This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Slighting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Isn't slighting the deliberate damaging of fortifications to put them beyond the use of an enemy? I wouldn't describe demolishing old town walls to make room for urban expansion as slighting. Also, the suggestion that only the Parliamentarians had popular support in the English Civil War is incorrect. Cyclopaedic ( talk) 10:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The reason that the lead was wrong before my most recent edit was because the sentence "During the English Civil War this was to render it unusable as a fort." implies that it was only during the Civil War that slighting was done to render a fortification unusable as a fort. All that has happened now Nev1 is that you have expanded it to two specific incidents. Yet ever example on the page was done to render the fortress unusable as a fortress. Do you have an example where slighting was carried out for some other reason as is implied by the wording you have introduced? -- PBS ( talk) 23:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
user:Richard Nevell you have made a number of changes to the article based on information in
There is question to ask if this a revisionist document, and as it is only a Phd thesis if it has any support in academic journal articles? If not then it is expressing the view of one person writing a Phd and not the academiv general consensus. It is not that I am not against using this source, but as a revisionist thesis I think it needs support from other published sources ( WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:UNDUE). -- PBS ( talk) 17:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
For example you have drawn on this thesis to say that Royalists also slighted Parliamentarian fortified places. The two mentioned by Rakoczy on page 8 are Brampton Bryan Castle and Hopton Castle. Both of those castles were substantially damaged during the assaults and as such were not slighted. This is like Bridgnorth Castle the keep of which was blown off its foundations during a siege.
Do you have a reliable source that backs up Rakoczy's assertion that the two castle she mentions were ordered to be slighted by the Royalists?
The thing is that most large houses belonged to either Roundheads, private Cavaliers, or the Crown. The winning side in the Civil War did not order the slighting of their own property, whilst ordering the slighting of the defensive structures of their enemies. So for example Dudley Castle, and Kenilworth Castle were both slighted but Warwick Castle was not. -- ~~
On pages 8 and 9 Rakoczy criticise some of the definitions without giving examples and I think nit picking. Whether a castle was slighted using explosives or slighted using pick and shovel is not really the point, as both methods achieve the same results and in the case of Basing House and others demolition was much like modern demolition, anything of worth was carted away from the burnt out hulk, some officially sanctions some not.
On page 9 Rakoczy states:
At their most specific, historians say this was to make them `indefensible', and at their vaguest this was to prevent `future use'. Both definitions have their problems. Making a structure `indefensible', just like slighting `crucial' parts, assumes that there is a standardised method that is (and was) universally recognised. ... Also, arguing that castles were slighted to prevent future use disingenuously implies that castles had no post-slighting lives. As this thesis will show, many were slighted in a controlled way so as to still preserve their value as a gaol, courthouse, or place of habitation.
This is a contradiction in terms. I have deliberately mentioned Dudley Castle, and Kenilworth Castle because both were slighted to make them indefensible, but in the case of Dudley Castle that did not mean uninhabitable. It meant demolishing the keep/gatehouse and making a large breach, so that the place was in future indefensible but the habitable buildings in the inner baily were left intact and did not become uninhabitable until a fire decades after the civil war. In both cases it was obvious what needed to be done to make them indefensible (and was done), but of course given time any place can be made defensible again. However all that Parliament had to do after 1647 was make them indefensible for long enough for a detachment of the New Model Army to turn up as usually that is all it took to defeat a Royalist insurrection ( Penruddock uprising). If the hulk could be sold to demolition contractors for a profit (lead off the roof, Oak panelling removed etc) so much the better for Parliament's coffers.
Also Rakoczy is pressing an argument against M. Thompson and while Rakoczy has a point (is it one supported by others), but in my opinion over-eggs the pudding. For example Rakoczy states that Dover Castle was considered for slighting in 1651 (p. 53) then writes that Thompson mentions Dover being spared after stating "Thompson's second most influential argument is that castles were slighted because they were `inland', whereas most coastal castles were spared". Yet Dover supports Thompson's hypothesis as it was examined and kept (on page 389):
-- PBS ( talk) 17:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been working on a new draft of the article in my sandbox. Full disclosure: I've written one of the sources cited and the one source mentioned in further reading so it's going to be important to get some other opinions on the article.
You might notice that it differs quite a lot from the current article. Of the 11 sources in the current article's bibliography only one is used in the new draft. The reason for that is that most of the previous bibliography discussed slighting in passing. In the last decade or so there have been several publications which address the topic head-on and give it a theoretical grounding. So I thought it made sense to draw primarily on those, and in doing so the length of the article has nearly tripled. I've tried to avoid it becoming a list of individual cases or conflicts where slighting was used and tried to draw it back to be a bit more general. Hopefully that approach makes seems reasonable.
I welcome any feedback and have posted messages at WP:MILHIST, WP:ARCHAEOLOGY, and WP:HSITES. Richard Nevell ( talk) 22:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
For the archive, there here are a couple of links to comments on the draft that were posted elsewhere:
I've now taken the redrafted article live. Richard Nevell ( talk) 17:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Richard. This Nevell chap does indeed state in their abstract (sadly I don't have access to the actual text) that "Slighting is the act of deliberately damaging a high-status building (especially a castle or fortification) and its contents and the surrounding area." Now my reading of that is that if the destruction does not include (both) the contents and the surrounding area then it doesn't meet the definition and so isn't slighting. Do you think that that might be what they meant, or does the actual article reflect something like 'Slighting is the deliberate damage of high-status buildings (especially fortifications) to reduce their value as military, administrative or social structures. This destruction of property sometimes extended to the contents of buildings and the surrounding landscape.'?
I have done a bit of copy editing. Shout if there is anything you don't like or don't understand please let me know.
The article reads - I am sure you realise this - rather Anglo-centric and rather ECW orientated. Some examples from elsewhere and elsewhen would be good. (I recently read of a 12th-C crusader force occupying Aleppo but not being able to garrison it because the citadel had been slighted. A couple of Japanese examples come vaguely to mind.)
Anyway, a very handy little article and nice work. Gog the Mild ( talk) 20:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Relatively little attention, however, was devoted to the issues related to the demolition of Teutonic fortifications both in the Middle Ages and in modern times. ... Researchers usually mention the demolition works at individual objects in a rather general way, without conducting broader considerations. Consequently, no synthetic study of the issue indicated here has been published so far, in which an in-depth analysis of all issues related to demolition would be made.
— Techniki rozbiórki krzyżackich obiektów warownych w średniowieczu (Potterberg, Nieszawa, Toruń, Papowo Biskupie), with help from Google Translate
I have just created 'Talk:Other Slightings' before reading this fully. Having read it now I realise that we are thinking along similar lines. Also, there seems to be a focus on disabling defensive structures to the detriment of slighting being seen to be done for other purposes and I believe this also needs to be made clear. To this end I have added the Bahraini Pearl Roundabout which in no way was a military structure, but merely of symbolic significance to the protestors. I also wonder about the relationship between use of the word 'slight' in the context of this article and use of the word in more common English where to give a slight is to snub, or insult, someone with a view to showing your superiority over them. kimdino ( talk) 18:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This article seems to focus too much on slightings in England, particularly during the Civil Wars. I believe it needs to make clear that slighting is far more widespread than this. To this end I have started a new section entitled 'Modern Slightings' and have given the Bahraini Pearl Roundabout as an example. I can think of several more possibilities but this is the only one that is clearly slighted. Does pulling down of statues & symbolism of an overturned regime qualify as slighting? If so, then there is much from the fall of the USSR. There is also the removal of Nazi symbolism at the end of WW2, and also the fall of Saddam Hussein to be considered. Any thoughts, advice, etc? How about the burning down of the White House during the War of 1812? The Bamiyan Buddhas destruction might even be considered, or was this just religious intolerance? kimdino ( talk) 18:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Slighting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Isn't slighting the deliberate damaging of fortifications to put them beyond the use of an enemy? I wouldn't describe demolishing old town walls to make room for urban expansion as slighting. Also, the suggestion that only the Parliamentarians had popular support in the English Civil War is incorrect. Cyclopaedic ( talk) 10:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The reason that the lead was wrong before my most recent edit was because the sentence "During the English Civil War this was to render it unusable as a fort." implies that it was only during the Civil War that slighting was done to render a fortification unusable as a fort. All that has happened now Nev1 is that you have expanded it to two specific incidents. Yet ever example on the page was done to render the fortress unusable as a fortress. Do you have an example where slighting was carried out for some other reason as is implied by the wording you have introduced? -- PBS ( talk) 23:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
user:Richard Nevell you have made a number of changes to the article based on information in
There is question to ask if this a revisionist document, and as it is only a Phd thesis if it has any support in academic journal articles? If not then it is expressing the view of one person writing a Phd and not the academiv general consensus. It is not that I am not against using this source, but as a revisionist thesis I think it needs support from other published sources ( WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:UNDUE). -- PBS ( talk) 17:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
For example you have drawn on this thesis to say that Royalists also slighted Parliamentarian fortified places. The two mentioned by Rakoczy on page 8 are Brampton Bryan Castle and Hopton Castle. Both of those castles were substantially damaged during the assaults and as such were not slighted. This is like Bridgnorth Castle the keep of which was blown off its foundations during a siege.
Do you have a reliable source that backs up Rakoczy's assertion that the two castle she mentions were ordered to be slighted by the Royalists?
The thing is that most large houses belonged to either Roundheads, private Cavaliers, or the Crown. The winning side in the Civil War did not order the slighting of their own property, whilst ordering the slighting of the defensive structures of their enemies. So for example Dudley Castle, and Kenilworth Castle were both slighted but Warwick Castle was not. -- ~~
On pages 8 and 9 Rakoczy criticise some of the definitions without giving examples and I think nit picking. Whether a castle was slighted using explosives or slighted using pick and shovel is not really the point, as both methods achieve the same results and in the case of Basing House and others demolition was much like modern demolition, anything of worth was carted away from the burnt out hulk, some officially sanctions some not.
On page 9 Rakoczy states:
At their most specific, historians say this was to make them `indefensible', and at their vaguest this was to prevent `future use'. Both definitions have their problems. Making a structure `indefensible', just like slighting `crucial' parts, assumes that there is a standardised method that is (and was) universally recognised. ... Also, arguing that castles were slighted to prevent future use disingenuously implies that castles had no post-slighting lives. As this thesis will show, many were slighted in a controlled way so as to still preserve their value as a gaol, courthouse, or place of habitation.
This is a contradiction in terms. I have deliberately mentioned Dudley Castle, and Kenilworth Castle because both were slighted to make them indefensible, but in the case of Dudley Castle that did not mean uninhabitable. It meant demolishing the keep/gatehouse and making a large breach, so that the place was in future indefensible but the habitable buildings in the inner baily were left intact and did not become uninhabitable until a fire decades after the civil war. In both cases it was obvious what needed to be done to make them indefensible (and was done), but of course given time any place can be made defensible again. However all that Parliament had to do after 1647 was make them indefensible for long enough for a detachment of the New Model Army to turn up as usually that is all it took to defeat a Royalist insurrection ( Penruddock uprising). If the hulk could be sold to demolition contractors for a profit (lead off the roof, Oak panelling removed etc) so much the better for Parliament's coffers.
Also Rakoczy is pressing an argument against M. Thompson and while Rakoczy has a point (is it one supported by others), but in my opinion over-eggs the pudding. For example Rakoczy states that Dover Castle was considered for slighting in 1651 (p. 53) then writes that Thompson mentions Dover being spared after stating "Thompson's second most influential argument is that castles were slighted because they were `inland', whereas most coastal castles were spared". Yet Dover supports Thompson's hypothesis as it was examined and kept (on page 389):
-- PBS ( talk) 17:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been working on a new draft of the article in my sandbox. Full disclosure: I've written one of the sources cited and the one source mentioned in further reading so it's going to be important to get some other opinions on the article.
You might notice that it differs quite a lot from the current article. Of the 11 sources in the current article's bibliography only one is used in the new draft. The reason for that is that most of the previous bibliography discussed slighting in passing. In the last decade or so there have been several publications which address the topic head-on and give it a theoretical grounding. So I thought it made sense to draw primarily on those, and in doing so the length of the article has nearly tripled. I've tried to avoid it becoming a list of individual cases or conflicts where slighting was used and tried to draw it back to be a bit more general. Hopefully that approach makes seems reasonable.
I welcome any feedback and have posted messages at WP:MILHIST, WP:ARCHAEOLOGY, and WP:HSITES. Richard Nevell ( talk) 22:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
For the archive, there here are a couple of links to comments on the draft that were posted elsewhere:
I've now taken the redrafted article live. Richard Nevell ( talk) 17:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Richard. This Nevell chap does indeed state in their abstract (sadly I don't have access to the actual text) that "Slighting is the act of deliberately damaging a high-status building (especially a castle or fortification) and its contents and the surrounding area." Now my reading of that is that if the destruction does not include (both) the contents and the surrounding area then it doesn't meet the definition and so isn't slighting. Do you think that that might be what they meant, or does the actual article reflect something like 'Slighting is the deliberate damage of high-status buildings (especially fortifications) to reduce their value as military, administrative or social structures. This destruction of property sometimes extended to the contents of buildings and the surrounding landscape.'?
I have done a bit of copy editing. Shout if there is anything you don't like or don't understand please let me know.
The article reads - I am sure you realise this - rather Anglo-centric and rather ECW orientated. Some examples from elsewhere and elsewhen would be good. (I recently read of a 12th-C crusader force occupying Aleppo but not being able to garrison it because the citadel had been slighted. A couple of Japanese examples come vaguely to mind.)
Anyway, a very handy little article and nice work. Gog the Mild ( talk) 20:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Relatively little attention, however, was devoted to the issues related to the demolition of Teutonic fortifications both in the Middle Ages and in modern times. ... Researchers usually mention the demolition works at individual objects in a rather general way, without conducting broader considerations. Consequently, no synthetic study of the issue indicated here has been published so far, in which an in-depth analysis of all issues related to demolition would be made.
— Techniki rozbiórki krzyżackich obiektów warownych w średniowieczu (Potterberg, Nieszawa, Toruń, Papowo Biskupie), with help from Google Translate
I have just created 'Talk:Other Slightings' before reading this fully. Having read it now I realise that we are thinking along similar lines. Also, there seems to be a focus on disabling defensive structures to the detriment of slighting being seen to be done for other purposes and I believe this also needs to be made clear. To this end I have added the Bahraini Pearl Roundabout which in no way was a military structure, but merely of symbolic significance to the protestors. I also wonder about the relationship between use of the word 'slight' in the context of this article and use of the word in more common English where to give a slight is to snub, or insult, someone with a view to showing your superiority over them. kimdino ( talk) 18:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This article seems to focus too much on slightings in England, particularly during the Civil Wars. I believe it needs to make clear that slighting is far more widespread than this. To this end I have started a new section entitled 'Modern Slightings' and have given the Bahraini Pearl Roundabout as an example. I can think of several more possibilities but this is the only one that is clearly slighted. Does pulling down of statues & symbolism of an overturned regime qualify as slighting? If so, then there is much from the fall of the USSR. There is also the removal of Nazi symbolism at the end of WW2, and also the fall of Saddam Hussein to be considered. Any thoughts, advice, etc? How about the burning down of the White House during the War of 1812? The Bamiyan Buddhas destruction might even be considered, or was this just religious intolerance? kimdino ( talk) 18:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)