Talk:Viking ring fortress

I think it´s wrong to call it "Castles"
Because Castles isn´t made of wood. Should´t be called "The Ring Fortresses"?

--Comanche cph 18:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason to link the word Trelleborg to slave or is that sentence merely misleading? Rmhermen 12:52, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

It must be the senntence that's misleading, Træl is the root-word of Trelleborg, and it is danish, meaning slave.

I removed this link because it didn't work: http://www.vikingeborg.dk

Is there an obvious source-supported reason why this article connect to vikings? Dan Koehl 15:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Danes was one of the three Viking peoples. In Danish history, this era is known as "Vikingetiden" (the Viking Age). Valentinian (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

These trelleborgs must have been important in those days. Are any of the trelleborgs mentioned in any of the Viking Sagas? 85.166.242.148 (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly that is the problem. None of them are mentioned anywhere, not in any sagas or in any other hisorical report or legend. There is absolutly no mentioning of any hint anywhere as to who build them, when they where built, for what purpose or even exactly what their name was at the time. The reference to a fire at Aggersborg is thought to refer to a neighboring royal manor of the same name and the references to the old castle at Nonnebakken are from several centuries later and refer to the ruins, when nuns where allowed to build a church on the hill named after them on land belonging to the crown. We do know the ones that have been found until now, some by pure chance, there may have been more. The dating of some wood has yielded the exact felling year of 980 but it is not even clear which king really had the power over the region at that time (father Bluetooth or son Forkbeard). And yet they are there - a perfect mistery - that can be touched, seen and even walked on. The saga of the Jomsvikings may illustrate what an "Exclusive Viking Warrior Club with an own clubhouse fortress" at the time may have looked like but the Jomsborg is described as laying further east on the coast of modern day Poland presumely within the boundaries of the modern town of Wolin.--T.woelk (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: the similar castle in Walcheren

There are five geometrical ring-shaped ramparts from the 'Viking Age' in towns on the island/peninsula of Walcheren, and most of them have been well-researched: Oost Souburg (also written Oost Souburgh, carbon-dated to before 900), Middelburg (carbon-dated to 884-892), Domburg (carbon-dated to 881-887), Oostburg (not researched), Burgh bij Haamstede (carbon-dated to before 900 and/or 912-963).

There is a good quality satellite image for Oost Souburg in Google Earth (see 51 27'47.50N 03 36'14.00E). It used to be inhabited in the 10-11th century, but later the village moved outside of the rampart. In Burgh bij Haamstede people also live outside it, but the satellite image is very bad (and the location pointer in Google Earth is in the wrong place as usual).

Domburg is the biggest one (identified as Walacria/Walichrum in Frankish sources), and Middelburg is the present capital of the area (Zeeland). In Middelburg they built an abbey on top of it in the 12th century. The inhabitants of Walcheren mostly raised horses, and sheep for making textiles. Walcheren is mentioned several times in Frankish sources as the origin of a 'Viking raid', sometimes on horses, but this is not taken as evidence that Scandinavians therefore built the fortifications. The population of Walcheren also has a historical reputation for piracy of its own, and the fortifications may have just as well been built against the Vikings (corroborated by Frankish mention of castella recens facta).

The perfect circular shape has been explained by the 'principle of the tied goat': the shape is optimal from both the point of view of minimal construction effort and defense (the shortest interior lines) in those days, in Denmark, Northern Germany, the Netherlands, and Flanders there are usually few features of the terrain to take into account that may suggest an irregular shape, and there were no existing Roman or other ruins to use.

comment on todo list
I don't think just to delete the list is such a good idea. It holds more information than the links at the bottom and other than the table. Maybe it could be merged with the comparism table if that doesn't disturb the readability of it. The list is the easiest part to edit though and thats where new stuff is added first. As done with Borgeby and Rygge, of which there simply is hardly any good information yet. Exactly that is the problem with the information asked for in the Expand section. Most of the points are not known and might never be. There is a lot of speculation, some more or less convincing, but there is only little evidence. Even the question what sort of people lived there is not an easy question to answer with full proof. One must read the individual articles to get the full picture. Maybe the article could do with more information from the excavated sites but this may generate a lot of redundance. Maybe we need a speculations section to make clear how little we really know about these sites.--T.woelk (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct name
Ring fortress, ring castle or ring fort - which is it? The article uses all three. The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Archaeology only has two terms: ringfort and ringwork, of which the former seems more apt looking at the definitions. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well this is not a dictionary. And it is specifically not a dictionary of the English language as spoken in Britain. I am not aware of the actually differences between fortress, castle or fort and it would of course be an improvement if it was clarified to some extent. However this has already been discussed above and it is not of great concern to the subject of this article IMO. Boxing and categorizing real world phenomena can be difficult and not always possible. But as said, see the discussion above please. RhinoMind (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

More speculation
At this bearing calculator, you can display a line on a map between two coordinates. If you enter 62N 1.2195E and 20N 33.371E, you get a line (curved on the map in Google's projection, but straight on the Earth's surface) that cuts from the North Sea to Africa, through the centre of Aggersborg and Slagelse, passes less than a mile west of Fyrkat, and half a mile east of Eskeholm. The line cuts through Norway, Falster, and Germany, and it would be exciting if more historic sites were found along the same line. --LA2 (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello there. Yes that is all very interesting, but as this is your personal speculation, we cannot put it in the article. When you have published a book about it or your speculation has become notable otherwise, we can consider putting it in. RhinoMind (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Important tasks
As I was working on this general article I discovered several flaws and would like to publish them here, so everybody can see it to:


 * There is no article up on Trelleborgen in Trelleborg, Sweden although this ring castle has been heavyly reconstructed. I believe there is more than enough material for a whole article on this castle. See the refs here on this page as a starting point fx.
 * The Borgeby castle miss solid refs. Has it been confirmed as a former ring castle? The only ref on it, is a private homepage and it should be replaed with a solid ref in time. As Trelleborgen, this might also need its own page or at least be described on the Borgeby-page.
 * The ring castle suggested to be situated in Rygge, Norway appears to be mere speculation according to the ref given. If no solid ref can be found/provided, we should either remove it or mention it along with the Helsingborg castle.

RhinoMind (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The best,most important or most easily accessible sources or articles for Borgeby Ring Castle (online as well as offline) seem to be these:


 * L. Salminen, Grävning för VA i Borgeby, Arkivrapport8/2008, Regionmuseet i Kristianstad


 * F. Svanberg og B. Söderberg, Den vikingatida borgen i Borgeby. Malmö, Copy Quick (1999).


 * Svanberg, F. & Soderberg, B. 1999.Arkeologiska studier kring Borgeby och Löddeköpinge. I. Den vikingatida borgen i Borgeby. Lund: Riksantikvarieämbetet.


 * Margareta Weidhagen-Hallerdt:
 * CURRENT SWEDISH ARCHAEOLOGY, VoL 17, 2009
 * A POSSIBLE RING FORT FROM THE LATE VIKING PERIOD IN HELSINGBORG


 * Poul Erik Lindelof:
 * To skånske ringborge fra vikingetiden
 * Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for the good refs Ole. I will not talk more about Poul E. L.'s web-page now. Magareta W. H. only mention other sources on Borgeby and states that Svanberg & Söderberg 1999 is the best source on Borgeby. I have not checked what they write about it, but this ref should be checked to see if they are classifying it as a ring castle. Still we need to write some information on this structure overall.


 * PS. I have highlighted Borgeby in your post Ole, to emphasize to other readers what we are talking about here. Hope you are ok with that? RhinoMind (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * And there should also be this title: A Ödman: Borgeby - mer än 10000 år. Del 1, Borgebys historia. Borgeby 2002. (pp. 18-22). Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just heard today, that there should be a new comprehensive book about Borgeby and it's history just "around the corner" (the publishers should have been very reluctant to disclose any of the content in advance). Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Viking ring fortress. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20040616204524/http://viking.hgo.se:80/Files/Sweden/Skane/Borgby.html to http://viking.hgo.se/Files/Sweden/Skane/Borgby.html
 * Added tag to http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/Hidden/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=Hidden&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=Hidden&itemid=NOED19%20Aug%202006%2015%3A16%3A36%3A180

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) 13:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2018

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Viking ring fortress → Trelleborg-type fortress – Or perhaps "Trelleborgs" or similar name, The concept "viking" has little to do with this subject. Norse people may have, but not "vikings". In fact, you could even argue than many if not all of these ring fortresses were erected precisely to defend against various Norse pirates - "vikings", that is - and other foreign invaders. Compare what this article is called in Scandinavian language versions. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per the first sentence of the page: "a type of circular fort of a special design, built by the Vikings in the Viking Age." Viking is the common term in English. Is there a link to pages on what you call the Viking controversy? I haven't run across this term. Not wanting to be an obstructionist to your good faith comments and requested moves on Viking-named pages, I just don't understand why the common name in English should be changed. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd very much question the precurrent "built by the Vikings" assertion, as indicated in my request statement above. Well, no problem, this misconception has been replicated on and on, and for quite understandable reasons, even in fairly recent academic verbiage. Here are two starters: Vikings, Norsemen. Please let me know if I can help you out further. See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norse_history_and_culture. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Randy Kryn. : I strongly suggest you slow down, and make sure you understand what words and terms mean in English (which often differs from what the same words and terms mean in Scandinavian languages...), before making any more move or merge proposals. Also please read WP:COMMONNAME... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.

number
the text starts saying that there are 7 forts, then lists 8 but the main table has only 7 entries.

later the texts says "all five"

pietro151.29.178.90 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)