Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Calais (1349)

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Calais (1349)
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

Another Hundred Years' War article in which the French attempt to bribe their way into the recently fallen town of Calais. It ended badly for them. I have used this event to explore a few of the motivations for war in this period, including brief consideration knightly honour and dishonour, examples of personal gain and personal enmity, and consideration of the perception of behaviour. Hopefully a look under the surface of war in the Pale of Calais. As ever, I would be grateful for suggestions at all levels as to how my infelicities might be addressed. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5

 * Amerigo, and their king, Edward III, personally King?
 * No, used generically, not as a personal title; per MOS:JOBTITLES.


 * who were attemting to take the city Typo of attempting.
 * Oops.


 * Calais garrison in a surprise counterattack American counterattack.
 * Changed.


 * with the highest ranking captives Needs a hyphen between "highest ranking".
 * Done.


 * by both fighting during a truce and by You mean fightings?
 * No.


 * with French finances and motale at a low ebb Is motale a typo? Because I do not know it.
 * It is. Well spotted. (morale.)


 * the fighting in Gascony, Brittany and the area Link both Brittany and Gascony here.
 * Done.


 * it being all but impossible to land You mean is all but impossible?
 * Yes.


 * the north-west corner had its own moat and additional Remove own here.
 * Why? The phrase does't make sense then.
 * I only comment if it sounds good in my non-English native ears. If it doesn't sound good in your ears then it's more an opinion then rather a grammar or typo. I could be wrong too but that's why I'm here to learn how to master it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * larger than his in order to gain access Remove "in order" here.
 * Done.


 * and materiel prior to a campaign Remove "prior to" with "before" it sounds better.
 * Not in my opinion it doesn't.


 * evening of 1 January 1350 (other sources give 30 December 1349) Maybe add "(other sources give 30 December 1349)" in a note here?
 * Done.


 * son for the first installment of his bribe American installment.
 * Changed.


 * having abandoned his chivalric principles by both fighting during a truce You mean fightings?
 * No.


 * were said to have "maintained a tight lipped silence" There should be a hyphen between "tight lipped".
 * It's a quote. There isn't a hyphen in the quote. (Because it doen't have to follow the strange rules of the MoS.) So it should be left as is per MOS:PMC.
 * I keep forgetting this one. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Philip VI should have a first hand account Same as above but this time between first hand.
 * Done.


 * allowed to keep the installment of his bribe Again American installment.
 * Changed.


 * strong keep, by a midnight escalade Remove "a".
 * No; the "a" is meant to be there.


 * Ref 5, should have full numbers in its page numbers.
 * Ref 7, pp. 108–09. -->  pp. 108–109.
 * Ref 12, pp. 225–26. --> pp. 225–226.
 * Ref 19, pp. 226–27. --> pp. 226–227.
 * Ref 20, pp. 269–70. --> pp. 269–270.
 * Ref 21, pp. 192–5. --> pp. 192–195.
 * Ref 32, pp. 194–5. --> pp. 194–195.
 * Whoops. All done.


 * Why hasn't ref 24 a(ny) page number(s)?
 * I have no idea. It has now.


 * One ISBN has more than one hyphen in it. Maybe standardise the hyphens in the ISBNs?
 * Apologies. I thought that I had. Corrected.

That's anything that I got. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks . Very thorough. All changed or responded to above. You are very prompt here. It isn't even showing on the MilHist summery yet. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I'm on a conquest to reviews. Yesterday I destroyed the French battleship Iéna 's nomination which is ready to get promoted. I'm almost done with reviewing the French battleship Richelieu's GAN (only source, image and infobox to go). I also started with eating my popcorn during the Japan v. France's lists' nominations which I reviewed and need to continue the French one. I also claimed my seats in the Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship, 149th Armor Regiment and Project Excalibur's nominations. I'm in a pretty rush right now, since I came back from holiday on 17 July. I have some wikihomework to do. Since the last time I got my WikiChevrons I already reviewed six nominations I need to make enough reviews because in begin August I'll go on holiday again this time 2 weeks. Also happy 21st july. Cheers.
 * And a happy Belgian National Day to you too CPA-5, and thanks for the support. You are getting bolder it your critiques, which I think is good; and are happy to listen to the nominator's point of view, which is also good; and are amazingly eagle-eyed, which is excellent. I hope that you keep it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well Gog, the summer months are always the busiest, so I'm working on every review I could find. I'm not a god or dictator to tell what the nominators should do because I think it sounds better. I'm just an editor like any else here so I can make mistakes or I should respect any opinions we get here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert
Support: Nice work, Gog, I have a few minor comments/queries/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * should the figure of at least 400 casualties be mentioned in the body?
 * same as above for the 900 figure?
 * I can hardly believe that I did that. Both fixed.


 * Note 2 has a slightly different citation style (usually a numbered citation instead in contrast to the other notes
 * Fixed.


 * Some sources give 30 December 1349.Kaeuper & Kennedy 1996, p. 11 --> "Kaeuper & Kennedy 1996, p. 11 give 30 December 1349"? (this would make it consistent with your earlier style)
 * OK.


 * "File:Clock Tower of Guînes - panoramio.jpg": seems to be missing a caption
 * Thanks. I deleted an upright when I added the alt text.


 * Edward III. Who was...: probably best not to start the sentence with "who" here
 * Done.


 * in the Sources, Kaeuper should be before King alphabetically
 * Done.


 * in the Sources, Rogers and Sumption are overlinked
 * Fixed.


 * Pale of Calais appears to be linked twice in the body -- suggest maybe moving "area known as the Pale of Calais" to the earlier mention if this is the same area
 * Done.


 * suggest linking portcullis
 * Done.


 * nobility involved were Earl Suffolk, Lord Stafford: the link for Lord Stafford seems to go to the town, not the person
 * Lol. I suspect an editor with a sense of humour. Thank you for picking it up.


 * Thank you for giving this your usual close scrutiny. I am aware that you have reviewed far more of my articles than vice versa, so as and when you have nominations I would be grateful if you could ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, Gog, that would be fantastic. Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Support by PM
This article is in great shape and I consider it meets the A-Class criteria. The sources all appear to be of high quality and reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, thanks for looking at this, and for the supports. I wonder if I could ask your opinions as to whether this article may be worth nominating for FA? I worked on it last October as a bit of a light hearted article, not intending to take it past GA. Barring my sloppy grammar and MoS-compliance it seems to have gone through ACR easily enough and I would value your frank opinions as to whether it may be worth a shot at FA, as and when I have an open slot. Thanks.
 * PS Just a quick "sure", or "probably not" is fine - no need to waste your time rereading.
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the shortness of the battle section might draw some attention, but so long as the level of detail reflects the sources I don't think it would be an issue. To be honest, I don't have much FAC experience, so I would defer to PM on this one, but overall I think it is a very interesting and well put-together article so if you are keen, I say go for it. Have you thought of a peer review before FAC? That might give you a few more ideas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely FAC material. I've put quite short ship articles through FAC, so brevity shouldn't be a problem as long as it is comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

G'day, this one is moving along nicely, would you mind doing the honours with an image review please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:The_French_attempt_to_recapture_Calais_from_England_(1350).jpg: as per the current tag, could we add a tag for country of origin? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We could. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

 * What do you mean by "galleys were the specialist warships of the day"
 * 'Galleys, a type of sea-going vessel, were, in this period and in this area, used exclusively for military purposes as anti-ship weapons, being specifically construced for this purpose; all other sea-going vessels, in this period and area predominantly those known as cogs, were constructed for, and mostly used for, non-military purposes. but could be used in a military - anti-ship - role, usually and preferably after extensive modifications.'
 * You and I know that, but you need to explain it better to an ordinary reader.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The original statement was already pushing "does not go into unnecessary detail" and a detailed explanation would, I think, go over the line, so I have deleted this bit.
 * Probably the best thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * hyphenate "well known"
 * Done.


 * as a non-Englishman and as a commoner by birth As subordinate clauses, shouldn't these be set off by commas?
 * Not where I learnt English, but as I have noticed most Wikipedians inserting commas more freely than my tutors would have allowed me to, that is probably not much of a recommendation. I have inserted commas where I assume you would prefer them, but as it now reads oddly to me I would be grateful if you could check.
 * I like it, but I'm not a believer in sentence simple structure and tend to use a lot of clauses of all types. But I'm not going to fuss over them; if you prefer not to use them that's fine too.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah. I have a clear idea of how I like to write English, which was learnt in a reputable institution, but it does not seem to be the mainstream on Wikipedia. So I need to adapt my habits, difficult as that may be after years of writing what I thought was standard English. (However, I reserve the right to be mildly grumpy about it.)
 * I explain it by saying that we don't use academic-ese, so it's a different style of English than what you're used to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * as is this, who even allowing for their deserters
 * That one is definitely my error - inserted.


 * Is it worth noting that less socially prominent captives likely couldn't pay a ransom? There's often some solid economics behind barbarous decisions during this period.
 * An interesting and intuitively attractive hypothesis. Do you have a source to support it? A quick skim through what I have from the leading authority on early- to mid-14th C prisoners and ransoms (King) doesn't seem to have anything along these lines. Most modern historians state the facts and refrain from suggesting to what extent these arise from class prejudice, financial considerations, or other factors. Any well researched source which does look at this would be most welcome.
 * Not off-hand; I'll have to look. Maybe in "War, Cruel and Sharp"? Or in the discussions about Henry V slaughtering his prisoners at Agincourt? I tend to think that the financial aspects predominated the choice to kill low-born captives, but there's also the impact of their logistical needs; they have to be fed and guarded and would undoubtedly slow down your movements if you were in a hurry. Since you can't sell them into slavery, they have no intrinsic value in and of themselves unless you can persuade them to switch sides. Their main value, it seems to me, is that you've denied their services to your opponent and simply releasing them negates that. If I can find some discussion about this sort of thing, maybe I should write this up as a little note for the Journal of Medieval Military History!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with any of that. You find 'throw away' comments along those lines in the more general RSs, but the more you get to the more specialist treatments the less they commit in this respect. There must be something out there already on this, but I certainly haven't come across it. I may write to Professor King, who has been helpful in the past. I suspect the main problem is that the contemporary sources say little, taking the reasons, whatever they were, as read, and so it is tricky to write anything which isn't largely opinion.
 * That seems quite likely. And who would want to justify a massacre, however indirectly? I think that the point's worth speculating about, IMO, rather than glossing over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have "speculat[ed] about" the reasons. If I get kick back I shall blame you. I hope that Andy King doesn't find out. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Always happy to take a bow!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Lord de la Waae Is this a typo for Lord de la Ware/Warre or however it was spelled that hour?
 * Well surmised. Waae is what is given in the source, and I was reluctant to OR. (There was a Pepin de Were, but he was on the French side.) However, some digging reveals a Lord de la Warr aged 24 at the time and in the personal retinue of the Black Prince, and so he would have almost certainly fought at Calais. Similar digging confirms the non-existence, outside of this source, of a Lord de la Waae. 400 pages later the source with de la Waae makes a passing reference to a Lord de la Warr. So I am going to go for de la Warr. Thanks.
 * Don't get me started on my rant on how the Stuarts lessened the value of a title by selling/giving them away to just about any knucklehead with money or semi-apparent military ability, but I'm related to most of the pre-Stuart aristocrats on one side of the bed or the other so my curiosity was aroused when I saw a title that I'd never heard of. De la Warr/Ware/Whatever seemed like the most likely candidate for a typo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The quote for #23 is missing a hyphen.
 * Added.


 * vote three years war taxes missing word?
 * Not that I can see. I would be happy to insert one if you could suggest what it might best be. (And a location.) The source reads "A fresh subsidy was voted for each of the next three years to counter the 'malice of the enemies of the realm'.
 * Funny how prepositions come and go; I'd use "three years of war taxes" But it's not something that I'd insist upon.
 * OK. I see your point now. I don't see anything wrong with my version, but if the preposition stops readers stumbling over the phrase, then in it goes.


 * Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sturmvogel 66, your usual insightful comments. Addressed above, although several are not straight forward. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * How's it looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)