Talk:Pevensey Castle

message: I see many lists even some on Wikipedia about the most complete roman buildings in Britain and Pevensey castle never gets mentioned? Why is that the whole outer wall is roman? This castle is very underrated It's probably the best roman site in the whole of the British isles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: why is this castle so unknown?

message: It was suggested that this article is to be merged with Anderitum. Sept 2008
There is no need for two short articles on the same structure. The modern name would seem the obvious one to use. In fact until Feb 07, when a now departed editor split them, surely against all policy, I see this was how they were.  Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except they aren't actually the same structure. They are two separate and distinct structures, one encompassing the other, on a single site - but both are clearly visible in their own right.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.0.161 (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have disagreed with the original split but as we now have two articles, I do not see any benefit with merging them back together again. Both articles are beyond a stub. They deal with different aspects of the site and are not duplicating the information. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not lack of duplication that is the problem, but lack of integration. That a castle was builty on the same ground as the fort was not pure coincidence, as the article and comments above rather imply; the Roman remains were part of the medieval plan of fortification. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Although this is stale)It is not unusual for a castle to be build over or inside a Roman fort, but that does not mean that there should not be two separate articles on the subject. The articles have clear and separate scopes, a Roman fort and a medieval castle; it is appropriate for each article to mention the other within context (essential in the castle's case as it reused the fort's walls), but a merger would not. The two are separately notable. Nev1 (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/11296185975/
©Geni (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Plan of the castle

message: It's available in at least two editions on Archive.org: 
https://archive.org/details/castlesofengland01mack 
https://archive.org/details/castlesenglandt00mackgoog 
Robert Greer (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive.org 

message: To the right. It's only the inner ward, not the whole thing, but it's nice and clear. Worth including in the article? Could be used in the final section which mentions the well and foundations of the chapel (both visible), or perhaps as the lead image though admittedly the current lead shows the whole castle. Nev1 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion, thank you - I've added it to the article. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, a nice picture. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful illustration?

message: Earlier today 17u9e added to the article that Hugh Purcell was responsible for capturing the castle, referenced to John O'hart's Irish pedigrees. I haven't seen Hugh mentioned in histories of the castle, but O'hart does say that 
I'm a little bit sceptical of the details since accounts of William's campaign usually say that he landed at Pevensey without meeting resistance and fighting some of Harold's men is too juicy a detail to skim over. It puts me in mind of how more than a few noble families would claim to have ancestors who fought alongside William at Hastings but it is not verifiable based on the surviving records. As a piece of family tradition, it is undoubtedly important to the Purcells and creates a sense of identity, but I'm unsure if it should be mentioned in this article. It would at least need an explanatory note.
Pinging  who wrote most of this article and  who I suspect has come across similar situations in the course of writing about medieval topics. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that a 1892 genealogy work is highly suspect and would need to be confirmed from a modern historian. I'll note that Lloyd Origins of some Anglo-Norman Families doesn't list Purcell. I don't find a Hugh Purcell in Keats-Rohan's Domesday People, but that's often difficult to search if you're not sure excactly what odd name they might have them under. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I went and checked Peter Rex's 1066, Jim Bradbury's The Battle of Hastings, Frank McLynn's 1066: The Year of Three Battles, Mark Hagger's William: King and Conqueror, David Douglas' William the Conqueror, and M. K. Lawson's The Battle of Hastings and there is no mention of this supposed incident nor of this supposed Hugh Purcell (or whatever spelling). Looks like a myth to me. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1887 book The Irish Landed Gentry says: "According to family tradition, Hugh was the first of the Normans to land at Pevensey Bay, the first to do a deed of Arms by storming the ruins of the old Roman Castle, where a party of Harold's soldiers lay entrenched". It is pretty obviously a myth as no other source describes any Saxon resistance at Pevensey. William of Malmesbury, writing a few decades after the Conquest, is explicit that he "landed ... at Pevensey in Sussex, without any resistance". Prioryman (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the comments above, I've removed the mention of Purcell. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hugh Purcell