Talk:Krak des Chevaliers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleKrak des Chevaliers has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
December 15, 2011Good article nomineeListed


I was going to move the text that was posted to the main article, but I just discovered it was a copyvio from [1] anyway. At best it was only marginally relevant, so it doesn't really matter. Adam Bishop 05:27, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Description violates copyright?[edit]

The section 'Description of the Castle' seems to be copied directly from [[2]], which is a copyrighted page. Shouldn't that section be removed, or at least rewritten?

You're right! I think that section was copied over from a duplicate article. It should be easy to incorporate it into the rest of the text without violating copyright. Thanks! Adam Bishop 15:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Outer Wall[edit]

The article says that the outer wall of the castle was 30 meters thick. Is there a reference for that fact? It's hard to believe walls would be that thick, especially considering it was built before powerful cannons were used. Apol0gies 17:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There must be something wrong with that. Looking at the plan in Hugh Kennedy's "Crusader Castles", I don't think it's 30 meters even with the halls behind the wall factored it. Choess 02:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
the german wikipedia mentions the 8 meters as the strongest part of the added defenses - i would guess the 30 meters refer to a length or height, not a thickness. Snottily 04:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Looking at the plans linked at the bottom of the page, it's obvious that the outer wall is nowhere near 30 meters (the article until I changed it said "100 feet"). I believe this is meant to refer to the inner wall, where it is conceivable that the curtain along the side facing the main gate could be that thick (including wall apartments). Elsewhere, both the inner and outer wall appear to be only ten to 20 feet thick, pretty standard for that era (before artillery) and which would tally with the eight meters given in the German version. I also removed the confusing word "fortress"; the entire site is a fortress, so did they mean the keep, the inner ward or the site in toto? Clearly the 30m/100ft reference was meant for the curtain of the inner ward, in which case the term "fortress" is misused. 16:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC) [EDIT] See discussion below. 22:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The name in Arabic[edit]

The name written in Arabic: قلعة الحصن does not match the name transliterated in Latin characters: Ḥiṣn al-Akrād. The name in Arabic literally translates Castle of the Fort, which is the official name used in Syrian publications, and which is a translation of the French name.

It is known, however, that the Syrian government has changed the names of many sites, regions and geographical features for political reasons, and in many places references to Kurds - and other ethnic and religious groups - have been altered.

I'm not sure whether this fort was ever called of The Kurds in Arabic. I believe it was referred to as AlKark الكرك, which is obviously an Arabisation of the French name. --Alif 17:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well Hisn al-Akrad was definitely the medieval Arabic name for it. Al-Karak would probably be Kerak, a different castle. Adam Bishop 18:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding ignorant, I thought the French name translated to 'Fortress of the Knights', presumably named so because of its association with the Hospitallers. 09:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The name in Arabic is: "Kalaat Al husn". this is the name used in official books and is the name used by the local people. If you take a taxi and ask to go to "Hisn al-Akrad" you will not go anywhere. This is not a conspiracy against the Kurdish people. It just happens that no Kurds live in that area. The neighboring villages are mostly populated by Christian Arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Map of the castle[edit]

Is it not possible to add a map to this story?


I'd love to add a map to this! I work as an archaeological illustrator and would relish doing something like this. However, my times limited so it would probably have to be a basic plan with contours adapted from something existing. I'd probably end up doing it in adobe illustrator and post it up as a jpeg? A cross-section would be nicer - and more ambitious and time-consuming so I perhaps wouldn't attempt that just at the minute!


How many towers was Crac Defended by?[edit]

I would like to know how many towers Crac des Chevaliers deafended by?

As the article says, "The Hospitallers rebuilt it and expanded it into the largest Crusader fortress in the Holy Land, adding an outer wall 30 meters thick with seven guard towers 8-10 meters thick". Adam Bishop 19:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

French translation[edit]

The following are segments translated from the french article.

  • Jean-Claude Voisin, Le Temps des forteresses en Syrie du nord : VIe-XVe siècles, éd. Terre du Liban, 2000 ;
  • Collectif, La Méditerranée des Croisades, Citadelles & Mazenod, 2000 ;
  • (in English) James Cocks, Le Crac des Chevaliers: The Architecture of Defense, Mimeo, 2002 [lire en ligne (PDF)] ;
  • Paul Deschamp, Terre Sainte Romane, Zodiaque, 1964.

Private webpage with history of the castle.


Over a hundred years of construction led the Krak des Chevaliers to exemplify the apogee of defencive military achertecture in the middle ages. An intelligent mix of topographic and archetectural elements taken from the European, Byzantine and Arabe cultures turned this location into an impregnable fortress even when under guard by a meager garrison. Baybars himself turned to stealth instead of strength becuse he knew that he would have failled otherwise, even though only 300 men stood as defenders.


The fortress was built on top of a hill 750 meters high, characterised by steep flanks, wich rendered the siegecraft of the day ineffective. Later earthworks reinforced this natural advantage.


XII century[edit]

Following the earthquakes of 1157 and 1170, the Krak was nearly destroyed and required extencive reconstruction. Prior to these events little is know of the original stronghold's shape and size. The works starting in 1170 produced the heart of the future fortress. Itw a was a large triangular hall some 270m long and 9m large where the Knights Hospitaller lived. Conceived as a keep, the hall was vaulted in ogival fashion and flanked by five square towers. That same year a chapel was installed in the north-eastern tower. Later in 1180, a larger chapel was built in the same location arched in the barrel fashion and filled with arcades differing from the prominent soutern european fashion of the era yet wich became caracteristic of the religious buildings built by the crusaders in the levant.

The central tower rested on an immence vaulted grainery cappable of holding up to five years' rations and feed. Driking water necessary to hold such a lenthy siege was drained from the terraced tower tops down into local resevoirs.

A sixth tower, named "the tower of the latrines" was built to the north-west in 1190. It held twelve latrines and was linked to the knights' dormatory, keeping sanitary conditions at a satisfactory level even in the case of prolongues sieges. The historical importance of this tower originated with it being hte first euroipean construction ot be equiped with machicolations, a design taken from middle-eastern military architechture. This new fortification was also equiped with a Sally port, adding further importance to the position.

Near the end of the century the masters of the Krak begun construction of an outer bailey to protect the north of the castle.

XIII century[edit]

In 1202, after another earth quake, further works where done to reinforce the Krak from attacks as we as future seismic activities. Therefore, a glacis was built following the south and western flanks of the fortress. This entailled placing large stones in a slope extending outwards from the base of the walls. This filled two important functions: firstly, it reinforced the wall agaisnt seismic waves which had already played havoc on the fortifications of the Krak des chevaliers

En 1202, après un nouveau tremblement de terre, d'autres travaux sont engagés qui renforcent considérablement le Krak autant contre les attaques que contre les séismes. Ainsi, un « glacis » est construit sur les flancs sud et ouest de la forteresse. Il s'agit d'un appareillage de pierres de taille en pente forte qui s'appuie sur la muraille et l'« encoquille ». Ce glacis remplit deux fonctions distinctes : d'abord, il renforce le mur intérieur contre les séismes qui ont déjà ravagé plusieurs fois le Krak ; ensuite, il abrite une galerie percée d'archères, ce qui augmente encore la puissance de feu de la place forte.

Dans le même temps, le flanc sud est considérablement modifié. Les tours carrées sont remplacées par deux tours rondes et une troisième en fer à cheval est construite au milieu de la muraille. Elle constitue un renfort défensif sur le flanc sud particulièrement exposé aux attaques. Un niveau est ajouté à la galerie primitive. La tour au milieu du flanc ouest est aussi modifiée et s'arrondit.

La cour intérieure est également remaniée et un bâtiment s'adosse maintenant au flanc est.

En 1250, Saint Louis s'installe en Orient et prend la tête des Francs. Il amène avec lui des architectes qui aideront les croisés à défendre leur places fortes. Un nouveau rempart est alors construit, probablement sur les conseils de ces architectes. Ce rempart mesure 9 m de haut, est placé à une distance de 17 à 25 m de la forteresse centrale et est défendu par douze tours rondes à la manière des standards de l'architecture militaire européenne de l'époque, ce qui rend les projectiles moins efficaces, ces tours ne présentant pas d'angles saillants plus fragiles. Le second mur est placé en contrebas du noyau central, ce qui permet aux défenseurs de tirer sur les attaquants depuis les deux positions.

Ce mur possède une seule porte à l'est qui débouche à l'intérieur sur une rampe étroite menant après des virages serrés à l'entrée de la muraille intérieure. Cette rampe rend la progression des assaillants difficile, et empêche l'utilisation d'un bélier contre la porte des fortifications centrales.

Un cloître est aussi bâti probablement à la même époque. S'adossant au bâtiment de la cour centrale, il prend pour modèle les cloîtres d'Île-de-France, ce qui semble indiquer qu'il fut construit en l'honneur de Saint Louis, ou tout du moins par ses architectes.

Des écuries sont également construites contre le flanc sud de la muraille extérieure.

Strategic Role[edit]

The Krak played a fundamental role in the strategic defence of the Franksih states in the levant. The king Andrew II of Hungary defined it as being "the Key to the Christian Lands", whiles the chronicler Ibn al-Athir called it "the bone that chokes the Muslims". This importance was due to two principle factors: its geographic position and its impregnable demeanor, as such that it was never taken by force after its initial fall to the crusaders in 1109 and rendered nearly invulnerable following its subsiquent reinforcements.

Defence of the Latin states[edit]

The Krak was knot in the string of fortifications assuring the defence the Frankish territoiries. From on top its keep one could see the Forts of Chastel-Blanc to the east and Akkar to the south. Signal fires could therefore be lit and indicate the encroachments of ennemies on the County of Tripoli.

An other advantage of the Krak was geographic position, wich was paradoxically off the major routes, making large scale movements against its position even harder. Victorious after Hattin and fielding an army of 40 000 men, Saladin, during his movements nothwards, decided against investing the Karak des Chevaliers becuse of difficulties this would of entailled. The Knights Hospitaller garrisson organised multiple raids against replenishment convoys of the rear-guard, wich disrupted much of the muslim reconquest.

A Base of Operations[edit]

With its excellent location on the frontier of the crusader kingdoms and muslim lands, its defencive strength and size (it could lodge upwards of 2 000 armed knights) the Krak made for an ideal base of operations from wich to launch attacks and raids against villages and opposing armies. As could be seen in 1230, when the Emir of Homs refused to pay tribute to the count of Tripoli. Templars and Hospitallers assembled at the Krak with an army of 300 knights and 2 700 foot soldiers and launched successive assaults on the lands arounds Homs until the emir renewed his payments. These rapide and destructive raids where unparalleled, while the fortification acted as a haven once the pilaging was complete.

More to come. --Dryzen 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Since this was challenged, I figured I'd include a transcript of the source. History Channel, Lost Worlds: Knights Templar, July 10, 2006. 0:41 minute mark:

Narrator: "Lawrence of Arabia described Krak des Chevaliers as "the finest castle in the world." With outer walls 100' thick, and seven guardtowers 30' in diameter, this castle was virtually impregnable. The fortress was constructed and manned by the Hospitallers, partners and rivals of the Templars. Its location is crucial. It defends the most important trade route in the region." (guide's voice) "Over there you have the long valley with the main road. It's the main road today, and it was the main road in medieval times, linking the coast with the inland cities, which in the Crusader period were the centers of Islamic power, and the coast was the center of the Crusader power."

--Elonka 03:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure which part you are saying was challenged, but if you're defending the statement that the outer walls are 100 feet thick, your source is incorrect. A segment of the inner wall is conceivably 100 ft thick (see above), but even the inner curtain is not 100 feet thick along its entire circumference. Look at the plans and the photos. The outer walls are not 100 ft thick. 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[EDIT] From
Through the main entrance (an imposing gate in the 5m/16ft-thick wall) and past the towers that defended the castle is a courtyard. A corridor covered in delicate carvings leads to a large vaulted hall, where you can see an old oven, a well and some latrines. The chapel in the courtyard was converted to a mosque after Sultan Beybar took over, and you can still see its pulpit.
The chapel is in the inner ward, and the corridor is the gate passage in the curtain of the inner ward, so the "imposing gate" is in the outer wall, which at that point would be at its thickest, which apparently is only 16ft thick, not 100. Ipso facto, The History Channel made a mistake. I still maintain that the curtain of the inner ward supporting the inner gate could be 100 ft thick (including the batters, which is cheating, but it explains the unusual thickness), but the outer wall is not. 22:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[EDIT] From
With this concentric layout, the knights could defend the outer perimeter from Muslim attackers and then fall back, if need be, toward the center. Because the inner walls are higher than the outer, the defenders could always dominate their enemy from a superior height...To further thwart attackers, the Crusaders...built a great stone slope against the castle's slightly vulnerable south side. Eighty feet thick at the base, this masonry slope was so smooth that Lawrence of Arabia, who attempted to scale it barefoot in 1909, could make it only halfway up.
Emphasis is mine. Clearly, the "100 ft thick" walls are only so if you count the batters, which are rather more elaborate than most castles of any time before or since. The walls above the batters are likely no thicker than was common for the time (8m or less), but the batters (intended to prevent rams and siege towers from doing real damage to the walls themselves and requiring that scaling ladders be substantially longer than normal to top the walls, and doubling in this case as added buttressing against earthquakes) could conceivably range from 80 to 100 ft thickness along the southern arc of the inner wall. But that is the inner wall, and only on its south arc, and only at its base. 22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Thanks for the detailed research, feel free to fix/expand. :) --Elonka 23:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


I think a Castle/Military Structure infobox could be quite helpful here. LordAmeth 10:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Similarly here.--Dryzen 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Name and infobox[edit]

I think I can get this, by time, to GA status. First of all, we need to clear a few things. The name should be changed to Krak des Chevaliers; almost only the UNESCO identifies the castle with this name and most major sources, Britannica, Encarta and Columbia encyclopedias and Syrian websites including the Syrian Ministry of Tourism website, use Krak des Chevaliers. Additionally, the name is more commonly used as proven by the higher Google search results count. Also, concerning the infobox, I think a military structure infobox is more appropriate to include, at least in the article's lead. I think we can add the WHS infobox in a lower part of the article, perhaps in a section dedicated to the designation, to be created with expansion, of course. I will move the article if there are no objections, in two days. —Anas talk? 15:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If I should ever gain the time again I'll finish my translations. Taht should give the article a push to GA. A MilHist Structure box is very apropriate. As to the Move post it up in the medieval project and milhist taskforce to get some more participants in on the idea. --Dryzen 17:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This was located at Krak des Chevaliers until it was moved in December because of the "official" UN name of it. I think it can safely be moved back. Adam Bishop 17:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I can support either Krak des Chevaliers or Crac des Chevaliers, but not Krac des Chevaliers. I assume this is a typo? Or are there actual sources which use this version of the spelling? --Elonka 19:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Probably a typo. Adam moved it mistakingly to Krac, I guess. I couldn't move it myself because the destination page needs deletion (edited after previous move), so I contacted Adam. It will probably be moved shortly. —Anas talk? 19:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA status[edit]

I'm all for improving this article to Good article status. :) I was recently involved with a push to get Knights Templar to WP:FA, and ran into a lot of information about the Knights Hospitaller and the Krak des Chevaliers while doing research. I'll see what I can do about helping with expansion and referencing. If there's anything in particular I can help find, please let me know! --Elonka 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! We're two now. I am going to be extremely busy in the few coming weeks (SAT, tests) and all my work will probably be in the weekends, but as soon as I'm free I'll plug away. :-) I've gathered a few online sources already. If you like, I'll post them all in a subpage of my user page. We'll probably need some printed sources too, which is not going to be easy for me. There aren't many public libraries where I live. Regards, Anas talk? 18:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thats three really, but sadly I've had my availability drasticly cut short. So it might enevitably only look like two... :o( I'll be definitly keeping and eye open in any event. --Dryzen 13:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice. I took a look at the French article, and it looks pretty comprehensive. I noticed you translated most of the architecture and construction sections. That should be quite helpful. Anyway, I've created the page with the sources, here. —Anas talk? 13:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If you need help with finding book sources, I have lots of crusade books (both primary and secondary) and quick access to academic libraries. Adam Bishop 21:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
All quotes, statistics, and facts likely to be challenged should be cited for GA and higher. Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


Looking at Google Maps (, it appears as though the castle is only about 35km west of Homs, not 65km as is stated in the first paragraph. If the distance specified refers to travel by road (rather than in a straight line), perhaps that should be specified.


100 feet thick? I don't think so. Do we have a better source for this than that TV show? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how accurate my sources are, but I did find sources to the contrary, see above. 23:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


There are plenty of scholarly reliable sources on Krak. No need for TV shows and junk like that. Perspicaris (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead picture[edit]

I'm currently rewriting the article but can't decide on a lead image. There are quite a few striking pictures to choose from. To help the decision I've added a gallery of them below. It might help if the infobox was removed so the image could be 400px instead of the current 300px. There are some other options here, but I thought those below were the best candidates for lead image. Nev1 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions for GA...[edit]

I just saw this was nominated for GA; have been working at Citadel of Damascus myself (and still thinking if I should eventually take it to FA); pretty cool that this is getting to GA (which it certainly will)! Syria deserves some positive attention ;) If I had the time I would do the review myself. But I can still leave some (hopefully useful) suggestions for improvement:

  • Is the image in section Location really necessary? There are already quite a few images in the article and two others of the W side. I do realize though that it adds something because it shows the wider surroundings. Also, if I am not mistaken, the MoS discourages images aligned to the left immediately below a category 2 header (==level 2==).
  • To reduce the image-'clutter' could it help to illustrate the Architecture section with a gallery or so, with 1 image for each of the subsections that you have? That would seem like a legitimate use of a gallery to me.
  • I would break up the History section in several subsections, if possible. For example:
    • History
      • First castle/settlement
      • Twelfth century
      • Thirteenth century (the earthquake seems like a good divide since the castle was remodelled after that)
      • (Decline and fall? --> paragraphs on Baibars)
      • Later history (I would suggest to turn this into a subsection of history; makes more sense)
  • Left aligned images in architecture section; see above.
  • I would make the subsections in Architecture bigger (3rd level, like this ===level 3===), as it is still quite a big chunk of text. And if you change them, they would also show up in the index (which I personally would prefer).
  • What seems to be lacking is the actual size of the castle (or I just missed that); what area is actually enclosed by the outer/inner ward?

Hope this helps, and good luck at GA!--Zoeperkoe (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, there are three images from the south-west but they all offer something different. The one under location puts the castle in its landscape; before I started rewriting the article this was the lead image and because of it I assumed Krak des Chevaliers was a barren, isolated place. But I think the image is still useful because of the amount of detail it shows, which is why it's at the end of the architecture section and 800px wide. The new lead image is midway between the two; it's cropped so the castle is the main focus, but the green doesn't convey the same desert-like appearance from the image at the end. I think, the one under location could reasonably be moved up to the lead, what do you think? My thinking was as there's space we may as well use it.
I looked through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images for guidance on images immediately below section headers (I thought it was level 3 and below you weren't supposed to put them under) but I'll be damned if I can see the relevant bit. My understanding was that it disconnected the title from the text, but level two headers have the line across which makes a visual break. I've not had trouble at FAC with left-aligned images below level 2 headers, but I think that's where I was discouraged from putting them under level three.
On a related note, dividing the history section sounds like a good idea as it's fairly chunky. It would create issues with image placement if level three headers were used, so I was thinking of using level 2 like this. Do you think that works or would it be better off using level 3 headers (in which case I would agree with making later history a level 3 header).
The architecture section could probably do with the changes you suggest so here they are; at the same time I shuffled the images round.
You didn't miss anything, the size hasn't been included because Kennedy didn't cover the statistics (although I did remove a ludicrous claim that the outer walls were 100 feet thick; someone decided to take the History Channel seriously). I'll have a search of Google books. I'd love to see this article reach FA, but realistically without referencing Deschamps (whose work on Krak des Chevaliers has been widely praised) it wouldn't satisfy the sourcing criteria. Unfortunately I can't read French but maybe someone will come along who can. Anyway I wish you good luck with the Citadel of Damascus, I'd noticed it when it was at WP:GAN and it looks an impressive article. Nev1 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nev, I haven't had a chance to read through the whole article yet, but it seems that "transliterated" is not the best choice of words in the intro. "Krak" and "Crac" are just alternate spellings for the same word. If that word comes from Arabic, then both spellings would be transliterations of the Arabic alphabet, if that makes sense. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, so I've swapped "translitterated" for "also". Nev1 (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I made some more copyedits, added some links, etc. The one thing that stood out was the sentence about the chapel, "The design of the later chapel – with a barrel vault and an uncomplicated apse would have been considered by contemporary standards in France..." seems to be missing something. Considered what? Otherwise, there are some parts that are a bit repetitive (the garrison of 2000, the etymology from the Kurdish settlement), but it looks good to me. I see DCI is also about to start his own review, so I'll see if I have any other comments when he has finished. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, there was a word missing. It's been about a month since I put the article together so I should be able to approach the prose with fresh eyes. Nev1 (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The eymology section is a little repetetive because of the explanation and the similarity in terms and derivation, but I think the figure of 2,000 is mentioned only twice: once in the lead and once in the history section when discussing the castle's golden age. Did I miss one? Nev1 (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Krak des Chevaliers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DCI (talk · contribs) 00:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC) I plan to review this article, starting today. It seems fitting for GA, but there are a few things that I'd suggest revising. DCItalk 00:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC) There are no major problems in the article. However, I have found a few things that might need clarification.


  • I see that you use Krak des Chevaliers' when using the possessive form. The manual of style recommends that "official names" do this, but I am wondering what is best for an article like this, with a foreign name.
  • I think using Krak des Chevaliers' as the possessive form is ok even though it's a foreign name. Take for example another French example. Nicolas Sarkozy's house in French would be le maison de Nicolas Sarkozy (I think, GCSE French was a long time ago) but in English "'s" is acceptable, as is the case used in this article. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Would you be fine with adding a citation next to the UNESCO statement?


  • It was called by the Franks Le Crat and then by a confusion with karak (fortress), Le Crac. Crat was probably the Frankish version of Akrad, the word for Kurds... This sentence seems a bit wordy. This is something I can fix.
  • I do see what you mean, but I don't have any particularly good suggestions for a change that keeps the key elements of the derivation. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The castle they established there played a part in the First Crusade. I'm not sure that this sentence is necessary, as the following ones seem to explain this themselves. Removing this sentence would also make the Muslim castle-building one seem less out of place. I don't find these to be big issues, but thought them worth mentioning.
  • That's a fair point, it's not necessary so I've got rid of it. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Saladin ventured into the County of Tripoli, ravaging the area...". I am inclined to source this, but I'll leave this up to you.
  • It's referenced to Kennedy (1994), pp.146–147 it's just that the footnote is a couple of sentences further on. I could make it more prominent if you think it worthwhile. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This may be a reading error, but I am a little confused by the claims in the paragraph beginning, The main contemporary sources.... You say that Homs and Hama were forced to pay tribute, but then discuss raids that the Hospitallers made on those towns. Later, they took punitive measures against Hama's amir. What was the purpose of those raids against Homs and Hama, if they were already paying tribute?
  • I attempted to clarify the situation by adding "This situation lasted as long as Saladin's successors warred between themselves." Essentially, the settlements were still Muslim, but as long as the rulers were struggling for power between themselves, the Hospoitallers were able to menace the surrounding area. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There is quite a bit of linking in the last paragraph of History. Are they all necessary?
  • I think most of those terms are worth keeping linked, although I'll delink "mosque". "Outwork", "palisade", and "undermining" have technical meanings which can be quickly checked by those unfamiliar with them, but will be common in castle articles so I want to avoid repetition by explaining what they are, and I think it's likely most readers won't know what a mihrab is. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The letter was a forgery...this sentence could be included as a clause in the one before it.
  • I'm not sure, I like the current wording because I feel it has more impact, but I'm happy to change it if you think it would be more effective not to use such a short sentence. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Later history[edit]

Can something be said of Krak's use in the current Syrian Civil War? It is being damaged by Syrian forces trying to dislodge rebel snipers.

Exactly, no current events whereas awful things are happening - The 12th-century Crac des Chevaliers fortress, which used to be one of the most-visited landmarks in Syria before the conflict began, was seriously damaged by artillery fire as the Syrian army attempted to clear out a rebel encampment. AP video or here — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarioTW (talkcontribs) 12:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


  • Watch for overlinking, for example, you link the word palisade at least twice in the article. Not a big concern, as I can fix this easily.
  • True, but I think they're sufficiently far apart for linking to be worthwhile and the duplication is there for readers that decide to skip the history and go to the architecture. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The sentence beginning, The design of the later chapel - is somewhat confusing. Could you clarify it?
  • I've essentially split it into two sentences so it should now be less complicated. It reads "The later chapel had a barrel vault and an uncomplicated apse; its design would have been considered outmoded by contemporary standards in France, but bears similarities to that built around 1186 at Margat." Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Why does the 1935 chapel no longer exist?
  • The source wasn't entirely clear on this. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify or reword some of the information in the last paragraph of Outer ward?
    • I don't mean to sound confusing myself here, so here's an example: The bent entrance was a Byzantine design, but Krak des Chevaliers' was a complex example... Could you clarify some of this, or add more of a description of those terms, so readers unfamiliar with these concepts can tell what they are?

Summary (text)[edit]

I think that this article should pass, as it is well-written and these errors do not detract much from the overall quality of the work. I'll provide a GA checklist soon.

DCItalk 02:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Summary (pics)[edit]

An image check showed no copyright, etc. errors. DCItalk 00:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Assorted Good Article criteria summary[edit]

The article exhibits NPOV and is certainly not the subject or focus of edit-warring.

Checklist (soon), comments[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article, I aim to address the issues you've raised in the next few days. Nev1 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
No problem. DCItalk 00:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope that this does not seem too rushed, but I am approving the article for GA, without the customary checklist. My concerns have been addressed, and I am trusting your judgment for the other ones I raised. The formal approval will come sometime tomorrow. DCItalk 00:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my replies weren't as swift as they could have been, but I think I've responded to all the points you raised to some degree or other. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this for real?[edit]

In the middle of the 'Later History' section:

The culmination of Deschamp's work at the castle was the publication of Les Châteaux des Croisés en Terre Sainte I: le Crac des Chevaliers in 1934, with detailed plans by Anus.[36]

'by Anus'? I don't have access to the work listed in the ref. Can someone who does check this is for real?1812ahill (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. His name was François Anus. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Present state of castle[edit]

Media reports have stated that on 12 July 2013 a Syrian Government air strike caused significant damage to a store room and one of the towers of Krak des Chevaliers. This claim appeared to be supported by amateur video footage. Has this been confirmed and if so should reference be made to it in the article? Buistr (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Baffling sentence[edit]

The last (and uncited) sentence of the Etymology section reads "The word "Krak" (Krak) was known to be the construction of a fortified fort by the Crusades in Palestine and Syria."

I can't make head nor tail of this. Does it mean anything? If so, could someone in the know please clarify? Or else delete? Nice article, btw. Haploidavey (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced so I've gone ahead and removed it. Nev1 (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Israeli airstrikes[edit]

There is no reference to the Israeli airstrikes during the 1980s'.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Royalcourtier, thanks for the feedback. Would you know when to find more information about it? Nev1 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Should be noted as not actually being a castle.[edit]

Krak des Chevaliers does not appear to have ever really been the residence of a lord/noble, but rather to have always been there to house a garrison of troops. (or an order of knights, which is, in many ways, much the same thing) The specific group of troops/knights in question changed, during the course of history, but...
A castle private fortified residence of a lord/noble. A large heavily fortified military structure, meant to house a garrison of troops, is called a fortress. Not a castle.
It can be noted to be commonly referred to, as a castle, but it should at the very least be noted, that it actually isn't one, but rather is clearly a fortress.-- (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)