Talk:Triumphal arch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Temple Bar

  • Could the Temple Bar in London count as a triumphal arch? I'm not too sure about adding it. --Andrew 00:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.136.83 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, although it was not freestanding. It was also a symbolic gate of course, but that does not rule it out.Johnbod 11:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moscow

Is this [1][2][3] a triumphal arch?--Nixer 16:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No, this is a wooden gate to the All-Russia Exhibition Centre. --Ghirlandajo 11:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Many of the listed archs also serve as entrance gates into cities or parks.--Nixer 20:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The last arch

When and where it was built the last arch in the world? When it was built the last arch of Roman Empire/Bysantine Empire?

[edit] Brandenburg Gate Berlin

Removed it as it isn't a triumphal arch.

It was part of the old Berlin toll city wall and was left in place.(anon.)

(Speechless!) --Wetman 07:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's neither free standing (former toll houses), nor built separately from city gates or walls. It doesn't fit the definition in the article, either change the definition, or remove the gate.

It also wasn't built specificly in honour of a victory (anon again).

[edit] La Grande Arche de la Fraternité

should it be mentioned as the world's largest triumphal arch? it's over twice the height of the Arc de Triomphe.

But, by definition , a triumphal arch is built in honor of a military triumph... if you look at Le Grande Arche, it was built in honor of humanitarian advances... far from the military conquests of Napoleon or the Romans that triumphal arches are most closely associated with. 'Scuse any grammar errors, --Screenmaster16 04:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changed England to United Kingdom

The arches in London are there because it is the capital of the United Kingdom. The Wellington Arch is there to celebrate a British victory, while Marble Arch doesn't actually celebrate a victory as such, unless the fact that it has frescos of Empire mean that it celebrates the building of an empire on which the sun did not set. Anyway, they were both built after 1707, so they're British.

Chrisfow 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why you dont take the arc of Carabobo in Venezuela?

the trimphal arc of the batle of Carabobo is very significative!! please investigate about him! hehe sorry by mi english i m from venezuela!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.37.239 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Do it yourself, it's the goal of Wikipedia. If there is any mistakes, other will correct it for you S23678 (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery picture

If the gallery is meant to show some of the more grand or beautiful arches, I feel that the Canadian "[Princes Gates]" in Toronto is much more fitting of a Canadian arch than the currently shown one in Kingston. Does anybody object to changing the pictures? Canking (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is place for the two arches. The RMC one, in Kingston, is an important memorial still in "active" use today, as the names of the fallen ex-RMC students in Afghanistan have been added to the arch recently. It is as well a Triumphal Arch as it shows all the main campains fought by ex-RMC students. s23678 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It was part of the old Berlin toll city wall and was left in place Canking (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)