Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gascon campaign of 1345/archive1

Gascon campaign of 1345

 * Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The Hundred Years' War was started when Philip VI of France confiscated the English fief of Gascony. Despite this, activities in Gascony during the war receive little attention - in the general literature as well as on Wikipedia. I have been attempting to remedy the latter situation and so would like to present for FAC an account of "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Year's War". This is only the third article I have written from scratch, so I hope that reviewers will be sympathetic regarding any glaring shortcomings; nevertheless, I believe that it has the potential to achieve Featured Article standard. were good enough to have a look at and to comment on this article at ACR. I wondered if I could impose on you to have another look at it. If I can, then many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Support by Lingzhi (also Source Review)
I guess the thing I noticed most lacking was certainly a sense of scope and perhaps a sense of context (maybe not on the second one; will think). For example, "...morale and prestige swung England's way in the border region between English-occupied Gascony and French-ruled territory...". Well, how much did that impact the entire Hundred Years' war? How big and/or prosperous and/or strategically important was this region, relative to everything else involved? Same thing for "Not only Gascony, but much of the Duchy of Aquitaine was left securely in English hands...". That sounds like a sea-change; if it wasn't, then why not? Do any modern sources discuss the relative scope, relative impact, etc.? BTW thanks for this excellent article. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks for the input. rereading the article I am inclined to agree with you regarding the lack of scope. The problem, as you touch on towards the end, and as I mention in the FAC introduction, is the shortage of modern (post-Medieval) coverage, There is a now a fair bit, but it tends towards the statement of fact side rather than the more broad brush, speculative side. I shell trawl back through the sources and see what nuggets I can find. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * let's see what I can find:
 * Burne, Alfred H. "AUBEROCHE, 1345: A FORGOTTEN BATTLE." Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 27.110 (1949): 62-67.
 * Godmond, Christopher. "A brief Memoir of the Campaigns of Edward the Third in the Years 1345, 1346; and 1347, ending with the Surrender of Calais: with a Defence or Apology of Edward as to his Conduct to Eustace de St. Pierre and the other Burgesses on the Surrender of that Fortress." The Gentleman's magazine (1837): 357-361. "In the year 1345, the war between England and France, after a short and hollow truce, had broken out again, and Derby was despatched by Edward with a strong force into Gascony. In that campaign he reduced the castles of St..."
 * Gribit, Nicholas A. Henry of Lancaster's Expedition to Aquitaine, 1345-1346: Military Service and Professionalism in the Hundred Years War. Vol. 42. Boydell & Brewer, 2016. Seems to have a chapter on battle of Auberoche.
 * I see more but not sure of relevancy, can check. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I have Burne, but in this article rely on his fuller treatment, The Crecy War. Gribit is the most recent treatment. I use it, although it is one I had in mind with "tends towards the statement of fact side rather than the more broad brush, speculative side"; although a reread may well yield some material. Godmond. I haven't come across that, not surprisingly given that it is 182 years old. I'll have a look at it, but just from the title I suspect that it will focus on Edward III; who operated exclusively in the north - Crecy and Calais etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * oh that's embarrassing! Good work then. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * -) Nah; always worth poking at a FAC, you never know where it will be weak. I think that I have all of the RSs, I just need to reread them with "scope" in mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I found a summary of sorts in . On page 109 we have: "On passing through the gates [of La Réole] the prince's great chevauchee' in Languedoc came to an end. The prince had led his army on a march of more than 600 miles deep into French territory and back again in less than two months. He had not brought the French to battle, but the effects of his campaign were profound and remain seared in the history of the region to this day. The prince left La Réole on or about 5 December, passing via St-Macaire to Bordeaux four days later where he remained for Christmas." This confuses me a little; am I looking at the wrong bit? Is this 1345 or 1346...? Was Derby--> Lancaster a prince? This source says "two months" [the section heading is "Carbonne to La Réole, 19 November – 2 December"], but I think ours has it at four months. And this source suggests he wintered in Bordeaux, whereas I think ours says it was in La Réole. Finally, that "profound and remained seared" has the scent of a rhetorical flourish, at least to me. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh &mdash; one of your sources (Rogers) has more than a little very nice stuff starting on page 89. The last thing he seems to mention (almost as an aside after many other consequences) is the shift in local loyalties; in another source I saw where only one any consequence is mentioned, it's that one. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You are an excellent "digger" - I have just been admiring your research on WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Jean Bart (1911). Thanks for your efforts here. I am now coming back to this, intending to add a paragraph in "Assessment" laying out the strategic consequences, or lack of, more clearly. It will mostly be from Sumption and, yes, Rogers. I note that I flag up the trade and financial importance of Gascony in the second paragraph of Background, ending "Any interruptions to regular shipping were liable to starve Gascony and financially cripple England; the French were well aware of this."
 * The Black Prince's grande chevauchée was in 1355, ten years after the events in this article. Sadly, there is no Wikipedia article on this fairly major event. (It is on my To Do List, but, you know, "Ask me for anything but time".) He carried out another the next year, was intercepted by the French and brought to battle, but won a famous victory, capturing the French king. Derby was Edward III's cousin, but not a prince; the Black Prince was Edward's son (and was).
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words! I enjoy the research & learning new things. I'm becoming quite interested in all this Medieval stuff. Look forward to seeing your improved "Assessment" section...Everything connects to everything in these historical articles. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The period is endlessly fascinating. Six months ago I had only a vague, general mental outline of the Hundred Years' War. I now know more about its first ten years than I ever really wanted to. And seem to have acquired half a shelf of books.
 * I am not happy about my attempts to add "scope". I suspect that I had milked the sources about as much as I could first time around. Having cone back through everything, they are all horribly weak in this too. But it is an under-studied area. Burne, writing a chapter on the Gascon war in 1955, bewailed that there was not so much as an article on it prior to 1355 in the English language, and precious little in French. I have added what I can, and even then am getting twitchy that I am verging on OR, but much of it is shuffling around what is already there. The changes are here. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Aren't there some good summary facts on Rogers pp. 89–90? Did I miss where you included those? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Lingzhi2. I have a problem. I got the Rogers book on inter-library loan, copied a few pages (mostly of other articles in the book), took some notes, wrote the two articles I wanted it for, and have long since returned it. I had assumed that if I needed to gap fill I could find a copy on the internet. Sadly I have not been able to. (I wish that I had scanned the whole article, but I didn't.) Yesterday I put in a request to get the book back, but it will probably be a few weeks. Hopefully you are feeling patient. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Rogers page 89 is viewable on Google books; page 90 is not. At least some portions of Sumption are searchable on Amazon. For now, see if there's anything more you can use from those. Then I'll take your Boy Scouts Promise (they've gone genderless now, don'tcha know) that you'll see if there's anything else to add when you get that book later. For now that's certainly good enough for me. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, my heart sank when I went to GB and realised that page 90 was a gap. Rogers on Amazon doesn't have a 'look inside' option. I have Sumption in hard copy, although all of it has been put on line. (Given that he is a member of the UK Supreme Court, that strikes me as a risky thing to have done. :-) ) That is very good of you. I could see this FAC getting an entirely justified fail for the lack of access to a single page - which may not even have anything usable in it. If there is anything there once I get my hands back on it, I shall certainly put it into the article. I wrote this one from scratch and nothing is too much for my baby. It is interesting to write in areas where mainstream historians have trodden only lightly, but also frustrating; for most campaigns in history someone has stuck their neck out and given some subjective scope. Which, as noted above, I do agree with you that the article is short on. Now I know why.
 * I was in either the Scouts - or was it their female equivalent, I forget - when younger, and you have my promise. (Battle of Neville's Cross was my first FA, on 12 December - I have edited it ten times since. Once promoted I don't just leave them and move on. My second has had seven edits since 17 January.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Source Review: 17 sources used. 3 are university presses (2 Oxford 1 Michigan). 1 phd thesis, U of Leeds. 2 are peer-reviewed (Journal Medieval Military Hist). 1 from Royal Historical Society Studies in History. 5 from Boydell & Brewer academic press (some cited many times in Google scholar).. Other details:
 * Happy to Support ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Alfred Burne  The Crecy War. Google scholar says cited by 50. Wordsworth Editions reprint of Eyre and Spottiswoode press.
 * 2) Fowler, Kenneth Alan The King's Lieutenant. Cited by 53. Fowler also write the phd thesis.
 * 3) François Guizot, Popular history France. Author well-established (hard to get cite counts because many editions, 2 languages).
 * 4) Charles Oman A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages. Various editions cited well over 200 times.
 * 5) Nicholas A. M. Rodger FBA historian of the Royal Navy and senior research fellow of All Souls College, Oxford.  Cited over 300 times.
 * 6) Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption. Supreme court, barrister etc. Cited 152 (just that volume; has other volumes)
 * 7) Finally, only 1 encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. Greenwood Publishing. All sources look fine to me ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Images, Nikkimaria
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

 * I'll have a look soon. Preliminary thing, I see the same article linked twice under Assessment (Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346). FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * Oops. Thanks. Done.


 * Any reason why many of the images are so small and not just standard thumbnail size?
 * I have bumped them up to standard size. Better?


 * I wonder if it should be specified in the infobox image caption that it shows Battle of Crécy? I assume you just want it to represent a generic battle between the factions involved, but it might mislead people to think it is something that happened within the time frame described in the article, when it was apparently later.
 * The caption doesn't pretend that the image relates to any event in the article. I could add "the following year" or "in 1346" but I am not sure that will add much for a reader. I am even less keen to name the specific event it is supposed to depict, partly because the image bears little resemblance to what we now know of Crecy, partly because I feel that the red herring would confuse a reader. Perhaps I could add "as imagined by a contemporary chronicler"?
 * I think your last suggestion would be good. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * "Since the Norman Conquest of 1066," I'd specify "of England", as all readers might now know this.
 * Good point. Done.


 * "and claimed to have a separate language" Anything to link?
 * Unfortunately, no.
 * Probably Gascon language? FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "along the Garonne" Add river for clarity?
 * I am struggling a little to work it in. Given that the full phrase is "blocked upstream communication along the Garonne" do you think it likely that it will not be clear that the Garonne is a river?


 * I wonder if all image captions should have dates for context?
 * Should be ok then. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The precise dates are not known for any, but all are contemporary. I could add "contemporary" or equivilant if you think that it would be helpful.
 * Hi . Thanks for taking a look at this. I have responded to your points, sometimes with queries of my own, above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good, will review the rest soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "After a council of war Derby decided to strike at the French there." Since you are now in a new paragraph, might be good to specify what "there" was?
 * Done.


 * "Miniature from Froissart's Chronicle" The image seems quite peculiar, but there is nothing in the caption that describes what is going on? It seems to depict "captured and returned to the castle via a trebuchet", could this be stated in the caption?
 * Done.


 * "French decided to make their main effort in 1346" The French?
 * Oops. Done.


 * "conducted the whirlwind" Seems a bit informal/hyperbolic? Does a source call it this?
 * Changed.


 * Is the citation in the intro needed?
 * Not in my opinion. I was asked to put it in during a previous review. Now removed. (Thanks.)


 * I have addressed your points so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - looks great to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Support by Jens Lallensack
Interesting stuff, and no big issues apparent.
 * The background section is great and really helpful. To improve comprehensibility from the beginning on, I would suggest to explain "Gascony" in brackets in the lead..
 * Good catch. I am not keen on brackets in the lead, so have expanded the first sentence. See what you think.


 * It is mentioned that the plan was that the Earl of Northampton would lead a small force to Brittany, but this is not mentioned again. Was that campaign successful? How did it influence the Gascon campaign? It is somewhere mentioned that the French sent reinforcements to both Gascony and Brittany, this lets me wonder.
 * I have added a sentence to the start of the Aftermath section. Hopefully it covers, at least implicitly. your queries.


 * He then pushed west to Périgueux, the provincial capital – the capital of which province?
 * Périgord. Added.


 * The Duke of Normandy lost heart on hearing of the defeat. There are accounts that he resigned his command and returned to Paris, only to be reinstated and sent back by his father, the King.[59] The French abandoned all of their ongoing sieges of other Anglo-Gascon strongpoints.[51] There were reports of the French army disintegrating: men unpaid, even unfed; lack of fodder for the horses; desertion; troops selling their equipment. Despite heavily outnumbering the Anglo-Gascon force the Duke of Normandy retreated to Angouleme and disbanded his army, possibly because the French had run out of money. – The order of events is not clear to me. Did he resigned his command, was then reinstated by his father, and then disbanded his army as he was out of money?
 * Yes. Events happened (broadly) in the order mentioned in the text.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Jens. Many thanks for dropping by for this. Some good points there, a clear illustration that I am too close to the article. All addressed.
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Supporting now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley
I thought I'd added my twopenn'orth to this review, but I see memory was playing tricks with me. I shall look in tomorrow, I hope, after a leisurely perusal of the text.  Tim riley  talk   17:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

An excellent article. Clear and a really good read. A few minor drafting points:
 * Lead:
 * The second sentence needs a tweak. At present it seems to say that the Hundred Years War was in Gascony. I think it needs breaking into bite-size chunks: Gascony was an English-controlled territory in s.w. France; (ii) Derby commanded an Anglo-Gascon army there; (iii) this was the first successful land campaign there against the French during the Hundred Years' War.
 * I see what you mean. Reworded. Any better?
 * Much clearer. Two "wars" in the sentence, but I think we can endure that.  Tim riley  talk   19:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "several significant fortified places" – and what did they signify? This is the first of eight "significant"s in the article – two in one para at one point – and it seems a pity to use a word with a precise meaning as a mere synonym of "big" or "important" or "quite a few but I don't know how many" (Not just a bee in the Riley bonnet: I fly Fowler's colours here.)
 * There may be a small bee. ;-) But you are correct - I overuse the word. Cut back to one "significant" and one "insignificant", both of which I believe are used appropriately. You and Mr Fowler may disagree.


 * Background
 * "independent minded" – I'd hyphenate when used attributively, as here.
 * Done.


 * Gascony
 * "and by far the largest source of state income" – is Sumption pp 39–40 the source for this? If not a citation is wanted.
 * Excellent spot. No, it is Rodger at the end of the paragraph. Now duplicated to the end of this sentence.


 * "Bordeaux was possibly richer" – is this covered by Rodger pp 79–80?
 * Yes.


 * Second para: "previously" and "previous" in quick succession; perhaps tweak the first on the lines of "and when an English army had campaigned on the continent in the past" or some such.
 * A major rephrasing.


 * Initial operations
 * "Due to bad weather" – unless you regard "due to" as having been generally accepted as a compound preposition in BrE (I don't, but I am an old fogey) this should be "Owing to" or, even better, "Because of".
 * Well, I'm a fogey too, so I have amended to duck the issue.


 * Battles of Bergerac and Auberoche
 * "24 miners" – you have a useful link to Mining (military) later, and I think perhaps it might be helpful to the reader to move it up here or even (hush!) duplicate it.
 * Duplicated. Oh, I'm a rash, impetuous fogey!


 * Assessment
 * "with regards to committing themselves" – I think this should probably be "with regard to committing themselves" (plural regards being more associated with greetings – "regards to all") but I may be wrong.
 * Quite right. Done.


 * Aftermath
 * The second sentence seems to lack a definite article at the beginning.
 * Oops. Done.

That's all from me. I'll look in again and, I hope and expect, add my support.  Tim riley  talk   09:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Tim. Your usual insightful job, pinpointing my sloppiness. All points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to support promotion to FA. The article is a splendid read, evidently comprehensive, admirably illustrated, and seems to this layman's eye to be well balanced. Meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see.  Tim riley  talk   19:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

SN

 * I see that you're not using French sources; any particular reason for this? ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi SN. Yes. Probably easiest to refer you to the discussion on the same issue in the FA assessment of Battle of Auberoche, here. You may recall participating. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeeees...was your take away from that discussion that it is unnecessary to use any French sources whatsoever—in the context of FACCRIT 1b & 1c? ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Goodness no. My take away was that there aren't any reliable French sources. I would love to discover some. As it is I have included a source from the 1870s, just to get a token French source in. That seems to be as recent as they get. At least one modern (British) source bewails the lack of French coverage of this front. (Prior to Poitiers.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Query to coordinators
Hi and the other coordinators. To my untutored eye it looks as if this FAC may be drawing to a close. If I am mistaken, apologies. However, if it is, could I request permission to nominate my next candidate? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)