Talk:Battle of Crécy

Use of the word "fire"
"Fire" is commonly used by many RSs to mean the discharge of bolts or arrows by bows and is entirely appropriate. See for example page 236 here, "arrow-fire", or the title of this. There are many, many more. Could anyone not happy with this usage please come up with a RS which states that it should not be used? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - Period phrase would be to “loose” the arrows. “Fire” became the phrase for firing a flint lock or cannon, which appears by modern usage to have been corrupted for use for loosing off arrows. No objection to use of fire as this is now commonly used. Regards Newm30 (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Completely agree re contemporary usage. And fully understand people who consider it an anachronism. But in terms of writing the article there is a need for expressions like "arrow fire" and "under fire" etc, and 'loose' just doesn't work. I can understand why historians have given up and gone with "fire". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I edited the article earlier today without having read this debate here. I would suggest that often it is painless to replace "firing arrows" with "shooting arrows", which keeps everyone happy. I agree that there is no easy equivalent for, for instance, "under fire" or "rate of fire" that sounds as natural, although in the latter case one might sometimes rephrase the sentence as "they were shooting at a faster/slower rate". It is not so serious, as everyone understands the meaning and appreciates the issues, but "firing arrows" does grate with some of us, and might look ignorant, so it is worthwhile considering equivalent alternatives. Jmchutchinson (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. "Fall" has some use too. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not saying whether I agree or disagree. I have tried to keep my opinion out of this one. What we feel makes sense, is appropriate, keeps us happy etc is irrelevant. This is Wikipedia: The question is "What do the high-quality reliable sources say?" They all - that I have taken note of - say "fire". Come back with four or five which have some other usage and we can have a discussion, but at the moment it seems a bit "I don't like it". Which is entirely understandable. I am not saying that I like it. But as I wrote above "historians have given up and gone with "fire"". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Arrow bag type thingies
- you have repeatedly changed the word 'quiver' to 'sheaf' here. I don't see how this is an improvement. Wikipedia has an article called quiver. It does not have one called sheaf; rather, it has a disambiguation page at that title, and none of the entries it links to match the thing that is being described here. I think the closest is probably Sheaf (agriculture), which is a bundle of stems, which I guess looks a bit like a bundle of arrows. Please don't reinstate the change, but feel free to describe why you are making it below for consideration. Girth Summit  (blether) 14:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And perhaps provide some sources to back the proposed change? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Girth - The article is excellent. Please consider my edits as nit-picking. I was only trying to make the point that the quiver is the container of the sheaf of arrows that archers got. Best, Gort61 14:30 UTC 17.02.2023 Gort61 (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I use "quiver" because that is what the sources use. Possibly because that is in turn what the primary sources use. A quiver, at this time and place, was a specific number of arrows; perhaps as one may refer to a number of rifle magazines, meaning ones fully loaded with ammunition but without feeling it necessary to specify this. Although the modern sources do sometimes use "sheaf" when referring to the manufacture or acquisition of arrows. I'm happy to discuss this further if you have sources specific to Crécy that use "sheaf". Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Crossbowmen
Re this edit, can I suggest that we discuss it one issue at a time. Firstly, the claim is not "incorrect": it accurately reflects what a HQ RS says. You can't just change the text without citing the source. What is the source you are relying on, exactly what does it say, and why is it an up to date HQ RS? (I am not doubting any of these, just wanting to get them nailed down before we move on.) Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Crossbow strings
Continued from User talk:Gog the Mild.

The current article claims the crossbow strings are made of leather, but this is incorrect and contradicts its own source. The source does NOT say the bowstrings are made of leather, but actually says the bowstrings were made of hemp and they had leather coverings. Intranetusa (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite right. I am not sure how that happened. Quite possibly my misreading. Or acceptance without checking of someone else's. Thank you for picking it up. I have slimmed your change down a little to "A contemporary account, followed by some modern historians, has the rain weakening the Genoese crossbows' strings, reducing their power and range; other modern historians state that their bowstrings were protected by leather coverings and so the Genoese were as unaffected by the storm as the English archers." How does that read to you? The point about mud and stirrups is already covered by "The mud also impeded their ability to reload, which required them to press the stirrups of their weapons into the ground, and thus slowed their rate of fire." Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Battle location
Just heard a talk by Michael Livingston about his new recent book Crécy: Battle of Five Kings in which he claims to have 'proven' a 'new' site for the battle. A number of things about this leave me dubious (including his expertise and that it was published by Osprey Publishing) but highlighting it here for the regulars, especially, to consider. DeCausa (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello!
 * This is something I've looked into in some considerable depth. The long and the short of it is that Livingston's arguments do not stack up at all. Perhaps it's worth adding under a "controversy" heading, but there's honestly not enough published to really give the other side. Andrew Ayton and Michael Prestwich only reviewed The Battle of Crécy: A Casebook, which only gave them limited space, and David Fiasson published his own book on the battle in 2022 as well, so he's only responding to the original arguments, not Livingston's fine tuned versions.
 * I've written up my own thoughts on the matter here, but it's up to you all to decide if that's sufficient sourcing for the article. Those who want a summary of Livingston's arguments can also look here for my summary of his views. I've done my best to be as fair and even handed in summarising them as possible. 185.194.184.52 (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Decided to make an account. Probably should have done that before posting that, but oh well! Hergrim (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)