This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Viking ring fortress:
|
Because Castles isn´t made of wood. Should´t be called "The Ring Fortresses"?
--Comanche cph 18:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason to link the word Trelleborg to slave or is that sentence merely misleading? Rmhermen 12:52, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
It must be the senntence that's misleading, Træl is the root-word of Trelleborg, and it is danish, meaning slave.
I removed this link because it didn't work: http://www.vikingeborg.dk
Is there an obvious source-supported reason why this article connect to vikings? Dan Koehl 15:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
These trelleborgs must have been important in those days. Are any of the trelleborgs mentioned in any of the Viking Sagas? 85.166.242.148 ( talk) 19:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: the similar castle in Walcheren
There are five geometrical ring-shaped ramparts from the 'Viking Age' in towns on the island/peninsula of Walcheren, and most of them have been well-researched: Oost Souburg (also written Oost Souburgh, carbon-dated to before 900), Middelburg (carbon-dated to 884-892), Domburg (carbon-dated to 881-887), Oostburg (not researched), Burgh bij Haamstede (carbon-dated to before 900 and/or 912-963).
There is a good quality satellite image for Oost Souburg in Google Earth (see 51 27'47.50N 03 36'14.00E). It used to be inhabited in the 10-11th century, but later the village moved outside of the rampart. In Burgh bij Haamstede people also live outside it, but the satellite image is very bad (and the location pointer in Google Earth is in the wrong place as usual).
Domburg is the biggest one (identified as Walacria/Walichrum in Frankish sources), and Middelburg is the present capital of the area (Zeeland). In Middelburg they built an abbey on top of it in the 12th century. The inhabitants of Walcheren mostly raised horses, and sheep for making textiles. Walcheren is mentioned several times in Frankish sources as the origin of a 'Viking raid', sometimes on horses, but this is not taken as evidence that Scandinavians therefore built the fortifications. The population of Walcheren also has a historical reputation for piracy of its own, and the fortifications may have just as well been built against the Vikings (corroborated by Frankish mention of castella recens facta).
The perfect circular shape has been explained by the 'principle of the tied goat': the shape is optimal from both the point of view of minimal construction effort and defense (the shortest interior lines) in those days, in Denmark, Northern Germany, the Netherlands, and Flanders there are usually few features of the terrain to take into account that may suggest an irregular shape, and there were no existing Roman or other ruins to use.
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)
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)
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)
As I was working on this general article I discovered several flaws and would like to publish them here, so everybody can see it to:
RhinoMind ( talk) 22:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
{{
dead link}}
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%3A180When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Viking ring fortress → Trelleborg-type fortress – Or perhaps " Trelleborgs" or similar name, The concept "viking" has little to do with this subject. Norse people may have, but not "vikings". In fact, you could even argue than many if not all of these ring fortresses were erected precisely to defend against various Norse pirates - "vikings", that is - and other foreign invaders. Compare what this article is called in Scandinavian language versions. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
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"
pietro 151.29.178.90 ( talk) 18:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Viking ring fortress:
|
Because Castles isn´t made of wood. Should´t be called "The Ring Fortresses"?
--Comanche cph 18:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason to link the word Trelleborg to slave or is that sentence merely misleading? Rmhermen 12:52, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
It must be the senntence that's misleading, Træl is the root-word of Trelleborg, and it is danish, meaning slave.
I removed this link because it didn't work: http://www.vikingeborg.dk
Is there an obvious source-supported reason why this article connect to vikings? Dan Koehl 15:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
These trelleborgs must have been important in those days. Are any of the trelleborgs mentioned in any of the Viking Sagas? 85.166.242.148 ( talk) 19:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: the similar castle in Walcheren
There are five geometrical ring-shaped ramparts from the 'Viking Age' in towns on the island/peninsula of Walcheren, and most of them have been well-researched: Oost Souburg (also written Oost Souburgh, carbon-dated to before 900), Middelburg (carbon-dated to 884-892), Domburg (carbon-dated to 881-887), Oostburg (not researched), Burgh bij Haamstede (carbon-dated to before 900 and/or 912-963).
There is a good quality satellite image for Oost Souburg in Google Earth (see 51 27'47.50N 03 36'14.00E). It used to be inhabited in the 10-11th century, but later the village moved outside of the rampart. In Burgh bij Haamstede people also live outside it, but the satellite image is very bad (and the location pointer in Google Earth is in the wrong place as usual).
Domburg is the biggest one (identified as Walacria/Walichrum in Frankish sources), and Middelburg is the present capital of the area (Zeeland). In Middelburg they built an abbey on top of it in the 12th century. The inhabitants of Walcheren mostly raised horses, and sheep for making textiles. Walcheren is mentioned several times in Frankish sources as the origin of a 'Viking raid', sometimes on horses, but this is not taken as evidence that Scandinavians therefore built the fortifications. The population of Walcheren also has a historical reputation for piracy of its own, and the fortifications may have just as well been built against the Vikings (corroborated by Frankish mention of castella recens facta).
The perfect circular shape has been explained by the 'principle of the tied goat': the shape is optimal from both the point of view of minimal construction effort and defense (the shortest interior lines) in those days, in Denmark, Northern Germany, the Netherlands, and Flanders there are usually few features of the terrain to take into account that may suggest an irregular shape, and there were no existing Roman or other ruins to use.
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)
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)
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)
As I was working on this general article I discovered several flaws and would like to publish them here, so everybody can see it to:
RhinoMind ( talk) 22:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
{{
dead link}}
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%3A180When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Viking ring fortress → Trelleborg-type fortress – Or perhaps " Trelleborgs" or similar name, The concept "viking" has little to do with this subject. Norse people may have, but not "vikings". In fact, you could even argue than many if not all of these ring fortresses were erected precisely to defend against various Norse pirates - "vikings", that is - and other foreign invaders. Compare what this article is called in Scandinavian language versions. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
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"
pietro 151.29.178.90 ( talk) 18:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)