Talk:Gariannonum

Burgh Castle

The modern name of this place is Burgh Castle. The Castle is still there. Ideally this article ought to be combined with the Burgh Castle article. Weird how the article on Burgh Castle just briefly mentions Burgh Castle itself isnt it? At least the Burgh Castle ought to have a more definate pointer to this article, for example "For more details on the castle see the Garrianonum article". Why is the castle being ignored? Probably because it requires getting out of your car and walking 100 yards or so along a grass lane to see it - shocking! Thus it is completely invisible to the Great Unexercised.

The photo was well meant, but it dosnt do justice to the size of the thing. A mid-shot photo of the wall with some people nearby to give an idea of the height and width of the walls would be better. The current photo just makes it look like it is as tall as a low hedge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.48.47 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi, there is a seperate article on the village of Burgh Castle. This article covers just the Roman fort, and not the subsequent village that grew up around it. I don't agree that the articles should be combined - the Tower of London has a separate article to London, same thing here. Garrianonum is the Roman fort, Burgh Castle is the village that surrounds it and grwe up after the Roman period. I agree the articles should point to one another. If they do not do so already, feel free to add this. If you are local (I am not) then feel free to take a photo of it and upload it to the article - PocklingtonDan 09:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not happy with the photograph, it was taken on a rainy day and that shows. I would comment that a mid-shot photo would be in danger of being a photo of a Roman Wall rather than Garrianonum. You would need to find a good spot that typifies the fort. A low level aerial photograph would be best, can someone lend me a plane? MortimerCat 07:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As a local, I would say that people tend to call both the village and the fort Burgh Castle. It's mostly known for the Roman fort unless you are local, so it seems unnecessary to have separate articles. I have the Norfolk Archaeology service report on the excavations at the end of the 1950s, so hopefully will add some detail here. There was a Norman fortification within the walls but this is only visible now from arial photographs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsur (talk • contribs) 14:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

New article Burgh Castle Roman Site now created to describe the Roman Fort and its history proper. Since the Gariannonum article itself is ambiguous as to whether this was the site at Burgh Castle or Caister-on-Sea, I have not added it to Gariannonum. This would leave the article on Burgh Castle to describe the village and civil parish itself. However that is the opinion of one at present - Please feel free to discuss merging/re-naming of the article(s) as appropriate? Pahazzard (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent visit

There is an information board at the castle that says it was built in 270s - I wish I had written some details down. It also says it was used to house roman cavalry who protected the coast from raiders from north germany.

The unusual pink hawthornes that someone mentioned had gone to seed - best to see it in early May I think. 80.3.45.236

Article title

About the spelling of the article title name, I don't think this is a proper version. You can have 'Garianonum' with no double letters (as John Ives spelled it in his book, drawing on the form 'Gariennum' for the Yare given by Claudius Ptolemy, and from the form in the Notitia Dignitatum listing the Saxon Shore Forts under the Count of the Saxon Shore - OR you sometimes get 'Gariannonum' with the double n - for instance in R. G. Collingwood and J. N. L. Myres, Roman Britain and the English Settlements (Oxford, Clarendon press, 1937). But NOT the double 'r', even though that is how it appears in the wikipedia article on Saxon Shore Forts. If it is changed the links etc will have to change too. Probably this article should be moved to one of these other spellings which are more regular? Eebahgum (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gariannonum. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070105030013/http://www.romanmap.com/htm/names/Burgh%20Castle.htm to http://www.romanmap.com/htm/names/Burgh%20Castle.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)