Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346

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) 23:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346/archive1

The latest in my series of articles attempting to improve coverage of the Hundred Years' War. The war in Gascony was crucial to the events of the war in 1346, but was overshadowed by the English victory at Crécy in August. The Earl of Lancaster had successfully kept the cream of the French army away from Crecy by holding out at the Siege of Aiguillon before south west France was stripped of troops to face Edward III in north east France. Lancaster then took 2,000 men and cut a swathe through French territory on a mounted raid lasting seven weeks, covering 350 miles, capturing numerous French towns and castles, and sacking the provincial capital, Poitiers. I think that this is ready for A class, but there is doubtless much to do, so have at ye, sirrah. Gog the Mild (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review — pass

• No concerns with any of the sources (all appear reliable)
• A search did not find additional sources that could be used to expand the article
• No source checks done because nominator has made previous successful A-class nominations. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Buidhe

• The article is well-written and very clear to this reader who is unfamiliar with the subject.

Flatterer.

• "Philip VI relied on his powerful navy"—is "powerful" necessary here? I would ditch it because I tend to be very cautious about using potentially charged adjectives. Ditto with "Lancaster was daringly targeting"

"daringly". Fair point, rephrased.

"powerful". I don't see this as charged. More to the point something like "Philip VI relied on his numerically stronger navy, which unlike the English fleet included purpose built warships" is clunky and (IMO) overlong for a comment off the main narrative thread. I am not wedded to "powerful" and am happy to look at any turn of phrase which indicates that even half of the French navy would have turned the English into fish bait if only they could have managed to meet them at sea.

• "He struggled to offer effective resistance... He formally offered his resignation" suggest combining these sentences or otherwise rewriting to avoid repetition.

Good spot. I have changed the first "offer" to 'provide'.

• "mopping up operation", "English occupied territory"—shouldn't this by hyphenated (mopping-up operation, English-occupied territory)?

The latter, yes. Thank you. I am not good with commas and struggle with Wikipedia's requirements. The former no. I did manage to find a dictionary accepting this as minority usage (in both US and British English) - Collins. But even they had the unhyphenated version as the more common usage (for both). Others I consulted only had it unhyphenated.

• "Gaillard's 400" awkward way to end a sentence, suggest "Gaillard's 400 cavalry"

Rephrased.

• "French presence in the area" recommend "The French presence in the area"

Done.

• There are a couple duplinks

Well "Bazadais" and "Bazas" both link to the same place. But if I remove the second link it seems a bit much to expect a reader to understand this. (Ideally there should be an article for Bazadais: pinging Newm30.) I can't find the other. Sorry. Could you give me a clue?

• After reading through this article again, the main issue that I'm noticing is that the "Background" section is disproportionately long compared to the rest of the article. I would recommend a significant cut.

See comment and query on the other article.

buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 09:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe Thanks again, you seem to be good at spotting the things I am weak on. Your points above all addressed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Background reduced by 20%. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's definitely an improvement. I still think that some of the detail may not be necessary to understand this article, but I'll wait and see what other reviewers have to say. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

All images are correctly licensed. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in fine shape. A few comments from me:

• Is this really called a "chevauchée" in the majority of scholarly works in English? Not an "expedition" or "raid"? Seems impossibly obscure (and French), but I don't know this period at all.

Absolutely. It really is. Let me know if you want me to deluge you with sources :-). I offer a offer a slightly random example [1], the numerous examples listed here (Lancaster is referred to as "Henry of Grosmaont") and again randomly, this, showing the word being used naturally in the specialist literature.

• were they all mounted? In the body it says 1,000 men-at-arms and the same in mounted infantry? I thought men-at-arms were foot soldiers?

Actually the term was synonymous with "mounted knight", see the lead of man-at-arms, which I think puts it well. Edward III revolutionised warfare by deploying them dismounted, The French took a century to develop an answer. You may remember this coming up when you assessed Talk:Battle of Lunalonge/GA1.

• "huge" in the lead is of course relative, I suggest using the strength of the army rather than huge

I would prefer not to. To most readers the raw numbers give little idea of relative strengths. (In WWII Russia, 20,000 men was inconsequential; in this period it was close to unprecedented. I have now cited it - it is not my word, but that of the learned author of the most recent (2016) study of Gascony in 1345-56 - which I usually don't in leads. Another author (1999) describes it as "enormously superior", which I quote and cite under "French Offensive".

• is there an article to link "Crécy campaign" to?

Well spotted. No. (Which is outrageous.) I have been playing with one in a sandbox for a couple of months. I had planned it as the pièce de résistance and so had been taking my time. I anticipate anything with "Crecy" in to attract attention. I shall red-link this, hurry a barebones version along and turn it blue within a couple of days.

• suggest "and himself marching"→leading a separate force on a march"

Good point, gone with a variant of your wording.

• Saintonge is duplinked in the lead

Oops. Also changed link to Aunis to first mention.

• note 1 needs a citation

Done.

• comma after "During the winter following this successful campaign"

Done.

• link Aiguillon at first mention in the body

Done.

• Philip VI of France is duplinked

Corrected.

• there is some inconsistent hyphenation of compass points eg south western and south west but also south-west

I suspect other editors - if only because I can't imagine me hyphenating. I suppose that I must have. Anyway, now corrected.

• "Edward III's efforts" what efforts exactly? Or should this be "intentions"?

Ah. A couple of sentences gone walkabout. Hopefully this now makes a little more sense.

• "the deterioration of the English position in Flanders" what position was this?

There's me assuming reader knowledge. Clarified.

• perhaps state that the Cotentin Peninsula is in Normandy?

Done.

• "to John of Normandy again insisting"?

I can't find this. Did you copy edit it out? Although given "Philip VI recalled his main army, under John of Normandy, from Gascony. After a furious argument with his advisors, and according to some accounts his father's messenger, John refused to move until his honour was satisfied." earlier in the paragraph I would have thought that "again" was reasonable.

I have slightly rejigged the paragraph to try and make the sequence of events clearer. ("again" is back, but repositioned.)

• what does "a formal suspension of the siege" mean?
• I suggest being consistent in using titles/names as you have John several times, John of Normandy, then Duke of Normandy. Perhaps introduce him then use John of Normandy or the Duke of Normandy consistently? I see that John, Count of Armagnac appears later, so just John won't cut it.

I have gone with Duke John, as this is commonest among the sources. I assume to avoid confusion with the province.

• the lead says 50 miles, but the Aftermath section says 60 miles.

Now consistent.

That's all I have. Nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67 Thanks for looking at this. As usual, you have put your finger on several points where I have been too close to the subject. Hopefully all of your points are now sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Nice work. My comments have been addressed, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Robinvp11

• Returning the favour :) I have three general points. When I look at articles (especially my own ::), I ask myself first 'What am I taking away from this' second, ' Is it accurate', third, 'Is it communicated clearly for the user. For me (and its a personal view), I'd answer 'Not sure', 'Yes' (but not convinced its all necessarily relevant) and 'Not sure.'

Hi Robinvp11, thanks for taking a look at this, and thanks for making that a stand back, take a broad brush look. Let's see how we can improve things.

Hi again Robinvp11. I think that I have taken about as much as I can away from your comments as they stand. I will run through them making the occasional comment, but would be grateful if, where appropriate, you could make more specific suggestions for improvement.

• The article could be a lot tighter throughout; too much detail in certain areas, too little elsewhere;

I have gone through trying to tighten up where I can, and adding re trade implications where applicable and I can source it. Obviously I ran through the article several times before ACRing it looking for just these issues, so I felt/feel that the balance is about right. But I am often wrong and would welcome specific suggestions.

• Seems unbalanced; it takes too long to get to the point - Lancaster's chevauchée only arrives in the penultimate paragraph - and the Aftermath is too short.

You are quite right about the aftermath, I shall expand it. "only arrives" - I assume that you mean section. It does get a brief mention three paragraphs before that. I am happy to rename the article if you think that is called for. Several RSs refer to the whole post Siege of Aiguillon period under the catch all title of Lancaster's chevauchee, but if that misleads a reader then it can be changed.

Aftermath expanded.

• General lack of strategic purpose, rather than dates; that's important because while it needs to stand on its own, I'd assume most readers would access this as part of a general interest in the 100 Years War. Examples;

• • Chevauchées were not simply about looting, distracting or denying supplies to the enemy - English claimants to the throne also used them as a political point ie your so-called King can't protect you.

Indeed they did. But this one wasn't led by a claimant to the throne, and no source suggests that Lancaster had any political point in mind. He may have had, but for me to suggest it would be OR. That said, a couple of sources - ok, mostly one - point up the strategic effect of the chevauchee. I go through this in the current aftermath, but could expand it if you think that it would be useful. I wouldn't want to put in the work to be told that it was extraneous because it didn't bear directly on the chevauchee.

• • As late as the 1780s, states used warfare as a form of trade policy. You correctly refer to the location of forts and castles but it misses a vital point ie until the late 19th century, bulk transportation was by water ie inland rivers. Look at any map of military campaigns through to the mid 18th century and you can see that; Lancaster's route was carefully selected as a mediaeval form of Brexit ie this is what happens if you don't play nice. If you correlated areas of focus, you'd see some interesting patterns - it wasn't random.

Well yes. Obviously. I am personally fond of both economic history and its interaction with military history. Hence my working in details of the Gascon wine trade, and its importance to the English tax base. I will include something on the effect of the chevauchee on French trade and taxation, but it will not include anything about "Lancaster's route was carefully selected as a mediaeval form of Brexit" as I don't have a source which suggests this. (If you do I would be delighted if you could share it.) For me to speculate that one could "see some interesting patterns" would be very OR. Maybe in my next research paper ...

• • Numbers (and I'm an ex-accountant) don't convey sense ie 100,000,000 litres (110,000,000 US quarts). Ok, a lot of wine; but the point is the importance to the economy of both countries and individuals eg a large part of Lancaster's income came from tolls (covered in The Fluctuations of the Anglogascon Wine Trade during the Fourteenth Century Margery K. James, The Economic History Review). Gascony wine accounted for up to 60% of total income in the Duchy or 30% of the income for the Bishop of Durham - that conveys significance, explains both the basis of Edward's political support for invading France and why 100 years later, the Gascons changed sides (I could get really boring on trading patterns to Atlantic ports in South-West France but essentially trade with France became more significant).

I used to train accountants, so we should get on in that respect. "the point" - agreed; which is why I go on to state "The duty levied by the crown on wine from Bordeaux was more than all other customs duties combined and by far the largest source of state income". in the next sentence. Do you not feel that this explains the wine trades' "importance to the economy". Bearing in mind that this is not an article about economic warfare and that one could easily get off piste here. Without going to your source, my understanding was that tolls on trade went to the towns, the local landowners and/or the Crown; not to Lancaster. Happy to be corrected. In any case, far and away Lancaster and his adherents' largest source of income in 1345-46 was from ransoming their captives. From my previous FA: "The ransoms alone made a fortune for many of the soldiers in Derby's army, as well as Derby himself, who was said to have made at least £50,000 from that day's captives. Over the following year Philip VI paid large amounts from the royal treasury as contributions towards the captives' ransoms." That was from a single day's action.

• • Plus, being picky, salt was almost as important as wine, while exports from England were not just corn but woollen goods, tin etc (set out here https://www.british-history.ac.uk/manchester-uni/london-lay-subsidy/1332/pp256-311).

I am not disagreeing, but am struggling to see where I can useful get them into an article on a ten-week period of Gascon military activity. (Pedant's point, as you probably realise, England exported almost no woolen goods; it did export a lot of raw wool. The wool staple is of specific interest to the 1337-42 period for reasons I won't go into, but I am not sure how it is relevant here.)

• Detail (like e-mail) is not cost-free so we need to think about the amount eg 80 miles (130 kilometres), in eight days, arriving at Châteauneuf-sur-Charente which he captured. He then diverted 40 miles (64 kilometres) to Saint-Jean-d'Angély to rescue some English prisoners. Saint-Jean-d'Angély was stormed, captured, and sacked. Leaving a garrison, Lancaster turned back towards Poitiers, covering 20 miles (32 kilometres). I can get that from the map and more importantly, distance in that period was not about miles or kms, but rivers, bridges, terrain etc (so if you need that, I'd use 'number of days.')

Sorry. I am really missing your point here. Are you suggesting that the article would be improved by removing the distances? And replaced by a catalogue of rivers, forests and marshes? And I give "number of days" for the first, longest, section of the march and the dates for the second - are you suggesting that I shouldn't? Or that I should somehow recast them?

• Specific points on Lead

• Example of condensing; Lancaster commanded approximately 2,000 English and Gascon soldiers, all mounted, and met no effective resistance from the French. The chevauchée burned and looted large areas of Saintonge, Aunis and Poitou in south west France. Numerous towns, castles and smaller fortified places were captured by Lancaster. replace with Lancaster and an Anglo-Gascon force of 2,000 burned and looted large areas of Saintonge, Aunis and Poitou in south west France, capturing towns, castles and smaller fortified places as they went.

Partly done. I am not sure why you are suggesting that the French (lack of) response should be removed from the lead.

• Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 was a large-scale mounted raid (chevauchée).... Lancaster commanded approximately 2,000 English and Gascon soldiers, all mounted... Seems unnecessary to repeat 'mounted.'

Good point. Done.

• Second paragraph; 'Huge;' I don't see the relevance; numbers for mediaeval chroniclers were intended to convey sense ie most of the French Crown's military resources were in the South-West. And again, this misses the strategic point; Lancaster didn't 'offer battle' because John of Armagnac was exactly where they wanted him, stuck outside a city that wasn't in danger of falling, hundreds of miles away from Edward's planned landing in the North and unable to interfer with Lancaster's mobile Brexit bus.

IMO Aiguillon was in danger of falling. But that, and your contrary opinion don't seem relevant. I don't have a source which suggests that that is why Lancaster didn't offer battle. I do have several RSs which suggest that it was because Normandy's army was "huge". I can't just OR Lancaster's assumed motivations. And there are several very RSs which contend that Edward's plan was not to land in Normandy, but that this was forced on him as a "second best" by circumstances; and I have never seen one which suggests that Lancaster was deliberately decoying and holding Normandy to Gascony. (It may be that he was, but I need a source.) I find it fascinating, and frustrating, that no sources link the effect of Aiguillon with Edward's northern success. If you have a source which does, again, I would be delighted if you could share it.

• Third paragraph; He then took the surrender of a large number of towns and castles in Saintonge and Aunis Again, seems an unnecessary duplication of the first paragraph.

Excellent point. Lead recast to remove the duplication.

• Infobox; 'English victory;' I'd challenge that description - maybe Restoring English control' in South-West France

Guidance on the infobox usage for this parameter states "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive" ". You may also find this interesting.

I've got others :) but my key concerns are with the approach so...

Specific "others" welcomed.

In which case you may not be over happy with my response, which would be a shame. But let's thrash it out and see how we can tighten the article up.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

First like I promised I'd have a review in this article so here am I. Second it is in a good shape and most of my issues were already addressed.

• which commanded the junction of the Rivers Garonne and Lot; no link of the River Garonne?

Done.

• After a furious argument with his advisors, "American English advisors"

Done.

• 5 miles (8.0 kilometres) west of Poitiers, and marched the nought isn't necessary.

Done.

• Lancaster turned back towards Poitiers, covering 20 miles (32 kilometres) a day remove the "(32 kilometres)" there is already one above this sentence.

Done.

• Lancaster had moved the focus of the fighting from the heart of Gascony to 50 miles (80 kilometres) or more beyond its borders. same as above remove the "(80 kilometres)" there is already one above this sentence.

Done.

• He marched from the Garonne to the Charente remove the Garonne.

Unlinked.

• French positions in southern Périgord and most of Agenais. --> "French positions in southern of the County of Périgord and most of Agenais."

Not done. My phraseology is perfectly acceptable and, IMO, the normal construction. Eg, see the Wikipedia article, which makes no mention of "County". Even if there were a County of Périgord, which there isn't/wasn't, Périgord on its own would be acceptable/normal; as, eg, Texas is normal rather than "the state of Texas".

More Comments

• Ref 10, the page numbers should be pp. 139–140 and not pp. 139–40.

Done.

• Ref 13, pp. 143–44 --> pp. 143–144.

Done.

• Ref 37, pp. 269–70 --> pp. 269–270.

Done.

• They burned and looted large areas of Saintonge, Aunis and Poitou in south west France, capturing numerous towns, castles and smaller fortified places as they went. this really suprised me Gog you used "American burned" please use "British burnt".

Ah, that's me cutting and pasting another editor's suggestion late last night without engaging my brain. I like to think that I might have picked it up when I went through today, but many thanks for keeping your eagle eyes on it.

• Also there is an image link error.

Very strange. Deleting it and repasting the same thing seems to have fixed it.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Your usual keen review is putting me even deeper into your debt. Thank you. Your various points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Looks good but before I close my comments section and give you my support. There are some little issues and one big issue. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: All sorted. (I hope.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would say "what an historic chevauchée from Lancaster". It looks great and "for now" I couldn't find anything else so here is my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, Gog, nice work on this article. I have a few minor suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• ext links all work, and there are no dab links (no action required)
• images have alt text (no action required)
• the information appears to be adequately referenced (no action required)
• Bazas is overliked

One links "Bazadais", the other "Bazas". I wasn't sure of the procedure, but it seemed unlikely that a reader wishing more information on Bazas would understand that they needed to go back and click on Bazadais. IAR, or unlink Bazas? Happy to follow your advice.

In this case, I'd probably just IAR. There is no harm in the dup link if you think it improves reader understanding. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• they "were not so much expected to control territory as to create chaos and insecurity": suggest attributing the quote in text here

Done.

• area, much of the agricultural land went uncultivated --> " area, and much of the agricultural land went uncultivated"

Done.

• In the Aftermath, I wonder if it might be an idea to mention what the next major action of the war, or campaign, was

Ah. A beginner's mistake. Rereading with that in mins I can see that I just leave it hanging. I will do some research and add a paragraph. I will see if I can address some of Robinvp11's concerns, above, while I am doing it.

No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• in the Sources, "Boydell & Brewer Ltd" doesn't need "Ltd"

Done.

• in the Sources, the isbn hyphenation is slightly inconsistent. For instance compare "978-0195334036" with "978-1-84383-040-5"

Fixed.

• in the Sources, the date range in the title of the first Gribit source probably needs and endash

Well spotted. Done.

• in the Sources, is there a page range for King's article in the Journal of Medieval History?

Ah. I have been using a copy sent to me by the author and so missed this. It's in Google Scholar, so done. (In the last two months, three FAs have gone through without this flaw being picked up. I have just changed it in ten articles.)

• in the Sources, Boydell Press is overlinked; as is Clifford J. Rogers

Fixed

@AustralianRupert: Thank you once again. I am not sure how you do it. Your issues addressed above. Note one not yet done and one query.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries, Gog. Great as always. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Aftermath expanded as requested, although I am now thinking that I may have overdone it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

G'day, yes it probably is a bit much for this article, although it is definitely an improvement and provides the reader with a good understanding of what happened next. It could probably be reduced by a few sentences, though, if they were summarised a bit more succinctly. I'd suggest, though, that that is probably beyond the scope of this ACR (although it would be best to do before FAC, IMO). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Boiled it down as you suggest. Now, I hope, FAC ready. We shall see. Any further thoughts from you would be welcomed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from P. S. Burton

• Gribit (2016) and Gribit (2016b) appears to be the same source. The first being the book Henry of Lancaster's Expedition to Aquitaine, 1345–1346 and the second being chapter six of the same book. I would suggest combining the two. –P. S. Burton (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I am more than a little hesitant to do so. We may both suspect that the two say the same thing, but I for one am not certain. Similarly, I have seen articles with three different editions of the same book referenced to different cites. Personally I prefer to leave the cites referring to the actual sources used, not least when one is a hard copy and the other a web source.

I checked both. The content and pagination for the cited passage is identical.P. S. Burton (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@P. S. Burton: I went to make the change and you already had. Thank you. And for the continuing copy editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Locations are not given in a consistent way in the source list. For example we have "Rochester, New York" but also "Ann Arbor" instead of "Ann Arbor, Michigan" and "New York" instead of "New York, New York", "Woodbridge, Suffolk", but "Leeds" and not "Leeds: West Yorkshire". P. S. Burton (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Quite right, they are not. The guideline - WP:CITEHOW - states that the "city of publication" can optionally be included. Where this might readily be ambiguous it is normal practice to also include the normal next geographic level designation; eg New York or Suffolk. I do not see that removing this in order to meet the letter of the guideline would be helpful to a reader.

Ok. Fair enough. I’ll accept that reasoning.

Hi P. S. Burton. Thank for the comments and for the copy editing. I have responded to your two queries above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

After one more read trough and some further copy-editing I can find no more outstanding issues. Excellent article. Support from me. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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.