Talk:Castilian attack on Gravesend

Castilians in London in 1380
It seems a little strong to suggest an occupation, even based on the text here. Looting perhaps, or some 14th-century travel puffery? It would be great to hear the view of historians with an interest in London in the 14th century. Klbrain (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * May McKisack in her "The 14th century, 1307-1399" in the Oxford History of England series of volumes makes no mention of London being burnt all. This was the period of the peasants revolt led by Wat Tyler. There were attacks on Rye and Hastings in 1377, along with attacks on the Isle of Wight and the Yarmouth herring fisheries. In 1378 there was an attack on the Cornish town of Fowey. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The attack on Jersey was in 1406, not 1380, and was by a Castilian Corsair, Pero Niño, with troops from St Malo. the attack was inconclusive and the Castilian/French force left after securing the release of sailors from St Malo held as prisoners of war and a ransom of 10,000 crowns.



The attacks along the south coast of England in June 1379 were carried out by the French admiral, Jean de Vienne, with a combined Franco-Castilian force but they did not constitute an invasion and went nowhere near the Thames, never mind London.




 * I found this: In 1380 the French and Castilian naval forces almost reached London, sacking and burning the town of Gravesend on the Thames estuary. From:
 * and referenced to:
 * Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Also:The Castilians, emboldened by former successes, sailed up the Thames, and took or burned the shipping in the river almost within sight of London ( 1380 ). From:
 * See also this, this, this and this that confirm the Gravesend raid but make no mention of London. Alansplodge (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Gravesend raid was in 1377, not 1380., according to the French chronology. Apart from that, the other sources confirm that while there were raids on coastal towns, no invasion took place and there was certainly no capturing and burning of London. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And finally, the Chronicle of London, written in the 1470s says of 1380:
 * And in this yere were galeys in Thamyse, and brende Gravesende and Tilbury; for which cause Sr. Rauf Ferrers was apeched.
 * You'd have thought perhaps that they might have mantioned a Castillian occupation. Alansplodge (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone, somewhere might have noticed it! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone, somewhere might have noticed it! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The raids of 1380 certainly seem to have happened and Gravesend was looted and burned. Sumption in "Divided Houses", the standard modern reference, notes considerable efforts by the citizens of London to prepare their defences but Gravesend was as far as the Spanish got.  Norman Longmate's earlier work "Defending the Island" also mentions the 1380 raid and the burning of Gravesend. Such a dramatic event should have been well-recorded in our documentation from London, so a look at histories of the city might be examined. However, I suspect that we are looking at a misunderstanding by Spanish popular historians and that Gravesend has become confused with London.  The quality of the Spanish sources are a bit of an unknown but some seem to be popular blogs and websites, rather than RS.Monstrelet (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also the conflation of various raids over a number of years by the French with Castillian participation being presented as one campaign by the latter. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My schoolboy grasp of Spanish reveals that of the sources cited, this and this and this all say it was Gravesend, one says "near London" and another "within sight of London" (which is a bit of a stretch, it's 20 miles away). This cited English source says "surprised Gravesend, before they sailed away..." Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Castile invaded for the last time Great Britain in 1380, before, the country already invaded the zone other three times; in 1377 Rye, Rottingdean, Lewes, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Folkestone and Darthmouth were sacked (according to the chronicles named in the article). The attack on Gravesend was carried out in the reign of John I, and John I was crowned as King in 1379, so it is impossible to say that Gravesend was assaulted in 1377.
 * (Plus, every source from the actuality claims that the invasion on Gravesend was in 1380, basing on the ancient chronicles) Unidosporasensio (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The assault in 1377 was by the French, as were the various attacks on the south coast. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Murgatroyd49 No: During the Castilian Civil War, Henry II and Charles V signed the Treaty of Toledo, in witch Charles V supported Henry II in his civil war and after the war Henry II supported the french in his war against England with his naval army, and thats why also Castile supported France with his naval army in the english attack on La Rochelle. The attack on Gravesend was in 1380 and most of the sources, books, journals... says it, and we can not claim the attack as french because most of the galleys, soldiers and the principal almirant who commanded the fleet were from Castile, it was an attack to England during the Hundread Years' War in a (succesfully) try to support France. Unidosporasensio (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to read what was written, I merely pointed out that the French source quoted only mentions an attack on Gravesend in 1377, not the 1380 attack. Take it up with the author of the source. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Gravesend's attack was in 1380:
 * Books and Chronicles
 * - La Cuestión Vasca: Desde la Prehistoria hasta la muerte de Sabino Arana
 * - Anclas y Bayonetas: La Infantería de Marina española en el siglo XVIII
 * - The History of England. Volume 4
 * - The English in Portugal, 1367-87: Extracts from the Chronicles of Dom Fernando and Dom João
 * - La marina de Castilla desde su origen y pugna con la de Inglaterra hasta la refundición en la Armada española
 * - Desmontando la leyenda negra antiespañola Unidosporasensio (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Take it up with Louis Dussieux.

I think we are very much in the territory of national points of view here. The English and, I believe, French, sources of the time and since have seen the raids at this time (1370s-1380s) as French, even if carried out by Castilian "stipendiaries". Obviously, Spanish sources saw themselves as much more in control. Other issues may be linguistic. In English, we wouldn't call such transient raiding activity an invasion, yet clearly this doesn't apply in Spanish.

As pointed out above, most of the cited sources even in Spanish accept the Castilians only attacked Gravesend and the "occupation" of London gains no support there. The title must, therefore, go. Renaming the article something like "Destruction of Gravesend (1380)" might save the article but it would still need work. Monstrelet (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I feel the article shoud be recommended for deletion, the basic premise is fantasy based on a mish-mash of minor events in the context of the war. The most serious was the burning of Lewes but that can be dealt with in the appropriate article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is sourcing for Gravesend being destroyed, perhaps being notable, as seen herr: https://alondoninheritance.com/the-thames/defending-thames-hadleigh-castle/, where it claims in the 10th paragraph 'The Thames was a route whereby the French, and their allies, could attack the towns along the river, potentially all the way to London. This was a very real risk as demonstrated by the attack on Gravesend in the 1380s, and concerns that the French were assembling a large fleet for invasion.'. It completely omits anything about a 'sacking of London', instead saying there was a worry of such a raid/attack happening. If this article is not renamed and also does not undergo a substantial rework, I would be inclined to support a deletion due to failing WP:PUFFERY ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The attacks on Gravesend are well referenced and should be included in the appropriate article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Already mentioned (but unreferenced) at our Gravesend article and our Jean de Vienne article includes it in a graphic rather than the text (the same map as in the infobox of this article). Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the article is converted to a short piece on the raids of 1380, for which we have identified plenty of sources. Its language needs modification (lose the invasions) and its suspect geography straightened out.  In the meantime, does it need to be placed in draft space? Monstrelet (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the above, I've moved the article to represent the uncontested view, and edited the article to be consistent with the so-far uncontested claims. I think that this can proceed with normal editing in its current location. Klbrain (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)