Talk:Rochester Castle

old question 1

A note I'd like to incorporate if somebody could supply the relevant dates:

The castle is notable for having three square towers and one round. During a siege in (????) the north west tower was undermined and demolished. It was later replaced by the round tower (a design which is allegedly better at withstanding battering rams) which survives to this day.

Lee M 00:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reign of King John IIRC, have books on the castle back at home. Actaully its the South eastern tower that is now round (of the keep and outer wall). Round because of advnaces in technology proved them to be better for stability - it was previosuly undermined. Pickle 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from the photo, its the far left tower. My memory was failing, there is a gap between the curtain wall and keep. Pickle 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

old question 2

Is it worth noting that it is the tallest Norman keep in the country? I can't remember where I picked up that 'fact' so can it be verified by anyone? --LiamE 10:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

old question 3

Whereabouts was the castle was it on a cliff or motte or was there just a moat ? 81.77.34.83 08:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

its beside the river on a mound, thus the river bank (now esplanade) is to the west, the high street is lower to the north, the cathedral is level-ish to the east (moat was built there, formerly had houses in, now a car park and cemetery). to the south is level/higher - site of roman fort/Norman wooden keep - now a private residence, minimal moat. Pickle 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"This is also a well known spa nowadays but when it was first built it was a massive kitchen."

From the history section. Makes no sense. What is a well known spa, formerly a kitchen? The sentence seems to refer to the road bridge mentioned in the previous sentence.

Vandalism placed 19 Feb 2009 by ip-user. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

partial re write

I've made some fairly sweeping changes, and alas am not immediately in a position to cite sources at this point

I have removed reference to a motte and bailey castle on boley hill. The name is misleading, but there is no evidence of a keep on boley hill (And wouldn't motte hill have been a more likely name if there was?. I have also removed reference to a moat, as Rochester never had one (although the river used to meet the wall before the medway began to silt up (the land reclaimed fomr the river is the car park referred to by the previous writer.

i've also moved the construction of the wall to prior to first siege, and made clear that that is generally ocnsidered to have been a seige of the city, not the castle. I have also moved gandalf's walls back before this seige.

I hav added mentiopn of prince luis occupation (we have very little information on it, so there isn't much to cite) and a few more details on Henry IIIs works. I have skipped over Edward III, as i need to try to dig out some degree notes before I challenge the published historyu of the castle, and in particular see if i can still find a very good photo of the cathedral framed between Edward III's towers, taken form the spot where the Edward III built his new hall.

I have added some noted on Richard II's works, although beyond the bridge and bastion my memory is sketchy, and added a bit on the later history (althoguh i can;t immediately recall the name of the man the castle was given to, and i'm not 100% that it wasn't sold to the city in the early 20th century —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.83.52 (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Some work left to do. The references are essential-

• it would be good if the previous editor could get a wikipedia login so we talk- and benefit from his knowledge in

similar articles.

• we have the tallext keep in England claim again.
• a POV on the Boley Hill House- is a motte /is not a motte claim
• it is not clear which photograph the writer wants- if it is not on commons:Category:Rochester Castle one can be taken as soon as the cloud clears
• The references are essential

--ClemRutter (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I have a wikipedia login I created under my own name (Phil Reid) a few years ago, which i cannot remember the passowrd for and did not link an e-mail too, so I need to create a new one.

on your 4 questions...

1) it would be useful if i had access to my login, but rochester castle, having grown up nearby, is a particular speciality, and on other castles generally i don't think i could add ahuge amount more than any other student of Hugh Kenneddy, and less than the man himself. If there are any articles you would like me to look at though please let me know here.

2)So far as i am aware this is the tallest keep in England. Short of producing measurements of every other keep (although off the top of my head only Richmond survives with a similar design) I cannot see what other evidence i can present.

3) Boley hill is a tough one to prove either way, although common sense dictates it would be odd to build a rough castle outside the existing Roman walls. I hesitate to say it, but i am not sure of any serious research that argues that there was a motte on what is now boley hill (indeed the fact the name is boley suggests this wasn't a motte)

4) The photo is one i used in my MA work on the castle, which without real knowledge of copyright law i presume i own, and need to scan.

5) i agree i need to reference more, altough on the building most of mycomments are based on: I't a blimming great stone tower. the history i can mainly reference form the guide book, whose authors name escapes me but wrote the national trust guides ot most major english castles.

i also note the description of castle i wrote is somewhat lacking, and doesn't even refer to pillaster buttresses. I will be down that way i January, and will try to refresh my memory somewhat and try to add some new details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.83.30 (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a little to the article. While I have Allen Brown's guidebook (second edition I think, although I'd have to double check), the 2006 volume on the architecture and archaeology of Rochester looks to be quite important to the article. I'd like to help expand it, but don't want to tread on toes if there's already a plan for where this should be heading. Are there any particular sources you think are indispensable for an encyclopaedia article on Rochester Castle? I could start working from Allen Brown's guidebook, adding page references and more information if you think it's worthwhile. Nev1 (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

My toes don't feel the least bit threatened. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

my toes also remain intact, and although i don't entirely buy into allen brown (particulalrly i don't agree that post henry I rebuild the keep remained a centre of activity, personally believing the new buildings in the baily replaced the keep, rather than augmenting it) as long as you don;t suggest a bailey or moat, we can all stay friends —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.238.2 (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead image

I thought this picture of the castle was a bit uninspiring so replaced it with this one. As there are actually a couple of decent images that could go at the top of the article I thought I'd ask for opinions here. Nev1 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• 
  The old lead image
• 
  The current lead image. Is the castle prominent enough?
• 
  A good alternative as it shows just the castle?
• 
  Striking, but does the sky distract from the castle?

The castle is more than just the keep.Where's the river? The camera should have been kept straight. I don't like heavily post processed images. Is an image featuring imported stone paving sets and 21st century brickwork an improvement. It is a difficult subject.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The castle is quite close to the river, but I don't think there's a good photo on Wikipedia which really shows that [1]. This one from flickr isn't free but shows how close it is. Maybe a photo could be taken from the modern bridge? I'm not sure if this would work as I've not been to Rochester myself. The picture on the front of the guidebook is of the keep, and it is the castle's most prominent feature, but I think for the lead a wider picture showing more of the castle would be preferable. A tight shot of the keep can be used later in the article when the architecture is discussed. Nev1 (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are ten shots from September- I just catted them into commons:Category:Rochester you might like to change that.--ClemRutter (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Restoration Campaign

I added a line to the main article: "There is currently (2011) a campaign to restore the floors and roof of the keep." with a reference to the BBC News. It was immediately deleted by ClemRutter. Now as a newbie I'm clearly going to defer to a long standing editor, but perhaps an explanation on the talk page might be helpful? That there have been campaigns in the past would not, a priori, make the the fact of a current campaign false. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ClemRutter's got a fair point IMO as so far it's a campaign which hasn't yet had an effect on the castle (from the BBC story, although it may since). But I think the preferable way to deal with this is to explain what restoration work has been undertaken when, by whom, and how much it cost rather than focussing on the most recent. I don't want to put words in clemRutter's mouth, but from my point of view the problem wasn't that what you added was inaccurate, but that it placed emphasis on the most recent activity which may not have been approved yet. I think once it's been approved by English Heritage it should go in the article, but at the same time make it clear that it's not the only restoration work undertaken at Rochester. Nev1 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I wan't trying to place any particular emphasis on the Keep project merely noting that the previous paragraph might not be the end of the story. Perhaps there ought to be a general expansion of the "Later History" section, covering both the problems of dilapidation and the emergency work to rebuild the collapsed bailey wall last year. See Restore Rochester Castle Campaign for the latest situation. For that matter, the discovery in 2007 of the Roman city walls under the castle walls might be of interest in the appropriate paragraph. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

An expansion is precisely what the later history section needs. There's plenty of scope to do so, for example when and how did the castle come into the possession of English Heritage, on top of the points you suggest above. Months ago I offered to expand the castle after finding R Allen Brown's book on the castle, and promptly lost the damn thing otherwise I'd happily jump in here. As for the discovery of the Roman walls I think that belongs in the first paragraph of the history section as when it was discovered is of secondary importance to the fact it illumates the Roman history of the site. Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed "appropriate paragraph" clearly refered to the first paragraph of history. EH took guardianship in 1965 according to the Restore Rochester Castle Campaign. Good luck with the expansion if you find your book! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Domesday Book references

In paragraph 2 of History Domesday Book is mentioned as recording that the Bishop of Rochester recieved 17/6 for the castle land. If I look in the Penguin Classics edition of the Alecto translation I see on folio 2V:Kent under "In Larkfield Hundred":

... Also the Bishop of Rochester holds as much of this land as is worth 17s6d in exchange for the land on which the castle stands.

So the Bishop wasn't given 17/6, but land worth 17/6. It is also important to stress that "worth" in this context is not a capital sum, but the taxable value of the land as recorded by William's assessors.

Turning now to Norwich; on folio 116V:Norfolk (which contains part of Norwich Hundred):

... And on the land of which Harold had the soke there are 15 burgesses and 17 empty messuages which are in the occupation of the castle. And in the borough [there are] 190 empty messuages in this [quarter] which was in the soke of the king and earl, and 81 in the occupation of the castle. ...

The phrase "in the occupation" is interesting. The 98 messuages clearly still exist at the date of compilation, for the scribe uses the present tense and is recording that which can potentially be taxed. I wondered at first if this meant that the property had been seized as lodging or barracks, but I have been advised that it may mean that the messuages had been enclosed by the curtain wall of the castle. Now these details are not be relevant to Rochester, but they do perhaps suggest that Domesday reecording "other instances where property was demolished to make way ..." ought to be treated with some circumspection. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who added the Domesday material based on Harfield's article, and you are absolutely correct about the bishop's land. Re-reading what Harfield wrote, the mistake lay with me rather than the source. What he says on the matter is (p. 379)

There is an indirect reference to the castle at ROCHESTER in the entry for Aylesford. The bishop of Rochester held land there valued at £0 17s 4d in exchange for land on which Rochester Castle had been built (pro excambio terrae in qua castellum dedet, DBi,2c). Amongst the several examples of persons forfeiting land or dwellings to make way for a castle this is the only example of compensation.

As such, I've made this change. It may need a bit of tweaking ("land" seems to crop up too often now for my liking) but I think it is at least accurate this time.

As for the issue of Norwich, the use of the present tense is interesting as it does seem to imply that these building were still standing. "In occupation of the castle" generally seems to have been taken as meaning "on the site of"; Harfield thinks as much and the figure of 98 houses being destroyed at Norwich is one I've seen appear frequently elsewhere when discussing the impact of castle building in towns. Assuming they were still standing when the survey was taken, they would have been demolished at some point if they were within the castle to allow for other buildings. The point is that a significant amount of property would have been cleared to make way for the castle. While I think the messuages would have been demolished if they were within the castle, this does raise the interesting issue about when this was done. Nev1 (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've copied the gist of my observations to talk:Norwich, we'll see what the local experts there come up with. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Internal curtain wall

There is a model of the castle kept in the keep. This is the source of the photo on the http://www.carneycastle.com/Rochester/ website, "Model of the Castle". The model and photo both show an internal curtain wall, the remains of which are apparently visible on the ground as a ridge running roughly East-West enclosing the keep and about 1/3 of the bailey. This is mentioned nowhere in this article and is not visible on any plan. did such a feature exist or was it just speculation based on walking the grounds? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is shown on the plan that is linked to the link you provided see genplan.jpg, but it only shows it extending for about 1/4 of the distance. The plan I have added to the article is based on an old encyclopaedia article and my well be missing features excavated more recently. If it can be mapped accurately it could be added to the plan I uploaded today. -- PBS (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't yet complete, but I have not yet come across a mention of an inner wall dividing the enclosure in two. All I can say is it looks right, very similar to how Carlisle Castle is divided, but so far there's been no mention. I am basing the article primarily on the 1969 HMSO guide by Brown (republished by English Heritage in 1986), although I haven't properly addressed the architecture yet, augmented with other sources where appropriate. I made a digital copy of the book as I had to return it to the library, but didn't include the plan, so can't provide a definitive answer quickly but I don't remember seeing an inner curtain wall on the plan. Nev1 (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have found a modern plan to compare to the 19th-century encyclpoedia version. See page 5 of this PDF produced by a heritage consultancy company [2][3]. It doesn't show an inner curtain wall (although that may be addressed later) but it does show some inconsistencies with the 19th-century plan that make me dubious as to the latter's worth. While the generalities are there, the out walls shouldn't be as dramatically curved as they're shown to be and the gatehouse into the city isn't still standing. I think the Penny Cyclopedia plan should be removed from the article, although a good free alternative would certainly be welcome. Nev1 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Penny Cyclopedia map was drawn after the barbarian was demolished, hence the wording on the diagram. I do not think it should not be removed unless an alternative is available. The other big advantage of it is that it can be taken and developed further with addition and corrections which are not then subject to removal be the work is derived from a copyrighted plan. -- PBS (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Mystery of the partition wall solved: it was built in 1230/1 and was since pulled down. Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Measurements

For the benefit of Philip Baird Shearer: please do not re-add the information about conflicting heights for the keep. The HMSO publication written by Allen Brown is authoritative on the matter, and Pettifer derived his information from such sources. The height of 125 given by Restore Rochester Castle is the height of the turrets, and 113 is the height of the battlements, so asserting there is a conflict here is misunderstanding what the sources say. It is the same situation with the thickness of the keep's walls. Please do not reintroduce poorer sources. Nev1 (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Nev1 you reverted my changes with a comment "undid edit by PBS: the HMSO reference says 70ft square internally and clears up the confusion relating to height" Yet the changes I made were more than one change. You reverted a number of other changes to the same edit all under the cover of that one comment. The a few minutes later you decide that you had got it wrong and that the measurement of 70 feet was indeed the external measurement. "(→Architecture: internally -> externally) (undo) ". So your initial reason for reverting my edit was gone. When you had reverted my edit you did not just revert the width but other changes as well. Yet you did not do a total revert so while being selective you did not explain why you let some of the edit remain but not other parts, which were all reverted under the comment about width and height.

BTW differences in heigh are probably to do wit measuring different things. I did not include the differences between walls and turrets because they also vary in different sources. But one explanation for differing heights that some sources agree on is 113 feet for the walls and +12 for the turrets making a total of 125, but not all sources agree on those dimensions. The best that can probably be done is to mention an an authoritative source but mention the dependencies. -- PBS (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edits take three main parts: rearranging the third paragraph of the early history section, changing the format of citations in the final paragraph of later history, and adding in more estimates for the height of the keep.

1. As best as I can see, you were trying to give the paragraph a chronological order, however the result is to break the link between the previous paragraph and to create two very short paragraphs. The latter is a sign of poor writing. The link needs to be there, otherwise the reader is left wondering why we are discussing Lanfranc given that Rochester Castle has been abandoned. The opening sentence sets the scene, and the rest explains it.
2. This is the least intrusive change but per WP:CITEVAR "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it". Though similar, {{sfn}} has a slightly different output to {{harvnb}}.
3. Brown is an authoritative source on the matter and as such will have the final word. The HMSO publication is a top quality work, going into far more detail than any of the other sources provided. I'm lost as to how Pettifer arrives at a figure of 115ft as he gives Browns book as a reference. Pettifer's English Castles is a handy source, I've used it myself before, but whenever there is someone more reliable available he has to take a back seat. His book was a gazetteer with short descriptions, not meant to be definitive. Hull mentions Rochester in a similar way. To choose these passing mentions over a far more detailed, specialist, and authoritative source makes little sense. Nev1 (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that while Pettifer and Hull are generally good, I've found mistakes with both before when comparing them to a specialist monograph on a particular castle. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Musings

Have you found this site Medwaylines

1. Stategic importance of Rochester- Geography. Do we need a geography section to explain Rochester unique status on the London Rome road Watling Street, and to the Normans in 1068the peculiar status of the Rochester Bridge Wardens Trust, the continued military history- Chatham Dockyard

2. Architecture. If-- Little is known about the first castle at Rochester as it has since vanished, -- then we don't write anything. But much is known it was built on an instruction from .... in 1068 and was mentioned in Domesday. I am uncomfortable about the description of Gundulfs castle- as it is not described in enough detail for me to be able build a replica from the description- there is a lot of admiration but no cross sections. If it is built by the same architect as the White Tower- then we need to compare with the White Tower.

3. This site Dev of Castles has a nice section labelled in ft (implies old). It could aid the description.

4. Iron Clad links and movies where Castle has appeared

5. Current restoration- Duncan Wilson

More later, other things to do. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It may not be useful - but an old (public domain) plan of the keep was published by David MacGibbon and Thomas Ross (1887) and is available from the Internet Archive. Aa77zz (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The White Tower seen from the south-east

What do you think Medwaylines.co.uk has to offer?

Just it sounds to be put together by military history buffs with army connections- may have a different perspective- also acts as a check list- their pd graphics will be easy to download\upload.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue of location is addressed in the early history section. In other articles I have adopted a separate location section, but I'm unsure whether that's needed here. The layout adopted here has been influenced not just by Brown's publication on Rochester, but by other English Heritage publications on individual castles such as Peveril. The approach is usually to have two main sections: history and the standing remains, with notes on the layout included under history, and that's mirrored here. That's not to say Brown's book is ideal; he pretty much shuts up shot after the 14th century, but I am comfortable following this pattern.

This is where I am coming from Magnet Mill, Chadderton. Look at the structure not the quality. I find EH stuff is limited in perspective and doesn't say the blindingly obvious which we need to do for a GA. I always try to imagine the readership and ask the question, what would an English teacher in Nîmes want her students to find in an article about Rochester. Or alternatively If Rochester started to put QR-codes on its interpretation boards.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I take your point about little being known so hopefully this makes it clearer that the statement was in reference to the castle's design. The reason for the brevity of detail about Gundulf's castle is for a similar reason. Very little of his original castle remains today as can be seen on the phased plan on page 5 of this document and later occupation on the site has muddied the waters. I'm not convinced comparing the White Tower (pictured right) and Gundulf's Rochester would be particularly helpful. At Rochester Gundulf built the outer walls and the gatehouse and comparing that with a keep is like comparing apples and oranges.

A line to explain why not may help. I didn't have a copy of the conservation plan, and have just spent part of today looking for my copy of an earlier document that was presented to council in the late 1990s. We have enough material there to put together a killing architectural description. (From local interest point of view- some info on the relationship between Boley Hill and the current castle would be appreciated. I just drove down Bakers walk (in between) this evening at speed- its a regular short cut. Back on focus. Architectural description can have a time element so talking about Gundulf castle, that then one at a later date would be valid--ClemRutter (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I followed the visitmedway conservation plan link and than started to search for part 2. But this gives a far better link. The full report to council. The link you gave me leads to a truncated version of part one (53 pages of 104) the rest tells us far more... --ClemRutter (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The plan pointed out (both links relate to the same source) is of the keep. While I think a plan would be useful, I'm not entirely sure one of the keep adds that much. It's square and has partitions, which is pretty much covered by the text, but I'll upload it later and try to fit it in.

I tried to find something on Ironclad that would contribute to the understanding of the castle. In my opinion the spike in article views shortly before the film's release suggests that it has contributed to the castle's notoriety, but so far the only sources I've been able to find that make this link have been blogs and the like. The BBC stories for example mention a film being made about the 1215 siege but don't really explain how it impacts our understanding of the castle. Nev1 (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I doń't do media- but there are types on WP that do. I think we need some links- but also links to TV series, writers- and artists. I am sure that Turner must have done a felt tip sketch of a Stag at the third bay on the right.. and then their was Charlie Dickens immortal works Great Crenellations, The Old Curiosity Keep --ClemRutter (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no time for these pie in the sky restoration schemes. I am talking about the ongoing need to underpin and maintain the structure .--ClemRutter (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Rochester Bridge Trust a strange medieval foundation that has a budget of millions and the duty to maintain passage and protect the Medway Crossing- showing the strategic importance of Rochester.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Turner painted just about everything ruin in England but I hadn't bothered checking for Rochester. According to his (apparently unreliable) biographer Turner's first oil painting was of Rochester Castle. Given Thornbury isn't considered that accurate, it would probably be a good idea to tone down the claim, but interesting nonetheless. It may be this, but I'm not sure. If it is, it's not a particularly striking work so perhaps doesn't have to be included. The article has a little on Dickens but if you could add a sentence or two more that would be great. Not a "reliable" source of course, but IMDB suggests that Rochester hasn't been used as a filming location many times. Only two seem worth mentioning IMO Hamlet and Henry VIII, but sources relating to them are thin on the ground so I don't think we need to delve into pop culture much if at all. As for restoration and the need for maintenance, there was a bit where the article mentions descaling which I've now expanded. Do you reckon more should be included? Nev1 (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Paul Drury 2009a reference is an incomplete copy of the report- This includes the missing pages 54-104. When I have some time free I will read it all and the recommendations that went to cabinet which discuss other aspects of he castles international, national and local importance. It is a big topic. (next client arrived!) --ClemRutter (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I was able to get the second part of the 2009a reference by changing the "part1" bit of the url to "part2" but couldn't work out how to have two urls in the same citation template. The second half of the 2009a report was vital to explaining the castle's later history because Allen Brown skimmed over everything after the 14th century. Nev1 (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In effect there are two references there 2009a ---old 2009a 0-53 2009b ---old 2009a 54-104 and then old2009b becomes 2000c or more simply swap in the democracy.medway.gov.uk url-- it doesn't affect the page numberings I don think.

I'm just working on doing exactly that. You are quite right, the page numberings are not affected. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nev, you beat me to the "Save Page" button! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Nev1 (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The infobox problem

Rochester Castle
Rochester Castle in 1828
Location	Rochester, Kent
Coordinates	51°23′22″N 0°30′05″E
OS grid reference	TQ740685
Height	125 feet (38 m)
Earlier Castle	1068
Built	1087, 1187,
Built for	Plantagenet kings
Architect	Bishop Gundulf
Architectural style(s)	Norman (Romanesque) Castle
Governing body	English Heritage on behalf of Medway Council
Scheduled monument
Listed Building – Grade I
Shown within Kent

Template:Infobox historic site is one possible candidate- but there is also Infobox building, Infobox military site. Do we need to write one Infobox historic castle? --ClemRutter (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For the most part infoboxes in articles such as this are an editorial choice. The Tower of London passed FAC without an infobox and no one batted an eyelid, and Windsor Castle went though the same process with one. I don't think multiple phases of construction easily fit into an infobox and it would be repeating the lead in anycase, although co-ordinates and a map may be useful. Nev1 (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

My three ha'p'orth is for Template:Infobox military structure. It's notable that the /doc page shows Edzell castle as an example. I also note that there are parameters such as commanders and battles "any notable battles (usually sieges)" which seems appropriate. Template:Infobox building contains no military parameters, nor does Template:Infobox historic site. I suspect the decision depends upon whether Rochester Castle is/was a cultural edifice or a military one. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Rochester Castle is/was both. Nev1 (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Agenda item 5, cabinet 25th August 2009. Drurys Executative summary:

5.2.1 According to English Heritage Conservation Principles-

5.2.3 The medieval fabric is of exceptional significance (A)as an example of medieval military and domestic architecture. ... the keep has an international dimension... architectural and artistic qualities of exceptional significance (A) .... the form has achieved an iconic nature as an archetype of 12th centure design .... craftsman ship of the finest of the age.

The buried remains contain information about Roman an Saxon Rochester --- considerable significance (B). To the local landscape also (B)- as the site of two important medieval conflicts the castle is of considerable significance (B). Significance as a ruin considerable significance (B). The curtain walls have considerable significance (B). The community values and the function as a public park- some significance (C). So I agree with Nev1. So I will try and put both the Infoboxes on this page- and then remove the duplicated details- I believe it can be done.

OK- can be done- I haven quite figured out the map or coords- but Ill leave that till tomorrow. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It can, but is having all the separate building phases in the infobox helpful when the significant periods are mentioned in the lead? That, and issues such as ownership, isn't something which can easily be reduced to a note. Bodiam Castle has an example which works well, including the map and co-ordinates, but then it was a single-phase site. When I put together Brougham Castle I included the bare bones of an infobox because the different periods of building were not easily reduced to infobox form, and the history of its owners was complex. Nev1 (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

OK- I do believe that every article needs an infobox. But if the infobox is lacking, and we have a clear idea what is needed then we just edit the template. Here it seems we have two historical sites- with multiple important periods of construction, so it should not be too difficult to replicate the fields Builddate=, Owner= Builddescription=, then has (( Builddate2=, Owner2= Builddescription2=, Builddate3=, Owner3= Builddescription3=,Builddate4=, Owner4= Builddescription4=)) added. Alternatively we write a new Infobox template for Infobox Multiuse HistoricSite?--ClemRutter (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't that there aren't the fields, a list can easily be created by using <br />, but that infoboxes deal in clear cut details with little room for explanation. The castle's history, including events such as battles etc, are already mentioned in the lead so an infobox would be repeating that material. Nev1 (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've played this game before with Infobox mill building- these templates are set up to do repeating groups of fields <br /> only helps with formatting with in a field- though one can be quite creative. Yes I see everything in an infobox to be repeated in prose-the infobox is really helpful for interlanguage translation. I have now printed off the Drury report and I am slowly reading it.--ClemRutter (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that this is a repeating question. See WT:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_100#Infobox_military_structure and Template_talk:Infobox_military_structure#Merger. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've re-jigged the Historic site infobox slightly and by using the free... parameters of designation3 have included the remaining information from the military structure infobox. Do we now need the second infobox or will just the first one do? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Now we need to tweak it to allow for the major reconstruction phases- and remember the castle is more than just the keep. We have to get the location map working too. Did you enjoy the new pictures? --ClemRutter (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The pictures look good, I'm looking through them now. I've already added two to the article and may introduce another couple. As you can see, I got the map in the infobox working. Nev1 (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead image tweek

I find the lighting of the current lead image very dark. Would you be happy for me to upload a slightly brighter version of the image that I have modified in Photoshop? My modified image is still slightly dull as the sun wasn't shining when the photo was taken. Aa77zz (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Give it a go. If it doesn't work we can always revert the image to an earlier version. Nev1 (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Better? According to the metadata the photo was taken at 7.37pm in May - perhaps to avoid any people. Aa77zz (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks for the change. Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It has a heavy yellow colour cast (it always did- the photographer was attempting to use the sun shining beneath the cloud base)- and the horizon is on a slant of about 3degrees clockwise. Photos are not really a problem- tell me what you want and I can do a site visit- and if the sun is in the right place, and the bull terriers are not walking their owners--!! --ClemRutter (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I quite like the angle currently used as it includes the cathedral without it being one of the dominant features and there isn't something like it in the article so maybe something along similar lines? Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I had added a few images to commons:Category:Rochester Castle which will give you a little more choice --ClemRutter (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

/* Literature */

I have put a request for help on the Dickens page, that directs here.--ClemRutter (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd sentence

What does this mean, "In the south Gundulf's wall survived into the modern period, although had since been dismantled"? Does it mean "although it has now been dismantled" ?Graham Colm (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The odd phrasing was because the sources weren't clear on when it was dismantled, and I wasn't entirely happy with it but I think your suggestion sorts that out. Nev1 (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts

Applying a little distance and looking at the general frame work of the article I put forward some thoughts

1. Lead- I feel this is now too detailed and should be pared back.

2. ==Location==, We are assuming that the reader know where Rochester is, knows the geography of the area and the relation with the North Downs and the Wealden forest and its stategic importance. Some of this can be taken from the lead.We need a paragraph that says:

Rochester Castle stands on chalk prominence on the east bank of the River Medway at its lowest bridging point. The Medway is the only river of size on the militarily significant supply route between the channel ports and London. The river at this point, breaches the chalk of the North Downs and is narrow enough to bridge. Downstream it widens into an estuary, and upstream passes through a clay vale, which due to winter flooding was unsuitable for building, It crossed the greensand at Maidstone. To the south was the Wealden Forest that was difficult to penetrate.Watling Street was an ancient trackway that predates the Romans; it passes along the dip slope of the downs coming through the Rochester The Romans chose to build their supply road from Richborough and later Dover to Londinium, along this route. Other routes converged here, and Romans built a bridge here and protected it with a fort. It was in Saxon times that this paved road gained its name.

Similarly when the Anglo-Norman Kings affected regime change in 1066, this route was of critical stategic importance, and a castle was built on this spot within two years.

So important was the route, that when the AD43 Roman Bridge fell into disrepair in 1399 Sir John de Cobham and Sir Robert Knolles received a royal patent from Richard II to establish theWardens and Commonalty of Rochester Bridge and granting them power to own property and to use the income to build and maintain the bridge, this right survives to this day. Rochester Bridge Trust].

Rochester Castle has a significance to the church, being midway between England's ecclesiastical capital at Canterbury, and secular capital at London. We know from Chaucer that the road to Canterbury was a popular pilgrimage route, an early example of tourism, and we know from J.M.W. Turner that Rochester Castle was a significant ruin that romantics visited.

In Victorian times the bailey of the castle became a point of civic pride and the keep was landmark for daytrippers leaving London by train, to visit the holiday resorts of Broadstairs, and Margate, who appreciated it for its qualities as a romantic ruin.

Okay my writing skills are not up to FA standards, this gives you an idea of what should be included.

3. ==Early History== ==> ==History== This can be edited then ==other section==s ==> ===other subsections===

4. ==Architecture== I feel this whole section is really a description about what we can see today rather than a description of what has been built.So lets see how it can be restructured- again only ideas not definitive. I want to know what the Romans built. What the the Saxons built, what the 1067 castle was like- what the main castle was like when it was built- how it was changed after the first seige- What Turner saw- The Victorian Concept-- as I said before I want to be able to contruct a replica from the description. I am reworking the section in a sandbox.User:ClemRutter/Strood but it is no where near complete

5. Conservation issues. There should be a section for this. We have the source material in the Cabinet papers 25-08-2009, it is an important issue and by discussing it, we head off the single issue groups like restorerochestercastle.org. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

1. At about 560 words, I don't feel the lead is too long. You need to mention its position; its outstanding feature; the circumstance of its foundation; the military activity; changing ownership; important periods of repairs; reuse of building material elsewhere; reuse as a park; who currently looks after the site; and that it's open to the public. It's a lot to cram in., but I don't think it's unmanageable. Which details do you think could be trimmed?
2. The bit about lowest bridging point would be useful if you have a source. But I think that's all I'd be prepared to use as what you are suggesting is far too detailed. This article is about the castle; travel routes through the area are important, but that the Medway "crossed the greensand at Maidstone" or "It was in Saxon times that this paved road gained its name" isn't illuminating about the castle.
3. I don't see much benefit in having a title of history just so the other titles can be turned into subsections to be honest. Could do, but I'm not seeing why.
4. Perhaps the architecture section needs to be retitled, but much of what you're suggesting isn't practical or relevant. That the site was used previously is relevant, but going into more detail would be going off topic. As I said earlier, there simply isn't much known about the state of the early castle. The exact location of Odo's castle isn't known and it's not even certain what type it was, although it was probably a motte and bailey as they were particularly common in that period. How are you supposed to talk about the design or layout of that? And it's a similar situation for Gundulf's construction: only a segment of the curtain wall survives and pretty much everything else has been replaced or removed. The reason there is a concentration on what is standing is because relatively little is know about what isn't there.
5. The conservation is dealt with in later history. It fits into the story of repeated phases of decay and repair and I don't think it's necessary to hive it off elsewhere.

In a nutshell, I just don't think that many of the above suggests would improve the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That was impressively fast typing. You are driving this at the moment- so I am putting opinions here and not touching he substantive text. It takes me three or four days to digest some of the responses here- before I formulate a response, so I won't comment at he moment on individual points. The Cabinet papers are interesting- when I was involved in the decision making process in 1995 re-roofing or not, the advice we got was different and lacking in the detail that Drury has obtained this time. Drury must be taken as the definitive source though some of his views on development and traffic management I would oppose in committee. Conservation Objective 45,46,47. Conservation Objective 36- improving the intellectual access to the castle pretty much describes Wikipedia. I will check if Simon Curtis is still in post and email him and invite him to contribute to the discussion, because Objective 36 gives him authority. I am am now away from my books again for at least three weeks- but do have internet. Because of the 1995 debate I made a point of visiting Falaise, and the restoration job they had done is impressive. The photos I took were on film not digital I am still looking for them. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

accommodation vs accommodations

In BrE accommodation meaning lodgings is a mass noun and therefore should not be used in the plural. AmE is different. See [4]. I'm therefore changing the various "accommodations" to the more normal BrE form. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Done except for one in "Later History" which the firewall is blocking. Can someone fix it please? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha, so it's an matter of different uses in Brtain and America. I've changed the last one to "accomodation". I hadn't noticed the Cambridge Dictionary website said "accomodations" was American, but now see it has "accomodation" as the UK version. Nev1 (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on Featured

A brilliant article, well illustrated and fully deserving of Featured status. A significant achievement, congrats. Doug (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Large" siege

"The siege that followed was one of the largest in England up to that point." Large is not a good or useful word here. It's fairly meaningless, which is bad enough, but it also therefore comes across as peacock and OR-ish. I know the lead is supposed to summarise, but perhaps we can do better. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

PS really enjoying reading this. Can't wait to get to the pigs bit. That siege is one of my favourites. Up there with the up-the-toilet one at Krak. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced "large" with a quote from the Barnwell chronicler which gets the point across. Did they go through the toilet at Krak too? I know they did at Château-Gaillard. Nev1 (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Lovely quote. You know, I'm pretty sure I've made that exact mistake before, and I can't understand how I can do that. There's also this late 16th century example: Siege of Godesberg --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"the castle did not surrender"

Am I being picky, or is this slightly unencyclopedic language, inasmuch as castles cannot surrender, only the people inside can? --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, so I've changed it to "Although the garrison did not surrender, the castle suffered extensive damage". Alternatively I could have used "Although the castle was not surrendered..." but the passive voice wasn't necessary here. Nev1 (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I know I'm a pedant. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Who gave it to Odo?

The lead says William gave the castle to Odo. The text says he probably did. That's a minor conflict that should be addressed. Incidentally, the latter claim is not sourced, and most of the section below it is sparsely sourced. --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've clarified the situation in the lead. As for sourcing, the statement is sourced to Brown 1969, pages 6 to 8. The citation after the penultimate sentence of the second paragraph of the early history section covers everything before it. Nev1 (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The sentence "Located along the River Medway and Watling Street, Rochester was a strategically important royal castle" seems to be an amalgam of two slightly different ideas that aren't quite combined properly. Rochester Castle was a strategically important royal castle due to being in Rochester, and Rochester was a strategically important location due to being located along the River Medway and Watling Street, but Rochester Castle itself isn't located "along" anything. danno_uk 19:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

1215 siege

According to a talk by David Starkey, the cathedral was used as the King's headquarters, not Boley Hill. He made reference to "bivouacking soldiers" in the nave. clearly a talk is not easily citable, does anyone have any references to clear this up? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Listed building

Listed building status has not been included. Should it be? A useful map is found in the listing 1336100--ClemRutter (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It's mentioned in both the lede and the main text. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I noticed as soon as I had presssed save! Should however the deprecated Images of England references be replaced by the link above? ClemRutter (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rochester Castle. 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/20110901223916/http://www.measuringworth.com/index.php to http://www.measuringworth.com/index.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.visitmedway.org/xsdbimgs/consutlation%20plan%20-%20issues%20%26%20policies.pdf

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) 16:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes and maps

In {{Infobox school}} we have seen a change in the default maps, and it leaves me to question how exactly do we wish for the map to assist. Is it to show the strategic relevance of the LBP of the Medway, or to assist the visitor navigate the Strood One-Way? When that has been decided and {{Infobox military installation}} has revised its default, I am happy to make the decided change. Also if we decide the {{Campaignbox First Barons' War}} is required then it should be embedded.--ClemRutter (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"England or France"

A little confused by this passage in the first sentence: "The 12th-century keep or stone tower [...] is one of the best preserved in England or France." Why these two countries specifically? England is obvious, France not so much. Should it be changed to just "England"? If I'm missing something, feel free to let me know. :-) Gageills (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It's Norman, there are Norman keeps in both England and France. Perhaps it should include Sicily as well, but that is another debate. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Gageills (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Time for a review

Somehow this article was chosen as "one of the best on Wikipedia" back in 2012. It certainly isn't now, although nothing much seems to have been done with it in the interim. I see that, during the initial discussion, some people picked up on the verbosity, the highly academic/formal tone, and the excessive amount of background detail. I have no objection to useful detail, but we don't need to know that "Castles were introduced to England by the Normans in the 11th century" - which isn't even true - and we can really do without awful sentences like "The 19th century saw efforts to preserve the castle." Deb (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting point, when does a fortification become a castle? Are there examples of the term being used in England before the Normans arrived? I do, of course, exclude the anachronistic naming of iron age hill forts as castles, such as Cadbury Castle, Somerset. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Good point. The term couldn't be used in English until English existed, which realistically wasn't until the 12th century. Henry V was the first king to use English extensively for official purposes, in the early 15th century. Before that, texts that might have referred to castles were mostly written in Latin. In Welsh, the word "castell" has clearly been carried straight through from the Latin, which suggests it was being used for all kinds of fortifications. To me, it's not a case of a fortification "becoming" a castle, it's a case of how the locals referred to their style of building fortifications. The Normans would have used their own word for the concept of a castle as we know it now, hence that habit of saying that castles only existed after the Normans arrived in Britain. I think any such discussion belongs in the general article on castles, not in this particular article. Deb (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the big inovation of the Normans was the introduction of specific fortified structures as a means of control of the local area, up till then, with the partial exception of the the Romans, fortified structures werer purely defensive in intent. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The article could do with a bit of sprucing up. Jeremy Ashbee wrote a new guidebook which was published in 2012 and the new interpretation might help freshen it up. As for the level of detail, the article weighs in at under 7,000 words. I'm generally in favour of including a level of detail which presents events in context. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

How big is it

Ermmmmmmmm Obv 113 feet(34m) 2A02:C7C:6174:900:B005:C21D:D34F:D0C0 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)