Miscellaneous desk
< December 19	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 20

Trying to wrap my head around castles/fortifications/etc...

In a game i play, i want to try my hand at modeling a castle. I saw todays Featured Picture and i did research on a few pages around wikipedia. I found out about the following castle/fortification/defense elements:

Motte,Bailey and enceinte,Keep,Curtain wall,Gatehouse

Citadel

Lowland_castle

Hill_castle

Walled Cities (link to the picture actually INSERTED THE FULL SIZE IMAGE, oh my!)

I sort of understand the descriptions themselves (a little trouble with bastions, not sure why!) but i don't see the bigger picture. can all of these concepts lie in the same fortified city/castle setup? What would be helpful would be a diagram or two showing all of these elements labeled with courtyards or etc. Can anyone help me to understand more clearly how all of these elements (do or don't) fit together?

I know i'm asking a little vaguely but anything at all would be helpful. I want to know these things well enough to make decisions about my model like whether or not to have bastions, and how things are positioned and interact with each-other.

Thanks! 137.81.118.126 (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of diagrams and plans online (of various quality) showing the layout of real castles, e.g. a very detailed map of Harlech Castle [1], Windsor Castle [2], Caernarfon Castle [3], Château de Vincennes [4][5] and the Wikipedia articles on individual castles and citadels (see List of castles) will help (e.g. the citadel of Neuf-Brisach; plan; the circular Restormel Castle). You should try and decide what kind of castle you want to model, and pick a real-world one to use as a guide (you may choose something very regular and square or something more picturesque and askew). Most real-world castles were built over a long period of time, extending a smaller castle, so they tend to have a more piecemeal structure than the theory would suggest, though some like Edward I of England's Beaumaris Castle and Harlech Castle were built all at once in a great wave of castle building and hence have a more perfect plan. (Note: I mainly know British castles, so most of my examples are British, and different countries and different times had different styles of castle - e.g. stand-alone keeps were never very popular in the UK.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... link to the picture actually INSERTED THE FULL SIZE IMAGE, ...
Is this what you wanted to do:

Walled Cities

(Just put a leading colon in the link.) Mitch Ames (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to build a defensive castle (i.e. one that actually does something, rather than a luxurious living space), you should also think about what it is defending. What is the geography of the place? The climate? What kind of materials are found there? Who owns it, and who are their enemies? How big of a castle can they afford to build? For a citadel, that's pretty much just the most heavily fortified part of a city, which could have been a former standalone castle with a city having sprung up around it, or a fortified section of a pre-existing city. The city would then also likely have defensive walls, but not necessarily. I guess if it doesn't matter for the game, then you don't have to worry about this, but still, castles are more than just a particular style, there is always a reason they were built. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Through talking with a friend and considering some of these aspects, ive figured out things on the grand scale SOMEWHAT (city level), its just a matter of understanding a few things about the castle proper. I will look through what Colapeninsula has suggested. Also, thanks for the tip about the image file.

137.81.118.126 (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One question if i might, about a "bailey"... this is my understanding:

You have your keep and a wall around it, and between these is called the courtyard. A courtyard might have things official to the castle (barracks, training grounds, etc) or perhaps a little village, or both. From the article on wiki here it says a bailey is a fortified area. would this be like little islands of fortification around important things, within the courtyard itself? 137.81.118.126 (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'courtyard' is the bailey. It's confusing that there are (Norman) French, (Anglo-Saxon) English and sometimes mixed names for everything. Motte and bailey might clarify things a little more: it's unfortunate that none of our relevant articles seem to have alarge, clear diagram labelling all the possible elements involved. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.98 (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have access to a huge standing army, cities are difficult to protect, because of the length of wall. Expensive, too for the same reason. Many cities would typically have a small walled area for both of these reasons, with most inhabitants living outside. They and their animals could come inside for protection if scouts gave warning. Don't forget to remove all the trees for a good space on the outside of the walls, btw. --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want to consider whether your theoretical opponent possesses cannons. Straight up-and-down walls work for guys with arrows and such, but won't last against artillery. From the 15th or 16th century onwards you'd need to follow the principles laid out by Vauban. Acroterion (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vauban wasn't born until the 17th century. If you go back much before 1600, the kind of artillery that would have really worried the defenders would have been fairly familiar to the Romans. Early guns suffered from all sorts of problems - expense, unreliability, propensity to damage the artillerymen themselves, short range and imprecision being the key issues. However, the actions of the Roundheads in "slighting" medieval castles that were not built to withstand gunpowder shows that they were still formidable obstacles. Even with gunpowder and no-one defending, the Roundheads struggled to damage Caerphilly Castle, as one of its towers shows to this day. --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depended on how big the guns were. In 1643, the 11th century Corfe Castle in Dorset withstood a 6 week seige by the Roundheads and their artillery - it was rather lightweight for the job. A second siege was more successful but only because the attackers disguised themselves as a relief column. However, the huge Walls of Constantinople were thought to be impregnable, but were breached in 1453 by the truly immense super-heavy siege guns deployed by Mehmet II - see the Great Turkish Bombard. Alansplodge (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article (Fall_of_Constantinople#Siege_of_the_city) makes it clear that even in that instance cannon did not play a particularly crucial role in the eventual success of the assault. --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... From our article: "the all-out offensive began... focused on a section of the Blachernae walls in the northwest part of the city, which had been damaged by the cannon.". From The Siege of Constantinople (1453), according to Nicolo Barbaro: "...and at sunrise the Turks entered the city near San Romano, where the walls had been razed to the ground by their cannon." That last claim is probably an exageration, but every account that I've read, contemporary or historical, has the Turks entering the city through breaches created by the big guns. "And the stone (cannon ball), borne with tremendous force and velocity, hit the wall, which it immediately shook and knocked down, and was itself broken into many fragments and scattered, hurling the pieces everywhere and killing those who happened to be near by. Sometimes it demolished a whole section, and sometimes a half-section, and sometimes a larger or smaller section of a tower or turret or battlement. And there was no part of the wall strong enough or resistant enough or thick enough to be able to withstand it, or to wholly resist such force and such a blow of the stone cannonball." The Siege of Constantinople, according to Kritovoulos. Alansplodge (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found this page which shows (in simple terms) how English castles developed in the middle ages. Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a castle is simple: you're basically creating an artificial high-ground (something that your enemy has to get over in order to get at you, where you can shoot down at them while they are trying). It needs to cover enough area to hold supplies and quarters for a decent number of men, but not so large that you need a huge number of men to man it on all sides. They can have different fortifications, depending on the technology being used by the enemy - e.g. outlying dikes or moats designed to obstruct cavalry and siege engines, bastions or other areas where defenders can concentrate for clear sight lines and effective coordination of defense, specially designed door areas to restrict easy entry but permit easy exit. They also need to be located somewhere where your enemy can't afford to just walk around them - in mountain passes, near routes where an army's baggage train needs to run, near population centers, or anywhere defenders can zip out to attack the flanks of an invading army and zip back in again. If you want to see the concept in its simplest form, look at some of the fortifications along Hadrian's Wall, which were little more than walled foxholes for small companies of men. --Ludwigs2 19:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Piano

I'm using a virtual piano here: http://www.virtualpiano.net But everytime I try to play a chord which has combination of a white key and a black key, I can't play it, because when I press shift for the black key, even the white keys are converted to blacks (sharp notes). Is it possible to play a single black note while playing white notes simultaneously? 117.194.241.204 (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it is, without remapping your keyboard so you can get uppercase and lowercase symbols, together, without having to shift between them, or remapping what keys give you which notes (since the standard keyboard has around 100 keys, there should be enough). That, or they need some alternative means of specifying the keys, other than with the mouse or keyboard. The logical method would be for you to generate a sheet of music and then have it play it for you, but perhaps you can't get that capability for free. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to identify yourself to a police officer

What would happen exactly, if you refused to give your name, identification, or any other such information? Is it a crime to insist on anonymity? This is assuming that you haven't broken any laws. Thanks -- Vranak (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vranak: this is a question of law and is completely dependent on your national and/or local jurisdiction. Bielle (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well let's say Canada, the US, or England. Any jurisdiction in any of these countries. Add Scotland, New Zealand, Wales, Australia. The usual Anglo rigmarole. Vranak (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Nevada this one case, In New York this says no unless driving, so I assume in America different states have different laws. This sates in Toronto generally no. Not sure about England. Mo ainm~Talk 19:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some possibilities:

1) If you are driving, you are required to provide a driver's license and car registration, both of which also serve as identification. Failure to do so would get you a ticket, at least, and quite possibly your car would be towed. Since they can't give you a ticket without ID, they might assume you are the owner and send the ticket to the owner on record. Or, they might assume you've stolen the car and arrest you for that while they attempt to contact the owner.

2) If not driving, failure to prove that you have a permanent address can result in vagrancy charges, often including arrest.

3) If the police are investigating a crime, your failure to provide ID might be taken as an attempt to impede a criminal investigation, and you might be charged, as such.

4) Some jurisdictions also have specific legal requirements that you identify yourself when asked, with arrest for failure to do so.

Now, once arrested, how would this resolve ? I imagine continuing to refuse to identify yourself in court would bring a contempt of court charge, and sentence. I doubt if it would be all that long, though. Provided that your fingerprints and maybe DNA don't match any crimes, you'd then be released after serving the sentence. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was very helpful. Now a follow-up question: could it be said that those vagrancy laws you mentioned are tantamount to saying 'failure to own a home (or failure to be a guest of someone who does) is illegal'? If so, does that strike anybody else as rather fascist? It essentially elevates property ownership to a de facto requirement for citizenship, does it not? Vranak (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vagrancy laws exist at least in part to protect the average citizen, and the community at large, from folks who are perceived to be potentially dangerous in some way or another. Someone who lacks anyplace to live may well be mentally ill or otherwise unstable and unpredictable. It could be seen by some as "fascism" on a small scale, i.e. putting the community ahead of a given individual, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. If you live in a community, you are expected to adhere to that community's standards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bugs, I am surprised. Your comments on the Ref Desk are usually well thought out. However, your statement "mentally ill or otherwise unstable and unpredictable" is extremely offensive. It presumes that people with mental illness are necessarily unstable, which is far from the truth. Instability of emotion and mental illness — even severe mental illness — do not go hand-in-hand. Thank you, sir. — Michael J 23:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I wouldn't put money on mentally ill and homeless being "stable" by normal standards. In any case, those are examples. The basic question was, Are vagrancy laws "fascistic", and the answer is, Those laws are considered by the community to be beneficial to the community. If that puts the overall community ahead of individuals in it, then it could be argued to be "fascist", in the broader sense of the "group". Note the origin of the term "vagrant" as a "wanderer".[6] Specifically, it refers to folks just wandering around with no apparent purpose or direction. And the essence of the old saying persists: "Idle hands find mischief to do." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having been mentally ill and homeless for a time this year (the latter quality has since changed, thank you), I suspect you and I will continue to differ on this point, Bugs. In any event, this is not the forum to debate that issue, but your views have been helpful to me. Thank you again, kind sir. — Michael J 02:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has, let me cite Stop and identify statutes for anyone to read if they wish. It only covers the U.S., so other jurisdictions may have different laws, etc. --Jayron32 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked (prior to the anti-Islamic racist hysteria that swept the anglosphere), in NSW I was obliged by law to identify myself to appropriate agents when travelling on the trains. When walking the streets I wasn't obliged to identify myself (and I would still ask under what power the police were requiring me to identify myself, before choosing to comply or not). IIRC Magistrates and other courts can compel identification through the threat of indefinite detention; kind of a modern version of peine fort et dure. Obviously, these are merely recollections, and I heartily advice you to obtain proper legal advice in NSW regarding your obligations to identify yourself. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, via google, "You do not have to give your name and address unless under a specific legal obligation (Rice v Connolly 1966). Refusal to give your name and address cannot amount to obstructing the police in the course of their duty under s89(2) Police Act 1996 but giving a false name and address can (Ledger v DPP 1991)." Nanonic (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In ~~Australia~~ Western Australia the relevant legislation is the Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002. The important bit is section 16, which says:

If [a police] officer reasonably suspects that a person ...

(a) has committed or is committing or is about to commit an offence; or
(b) may be able to assist in the investigation of an offence or a suspected offence,
the officer may request the person to give the officer any or all [name, date of birth, current address, usual address]
...
(6) A person who, without reasonable excuse, does not comply ... commits an offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.
...
(8) A person who ... gives any false personal details commits an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.

Also, they may ask for ID:

(3) If an officer reasonably suspects that a personal detail given ... is false, the officer may request the person to produce evidence of the correctness of the detail.

...
(9) A person who ... produces any false evidence commits an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.

Note that the policeman is required to identify him/herself:

(4) A person ... may request the officer ... identify himself or herself.
(5) [The officer] must do so.

If the police don't identify themselves, you don't have to either:

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), the fact that an officer did not comply with subsection (5) as soon as practicable is a reasonable excuse.

As always on Wikipedia, this is not legal advice - I'm just quoting a reliable source. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- That act appears to be specific to Western Australia. The territories, the NT and ACT to the extent they have self government, and the five other states will (different acts) do it different. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I've updated my lead sentence accordingly. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the lack of any penalty for police officers who fail to identify themselves, making this portion of the law toothless. StuRat (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clause 7 does protect the civilian though. The police may not be punished for failing to identify themselves, but nor can the law punish you for failing to identify yourself in that case. (I thought that the Police Act might say that police were required to identify themselves, but in fact section 17 suggests the contrary.) Mitch Ames (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also guess that if they do arrest you for failing to identify yourself, they wouldn't be punished for that either. StuRat (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to popular police reality shows in the UK (the ones where the police arrest fighting drunks in various town centres), people have been taken to the police station and spent a night in the cells for refusing to provide ID, but this is usually linked to a reasonable suspicion that they have actually done something. European friends are aghast that I very rarely carry my passport since they say that in their countries it is mandatory to carry ID at all times (my argument is that I am in really big trouble if my passport is lost or stolen and I am happy to show the police my ID in my hotel). Astronaut (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of that was that arresting drunks for 'no id' was more along the lines of the US style arrest for 'disrespecting the authority of law enforcement official', or to put is slightly differently, 'p**sing off a deputy' ;) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teleconverter

Was reading the above article and got me wondering say for example you have an 18-55mm lens and you add a 2x Teleconverter does it then make your lens an 36-110mm lens? And would it be possible with the Teleconverter connected to take a shot at say 18mm or would you have to take it off. Mo ainm~Talk 18:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your first statement is correct—a 2x teleconverter will double the apparent focal length of your zoom lens over its entire zoom range. This does mean that the shortest effective focal length your 18-55mm zoom lens would have would be 36mm; you would have to remove the teleconverter to get back to 18mm. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ten, thought that. Mo ainm~Talk 19:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that most of the time a teleconverter isn't worth the trade-offs in light-gathering capacity and image quality, but every once in a while it's a cheap portable way to get the shot. Note that unless the main lens is relatively fast (f4 or better), the camera's metering or autofocus may not work. Acroterion (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip Acroterion, think I'll just invest in a longer ranged lens. Mo ainm~Talk 20:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

charging a car battery

Could a 12v 300mA AC adapter designed for powering a cable modem charge a car battery with the specifications "71Ah 670A(EN) 12v"? Would there be any danger of the adapter overheating or the battery exploding? I am not going to try this, I'm just curious. 82.45.62.107 (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. From Lead-acid battery#Voltages for common usages, float charging (keeping self-discharge from running the battery down) requires 13.4 to 13.8 volts, while standard charging requires 14.2 to 14.5 volts. Your AC adapter doesn't put out enough voltage. --Carnildo (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not constitute advice: Possibly the small adapter would be overloaded and burn out if its output voltage were significantly higher than the battery voltage and the battery drew more current than the charger was rated at. We do not have enough info to judge the no-load voltage of the adapter, which might be higher than the battery voltage at some stage of battery discharge. A battery which is partially discharged may have a voltage of less than the 13.4 to 13.8 volts stated above. The battery in my photovoltaic system sometimes has only 12.2 or 12.6 volts, for instance. But there is a possibility it would be able to charge up the battery, like typical "trickle charge" units. If the 71 amp-hour battery were 10% discharged, for instance, at 300 ma it would take about 24 hours to recharge it. Edison (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper cable. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]