Jump to content

Talk:Bastion fort

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Star fort)


Untitled

[edit]

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.


Star fort: A field work constructed in the shape of a star, by using four or more salients and no curtains.


Saliant, Salient: The forward projecting point of a bastion or other projecting work.
Salient angle: The angle facing away from the centre of the place.
Salient work: A work incorporating salient angles. See bastion trace, redoubt, sconce.
Bastion: A work projecting from the curtain wall of a fortification which commanded the foreground and the outworks. Designed to provide flanking fire to adjacent curtains and bastion. Bastion has been used to refer to the flanking towers of a castle as well as the arrow headed bastions of the Italian bastion trace. See arrow headed bastion, curtain tower, mural tower. (L. bastia, build).
Bastioned flank: The salient angle of a bastion and the opposite flank.

--Shoka 23:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

redundancy?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into Star Fort. —Michael Z. 2007-10-16 23:04 Z 23:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This sounds very sensible; the other titles remain as redirects. Star fort being so familiar might have its own subsection. --Wetman 20:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be much more managable. As it is, the articles could stand to be improved (particularly sourcing and layout). The two merged into bastion fortress could both have their own sections, in fact, with trace italienne reflecting its origins in the Renaissance period. --Grimhelm 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur that the three articles overlap. Not clear that collecting the text from all three articles into sections in a single article is the best way of merging them. Have some concerns with the accuracy of some of the statements in bastion fortress, particularly the statement that the increasing range of siege weaponry lead to their obsolecence. --Shoka 22:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is something that didn't truly start to happen until the second half of the 19th century, and even then, commanders were reluctant to move away from Star forts. In some cases, star forts have still showed use in the mid-20th century. However, I feel we can work better on accuracy and references one page, eventually using Bastion fortress as the parent article for the other two. --Grimhelm 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merged, needs copyedit

[edit]

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

Suggestion

[edit]

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)[reply]

Perhaps we could add the picture of the star fort Castle of Good Hope. Invmog (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go ahead, Invmog? Nick Michael (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bastion fort

[edit]

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)[reply]

Osijek

[edit]

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)[reply]

Is "star fort" really the correct title for this article?

[edit]

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:

1) No published work that I have found calls a fortification with bastions a "star fort"

[edit]

Here are some examples from hopefully authoritative sources, which use terms such as "bastion system", "bastioned trace" and "bastion fort":

  • Hogg, Ian V (1975), Fortress: A History of Military Defence, Macdonald and Jane's, ISBN 0-356-08122-2 (p. 44) Quote: Carisbrooke remains the only bastioned work of its kind in England. (p. 73) Quote: "The bastioned trace was designed to protect the escarp by cover from the flanks...".
  • Dyer, Nick (2003), British Fortification in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, The Palmerston Forts Society, ISBN 0-9523634-6-1 (p. 2) Quote: "Early bastion forts were simple affairs..." (p. 10) Quote: "This escewed the expensive features of the bastion system and worked on a different set of principles".
  • Barrass, Simon (2011). "An Introduction to Artillery Fortification" (PDF). www.fsgfort.com. Fortress Study Group. Retrieved 4 December 2014. "Bastion Fortification - A new form of fortification was developed in the first quarter of the 16th century in northern Italy..."

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.

2) A fortification called a "star fort" does exist, but it isn't a fort with bastions

[edit]
Hector Straith's 1858 diagram showing a star fort compared with a bastion fort.

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)[reply]


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

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gIQwMY3Nv_YC&pg=PA9&dq=star+fort&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdjYnpvabRAhVlJsAKHdX3Byo4ChDoAQg-MAc#v=onepage&q=star%20fort&f=false

Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For my 2 cents, I've always thought "trace italienne" is a better title, since it seems to be the preferred name in academic works (or it is in my experience, at least). For example, in The Military Revolution Debate: Readings on the Military Transformation of Early Modern Europe, all of the contributors (Rogers, Roberts, Parker, Black, Lynn, among others) refer to the fortifications as trace italienne with the exception of Thomas Arnold, who uses that term and "angle-bastion fortification" interchangeably.
And FWIW, I don't consider either of the sources presented above by Slatersteven to be particularly convincing. Parsecboy (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That museums conflate terms doesn't mean that we should too. While WP:COMMONNAME is worth considering, we should also strive for accuracy. To echo Alan's point above about the distinction between actual star forts and bastion forts/trace italienne, it's worth pointing out that no less an expert than Mahan describes them as distinct types. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3) A 'star' fort does not necessarily have five bastions

[edit]
While a star does not need to have five points to be considered a star, calling an eight pointed shape a 'star' is a grave misrepresentation of the shape; the general knowledge is that stars are five pointed, sometimes six. A star generally has no more than six points and no less than five. Anything outside of the small range is technically a star, but not generally accepted.
A fort like the Venetian city of Palmanova is a nine-pointed star. However, this shape would not be recognized as a star but rather as a enneagram. A fort like Klaipėda Castle is considered a three-pointed star fort, despite a three pointed star not existing. The technically correct name for a shape like this would be simply considered a hexagon, due to the side distinct sides.
The term star fort misrepresents bastion fortresses because of the nonexistence of three- and four-pointed stars, and the general idea of a star being five- and six-pointed only.

4)The shape of the fort is inconsistent with the amount of bastions

[edit]
For argument's sake, all forts referenced in this argument are five-bastion fortifications, unless stated otherwise. This is not strong argument, but more of a fallback. Please be more critical of Reason #3.
A fort such as Fort Independence (Massachusetts) is considered a five-point star fort because of the five bastions, which seems correct. However, the argument is inconsistent with the shape. The Pentagon, the headquarters of the US Department of Defense, is considered a pentagonal structure. Why? The only difference is the presence of bastions. Another example is the previously stated Palmanova, which is a nine-pointed star fort. However, take away the bastions and you simply have a nonagonal structure... I think that's the correct term. It doesnt make sense.
This is a weak argument that probably won't impact anything but it came into my head so I included it anyway.
UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 20:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, fortifications that do not describe a complete circuit, such as the Chatham Lines, bear no resemblance to a star, but are certainly bastion forts. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


OK lets at least try and take this somewhere.

Suggestions

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bastion Fort

[edit]
  • Support - It's pretty self explanatory: A fort with bastions. It's also in English and is a widely used term. Trace Italienne is a more formal term, but it's not in English, which may cause a problem when trying to explain it and define it's meaning. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Correct me if I'm wrong, but trace Italienne is generally applied to fortifications of the 16th and early 17th century. The term seems to be rarely, if ever, applied to the work of the great Dutch, French and German engineers of the late 17th and 18th century (Vauban, Coehoorn et al) and those that followed them. I don't think anybody would call the mid-19th century Thiers wall a trace Italienne but it certainly is a bastion fortification. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as most meaningful to the non-expert (like myself). Concise and descriptive. The other terms suggested are probably meaningless to the layman. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalier Fort

[edit]

Trace italienne

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

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

  • Vauban Under Seige, pp. 25-26 "With [Vauban's] design, Ath became one of the few fortresses to come close to the idealized 'regular' star shape most associated with the modern trace italienne style..."
  • Wars of the Age of Louis XIV, 1650-1715, p. 491 "[Vauban] achieved a new design that was highly successful at resisting artillery and any attacking infantry...the artillery fortress trace incorporated low, angled bastions (first developed in Italy, and hence widely known as 'trace italienne')"
  • Giant of the Grand Siècle: The French Army, 1610-1715, p. 554 "Fascinatingly intricate, indeed beautiful, the trace italienne as brought to its zenith by Vauban would seem to be a dominant piece of military technology."
  • The Oxford History of Modern War, pp. 28-29 "Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, Michele San Michele, Jean Errand de Bar-le-Duc, Sebastien le Prestre de Vauban, and his Dutch contemporary Menno van Coehoorn brought the trace italienne to maturity."
  • War and Society in Early Modern Europe: 1495-1715, p. 35 "The fullest flowering of the military architect's art came came in the seventeenth century with master designers such as Vauban and Coehoorn, but the essential features of the new military architecture, established around 1500, remained unchanged. The superiority of the trace italienne over older styles of fortifications..."

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)[reply]

Requested move 19 January 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should article references to "star fort" wikilink to here?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bastion_fort&oldid=1194719478"