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

Military history: Roman & Byzantine / Classical C‑class 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Architecture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Archaeology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A map would be useful. Bastie 01:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Although the Gask Ridge was not a continuous wall" - it wasn't any kind of wall, the article says: "The Gask Ridge consisted of a series of forts and fortlets with signalling towers" - presumably the signalling towers were within the forts and fortlets?

There seems to be a lot of detail about what was NOT the Gask Ridge in this part of Scotland, and very little about the system itself. Why was it called the "Gask Ridge"?

There's a reference about halfway down the page to "The Gask Road" but the article doesn't say what this is, nor its relationship to the forts and signalling towers. Rambler24 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though both have good features the Gask Ridge article has far superior content, maps and referencing covering a synonymous subject. PatHadley (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- I'm pro merge. Having a much improved Gask Ridge system page is on my list of things to do anyway. The glenblockers only exist as short-lived camps during the flavian, antonine (partly), and severan campaigns anyway and were created as part of the Gask Ridge System. Go for it says I. Zakhx150 (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- Pro merge. Having Glenblocker fort as a distinct article puts undue emphasis on the theory that they operated independently of the Gask Ridge system, which now seems dubious.--Wcoole (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)  Done[reply]

This seems like original research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.41.174 (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest it would be better to render this term as 'glen blocker' as per the http://www.theromangaskproject.org/?page_id=314?

-"although the more northerly forts are often called “glen blockers”" - "the so-called glen blocking forts"

It is the more correct English usage and also avoids distracting by confusion, in the context, with a notional Scottish place name.

JF42 (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]