Talk:Anglo-French Wars

Untitled

This article is simple a disambig page, thus an N/A assesssment. LordAmeth 13:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fourth Anglo-Dutch war

Hi, i added Fourth Anglo-Dutch War because it was not included in the list of the article. User:RedUser engaged in an edit war with another user while trying to remove it from the list. according to RedUser, this war is part of the Anglo-French War (1778–83). I objected that the dates of these two wars clearly show this is false. Now i would like to have other contributors opinion. Best regards.

Wikaviani (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The dates were different; the war began December 1780 and the treaty wasn't signed until May 1784. The motives were also different - this was a trade war. The Dutch were not an ally of American rebels nor did they get involved in the American theatre of war unlike Spain and France. So I agree this war should be added. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your very constructive contribution. Wikaviani (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hastings

Is there a reason the Battle of Hastings is omitted?

BooksXYZ (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi BooksXYZ, the battle of Hastings is part of the Norman conquest of England by William the Conqueror (Normans were vikings, not Frenchs), France was not involved as a state in this war (however some French soldiers fought in the Norman army). cheers.---Wikaviani^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand that, but William's double claims set the stage for the Hundred Years War... so it technically isn't Anglo-French, but in a much larger way, it definitely is. It starts a millennium of struggles between the two countries. You might think of including it with an asterisk or something...

BooksXYZ (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the Norman conquest of England had huge consequences for the relations between the two countries is undisputed, however, since William's conquest of England was not, as you said, technically a war between the two states of England and France, it seems quite hard to include it in the article. However, feel free to add some informations (and sources) about the consequences of this conquest in the Norman conquest of England's article. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"Normans were vikings, not Frenchs" That's factually wrong and you should feel bad for spouting such nonsense. 1066 Normans were neither "vikings" nor French, but they surely were closer from being French than from being "vikings, both genetically and culturally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.241.175.56 (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Please explain why a bunch of soldiers from France, officially subjects of the king of France, who spoke a dialect of French, and who put out official government documents outright calling themselves French (cf. the Bayeux Tapestry and the London Charter of Liberties) should not be considered French. They were no less French than the other variety of duchies in the kingdom. Speaking of which, most of the soldiers in William's army (the left and right battles at Hastings) weren't even from Normandy, but rather Britanny, Maine, Anjou, Picardy, Bolougne, and Poitou. William's sub-commanders were a Breton nobleman and the Count of Bolougne--217.216.86.188 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we go with what reliable sources say, not with the opinons of users. If you're able to provide reliable sources for your above claims, go ahead, post them here, otherwise, i would suggst you to stop wasting our time.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything I just said was stated is already on the relevant pages (e.g. Bayeux Tapestry tituli#Latin text with English translations, Battle of Hastings#Disposition of forces and tactics, Alan Rufus, Eustace II, Count of Boulogne, Norman French). None of it is in dispute. William was a French-speaking warlord who ruled a French province that was a subject of the French king, who invaded with an army composed of men from all over the north of France, and commanded by French noblemen, including some from outside the French province of Normandy. William himself, in addition to being a Francophone living in France, was almost entirely of northern French ancestry, as can be clearly observed in his family tree. To deny that he was as French as any other independently powerful French duke in the Middle Ages is just pure Anglo nationalist coping in action.--217.216.86.188 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

List completed!

I completed the list and made the necessary changes. The Poitou War, Rough Wooing and some of the earlier forgotten conflicts between the two ruling dynasties were added. (Jules Agathias (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)).

As I've said, use the sources that I added. By consensus from what you're saying; we could add more wars such Glyndŵr Rising or the Jacobite rising of 1715, Dummer's War & Father Le Loutre's War. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I've previously listed a source (and not some random blog on the internet) for the missing conflicts myself as they were well documented and even had articles on wikipedia itself. I do not know if you removed it or if it was someone else but it is no longer there and the list was restored to its previous state with zero justification. The reason I didn't list those "wars" is the same reason I did not list french victories such as the Mad War, First War of Scottish Independence or the Second War of Scottish Independence... They didn't involve any actual noteworthy military action between the two powers beyond "supporting" the enemy of the other or were truly minor conflicts/skirmishes not even involving the states' armed forces. This is not a pro-french/pro-english dick mesuring contest. I am taking the contributions to this page seriously and I am consistent with my edits. It'll be great if some of the mods here shared the same philosophy. Wikipedia would be a more reliable source of information. (Jules Agathias (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)).

This is supposed to be a list of the wars between the two countries. That being said the descriptions should be short/brief. There are far too many long descriptions for each as they are now. I might also add that once you start adding the wars you put then more wars will be added to the point where the list becomes convoluted. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright I'll edit it. Should I leave the results out for those conflicts with an existing article to shorten the list?! (Jules Agathias (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC))

I think it would be beterr leaving them out and as for the descriptions they need to be worked on to be very brief (eg. War of Spanish succession is way too long). Also since you have reverted and then that means I will add the wars listed above plus a lot more. Watch this space. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Got it! Let's list all the recorded conflicts then. (Jules Agathias (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC))

Hi Eastfarthingan! I finally checked the page as I thought you were going to list all the conflicts as said guessing you might have been more knowlegeable about them but once again you didn't. You listed minor conflicts such as the Father Le Loutre's War and adjacent conflicts (even american/caribbean theaters of major wars were (listed separately) but independent conflicts such as the Mad War or First War of Scottish Independence weren't even included at all. A bit surprising to say the least... You're being pretty selective about the conflicts listed.(Jules Agathias (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC))

Hi Jules, Yes I did. I only listed what you had listed in return (ie adjacent conflicts American Revolutionary War). What's more I don't include wars where England/France were in said 'supporting' role. If I were to add those of what you listed then I would need to add wars such as 1383–1385 Portuguese interregnum, Egyptian–Ottoman War (1839–1841) or even the Biafran War. Good day. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Good evening Eastfarthingan! I get your point about the "supporting role". Wars such as 1383–1385 Portuguese interregnum or Egyptian–Ottoman War (1839–1841) are in the same ballpark as the First War of Scottish Independence, the War of the Two Peters or the Mad War indeed. However, you did mention the Jacobite rising of 1745 and Williamite War in Ireland, so I see absolutely no reason to not add wars such as the Second War of Scottish Independence or even the French–Breton War. You see that's exactly where the whole thing gets confusing and why I previously opted for major and direct conflicts between the two countries only or hell even minor ones such as Father Le Loutre's War if they're not related to any bigger conflict already going on. The whole thing is not consistent at all. Some theaters of conflicts are being listed independently from the conflicts themselves and others are not... Some sub-wars of major encompassing conflicts are listed while others are not elaborated at all. Why list the Haitian Revolution independently when it happened in the context of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars but not the other sub-wars part of those conflicts? Why are the War of the Breton Succession or Castilian Civil War not listed independently from the Hundred Years' War then? I do not want to engage in silly edit wars haha. It's maybe time for a consensus (an objective one preferably). Cheers! (Jules Agathias (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC))

Good evening Jules.. yes I did mention the Jacobite rising of 1745 and Williamite War in Ireland - they were not in a supporting role and was the equivalent of the Rough Wooing in terms of combat. The reason I added said conflicts is because you already added American Revolutionary war (Check here) as a result I thought it appropriate to add Haitian revolution which is fair. I've got no objection of you adding those wars but that is why it is a bit of a mess. So to be fair you're right it is best that we do go back to consensus or go back to 1 January when at least it made some sense. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Eastfarthingan. The Second War of Scottish Independence and the French–Breton War are still similar to those though as they did not just involve "diplomatic support" but military action between the two as well. The Jacobite rising of 1745 and Williamite War in Ireland respectively occured as adjacent conflicts of the War of the Austrian Succession and Nine Years' War the same way the Second War of Scottish Independence occured during Hundred Years' War. And more importantly the French–Breton War is not related to anything at all. It is a stand-alone conflict. And I forgot to mention it in my previous response but I previously saw the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War listed independently from the American Revolutionary War while it is a sub-conflict of it just like the Anglo-French War (1778–1783) and I didn't understand the purpose of it as none of the other "sub-wars" on the page but the Napoleonic Wars were separated (with only the Waterloo Campaign/War of the Seventh Coalition being separated from the other six for some strange reason). So I edited the page and for the American Revolutionary War, I originally wrote if I remember correctly "American Revolutionary War - including the the Anglo-French War (1778–1783) and Fourth Anglo-Dutch War" (I don't know if you're able to check it out) but someone restored the page to its original state. What is the point of listing the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War and Anglo-French War (1778–1783) independently but not the parent conflict itself American Revolutionary War as France was involved in it as early as 1775, 1778 being the year of official entry and direct military action. But I do get your point about independently listing the Jacobite rising of 1745 on the basis of that. (Jules Agathias (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC))

Hi Jules, I feel like we're going round in circles here. You mention Second War of Scottish Independence France did not fight in any battles there that I know of - please expand on that? As for Franco Breton war England only had a limited role and forced France to sign treaties (Anglo-French War 1475) at Picquigny and (Anglo-French War 1492) at Etaples. I think it might even need to be changed to 'supported by'. Like I said I think it best going back to the original article as mentioned. I'd be happy to take out Fourth Anglo Dutch war & even Vichy war too. We must keep in mind what it is in the campaignbox template. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eastfarthingan! The reason I mentioned the Second War of Scottish Independence is because of it similarity to the Jacobite rising of 1745. France engaged in it as part of the Hundred Years' War, the same way it did in the Jacobite rising of 1745 as part of the War of the Austrian Succession. There was no battles fought between France and England/Britain in either of them directly. They fought each other in a related anglo-french conflict going on. I was just pointing out how one of them being listed and not the other didn't make sense. I am personally for neither being included in the list. The War of the Austrian Succession and Hundred Years' War are already there anyway. There was no Anglo-french war of 1475. The Hundred Years' War just "officially" ended that year (even if historians just end it with the last major battle of the war : the battle of Castillon in 1453). The Treaty of Picquigny is what basically made [end of the Hundred Years' War] official and it's not even mentioned in the article you linked. I don't understand how anyone can see that treaty as an english triumph when it made England permanently lose its french holding and the french throne but the article makes it seem so by focusing on the few bright spots. And the Peace of Étaples wasn't unfavorable to France, the total opposite actually as it enabled french control over Brittany, which was basically the point of the war. But I guess that one wasn't necessarily detrimental to english interests either. Anyway I do agree about removing the French–Breton War on the basis of abysmal involvement of english troops but doesn't that make including Father Le Loutre's War all the more ridiculous? We are literally talking about priests leading native americans in nonsensical skirmishes being counted as an anglo-french war haha. The Fourth Anglo Dutch war & even Vichy war are relatively important though. I think we should keep them (I included the former and its contemporary anglo-french war in their parent conflict the American Revolutionary War). I'll remove the French–Breton War. I'll leave Father Le Loutre's War's fate in your hands. I don't think we need to worry about informations matching the campaign box template. It's the later that must be edited accordingly if it's erroneous, which it currently is. Have a good day. (Jules Agathias (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC))

A lot of what you just said makes no sense to this article ie.. you waffled on making your own opinions regarding the Treaties of Picquigny & Etaples! I made a point of restoring it back to date back in December but you have not replied to that? It was a suggestion... In Second Scottish war of Independence French troops were not an active part in any of the fighting in Scotland (only in France & Southern England). That in itself warrants Supported By something to consider in the future for an article edit itself. In terms of Jacobite Rising of 1745 French troops did fight at the sieges of Forts Augustus and William as well as Culloden and navy privateers at Loch nan Uamh. By the points you make I have every right to remove 'Rough Wooing' since French intervention there was part of the Italian wars. Everything I added has been put down by hypocrisy haha! Father Le Loutre's war is a colonial war like the 2nd Carnatic war, yes a priest led it he was French and tried to kick the English out, I don't see the problem there? Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The Treaty of Picquigny formally ending the Hundred Years' War is an opinion of mine?! If it were the english triumph you're claiming it was, why did Edward IV renounce his claim to the french throne and why weren't any of the english continental holdings reclaimed in the treaty? Are the following events made up? "Although the Battle of Castillon is considered the last battle of the Hundred Years' War,[77] England and France remained formally at war for another 20 years, but the English were in no position to carry on the war as they faced unrest at home. Following defeat in the Hundred Years' War, English landowners complained vociferously about the financial losses resulting from the loss of their continental holdings; this is often considered a major cause of the Wars of the Roses, that started in 1455.[74][78]. The Hundred Years' War almost resumed in 1474, when the duke Charles of Burgundy, counting on English support, took up arms against Louis XI. Louis managed to isolate the Burgundians by buying Edward IV of England off with a large cash sum and an annual pension, in the Treaty of Picquigny (1475). The treaty formally ended the Hundred Years' War with Edward renouncing his claim to the throne of France. However, future Kings of England (and later of Great Britain) continued to claim the title until 1803, when they were dropped in deference to the exiled Count of Provence, titular King Louis XVIII, who was living in England after the French Revolution.[79] ". Oh and I was wrong about the Jacobite Rising of 1745, there was indeed some direct french military involvement (minor but still). It was quite an ignorant comment. Fair enough, my bad. I do not remember having talked about french involvement in battles which took place in Scotland during the Second Scottish war of Independence though. That is nowhere to be seen in my previous comments. I said that France engaged in it as part of the ongoing Hundred Years' War as the former took part during the period of the later. That is the reason the Second Scottish war of Independence is nowhere to be seen on the list. I did not add it when I edited the page. And no, the Rough Wooing is not related to any contemporary ongoing anglo-french conflict... French military intervention in that war began in 1548 (french troops entered the conflict against England that year). The italian war of Italian War of 1542–1546 was over by then. And the next began in 1551 and England only entered it in 1557. "Everything I added has been put down by hypocrisy haha!" Oh now we are getting passive-agressive, aren't we? lol Mate, you have no self-awareness. You were the one selectively expanding the list of conflicts. You listed the Williamite War and King William's War (theaters/sub-conflicts of the Nine Years' War) independently from their parent anglo-french war. You did the same with the Queen Anne's War and the War of the Spanish Succession, the Jacobite rising of 1745 and War of the Austrian Succession... and finally the Haitian Revolution independently from the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars...... Sub-wars/theaters are the only things in the list I removed, no?! You're not noticing a pattern here? While many other wars on the list (the Hundred Years' War, the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars especially come to mind) all included peripheral conflicts between France and England/Britain, only those you listed picked your interest to mention. Either we mention all sub-wars or theaters are listed or none of them. We can't be selective about them. Yes, I am the hypocrite here and you definitely are objective. And finally, how is restoring the list back to december make the page any better when it was obviously missing many conflicts which have been listed since then. I don't understand you hahaha. What is so hard to get. Eastfarthingan, if you want to divide the list of wars into their theaters or peripheral wars, I don't really care... It is going to make the whole thing too long but hey you do you. What I do care about is you being selective about theaters you list and you were doing exactly that. The only sub-war I previously listed was the Anglo-french war contemporary to the American Revolutionary War and that is only because the fourth anglo-dutch war was listed independently and some genius kept restoring the page back to its original state when I included both wars on the line of their parent conflict as they were all related... (Jules Agathias (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC))

Have you quite finished yet? Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

We haven't really got anywhere have we? This is wikipedia - not a forum. Again you're waffling on about the hundred years war when we should be discussing the list at hand. Im not arguing with you over who started putting what first as that isn't going to get us anywhere and we could be all day and night over that. If you could read about wikipedia in relation of WP:NEGOTIATION. If you can't make a decision then I shall rely on others to do it for us via a consensus since we are not getting anywhere. As to the point you make about Rough Wooeing this is clearly a direct result of the Italian War of 1542–1546. French involvement which you say actually fills in with the Anglo-French War (1549–1550) which is a result of the failed French attempt recapture Boulogne which then spills into Scotland. Hope that helps.Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Good evening. Indeed, this discussion is going nowhere. You edited the page and added the theaters and sub-conflicts you wanted again but this time at least, you included them in their parent conflicts (where they belong). I don't have a problem with that. I'm not touching it. Have a good night. (Jules Agathias (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC))

Ok, I will remove Rough Wooeing & Father Le Loutre's war (if there's any objections) as we have dicussed. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)