Talk:Inchtuthil

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Inchtuthil article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Fortifications / British / European / Roman & Byzantine / Classical

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

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
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Inchtuthil article general points

The current discussion is based on secondary webpages and literature rather than the original publications on the site (Richmond's in Pitts and St.Joseph; G.S.MAxwells publication in PSAS, Abercromby in PSAS as well as more recent research. It might be an idea to start with the publications of the excavations and revise the article from there. I have added some of the printed publications on the topic as a starter.

BirgittaHo (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legionary Fortress

Inchtuthil was a legionary lortress. I don't know where this obsession with castra and castrum comes from - they're generic terms and have no precise meaning. Using the term castrum to classify it is like calling Buckingham Palace a "house".

It's not well-preserved, though the layout is. The co-ordinates shown are for the temporary camp used when the fortress was being built, not the fortress itself. The nearest town is Blairgowrie.

The Design and staffing section starts by discussing the Inchtuthil hoard - not a good start. The rampart was of turf with a stone facing. "It would have been able to accommodate 6,000 troops" - it certainly could, it was a legionary fortress. However "it could accommodate ten normal size centuries and five centurions" - eh? Ten normal size centuries (at this time) amounted to 800 troops, and there's one centurion to each century (not surprisingly). The aedes was part of the headquarters building, as was customary during the 1st century and later.

"dozens of barracks buildings" - the number of barrack blocks is known precisely. The "Modern commentary" is interesting, but has nothing to do with the fortress. The article needs both correction and tidying up. Annotated references would improve it. An article about the site which provides the only complete plan of a legionary fortress anywhere in the Roman empire is worthy of some attention. Rambler24 (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update - changes made include some expanded detail and better in-line linking. Rambler24 (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inchtuthil. 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/20041212105314/http://www.roman-britain.org/military/northern_campaigns.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/military/northern_campaigns.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) 02:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]