Talk:Inchtuthil

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)

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

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)

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)