Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gascon campaign of 1345

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Gascon campaign of 1345 edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Gascon campaign of 1345 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Hundred Years' War was started when Philip VI of France confiscated the English fief of Gascony. Despite this, activities in Gascony during the war receive little attention - in the general literature as well as on Wikipedia. I have been attempting to remedy the latter situation and so would like to present for ACR an account of "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Year's War". This is only the third article I have written from scratch, so I hope that reviewers will be sympathetic regarding any glaring shortcomings; nevertheless, I believe that it has the potential to achieve A class standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from CPA-5 edit

  • Greetings Gog, another interesting Hundred Years' War's page you have here. Let's start shall we?
  • "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Year's War" isn't it the "Hundred Years' War" in wrong written version?
It is. (I can hardly believe that I did that.) Amended.
  • "The duty levied by the English crown on wine from Bordeaux was more than all other customs duties combined and by far the largest source of state income." --> "The duty levied by the English Crown on wine from Bordeaux was more than all other customs duties combined and by far the largest source of state income."
Done. (I fall for that every time, don't I? Thank you.)
  • "Each small estate was likely to have a Tower house," --> "Each small estate was likely to have a tower house,"
Done.
  • "On 9 August 1345 Derby arrived in Bordeaux with 500 men-at-arms, 500 mounted archers, 1,000 English and Welsh foot archers" --> "On 9 August 1345 Derby arrived in Bordeaux with 500 men-at-arms, 500 mounted archers, 1,000 English and Welsh foot archers,"
Could go either way; but thinking about it, your version is probably easier for a reader, so done.
  • "Hearing of Derby's arrival he decided to fall back to the communications center and strategically important town of Bergerac," center as in an American English word.
Done. And drat - that's from repeatedly using "center" when centring image captions!
  • "The four month campaign has been described as" --> "The four-month campaign has been described as"
Done.
  • Shouldn't both 2 note and 3 note have a source?
They should. They do now.
  • Ref 49 hasn't a(ny) page number(s).
That's because the cite is to (the whole of) an encyclopedia article and the procedure for them is to give the page numbers in the reference. I think. I shall seek a second opinion.
  • Adding page numbers in the "Sources" section isn't necessary.
See response above.
  • This is everything what I found, good luck. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to hear I could help you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


CommentsSupport from Constantine edit

Hi Gog the Mild, as promised I am starting a review of the article, I'll add my comments as I go along.

Lede
  • "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Years' War" looks a bit odd; perhaps "the first successful land campaign" of the Hundred Years' War?
I have umm'ed and ah'ed over this, and tried your suggestion, but I prefer to retain as much as possible within quote marks. Just how odd do you think it looks?
  • "In the border region between English-occupied Gascony and French-ruled territory" since this is the first indication of geographical and political context, I would recommend moving this up, ideally right after "conducted the whirlwind Gascon campaign of 1345." This would also serve to link to England and Gascony right away.
Done. (Although it doesn't work for me - the first paragraph now appears disjointed. Although I am sure that I am too close to have a clear judgement.)
Background
I've tweaked slightly to better reflect what I meant. Constantine ✍ 12:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
  • "The Gascons had their own language and customs. A large proportion of the enormous quantity of red wine that they produced was shipped to England in a profitable trade. The Gascons preferred their relationship with a distant English king who left them alone, to one with a French king who would interfere in their affairs." The first sentence ends rather abruptly, and the significance of that fact is left unclear. I'd recommend either expanding a bit on why this was important or rewriting to the effect that "The Gascons, a people with their own..., reaped great profits from the trade... and preferred their..." etc.
Done - a little differently from how you suggest.
Reads OK now. Constantine ✍ 12:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The duty levied by the English Crown..." I've asked this before (sorry I don't remember in which review), is there a concrete figure for this? I don't remember it having been answered the last time. Ditto for the population of Bordeaux (I remember that there was a figure for this). I also remember for "whenever an English army campaigned on the continent it had operated", I had suggested adding "had previously campaigned...").
Quite right. Battle of Auberoche. I have now changed things to match what we agreed there. And in other articles with similar wording so that this won't happen again. Let me know if you would like me to cut and paste the previous exchange to here for ease of reference?
Not necessary, looks fine. Constantine ✍ 12:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to come... Constantine ✍ 13:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign
  • "Stafford made a short advance north to besiege Blaye with his advance party" avoid repetition of "advance" if possible.
Done.
  • "500 mounted archers, 1,000 English and Welsh foot archers", here you link the first "archers" to the English longbow article, but I find it very unlikely that horse archers would use a longbow as it is extremely impractical for a horseman; or were they simply "horse-carried" archers who dismounted to fight?
As you surmise, they dismounted to fight. They are universally (and I use the word carefully) referred to as "mounted archers" by RSs. I do appreciate that it is confusing to a reader familiar with a rather different meaning of the phrase. But I am reluctant to invent my own term, and can't think of a simple and/or concise way of describing them. I am unsure how much confusion it will cause; the number of readers who know what "mounted bowmen" are but not "mounted archers" is probably small.
How about something more descriptive like "archers mounted on horses for greater mobility", or clarifying this in a footnote? Constantine ✍ 12:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked.
  • "including many of the felons, were veterans" veterans of what? Had they served previously in France.
Clarified.
Exploitation
  • "The Gascon forces disbanded...." When? Make it explicit, "After the fall of La Réole,... " or "In early spring, ..." etc. The chronology of the entire paragraph is a bit unclear otherwise.
Done. See what you think.
It is clearer now. "The heart had gone out of the French defenders" is a bit colloquial, though. Constantine ✍ 12:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed.
Assessment
  • Some info on what happened in the next year(s) and developments in this theatre of war should be included here. Were the English gains relatively permanent? Did the French learn anything from their mistakes and use different strategies later? You might even include a brief note that Gascony remained in English hands until the end of the conflict as a bookend to the Background section.
Good thinking. I shall work up a brief new section. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, the article reads well, provides a clear overview of events, and is well referenced. The topic is not in my area of expertise, so I cannot judge on its comprehensiveness, but one objection that I would raise is that the French POV is not well represented: I see not a single Francophone author in the sources, and even though I doubt there would be much difference in substance, there is always a bias, at times slight and subtle, at other times less so, when historians from one country or cultural sphere write about "their" victories. This is not something that will stop me from endorsing this here once my comments above are taken care of, but it would be a deal-breaker for a future FAC. Constantine ✍ 10:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, a caption for the infobox image would also be nice. Constantine ✍ 12:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a penchant for contemporary images and the campaign is so ignored that the only one I can find is the dodgy "flying man" one from Auberoche. So I have lifted a generic one - from the Battle of Crecy. So a caption would have to be something like "A battle between French and English armies". Hmm, I shall try that. Other suggestions welcome.
"A battle between French and English armies during the Hundred Years' War" or something to that effect would be just fine. Constantine ✍ 12:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
@Constantine Many thanks for that. All addressed, bar the "additional development" points. I want to think on that. As I wrote the sequel article - Siege of Aiguillon - it isn't an issue. I just need to decide how succinct to be and how broad. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the issues have been addressed, looking forward to the remainder. Constantine ✍ 12:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Constantine By my reckoning all done bar writing a new Aftermath section. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Constantine ✍ 15:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Constantine Aftermath section added. I am not sure if I have gone overboard. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine. You could trim it a bit, but only if you intend to write a follow-up article, in which case Everything between "Stafford, in charge of...seriously harassed" can be summarized as something along the lines of "Their efforts to Aiquillon were thwarted by Derby". Otherwise it is a good conclusion for the article. Once more, well done. Constantine ✍ 17:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment edit

As I've mentioned at another review, I'm not sure about the use of Measuringworth in this article; I'm contemplating starting a more central discussion about it, but haven't worked out where that should happen! But the issue is that for figures from centuries ago, a simple inflation calculation is significantly less meaningful than for more recent eras. See for example the discussion here for and against its use. At the other review I supported a contextualization approach instead - ie. an average wage or other contemporary figure that provides for an understanding of how much money this was then. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. I have taken some time off to chew this over, and suspect that I may be missing the point. I am just a simple content creator. I also do some work at GOCE, where I see my role as ensuring that an article is written in (a consistent version of) grammatically correct English and meets the requirements of the MoS. If I, personally, feel that these clash, the MoS 'wins'. Obviously an ACR is more complex, but this seems to me to be a straight MoS issue.
The MoS explicitly approves the use of the inflation template which I have used. To me that seems to close the issue. To use an analogy, I may dislike the {convert} template, but I cannot object to it, either at GOCE or when assessing, as the MoS explicitly sanctions it. If I were to object to it then I would need to start a discussion to reach a consensus to change the MoS.
With the other review I had added the "contextualization approach" as well, which you were happy with. If you had been unhappy with it, it would have been a case of the assessor - you - and the nominator - me - discussing its appropriateness, usefulness etc to reach a conclusion which you as an assessor were happy to support. Ie, it is open to challenge and there is still the next assessor of Battle of Auberoche may ask me to remove it. (Which would leave me in pickle.)
But I don't see that the same applies to templates explicitly sanctioned by the MoS. There are numerous things in there which I disapprove of, but when copy editing I keep my personal view out of it. More to the point, when content creating my one certainty is that so long as I stick to the MoS I cannot be challenged. Regardless of what views assessors may hold - or I may hold - or of what discussion there may be around some aspect of it. This being the case I am at a loss as to how to respond constructively.
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I was browsing the comments of an FAC I am considering assessing when I saw the exchange below. It was interesting if strange to see the positions reversed. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 9: the enormous sum of nearly £5,000 - Any chance we could get this figure in more modern terms as well?
Yeeees; I've added the template. I'm not overly fond of making this kind of comparison, as I said at the peer review, but since your the second editor to request it we can call that a consensus. It's a curiously specific figure for such a long time ago...

Support from AustralianRupert edit

Looks pretty good to me, Gog. I have a few suggestions to hopefully polish it a little more: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead raise tax money seemed a little awkward to me
Tweaked.
  • there was lack of fodder for the horses --> "there was a lack of fodder for the horses" or "there was insufficient fodder for the horses"?
Fixed. (My typo.)
  • Bordeaux is overlinked, as is Lancaster's cheavauchee of 1346 and the Duchy of Aquitaine
Fixed.
  • After a night march Derby...: as the previous paragraph started with the same word ("After"), I wonder if this could be varied slightly?
Fixed. (Good spot, good point.)
  • lesser men were...: I wonder if this could be reworded slightly. I get what is intended, but these weren't really "lesser men", but those of a lower station or lower rank?
I have been reading too many sources. "lesser men"! Gah! Fixed.
  • withstood a siege of 8 months --> " withstood an eight-month siege"?
Oops. Fixed.
  • the link for men-at-arms should be moved to its first mention
Done.
  • in the Citations "Fowler 1961, pp. 139–40" should probably be "Fowler 1961, pp. 139–140" for consistency with how you present other triple figure page ranges (e.g. "Sumption 1990, pp. 463–464")
Very tactful. Done.
  • same as above for "Fowler 1961, pp. 143–44"
Done.
  • oclc number for the Guizot chapter?
Careless, careless. Done.
  • in the Sources, move the link for Boydell to the first mention
Done.
  • the sources appear to be reliable based on the publishers (no action required)
  • all information appears to be referenced (no action required)
  • suggest maybe left aligning a couple of the images
I am a fan of this, but am aware of MOS:IMAGELOCATION - "Most images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, |left can be used". But as you are telling me different, and as the next sentence in the MoS is "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left" I suspect that I have been reading it incorrectly. Done.
@AustralianRupert: Thanks for the support, but especially thanks for the support before I had seen your suggestions, on the assumption (I assume) that I would appropriately take them on board. Appreciated.
The third article I have written from scratch and I am moderately pleased with it.
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, those changes look good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

There are two things that stand out. File:Guyenne 1328-en.svg needs information about what sources were used to make it. I'm not sure about the bonafides of [1] this as a reliable source upon which to base the File:Map of Gascon campaign of 1345.svg. All of the captions are good and all of the other images have compliant licensing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: File:Guyenne 1328-en.svg. Yes, you picked me up, quite correctly, on the same issue when I used the French language version of the same map. Newm30, who is knowledgeable on late Medieval French things, among others, helpfully translated it. I cheerfully switched in their English version and completely forgot to add sourcing. Now done. Hopefully Newm30 is happy with this; if not, I am sure that they will let us know.
The campaign map. That is a good point. The map was commissioned by Newm30 - see here. They pinged me once it was underway. This was my first intimation that one could commission a map and I didn't realise that there must be a source which could do with checking. The source used does not strike me as a RS. In defence of the map I would point out that:
  • There is, so far as I am aware, no other map in any source which shows troop movements during the campaign. (I would be delighted to be proved wrong.)
  • The map, IMO, reasonably - on a broad scale - represents the consensus of RSs and reflects the text of the article.
I am not sure where this leaves us. The map is a nice extra, but at a push I could replace it with the one in my sandbox.
A footnote. The other map commissioned by Newm30, who has been extremely helpful - File:Map of route of Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346.svg - is based on Sumption, who is an RS.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: and @Gog the Mild::
(1) File:Guyenne 1328-en.svg is based on map on page 17 of Muir's Historical Atlas (1971) London; Philips and Son. ISBN 978-0540050277. The image had this source provided? This particular file was a translation created from previous French version. I assisted image creator with translations.
(2) File:Map of Gascon campaign of 1345.svg while based on image on "thehisotryofengland" website. this could also be based on Sumption, following the text in Sumption's "Trial by Combat". Gog, could you provide page numbers, as I do not hold copy of Sumption's "Trial by Combat"?
Please let me know and I can dig out other information, if required. Regards Newm30 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Newm30. That is very good of you. The web site map, and its account, virtually has to be based on Gribit, Sumption or Fowler, or a combination, as these are the only comprehensive sources. I am on holiday and don't have access to my hard copy, but the various army movements are covered in chapter 13 of Sumption, "Bergerac and Auberoche", pp 455-88 in the 1999 edition. (Gribit doesn't go into detail about these, explicitly because Sumption has covered them so well.) Try (LINK TO BLACKLISTED COPYRIGHT VIOLATING SITE REMOVED) for the text and see maps 19 and 20 which do show Derby's route for the early part of the campaign - which in turn closely match the website route. Also maps 21 and 22, which are just location maps. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Now that Gog has added the source for File:Guyenne 1328-en.svg, it is only File:Map of Gascon campaign of 1345.svg that needs sourcing information. Sourcing information need not be from a map, but can also be from a detailed textual description in a reliable source. My issue with using thehistoryofengland.co.uk as a source for the map is that I don't think it is reliable. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Sources added. Source(s) for each of the five manoeuvres/colours shown separately. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That does the job. Good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Gascon_campaign_of_1345&oldid=1055544934"