Talk:Hundred Years' War/Archive 2

Franco-French war

It should be mentioned somewhere that both royal houses fighting were direct French royal lines, basically cousins. The "native" royal houses of england had been disposed of and eradicated by the French 3 centuries earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.92.4 (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain. This is quite obscure to me. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

He means that the two main belligerent of the hundred years war are the House of Plantagenets and the House of Valois, both french bloodlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC) True, but irrelevant. A conflict between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of France.

Treaty of Calais

The book _The Hundred Yeats War_ by Edouard Perroy devotes pages to the Treaty of Calais of Oct 24th, 1360. The encyclopedia Britanica mentions this treaty, as do many web pages. Why is it missing here? Kitplane01 (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC) lil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.87.64.227 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Weapons

Did they really use firearms at this point? If so, can someone give me a source of when they were used? TraderJack 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What is a firearm? My dictionary tells me, it's "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by an explosive charge or compressed air". So, if they had canon they must have had firearms? Dieter Simon 00:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the info on gonne. Even if by firearm you assume hand weapons they were in use at the time. I do not know of references to use in specific battles, but may be able to find some. Mercutio.Wilder 00:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for telling me that. I had considered firearms to be more of a hand-held weapon than an actual cannon, but if they were using the hand-cannons then I was wrong even by my definition. I'd still love to have sources of actual battles they were used in though TraderJack 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In the article on History of the firearm there are references on the oldest firearms used in the west. Apparently they were regularly used in Eastern Europe by the 1380's. Rafael Calsaverini (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

>regulary

The first documented usage is in 1380 by the English army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

vandalism

Someone needs to fix this vandalism and return the date to the appropriate number:

"The background to the conflict can be found 2000000 years earlier, in 911, when Carolingian Charles the Simple allowed the Viking Rollo to settle in a part of his kingdom (a region known afterwards as "Normandy")." Qutorial 19:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophe

Judging by Google, British sources appear to favor the apostrophe (notably the BBC), and since this is a British and French history article, local usage seems best. Definitely needs that redirect from Hundred Years War, though! JamesDay 08:51, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

When it says "sold Knollys (Canolles) and Cavely," does "sold" mean sell by ransom? If so, please edit the article because this was not obvious to me at all. If you don't want to change it, just contact me and I'll do it myself. Kent Wang 05:04, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Where it says "Charles, like the English, was not bound by..chivalry" should this not read "unlike"?

Chandos

http://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/dossier.php?dos=british
The article nammed "Chandos and Du Guesclin, we all have our heroes !" indicates that he was killed at Morthemer but don't say anything about chateau Lussac.

Origin

The wording "a French noble faction" suggest that there were a pro-Edward faction also. I changed this since I don't think Edward had any supporters in France in 1328Fornadan 23:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why did you remove this sentence (which I did not see anyway)? There was not a French faction supporting Edward III. Robert of Artois was strongly supporting Edward III, he had been even credited as an inspirator of this war sometimes. Matthieu 20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Gascony and the War's Origin

It seems to me that if the origin of the Hundred Years War is being traced all the way back to the Norman conquest of Anglo-Saxon England then some mention ought to be made of how the English kings became Dukes of Acquitaine in the first place. Also, I would suggest that more emphasis ought to be placed upon it as an impetus to the war. ````

maybe, however and strictly talking it was the Duke of Aquitaine that became king of England although popular folklore remembers the opposite 81.80.19.3 (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The English claim to the French throne

I find this really more annoying than helpful. It is basically a list of English kings and queens up til when they dropped the claim. it could have been cut down to one or two sentences like "the English kept up their claim on the French throne until..."HHornblower 05:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

well this has been sort of fixed now...but now it points to says: England continued to make claims on the French throne for years afterwards until the Act of Union in 1801.

When you click on the "act of union" link there is no mention of france, or one signed in 1801.

The Truth of the English Claim

I'm a bit concerned about how seriously many of this article's authors have been taking Edward III's claim to the French throne (and that of his successors). He never seriously thought himself the King of France nor did he ever intend to become the King of France. The idea was concocted as a legal- and propaganda-oriented justification for much of the war after it had already begun (during Edward's ill-fated excusion to the Low Countries). Thus it was most certainly not why the war was started as the article repeated claims. It was a barganing tool and nothing more. This needs to be corrected at some point. RobertM525 02:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I did an edit to reflect that months ago, but there's been the inevital creep after that Fornadan (t) 15:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

True. But their were times when edward did take his claim seriously, as revealed in Richard Barber's "THe Black Prince". Eg He tried to crown himself in Reims. His aims are never going to be truly known. He was too unpredictable.

Let us not forget he did actually have right to the throne.

Edward III had the right to the throne if you go by one of several medieval inheritance rule sets. Other rule sets left it in French hands. It may be more romantic to see this as a dynastic struggle, but in truth it was a power play between nascent nation states. Edward did not claim the throne until several years after the war had started, and later he renounced it as part of a truce deal. Agoosats (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a discrepancy between this page and the Edward III page. Here, it gives the beginning of the Hundred Years' War as 1337. On the Edward III page, it says Edward started the Hundred Years War by declaring himself to be the rightful king of France in 1340. These can't both be correct. Margaret Donsbach (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree on the point that he didn't take his claim seriously. The entire history of both England and France from the accession of Henry II in 1154 to the end of the Hundred Years' War was essentially a struggle between two French royal houses that wanted to rule everything. The Plantagenets were more aggressive in pursuing this, but don't forget that Philip Augustus' son once attempted to take England from John--and probably would have, if John hadn't died and all his barons supported his son. It's more true to say that Edward III probably never actually expected his claim to be made good, but not that he didn't take it seriously. For the deal he got at Bretigny, he was willing to forgo the claim--for the time being. Henry VII was probably the first English king who never took a claim to France seriously, even though he had as good a claim to it as any of the Plantagenets. 72.148.45.37 (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it accurate to say that Edward III renounced his claim in the end, and that Henry V ressurected it for cynical political reasons -- to exploit the French King's mental illness and, as Shakespeare put it, "to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels"? CharlesTheBold (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Gascony vs Aquitaine

Anonymous user 65.94.146.141 just changed all references of Gascony to Aquitaine -- it may very well be correct, im not an expert on this, however my sources for the history of the period mention Gascony and not Aquitaine. Can anyone confirm this is a correct edit? Stbalbach 05:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My sources consitently use Gascony too. Not quite sure why, but it may be because of presicion,since the old duchy of Aquitaine consisted of several regions, but Gascony was the only remaining in 1337. IMO, it would be best to use Gascony for geographical locations, since this seems to be what modern historians use Fornadan 11:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the timeline link (external links), Gascony and Aquitaine are used interchangeably depending on the context. For now Ive changed it back to Gascony. Stbalbach 05:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If Gaascony is used of what was left in 1337, then it means more land than what Gascony (Gascogne) means generally - particularly, there are many disricts north of what conventionally is Gascogne. I think Aquitaine is better. At least, this should be considered carefully and mentioned in the text. An additional problem is that the ducal title used by English king in 1300's was Aquitaine. Arrigo 23:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It would appear that Gascony is often a name for the region while Acquitaine is the name of the English Kings' duchy. Not that that makes an extraordinarily large amount of sense, but that appears to be the difference. Gascony appears to be the favored name in most contexts. RobertM525 02:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The regions under english control in 1337 near Bordeaux are correctly called the Médoc not Gascony. Aquitaine is also referred to interchangably with Guyenne for the entire region down to the Pyrenees Mountains. Gascony is generally used to refer to these regions, but the Gascon lands, lie further to the south, so this is incorrect. Maybe somebody can have a look at primary literature in Norman french to see how this was described, but Gascony is a specific region with people of a specific ethinicity, language and culture. They do not corrspeond to the people of the Gironde or Médoc. -C 192.197.71.189 16:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the names "Gascony" and "Acquitaine" are English-language convetions, rather than native ones. I'm guessing this because in Jonathan Sumption's excellent two part series on the war up to 1369, those are the only two names ever used. I don't recall reading the phrase "Médoc once. And Guyenne is, I think, the French version of the word "Gascony." Or a more modern term. I don't remember. Regardless, if Jonathan Sumption's books are any indication, most literature on the Hundred Years' War is apt to use the terms "Gascony" and "Acquitaine" to refer to the geographical region and English duchy respectively. (And, of course, the phrase "Anglo-Gascon" occurs in the text more times than I can remember.) But maybe this is a convetion of Sumption's--I don't really know. Those two hefty books are all I've yet read on the Hundred Years War. RobertM525 11:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Aquitaine and Gascony are two confusing term. Gascony used to be called Aquitaine, actually Aquitaine was Gascony in the ancient times. The term Aquitaine comes from the tribe that inhabited Auch (capital of Gascony) which the Roman called the Ausci (Eukes is their old Aquitanian language, wiki as an article on that language). Then, the Romans named a much greater province after the Ausci. With time going on, Aquitaine became called Wasconia after the Wascons (the more modern term to call the Ausci) and finally to Gascon and Gascony (like William = Guillaume ot Werra = Guerre) as it was commonly done in Romance language. In the middle age, so up to the Hundred Years' War, Aquitaine was used for the area north of Gascony. That area was not inhabited by Aquitanian tribes in the ancient times but by Celts. Some very conservative people (like me) would refer to this Aquitaine as Guyenne rather (I don't on wikipedia though, it's more a personnal thing) because I consider Aquitaine should strictly refer to antic-Gascony. Modern Aquitaine (the region) is another disctinct political thing as in includes some of Gascony and some of Aquitaine yet excludes Auch (it's in Midi-Pyrénées) for the record. I hope this is a bit more clear, but since the Plantagenet, Gascony and Aquitaine are two distinct things, and in this article Gascony would be more approriate also some of Aquitaine was also remaining in English control (they had lost most of it, including Poitiers and Saintes, yes these two cities were part of the middle-age aquitaine). Matthieu 14:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ho, and both terms exist in French of course: Gascony = Gascogne and Aquitaine = Aquitaine (doh!)

Gascony is NOT Aquitaine, only a part of it. CJ DUB 14:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it help if someone made a map to explain how the different terms overlap, since I'm now thoroughly confused reading the above.161.73.37.81 18:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Aquitaine is the region and Gascony is the English controlled area within Aquitaine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Major battles

Why do some dates of major battles appear after the year, and some before the year in the List? Can this be standardized, please, it would look so much more organized. Dieter Simon 23:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John II ransom

John II wasn't freed by the Second Treaty of London - neither was his ransom set, but actually by the Treaty of Brétigny, 4 years later, which importance is quite minimized here.

Could anyone with a better English than mine fix it ? (yeah, I'm afraid I'm French.)

French influence to the English language

Could someone add information on it? 12.220.47.145 01:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not even remotely relevant to the Hundred Years War. Furthermore, the Norman conquest of England was 'far' more influential on the language/culture of the then-Anglo-Saxon country. I would imagine there's a separate article here on Wikipedia about the subject, though. RobertM525 11:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not true, although if you wanted to get technical the Hundred Years War was actually responsible for the decline of the French language and the re-emergence of English as the official language of Enlgnad used by the nobility and higher echelons of society.

Yes, from that perspective, there was French influence on the English language. :) However, as it was worded, I was thinking more in the form of loan-words and the influence of the French language on English, not the French people and their influence on the prevalance of English. With that in mind, sure, it's definately relevant and worth mentioning. RobertM525 18:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Map caption

The date on the map of France looks more like 1428 than 1435. In the interim Joan of Arc recaptured Rheims and surrounding territory, none of which is marked green. The border appears to conform to the Loire river, which was the 1428 boundary. I seem to recall the duke of Brittany returning to French loyalty in 1435 as well. I've copied this onto the Joan of Arc page with what I believe is a more appropriate caption. If no one objects I'll change the date here too. Durova 08:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

---

]]

Language?

I have a question. Did the French-speaking people in the territories occupied by England know English? If not, why? The English could have had a much greater influence and advantage in the war if their subjects knew English. Stallions2010 20:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, since the time of William the Conqueror French was the native and/or main language of English Monarchy and nobility. English was just another folk language in England like the Cornish or the Welsh, non-speaking by the French peasants.--Menah the Great 12:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Only up until Edward IIIs reign for sure ,although I am not sure about the previous Edwards. I know that Edward III was native to neither language and was bilingual, and that the later Henry V was the first native Englsih speaker, ut it was relatively early in the Hundred Years War that English became the language of parliament and nobility in general, at least in writing, so to speak, and I would inmagine that would've been resisted if the nobility were wholly French speaking. During Edward IIIs reign I know the Duke of Lancaster was a native french speaker, but most others were English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In the territory occupied by England, people did not even speak French! For example: people in Gascony spoke Gasconic that shares many common points with Spanish. Many people in the north of France spoke Dutch. People in a part of Britanny spoke Celtic. People in Normandy spoke the Norman dialect. Don't forget that the number of English soldiers in France was too little to have an influence on the "French" people, so on the "French" language. Nothing to compare with the "French" influence in England. May be 15% of the population in England were from France in the 12th century..... Nortmannus (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

An interesting piece of evidence about language: according to Wikipedia's "Joan of Arc" article, the only known signature of "Joan of Arc" spells her name "Johanna", the German form of her name. This may indicate that she spoke a Germanic dialect rather than a form of French. Or it may simply mean that she was mostly illiterate and that a German or Dutch priest had taught her to sign her name. CharlesTheBold (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Origins of the War

This section needs help. There is no information on the Guyenne/Aquitanine in the histroical review to 1300. Alos, no mention of the vast Angevin empire that covered France -C 192.197.71.189 16:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this above in "Gascony and the War's Origin" and I agree. RobertM525 10:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The section could need a thorough rewrite. The question is just what to include and how far backwards to go. I'm not convinced that going further back than the Treaty of Paris is very helpfull, since the English government seems to have considered the losses there to be permanent until the war turned majorly in English favour. Fornadan (t) 11:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree. I'd like to see the claim to the French throne deemphasized as much as possible in this article as it is most certainly not the reason for the Hundred Years War as so many, many things erroneously claim. Edward III concocted it later as a legal/political device and its repeated reference as the war's cause both in this article and elsewhere is somewhat irritating, IMO. In any case, a claim could almost be made that one need go back no further than the reign of Edward II (and the War of Saint-Sardos) to talk about the Hundred Years War. But, admittedly, the 1259 treaty of Paris is worth mentioning insomuch as it is the basis of the English holding Acquitaine which was a major cause for the war. Much more than Edward III's heredity. RobertM525 11:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 10:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Hundred Years' War->Hundred Years War. I would like to remove the apostrophe; it is unnecessary and unidiomatic in English. The result of this vote should be applied to subpages and categories for consistency, without separate discussion. Septentrionalis 17:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support Septentrionalis 17:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - without the apostrophe it should be "Seven-Year War" PeaceOnEarth 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - it may not be grammatically correct (?) but it's a lot easier and widely accepted and used (see A9 results for academic book titles without the "'"). --Stbalbach 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - That's what redirects are for. LuiKhuntek 07:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Hundred Years' War" is correct, no matter how common the unapostrophised version may be. --Stemonitis 09:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support The war does not belong to one hundred years it is "a war one hundred years long". If one was to call it "England and France's One Hundred Years War" then there ought to be an apostrophe. But if the nations were to be included it would be styled "Anglo-French One Hundred Years War" in which case it is clear that the 100 years are adjectives for the type of war. Put another way if it was the "very long war" one would not write "very long's war" --Philip Baird Shearer 13:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It is however, the war of a hundred years (duration), which is also a legitimate use of the genitive. --Stemonitis 08:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - ungrammatical and not hard to type. -- Arwel (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - We need to uphold basic principles of grammar and punctuation. (No account, IP logged)
• Oppose - Toad_rules (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The References appear to leave the apostrophe out. Septentrionalis 17:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Hundred Years War should be merged here whatever else is done. Septentrionalis 17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Amazon.co.uk calls its cateogry on the subject Hundred Years' War, but a superficial look at the titles listed reveals that the majority use "Hundred Years War.

If in the end this page is moved, then Hundred Years' War (1337-1360) should be moved too Fornadan (t) 18:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intro

It would be nice if the intro summarised the war and its outcome. Zocky | picture popups 05:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling etc

An automated trawl has brought me to this article today, so I've tagged it for copy editting. There are just a few spelling mistakes, but as an article on an important topic it would be worth sorting. I'll have a crack at it if I get time. --Dunstan 12:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I just took a good look at the later parts of the article, and it's in horrible condition. It looks like it was written by a half-witted high school student. When I get some time, I plan to clean it up a bit, but I've tagged the section most in need of help for cleanup. RobertM525 23:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Second Treaty of London

This page states that the Second Treaty of London was signed in 1356, but the Second Treaty of London pages says 1359, while the John II the Good page points to the Treaty of Brétigny as the establishment of his ransom. O0pyromancer0o 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Treaty of London was signed in 1359 where the ransom was set to 4 million ecus. The sum was reduced to only 3 millions in Treaty of Bretigny Fornadan (t) 19:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Duke of Lancaster in the Edwardian War

Henry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster and his contributions to the Edwardian era of the war are sorely lacking in this article. When I get a chance, I plan to add them in here, but this man was, for all intents and purposes, Edward III's chief "general." RobertM525 03:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely.From the start of the war he was a very active contributer, virtually taking command of chevauchees in Gascony until 1355, when it was the Black princes time to shine, as Edwards new 2nd in command. It must be mentioned thta he was considered to be one of the most reapidly moving chevauchee artists of the war, but as a result, relatively ineffective in comparison to his contemporaries. I've always found that an interesting fact.

Yes, in terms of holding territory, Lancaster was horrible. But in terms of wanton mayhem (which the English employed more than anything), he was probably second to none. (Except maybe some of the Great Company(s) commanders.) RobertM525 08:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

accent marks

Someone has added an accent mark (diacritic) to the E in Crecy. Could someone please tell me what wikipedia's policy is to these things. A link would be great. Cwiki 08:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The policy is a mess as there is no consensus. Try Wikipedia:Naming conventions and links such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). To make things more complicated, at the time of the battle the local language was Flemish. --Henrygb 13:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So...

So if Joan of Arc didn't come along and restore morale, would the French have lost?Cameron Nedland 00:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No....the french lost due to the stupidity and mistakes of henry VI.....joan merely won 1 cmapaign.

She is simply overrated cause she was a woman...seen doing what was the thought to be a mans job.

Thanks.Cameron Nedland 19:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The impact of Joan of Arc is severely romanticised by later French historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Significance

Tagged for unencyclopedic tone. Needs just some general work to improve. --Stretch 09:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Yes, i agree that Joan was overrated but the main reason was because she was one of teh first of many to bring out the value of women in the society

Operation: Speedy Resolution

I just created a redirect for "Operation: Speedy Resolution" to this page, based on a quote from an episode of The Simpsons, "Tales From the Public Domain". If anyone has an objection to this, please let me know, and I'll remove it (or you can remove it yourself, whatever).

Well done, sir. Well done. --MQDuck 04:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Weapons

I added information about the longbow in greater detail and what was meant by "used in new ways". There probably should be more detail about the crossbow as well. Other weapons that need to be discussed are Dismounted Lances, Pikes, Siege weapons.

Also the armor comment on here i believe is incorrect but don't want to change it until I verify it. I believe plate fell out of favor because of the longbow. I could be wrong though. Also lighter armor in general became used by the English, atleast early on because they were using quick mounted troops of smaller forces rather than large armies filled with foot solgiers. Can anyone verify this?FubarDac 20:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In the Battle of Agincourt it is estimated that around 90,000 arrows were fired in the first 90 seconds at the oncoming French knights. An estimated 300-400 were killed in this fusillade. Experimental archaeology has shown that at short range against only mail, if it is properly padded, penetration sufficient to kill somebody is not consistent. Plate armor would be more effective than mail at stopping arrows. Contemorary accounts include descriptions of soldiers, wearing only mail (and a gambeson) surviving multiple arrow shots. Bearing all of this in mind I believe that the assertion that arrows from English longbows could "penetrate plate" armor possesses the burden of proof. As such I will re-amend the statement on the efficacy of longbows versus plate and I invite references to prove the alternative. Mercutio.Wilder 22:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I've read it somewhere before but don't recall the source. See the article on English longbow, these arrows were known to penetrate a wood shield, leather chaps, straight through a mans leg bone, and into the side of horse, killing the horse. As for chain, the arrows would splinter and the wood shaft would enter through the holes. I think the purpose of plate was to provide a rounded surface the arrow would deflect but it found a sticking point it could penetrate. -- Stbalbach 23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In Desmond Seward's Book : The Hundred Years War: The English in France 1337-1453 he provides ranges at which the long bow could pierce plate. I am slightly dubious about this book however because it was written in the 1970's and there has been significant amount of research since then. I also remember reading in a book I forget the name of it but it was something like Millitary Strategy during the Hundred Years War, very good book on the topic, anyone know what book I'm thinking of? Also can anyone bring to bear a verified recent source on this? FubarDac 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the importance of the longbow in these battles be a little better understood. The longbow formed only one aspect of English victories like Crecy and Agincourt. At other battles where they also made extensive use of longbows they lost, sometimes badly. A well dug-in prepared position with flankers at the top of a hill that the french had to march up while it was muddy were factors in the English victory at Agincourt, but the battle is too often portrayed as if it were won by longbows. The archers killed for French in melee than with their bows. Mercutio.Wilder 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Essentially complete plate harness was in widespread use (but not total use) by 1350, as such longbows in the HYW cannot be a major factor in the increased use of plate. Please see this thread on the reasons for the development of plate armour: http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=41041

Oakeshott's typology places the first longswords at approximately 1250, so longswords were not new in this period and plate was not developed to defeat longswords. Mercutio.Wilder 18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've some questions: In what battles did the French use their own longbowmen? How significant were they? I know they weren't a whole lot, and I know that they were not widely deployed in the French ranks, but I've seen them in some French manuscripts with Joan of Arc commanding them. I can't find out much about them. ~unsigned comment by 71.154.210.54

I think we need to change something in the following line in the Weapons section in regards to longbows: "...with a draw weight typically around 620–670 newtons (140–150 lbf) and possibly as high as 800 N (180 lbf)." I don't think there's any conclusive proof that the "typical" draw weight was 140-150 lbs, however it is possible. So I would like to add a "citation needed" tag after that or change it to a broader range. As far as I can tell it's a contentious issue even amongst archeologists, and there were almost certainly longbows of draw weights of 90 - 100 lbs. See English_longbow for more info. Master z0b (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Up to the early 1980s there were very few surviving English longbows from the periods of its use and estimating the draw weights of the bows had been at best, guesswork, however the raising of the Mary Rose in the 1980s brought a considerable bonus in the shape of quite a large number of very well preserved longbows. These were found to be of considerably higher draw weights than had been previously thought, and that's probably where the 175-180 lbf figures comes from. Because of the excellent state of preservation and the large number of bows recovered, it was possible to test some bows to destruction, and this was also done. BTW, there's a good book on the English Longbow by the actor Robert Hardy, who himself is a toxophilite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.59 (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Significance

This section needs a lot of work. I tried fixing it but I did not really make that big of a diffrence. Significance should focus more on what the long term effects of the war. A lot of what was there was what happened during the war and was more an analysis of that. The quotes in this section I left but had never seen them before so they need some verification or citation. The tone tag I left because it still needs the work. There probably should be a section devoted to some of the topics discussed previously here but in a diffrent section. Please help with this fix as it is a fairly important section FubarDac 17:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a tone problem with that section. -- Stbalbach 21:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I was reading over it again and it really has little to do with signifcane on the whole. It is just a random collebration of stuff that needs to be edited and compiled into reasoned points. I tagged it for clean up. What is there mainly does not fit there and probably should be moved to a section devoted to the methods of warfare during the war. Significance signifies that it meant something afterwrds not just some random fact you may know. Facts belong here if they then lead to an after effect not if the thought stops with that fact. So really this section should be renamed and edited and a true signifcance section created, that's my thought atleast. Thoughts? FubarDac 17:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are interesting opinions, perhaps even with merit, but that is not what the cleanup tag is used for. Please edit the article if you would like to see the content changed. -- Stbalbach 01:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Brigands

I added some about the brigands that were problematic in France. More needs to be added and in greater detail as this is a very key part of what happened during this part of the war. FubarDac 17:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Normans

In the explanation of the naming of Normandy after the Normans, perhaps it should break down that Norman is a derivation of "Northmen" meaning the men of the north that settled there. I know I read this, but unfortunately I can not cite a source, so I didn't add it to the article.Davidac18643 04:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought about adding this but there is a link to the article on Normans where it is explained. Though the the facts have to be slightly altered there to be accurate, I'll take care of that FubarDac 16:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So on closer inspection the section discussing them needs a lot of work. The tone sounds too much like there was a conquering of the norman territories in 1216 and all the sudden the Anglo-Normans were shut out from there. When in truth it was just the King who lost out as Duke of Normandy. Families still owned land in both England and Normandy. I'm not so sure how to correct this to be more accurate but it needs to be done because the tone is wrong. FubarDac 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the early orgins section to reflect more of what the orgins really were. This was not a war where the English nobels all decided they wanted to capture Normandy. This was a war where the Kings of England wanted control of thier French lands. There were nationalistic elements to the war but it was not driven by the nobility. This can most clearly be seen in the fact that the Nobels refused to go to France under feudal obligations, rather that they only went under paid contracts. The nationalistic elements do not belong under early origins at all as they were products mainly of propaganda by Edward III and rumor from France. I deleted that citation as it no longer fit and I am skeptical about the validity of the source judging by what preceeded it. This section still needs work however and help would be greatly appreciated FubarDac 17:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Combatants

To be added to the combatant list in the factfile, with the necessary shield:

• Flanders
• Aragon
• Navarre
• Hainault
• Aquitaine (as it was separate to England under the black prince from 1362-72)
• Luxembourg 138.130.138.131 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved all but Aragon to the English combatant column to reflect where each kingdom, duchy, or region stood most of its active time in this war. Heff01 02:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did Bohemia come into play? Poland and Hungary were in a temporary Angevin personal union at the time and Bohemia may, having felt its right to exist so threatened, gravitated to the French side against a common enemy. Heff01 02:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Bohemia and Poland had been at war less than a decade prior to the Hundred Years' War and Poland ceded Silesia to Bohemia in 1328. The revanchist spirit in Poland was not lost to Bohemians, particularly when the Poles became capable of the convocation of a much larger army with their union with Angevin Hungary from 1370 to 1385. Heff01 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Bohemians were at Crecy. Well done by the way; Im glad someone found the shields. But I maintain what i said under "Combatant Opposition" further down. 138.130.138.131 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right about Bohemia. I read "The Hundred Years War: The English in France, 1337-1453" by Desmond Seward and it turns out that John I of Bohemia gave his life at Crecy in 1346. This was after Bohemia took Silesia from Poland, but before the Polish-Hungarian Union. Heff01 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Historiography questions

An editor recently added the following periodization terms:

Edwardian War (1337-1360), the Caroline War (1369-1389), the Lancastrian War (1415-1429)

In addition "Hundred Years' War" was not a contemporary name. I think it is important we have a section or paragraph that discusses the various names given to these events, when these terms came about, and why. Does anyone have any historiography information on the naming? -- Stbalbach 22:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been using those terms for years, but as far as I can tell they are predominantly used by Encarta and may have been first used in it. I can understand why they would be avoided, but as long as we have to periodise the war and break it down into subarticles, we might as well utilise those terms rather than having to constantly refer to dates. By the way, Encarta gives 1415-35 as the period of the Lancastrian War. Srnec 03:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it used outside of Encarta... though I can't recall where at this moment. :) RobertM525 10:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nichole Gutierrez

We really do wish you all the very best in your studies at the UCLA, and are glad you are doing so well. However, we should bear in mind that this is an encyclopaedia and personal items unfortunatly don't belong into it. There was no malice intended when your para was removed ("Written by: Nichole Gutierrez...") Dieter Simon 00:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Main image

Is having "Jeanne d'Arc at the Siege of Orléans" by Jules Eugène Lenepveu as the main picture really a good idea? I mean, the picture his heavily romanticized, for one thing. For another, it depicts a person of already vastly overstated significance to the war. There are probably many other pictures that would be better here, including some produced in the Middle Ages. RobertM525 10:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My comment would be that the Wikipedia:Lead section "..should encourage the reader to want to read more." The image at the top of the article is kinda like the package wrapper or book cover, to entice readers. Since JoA is so well known and popular it's not a bad idea for a JoA image.. but I agree %100 that we need an image from the period and not one from the 19th century(!) -- Stbalbach 15:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is a better selection (especially contemporary, which I'm sure there is), I'd be happy to see it instead, but I just wanted to get rid of that map. In defence of my selection of that picture, though:

• Joan of Arc is the only predominant figure from the war in the popular imagination. Her significance is a point of contention, but I don't think its vastly overstated.

I would contest that, Henry V is an extremely prominent figure in English history and is regarded so culturally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'd say idealised rather than romanticised. In terms of its portrayal of the castle and of the soldiers, it seems accurate enough and more informative than many others (because it's idealised).
• As long as we title the page "Hundred Years' War", using a nineteenth-century image doesn't seem so bad. I think it gives people a relatively accurate picture of the arms and armour of the period.
• It's a nice picture.

Srnec 18:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's romantic in the sense of Romanticism, an art style which "idealized" the Middle Ages as a time more heroic, natural and overall better than the present age. It's tied up with national romanticism and has a lot of political overtones that are anachronistic. --Stbalbach 02:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hundred Years War without the apostrophe in the OED

Re the "Hundred Years' War" or "Hundred Years War", the Oxford English Dictionary gives the following historiography of the name:

• 1874, The Hundred Years' War
• 1959, The Hundred Years War
• 1961, The Hundred Years War

None of them refer to Encarta as is only natural, as Encarta didn't exist in those days. Dieter Simon 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The OED actually name it "Hundred Years War" without the apostrophe, as a separate paragraph under the entry "hundred". Perhaps the debate should be reopened? Dieter Simon 16:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why debate? The current form is quite alright, the apostrophe issue could be added in a footnote if it's that big a deal. It seems to me that the apostrophe is the original usage. Srnec 03:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It seemed to be a big(gish) deal in previous discussions and redirect. Good, what a relief. Dieter Simon 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Done!

Well done to the most recent contributer. Everything I thought about adding to the article is added, including the appropiate wars (ie the Edwardian War). This article should now be A-rated.139.168.145.83 12:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Combatant opposition

It is not factual to have French supporters and English supporters. That is why the combatants I recently added are just listed (it is purely coincidental that they support France in the list). Why? Because only 4 of those mentioned supported one side and not the other (ie Scots, Genoese, Aquitaine and Bohemia). All other allies were torn by the war, and as factions took over, the enemy changed. Eg Brittany and Castille were zones of succesion, and whilst Burgandy was very important to England in the Lancastrian war, they fought for France in the Edwardian war. We must remove the division, or have a column for only England and allies, only France and allies, and successive nations.

I agree 100% Matthieu 13:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Picky detail

In the Background section appears "This led to the battles over homage that would eventually play a vital role in the Hundred Years War. " The word "vital" doesn't seem right (and its incessant use in modern discourse is wearing it out): how about "central"? NickyMcLean 05:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding Maps

I think it might help to illustrate the gains and losses of each country with a few maps similar to "Hundred_years_war_france_england_1435.jpg‎." It might help visual-oriented people understand the progress of the war. Samboha 00:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You have a choice of five map links at the extensive list of rump states. Heff01 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Normans and Vikings and minor chronological thing

This sentence in the intro: "The Vikings, as Normans and led by William the Conqueror (the Duke of Normandy), conquered England in 1066." puzzles me. There is a word to describe the people that conquered England in 1066 and that's simply Normans. Why would they be refered as Vikings? Vikings refered to people from Scandinavia and speaking Norse languages and it could be misleading for people who have no background reading that article. I think that it should be simply rephrased to:

"The Normans led by William the Conqueror (the Duke of Normandy), conquered England in 1066."

This is twice misleading as the Viking army had been defeated at Stamford Bridge and wasn't led by William but by Harald.

It's just meant to emphasis the historical continuity from Viking->Normans->England -- Stbalbach 14:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not very succesful, people who don't know who the Norman were will believe they were actually Viking. While by 1066 that wasn't quite true.

Then this sentence also annoys me:

"They however still retained Aquitaine which had been acquired through Henry II's marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine."

Dropped just like that it means that Henry II was King of England when he married Eleanor. Nothing could be further away from the truth, Henry married Elenaor is 1152 AND THEN became King of England in 1154 as part of The Anarchy. If no one as an objection I will rephrase this one of these days to:

"They however still retained Aquitaine which had been acquired by Henry II through wedding prior to his accession as King of England (events which were part of The Anarchy)."

I think a reference to the Angevin Empire should be mentioned too, I largely expanded the other article (I have enough reference on the matter if you need me to add some more proofs to the article) as it was for a big part one element of the context before the war (much like the Norman Conquest is). Edward III who started the war himself was a descendant of the House of Anjou (Plantagenet Kings) through his paternal line.

Less annoying is this:

"The Kings of England, who were direct descendants of William the Conqueror, "

I just want to change it to:

"The Kings of England, who were direct descendants of William the Conqueror through their maternal line, "

As they descended from William by Empress Matilda, their paternal line (the one that mattered back then) being tracked to Geoffroy of Anjou and not William the Conqueror.

Matthieu 22:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

one word change

"The background to the conflict can be found 400 years earlier, in 911, when Carolingian Charles the Simple allowed the Viking Rollo to settle in a part of his kingdom (a region known afterwards as "Normandy"). In 1066 the "Normans" were led by William the Conqueror (the Duke of Normandy) and conquered England, defeating the Anglo-Saxon leadership at the Battle of Hastings, and subsequently installed a new Anglo-Norman power structure."

Does it seem to anyone else that 'installed' should be changed to 'installing'? I changed it, but it was reverted as a spelling error. Markjdb 01:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles are written in the past tense by convention. -- Stbalbach 19:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

But the word "defeating" is used to denote that this happened during the conquering, and because the sentence does not end after "Battle of Hastings", it seems like the "installing" also happens during the conquering and should be spelt thus.

IMO the sentence can take one of two forms:

1. Subject was "A" and did "B", doing "C and D".

2. Subject was "A" and did "B", doing "C" and then did "D".

So, either installed should be changed to installing, or the word "then" should be inserted to stress that "D" is not a part of "B".

--Scowie 22:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the word "subsequently" a way of saying "then"? EmilTyf (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox correction

The Lancastrian War infobox contains an error; it states that it covers the time from 1415-1429, but there are battles inside that took place after 1429. How can I correct it? I don't see where to edit it. Funnyhat 18:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Click "edit article", find the name of the template - you can then navigate to that template two ways: enter it into the Search box (left-side of screen with "Go" button), or click on the template name itself, which appears at the bottom of the screen in edit mode (beneath the "Save page" button). -- Stbalbach 15:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I made the changes. Funnyhat 03:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Estates General paragraph

The end of paragraph 3 under "War And Society" doesn't seem right. At first I noticed the missing full stop and thought part of the sentence had been removed by someone, but im guessing it just needs clarifying...

At end of the last sentence it says "...without his leadership they divided[missing full stop]". It is not clear who "they" refers to. Obviously it is not the aforementioned peasants. I presume it refers to the Estates General. Since it was several sentences earlier when they were last mentioned, I suggest The Estates General is stated again, and since it is an organisational body, maybe the word "dissolved" should be substituted for "divided".

I suggest "...without his leadership the Estates General dissolved." --Scowie 23:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

important people

I removed Jacob van Artevelde from the important people, as his entry does not make him seem anywhere near as important as the others on the list. Also the addition was formatted incorrectly. Mercutio.Wilder 23:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

I wondered what people thought of a modification of the Intoduction:

The Hundred Years War was a conflict between France and England lasting from 1337 to 1453 arising primarily from a claim by English kings to succeed to the French throne. The war was fought almost entirely on French territory -- with some spillover into Castile and the Low Countries -- and comprising for the most part a long series of sieges and raids, interspersed with naval actions, pitched land battles, diplomatic manuevering, changing alliances, acts of chivalry, and periods of peace. The term "Hundred Years' War" was invented by later historians to describe this 116 year period. Historians further divide the war into four phases: the Edwardian War (1337-1360), the Caroline War (1369-1389), the Lancastrian War (1415-1429), and a final phase stretching from the emergence of Joan of Arc in 1429 to the final expulsion of the English from France apart from the Calais Pale.

Though primarily a dynastic conflict, the war gave impetus to ideas of French and English nationality. Militarily, the period saw the beginning of the widespread use of gunpowder, an erosion of feudal armies dominated by heavy cavalry, and the establishment of the first standing armies seen in Western Europe since the time of the Roman Empire. For these reasons, as well as for its long duration, the Hundred Years' War is viewed as one of the most significant conflicts in medieval warfare.TheSpruce 15:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Joan of Arc for Bibliography

I suggest that Mark Twain's book Joan of Arc be included in the bibliography. It is based on twelve years of research by Twain on both sides (the French and the English). On a side note, Mark Twain considered it his best book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.99.186 (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Evolution of heavy cavalry

When it comes to analysing the role of heavy cavalry in the Hundred Years War the article simply states that at its end they were "fading", which is wrong. The last battles of the Hundred Years War were all won with charges from the French heavy cavalry if I recall correctly. The main difference being that the French had professionalized their forces, to put it simple they replaced the "stupid nobles" from Agincourt with trained military officers. I think the article should contain this evolution of heavy cavalry from knights at the beginning to gendarmes at the end of the war. Any opinions on that? Longbow 18:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article claim that heavy cavalry desappeared from battlefield with longbows is a grave historical error, and quite an unlogic and unrealistic one when we know that recent studies have proved that longbows could not penetrate platearmor even at close range. To anyone that has some historical knowledge about medieval wars this section is misleading. Even after the general use of FIREARMS in the battlefield, heavy cavalry was still widespread and elite parts of an army.

Some proof maybe? How about:

GENDARMES: heavy plated knights in use in as late periods as 16th century OTTOMAN MAMLUKS: fully plated knights that formed the elite of ottoman armies. We have some examples of 1550 still in museums. Chevalier BAYARD article WINGED HUSSARS that saw their emergence as late as during renaissance périod Spanish heavy lancers that were used during apache wars from 1650 to 1820 ESTRADIOTS that were used until 16th century CUIRASSIERS, last but not least, that had primary battlefield roles in major conflicts like thirty years war of 1630, but continuously used until the end of cavalry on the battlefield replaced by motorized units after the industrial revolutions. Let's remind that during [b] 19th century [/b], the elite and most used military Unit of NAPOLEON was cuirassiers, always used in large numbers and with destructive power in battles as late as 1800s!

Napoleon also used the elit units of mameluks after defeating them in egypt.

All that can be found in the very article of wikipedia called "HEAVY CAVALRY". I'm not a genius. I found everthing there. So maybe someone should just check it and maybe delete this nonesense as "longbows faded the military use of heavy cavalry".

Ironically what firearms really provoked obsolescence is the use of longbows that were after that war (HYW) dropped in favour of easy to maintain and train and highly effective firearms, morally (sound and blast) and physically (balls could defeat heavy plates). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Bows and Arrows

I certainly believe that is absolutely neccessary, that somebody indubitably needs to discuss how the French fought the English using bows and arrows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocker85 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

If you have solid info about the French using bows and arrows, by all means put it in. That said, don't neglect the English bows and arrows; this was one of the things that led to the English victory at the Battle of Agincourt.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Awe, yes indeed, but this does not disclude the fact that the French too may have used bows and arrows, and having said that, must have indeed have killed numerous English foot-soldiers with them. Rocker85 05:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Neither precludes the other.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 16:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The French did use bows; what they didn't have was the English and Welsh tradition of longbows. The French relied heavily on mercenaries with crossbows, which were more powerful but far slower to load. They also placed far too much reliance ont he knightly charge. Mon Vier (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes were they not Genoese crossbowmen at Agincourt. They were heavily defeated by the longbowmen at the beginning of the battle and then trampled by the French knights when they tried to run away. (User:Willski72)92.10.103.169 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That was actually at Crécy. Archers and crossbowmen were present in the French forces at Agincourt, but appear to have been mostly (if not entirely) kept back in favor of the men-at-arms and had relatively little participation and impact in the battle. Milhisfan (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing Battle

Battle of Lanmeur

Here is s link to use as the initial source:

http://www.adhb30.dsl.pipex.com/100war20.htm

It is a vital battle in my view —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.168.212 (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Just out of curiosity, what about this battle leads yo to call it "vital"?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 16:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This battle is vital because it included 15,000 French being beaten by just 3,000 English, and it shows the longbows superiority over the crossbow. The Crossbow Vs Longbow topic is widely debated on many forums on the internet and in general. Eithery way there is no harm in adding to wiki, vital or not?

Why have these separate articles about different phases of the Hundred Years' War?

Why do we have these separate articles about the various phases of the same war, when the the same periods are already discussed in the separate sections within the main article?

• • Hundred Years' War (1337-1360)
  • Hundred Years' War (1369-1389)
  • Hundred Years' War (1415-1429)

Because doing it this way allow us to write more in detail about the various phases while keeping this article at a reasonable length. See Wikipedia:Summary style Fornadan (t) 12:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that from our point of view, that of lenghts of articles, but that is surely our problem and not the reader's? In a way, all the poor old reader wants to do is to learn as much about the subject in the most convenient way. There is quite a difference between the convenience of going through a number of sections within an article and the inconvenience of having to hunt for articles all over the place and in the process forgetting what you have been reading in a previous article. I know which one would make it easier for me, and it wouldn't be comparing articles.

Surely, we are the editors and we should have our readers in mind rather than our own convenience. If the an article requires lots of sections, and deserves to have them, so be it. It is up to us Wikipedians to provide it and not rest on our laurels thinking we have done our bit, so let the reader do his bit. We should be able to make the article as readable as possible despite its lenghth. OK, so it's a bit inconvenient for us. We want readers to come back to us and not complain about the difficulties of tying up threads. Dieter Simon 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But the articles are linked through the main article. Following links to learn more is such a quintessential part of wikipedia that it's been referenced in xkcd [1]. I don't see it as a problem. What if a person doesn't want all the information but instead wants an overview? And the person who wants all the information can easily get it. Clicking links is not hard.

Mercutio.Wilder 22:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Following links in Wikipedia when they complement other articles is one thing, but to create separate articles which should really belong together in one article is an entirely different thing. It is still our convenience rather than that of someone who came to us in first place to consult our article. Ah, they didn't know what particular action took place in a particular year? Let them hop from article to article to find out when it in fact was, why don't you? No, the point really is, that length of an article shouldn't matter at all when the subject is such a vast one as the Hundred Years' War (or World Wars I or II, come to think of it). I am sure we ought to be able technically to cope with that. The article's length should reflect the largeness and importance of the subject, not splitting it up in convenient (for us) little bits. We should be able to break it down internally in such a way that it may be easily read, that is what we as Wikipedians should strife for, not creating a great number of separate articles that belong together. Dieter Simon 23:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Article sizes as at 01:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Article	Size
Hundred Years' War	48K
Hundred Years' War (1337-1360)	20K
Hundred Years' War (1369-1389)	9K
Hundred Years' War (1415-1429)	6K

The advice currently recorded at Wikipedia:Article size#A_rule_of_thumb is that a page larger than 40K is like to need to be divided at some point, and that a page greater than 60K should be divided. On this basis, I think that a merge is not appropriate. Disclaimer... I am not a historian. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely, doesn't it depend how big the subject is? The Hundred Years' War? Just how many separate articles are you going to create? Dieter Simon 01:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the guideline is that a big subject is generally a good candidate for division into a number of subarticles. It looks to me that the current division into subarticles works pretty well. I'd personally recommend the status quo on this one. But I'm not a historian, and I think giving more weight to views from the Wikipedia:WikiProject History is a good idea. Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. But I think you need a really really strong argument for actually merging INTO an article that is already approaching the size where a split is recommended. Simply declaring that it is a "big subject" is not going to be adequate. The size guidelines are intended for help on managing big subjects. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think they should stay separate, because there is serious potential fro growth. At present, all of these articles are fairly general ,sourced in a rather approximate manner from a few fairly general sources. Better to keep them as is and expand them further. A chronological separation is probably the best way for subjects like this. DGG (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as they are, per DGG. Johnbod 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep them split. There is reader convenience involved too. Some readers want a 10-minute overview of the whole war; others want much more detail on a specific campaign.Loren Rosen 05:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Campaign box floated to the right, under the Infobox.

Resolved

 – —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In my browser, the initial campaign box was originally horribly placed on the left, in the middle of text. The problem was that is was being pushed down to below the bottom level of the main InfoBox.

The clear intent of the wikitext was to have the campaign box beneath the infobox, in the same way as shown for Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict. There are issues for managing floating boxes in wikipedia, and at some point the stacking system stopped working, I think. I have added a "div" html element around both the Infobox and the Campaignbox, right at the head of the wikitext. This appears to give much better rendering.

I have also added a copy of the three Campaign boxes for the subdivided periods. These same boxes also reappear in the main text, in the corresponding subsections. Although I spoke against merging above, there seems to be a good benefit to having the campaigns listed together here, with no great cost involved. Have a look at the change and confirm it is okay, and that it renders well for everyone. If the initial infobox and campaign boxes are not stacked up nicely on the right hand side for everyone, please let me know!

• Previous version
• After the change adding an html div element
• After adding three more campaign boxes

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Followup. WOAH! Something bizarre just happened. The old versions, which appeared badly mangled for me previously, now display exactly the same as my revised edit. I wonder if someone is fixing up template problems while this is all going on? The current page still looks just fine to me, so I am leaving it. It is probably more robust this way against changes to the templates. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem all fixed. I have now used the FixHTML template to stack boxes corrected. This is a known problem, and solutions are described at Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Salic law

Edward III did a do hommage to Philip initially and the French did not quote Salic Law until many,many years later their historians did. Jcwf nl.wiki

British spelling

Please keep British spelling. This concerns English history, not American, thank you. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not just remove sections without giving reasons

Someone has removed a whole section of the article without giving reasons for doing so. I have reverted this. Dieter Simon (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Could someone archive this rather long discussion page.--71.31.87.173 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Affect on language

This removed from article for consideration here: "can anyone provide more info on how the 100 year war affected the english language?" Original poster 24.68.178.24 at 03:10, 7 March 2008

It had barely any effect, except from throwing out more insults to the French — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire vs. Bohemia?

In the article, the Holy Roman Empire is listed on the English side of the belligerents, whereas Bohemia is listed on the French side. How is it possible, given that Bohemia was (at least formally) a part of the Holy Roman Empire? In fact, there were several Holy Roman emperors that were also kings of Bohemia during that period (e.g. Charles IV). Top.Squark (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I could well be wrong on this and if i am i apologise, but werent the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire frequently disloyal and didnt many of them have their own agenda. The prince of Bohemia at the time might have sent troops on the French side purely to make mischief and anger the Emperor (or to make money etc) (User: Willski72) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.103.169 (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC) $Insertformulahere$

Minor issue: "Self-yew"

I've just linked this to its definition at self-yew—all of a piece and not laminated—but as all bows of the period were made in this way, is it a too-detailed piece of information? The earliest written record of the term is 1887. Perhaps, for the era we are describing, "yew" by itself would be better. This is a very minor issue.--Old Moonraker (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

An editor has now shown me a better link. Thanks User:Richard Keatinge. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A Bit of misspelling?

I'm doing a school project and when I typed in French saviour on microsoft word, saviour was underlined red and that means it's misspelled. If I'm right someone needs to change this: Later that year, a French saviour appeared in the form of a peasant girl from Domremy named Joan of Arc. Toad_rules (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, and don't forget WP:BOLD! However, it's the British English spelling. Wikipedia doesn't have a preference, except that two versions shouldn't be mixed in one article. Details here. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is also, this is really a traditional subject in English history, when we really shouldn't use U.S. spelling. By all means use American spelling for U.S. subjects, but British spelling for British subjects. Isn't that the guideline? If this has been said elsewhere in these talk pages then I apologise. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hundred Years War or Hundred Years' War

Which is correct? Mooretwin (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

From Eats, shoots and leaves:

The apostrophe
1. it indicates a possessive in a singular noun:

• The boy's hat.

2. it indicates a possessive in a collective noun which does not end in 's':

• The children's playground.

3. it indicates a possessive in a plural noun which ends in 's', but comes after the 's':

• The boys' hats.

4. it indicates time or quantity:

• In one week's time.
• Four yards' worth.
• Two weeks' notice.
• Hundred Years' War.

5. it indicates the omission of figures in dates:

• The summer of '68.

6. it indicates the omission of letters:

• We can't go to Jo'burg.

PS This does not mean that Hundred Years War is wrong Lucian Sunday (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the "War of a Hundred Years", which makes it possessive. It's the same as "the hats of the boys", i.e., the boys' hats, above.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I know the grammatical rules for the apostrophe, thanks, but the name is often cited in texts as "Hundred Years War". Personally, I think the apostrophe is correct, but I wondered if this had been discussed. Also, cf. Six Day War, for example, which should actually be Six-Day War (compound adjective) or Six Days' War (possessive). Mooretwin (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again: see the above section "Requested move" and its follow-up subsections 'voting' and 'discussion'. You can see it on the Contents list and click on it. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Historical Demography

I removed the sentence "When the war began, France had a population of about 17 million, whereas England had about 4 million". For a start, I'm pretty sure that's based on modern borders (ie including regions such as Alsace, Savoy and Lorraine), and anyhow that completely ignores that Burgundy or Gascony fought on the English side, the succession war in Brittany, or Wales being of the party. Equendil Talk 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Burgundy

Shouldnt Burgundy be on both combantant lists in the info box due to them defecting back to the House of Valois during Henry VIs reign?

I suppose so though I should note that the whole list is highly uninstructive as it merges mercenaries with belligerants, very peripheral events with the war proper, and because things were just not as simple as country X fought in an alliance against the other side for the duration (or at least a significant fraction thereof) of the war. I'd be tempted to give the list the Italian Wars treatment and just list belligerants with no distinction of side except maybe from the two main belligerents that were the House of Valois and House of Plantagenet, or maybe as in the Eighty Years' War, only list the primary belligerant and leave the rest to the body of the article and specific articles such as the Breton War of Succession. Equendil Talk 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions. I tend to side with the example provided by the Eighty Years war article possibly with 'el al' tagged on the end of the main belligerents.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

One method I like in infobox lists of war belligerents with participants that changed sides over the course of a long conflict is to simply list them on both sides and include the time periods they were on that side. Also useful for short term participants. (A good example of this: Great Northern War.) Milhisfan (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Capetian Dynasty query

Moved to this new section:

Hello, I am a student of the seventh grade, and I am currently under the process of doing a school project. My topic is the "100 Year War", and I have very vital information that is required for me to continue with this project. The required information has to do with the Capetian dynasty. What I need to know is whom was the last heir of the French throne during the the beginning of the 100 Year War. Since the 100 year war is fought "between two royal houses for the French throne, which was vacant with the extinction of the senior Capetian line of French kings.", As written in the 100 Year War article. If anyone could input any data or information, perhaps in the Capetian Dynasty article or the 100 Year War article it would be greatly appreciated. 97.114.67.245|97.114.67.245]] (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC

I have moved your query to this place: there is a separate article for Capetian Dynasty you know. Take alook and see, it might just help you. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Origins section

Regarding the third paragraph which starts with "The Plantagenet establishment..." -- I find the entire paragraph to be confusing and not central to the narrative - it seems like trivial detail that is not central to the origins of the war. It sort of breaks up the story laid out thus far with a complex tangent. Thoughts? Green Cardamom (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Results

The result should be changed to a Scottish/House of Valois victory because of the sinificant role Scottish forces played throughout the war. The Scots were widley regarded as the best mercenries in Christendom at the time and were certainly not unknown. --BRFC98 (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection notice for article Hundred Years' War

Have put article on protection for two weeks because of excessive vandalism from anonymous editors. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Montage

I've taken the liberty of whipping up a montage image for the infobox, since I thought that it might be more beneficial to show depictions of multiple key moments as opposed to just one, a'la Korean War, Napoleonic Wars, etc. It incorporates depictions of Crecy, La Rochelle, Agincourt and Orleans, the last being the same as the old image. The image is located on Commons here, Feel free tweak as necessary, or change the constituent images if appropriate: I wasn't too sure about going with La Rochelle, but I wanted to even it out with two Plantagenet victories and two Valosian victories. -- Sabre (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Reconquista

who wrote this article ? Sorry guys but the French have never used the spanish word "reconquista"....

--Kingoffranceandengland (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Crécy

I’m french and I enjoyed a lot that article which is very "accurate"(?). To help you to specify your article I give you one point that I doesn’t read about the Battle of Crécy. English gained much more than a victory that day. In fact, using our well known arrogance, we french were actually thinking that you were kidding to put up against us your usual troops. The French nobleness took it as an insult, and urge the king (or decide by theirselve) to exterminate your army by the “power” of our cavalery. That useless king let them done what they want and when our knights seen that french troops were in difficulty, they decided to rush against your positions, despite the fact that your bowmens were in an elevated spot, very hard to attack. A stupide sens of honour (to die instead of running away) made the rest. We know how it ends, and that day that was not only the french soldiers (and army) that were eradicated but our whole nobleness. This point is develop in the specific article about the battle of crecy, but I think that you could put one sentence about it in that Hundred Years' War article. The eradication of the french nobleness is an important point, not only in the case of the battle, but about the whole war. The lost of our nobleness had several huge consequences in the course of events. I don’t have any english “sources”(?) to quote, but some french historians considerer that something like one thousand and five hundred french knights died that day and most of them were from very important noble families… Sankaa (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Apostrophe again

This is a courtesy explanation for a recent revert, with no intention of kicking this off again. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage makes a distinction between attributive nouns in the singular ("a week's leave") and plural ("five weeks leave"). In the plural case changing practice is noted, with the inclusion the apostrophe no longer "critical". Not really strong enough to start another long discussion IMO. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken picture

The picture Hundred_years_war.gif doesn't work. It is supposed to be a short movie detailing the gains and losses of territory of the French and the English. Can somebody fix that? It is a good addition to the article. Wereldburger758 (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Solved it myself Wereldburger758 (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

Hey all,

Looking over this talk page (for unrelated reasons, see thread below momentarily) I noticed a request for (manual) archiving of old discussions from 2008. Would anyone be opposed to setting up automatic archiving of this page with one of the bots? I'm thinking a nice long retention time like 400 days or so. Opinions? --Xover (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A plethora of Navboxes

I notice the article currently has a whole bunch of navigation templates for related articles, all scrunched up under the main infobox as well as at the end of the article. One of them is also too narrow to display its whole title, and consequently it's impossible to get at the [show] link. To my mind this would be better served by a combined navbox with merely separate groups for what are now separate navigation templates. For reference se for instance Template:Shakespeare or Template:Hamlet or Template:Romeo and Juliet (to pick a couple of examples I happen to be familiar with). These are even actually fairly simple examples of what's possible, so I wouldn't expect there to be any particular need for these that can't be met if needed.

So I propose to make a combined navbox to replace Template:Hundred Years' War, Template:Campaignbox Hundred Years' War, Template:Campaignbox Edwardian War, and Template:Campaignbox Lancastrian War; and to place it at the end of the article as is common.

The main disadvantage I see to this is that you would either have to retain the original separate templates, and maintain them in parallel, or you would have to remove their use from each relevant section of this main article. I would argue that the latter is appropriate as the sections already have a main article link to the relevant article, and such navboxes inside article sections is not, as far as I know anyway, common practice on Wikipedia.

Anyways, not opting for WP:BRD here since I expect there may be editors with strong opinions on such a change. --Xover (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)