![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This site has a great deal of information on the terminology of fortifications.
http://www.angelfire.com/wy/svenskildbiter/madict.html#Introduction
from that site some somewhat convoluted definitions.
Hope they can be reduced to something less impenetrable, without losing too much accuracy.
-- Shoka 23:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Recent change by Kennithj
"Age of Blackpowder" when the cannon came to dominate the"
Change is questionable. The original was using cannon in the plural.
Could have been written as "when cannons came to dominate", but cannon is the more normal plural form.
Revised form does not convey quite the original sense.
Other opinion sought. Grammer Mavens ? -- Shoka 20:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Rather than quibble over plurals it might be more useful to set these technological developments in some historical context, of which this article is currently wholly innocent. --
Wetman
00:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
seems to be a lot of overlap between this and trace italienne; should they be combined? 67.68.235.106 19:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I concur that there is overlap. Unclear how best to proceed though. Star fort is a descriptive term. Trace italienne refers to the origin of this style of fortification. Personally I think that star fort is the better title for the article.-- Shoka 21:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC
Wikipedia was the first place that I came across the term "Star Fort". Parker, Hall, DeVries, Roberts, Kingra, Lynn (names off the top of my head) all call them trace italienne. For sake of accuracy, I think it would be sensible to use the trace italienne article, considering that's the name that all the academics use. PlasticFork ( talk) 12:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The result was merge into Star Fort. — Michael Z. 2007-10-16 23:04 Z 23:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I propose to merge the articles Bastion fortress, Star fort, and Trace italienne. These 3 articles discuss the exact same thing! In stead of 3 fragmented articles, the combined info could be very comprehensive. I suggest merging the info to Bastion fortress: it seems to me as the most fitting title. -- P199 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Definitely merge the three articles here. If the article grows very large and detailed, then a sub-topic can be split off again.
Star fort has the longest edit history, and has a solid introduction and description, so it will make a good core article. The sections of trace Italienne can be merged at least partly intact. Bastion fortress is shorter and its writing is not as strong, so facts can be individually incorporated from that article.
"Star fort" is the simplest descriptive title, while "bastion fortress" can be confused with " bastion". Other suitable titles are star fortress (more evocative of a large masonry structure than "fort") and Vauban fortress or Vauban fortification (which are the best-known to me, but not really inclusive enough). But anyway, I suggest we merge to this article for the reasons above, and then the merged article can be moved to whichever title we choose in the meantime.
I've added merge notices to the three articles. If there's no objection, I'll start merging in a few days. — Michael Z. 2007-10-01 22:03 Z
I've completed the merge. Pretty much everything from trace italienne came into this article, and I made sure that nothing covered in bastion fortress was missed.
It now needs some editing and cleanup, particularly to shorten the introduction. — Michael Z. 2007-10-17 00:00 Z
Does Jülich fit into such a page? It seems like the typical example for me. Picture of Zitadelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.94.168.231 ( talk) 12:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add the picture of the star fort Castle of Good Hope. Invmog ( talk) 01:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty of adding "bastion fort" to the lead paragraph, as it is very widely used, more so than "star fort" I would suggest. A reference is An Introduction to Artillery Fortification by Simon Barrass of the Fortress Study Group. I can find more if references if required. Alansplodge ( talk) 18:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Osijek was not largest Habsburg fortress on Ottoman empire border. It was Petrovaradin fortress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.30.44 ( talk) 06:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I realise that this question has been discussed here before, however, I have become more and more convinced that star fort is the wrong name for this article. In support of this, I would like to make two points:
Here are some examples from hopefully authoritative sources, which use terms such as "bastion system", "bastioned trace" and "bastion fort":
Not one of these sources use the term "star fort" to refer to a fort with bastions, indeed I couldn't find any published book that did.
In several mid-19th century treatises, a "star fort" is described as type of fort with salients, but lacking "arrowhead" shaped bastions. "A fort of this class receives its name from the general resemblance which its trace has to the conventional symbol used to represent a star. The star of six, or of eight points, is the kind mostly employed" (Wheeler, 1882 p. 44, linked above). Hector Straith (1852 p. 76 linked above) helpfully provides a drawing to illustrate the difference between a star fort (Fig. 42) and a bastion fort (Fig. 43).
These forts seem to have had more drawbacks than advantages and Straith quotes Antoine-Henri Jomini ("one of the most celebrated writers on the Napoleonic art of war" according to our article) as saying: "Star forts are the very worst description of fortification..." (p. 75). Although not described as such in our article, Fort Wood seems to fit the description of a "star fort" very well, as does Star Castle, Isles of Scilly, especially in this view. Our article about Magazine Fort in Dublin says: "Unlike de Burgh's nearby star fort, which was primarily earthwork and demolished in the 1830s, Corneille's bastion fort was built of brick and limestone". The accompanying 18th century illustration does indeed show a star fort as described above.
I look forward to reading your comments. Alansplodge ( talk) 16:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Sources for "bastion forts being "star forts".
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fXZ1QHRVdJUC&pg=PA3&dq=star+fort&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq8syjvabRAhXjL8AKHZ9qAcQQ6AEIPjAG#v=onepage&q=star%20fort&f=false
Slatersteven ( talk) 17:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
https://www.nps.gov/fomc/learn/historyculture/the-star-fort.htm
http://scbattlegroundtrust.org/star-fort.html
Slatersteven ( talk) 17:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
OK lets at least try and take this somewhere.
These are the names under discussion, lets at least see if we can decide on which which one we will try and get "star fort" moved to. So vote for which one we are going to nominate. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This discussion is set to close on January 18, 2017 at 17:01 UTC UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk)
Shit, I forgot to close this. I guess 'bastion fort' wins, so I'll head it over to the move department. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 10:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
To respond to a couple of points made in the voting section above, the term "trace italienne" has been used to describe later fortifications such as those built by Vauban and Coehoorn. See for instance
Second, to Peter's comment about the obscurity of "trace italienne", that's not a very good reason to prefer "bastion fortress". If that were part of the naming conventions, we'd have Fly agaric, not Amanita muscaria, for example. We use the term preferred by reliable sources, and no one has made the argument that "bastion fortress" is more prevalent than "trace italienne". Parsecboy ( talk) 18:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Used lowercase "fort" per discussion below. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 22:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Star fort →
Bastion Fort – Members of
WP:MILHIST had a consensus that the name 'star fort' was inappropriate for this fortification, showing why above. Also seen above is the vote between MILHIST members determining the new name for the article, with bastion fort winning 3-0-2.
UNSC Luke 1021 (
talk)
11:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I was editing Ninety Six, South Carolina, which described the fortification there as a "star fort" (unlinked). I gather from the discussion here that editors versed in the matter concluded that "star fort" and "bastion fort" are two different things. Lacking a separate Star fort article to link to, I did a piped link to Bastion fort. Is there a better approach? JamesMLane t c 00:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This site has a great deal of information on the terminology of fortifications.
http://www.angelfire.com/wy/svenskildbiter/madict.html#Introduction
from that site some somewhat convoluted definitions.
Hope they can be reduced to something less impenetrable, without losing too much accuracy.
-- Shoka 23:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Recent change by Kennithj
"Age of Blackpowder" when the cannon came to dominate the"
Change is questionable. The original was using cannon in the plural.
Could have been written as "when cannons came to dominate", but cannon is the more normal plural form.
Revised form does not convey quite the original sense.
Other opinion sought. Grammer Mavens ? -- Shoka 20:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Rather than quibble over plurals it might be more useful to set these technological developments in some historical context, of which this article is currently wholly innocent. --
Wetman
00:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
seems to be a lot of overlap between this and trace italienne; should they be combined? 67.68.235.106 19:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I concur that there is overlap. Unclear how best to proceed though. Star fort is a descriptive term. Trace italienne refers to the origin of this style of fortification. Personally I think that star fort is the better title for the article.-- Shoka 21:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC
Wikipedia was the first place that I came across the term "Star Fort". Parker, Hall, DeVries, Roberts, Kingra, Lynn (names off the top of my head) all call them trace italienne. For sake of accuracy, I think it would be sensible to use the trace italienne article, considering that's the name that all the academics use. PlasticFork ( talk) 12:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The result was merge into Star Fort. — Michael Z. 2007-10-16 23:04 Z 23:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I propose to merge the articles Bastion fortress, Star fort, and Trace italienne. These 3 articles discuss the exact same thing! In stead of 3 fragmented articles, the combined info could be very comprehensive. I suggest merging the info to Bastion fortress: it seems to me as the most fitting title. -- P199 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Definitely merge the three articles here. If the article grows very large and detailed, then a sub-topic can be split off again.
Star fort has the longest edit history, and has a solid introduction and description, so it will make a good core article. The sections of trace Italienne can be merged at least partly intact. Bastion fortress is shorter and its writing is not as strong, so facts can be individually incorporated from that article.
"Star fort" is the simplest descriptive title, while "bastion fortress" can be confused with " bastion". Other suitable titles are star fortress (more evocative of a large masonry structure than "fort") and Vauban fortress or Vauban fortification (which are the best-known to me, but not really inclusive enough). But anyway, I suggest we merge to this article for the reasons above, and then the merged article can be moved to whichever title we choose in the meantime.
I've added merge notices to the three articles. If there's no objection, I'll start merging in a few days. — Michael Z. 2007-10-01 22:03 Z
I've completed the merge. Pretty much everything from trace italienne came into this article, and I made sure that nothing covered in bastion fortress was missed.
It now needs some editing and cleanup, particularly to shorten the introduction. — Michael Z. 2007-10-17 00:00 Z
Does Jülich fit into such a page? It seems like the typical example for me. Picture of Zitadelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.94.168.231 ( talk) 12:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add the picture of the star fort Castle of Good Hope. Invmog ( talk) 01:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty of adding "bastion fort" to the lead paragraph, as it is very widely used, more so than "star fort" I would suggest. A reference is An Introduction to Artillery Fortification by Simon Barrass of the Fortress Study Group. I can find more if references if required. Alansplodge ( talk) 18:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Osijek was not largest Habsburg fortress on Ottoman empire border. It was Petrovaradin fortress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.30.44 ( talk) 06:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I realise that this question has been discussed here before, however, I have become more and more convinced that star fort is the wrong name for this article. In support of this, I would like to make two points:
Here are some examples from hopefully authoritative sources, which use terms such as "bastion system", "bastioned trace" and "bastion fort":
Not one of these sources use the term "star fort" to refer to a fort with bastions, indeed I couldn't find any published book that did.
In several mid-19th century treatises, a "star fort" is described as type of fort with salients, but lacking "arrowhead" shaped bastions. "A fort of this class receives its name from the general resemblance which its trace has to the conventional symbol used to represent a star. The star of six, or of eight points, is the kind mostly employed" (Wheeler, 1882 p. 44, linked above). Hector Straith (1852 p. 76 linked above) helpfully provides a drawing to illustrate the difference between a star fort (Fig. 42) and a bastion fort (Fig. 43).
These forts seem to have had more drawbacks than advantages and Straith quotes Antoine-Henri Jomini ("one of the most celebrated writers on the Napoleonic art of war" according to our article) as saying: "Star forts are the very worst description of fortification..." (p. 75). Although not described as such in our article, Fort Wood seems to fit the description of a "star fort" very well, as does Star Castle, Isles of Scilly, especially in this view. Our article about Magazine Fort in Dublin says: "Unlike de Burgh's nearby star fort, which was primarily earthwork and demolished in the 1830s, Corneille's bastion fort was built of brick and limestone". The accompanying 18th century illustration does indeed show a star fort as described above.
I look forward to reading your comments. Alansplodge ( talk) 16:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Sources for "bastion forts being "star forts".
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fXZ1QHRVdJUC&pg=PA3&dq=star+fort&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq8syjvabRAhXjL8AKHZ9qAcQQ6AEIPjAG#v=onepage&q=star%20fort&f=false
Slatersteven ( talk) 17:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
https://www.nps.gov/fomc/learn/historyculture/the-star-fort.htm
http://scbattlegroundtrust.org/star-fort.html
Slatersteven ( talk) 17:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
OK lets at least try and take this somewhere.
These are the names under discussion, lets at least see if we can decide on which which one we will try and get "star fort" moved to. So vote for which one we are going to nominate. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This discussion is set to close on January 18, 2017 at 17:01 UTC UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk)
Shit, I forgot to close this. I guess 'bastion fort' wins, so I'll head it over to the move department. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 10:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
To respond to a couple of points made in the voting section above, the term "trace italienne" has been used to describe later fortifications such as those built by Vauban and Coehoorn. See for instance
Second, to Peter's comment about the obscurity of "trace italienne", that's not a very good reason to prefer "bastion fortress". If that were part of the naming conventions, we'd have Fly agaric, not Amanita muscaria, for example. We use the term preferred by reliable sources, and no one has made the argument that "bastion fortress" is more prevalent than "trace italienne". Parsecboy ( talk) 18:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Used lowercase "fort" per discussion below. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 22:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Star fort →
Bastion Fort – Members of
WP:MILHIST had a consensus that the name 'star fort' was inappropriate for this fortification, showing why above. Also seen above is the vote between MILHIST members determining the new name for the article, with bastion fort winning 3-0-2.
UNSC Luke 1021 (
talk)
11:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I was editing Ninety Six, South Carolina, which described the fortification there as a "star fort" (unlinked). I gather from the discussion here that editors versed in the matter concluded that "star fort" and "bastion fort" are two different things. Lacking a separate Star fort article to link to, I did a piped link to Bastion fort. Is there a better approach? JamesMLane t c 00:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)