Talk:First Barons' War

message: :Having appropriated the rebels cause, the military defeat of Louis came soon after and ended with the signing of the Treaty of Lambeth in 1217
This part needs more detail that I do not know. How did the rebel barons respond to the royalists crowning of Henry and how did this affect the military defeat of Louis? Stbalbach 09:59, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  You put this in at the bottom of the page (without the 'nowiki'), for future reference: Neddyseagoon - talk 17:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: more detail

message: :The Norman invasion had been 150 years prior, and the relationship between England and France is revealed by the annals of Waverley, in a passage that would seem bizarre today, that the French Prince was asked to invade England in order to "prevent the realm being pillaged by aliens".
I dont understand what this quote means, the relationship is not revealed by the quote (for me anyway). Can we expand further, or is it a trivia asside that takes away from the narrative? Stbalbach 18:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes it's strange, as it would imply that the Angevin were stranger to England (which was true, just as the Norman were too) but not the king of France... it does not make much sense to me really
Matthieu 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waverley ironic quote 

message: I changed 
 Pro-monarchy forces and Anti-monarchy forces, and  Kingdom of France
for
 Pro-Angevin forces and Pro-Capetian forces, and  Kingdom of France
As the Capetian side wasn't anti-monarchic in the sense "against the concept of a monarchy."
Matthieu 13:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Combattants

message: It seems rather odd that there is no mention of Alexander of Scotland's invasion of England, in suppoert of the Barons and Louis. Bringing the army of Scotland further south than any other in the history of the two Kingdoms, , will do some editing here I think. 
Furthermore have clarified the fact that Alexander, as with other Scottish Kings, (with the exception of his father, coerced by the Treaty of Falaise) only paid homage for his English possessions, much in the same way that Edward I did homage to Philip le Bel, for Gascony. Brendandh (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexander II's invasion

message: No mention of Reigate or Chichester Castles?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.5.47 (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reigate and Chichester Castles 

message: From Article:The war resulted from the king's refusal to accept and abide by the Magna Carta he had sealed (not signed) on 15 June 1215, and from the ambitions of the French prince, who dragged the war on after many of the rebel barons had made peace with John.
In the Middle Ages, a seal served the same purpose as signing a document does today.  Can someone give me a reason as to why the article was written like this?  I am changing it, if someone can present a suitable reason as to why the article should remain as it is above, then it will be changed back.  Thank you,Hawkrawkr (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sealed 

message: From Article:The war resulted from the king's refusal to acept and abide by the Magna Carta he had sealed (not signed) on 15 June 1215, and from the ambitions of the French prince, who dragged the war on after many of the rebel barons had made peace with John.
In the Middle Ages, a seal served the same purpose as signing a document does today.  Can someone give me a reason as to why the article was written like this?  I am changing it, if someone can present a suitable reason as to why the article should remain as it is above, then it will be changed back.  Thank you,Hawkrawkr (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sealed 

message: This is a proposal for the infobox. I'll write the sentences i suggest to add to the infobox and for each of them, some sources.
* Barons joined Henry III after John's death in 1216
Sources :
 "With John dead, the rebellious barons who had encouraged French aid, saw the young king as the safer option. Many rejoined the royal cause "
 "A la mort de Jean en octobre, son fils Henri III devient roi à 9 ans. Les barons se rallient peu à peu à lui"
* French defeat
Sources :
 "The royalist naval victory of 1217 meant that the war was finally over.  A month later, the Treaty of Lambeth ensured that Prince Louis and his men left England, never to return."
 "1217 : The French lose the battles of Lincoln and Dover and are driven back to France"
 "A la mort de Jean en octobre, son fils Henri III devient roi à 9 ans. Les barons se rallient peu à peu à lui, et les Français finissent par être chassés, en septembre 1217".
 Gentlemen, your comments are welcome.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good call. I think it should say 'French defeat' since that was final outcome as this what most sources say. I was going to look for sources but now I won't bother. Like I said the final outcome matters which was after John's death - not before and not during. I also think the Baronial forces should be mentioned as changing sides from 1216. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I changed the above sentences. Thanks for the feedback.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember aright (without access to any books from an airport lounge) - those defeats resulted in the French King negotiating and he took money to renounce his claim to the throne and his supporters got an amnesty.  All very very messy and we are still in the period where the idea of England as distinct from England and lots of bits of France was still forming - multiple wars between cousins. -----Snowded TALK 23:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You remember well, but the main goal of Louis was the crown of England not the money and amnesty for his supporters, this is why almost all the sources i've read on the subject underline the French withdrawal and Louis' renunciation to the English crown. The above sources also support the fact that Louis' position was untenable, he had no other choice but to try to negociate the best treaty he could and quit England with his forces. Given the sources, Would you agree with my above proposal ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they really rejoined William the Marshall not Henry III and he was one of them!  Its not clear they abandoned the fight either - in some ways they thought they had won it and no longer needed Louis.  I just think its all too messy to talk about anyone winning or loosing and the implications were many and varied and best handled in the main text.-----Snowded TALK 12:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   Hmmm, i think we should go by what the sources say. The above sources say that the Barons joined Henry after John's death not Marshall. The sources also support the French defeat (including the French source ...). However, you have a point when you say that we're not sure if they abandoned the fight, this is why i changed the above sentence accordingly. I think it's fair enough now, but i would welcome your opinion. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he was regent so its not unsupported by the sources.   My point stands - outcome is all too confusing here for an information box entry.   We are better leaving it blank and allowing the main body to explain things.  Also the sources support the statement that the Barons joined with the King after the death of John, but that is not the same as the sources saying that was the outcome of the War. I've seen the Provisions of Oxford traced to the War but that doesn't make them the Outcome per se.  Withdrawal of Louis and reuniting of the various forced previously at war is closer to it - but again I don't see the need -----Snowded TALK 15:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

text: I've just changed the lede and placed an aftermath section so that the article has been given more scope on the outcome. Hope this helps? Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks very much, just checked your edits, you did a great job according to me. I'm still waiting for 's input in order to include the French defeat in the infobox, this part is quite clear, well sourced and in accordance with your recent edits. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be OK with "French withdrawal" but happier still with nothing -----Snowded TALK 14:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but then i think it's better to say "French defeat and withdrawal" since they withdrawn because of their defeats at Lincoln, Dover and Sandwich. This is well-sourced and should be included. Maybe we could ask for other users' input with a RfC.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would still stick to 'French defeat'. William Marshall used the death of John as a way to unite the Barons and repel the French. There is no doubt that Louis' whole campaign was a failure - the sources all point to this. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but i'm trying to find out the most consensual outcome, as the current blank one is absolutely not helpful according to me. However, i would say that the majority of the involved editors agree with "French defeat" and the sources too, so i would go with that. If reverted, then a RfC should be opened.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

text:  Added the outcome, sources and treaty of Lambeth since the majority of the involved editors would go for that ( Richard Nevell said above that the sources "talk about the French defeat" ). Hope this will help. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with this. Best description for the outcome. Thanks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources talk about French withdrawal.  Yes the defeats may have triggered it - no point in going on with William the Marshall there rather than John.  But te actual outcome is a French Withdrawal, they could have chosen ti carry on - its a sensible conmpromise and we don't 'vote' but if you really want a RfC .....-----Snowded TALK 19:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources couldn't be more clear; I don't see what the problem is? Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: They are very clear - they say he gave up his claim after three defeats.  All wars include defeats - the Treaty of Lambeth resulted in withdrawal.  I'll revert but if you really don't like it then we go back to the older version and have an RFC-----Snowded TALK 20:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm quite ok with the current outcome, even if i find that the previous one was more accurate. If  does not agree with it then i would go for a RfC.To be honest, , i find that you're quibbling, what's the difference between being defeated and a subsequent withdrawal and a simple defeat ? The French withdrawal was a consequence of losing the war, nothing less, nothing more. Also, i would like to point out that your above sentence  "they could have chosen ti carry on" is wrong since it goes against what the sources state. At least one of the above source says that Louis's position was untenable, this is cristal clear right ? So the French could not carry on and were simply defeated. I would suggest to go with what the sources say and moving forward. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: One person's quibble is another person't historical accuracy.   The sources say that WIlliam the Marshall took over, the Baron's alliance therefore shifted, the French were isolated and had to withdraw.  It is as I have said very messy with mutiple shifting alliances so it is far from clear that anyone lost.  The French were opoprtunistic but came in to support the Barons so did the Barons's loose?  Did John loose then conveniently die?   The simplist and best approach remains to leave it blank but we have some editors who can't cope with a war which doesn't have a winner - so I have tried to compromise -----Snowded TALK 21:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Louis rejected English terms three months before he was defeated at Sandwich. The defeat there meant that Louis finally conceded to the English terms at Lambeth. What's more the infobox result can't be used as a whole sentence. I would be happy with - 'French defeat & withdrawal'. This is adequate enough for the article. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "French defeat and withdrawal" sounds very good according to me, even better than just "French defeat". It makes the outcome more accurate.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The outcome is so much more than the loss of three battles and withdrawal and if we are going to have an outcome we need to reflect that. It was not a war between France and England but between different and shifting alliances over north-western Europe - one of the periods where England starts to emerge as something distinct. I've restored the older version pending agreement.  The sources support the fact that the French retreated following some losses (the version I put in place more or less directly quoted the sources.   If you want to have "French Defeat" then you have to have something about the radical changes in the balance of power between the King and the Barons.  Remember after this we get the De Montfort rebellion.  -----Snowded TALK 05:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So we come to a compromise where we combine your views.. you go and backtrack and go back to square one?? Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually you didn't and as yet there is not a consensus so the article stays in the position it was in before this discussion started pending consensus.  I've explained clearly why I think a simple 'French defeat' is not enough.  The sources in the main say withdrawal after battle field defeats, they do not say that the outcome of the war was french defeat.  Each source elaborates multiple consequences.  It shouldn't be that difficult to agree something.  I've restored the pre-dispute version and tagged it as dubious (which is what you should have done).  I  -----Snowded TALK 12:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal 

message: All we can see when looking at the discussion is that the user Snowden got tired of arguing with two British, and thus not-neutral on that topic (it's not an insult/attack, we're all biased and so am I), high-ranking users and gave in. Still this doesn't change the fact that "X's defeat" as a subpoint in an infobox result is NOT an appropriate formulation. Usually we have "Y's victory" or "X's withdrawal" (when involving an overseas war like in this one). So you can make it "French withdrawal following the battle of Lincoln", but "French defeat" has to go (especially since the Barons that had initially sided with the French achieved their goals).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.119.68.246 (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, as shown in previous discussion there is proof from various soruces that it was a French defeat. If you have sources to back up your claim then go ahead and please use them - then there can a basis for further discussion. Here is what was said if you need to be reminded:
*  Defeat of the French by his return to France at the end of February 1217 'The Cambridge Medieval History: The rise of the Saracens and the foundation of the Western empire' page 253
* Louis's defeat in 1217 'Scotland, England and France After the Loss of Normandy, 1204-1296: "Auld Amitie"' M. A. Pollock, page 85
* Increased isolation following Louis's defeat clearly reinforced English insularity after 1217 'The Knight Who Saved England: William Marshal and the French Invasion, 1217' Richard Brooks, page 281
* the death of John, the coronation of Henry III, and the defeat of the barons and Prince Louis in 1216 and 1217 'Magna Carta' Katherine Fischer Drew, Page 101
If you want more? No problem. Good day. Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

text: French IP, what is or not written in other wikipedia articles does not matter (see WP:OTHER), sources matter. As Eastfarthingan said above, we have plenty of sources that are supporting the current outcome. If you have reliable sources to support your claims, then go ahead and post them here, otherwise, i strongly suggest you to desist from posting forum-like messages here. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

text: To the French IP - the essence of wikipedia is to compromise within the constraint of citation support. For the record I'm Welsh (which means I am also European and British in that order) and my track record on wikipedia does not show me as getting tired :-)    Eastfarthingan, aggressive lists of citations for one perspective when the other (French retreat after defeat at Lincoln) also has support in the citations almost tempted me to open this up again.   -----Snowded TALK 09:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  So I looked at Template:Infobox military conflict and it turns out the way the "Result" section is currently displayed isn't allowed. The only terms allowed are "X victory", "Inconclusive" or (and I think this one should prevail here) "See the Aftermath section" if the other two don't describe the result accurately.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.119.68.246 (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry guys but there is NO consensus 

message: On a controversial subject of history, references are needed.  It's shocking how many whole paragraphs in this article (not to mention how many individual assertions) are completely without any reference citation at all.  And given the amount of debate on this Talk page, about this subject, it's graphically clear that this article needs reference citations (preferably citations referencing multiple sources) for each. Please, editors, be mindful of this responsibility when editing. Respectfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many more references needed