Talk:Viking ring fortress

message: Because Castles isn´t made of wood.
Should´t be called "The Ring Fortresses"?
--Comanche cph 18:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Danes was one of the three Viking peoples. In Danish history, this era is known as "Vikingetiden" (the Viking Age). Valentinian (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly that is the problem. None of them are mentioned anywhere, not in any sagas or in any other hisorical report or legend. There is absolutly no mentioning of any hint anywhere as to who build them, when they where built, for what purpose or even exactly what their name was at the time. The reference to a fire at Aggersborg is thought to refer to a neighboring royal manor of the same name and the references to the old castle at Nonnebakken are from several centuries later and refer to the ruins, when nuns where allowed to build a church on the hill named after them on land belonging to the crown. We do know the ones that have been found until now, some by pure chance, there may have been more. The dating of some wood has yielded the exact felling year of 980 but it is not even clear which king really had the power over the region at that time (father Bluetooth or son Forkbeard). And yet they are there - a perfect mistery - that can be touched, seen and even walked on. The saga of the Jomsvikings may illustrate what an "Exclusive Viking Warrior Club with an own clubhouse fortress" at the time may have looked like but the Jomsborg is described as laying further east on the coast of modern day Poland presumely within the boundaries of the modern town of Wolin.--T.woelk (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think it´s wrong to call it "Castles" 

message: I don't think just to delete the list is such a good idea. It holds more information than the links at the bottom and other than the table. Maybe it could be merged with the comparism table if that doesn't disturb the readability of it. The list is the easiest part to edit though and thats where new stuff is added first. As done with Borgeby and Rygge, of which there simply is hardly any good information yet. Exactly that is the problem with the information asked for in the Expand section. Most of the points are not known and might never be. There is a lot of speculation, some more or less convincing, but there is only little evidence. Even the question what sort of people lived there is not an easy question to answer with full proof. One must read the individual articles to get the full picture. Maybe the article could do with more information from the excavated sites but this may generate a lot of redundance. Maybe we need a speculations section to make clear how little we really know about these sites.--T.woelk (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment on todo list 

message: Ring fortress, ring castle or ring fort - which is it? The article uses all three. The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Archaeology only has two terms: ringfort and ringwork, of which the former seems more apt looking at the definitions. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is not a dictionary. And it is specifically not a dictionary of the English language as spoken in Britain. I am not aware of the actually differences between fortress, castle or fort and it would of course be an improvement if it was clarified to some extent. However this has already been discussed above and it is not of great concern to the subject of this article IMO. Boxing and categorizing real world phenomena can be difficult and not always possible. But as said, see the discussion above please. RhinoMind (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct name 

message: At this bearing calculator, you can display a line on a map between two coordinates. If you enter 62N 1.2195E and 20N 33.371E, you get a line (curved on the map in Google's projection, but straight on the Earth's surface) that cuts from the North Sea to Africa, through the centre of Aggersborg and Slagelse, passes less than a mile west of Fyrkat, and half a mile east of Eskeholm. The line cuts through Norway, Falster, and Germany, and it would be exciting if more historic sites were found along the same line. --LA2 (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello there. Yes that is all very interesting, but as this is your personal speculation, we cannot put it in the article. When you have published a book about it or your speculation has become notable otherwise, we can consider putting it in. RhinoMind (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  More speculation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Viking ring fortress. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20040616204524/http://viking.hgo.se:80/Files/Sweden/Skane/Borgby.html to http://viking.hgo.se/Files/Sweden/Skane/Borgby.html
*Added  tag to http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/Hidden/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=Hidden&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=Hidden&itemid=NOED19%20Aug%202006%2015%3A16%3A36%3A180
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the text starts saying that there are 7 forts, then lists 8 but the main table has only 7 entries.
later the texts says "all five"
pietro151.29.178.90 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  number