Talk:Citadel Hill (Fort George)

Gay Issue

I tried to include the fact that this place is a well known gay hangout yet the bots think I'm vandalizing. How can I put that important information in there?

This is actually true. It's a very popular fact in Halifax. --Zybez (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The side of the hill is rumored to be a hangout for gays, but I have never noticed any significant gay activity as most activity would seem to be sunbathers or the occasional concert or rugby game on the Garrison Grounds below. -- North-44 (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fort's Name

The article seems to refer to the fort as Fort George a lot. Perhaps the name Citadel Hill should be more often used, with references to the old name where appropriate. It's a bit misleading to call it by the less commonly used name repeatedly, almost interchangeably at times. Is there a reason it was done this way? WarBaCoN (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Is Citadel Hill a city, a fort, or a portion of Halifax? -- Zoe It's a fort at the center of Halifax. Will take a look at the entry -- Daniel MacKay

What do these sentences mean?:

City center, subterrainian and moated, the Citadel is a bulky hillock fortress with internal courtyard and clear harbour view from armoured ramparts

The city of Halifax has been built around it.

A noon gun is still sounded daily by military animators Animators? -- Zoe

Uh... actors? I'm not sure if Halifax puts on a show for the tourists, or if the actual city militia carries out ceremonial duties. -- Stephen Gilbert 01:56 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

They actually are called animators but maybe we should use a different word. Also, this page links completely incorrectly from "Deva" -- Daniel MacKay

But what does City center, subterrainian and moated mean? The Citadel is in the center of the city of Halifax, or its city center is subterranean and moated? -- Zoe

I have completely overhauled it, including much of the original text. Daniel MacKay

The citadel is not moated, this is a misconception. The 40 ft ditch that surronds the citadel is a 'Dry Ditch' a moat was ineffective as a defence mechanism durring this time period since armour and weapons did not burden soilders to the point that they could not swim. A dry ditch however with a musket gallery and artilary guns armed with canister shot and grapeshot directed into the ditch was a great defence mechanism since the ditch forces the enemy into a tight position where soilders can be easily targeted. How do I know this? I work there as an animator. There is not a city militia, we are in a sense 'actors' but we are called animators since we are re-enacting a certian time period, 1869 to be exact.

[User:Sk00by]

Original research

The elevation has been changed from 37m to 80m by a user who has "measured it using GPS". This is obviously original reasearch WP:OR - can anybody verify this? Chillysnow (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Moat: Was it ever filled with water?

There is a moat-like area within the final wall. Was this "moat" ever filled with water? Now, it is just plain grass. --Zybez (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, there is a Dry Ditch surrounding the Fort. There are many reasons that it is not filled with water. There were nine soldiers barracked in each of the three ravelin, so these soldiers would need to enter the actual fort through a sally port located in the ditch. Moats were no longer as effective as they had been in times when soldiers wore heavy plate armour, since it was the heavy plate armour which prevented any chance of swimming across. Furthermore, there is a musketry gallery which extends along the inside of the exterior wall of the ditch, from which soldiers could shoot out at attackers in the ditch in relative safety. These soldiers would also need to cross the ditch to enter the musketry gallery. The ditch was also used as both a place to raise smaller livestock, such as goats and chicken and a disposal for old, broken, or outdated artillery pieces. While a convenient disposal site, the disposed artillery pieces served an additional purpose of an obstacle for anyone who may jump onto one while attacking the ditch. Landing on an old cannon could easily sprain an ankle or break a leg and cause trouble for the enemy. -- North-44 (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

More Needed on the Fort, Less tangential History

Much of the content of this article duplicates the History of HRM article and is only indirectly related to the fortification. The article needs more on the fortification itself. I have made a start but more sourced content is needed.Letterofmarque (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)