Talk:Angevin Empire/Archive 1

Map Request
Anyone have a map highlighting the areas that correspond to Henry II's control? Hiberniantears 21:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the most accurate one I've found: http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/maps/1174angev.jpg
 * In case you people didn't notice, I'm currently expanding that article.

Matthieu 18:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The former history section
Since everything that was in that section is now into other subsection of the article, I remove it, but I copy/paste it here if people want to revert the changes. Matthieu 16:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

History
The lands of Normandy and England had been in personal union since the time of the Norman Conquest. The prospect of a union between the lands of Anjou and Normandy was first suggested during the time of Henry I, who intended his daughter, the dowager Empress Matilda (Maud) to succeed him as Queen. A dynastic alliance with the counts of Anjou made a lot of sense to Henry. The counts of Anjou had recently gained control of Maine though the marriage of Fulk V to Eremburge of La Flèche, and their increased power and influence in Northern France offered a potential threat to Henry's control over Normandy.

Unfortunately for Geoffrey and Matilda, this plan failed as the English Barons ignored the wishes of Henry, choosing Stephen of Blois as the next king. This led to a time of troubles known as The Anarchy in the Anglo-Norman nation as Matilda and Stephen fought for control, ending with the signing of the Treaty of Westminster which allowed Stephen to remain king, but ensuring Henry, the son of Geoffrey and Matilda, would succeed him.

The lands under direct control of the Empire were essentially complete with the marriage of Henry II to Eleanor of Aquitaine. Over the next two decades Henry consolidated his power, taking surrounding states, most notably the duchy of Brittany, into various forms of vassalage.

The height of the Angevin Empire came during the reign of Richard I of England, an avid imperialist and unquestionable patriot of Christendom. Richard wed Berengaria of Navarre, to provide a strong ally to the south of his realms, possibly with the hopes of inheriting the Kingdom of Navarre as part of her dowry. This was in like kind to his mother's Aquitaine being held by Henry and added to the English Crown. Richard's marital negotiations for his nephew Arthur of Brittany, were to add Sicily into the English Domain.

If the Third Crusade had met with success, Richard would have come back to regain the Kingdom of Cyprus and possibly even the Kingdom of Jerusalem (his great grandfather Fulk, was King of Jerusalem).

The fall of the Angevin empire can be traced to the capture and ransoming of Richard I by Leopold V of Austria and Henry VI of Germany. Philip Augustus took the opportunity of Richard's absence to pursue his claims to the lands, in part by encouraging rebellion amongst the vassals of the empire. His attempts were aided by the pressure put upon the economy of the region due to collection of the ransom. Upon his release Richard spent the remainder of his reign attempting to regain the territory he had lost to France.

The reign of John saw the end of the Angevin Empire. John can claim to be the first English king (as opposed to a king of England) as he was born in the lands, and spent much of his time within England. Contrary to received impressions of history, in the early part of his reign John was popular among his barons. However his political talents were no match for the successful expansionist strategies of Philip Augustus, and the French lands, with the exception of Gascony and the Channel Isles, were lost by 1202.

The true end of the Empire could be seen in 1216 when the Barons of England offered the crown to Prince Louis (future Louis VIII of France), thus confirming the supremacy of France. However ideas of reclaiming the Angevin lands in France remained a dream of English kings, and was a contributing factor to the Hundred Years' War.

Spelling and correcting
Actualy, I'm soon done with it. But not yet done Matthieu 21:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems fairly done, now I'll make it more user friendly and correct the spelling and grammar Matthieu 18:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit on a halt until Monday. But I'll finish correcting it as soon as possible. Matthieu 20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Eventual additional references
If you have any question on a specific detail just ask. I have enough references around to answer every question I think. If there is a need for more references that is.

Matthieu 23:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

He, his, whose?
In the section "Accession of Henry and nominal foundation of the Angevin Empire" we have the line

"To compel Henry to make an oath he ordered that his corpse should be left without a sepulture until Henry swore that he would renounce Anjou if he was to acquire England."

Who decreed. The grammar implies that Henry decreed. Logic says it was not Henry who decreed. Who's body. From the grammar, it's Henry's body. Logic says it was not Henry's body. The phrase is not clear on who is who. The "he" and "his" are ill deffined. They both need to be named.Rincewind42 10:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, I'll look on it right now, I really appreciate that people come and give their opinion on how to improve the article. Matthieu 02:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention
I find then naming convention used in this article confusing. There are many people with the same or very similar names. For example Henry I of England, Henry II of England and Henry I of Champagne. All three of these people are refered to only as "Henry". For example on this line.

In July 1152, Capetian troops attacked Aquitaine while Louis himself, along with Eustace, Henry and Robert attacked Normandy.

It would be implied by the context that Henry was Henry II of England. But clicking the wikilink I find he's Henry I of Champagne. I shouldn't have to click every wikilink to check who is who. It should be obvious in the text.

Also, why is every single name wikilinked. The normal guidline is to link only the first occurance of a name in each article (Unless the links a physically distant on a long article). In this article, it's common for the same name to be linked several times in one paragraph. Also see: [|Manual of Style - Overlinking]. Rincewind42 10:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did it because they had the obnoxious trend to give them the same names all the time. It is indeed one of the major problem I had writing this article between all these Henris, Roberts, Geoffroys and so on. It was a big headache, I'll try to find a way but putting the nickames ALL the time would make the article pretty heavy to read. I'll think about another way to put it but not now at 3am. Matthieu 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is currently very long. I note at this time it is 82 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Article size. Maybe we should look at which sections could be split off into sub articles and adapt the main article, or part of the main article, to a summary Style. This might help tidy the names up a bit; since many short articles would deal with only a few people each, ergo less duplication.


 * What do you think of putting the old History section (backup up in this page) on that article and the putting:

in different article (expansions should remain here)? Matthieu 17:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Formation of the Angevin Empire (1135 - 1156)
 * The highest moments of power (1160 - 1199)
 * John's reign, the collapse (1199 - 1217).


 * I wouldn't put the old history back up, since that would not match the structure or content of the new sub articles. The current page should have summaries of the contents of the sub pages. So the summery and sub page can be linked with the { {main|sub article here } } template. But the main section/header structure of the existing page should remain as is. I'd think about making at least 8 sub articles using the text of the exiting page. Though there is not need to split them all off in one go. Do the biggest and most important ones first then see where we are.


 * An example of the summery style can be seen in the page History of United States which is a series of summaries of other more in depth articles, which are themselves often summaries of even more in depth articles. An example of what to avoid is something like the History of Scotland which tries to do everything on one page despite there being a large number of potential sub articles like Prehistoric Scotland, Scotland in the High Middle Ages, Scottish Reformation and the Scottish Enlightenment. Instead of linking them all together and complimenting each other, the individual pages are competing, duplicating and often contradicting each other. Rincewind42 09:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll consider about it later. How would you rate my English level (since you're an English teacher). I rated myself at 3 (advanced) is that correct? Matthieu 13:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 3 advanced is probably correct. Level 4 implies near perfection, and you do have the odd grammatical error. Though many native speakers would do not much better. I've had several arguments with people about grammar on wikipedia and even though they are native speakers (maybe because they are native speakers) they just can't grasp the concepts. Rincewind42 14:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I don't have a single grade in English lol. So I would say I'm pleased (yet not satisfied) with 3. I'm less pleased by the B rating of the article considering all the damned time I spent on time, double checking (even triple checking) informations. I blame the lenght and the English. Matthieu 15:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Length and language
Matthieu, I am very impressed by this article, it is extremely informative, there is obviously a vast amount of research contained here and I especially like the use of pictures to illustrate the text. However I do have a few concerns (I know most of these are mentioned above anyway, but I thought I'd add my 2 pence worth since you seem to welcome constructive criticism). Thats all I can think of right now, but well done, its an impressive piece of work there and with a bit more work it could reach featured article status. If that is your aim then try to get a peer review and good article status after sorting out some of the problems above before submitting it to FA adjudication. I'm afraid I don't have much time right now to help with copy editing etc, but if I can do a bit I will.--Jackyd101 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Firstly it is 81 kilobytes, which is simply too long. Try to find sections which could be either edited down or preferably transferred to aricles of their own to shorten the page. If new sub-articles have already been created as they have for some sections (e.g. Norman Ireland), try to sqeeze information from this article into those leaving just a short explanatory paragraph here.
 * 2) Some comments above about use of unencyclopedic language and places where it is not clear who the text is referring to are correct, and the article needs a general copy edit to smooth out these problems. Without them it could be one of the best articles on Wikipedia.
 * 3) The list of relevant people at the end is not strictly necessary as the people there are all mentioned in the text anyway. It is however a useful glossary, and I'd suggest some form of infobox to condense the information contained in this section rather than simply removing it.
 * 4)Your references need work, firstly there are not really enough inline citations for an article of this size, more must be added to really explain where all your information comes from and these could also be better laid out, check featured articles for tips on the layout of references. Secondly, add all the sources you used with all relevant information (author, date, ISBN etc.) in their own section at the end entitled Further reading, and then just give the Page number, title and author in the inline citation.
 * 5) Add a longer opening section, explaining more out the Angevin Empire's place in history and possibly delete the title of the first section and move that into the introduction. Try to find either a photo or an infobox to offset the very long contents box at the top so it looks more even.


 * I am actually busier that expected but I'll try to improve the article. Matthieu 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reworked the last sections (Capetians in England and Cultural Influence) with less texts and more references. I think that's the idea for the rest isn't it? Matthieu 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment
It's a pretty decent B-Class article; to move to a higher level in the scale, it should be nominated to one of the formal review processes listed here. I would also suggest that a project peer review may be helpful. Kirill Lokshin 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Further Angevin Expansion
I removed that section someone added because this article isn't about the Angevin Dynasty but the Angevin Empire proper. Edward II and III or Fulk or Jerusalem are irrelevant to this era proper. Matthieu 11:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
User True as Blue considered important to add an infobox here. Which seems to be a good idea but there are lots of things I'd like to correct in it.
 * Banner and coat of arms: I'm removing them, the ones showed here were used much later and are totaly anachronic here.
 * Government: Only England was a monarchy, the others knew different political structures thus I'm changing it.
 * Capital: I'm filling that place a little bit.
 * The dates: They are irrevelant or anachronic and associate the Angevin Plantagenet history to their successors in England or predecessors. I believe this will only confuse users by creating a fake continuity between the whole area known as "Angevin Empire" and the later Plantagenet Kings of England:
 * Richard III overthrown by the Tudors: this one's irrelevant because the Angevin Empire no longer existed by this time for a long time. I'm removing it.
 * The Treaty of Wallingford: that one was before the Angevin Empire. Removing it.
 * Treaty of Bretigny: was done after the Angevin Empire. Removing it.
 * I am adding the following dates which are considerably more relevant:
 * Henry II crowned King of England: The real formation of the Angevin Empire.
 * Battle of Bouvines: effective loss of Normandy and Anjou
 * Saintonge War: Henry III formally give up on Normandy and Anjou and recognise Louis IX as their rightful rulers

Matthieu (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Some unregistered user alterned the infobox again and made the following changes: Matthieu (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merged the governments into a single on: Feudalism which is fair and at least better than the original one which stated it was all a monarchy.
 * He removed the legislature sections to put a single "parliament of England" section. The parliament of England was established only after the loss of Normandy and Anjou, and after Second Barons War. It is thus irrelevant here. The previous statement making a distinction between "Common Law" in England, "Customary Laws" in most of France and "Roman Law" in Gascony was better but maybe too long. In all case it's better then to put nothing at all than something incorrect.
 * He mentioned the court was often held in Chinon and London instead of just Chinon. The Angevin were notorious absentees and it's already sourced in the article.
 * He separated the languages in two parts, an official and one common one. Which seems to be a good idea but the official one won't display at all, I remerged then.

Not quite right
"England received much of its wool from Flanders". England produced wool and sold it to Flanders, not the other way around. --FinnWiki (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you can blame my poor wording there, feel free to correct it and make it more intelligible :P. However the main point, that wool trade forced a decent relationship, remains correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.78.5 (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignorant revert war
Don't nobody now come to this article, filled to the brim with daft ignorance or a chip on their shoulder, decide to rip out wikilinked information (sourced in those appropriate articles) simply because of their unfamiliarity with the subjects discussed. Oh, wow, a French power in England. This sounds like a hoax! Well now, let's go cover up history because it sounds bad! Well you know what? It was bad and why the English hated the French so much. My edits to Capetians in England shall stay! 70.171.236.188 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, what revert war are you referring to? – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

To protect the integrity of this article, I have issued a protest in advance. To any prospective winner of a revert war, darting from article to article, having just reverted something like 50 edits in a row and declaring victory, should not stir up trouble for his own vanity about how his ignorance must triumph to sate said pomp. I note vandalism here and there and deal with it when I see with it, but I have no mission to seek out conflict with others on articles which I admittedly have no interest, nor any scholastic experience. I consider it not worth the time of others, nor myself, to cause such problems. That does not mean others share my sense of decency. I expect that my warning for others to take a reasoned approach to the facts or falsities of any article in which I participate, rather than blind revert spree and not have a coherent discussion on a point by point basis. That's so very tiring and predictable. I really hate being sideswiped and treated like I am in the room but people just talk about me as if I am not there and deal with me in the manner which respectable nations treat terrorism, by no negotiation or recognition. That's okay though. I deserve this kind of crap, you know? I have done nothing positive anywhere. I ought to request to be indefinately banned on account of my good faith participation, simply because the hard hitters don't care and I don't want to be putting myself back into the situation to be hurt again. Somebody ought to stop me from such masochism. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? It's me who largely wrote and sourced that article, it's on my watchlist and I've not seen an edit revert war at all. If anything your edit gives lots of importance to Brittany, more than it probably should, and the part of the consequences and rerun during the English civil war would rather belong to the Cultural Influence section and maybe I should move them there. But then again, there's been no edit war here at all. A lot of your participation seems to be "point of view" rather than "absolute facts". Maybe "it's been argued a rerun...", or whatever formula, would fit better than that + sources to books or articles stating that. I'd rather see my work on this article unspoiled by subjective statements.Matthieu (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * After thinking about it, most of the edits you've done about the periods after the Angevin Empire aren't relevant to the article. The unification of Brittany and France under Francis I is no relevant to this article, nor was the wedding between Mary Stuart and Francis II. The establishment of the House of Orange and the Glorious Revolution belong to different eras and articles. The parts on the Black Prince's inheritance of Aquitaine and the comments on Brittany and Richmont are relevant as they are immediate consequences rather than consequences of consequences of consequences and so on.... Matthieu (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

'Capetians in England': gobledegook?
Is it just me or has something gone wrong with the second para of this section? The phrasing is very strange and some of it is incomprehensible: "This fief was headquartered in England North of the Trent and was the closest Breton equivalent to the Norman establishment South of the Trent and generally over all of England." What????? Also, the quote at the end of the section doesn't seem to have anything to do with the section. DeCausa (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No one's replied to this. I took a look at the section again and actually (apart from the quote at then end) I don't even know why it's in the article: what's its relevance to nthe 'Angevin Empire' if that is taken as ending with John. So I'm deleting it (apart from the quote). DeCausa (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * These parts you mentioned have been added later and were not part of the original section I wrote. Someone, the guy who talked about masochism above in this discussion page, added them but I never understood what they really added to the article. I made it shorter and more clear but nevertheless is remained pointless. I think however that deleting the entire section is a mistake, since there is no clear definition as to when does the Angevin Empire starts and end it's all subjective. Most people (and sources used for the article) would state the Angevin Empire started by Henry II becoming King of England. For the end, some sources state it's the Battle of Bouvines, some go to the First Barons' War and some go to the end of the Saintonge War (which is the case of the sources used for the articles). I even read article going as far as the end of the Hundred Years' War (and there are good points in that but I still think it should be separate). When I expanded the article I took the decision to end at the First Barons' War because while there's already a good article on it and the article on the First Barons' War only concentrate on Anglo-English issues. I restored the article to the content I made it first. Matthieu (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough. I've just tweaked it to make the English flow a bit better (with respect) :-) DeCausa (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

England and Aquitaine joined by Brittany?
Are there no sources commenting on how close Brittany was to becoming part of the Angevin empire? Arthur was the ruling Duke of Brittany and was recognised as heir to Richard the Lionheart. His sister Eleanor inherited his claim. The prospect of an empire consisting of England, Normandy, Brittany, Aquitaine, Gascony, Anjou and Maine, which would have become a reality had it not been for usurpation by John Lackland, must have been mentioned by someone. Surtsicna (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Moorish Iberia?
At the start of the Angevin period, in 1554, the year of the coronation of Henry II, most of north Iberia was already occupied by christian kingdoms (it had been, in fact, for 200-300 years, depending on the case), so the Angevin Empire never shared a border with 'Moorish Iberia' as it is stated in the text of the article, but with the kingdoms of Navarre and Aragon. I will change te text, please be cautious while writing historical articles, this is big mistake. --Pedrolano (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Map
The map needs a key, as it is unclear what the status of the yellow checked are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.44.4 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"various levels of vassalage" of French holdings
This is a very unclear phrase, and it's not really reflected in the contents of the one source given. What's it trying to say: that the feudal duties owed for each possession differ? Or that there's some fundamental difference in "degree" between them, with some being in some sense more independent as possessions? If it's the former, I suggest eliminating the phrase as confusing. If the latter, a better source and clearer wording. 84.203.42.212 (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's obvious meaning (IMHO) is that some holdings were as Tenant-in-chief of the French king, and some were at a lower level, I.e. there were intermediate lords between the French king and the Angevins. But, AFAIK, that's not true: they were only tennants-in-chief. So, I don't think it's unclear, but it appears to be incorrect. DeCausa (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Counties in the Angevin Empire
Currently, the article states that "Further claims were laid over Berry and Auvergne, but these were not fulfilled." I'm trying to understand whether this is the most fitting description of the situation.

Starting with Auvergne, as shown on its own article, it was part of the Duchy of Aquitaine, which is also shown on its article. Auvergne did not become part of the French crown's lands until 1271. W.L Warren writes in "Henry II" (and I'm paraphrasing quite heavily here but can provide exact quotes if desired) that Auvergne was originally under the authority of the Dukes of Aquitaine but these rights were infringed upon by King Louis VII. For example, in 1167, the count of Auvergne was usurped and Henry demanded he stand trial in his court. The usurper refused and appealed to King Louis, so Henry "marched into Auvergne and laid waste his lands" which definitely shows that Henry himself thought he had authority over the county due to his title of Duke of Aquitaine. Henry wrote to Becket to explain why he couldn't attend a meeting, stating in his letter that "the men of Auvergne had notified me of (King Louis planning on taking action against them) and begged my help." Evidently the nobles in Auvergne also thought that Henry was their immediate overlord, not King Louis (at least in the 1160s that is). Furthermore, in the 1170s, specifically in 1177, the two kings met to "put the awkward questions of the homage of local lords in Berry and Auvergne to arbitration". Despite half the arbitrators being Louis' "staunchest supporters", the twelve declared unanimously that "all of Auvergne had always belonged to the lordship of the dukes of Aquitaine". It seems that Auvergne was part of the Angevin Empire according to Henry himself, and the residents of Auvergne. And to show that this wasn't just legal ownership, he showed his willingness to act as an overlord with the events of 1167 explained above. Therefore I think that it would be better to mention that Auvergne was part of the Angevin Empire under Henry II, because Auvergne was then given to Louis VII as part of the betrothal pact in July 1188, where John Gillingham writes in "Richard I" that Richard gave "concession of more or less non-existent rights in the Auvergne". This was confirmed in the treaty between Philip II and Richard I that was signed in Sicily later on in the 1190s. However, it didn't end there. Auvergne was part of the Angevin Empire under Richard from 1195, when he took back the county. More castles, and more authority, were gained again in 1197. I think this shows that the rights of the Dukes of Aquitaine over Auvergne were definitely not "not fulfilled." Yes, they were not under the authority of the Angevin kings to the extent that other parts of the empire were, but the current revision of the article is misleading. Therefore I am planning on changing this part, and possibly writing a section on it under "Expansions of the Angevin Empire".

On the issue of the county of Berry, the claim over it by the Dukes of Aquitaine is far more tenuous. Although W.L. Warren does state that Berry lay on the "fringes of the duchy of Aquitaine", he is hesitant to draw the boundary of the Angevin Empire in the area of Berry because of its "disputed" nature. It is not clear who owned what in Berry, but it appears that the lordship and castle of Freteval and the castle at Châteauroux were in the possession of vassals of Henry II until Philip invaded in 1187 and 1188. Issoudun, although appearing in some sources as part of the Angevin domains, was obviously the most disputed lordship because its owner was Robert de Dreux, cousin of Philip II. Whether Robert ever gave homage to Henry doesn't appear to be recorded. After 1188 it seems pretty clear that Berry was acknowledged as part of the French domains, Gillingham writes that "the whole of Berry was prepared to acknowledge Philip's authority." After 1194 however, it is not so simple. In a new treaty, Philip said he would restore the castles of Châteauroux and also Issoudun, along with other fiefs in Berry (described as his conquests of 1187 and 1188). As shown by certain sources such as exchequer rolls, we can see that Richard was paying for troops in Issoudun and other parts of Berry, and was issuing charters there in 1195. However it seems certain that Berry was definitely not part of the Angevin domains by the time Richard had died and John was reigning king of England in 1199. Therefore I suggest that the sentence stated before should read "Further claims over the county of Berry were contested by Henry II and Richard I but these were not completely fulfilled and the county was lost by the accession of John." I could perhaps also add details in a section under "Expansions of the Angevin Empire".

I wrote all this to justify my future changes to this article, but if anyone has other evidence that would suggest the changes I am going to make are wrong then please reply to this and make me aware. SamWilson989 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sam, a well argued case. I look forward to your edits. Chienlit (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)