Talk:Castleshaw Roman Fort

Rigodunum
Although I totally agree with the page move, I still think "Rigodunum" deserves a mention in the lead as a "given" name to the castrum. I think this will help our readers. --Jza84 | Talk  20:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was originally very reluctant since there's no evidence to say this is Rigodunum, but on reflection you're probably right; there should be an explanation for people looking for "Rigodunum" why it redirects here. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Nev1 (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Great stuff, and a brilliant piece of expansion! There's just no stopping you these days! --Jza84 | Talk  15:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah well there's no point in hanging around ;-) I was hoping to add more stuff, but I seem to have exhausted most of the published material. I had half an eye on FA if I could find out more on the vicus and early fort but no luck at the moment. Nev1 (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea that Castleshaw was Rigodunum is ridiculous. (1) A Vicus and a Polis are not the same thing (2) The numbers do not add up - as Rivet and Smith show in their tables (in a way they perhaps did not even realise themselves) (3) alighting upon this only occurred because Ribchester was shown to have its own name. There are alternative locations for Rigodunum.

I accept that it "has been suggested" - but the whole tone of the rest of it can really only be interpreted as it "has been demonstrated", which it has not.Freuchie (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Castleshaw Roman fort. 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/20090223141821/http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1369 to http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1369

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)