrail/02_romanfortress/growth.asp to http://www.exeter.gov.uk/timetrail/02_romanfortress/growth.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724192753/http://www.bulgariancastles.com/bulgariancastles/en/fortress-sostra-en to http://bulgariancastles.com/bulgariancastles/en/fortress-sostra-en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060913152621/http://www.history.ucla.edu/undergrad/pat/journal2002/miranda.pdf to http://www.history.ucla.edu/undergrad/pat/journal2002/miranda.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ordinarily the policy recommends minimizing the external links. However a lot of work has been done on these links. They have been carefully chosen for their referential value. The whole section has been carefully structured into a supplementary reference section. I think it looks just fine and fits just fine. I suggest we accept it as a beneficial exception.Botteville (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was the one who put the original section in many years ago. I brought in Pokorny. It seemed to me the etymology of castra was of a little more interest, especially when you are considering the English place names ending in -Chester. There sure are a mint of them in this country: Chester, Lancaster, Westchester, Rochester, etc etc. However since then the section has been so reduced that it is not readable to the ordinary reader. He just skips over it I am sure. No one dares to replace it. Also the linguistics resources on WP at that time were not very extensive. I could not create them, and was not qualified to create them, all alone. Now however things have moved in a beneficial direction. Our good friends the linguists have spent their good time and money writing comprehensible linguistics articles for us. Internet Archive has expanded and become more stable so we can get links that are stable. I therefore propose to rewrite the section adding a bit more explanation. I got it ready to go so I will be putting it in.Botteville (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea!  However, it is a bit long for an article that will often be used (in UK anyway) for homework etc. Though etymology tends to come after the lead, this is not set in stone. It's probably better to move this and the next section on Roman terms rather lower down. The lead is also too terse for a reasonably long article. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. I suggest you implement it. If you leave it to me to implement I will just be guessing what you have in mind. Also you seem to want to slant it to secondary education homework level. That might be too narrow for a general encyclopedia article. But, I am sure we can work this out. I think I said elsewhere I work by time or event slicing from a list so I probably will be going on the next article on the list. I'll be back, though.Botteville (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

text: the section seems too verbose and self-indulgent; recommend a separate article; I would propose that most readers come looking for details about Roman forts, but are then subjected to a wall of arcane text about the etymology of castra.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.105.241 (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: It is very confusing for non-specialists. It seems that the Romans used the singular form for a fort, and the plural form for a camp (see Allen and Greenough, Latin Grammar). If that can be confirmed through other sources, it would help the academically interested - and the article should spell it out more clearly beyond the 2nd sentence in the lead. If Allen & Greenough's very straightforward and clear statement is inaccurate, please explain (and modify the lead accordingly).
Is the English word CASTRA covering both 'fort' and 'camp', or only one? Which one? How come? If not: please make it very clear what CASTRUM is used for in English, and what CASTRA is used for in English. Also, does colloquial English differ here from academic terminology? That too must be made much clearer than it is now.
Having a tonne of details can be nice at times, but the definition comes first. First and foremost I want to know what word to use in English, and when. Arminden (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of sing. and pl. forms in both Latin and, essentially, English