Talk:Hundred Years' War/Archive 1

The creation and increasing role of the realm ruled by the Burgundian dukes is rather underrepresented in this story. At the height of the war there were basically 3 powers fighting England, France and Burgundy and the latter was the one that profited most.

And perhaps the french battlefield victories in the latter part of the conflict could bear mentioning. But I'm not sticking my head into that hornets nest ;-) --Ato

They are all dead you know

A war is defined by its country not its particular monarch
I have see battles described as a "Plantagenet victory" or a "Valois" victory - but not an entire War. This article is read by a variety of people from a variety of countries. It is incorrect and confusing to described an entire war which by the way, is ALWAYS a series of conflicts, by the name of a particular monarch. It is fine to ADD the monarchs but not to soley define it in that way. Mugginsx (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I can respect the angle your coming from, but I can't help but feel your looking at it too much from a later perspective, as opposed to in the context of what the war actually was: a dynastic conflict. Two houses (not particular monarchs) struggling for one throne. These two families, since they're kings, then pool the resources of their country into it, hence the association of the England vs France, but to simply label it as England vs France is an oversimplification. By removing the dynastic facets of the war and replacing it with a simplified national view of country versus country, you lose the fact that the whole point is a ultimately a power-play by the junior families to replace the extinct House of Capet, not for the Kingdom of England to take over the Kingdom of France. The nationalist view also entirely ignores the fact that French can be found on both sides (though more loyal to the Valois kings, naturally), and that the House of Plantagenet was French and thought of itself at the time as French. It is better described as what it is: a great struggle between two families, who pit their entire resources against each other.


 * I'm willing to cede the point to labelling as English and French instead for the sake of simplicity (to be fair, I've seen authors use both house and nationality as ways of defining the two belligerents). But regardless of that, the altered introduction—setting aside for the moment the poor syntax and half-done sentences coming from simply chopping up the bits about the houses—represents a major dumbing down, as it attempts to remove the core origin as a dynastic issue of succession from the lead. -- Sabre (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

article is ripe for deletion
This article has almost no references. It looks like it was copied from somewhere. It is ripe for deletion and it is really too bad. Mugginsx (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No-one's going to delete this; while the article is quite weak, its a patently important and notable topic, so don't be overdramatic. The article contains over fifty secondary sources listed at the bottom; what it lacks is inline citations, and some proper work to build it into a quality article. Mass tagging of each individual section is not the way to go about improving anything, especially when an appropriate tag highlighting the deficiency in referencing is already at the top of the article. -- Sabre (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I was referring to these Wikipedia Guidelines and stating I would hope it does NOT get deleted. 1) unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted; so when something is added to an article, it's highly advisable to also cite a reference to say where the information came from and 2) It requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. However, editors are strongly advised to provide citations for all information added to Wikipedia; any detail risks being unexpectedly challenged or even eventually removed.


 * I repeat, I would not like to see it deleted and I have personally never put an article up for deletion but some editor very well could as it appears today. This article has been almost completly uncited for a long time now. Two years and three months to be precise. That is what I said and continue to say. Further, there is no reason to negatively characterize my justifiable concern.Mugginsx (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * All I can recommend is be bold and try your own hand at it. It is all well and good saying there's a problem—I don't disagree about the state of the article, and everyone should already be aware of the problem; that tag has been at the top of the article for two years—but as I said previously, it needs someone to step up to the mark and do the required work; I don't have the time myself, I've had far too much work to deal with off-site to do any major article work on anything for some time. The lack of that sort of work over the last two years equally suggests that others who watch this page don't have the time either. There's the whole list of sources to begin with, more than enough to start with to get going with putting those inline citations into the article. -- Sabre (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am presently committed to seven interlocking articles but would love to participate in this article. I must say though, there is a sense of "don't touch" when someone tries to edit it according to the sources the individual editor has rather than what might be in the "source" section. Also even changing a sentence to make it fit one's own source is a problem here.  It is like "reference the article but don't change a word and use the sources below". I do not like conflict and after many years on articles, many of them medieval articles, I get the "don't touch" feeling about this one.   May give it a try though, if you feel it will work, because it really is a beautiful article and you and I both know there are a few nasty editors out there that would love to start chopping it up.  Promise to give it a try here and there as I can.  Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

removing pic on the plague
User:DITWIN GRIM: I see on your talk page you have been reminded of this as well on yet another article, so I will add my comment here. I also see you have removed and replaced a great numbers of pics here. Please do not remove my pic in the section of this article which talks about the Plague. No one WP:OWNS this or any other article and there is no valid reason to remove it. In some instances, you editing is completely reckless. If you do so again I will report you with examples of all you have done that is against Wiki policy and I do not like to do that. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about ? I reverted no one's picture, there was no picture when I put the map (see : ). So you'd better learn how Wikipedia works before accusing me on the talkpage... DITWIN GRIM (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Watch your language please and it showed in the diffs and I am NOT a new user and know how Wikipedia works. There are complaints on your talk page and if you did not remove them, then who did? Mugginsx (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This diff shows precisely that your picture was not present when I added my map (otherwise there would have been red writtings on the left, welcome to Wikipedia). You can see on your last version  (the one just before mine), that your picture was not present in the article. So please, could you provide evidences that I deleted your precious picture or stop making false accusations ! By the way, there's a lot of people writing lies on my talkpage, so whatever is written on it, it does not constitute an argument. . DITWIN GRIM (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My apology. It seems you are correct and I read it wrong. I still cannot find where it was taken out The pic language is on the right of your diff.  Will get to the bottom of this.  Do not like to accuse wrongly.  By the way, if someone puts something on your talk page you do not agree with it just delete it.  It is allowed.Mugginsx (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So, if I'm reading the diff correctly, User:Mugginsx has removed an informative map of the the spread of the disease, to replace it only by an uninformative picture of a blotchy couple lying in bed. The contribution isn't up to encylopedic standards.--Old Moonraker (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sooooooooooooooooooooooo you read it incorrectly. Looks like you can't read a diff any better than I did.  I removed nothing. But keep trolling, you might find something. Mugginsx (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The map remains deleted, the "smallpox" bible illustration remains in place, User:Mugginsx was the editor who made the swap. What's my misreading, please? In response to the question, above, "where was it taken out", the answer is here. A better deployment of the contributor's time and effort might be in a fix, rather than diverting blame to others. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. I never removed the map.  Please learn how to read diffs.   I am not even accused by the editor who inserted the map of having deleted it.  The converstation was about the picture of the plague victims.  No mention was made of the map. I have no idea about the map.  I am not going to bother to look into what you think you are talking about.  If you would mind your own business you might have a better handle on what is going on and not continue to make yourself look so foolish. If you do not know how to find an article to created or improve, then keep trolling, you might find something real to complain about.  But the best idea is YOUR OWN. i.e., A better deployment of the contributor's time and effort might be in a fix, rather than diverting blame to others. This is my last response to youMugginsx (talk)

OK, if nobody's responsible for the deletion of the map there won't be any complaints as I restore it.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

page semi-protection
I put in a request for temporary semi-protection on this article because there appears to have been a decent number of unhelpful/vandalism edits by IP's over the last few days.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Timeline image
A recent edit has deleted the image depicting the timeline and replaced it with a table. The image, included at its original scale, was too dominant but it was well executed and the representation of individual dates of significance was clearer than in the replacement. (This is not to diminish the proficiency with which the H:TABLE function was put together—thanks.) Could the original, perhaps with its generous borders reduced slightly and a forced px count, be retained as a thumb so that readers may click through if they like? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've cropped the image so there's less white space; my computer still shows the wrong preview, but you can see how it would appear in this old version of the article. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC) That didn't really work, so separate cropped version can be seen here. Nev1 (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a great deal better; in fact it's convinced me that it's the way we should go. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All done? OK, implementing. I've used Mr Timeline's drawing, as cropped by User:Nev1, at 400px, the maximum size allowed in WP:PIC. Thanks to all, including User:JamesGrimshaw, who prepared the table. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've centered it, removed it from thumbnail state and upped the size, as PIC be damned, its just too small to comfortably read at that size. -- Sabre (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing bulk of significance section
I'm usually quite cautious about wholesale deletion of large portions of text. However, the Significance section of this article has been in dire need of repair or removal for at least three years. I am removing all but the text referenced by citations 8 and 9 for the reasons described below. I do not feel this has an appreciable impact on this article, because this section has a good degree of redundancy (as interesting as some of it is!), and an understanding of the depth and impact of the conflicts does not rely on this section. Primarily the issue is in regard to sourcing our material within an appropriate timeframe. This is an article about a major piece of military history, and thus should receive more scrutiny than something with less sources available. I mean no offense to anyone who worked on these sections, and would invite comment and discussion here. I recognize there are copious sources listed in the references section, and commend the work behind it,but without inline citations these are not sufficient to merit keeping the unicted material for such a long period of time. Please consider as well, the length of this section of the article in relation to the rest of the article. If you wish to keep pieces of this, surely a sub-article would be in order, as it seems disporportional to have such a large chunk of text set aside for the significance of an event, when the description of the event(s) themselves are so brief and well-written. Please don't take this as a destructive move...I am hoing someone will work on this section offline, and bring it back in an improved form.

In particular, The "Weapons", "War and Society, and "England and the Hundred Years War" have been lacking sufficient (or almost any) citation for at least three years (citation tags date to May 2009.)

The Weapons section is not entirely written in an encyclopedic manner, is rife with what sounds to be synthesis or original research, and contains a lot of factual statements without cited reference. One of the only two references isn't even directly related to the section (it cites an opinion on the bow as a weapon from Euripides of all people, having questionable relevance for the article). The other could easily be moved into the main article (or better yet, simply done away with as similar concepts are expressed in the articles for Crecy and Agincourt). I mean no offense, and it certainly looks like someone is interested in the topic, I'm just not sure it's the right place for such content, even with a major re-write. I am deleting it for now. Please discuss here if you revert, but honestly, please don't revert without adding sufficient sourcing. Three years is long enough.

The War and Society section is completely unsourced despite many factual statements (and opinions presented as fact). It also seems to be incredibly redundant of things already discussed in preceding sections. The lack of any referencing and lack of any notable need for the section leads me to its deletion.

The England and... section seems overwritten and in need of great rewrite or complete removal. Again, while some of the info is useful, it is somewhat repetitive and no one has bothered to add references. I am recommending its removal...three years is plenty to source it. If it has not already been done, it's unlikely to be done.

Again, please don't interpret this as a rash move. The text is not disappearing off the face of the earth...with proper sourcing some of it could be useful. But the lack of sources for an extended period of time, the redundancy with the rest of the article and sub-articles, and the strain of potential synthesis that runs throughout these sections is not what one would expect in an article of this caliber. Please consider making this section into a sub-article, with correct citation if you disagree with its deletion. Simply restoring it will not solve the issue at hand.Jbower47 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of your points. Also the uncited text goes back two more years than the latest tag indicates. Some of the text sounds like it is right out of a text book.   It did not even have a Reflist until I inserted one a few months ago.  Past attempts to discuss it produced no change.  I edited and referenced Jean de Venette section and had to stop because  I was too busy with several interlocking articles and did not have the time or the patience to try the improve this one and no serious attempt has been made until now.  I am extremely happy that someone else has finally taken some constructive action.Mugginsx (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, when I put the portion in, the England bit correspond to texts from this book. But I don't have the hard copy with me at the moment. May be when I have time I'll do it properly. http://www.amazon.com/The-Hundred-Years-War-1337-1453/dp/0140283617 Suredeath (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For people that may not have easy access to a library, there is plenty in the Internet Archives about the Hundred Years War and John Chandos as well. His "Herald" is in there.   Here is one link:  http://archive.org/search.php?query=Hundred%20years%20war  Here is another: http://archive.org/search.php?query=the%20herald%20chandos  articles and books on the Black Prince as well.  I wish I was not so busy and had not obligated myself to other articles at this time but there is plenty for some of you editors there.  Come on and get busy and reference some of this, I will help when I can. Mugginsx (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help if I can. This is not my field of expertise, but I think there's some valuable info in the deleted section, and I'd like to help bring it back in a proper fashion since I was the one who pulled it out:)Jbower47 (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. Mugginsx (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment by Mugginsx. Though she is correct that the article needs improvement, and better sourcing. I think his suggestion of using such sources as may be available in Internet Archive an exceedingly poor idea. it is the uncritical reliance upon outdated sources which gets articles such as this into the deplorable state that they are. The study of the late middle ages in not static, nor is any historical subject. Even such things as the straight description of battles generally needs to be modified by the understanding from further study of the primary sources, especially archeology, and the revised interpretations. Certainly anything which relies upon the understanding of human motives is greatly influenced by the assumptions about people prevalent at the time. The   19th and  early 20th century was a period of increasing nationalism in Europe, and the effects of this on anything written at the time should not be ignored. The early 20th century was a period of rather naïve psychological interpretations, and this cannot be ignored either.
 * Nor should we try to reach a definitive synthesis: there can never be a definitive synthesis of historical events, for many aspects are simply unknowable and must be inferred, and this is a matter that requires interpretation & understanding, and historians always differ on such matters. As always here, what we need to do, and all we can do, is summarize the various views. I am personally more interested in earlier periods, but for such aspects as I have any detailed knowledge of, I am very aware of the changes in th 50 years since I first encountered the subject.  I especially distrust all statements that somebody did something because....  For nobody in any period do we know what they actually thought, as opposed to what they wrote or were reported as saying.
 * It is very difficult to write articles on general subjects, and almost all our general articles on history have similar problems. There seems in particular to be the rather odd view that all sources are equally reliable, with a consequent use of uncritical summaries and the sort of older material available on the internet. I think the best approach is to go section by section, & not attempt to over-generalize or draw simplistic conclusions.  But
 * I see the rather different approaches taken in the French and German WPs-- the dWP article, as is characteristic for that WP, has very few inline references but is I think an excellent summary. The frWP article, though a featured article with fairly detailed sourcing, relying appropriately for the most part on recent general textbooks. has I think a good many over-generalizations,    Personally, I think over-detailed sourcing of general topics that is becoming characteristic of some part of our WP an error: no professional writes in such a manner, for it cannot produce a readable presentation.  The  detailed sourcing goes better in the more detailed articles of which the general ones should be a summary. To a greater extent than either  the de or fr WP, that appears to be our  manner. And reasonably so, for I think the people who actually work here are more capable of it.  DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for commenting here. I did want to correct the idea that I was advocating using old sources and chronicles exclusively.  I am well aware of the problems inherent in using those sources.  I do think they should be mentioned within the format you recommended as does Pulitzer Prize winner Barbara Tuchman, Norman F. Cantor and others.  The fact is absolutely no effort has been made for years to use in-line citations and that is required on En-Wikipedia.  Because I was and am committed to other articles and cannot spend the time on these article at this time, I thought perhaps I would give a suggestion for those resources on-line with the presumption that they knew what to do with them and how to use them. Mugginsx (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In-line sources are not required in en-WP, except for specific controversial facts and for quotations or paraphrases. It is of course generally better to use them, and I always use that format to avoid challenges about it.  But they need not be overly specific: a fair explanation of someone's view sourced only to his book is appropriate sourcing also.  The frWP article is a good example of proper sourcing: some is sourced in detail, but much of it is sourced at the paragraph level, with a single quote per paragraph to indicate the source being followed.
 * if by old sources you  mean primary sources, they are to be used with great care, here as always. Primary sources in history cannot be taken and face value, but need interpreting. There are of course excellent chronicles for this period, but I would not use them directly for the narration of events.They necessarily write without historical perspective, and tend to favor the conventional views of the period, have the bias of their authors, and are often written as propaganda, not history. A great deal can be done with them by an expert historian, crosschecking against all other available sources and analyzing them word by word.  Otherwise they're best used   carefully for quotation, & I would word it as "historian X quotes Chronicle Y as follows...," relying on historian X to have made an appropriate and fair choice of what to quote. Almost anything can be said or implied by selective quotation, and we are not trained to do so properly & know what requires expansion of explanation,  nor have we the authority. What we quote should be what the most reputable modern secondary sources quote.
 * Tuchman is a writer of popular histories, not an historian. I've read most of her books, and enjoy them but know their limitations.  Cantor of course is a reliable historian within his period, & his interpretations of events are pretty much what is  now commonly taught in US schools, but I doubt you will find anything by him or any other historian of the period that is not disputed by equally reputable people.   DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tuchman is not a Historian, as I stated she is a Pulitzer Prize winner for her book on this subject and that is why I mentioned her. I understood  Citing sources that "General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section. They may be found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. They may also be listed by author alphabetically in a References section in more developed articles as a supplement to inline citations" and that "editors are always encouraged to add or improve citations for any information contained in an article" but perhaps I have misunderstood or taken this guideline too literally.  This is a very large article, divided into other articles which also do not use in-line citations, except those few provided by myself and a couple of other editors to particular areas that we added. I also understood that a small article that does not contain quotations and that has only one source is allowed to not use in-line citations.  I will say that the template on the top of the guidelines states that "some exceptions do apply" and I guess you are saying that this is one of them, though, with these articles it seems to go against everything I have been told for the years I have been here. Mugginsx (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think we tend to use too many inline citations. I think this tendency is increasing, sometimes to the point of absurdity. But it remains true that people are increasingly asking for them, and that the officially accepted citation styles used earlier are losing favor.   I think with the moves to regularize citations across the project, probably  into a database of some sort, this will only increase.   What I suggested above is essentially some sort of compromise. It doesn't make sense to hold out for what is technically permissible when its challenged. Summary style is used here in two quite different ways: one is where the main article is basically an outline; the other is where the main article is fairly full, but yet more details are in the separate articles, as here. In the first case, citations aren't really necessary.  Here they are, because very few will go further into the detailed articles. (And it is those detailed articles which really do need the more detailed citations--as you mention, they are not present; I deferred discussing them till later.)
 * Articles on historical topics usually summarize motives, and causes. These are almost necessarily opinions and conclusions that need to be done by an expert. We need to have some idea who that is, and whether the view is representative. When not actually cited, I always suspect they are pre-modern, and taken uncritically. A topic like this could actually justify an article on the historiography of the 100 years war, discussing the trends in historical writing.
 * And as a general matter, sticking to the wording of guidelines is sometimes ill-advised. They are very hard to get consensus to rewrite, and tend to be very far from current practice. The actual guidelines are what we do here, just as the actual law is what the judges decide it is.  DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

massive deletion
An editor made a massive deletion. I tried to restore what I could according to DGG's previous instructions. Could not restore infobox because I do not know how - tried and failed. Hopefully some more experienced editor will take up the cause and restore it.Mugginsx (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've taken a quick and dirty approach and restored it all; that was too great a loss for a slow and careful reconstruction, bit-by-bit. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Date and people error
In the first paragraph, it says, "This was contested by the House of Plantagenet, the Angevin family that had ruled England since 1154, who claimed the throne of France through the marriage of Edward II of England and Isabella of France."

This was actually the marriage of Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Edward II wasn't born until 1284, and Isabella of France, 1295. After her divorce-annulment from Louis VII of France, Eleanor brought to the Angevins her dowry of nearly one-quarter of the french territory, including Aquitaine, Poitier and Bordeaux, as Henry II's bride in 1154.

I would try to edit but am completely lost how to do this. Hopefully someone will read this who already knows how to do it. Thank You!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.121.16 (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue here is that it is not made clear exactly when the marriage of Edward II and Isabella took place. You're right, it didn't take place in 1154. (Though neither did Henry and Eleanor's marriage, that was 1152!) But it doesn't say that it does—1154 is used to relate to the beginning of Angevin rule in England, not Edward's marriage—but as its the only date in the sentence its easy to misinterpret it. I've qualified the sentence by adding the date of the marriage into it. -- Sabre (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Background/Dynastic turmoil lack of explanation
The explanation about the claims to the French throne by the English skips some years right now. It starts by telling who inherited the throne up to 1322, Charles the IV of France, then goes on to tell "The french nobility balked at the prospect of being ruled by the king of England". I looked at the history of this article to find a section deleted (1 July 2012) because of a lack of citations.

While I understand this deletion, it leaves a gap however, and the text that is left is now very confusing. The sentence talking about the King of England is about Edward III I presume, but it hasn't been explained how he claimed the throne.

Can anyone fill in this gap? I myself have insufficient knwoledge about this subject, otherwise restoring the old text might be the best move, even uncited. EmilTyf (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:READABILITY [] Provide context for the reader Manual of Style
Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written for the average person to read and not editor aggrandizement. Instead this one is filled with unnecessarily detailed language. While this may make the EDITOR feel good about themself, it violates WP:Readability and one of the prime directives of Wikipedia by making it unnecessarily difficult to read and almost impossible for the average reader to understand.

Can we just tone down the mention of the dynasties and keep it to the countries as they were known as at the time of the Hundred Years War? If one wants to distinguish Capetian line of Kings, the House of Capet, and the House of Valois, the Angeven and Plantaganent Dynasty, etc., there is a way of doing that in the first mention, preferably in the lead by LINKING. or as a NOTE. Some if it reads as being pretenous, confusing, unnecessarily detailed for a basic understanding of the War and would put off the average reader. Again, Articles are written for readers not for editors.

Also, some of the countries mentioned in the Infobox are inappropriate. The individual men fought as Mercenaries. Mugginsx (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Going back a little too far?
Do we really have to go back centuries to the Norman Invasion in such detail to describe the origins of the Hundred Years' War? It can be explained in one sentence. Just asking..... Mugginsx (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, probably could just start the Background section, by saying that the Anglo-Norman dynasty that had ruled England since 1066 was brought to an end by an alliance between Geoffrey of Anjou and Robert of Gloucester. The wikilink to Anglo-Norman will serve better to provide any additional Norman info. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wish you would re-word it as you have described. Have to go off for awhile. Mugginsx (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK but I will wait a bit to give other people a chance to comment. Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As no objections, altered as agreed. Wilfridselsey (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Section now looks great and much easier to read and understand. Mugginsx (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Vote to seek consensus for a more understandable Lead Wp-Vote
With due respect to the administrator with a masters in medieval history who wrote the present lead, there has been frequent dissatisfaction mentioned on the Talk page by various editors, with the unnecessary and unencyclopedic form of said Lead. Said elsewhere in the article there is no objection. I believe that the paragraph given below is an example of a clearer and more concise Lead and, most importantly, maintains Wikipedia standards of WP:Readability wp:MOS and wp:Lead. Of course it would have to be re-worded so as not to violate copyright standards, and I have given an "example of such re-wording". I believe that some version of the examples I have given, with like minded editors improving to Wiki standards, it would be a much easier introduction for the average reader to understand. Again, articles are for the average reader, not scholars. Scholars have much more detailed resources that are commonly used and, for that reason, have little use for Wikipedia. Please consider and vote your opinion. One of the comments was by a very young editor seeking knowledge through Wikipedia. Just one example, there are more. Mugginsx (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Its basic cause was a dynastic quarrel that originated when the conquest of England by William of Normandy created a state lying on both sides of the English Channel. In the 14th century the English kings held the Duchy of Guienne in France; they resented paying homage to the French kings, and they feared the increasing control exerted by the French crown over its great feudal vassals. The immediate causes of the Hundred Years' War were the dissatisfaction of Edward III of England with the nonfulfillment by Philip VI of France of his pledges to restore a part of Guienne taken by Charles IV; the English attempts to control Flanders, an important market for English wool and a source of cloth; and Philip's support of Scotland against England.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/hu/HundredY.html

I propose something like this and all editors are encouraged to expand and improve:

The Hundred Years' War was the result of a dynastic conflict dating back to William of Normandy when he became King of England and retained his claim over Normandy and other lands. The continued practice ceased in the fourteenth century when Edward III failed to give homage to Philip VI of France and Philip did not maintain his promise to restore a portion of Guienne taken by Charles IV. Other factor include various contrasting attempts to control the market for English wool.

Agree with same or similar re-wording to conform to Wikipedia standards mentioned above and not to violate copyright. Mugginsx (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree the introduction should be a (simple) description of what the article is about. The second paragraph of the current introduction is more a discussion, which although interesting would be more appropriate in the body of the article. I think Mugginsx suggestion works better Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I must have missed the part where I wrote the intro (and lets get one thing straight very quickly: my administrator position and my academic credentials have no bearing on this discussion, I haven't used either to bolster my arguments at any point). Good lord, I think the intro is terrible and has been for some months, having been butchered from what was back in March a flawed yet still vaguely half-decent summary (and I'm not the only editor who's had a problem with this either). Don't try to attach my name to it. Nowadays the introduction doesn't summarise the article at all. It says nothing about the actual narrative of the conlict, nor much about its results. All I've tried to do is counter oversimplification, which has more recently appeared as efforts to completely remove any discussion of the dynastic nature of the conflict from the intro. Any effort to properly understand or explain the origins of the conflict and the English claim to France cannot be done without making reference to either the Valois or the Plantagenet families, or their relationship with the Capetians.
 * Forgive me, but I must suggest that you read WP:TONE more closely: "Standards for formal tone [..] should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable" — the writing and the terms used should be of comparable quality and usage as those in scholary sources. We aren't writing for children. I've no problem with the recent edits by Wilfridselsey to the background section. The introduction, on the other hand, is a different case. Recent edits over the last few months haven't improved clarity but have made it even less accessible and readable to either Joe Average or Joe Scholar (who we should still be writing for as well). If you can't see the blatant issues and redundancy in sentences like "This was contested by the English King, the Angevin family that had ruled England since 1154" then I don't think you're in a position to really dictate terms on the quality of writing in the intro. -- Sabre (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree I will probably be shot for mentioning Giano but much of what he had to say was aposite. See do so in a witty and amusing fashion - no one likes a bore! People seem to forget articles should be readable by ordinary people, its an encyclopedia not an academic treatise. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is no problem with detailing the distinctions in the particular dynasties in a separate section. It does not belong in the Lead because of the reasons mentioned.  Yes, Wikipedia is read by children, teenagers, students in various stages of knowledge and millions of adults with or without degrees but with a great thirst for knowledge in a format which is understandable on their respective levels.  The Wiki links provide access to more specific knowlege and that is how and why Wikipedia works so well and is so ingenuis in its method and practice.  It is to this larger and diversified group that we strive to address our articles to. Mugginsx (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because saying in a sentence which family controlled which kingdom is too complicated for anyone who isn't a medieval history specialist... -- Sabre (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I like the second paragraph of the current Lede. The second sentence of the first paragraph may have too much dynastic information in it to be digestible at a glance. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC).

Copyrighted material found and other material must be Cited
As I said many months ago, this article sounded like it was copied from somewhere - Here are just three examples of the "somewheres". This is why citations are needed.

So far one section I removed from previous background section was word for word from copyrighted source: http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/archive/hundredyearswar.cfm?CFID=12106913&CFTOKEN=48989585&jsessionid=463076a37003e50bfe0063343a5d3c64687b which states: All images and content are the property of eHistory at The Ohio State University unless otherwise stated. Copyright © 2012 OSU Department of History. All rights reserved. [citation and copyright information] The rest has been rewritten.

Another is here: http://www.samsonhistory.com/history-normandy copyrighted.

Another example was in the entire second paragraph of the Lead which is now removed that was also word for word and which came from online copyrighted source: http://www.slideshare.net/e007534/the-hundred-years-war.

I am still searching and would appreciated other editors also looking at this artice and to either cite this uncited material now marked, remove altogether or rephrase and give proper citation. Mugginsx (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Notes and references
The list of references on this article is currently a mess and does not conform to the recommended MoS, so I would like to change the name of the existing References section to a Notes section, then create a new References section, where we can list the sources used for the article, with the {{Cite.... format. Once that is done we can delete the Bibliography section altogether. This would conform to the wiki MOS: Notes and References. Any objections? Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree please do as you suggested. Mugginsx (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Showing great improvement
User:Wilfridselsey has made outstanding improvements in this article. Thank you for your improvements and your personal encouragement and advice to me which I hope will make be a better editor as well. Mugginsx (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We are getting there! Thanks. Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks User:Wilfridselsey
For single-handedly saving this article from all of the blantant copyright violations and, through your hard work, giving it the great quality it deserves. Mugginsx (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead and background
I made this edit to the lead. The lead needs a beginning, a middle, and an end, to summarize the War. It also needs to explain the fight was over land and better clarity. I also made this edit for better clarity in the background section. Both were reverted, so I am bringing them here for discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It was not a series of wars, but a series of conflicts resumed after truces either ran out or were broken. It was not fought over land but dynastic control. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dynastic control of what? Land. (The repeated use of "conflict" was just not good writing.)  Also, the lead still needs a beginning a middle and an end. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, of power. If you read the article, written by a scholarly editor, you will see the War was not over land, though the acquisition and/or loss of land was one of the RESULTS of the war, it was not the cause.  Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTE: This discussion continues below at 02:14, 12 October 2012
 * I commented in an edit summary before I read this. I agree that the introduction needs to be improved (I'm not an expert and won't try to do it myself).  There is a lot of background in it, and not much about what actually happened in the conflict.  It needs to be split up into shorter paragraphs, and made more accessible to the average non-expert reader (like me).  Can someone who is an expert look at it from that point of view?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I, too, am not an expert on this War, and I agree it needs a paragraph split, but the War was so extensive I do not know how you would describe the actual conflict in the lead, given it is supposed to be a brief summary according to the guidelines. Also, the infobox contains information as to the divisions of the war and other information which is not supposed to be repeated in the words of the Lead. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's far more important to have a good summary in the opening paragraphs than in the infobox. At the very least, the three phases of conflict should be summarised in the text.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, try to remove the infobox and see how many editors (not me or Wilfredsey) but the others that created it, come out to created holy hell. With due respect, we have been through all of this stuff before.  I might also add - none came out when the hard work of removing the copyvio and referencing had to be done to save the article. Mugginsx (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I have simplified the introduction, taking in some of the comments here. I hope that it works for everybody. If not we can either revert it or maybe improve it?? Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I hadn't looked at this article, or this page, before today, and I wasn't suggesting removing the infobox. As Wilfred is improving the text I'll wait to see what comes out - in my view there is still too much unnecesssary context in the opening para, and the three phases should be mentioned in prose form in the introduction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the subject of the article did not encompass one hundred years of war to summarize, I might agree with you about the lead. It looks fine now. Mugginsx (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No it certainly does not look "fine" now, though it does look better than it did an hour ago. The last intelligible introduction I can find is this.  Why should it not be reinstated?  We are looking for a summary here - it does not need to be precisely accurate in every detail.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For someone who thought that the Hundred Years War was a series of wars and the cause was all about land, and now states it does not need to be precisely accurate in every detail and you want the lead to be shorter but At the very least, the three phases of conflict should be summarised in the text, you have many inaccurate and conflicting opinions. It might be more productive if you actually studied the war before making any more comments such as you have. Mugginsx (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. I came to the page expecting a quick introduction to a topic I know little about. That's what thousands of readers do, and we are here to help them. It should not be necessary for me to study the war before I can understand the introduction to this article. That is, surely, obvious. Unfortunately, I didn't find a summary - I found a mishmash of quite poorly written and unhelpful background in the introduction. In trawling through the archives I found that, a few months ago, there existed a quite well-written and informative summary in the introduction. Whether it was accurate or not I have no idea - but at least it covered the ground an introduction should cover, in understandable chunks of prose. It should not be left to readers to have to trawl through the page history before they can find text that they can understand. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: By the way, some of your comments seem to refer to another editor, not me. I seem to agree with him though.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I will address this to both of you. You are the only editors who expressed a difficulty in understanding this article in all the years it has existed.  Might I suggested that you avail yourself of the "links" provided to every important element in this article to read more fully and to understand.  In fairness, you cannot be expected to read about a war that lasted one hundred years and understand it in a few minutes.  That is not a criticism to you personally but rather that you understand it deals with complex issues uniquely MEDIEVAL, i.e., the reasons for the conflict, the history of the homage system the relationship of the kings and their relatives and who married whom and how that affected the dynastic conflict.  It is a difficult concept for a modern person of any education to understand.  I had to study many books and I still have trouble understanding the War, no matter where I read it.  I would say to avail yourself of the links, to study the men involved, the history behind the dynasties and the interaction between them before you try to understand the Hundred Years' War.  I mean that sincerely.  I think the editors have done an outstanding job of making this article as understandable as possible and the links provided further help in the understanding but there is no substitute for further reading and Wikipedia provides many articles which pertain to both the persons involved in the war and the battles themselves. Mugginsx (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to say that my earlier criticisms were not of the article as a whole, merely the introduction, which seemed to have been changed substantially in recent months. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have checked out the old intro. I think that the first para is somewhat complicated, I thought we were trying to simplify things? However I think that the rest of it works well. The main reason for the start of the war is Ed III's claim on the French throne. I think that the existing first para explains that quite well.So what I propose is that we use the old version of the lead, but replace the first para with the existing one. I will go ahead and do that, again pse revert if you are not happy. Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK it's done, it works for me Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks a lot better to me, though I still think the opening para could be trimmed. Not a criticism of any particular editors, but the whole article could do with a good copy edit - I looked through one section and found a myriad of basic errors of grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc.  I don't plan to have to go through the rest of the article in the same way, but there are specialist copyeditors here who enjoy doing that sort of thing.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! what nerve you have. You don't understand it but you think a professional copyeditor will help you understand.  If you only knew how you sound to others. Do you have some connection to this group?Mugginsx (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wilifrid, It is much more informative. Thanks.
 * As for copyediting, everyone and most prose benefits from copyediting, so there is no reason to be defensive about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is clear to me that with at least one editor, there is a personal agenda here so there is no need for me to comment further. Mugginsx (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wilfrid - it is now much better. Re the rest of the article, copyediting is a normal part of article improvement - there's no need to take it personally.    Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was personal and vindictive and most of all very sad. Mugginsx (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think was personal, wasn't - I have no idea who who you are, or indeed who edited which bits of this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * NOTE: This discussion continues that started above at 12:35, 11 October 2012
 * Power over what? Land. (Also, the several Wars that make up the Hundred Years War are now listed by name in the improved intro produced by Wilfrid.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Refactored discussion moved down to proper timeline as per: Refactoring talk pages ''Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. "I object". Mugginsx (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Edward III's claim to the French throne was based on him being the grandson of Philip IV, as his mother was the dead kings daughter. When Philips son, Louis X died, his only son and heir (the infant) John I died after 5 days. Charles Valois's son Philip VI became king. Philip VI as the son of  Philip IV 's brother was more distantly related to Philip IV than Edward III. Thus it was a struggle for which dynasty sat on the throne (Plantagenet on Edward's side or Valois in Philip VI's case), British claims to the French throne explains that in more detail. At the time what we now know as France was a collection of  duchies, controlled by dukes who on the whole had a lot of autonomy but they owed homage to the king. If Edward called himself the legitimate King of France then it would encourage these dukes to pay homage to him and not Philip. This would just increase Edwards power, as actually the dukes controlled the land. The reason that it increased his power is because the duke became his man, or vassal, which meant he had obligations to his liege lord, usually to provide military service in times of war. Why conflicts is a good description is because even when there were truces in place there was trouble, for example the privateering campaign and 'hit' and run raids on various towns by both sides, even whan there was no formal war going on. The civil war in Castillon which was not really about the French succession, but as the French crown supported one side and the English crown the other (although the Black Prince insisted that he was providing his support as Duke of Aquitaine not as a representative of the English crown) the English and French were pitched against each other, even though the Treaty of Brétigny was in place at the time.   I could go on but I think you get the point. Rgds Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said. The problem with the earlier lead, which is now corrected was that it did not make clear what territory was being contested.  Kings and nobles claimed suzerainty over territory (ie land) - it was the feudal system based on rights in territory. Eg. The action that brought about the contested claim (made it hot - ie war) to the throne began with the confiscation of territory.  As for "conflict," as you point out there are many different conflicts besides war, which is what make conflict more general and perhaps vague, so while  "conflict" is ok, it seems  "wars and conflicts" or "armed conflicts" would be more informative and precise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Conflict works for me, it may well be somewhat vague, but I think that the second paragraph qualifies the various wars. My reason is that there was a lot of 'peaceful' negotiation and argument that did not involve violence, but these could also be described as conflict. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker - please do not re-factor talk pages to say what you may have wished you had said at the time written. All information dated October 12 should be entered at the botton or in a new section, not in between information dated October 11th. Please re-enter new information at the bottom. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I re-indented to make that clear. It's perfectly clear now.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-factoring should not be done, whether by indenting or in any other way. Alanscottwalker please insert information at the bottom or start a new section or, if you do not know how, I will be happy to do it for you. Mugginsx (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:INDENT. There is no confusion in the thread as it currently exists.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the guideline Refactoring talk pages Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. "I object, but rather than asking the editor to revert, I am just placing them in chronological order"  Mugginsx (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't refractor but I don't care that you moved it which is a form of refractoring, see also: Help:Using talk pages. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit
Thanks to Ghmyrtle and Alanscottwalker for the suggestion to get the copyeditors to look at the page. I have now put in a request for their talents. rgds. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Error in Background
The Anglo-Norman dynasty that had ruled England, since the Norman Conquest of 1066, was brought to an end by an alliance between Geoffrey of Anjou and Robert of Gloucester, with Geoffrey's son Henry becoming the first of the Angevin kings of England in 1153.[2] - Should read 1154.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.228.120 (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right thanks. Henry asserted his right to the throne of England in 1153, but didn't become king till after Stephen's death in Oct 1154. Wilfridselsey (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit
Copyedited this on request. Comments:


 * Fully describing the various relationships confuses more than it clarifies. Suggest focusing on the primary relationships and covering others only where they are specifically material.


 * How did John II become captive? Why did he return to captivity? (What is "honorable captivity?"
 * Why is the difference between the Treaty of Bretigne and the Treaty of Calais important?

Feedback welcome! Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lfstevens. Thankyou for your work on this article and for the points you make. I will try and address them. Rgds . Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have updated the article taking Lfstevens comments into consideration. I will have to give the relationships point a bit more thought as a lot of these relationships were key to the war in the first place. The differences between the Treaty of Bretigne and the Treaty of Calais are probably more appropriate to the Treaty of Bretigne article, so I have simplified the entry here removing the comment about the difference. I have also answered the captivity question. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Rational use of the CoA
The Coat of Arms of the kings of France (there was no real national flag before the Renaissance) was: The Coat of Arms of the kings of England (no national flag before the 16th c.) was:
 * France Ancien Blason Île-de-France ancien 1.svg until 1376
 * France Moderne Blason France moderne.svg from 1376
 * The three lions Royal Arms of England (1198-1340).svg until 1340
 * Quartered with France Ancien Royal Arms of England (1340-1367).svg from 1340 to 1406
 * Updated to France Moderne Royal Arms of England (1399-1603).svg from 1406
 * Blaue Max (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Article written with French bias?
The reason I ask is that the new in-depth BBC series Chivalry and Betrayal: The Hundred Years War repudiates much of what is written here, the article seems to favour the French version of historical reality. 82.31.236.245 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not specific about what the series "repudiates," also what are the series' sources? So what are you referring to, exactly? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did find this BBC history (which is linked from the series site ) but what in there is so contrary to what is here? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I watched this series too. You can check out the film makers blog here. The TV series can afford to look into various aspects in more detail for example the way it covered chevauchée, whereas it left out other details altogether. As far as this article is concerned, most of the references are probably based on the chronicles of Jean Froissart, either directly or indirectly, who was French and a contemporary. I am not sure about the TV series repudiating this article. Must have been watching a different one to me. Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a series of separate wars
Since most of the resumption of hostilities were after truces that were either ignored or ran out, I think it is an error to call them "A series of separate wars". They are also not described in that fashion in books and even historical records of the time. It was one War fought with many different factions (because, of course it lasted 100 years) and with many temporary "truces" not a number of individual wars. Mugginsx (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to continue to describe the Hundred Years War as a series of wars, please REFERENCE. Mugginsx (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * cited 82.31.236.245 (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * All war is conflict but not all conflict is war. To describe the Hundred Years War as a series of wars is correct, but as Mugginsx implies, that description is somewhat simplistic. There were other things going on during times of so called peace or truce, which is why conflict is the term we have used. This was discussed in more detail in the Lead and Background  section on  this page.
 * BTW - I think the webpage you have cited has changed, so the citation does not actually work now. Probably, not important for the purpose of this discussion however you may wish to consider using webcite when citing URLs as it takes a snapshot of the website and databases it for posterity. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"I love you." ?
The last 2 sentences of the 4th paragraph read as such: "In France, civil wars, deadly epidemics, famines and bandit free companies of mercenaries reduced the population drastically. I love you." (?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.252.180 (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Birthdates
According to the timeline of important figures, the black prince was born when his father edward 111 was three years old. is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.21.147 (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Three points...
There are three points I'd like to share: Thanks for your attention,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. The battles of the Castilian Civil War are now included in the Caroline War-infobox. Shall we give it it's own? Or shall we make it a sub-section (with a sub-infobox) of the Caroline war?
 * 2. At other wikis we can find other battles, which are not included (yet) in the English Wikipedia. One of them is the Siege of Rennes, for example. Shall we make an effort to include them?
 * 3. Can we put the Battle of Cocherel in an infobox? The French Wiki put it in the Caroline War-phase, after all.

Map Dates
The animated map showing the evolution of territory is very cute. Unfortunately, at least in what concerns dates and the holdings of the Dukes of Burgundy, it is wrong. Which leads me to suspect other errors - at least because Burgundy territory is falsely attributed to others. For an unknown reason, Burgundy comes suddenly into existence in 1429, a date of no particular importance. And then disappears in 1450, also for no apparent reason. (The Valois Dukes reigned from 1363-1467, over constantly shifting territory.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.103.123 (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh...there were more issues than that. For one...all of the yellow is not England, but France. And the maps are the copyright of an author not attributed in the Wikimedia Commons image page. The uploader and the copyright holder are not the same person and ...the date indicated for one of the battles is on the wrong map and was supposed to go into the blank 1450 spot. So I have removed it and will be nominating it on commons for speedy deletion. I have begun locating various public domain maps and will be creating a new set of maps that we can use to create a new gif image and have all the base images available. We may already have a map that can be used to help out somewhere.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Did the French Blitz the English in WWII?
This article is still ripe with the Napoleonic myth that the war was a nationalistic one between England and France. There was no concept of nationalism as we know it. The Duke of Burgundy owned all the territory in the northern part of what we call France today. The English, i.e. Anglo-Saxons, were still occupied by a Norman "regime" during these wars. If any actual English people fought it was as mercenaries for their Norman overlords. The Burgundians, from the area where the Norman kings came, were supporting the Norman king of England due to bloodties and of course to acquire new land. Jehanne d'Arcy was actually born in a little enclave supporting the French king's claims surrounded by Burgundian territory. This is why she had to dress like a man to get through enemy territory. The Burgundians sold her to the Norman king of England, not to the English people who didn't care which French king won the war.

To say that this was a war between England and France would be like saying that in WWII France attacked Britain during the Blitz. No, Germans occupying France attacked Britain, with some French colluders. But who knows, some time in the future someone might make up that myth to serve a political purpose.

99.239.72.120 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Essentially you are right, initially it was a family struggle to gain control of France. Also at the beginning, it was highly unlikely that the Norman elite spoke any English, or cared much about English culture. By the end of the war the ruling Norman aristocracy, who had lands in England and the continent, were faced with either going back to France or becoming more English. For several centuries they continued to talk French in court and to this day Norman French is the order of the day for various rites and customs in Parliament. We talk about English in the article, but it could actually mean Normans or even Welsh. The English lost nearly all of their aristocracy after the conquest, however the Welsh managed to retain some of theirs, check out the payroll records for the hundred years war to confirm this. The Welsh archers of course were instrumental in a lot of the famous victories mainly in the early stages of the war. You are at liberty to change the article to emphasise your points, particularly in the Significance section, I would suggest, as long as you quote reliable sources.Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

How many days were there in Hundred Years' War?
There are some people who don't want to hear "116 years", but want to know the number of days. Does anybody know how many days Hundred Years' War had lasted?.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.149.82.170 (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

England was left an island nation for 500 years
I've heard this same thing said before, and it's an interesting theory; spoiled only by the fact that England is not and never has been an island. In fact at the time of this conflict it shared land borders with two other countries, one of which (Scotland) was an entirely separate kingdom - a state of affairs which persisted for about 200 year after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.15.142 (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right. In any case Kissinger was comparing Englands attitude to world affairs before the 20th century with America's in the 20th century. He said that "England based its foreign policy on its conception that it was an island power." not that it was an island power!! I do not think that the statement as it stands should be in the lead section, it would be better in the Significance section and qualified properly or deleted altogether. Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked it to read "England was left with the sense of being an island nation...", which seems to accord better with the source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who made the observation above. Frankly, I think the new wording is still guilty of being an overly romantic presentation of the facts. A more straightforward way of putting the same point would IMHO read "England was left with an insular world view which persists to the present day". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.226.230 (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Again you are right. However the original editor was quoting from Kissinger (available here). As the Kissinger piece is fairly narrow, we are somewhat limited in what we can say. Insular England is a widely discussed subject, so there are many other sources available. The dumping of French and adoption of English by the rulers of England as a consequence of the war, coupled with more free movement of labour after the black death and of course the reformation of the Church of England in the 16th C. were all major factors that were certainly as important as foreign policy. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"vague" & "dubious" tags re attitudes to/support for the war in England
The conventional theory has it that Richard II was unpopular, as the article says because of his war taxes. It doesn't seem likely then that many tax-paying commoners favoured the war.

However, a subsequent passage says: "One cause of Richard's unpopularity had been his reluctance to continue the war in France."

If both statements are true, who exactly wanted to continue the war? A clique of power-brokers that backed Henry IV? Did Henry use different methods to finance the war as a result?

Grant &#124;  Talk  10:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Richard tried to raise funds for the war with a Poll tax, this was so unpopular with the commoners that it precipitated the Peasants' revolt in 1381. At the end of the revolt Richard agreed to most of their demands, however he made himself even more unpopular with the peasants by not honouring the agreements.  In 1387 the nobles imposed a council of eleven men to oversee royal government. This was the start of a long-drawn-out battle between Richard and the barons.
 * The Commons were being asked to vote for taxes for the defence of the realm and for expeditions to France, this was unacceptable to a wide body of opinion. There was also criticism of the lack of success in the war with France. However, the policy of peace with France was unpopular with a lot of the aristocracy, particularly with nobles such as Arundel and Woodstock.
 * Henry IV struggled with finances for his entire reign, he was constantly trying to persuade the commons to raise taxes and also he reduced the silver and gold content of the coinage, but ultimately he was not able to control the debt any better than Richard. But unlike Richard he seems to have maintained the support of the landowning classes.Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Former names of the 100 Years War
How was it called by the English, the French, and other nations before it was called the Hundred Years' War?Reigen (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is the Kingdom of Bohemia listed a belligerent only on the French side?
According to Jonathan Sumption's Trial by Battle (can't recall the page at the moment), the King of Bohemia himself was present alongside Edward III during his initial forays into France. It might be ideal to put a date next to their country, listing the years they supported the English and the French.

(100.36.21.129 (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC))

Result?
The article takes what seems to be a confusing and non-sensical attitude to the result of the Hundred Years War. Why is the result no longer listed as "French Victory"? I've no personal interest in this question, in fact, like most British schoolchildren, I was taught about the war from the English perspective, and wrote my first essay (at age nine or something) about what a great battle Agincourt was. However, common sense and overwhelming historical consensus teach that, at the end of the War, the French were, broadly speaking, the winners. Evidently this has upset some editors, who have felt the need to subdivide the war into various stages, noting that the English side had the better of some of those stages, but that makes no sense from the point of view of the specific Wikipedia article under discussion. Either we consider The Hundred Years War as a whole, or we regard it as a series of separate conflicts. Both approaches are legitimate but only the former makes sense in the context of this article. If someone wants to write a different article, entitled "Series of conflicts between England and France in the 14th and 15th centuries", fair enough. The view that it was in fact various different conflicts is alluded to in this article, quite properly, but the thrust of the article as it stands - not to mention the title! - is that there was an overarching war that took place between 1337 and 1453. As such there should be some indication of what the final result was. To do otherwise makes no sense. One could equally divide World War II into separate stages, and note that the Germans had the better of some of them. But, taken as a whole, WWII ended in defeat for Germany. Similarly, the Hundred Years War, taken as a whole, ended in defeat for England.

At the very least, the article as it stands is self-contradictory. The lead section states that the war was fought for control over the House of Valois. Clearly, the English had not achieved this aim by the end of the war. Insofar as any fact about the Middle Ages can be, surely this is beyond dispute.

A related point is that the "Territorial Changes" section has been altered to the point of absurdity. Previously, it accorded with common sense and historical consensus, namely that England lost most of its territory on the continent. Now it emphasises firstly that England gained Calais, and secondly that it lost the "English Aquitaine", implying that the result of the war was somehow a tie, with gains and losses roughly equivalent on both sides. This is ludicrous! It would be like describing the territorial changes in Germany as a result of Nazi rule as "gain of the Saar, loss of some territory to the East", as opposed to gain of a small part that was already mostly in German hands and the complete wipeout of a vast swathe of the rest of the country.

In short, surely common sense should prevail here. I'm sure I speak for many English people when I say that hardly anyone on this side of the Channel feels any sensitivity about the obvious fact that England lost the Hundred Years War. The attempt by some editors to obscure this fact, implying that the result was somehow inconclusive, is just plain silly. Whose sensitivities are we worrying about here? Are there English people who feel somehow insecure about the fact that a conflict more than 500 years ago ultimately ended in a French victory? Evidently there must be, ie those who made these changes, but they are very few and very far between. Actually, I've never met a single one. I would be interested to hear their perspective but as of now I can see no reason why the "Result" section of this article - unlike any Wikipedia article on any other war that I'm aware of - divides it into different sub-conflicts in a bid to obscure the final result of the conflict supposedly under consideration.Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Eleutheure (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Belated thanks. I note that no objections have been raised so I propose reverting the article to its original state, ie listing the result as a French victory and listing the territorial changes as previously described.Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

the longest military conflict in history
In the article, it is claimed that the Hundred Years War is "the longest military conflict in history". I am trying to understand how this can be so, when the Warring States Period (475 BC - 221 BC) that led to the Chinese Empire being established by the Qin Dynasty was a period of 254 years.

Thank you...

Michael Corbett Hawkins preterosso@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.170.227.40 (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Significance of the war: Change of technology yes, but not the longbow please
The change was that firearms won the war in the end, or am I wrong? And that was the start of the firearm era. Not the longbow era.

Niberto (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That section is a mess, considering that those same knights considered obsoletes went on to inflict decisives defeats as in Patay, against those same longbow men that redeem then antiquated. Bertdrunk (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Expansion on the Caroline Phase?
The current section "French ascendancy under Charles V: 1369–89" doesn't really mention the French victories in their homeland that are listed in the navigation box. Instead, it only describes the Castilian Civil War and afterwards seems to attribute a general French victory in the wider war to the fact the Black Prince fell ill, and Richard II was disinterested in the war. Now, I'm not expert on this war, so I'm not sure if this is how it was meant to be written, or if this is the most accurate way to explain these events, but I was a bit confused as it doesn't seem like this section describes the actual war in France that much. Sol Pacificus (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Did Charles of Burgundy count on English support?
''The Hundred Years' War almost resumed in 1474, when the duke Charles of Burgundy, counting on English support, took up arms against Louis XI. Louis managed to isolate the Burgundians by buying Edward IV of England off with a large cash sum and an annual pension, in the Treaty of Picquigny (1475).''

While it is true that England had previously isolated Burgundy, by the 1475 invasion and the Treaty of Picquigny, It was England relying on Burgundian support not the other way around. The article suggests that Burgundy had been participating in the invasion in 1475 before the treaty which is clearly not true. Negligible mass (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested moves input needed
Talk:Hundred_Years%27_War_(1337%E2%80%931360) Ribbet32 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Losses
There should be a losses section. There is one on the French version. Check it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.248.116.204 (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. I meant the Spanish section. Should it be added?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.248.116.204 (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Tried for heresy not witchcraft
Joan of arc was tried for heresy according to the article on her. This article states witchcraft. Not the same. Related I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.254.174 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * She was tried for heresy. The French thought she heard voices from God and the English the devil. The trial was about her dressing as a man and the voices, if the voices were from the devil then she would be guilty of heresy based on her being a witch. Heresy was any belief or theory that was strongly at variance to the church, so being a witch was only one of many ways of being guilty of heresy. The nearest analogy is if you steal a watch are you guilty of stealing a watch or are you guilty of theft? Wilfridselsey (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * JFYI, the standard Catholic Church punishment for heresy was burning at the stake, and the influence and power of the Pope on this issue was to lead to considerable problems in Britain after the Protestant Reformation when the-then current Pope ruled all protestants heretics, thus making the protestant English king subject to this punishment if the Catholics gained control in the British Isles. This ruling effectively made all Catholics who supported the Pope potentially guilty of High treason in the form of plotting Regicide (one of the most extreme and heinous crimes possible in English Law) and is one of the reasons for the religious conflicts that later took place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Glyndŵr Rising: clarification needed
The Second peace: 1389–1415 section states "The Glyndŵr Rising was finally put down in 1415 and resulted in Welsh semi-independence for a number of years". So, what does it mean? That the Welsh enjoyed semi-independence during the rebellion, which came to an end in 1415? Or, that as a result of the end of the rebellion the Welsh began to enjoy (or continued to enjoy) semi-independence (which is what it appears to be saying). Why 'semi-independence'? Was that more, or less, than what they had before? And what is semi-independence anyway? Something like 'considerable autonomy under a distant and lax ruler'? Isn’t that what happens in feudalism anyway? Finally, where does it say that in the source given? Even a chapter reference would be helpful. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Sizer
Bernard VII, Count of Armagnac:"On 12 June 1418, he was one of the first victims of the massacres in which over 550 of his real or suspected followers were killed in the course of weeks throughout the summer."cf. "In 1418 Paris was taken by the Burgundians, who were unable to stop the massacre of Count of Armagnac and about 2,500 of his followers by a Parisian crowd." - Second peace: 1389–1415​. Both statements cite Sizer 2007; is it 550 or 2500 Armagnacs killed? Manannan67 (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sizer states "The death toll from the two massacres was anywhere from 1,000 to 5,000, with around 2,500 being the most likely figure." I can't find anything in the article that supports 550, so that figure definitely doesn't come from Sizer. That means the figure on Bernard VII, Count of Armagnac should be adjusted. However, when the number could be between 1,000 and 5,000 and likely around 2,500, is it correct to just state that it was 'around 2,500' or should these lower and upper bounds be mentioned too? Lennart97 (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If Sizer says "around 2500", that should be good enough. ty Manannan67 (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you should go into the detail, at least in a note. You might look at the whole section at St._Bartholomew's_Day_massacre, which has stood the test of time in a highly contentious area. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input! I've changed both articles to describe a death toll 'between 1,000 and 5,000'. Sizer himself states that the figures vary widely, then cites various reports between 1,000 and 5,000, but doesn't argue why 2,500 is the most likely number, so I don't think it's necessary to give this number in either of the articles. Lennart97 (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Apostrophe in Title
Why is the subject of the article adorned with an apostrophe? I cannot see how Hundred Years' War is grammatically correct, or am I missing something? MidnightBlue  (Talk)  23:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it seems an odd usage - the war did not "belong" to [a] Hundred Years - but I think it's a standard grammatical convention nonetheless. The suggestion is that it's a "War Of A Hundred Years". It's the same convention as (or at least closely related to) the one that governs phrases such as, "a year's supply of coffee", or "ten years' supply of chocolate".Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Just some quick Googling ... The EB page also uses the apostrophe. But searching in Google Books, with the apostrophe, turns up almost entirely titles without the apostrophe. Looking at the sources listed on the page, some use it but many don't. A case could be made for moving the page to remove the apostrophe, but it does not look like a clear cut decision either way. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not an odd usage at all. It is the equivalent of "the war of 100 years" and is the correct usage. MOS:' points to Apostrophe which says "An apostrophe is used in time and money references". Meters (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If the war lasted just one year, it would be called the One Year War, not the One Year's War.  This is in contrast to saying that something will happen in one year's time which is correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bssv11 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

A agree that this is the correct grammatical use of the possessive apostrophe — it's similar to an expression such as "a hundred years' time" — and that the war as "belonging" to the particular timespan is a common enough (though by no means universally accepted) naming convention in the English language (cf.Thirty Years' War and Seven Years' War). Key of Now (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Most Google Scholar references don't have the apostrophe: Scholar. The apostrophe is correct when speaking of something directly related to the time or currency, e.g. In six month's time or I bought 25 cents' worth of candy. In the case of wars, the time period is clearly attributive to the title and not directly related, so it should be the Hundred Years War or the War of a Hundred Years. As mentioned, a One Year War would be correct but One Year's War is not linguistically correct and sounds awful. Facts707 (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know who's right here, but what I do know is that the apostrophe is used consistenly throughout Wikipedia: Seven Years' War, Thirty Years' War, Eighty Years' War and all others listed at List of wars named for their duration use it. So if you think it should be changed, it would be better to start a wider discussion, probably at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Lennart97 (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments and questions
The story behind the 116 years of English-French conflicts is one of the most fascinating chapters in European history. This article is well written, structured and I enjoyed reading it very much. I made a variety of small fixes and improvements. I have to make some comments and questions.

1. The article mentions the Black Death and uses the dates 1347-1351 but the plague actually went beyond 1351 and at least until 1353, not necessarily in Britain or France but, still, 1353 is more appropriate.

2. I do not see any information on the homage of Edward III to Philip VI in 1329 in the article on Edward III. Did Edward III really pay homage to Philip VI twice?

3. The article mentions longbows were used at the Battle of Crécy in 1346 but they were used even earlier at the Battle of Sluys of 1340 as mentioned by the article on the English longbow. Is that considered the first instance in the 116 years of conflicts when the longbow was used? Does anybody know if it was used by the English before 1337?

4. The article says "Philip mustered a large army to oppose Edward, who chose to march northward toward the Low Countries, pillaging as he went." It then says "King Edward's son and namesake, the Prince of Wales, later known as the Black Prince, led a Chevauchée from Gascony into France, during which he pillaged Avignonet and Castelnaudary, sacked Carcassonne, and plundered Narbonne."

I know the chevauchée (pillaging and burning) were typical tactics of the 1300s for the English and others that, in the context of chivarly, I find difficult to justifiy, especially when the targets are civilians. I do not see a source for either and I think they should be there.

5. "Edward invaded France, for the third and last time, hoping to capitalise on the discontent and seize the throne."

It's not clear if this is Edward of Windsor or Edward of Woodstock. I think it's important to add "III" or "the Black Prince" to clarify.

6. "Edward also abandoned his claim to the crown of France."

In the light of the fact English and Britain never gave up on the title of King of France until 1803, I would like to make sure this passage is clarified because it's inconsistent with the fact the title for English/British monarchs existed many centuries after the death of Edward III. Later, in the "Aquitaine and Castile" section it is mentioned Edward III returns to claim the title of King of France.

7. "In 1362 John's son Louis of Anjou, a hostage in English-held Calais, escaped captivity. So, with his stand-in hostage gone, John felt honour-bound to return to captivity in England."

This passage is not clear to me. Can somebody explain?

8. "In 1364, John II died in London, while still in honourable captivity."

If that is true then John II was never ransomed and it would be appropriate to briefly explain and elaborate on this point. Is there any other example in history of kings who were captured by the enemy and died in captivity?

9. "In 1389, Richard's uncle and supporter, John of Gaunt, returned from Spain and Richard was able to rebuild his power gradually until 1397, when he reasserted his authority and destroyed the principal three among the Lords Appellant."

I'm not sure how to intepret the vague use of the word "destroyed" other than think of it as "killed" or "eliminated".

10. "The French camp at Castillon had been laid out by Charles VII's ordinance officer Jean Bureau and this was instrumental in the French success as when the French cannon opened fire, from their positions in the camp, the English took severe casualties losing both Talbot and his son."

The sentence sounds weird. Either "the cannon" was a famous one or "cannon" should be replaced by "cannons".

11. "The mercenary companies were given a choice of either joining the Royal army as compagnies d'ordonnance on a permanent basis, or being hunted down and destroyed if they refused."

Again, it's not clear if "destroyed" means "killed" or "eliminated".

12. The chart in the timeline lacks many important dates and it has dates that are important but not consistent with the major engagements. The death of the Black Prince is listed but unrelated to all other conflicts. If he is listed they I don't see why kings should not be listed but, then, I don't see the point of cluttering the timeline. The diamond for 1429 is to the left of 1428 which does not make sense. The battles of Sluy (1340), La Rochelle (1372), Patay (1429) and Formigny (1450) should also be included.

ICE77 (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

History
What is the cause of the hundred war? 197.156.118.186 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Why in Picard?
Why is the name of the event given in Picard in the lede (when Picardy isn't even mentioned anywhere else in the article)? France is full of regional languages/dialects, and many of the areas they were spoken in were involved in the war. You can't include them all, and I don't understand why Picard should be treated differently from all the others.--87.126.23.178 (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)