Talk:Haughley Castle

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Fortifications / British / European / Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Height of the motte

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

According to the Suffolk Historic Environment Record (and the Victoria County History which the article currently cites) the motte is 80 feet (24 m) high. I'm reading D. J. Cathcart King's "The field archaeology of mottes in England and Wales: eine kurze ubersicht" inChateau Gaillard and on pg 103 he says "I agree with the author of the V.C.H. earthworks chapter that [Huaughley] is a very fine specimen, though I cannot possibly accept his statement that it is 100 ft./30 metres in height. Footnoted: It is probably 40 feet/12 metres high." It's not very scientific, but he did measure some 600 mottes in England so probably has a good eye for their height. Is it worth swapping out the 80ft measurement? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

How about we give both figures, with attribution...? Hchc2009 (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sounds sensible, I've given it a go. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply