Talk:Slighting

Town walls etc

Isn't slighting the deliberate damaging of fortifications to put them beyond the use of an enemy? I wouldn't describe demolishing old town walls to make room for urban expansion as slighting. Also, the suggestion that only the Parliamentarians had popular support in the English Civil War is incorrect. Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The reason that the lead was wrong before my most recent edit was because the sentence "During the English Civil War this was to render it unusable as a fort." implies that it was only during the Civil War that slighting was done to render a fortification unusable as a fort. All that has happened now Nev1 is that you have expanded it to two specific incidents. Yet ever example on the page was done to render the fortress unusable as a fortress. Do you have an example where slighting was carried out for some other reason as is implied by the wording you have introduced? -- PBS (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on yourself as the one making the assertion. The sources did not back up the statement that "A slighting is the deliberate destruction, partial or complete, of a fortification without opposition, to render it unusable as a fortress". It is a very wide statement that covers all times period and asserts that the movation was always and only to prevent the fortification from being used as a fortress. Providing examples for the reasons for slighting in particular circumstances cannot be used to generalise about all slighting. 23:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is you who is introducing an assumption. Do you have one example where an slighting was carried out that did not ",render it unusable as a fortress"? At the moment your wording implies that that sometimes it is. Unless you can then I will revert the change, to the simpler statement as "Under some conditions, such as the Wars of Scottish Independence and the English Civil War, the intention was to render the structure unusable as a fortress." implies there are other conditions where slighting is done for other reasons. You have not produced an example. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

All the sources you have provided demonstrate is that on some occasions the intention was to deny the enemy use of a fortification, but to use the same sources to make a general statement is obviously flawed. It's like saying I saw three black cats today, so all cats are black. The current phrasing ("A slighting is the deliberate destruction, partial or complete, of a fortification without opposition. Under some conditions, such as the Wars of Scottish Independence and the English Civil War, the intention was to render the structure unusable as a fortress.") reflects that the sources are not discussing all instances of slighting. Nev1 (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point by specifies some of the events mentioned on the page but not all of the, the piece implies that some slighting are done for other reasons. Yet all of them are done for the same reason so by emphasising just two of them you are giving undue weight to those examples and implying that slighting may be done for other reasons. You have not yet come up with any source that gives an example where slighting does not "render [a structure] unusable as a fortress". Do you have such an example? -- PBS (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And once again you have extrapolated from a handful of examples that "all of them are done for the same reason", which is dreadful reasoning. By drawing on the specifics of the source, the text avoids problems such as original research; if you feel the statement is misleading, all you have to do is find a source supporting your assertion because the ones currently used are insufficient. The burden of evidence is on yourself, as the sources are currently being used to draw conclusions that they themselves do not reach. Nev1 (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Under some conditions," what are the other conditions? -- PBS (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a caveat that the sources only cover narrow periods and geographic locations and do not make sweeping statements about slighting as a whole. For the last time, where is your source? Nev1 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not a caveat it is making a statement that there are other conditions for which not source has been provided. you write above "deny the enemy use of a fortification" that is not what the wording you removed said what it said was "to render it unusable as a fortress", do you have a source that says that slighting is ever done for any other reason? -- PBS (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Royalists and southern coast defences

user:Richard Nevell you have made a number of changes to the article based on information in

• Rakoczy, Lila (2007). Archaeology of Destruction: A Reinterpretation of Castle Slightings in the English Civil War (PhD). University of York. OCLC 931130655.

There is question to ask if this a revisionist document, and as it is only a Phd thesis if it has any support in academic journal articles? If not then it is expressing the view of one person writing a Phd and not the academiv general consensus. It is not that I am not against using this source, but as a revisionist thesis I think it needs support from other published sources (WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:UNDUE). -- PBS (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

ruins of Bridgenorth Castle

For example you have drawn on this thesis to say that Royalists also slighted Parliamentarian fortified places. The two mentioned by Rakoczy on page 8 are Brampton Bryan Castle and Hopton Castle. Both of those castles were substantially damaged during the assaults and as such were not slighted. This is like Bridgnorth Castle the keep of which was blown off its foundations during a siege.

Do you have a reliable source that backs up Rakoczy's assertion that the two castle she mentions were ordered to be slighted by the Royalists?

The thing is that most large houses belonged to either Roundheads, private Cavaliers, or the Crown. The winning side in the Civil War did not order the slighting of their own property, whilst ordering the slighting of the defensive structures of their enemies. So for example Dudley Castle, and Kenilworth Castle were both slighted but Warwick Castle was not. -- ~~

On pages 8 and 9 Rakoczy criticise some of the definitions without giving examples and I think nit picking. Whether a castle was slighted using explosives or slighted using pick and shovel is not really the point, as both methods achieve the same results and in the case of Basing House and others demolition was much like modern demolition, anything of worth was carted away from the burnt out hulk, some officially sanctions some not.

On page 9 Rakoczy states:

At their most specific, historians say this was to make them `indefensible', and at their vaguest this was to prevent `future use'. Both definitions have their problems. Making a structure `indefensible', just like slighting `crucial' parts, assumes that there is a standardised method that is (and was) universally recognised. ... Also, arguing that castles were slighted to prevent future use disingenuously implies that castles had no post-slighting lives. As this thesis will show, many were slighted in a controlled way so as to still preserve their value as a gaol, courthouse, or place of habitation.

This is a contradiction in terms. I have deliberately mentioned Dudley Castle, and Kenilworth Castle because both were slighted to make them indefensible, but in the case of Dudley Castle that did not mean uninhabitable. It meant demolishing the keep/gatehouse and making a large breach, so that the place was in future indefensible but the habitable buildings in the inner baily were left intact and did not become uninhabitable until a fire decades after the civil war. In both cases it was obvious what needed to be done to make them indefensible (and was done), but of course given time any place can be made defensible again. However all that Parliament had to do after 1647 was make them indefensible for long enough for a detachment of the New Model Army to turn up as usually that is all it took to defeat a Royalist insurrection (Penruddock uprising). If the hulk could be sold to demolition contractors for a profit (lead off the roof, Oak panelling removed etc) so much the better for Parliament's coffers.

Also Rakoczy is pressing an argument against M. Thompson and while Rakoczy has a point (is it one supported by others), but in my opinion over-eggs the pudding. For example Rakoczy states that Dover Castle was considered for slighting in 1651 (p. 53) then writes that Thompson mentions Dover being spared after stating "Thompson's second most influential argument is that castles were slighted because they were `inland', whereas most coastal castles were spared". Yet Dover supports Thompson's hypothesis as it was examined and kept (on page 389):

• Dover (Kent) CSPD, 29/1/51, consider if fit to be slighted; 16/4/51, survey to see what necessary to render untenable; 7/8/51, £200 onrepairs (No action).

-- PBS (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@PBS: Rakoczy's work fits with the trend of post-processual approaches to understanding castles, broadening interpretation from looking at things primarily through the lens of military imperative. It's a fair question why this particular work should be given prominence. In a nutshell, Rakoczy was the first person to really address the topic in depth. There had been bits and pieces before then, but nothing on the scale of Rakoczy's work. It would be odd to write an article about slighting and not acknowledge her work in some way. Fortunately, we're in a position where we can demonstrate that her work has influenced others. For a PhD thesis, it's well-cited within its field (not to mention being an excellent piece of work). So we can appropriately use Rakoczy's work in this article.

Several sources refer to Brampton Bryan being slighted by royalists, after being captured from Parliamentarians: Adrian Pettifer's English Castles: A Guide by Counties, which Rakoczy cited on page 8, as well as "Brampton Bryan Castle", Castle Studies Group Journal, 30: 109, 2016–17. Damage incurred during a siege is indeed separate from slighting, as you note, but it is possible for both to happen at the same site.

The method of slighting is a different matter, but one which is significant. For example, castle which was burned would have substantially different damage to one where the walls were undermined. It related to different intentions of the people carrying out the act. On the topic of castles near the sea, Rakoczy's point is that previous explanations have simplify complex situations, which is why some castles that were near the sea were slighted while others not and that a split between 'inland' and 'coastal' castles is perhaps not a very useful way to look at things.

As it happens, I was planning on preparing a new draft of the article including some recent publications. Since I've written about slighting myself, and would be including a reference to my own work, I'll be posting my suggestions here first for the community to have their say. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed redraft

I've been working on a new draft of the article in my sandbox. Full disclosure: I've written one of the sources cited and the one source mentioned in further reading so it's going to be important to get some other opinions on the article.

You might notice that it differs quite a lot from the current article. Of the 11 sources in the current article's bibliography only one is used in the new draft. The reason for that is that most of the previous bibliography discussed slighting in passing. In the last decade or so there have been several publications which address the topic head-on and give it a theoretical grounding. So I thought it made sense to draw primarily on those, and in doing so the length of the article has nearly tripled. I've tried to avoid it becoming a list of individual cases or conflicts where slighting was used and tried to draw it back to be a bit more general. Hopefully that approach makes seems reasonable.

I welcome any feedback and have posted messages at WP:MILHIST, WP:ARCHAEOLOGY, and WP:HSITES. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Feedback [moved from Milhist talk page]

Interesting subject, and although I've heard the term before I realised I wasn't actually aware of exactly what it meant. It's probably redundant to point out that "slighting" seems a slightly too mild term for what was essentially wanton vandalism

Anyway, I gave it a read-through, and found the following issues worth mentioning:

Lead

Second sentence: "...the contents of buildings as was as the landscape..."

Fourth sentence: "...with particularly well known examples..." should be "...with particularly well-known examples..."

Meaning and use

"In one case, during the First War of Scottish Independence Robert the Bruce..." needs a second comma after "Independence".

Methods of destruction

"...digging underneath stone structures (known as mining) would could them to collapse..."

Also later in the same sentence "...dismantling a structure by hand was time- and labour-intensive..." which is true, but personally I would have said "...was done/happened, but was time- and labour-intensive..."

The effect of slighting

Second paragraph: "When a castle had a keep it was usually the most visible part of the castle and a focus of symbolism; as such, while Kenilworth’s keep was not integral to its military function, the side of the tower most visible to people outside the castle was demolished."

The introduction of "Kenilworth" suddenly in the sentence here is confusing. Perhaps propose it as an example beforehand, then address its difference to other examples.

Hope that helps. Definitely increased my personal store of medieval fortification and siege knowledge

Apologies, I missed your mention of the talk page. Moved feedback here instead.

Cadar (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Cadar, thanks for taking a look – I've gone ahead and made those changes. Glad it came across as interesting. I certainly do, but I'm glad my writing hasn't put others off! Richard Nevell (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to have helped. Actually this is doubly interesting for me personally. I'm a writer by profession, and my pet project is an epic fantasy revolving around some fairly involved wars. So fortifications, sieges, etc. are not only an interest, but also something I'm probably going to be writing about myself

Cadar (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Additional feedback

For the archive, there here are a couple of links to comments on the draft that were posted elsewhere:

• On WikiProject Archaeology
• On my sandbox talkpage

I've now taken the redrafted article live. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Great! I've bookmarked the page and will get to it as I clear my list of to-do stuff; it's kind of blossomed the last couple of days and I'm fairly backed up at the moment, so it might take me some time.

Cadar (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Some queries

Hi Richard. This Nevell chap does indeed state in their abstract (sadly I don't have access to the actual text) that "Slighting is the act of deliberately damaging a high-status building (especially a castle or fortification) and its contents and the surrounding area." Now my reading of that is that if the destruction does not include (both) the contents and the surrounding area then it doesn't meet the definition and so isn't slighting. Do you think that that might be what they meant, or does the actual article reflect something like 'Slighting is the deliberate damage of high-status buildings (especially fortifications) to reduce their value as military, administrative or social structures. This destruction of property sometimes extended to the contents of buildings and the surrounding landscape.'?

I have done a bit of copy editing. Shout if there is anything you don't like or don't understand please let me know.

The article reads - I am sure you realise this - rather Anglo-centric and rather ECW orientated. Some examples from elsewhere and elsewhen would be good. (I recently read of a 12th-C crusader force occupying Aleppo but not being able to garrison it because the citadel had been slighted. A couple of Japanese examples come vaguely to mind.)

Anyway, a very handy little article and nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point, I think this Nevell character will probably have to keep in that 'and' might imply that the destruction of the landscape or contents is a necessary part of slighting. I've tweaked the wording slightly a little which should make it clearer that it's an aspect of slighting.

More examples woven in would be useful, I'm sure I have some from France and Germany lying about and I'll look into Aleppo. I'd very much appreciate the Japanese examples if you have them to hand. Richard Nevell (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The article does remain very Anglocentric. I understand why this might be so, but it's not clear if the practice of slighting buildings was uniquely English (presumably not) or if no editors know any examples of it happening anywhere else. It seems highly likely that defensive structures would be put beyond use after defeat in a conflict, wherever such conflicts occur. --Ef80 (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ef80, I've been mulling over your comment for a few days. You're absolutely right about it being Anglo-centric - God the Mild made a similar point earlier in this thread. At the very least, there is more that can be done with sourced examples from Wales, Scotland, and France, and probably the crusader states. The examples from Wales and Scotland will still be largely Anglo-centric because the examples largely relate to their respective conflicts with England. I expect that slighting happened wherever there were castles, but sourcing is the key challenge. I'm not aware of large-scale studies of slighting in countries other than in Scotland, England, and Wales but there will be examples to help flesh out the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ef80: Progress is incremental, but I wanted to note that the article now references slighting in the Levant and Poland. The paper on slighting in the Levant has only been used to add a couple of details, but the paper by Dominika Szczupak had some broad points that were especially useful. It also included an observation I've found useful:

Relatively little attention, however, was devoted to the issues related to the demolition of Teutonic fortifications both in the Middle Ages and in modern times. ... Researchers usually mention the demolition works at individual objects in a rather general way, without conducting broader considerations. Consequently, no synthetic study of the issue indicated here has been published so far, in which an in-depth analysis of all issues related to demolition would be made.

— Techniki rozbiórki krzyżackich obiektów warownych w średniowieczu (Potterberg, Nieszawa, Toruń, Papowo Biskupie), with help from Google Translate

It is still a UK centric article, and that is a limitation, but it's gradually broadening out and hopefully other sources will become available to help. Before the more recent edits adding Poland and the Levant a couple of examples from France were introduced after this conversation started. (Also pinging Mr. Guye since he added a globalise tag in August and I though he might be interested in an update.) Richard Nevell (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

(pinged) I am pleased with the progress that has been made so far, though as noted it is still UK-centric. The only thing I have to add is that I wonder if there are search terms and phrases other than 'slight*' itself that could be used to further aid research. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I have just created 'Talk:Other Slightings' before reading this fully. Having read it now I realise that we are thinking along similar lines. Also, there seems to be a focus on disabling defensive structures to the detriment of slighting being seen to be done for other purposes and I believe this also needs to be made clear. To this end I have added the Bahraini Pearl Roundabout which in no way was a military structure, but merely of symbolic significance to the protestors. I also wonder about the relationship between use of the word 'slight' in the context of this article and use of the word in more common English where to give a slight is to snub, or insult, someone with a view to showing your superiority over them. kimdino (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Other Slightings

This article seems to focus too much on slightings in England, particularly during the Civil Wars. I believe it needs to make clear that slighting is far more widespread than this. To this end I have started a new section entitled 'Modern Slightings' and have given the Bahraini Pearl Roundabout as an example. I can think of several more possibilities but this is the only one that is clearly slighted. Does pulling down of statues & symbolism of an overturned regime qualify as slighting? If so, then there is much from the fall of the USSR. There is also the removal of Nazi symbolism at the end of WW2, and also the fall of Saddam Hussein to be considered. Any thoughts, advice, etc? How about the burning down of the White House during the War of 1812? The Bamiyan Buddhas destruction might even be considered, or was this just religious intolerance? kimdino (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi kimdino, thank you for your edits to the article. It does focus largely on slighting in the context of military architecture and England. This is down to the sources I used, however I'm very interested in seeing the content of the article become broader. The definition of slighting is deliberately much broader than military architecture, or one country or period, but the bulk of the present academic literature on the topic deals with some (relatively) restricted contexts.

As for your questions about statues and emblems of regimes, I think might fall into a grey area as the sources won't usually describe it as slighting. Iconoclasm and slighting are related processes. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)