Talk:Battlement

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Fortifications

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force

Proposed merger with Battlement

Agree. One article should be able to cover this type of structure. Although redirects should be used for all the various terms. Also What about merging Machiolation here? Brendandh 15:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Crenellation has a distinct meaning with important social overtones missing from battlement. In effect crenellation means 'battlements as an expression of high social rank.'Castellddu 01:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Though very similar in appearance, crenellation can be used in a decorative fashion. True, in some languages there is no differentiation, but people sometimes would look for a specific difference, not the generalisation. Definite disagree for machicolation, as the fuction of these two vastly differs. --Morgiliath 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Important to keep a seperate article about crenellation/ castellation given its importance as a decorative feature (and certainly not a defensive feature!)in, for example, Victorian houses (often over bay fronted windows) and castellated neo-gothic buildings. To treat battlement and crenellation because of a similarity is to obscure a whole area of architectural history. Please don't generalise in such a way. Robotforaday 14:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The crenellation is the distinct pattern, while the battlements are just the walkway and such like.

Disagree. It is indeed important to resist generalisation. In casual usage "Battlement" and "Crenelation" may be interchangeable, but technically they are not quite the same, neither are they the same in spirit; crenelation being more descriptive of form and battlement being more descriptive of function. Additionally, not all crenelations are battlements (i.e. having a parapet walk) and it is arguable that not all battlements are crenelations, such as the case of battlements formed by a parapet with enclosed loophole embrasures and no actual crenels. I would suggest that crenelation only refers to the 'crenulated' profile of alternating crenels and merlons, and not to the rest of the battlement's hoards and machicolations. Normally you could consult Viollet-le-Duc[1] on these matters, but in this case he's enormously unhelpful. Not only does he not give a seperate definition in Dictionary of French Architecture from the 11th to the 16th Centuries for the word Parapet, but the collective term "battlement" doesn't exist in French. Instead we get the Fortifications Superieures broken down into Crenelages and Machicoulis
I believe you can compare this proposed merger with the misguided merger of "Crenel" and "Embrasure", which are by no means the same thing within an encyclopedic context; although, in casual or amateur usage they may be interchanged without risk of embarrassment, historically they are not the same. )Tvanhulzen (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. They are not the same thing BUT there are features of the Battlements article, such as the shape of the merlons, that are more properly the subject of the Crenellations article Barbayaga (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Barbayaga[reply]

Ghibelline Merlons?

Italian military architects devised the Ghibelline or swallowtail battlement, with V-shaped notches in the tops of the merlon, giving a horn-like effect. The normal rectangular-shaped merlons were called Guelph.

I have requested citations because buildings with swallowtail merlons can be found in almost every Gelph city (check out the links on the Guelphs and Ghibellines page) and are synonymous with "norman" archetecture in Sicily, as can be seen in "Siculo-Norman Art" [ISBN 1-874044-40-6] furthermore as you can see many date to the middle or later part of the 12C which predates the formation of the Ghibellines as an organisation.

Barbayaga (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Barbayaga[reply]

I see some one has removed the citations request without stating why here. I have restored them Barbayaga (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)barbayaga[reply]

In heraldry the M-shaped line is called "merlato alla ghibellina", and the square wave "merlato alla guelfa". Doesn't necessarily mean it was in fact a sure sign of alignment. On the other hand, how many towns were exclusively one or the other? —Tamfang (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger rationale

I merged crenellation into this... I think the crenellation article doesn't at all explain the difference between the two terms. LEt me know. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spare me

The list of licenses to crenellate ought to be hidden (by default). —Tamfang (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, it would help with the readability of the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the list. On top of the above issues of readability, the list was copied from Davis' article on the subject and attributed only to "The Castle Studies Group". Thinking this was a breach of copyright, I asked Moonriddengirl how to handle this but she points out that sweat of the brow isn't recognised by US law so doesn't affect Wikipedia. In any case, the Wikipedia article has a link to Davis' work which is as it should be since it is an important paper and easily available in PDF format through the Castle Studies Group website. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list of licences has been resurrected in its own article licence to crenellate, which will not affect the readability of the article Battlement. If anyone thinks it now interferes with the readabilty of licence to crenellate, then it can if desired be de-merged into a separate article consisting of list only. WP contains many long lists on many topics, stand-alone and otherwise. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The list is freely available online, and there is a link in this article and the licence to crenellate one. Exactly duplicating that article on Wikipedia makes no sense. Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions...

Hi. I've reverted again, for two reasons.

Firstly, particularly if you're new to WP, have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section - the current version doesn't follow these guidelines.
Secondly, the phrase "A pattern of structure focused of structure of actions of defensive capability" doesn't make any real sense to me. This might just be me, but I don't think it's very helpful as a term.

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All your structure focused of structure of actions are belong to us! —Tamfang (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A structured action of structured spamming focused on structure of actions of defensive capability." :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

chemin de ronde

"Battlements often have protected walkways (chemin de ronde) behind them."

Should this not rather read something like "Battlements on walls have protected walkways (chemin de ronde) behind them."? A crenellated parapet, on a wall, with no walkway behind it would be non-functional, "false", purely decorative. Thus it would not meet the definition of battlement, which is a crenellated parapet designed to protect a man as he fires arrows out.

I'm going to go ahead and change it. Heavenlyblue (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I have no problem with the term "decorative battlement", but a "decorative battlement" is not a battlement, as the latter has a functional definition. A "decorative battlement" is a battlement in the same way that a hobby horse, a stick horse, a saw horse, and a rocking horse are horses. They may be fun, or look good, but you wouldn't want to bet your life on them in a battle! Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelers and kneelers

In the Randle Holme work these terms seem to all go back to, both terms definitely refer to ashlars, and may even refer to shallow machicolation, not to crenelation. Either way, though, both are stones, not gaps. “kneeler” appears to be used, actually, in the ordinary sense of knee-stone; the same sort more usually used at the foot of a gable. Qwirkle (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Architectural History

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Choenes (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Choenes (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]