This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Fortifications / British / European 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 articles 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

As per the tag, the claim to be the "second largest motte" after that of Windsor Castle seems questionable - and the source isn't the strongest.

• For Tamworth, the official local environmental record for the motte lists it as 16 m high, 80 m wide at the base, 46 m wide at the top. I've checked briefly through the literature, and can't find any other source suggesting that Tamworth is the second largest motte in England.
• For Windsor, the motte is only 15 m high, according to the official history of the castle. I'm not aware of an officially published measurement for the width, but English Heritage maps suggest it is roughly 40-50 m wide at the base, 28 m in diameter at the top (its not quite circular). I've read almost all the modern literature on Windsor, and I've never heard of it being described as being the "largest motte in England".
• Thetford, by contrast, is at least 22 m high (some sources give 24 m) and 100 m wide across the base. It is commonly cited in the literature as the second largest man-made mound in England (after Silbury Hill).

The maths for the Windsor motte being larger than Tamworth, let alone Thetford's, don't seem to add up, and I'm not convinced that the Borough Council has got it right. I think that they meant to say the "motte and keep" defences were the second tallest. That would make sense, as Windsor's shell keep (thanks to the 19th century rebuilding, which added an addition 9 m in height onto the original medieval stonework!), plus the motte, is indeed very tall, as is Tamworth shell keep and motte (the stonework is 12 m high in places).

Thoughts welcomed! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article as expanded in 2013 had become more focused on the owners of the castle and their history, rather than on the building itself, which is the article's true subject. The rewriting therefore tries to shift emphasis back that way and omit what is not relevant to it. There was also an opportunity to correct errors, such as the notion that the castle and its grounds are on the bank of the Tame rather than the Anker. Possibly it still needs to be made clearer that the Anglo-Saxon burh was an earthen wall and defensive ditch about the town as a whole rather than a fortified position.

In addition, since no-one has bothered to comment on the previous objection to a false claim in the lead, I have deleted the claim as unjustified. The rule on WP requires two references where the subject is contentious. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tamworth Castle. 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/20111231084014/http://www.tamworth.gov.uk/castlehome/medieval.aspx to http://www.tamworth.gov.uk/castlehome/medieval.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]