Talk:Hundred Years' War/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  removing pic on the plague 

message: 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)
thread_title:  page semi-protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Timeline image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  massive deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Date and people error 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Background/Dynastic turmoil lack of explanation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WP:READABILITY  [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tone#Tone]] Provide context for the reader [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Wish you would re-word it as you have described. Have to go off for awhile. Mugginsx (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK but I will wait a bit to give other people a chance to comment. Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

text: As no objections, altered as agreed. Wilfridselsey (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Section now looks great and much easier to read and understand. Mugginsx (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going back a little too far? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyrighted material found and other material must be Cited 

message: 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)
replies: text: OK, done. Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes and references

message: 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)
replies: text: We are getting there! Thanks. Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Showing great improvement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thanks User:Wilfridselsey 

message: 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)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Error in Background 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: The Coat of Arms of the kings of France (there was no real national flag before the Renaissance) was:
* France Ancien  until 1376
* France Moderne  from 1376
The Coat of Arms of the kings of England (no national flag before the 16th c.) was:
* The three lions  until 1340 
* Quartered with France Ancien  from 1340 to 1406
* Updated to France Moderne  from 1406
:Blaue Max (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rational use of the CoA 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article written with French bias? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "I love you."   ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Birthdates 

message: There are three points I'd like to share:
* 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.
Thanks for your attention,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three points... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Map Dates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Did the French Blitz the English in WWII? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How many days were there in Hundred Years' War? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  England was left an island nation for 500 years 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Former names of the 100 Years War 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is the Kingdom of Bohemia listed a belligerent only on the French side? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. Eleutheure (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the longest military conflict in history 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Significance of the war: Change of technology yes, but not the longbow please 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expansion on the Caroline Phase? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Did Charles of Burgundy count on English support? 

message: Talk:Hundred_Years%27_War_(1337%E2%80%931360)#Requested_move_31_May_2018 Ribbet32 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] input needed  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Losses 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tried for heresy not witchcraft 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Glyndŵr Rising: clarification needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  If Sizer says "around 2500", that should be good enough. ty Manannan67 (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

text: 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#Death_toll, which has stood the test of time in a highly contentious area. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sizer 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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#Possessive_apostrophe which says "An apostrophe is used in time and money references". Meters (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: * 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)
thread_title:  Apostrophe in Title 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comments and questions 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why in Picard?