Talk:Maréchaussée

Possible in-links and redirects
The following articles may have content useful for possible in-links to this article:

✔️ Aigrefeuille-d'Aunis

✔️ Anne Charles Basset Montaigu

✔️ Bow Street Runners

✔️ Cerisy-la-Forêt

✔️ Claude le Blanc

✔️ Comporté River

✔️ Department of War (France)

✔️ Dominique-Vincent Ramel-Nogaret

✔️ French Imperial Army (1803–1815)

✔️ Gendarme (historical)

✔️ Gendarmerie

✔️ Highwayman

✔️ Law enforcement in France

List of French words of Germanic origin (H–Z)

✔️ List of gendarmeries

List of police-related slang terms

✔️ Man-at-arms

✔️ Médaille de la Gendarmerie nationale

✔️ Military Police Corps (United States)

✔️ Mounted police

✔️ National Gendarmerie

✔️ Philippe Gaultier de Comporté

✔️ Police

✔️ Prévôt

✔️ Seyne

✔️ We Will All Go to Paris

Possible redirects:
 * Marshalcy (disambig, currently; link added)
 * Maréchaussée de France
 * Connétablie
 * Constabulary of France
 * Constabulary and Marshalcy of France

Possible merge from Criminal Ordinance of 1670
Content in the article Criminal Ordinance of 1670 should probably be merged here. Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we have that now? Skingski (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We missing anything still? Skingski (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We could just be bold, I suppose, and redirect the other article here, but it's been around for 14 years and had 16 editors, so that may be a bit too bold without some agreement from previous contributors there. There's no big hurry to do it, and as long as we've recorded the desire to merge here, we can just leave it for now and tackle it later, when more important stuff (like developing this article) is done. Mathglot (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood the section title for some reason. I guess the main question is is the Criminal Ordinance page too short and not notable enough to be standalone and would merging it make the Marechaussee page too long? Skingski (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline would be WP:PAGEDECIDE. But that is not the only factor, as WP:DUE enters into it, as well. The Criminal Ordinance page could still be expanded (fr:Ordonnance criminelle de 1670 is ~7kb) and so part of the issue would be, whether a section in this article about the Ordinance of 1670 would be too long at 7kb or not. In fact, that would make it the new longest section (see section sizes above), and in the context of the section at only 1,364 bytes, it would be five times bigger, which seems disproportionate.  For the time being, especially while Maréchaussée is still being developed, I'd rather concentrate on the development, but I do think when this article reaches optimal size, it would be a good idea to consider it again. I guess I raised the issue above, more as a way to not forget about it later, rather than a proposal to do it now. If we do do it now, I won't object; it could always be split off again later, if need be. Mathglot (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"Origins" and "End of the Middle Ages" sections


We should merge "Origins" and "End of the Middle Ages" sections since both cover the origins of the groups in the Middle Ages.

Also I can't find a reference supporting the 1191 date for sergents d'armes, only the 1190. I suspect it's an error as that is the date for the Grand Constable. Skingski (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Skingski: (I moved this here because it's about the article, and it'll get lost eventually on my talk page.) Regarding merging those two sections: yes, that's something I had planned to do already as well, just haven't gotten to it yet. I'm backed up on this and other articles, so I'm probably going a bit slower here than you'd like. In particular, I have this one source from the National Gendarmerie Museum on the 18th century which I've been meaning to use for a couple days, but haven't managed to incorporate it yet. It's citation #3 under ; feel free to use it if you feel like. Our section on the  is already the longest and doesn't really need to be longer, so this is more about just checking the facts in that section already (a lot of which were brought over from unsourced French text) so we can cite it properly, get rid of anything that doesn't check out, and maybe just streamline that section with a single narrative voice. It's possible the French article was written based on this source and they just didn't bother to cite it; if that's the case, then our content should be a pretty good match to this source.
 * On the second point of the 1190/91 dates, do whatever you feel is right. Oh, and check out the 1747 source in Further reading as well; the organization of the book is a bit weird (1100 pages in five parts, part of it alphabetical like a dictionary, other parts not), but there are full-text versions on both Google and Gallica, whichever platform you like better, and probably the internet archive has it also. Mathglot (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * On Origins: I don't have access to the Brouillet 2003 article. But it sounds like you are saying that doesn't mention 1191 either so I can delete that date.
 * The 3rd paragraph without references seems to repeat the 1st in the current End of the Middle Ages section (though adds the part of the menace of soldiers newly cut from the army which I have seen in the literature). Also I haven't see support for the characterization that "the Maréchaussée was no longer satisfied..." - my understanding was their mission changed at the behest of the king, not from their own ambition or petitions.
 * I think we can condense the 18th Ce section a bit - I'm hamstrung on what is repetitive as I don't have access to some references used; but since we don't go over the significance of the paranthetical individual years, we can prolly delete that. The part on Le Blanc is the most important according to the historians I've read so far. Skingski (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For 18th Ce, isn't Note d ("Provosts and officers purchased their position. It was a mark of dignity, but also an investment which could be profitable. Moreover, the posts were hereditary") repeating what was written in the last line of the 17th Ce section? The word "provost" was not specifically used in the reference I used for that line in 17th Ce (they referenced "commanders"), but it may go without saying that commanders and provosts are the same thing or that provosts were among the posts sold.  If so, we can dispense with this note or fold it into the text. Skingski (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yah, I noticed the repetition as well; that section is quite a muddle, and not in very good chronological order; a good bit of consolidation is needed. Feel free to reorganize as you wish. As far as Brouillet (2003), I don't have access either, but it's only used here in one spot, for which we have two other footnotes, so I propose we drop the footnote from the article, and move the citation to Brouillet (2003) from "Works cited" to "Further reading". If you want to see if you have access to it, Go to the citation, and click the oclc link in the citation and it should give you the closest library to you that has it.  Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Apparently redundant paragraph
I deleted this paragraph since it seems to go without saying but am preserving it here in case it should be readmitted into the article:

The provosts rendered justice in a provostal court. The enforcement bodies of these different jurisdictions were the company of the Constabulary and the companies of the Maréchaussée. Skingski (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate? I don't see what you mean. This paragraph should be restored, unless it's redundant to something already there? Mathglot (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This paragraph says the provosts rendered justice in a provostal court. We discuss provost courts extensively in the prior section "Constabulary" as well as mention the nature of the enforcement bodies in this paragraph and the succeeding paragraph:
 * "Each marshal had a provost (prévôt) who headed a small contingent of sergents (referred to as "archers" after 1501) to police the soldiers under the marshal's command and administer justice. Rulings were dispensed in separate courts."
 * In the section from which I removed it, "Provostal tribunals", we also reference tribunals - a.k.a. courts - before we reach this paragraph. If this deleted paragraph meant to reference junior provincial courts, those did not yet exist to my understanding until well after 1501.--Skingski (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

la Cour de la Connétablie et Maréchaussée de France
In the Provostal tribunals section, we call the merged court, "la Cour de la Connétablie et Maréchaussée de France" in French but in English, the "Constabulary and Marshalcy Tribunal." We don't call the Maréchaussée "the Marshalcy" generally in the article as we preserve its French name. So perhaps we rename it.

Another question is if it was called this in the 15th Century when it merged - I think the term "Maréchaussée" emerges much later, right? The Lorgnier 1994 reference calls the merged tribunal at this time, the "Connetablie des Marchaux de France":
 * "Ces deux tribunaux n'en formerent alors plus qu'un, sous le nom de Connetablie des Marchaux de FRANCE et les Marechaux y rendirent desormais, seuls, les sentences."

Right now, Lorgnier is all I have on this question, but would prefer a second supporting citation to settle the question. Skingski (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding naming: the name used in English is often a direct translation of the French term, but not always. The deciding factor is, or should be, how it is referred to by the majority of reliable English sources. Also, the usage in English sources trumps consistency, so that if English sources name the group ""Maréchaussée", but at the same time, call the court the "Constabulary and Marshalcy Tribunal", then we should follow suit, even if that breaks consistency. Before I add the name for some French institution, I always stop and spend some time at Google books, Google scholar, and ngrams, to try to get a sense whether there is an established English name we can use, or not. If there is an English name for it, but no English article (yet), then I use an interlanguage link for it. The trickiest cases is when there is either no English coverage at all (rare; only for very obscure topics), or when there are a few English sources, but they don't agree on the name; then it's more difficult, and I try to pick the one that seems the most common. Mathglot (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologize for not getting back to you on your replies. Getting back into things now and will reply to you soon :) Skingski (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

History of Maréchaussée expanding powers
This uncited paragraph under "Provostal tribunals" seems problematic:


 * The Maréchaussée were initially also in charge of cracking down on misdeeds committed by mercenaries who formed roving bands of looters known as the "free companies" (Grandes compagnies), but over time the Maréchaussée gradually became more sedentary. After the appearance in 1445 of the compagnies d'ordonnance which were the first permanent paid army in France, the Maréchaussée was no longer satisfied following armies around on campaign, and began to establish itself permanently on the territory under Louis XII.

1). My impression is the nascent Maréchaussée was only peripherally involved in cracking down on grand companies; Constable of France Bertrand Du Guesclin persuaded/pushed them into Spain in 1365-6. Subsequent Maréchaussée duties through the 16th Century focused on the activities of unemployed mercs distinguishable from the grand companies.

2). Per the wikipage for Compagnie_d'ordonnance, the importance of these companies was that they pressed roving bands of miscreant and unemployed mercenaries into a standing army in order to diminish crime by problems such bands. Moreover, the Compagnie_d'ordonnance wikipage indicates that they were created in 1439, not 1445.

3). I'm unclear how much the Maréchaussée drove the change to provincial jurisdictions vs the king pressing for this. I have not found a reference on the former possibility yet; only that the king deemed it necessary due by reflection of his ordinances which start 65 years after 1445. Skingski (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Note the next subsection, "16th century," discusses the mercenary problem again which I plan to expand.Skingski (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I found a reference to use for this paragraph and merged its essential info into the 16th century section. 1445 turns out to be the correct date - it's just that the Compagnie_d'ordonnance wikipage needs improvement including addition of this date.Skingski (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Abuses of Maréchaussée section?
It may be useful to have a brief section on this group's abuses and attempts by the monarchy to reign them in. I envision it as outside the History section.2603:8080:2706:3A01:D923:E476:37FC:3CE3 (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Name conflict
Putting this here in case someone can explain: Brouillet (2016) calls the 25 January 1536 edict the Edict of Fountainebleu on p. 33 and p. 390. However, French wiki at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_%C3%A9dits_de_France lists it as the Edict of Paris. Numerous websites also name it this such as https://www.police-nationale.net/gendarmerie/, including this article: https://www.cairn.info/les-politiques-publiques-de-securite--9782130591092-page-7.htm Thus, I use this latter title.Skingski (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , sorry I haven't been as available here as I would like. I think you're doing fine, and I'm lurking on the page, but not very active lately. However, if you have particular points you wish to talk over, just ping me and I'll be happy to stop by. Mathglot (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Sfn no target errors
There seem to be about 6–8 harv/sfn no target errors in the citations now, due to inline short footnotes such as Brouillet and others which don't point to anything. They seem to have been introduced by Skingski's run of edits in March, where they added short footnotes without linking them properly. It looks like the references are listed for most of them—I haven't gone through one by one and don't have time to check now, but it's likely due to missing ref params in the citations for authors who have more than one work in the list and uniqueness letters are added to the citeref. If someone doesn't get to it before me, I'll fix them eventually. Mathglot (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've tagged a few of them with fix sfn (renders like this: ), which should make them easier to find. User:Skingski, if you are ever around and could take a look, that would be helpful. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope to be more around!!! Sorry I've been out - so much happening Skingski (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)