Talk:Battle of Poitiers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Add external link section?

I found this article that examines primary sources to determine more exactly the role of the Duke of Orleans at the Battle of Poitiers:

What does everyone think about adding it as an external link to this page? 204.126.127.253 17:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure no need to ask, if theres an objection someone would say somthing after its added and discuss it then. Looks like a fine link. Stbalbach 15:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

That looks like a superb external link. It is well-balanced, well-argued, and well-sourced. No arguments. Bastin8 22:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of the link that was replaced is ongoing at this page. TheJabberwock 22:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents Box

Why is the contents box at the very bottom of the page, with very little to actually sort? --Stretch 09:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was there previously because there were no sections above it. I have added sections (Preparation, The Battle, and so on) and now the Contents box is where you would ordinarily expect it. Mmccalpin 14:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

? ==

It is a popular misconception that English Longbowmen were predominantly Welsh, and thus innaccurate to continually refer to them as such here. Although Wales armed a high than normal proportion of their warriors with the long bows, their population was never particularly high, and therefor never made up even the majority of longbow archers on the feild for England.

I would also question calling the French King John II... I'm it normally historically accurate to anglicise his name? Shouldn't it be Jean II?Easter rising 16:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have found sources that refer to the longbowmen as English, others as Welsh, and still others as both English and Welsh. I have not found a source that breaks out the proprtion of each, so in the absence of a definitive source, I am going to include "Welsh and English" where the archers nationality is called out. It is almost certainly true that some ratio of both were present. Mmccalpin 03:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Welsh were often employed as longbowmen mercenaries. Reasons vary - for one, if you were captured in battle you were likely killed and not ransomed, knights generally did not like longbowmen very much. Same with crossbows. -- Stbalbach 15:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Even Contest?

One of my favourite historians, Arthur Bryant states in his book, "The Age of Chivalry" (1963) the English/Gascons were outnumbered by about five to one. How does this stack up against this article which puts the numbers on each side as being about even? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.12.252.11 (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

The previous figures in the article seem to have been wrong. Every source I've found gives very different figures, which is why I just changed them on the article. Rpeh 09:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, now there are figures for the English (with a reference), but what's with the French estimate? It just seems like it was arbitrarily thought up. I mean, "up to 35,000"? The lack of a reference doesn't help either. At least we could have a range of the various estimates, with references pointing to them (See: Fall of Constantinople). I would do it, I have neither the time nor the skill to sufficiently deal with this problem. Sorry for griping, but things like this don't make Wikipedia any more verifiable. 74.32.229.23 (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - my original, referenced, figures had been changed with no explanation. I just changed them back. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There might be a copyright problem with this source?

On The Hundred Years War, a primary source written by Jean Froissart It links to http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/froissart1.html Can anyone shed light? Mugginsx (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

From G. C. Macauly, ed., The Chronicles of Froissart, Lord Berners, trans. (London: Macmillan and Co., 1904) - The original will be 100s of years out of copyright the translation is by John Bourchier, Baron Berners (d1474 or 1533). I'd say OOC. John lilburne (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought the translation used here was more recent. Thanks for the info. Mugginsx (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

John Bourchier, 2nd Baron Berners they may have modernized the spelling in 1904, but here is the original translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs) 15:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why were the Infantry dismissed at Chartres

The Duke of Lancaster set up base in Montebourg (near Cherbourg) on 1st June 1356. They joined forces with the Philip of Navarre and on 22nd of June set off with 2400 men ostensibly to relieve the garrison at Evreux. However, in early June, Evreux had been stormed and burned by the Dauphin, the remaining Navarrrese defenders had been allowed to leave under safe conduct and ended up with the garrison at Breteuil. Lancaster's mission was to reinforce the remaining garrisons and burn and loot along the way. The main action took place at Verneuil which was looted and the citadel demolished. John II confronted Lancaster on July 8th at l'Aigle but was unable to stop Lancaster's retreat through the Saint-Evroult forest.

John II then laid siege to Breteuil which was well stocked and had been reinforced. He was still at Breteuil until 20th August, when he paid the Navarrese garrison a large amount of money to abandon it, and allowed them to rejoin the forces of Philip of Navarre and Lancaster back in Montebourg. When he got back to Chartres he paid off the infantry that had been with him at Breteuil because a) the French treasury was almost exhausted, and b) he was confronting the mobile mounted army of the Black Prince. John lilburne (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Knights to men-at-arms

In almost all my reading of the period, mounted or dismounted heavy cavalry are generally referred to as "men-at-arms," there being among them many who were unknighted. Perhaps this would be more appropriate than using the blanket term "knight?"

99.50.119.143 (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Froissart uses both terms, so when I quote him I use whatever term he chooses. Mugginsx (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A civil conversation - how shocking. I understand the need to stay true to the chronicles; I simply worry that the term might confuse people who are not up on the happenings of the mid-13th century fighting classes.

99.50.119.143 (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

14th century, rather.

99.50.119.143 (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

See what you think, but I see no reason why you could not add your words in parenthesis next to Froissart term. You sound like you have a better knowledge of intricate medieval military terminology than I do. Incidentally, I translated the French article and they state that just prior to the battle the French King split their troops. Read it and see if you think it noteworthy. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_de_Poitiers_(1356) I think both sides should be represented for a good article and the French article seems to be well-sourced although I cannot say for sure since, as you know, the online translator is not a perfect way to read an article. Mugginsx (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I also see that in the paragraphs I edited about the capture of the king, they seems to be a specificity as to who was there. The other paragraph I edited also does not seem to required the insert by way of its wording but could be put in there. The other paragraphs, there is one that specifically mentions knights - were all men at arms Knights - were all Knights nobles? What about the mercenaries mentioned? I do not know but I welcome discussion and enlightenment for purposes of a fuller and better article. Mugginsx (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx,

Thanks for the compliments, however undeserved. I've read a bit on the subject, but I'm no expert. That said, here goes.

The term men-at-arms, as I understand it, consists of all men who fought in the manner of a knight, ie, mounted, armored soldiers, and includes both nobles, knights, and esquires. Now, what are these? In England, a knight has been traditionally described as a "commoner of rank," ie, a member of the landed gentry, but not a member of the nobility; I am unsure of their status in France. By the time of the HYW, in both France and England knighthood was conferred directly by the monarch, and so was comparatively rare. So you have a situation where knights tended to be senior or wealthy men-at-arms, frequently in leadership roles - a knight might report for service with several esquires (or ecuyers, in French) under his banner. An esquire, by the by, is a professional soldier of the same social class as a knight - a gentleman, merely one who has not been knighted. Now, bear in mind this is all from memory. My library is in a bit of disarray since the move, but I will try and go through it for sources, if you so desire - I'm thinking I've got a book by Stephen Turnbull that specifically covers knighthood during this period. 99.50.119.143 (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

In 1356 it was not clear whether an armoured fighter was a knight or not. That is why John II refused to surrender until he was assured that he was surrendering to someone with at least some pedigree and that they weren't some peasant oik. John lilburne (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

John,

I concur with the thrust of your argument, but methinks "peasant" is a bit of an overstatement. Even the lowliest combatants on the field at Poitiers (archers or crossbowmen) were of the yeoman/sergeant class. Commonors, certainly, but not quite peasant scum.

99.50.119.143 (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

99.50.119.143: I hope I inserted men-at-arms where you suggested. Nice of you to offer me this and more information and the title to your book. I will memorialize on my talk page which I use for storing important facts as well as the usual "stuff". Yes, reading what both you and John have said, it seems to be a complicated subject. Is the book you mentioned: The book of the medieval knight / Stephen Turnbull? I noticed it is available at my library. If it is the same book, I will order it tomorrow. Sorry so late getting back to you. I was reading Poitiers 1356: The Capture of a King - online at http://books.google.com/books?id=nXOh2PWlYcQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=battle+of+poitiers&hl=en&ei=EFIkTt3vHITs0gGcxfCVAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=battle%20of%20poitiers&f=false - and then went to doctor's appt., and then was trying to repair damage on an article that an editor did without any discussion, consensus or, for that matter, knowledge of what she was doing. Doesn't happen very often but when it does I hate it. So rude. I will definitely read the book you suggested. Found a French Chronicler of the right time period but do not know if it will be pertinent to this Battle. I have ordered it today: The chronicle of Jean de Venette / translated by Jean Birdsall ; edited, with an introduction and notes, by Richard A. Newhall. Mugginsx (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Froissart

The thing to remember about Froissart is that he was Edward III wife Philippa of Hainault official historian. He was attached to the English Army, and went on campaigns with the Black Prince. So his knowledge of what the French did or said was always 3rd hand and often told to him many years afterwards. John lilburne (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

He is still the most accurate of historians (including contemporary historians) to quote in my opinion. Where I see error or possible error, I make a notation such as in the mention of John of Ghistelles. I look to verify all that I can as to the French by whatever means available to me. It is also noteworthy, I think, that he personally knew many of the knights on both sides as well as the royalty and he was not always complimentary in his remarks. As for French chroniclers, this article could certainly use some if you care to add them. As to modern historians I would pick and chose carefully. Some modern historians think they know better than any sources. It is arrogant and ludicrous in my opinion. I know for a fact that sometimes egos run large in academia. For a great book on this general topic I would recommend Norman F. Cantor's book, "Inventing the Middle Ages". Perhaps you have already read it. Mugginsx (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

John, I do know the shortcomings of Froissart but I am wondering how many French hostages of this Battle did he know? Maybe none, but I will promise that I go over all of his material that I use and where there are ambiguities I will try to note them. Have found a French Chronicler named in the above discussion I am also going to read - and more modern books as well. I am reading online: Poiters 1356: The Capture of a King online or, more specifically, what there is of it online. Here is the website if you have not already read it and you are interested: http://books.google.com/books?id=nXOh2PWlYcQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=battle+of+poitiers&hl=en&ei=EFIkTt3vHITs0gGcxfCVAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=battle%20of%20poitiers&f=false - Thank you for the above information as well on discussion of men-at-arms. Mugginsx (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Numbers of men

After leaving 20.000 men behind the french would still outnumber the english 2:1 how can the army's then be "supprisingly simmilair in size" ? just wondering —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burds (talk • contribs) 10:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The various accounts differ, but I believe that most accounts have the French outnumbering the English significantly. That seems to be what makes the battle, tactics, use of Welsh archers and their Longbows, terrain, etc., so interesting. Just my opinion Mugginsx (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Jonathon Sumption in "Trial by Fire" reckons that King John had 8000 men-at-arms and 3000 infantry, the Black Prince had 2000 archers, 1000 Gascon infantry and 3000 men-at-arms. He sources his numbers to letters from the Black Prince to the city of london, and a letter from Burghersh to John Beauchamp. John lilburne (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That is very interesting. It may be correct. I think most medieval scholars believe that participants and chroniclers tended to exaggerate the numbers of their forces. I think we will probably never be able to settle that particular question. One thing is certain, the French lost virtually all of their nobility in this particular battle. Mugginsx (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"One thing is certain, the French lost virtually all of their nobility in this particular battle." Years ago, most medieval scholars thought the same about battles of Crécy and the one of Agincourt. French nobility was very numerous, even its upper part.92.150.206.89 (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There was also the hawthorn hedge which according to Sumption played a major part in the battle. This hedge was in front of the English lines and the French had to make their way through gaps in it in order to reach the English. Most were killed trying to get through it as the widest gap only allowing five abreast. The Sumption's source for this is Geoffrey Baker's chronicles particularly pages 146-150. The hedge ran in front of the entire English lines, the initial cavalry attack by Audrehem and Douglas had to go around it which exposed the flanks of the horses to the archers. John lilburne (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do remember reading this. I think it would be excellent in the article. Such a fascinating battle but so far there is really not much detail in the article. The terrain is most important in battles and was the decisive factor in many battles not just in medieval times but up to and including WW1, WWII, Korea and Vietnam War. I think that it is also notable that, according to Froissart, despite the terrible terrain and the devasting effect of the Welsh Longbow, only two men were noted to have run from the battle. It was not uncommon during medieval times for large amounts of knights of both kingdoms to retreat at the first sign of trouble. There can be no doubt that the French fought with great bravery.Mugginsx (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I am also reading Geoffrey Baker's chronicles online here: http://www.archive.org/details/chronicongalfrid00bakeuoft , thanks for the mention John. I am going very slowly and I do not mind suggestions. Mugginsx (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

which richard of pembroke?

Cannot find anywhere. Does anyone know which Richard he is? Perhaps an illegitimate son of the Earl John Hastings? Earl John seems to have had no legtimate son by that name - also his legitimate son would have been too young to be a soldier if the Wiki article is correct . Richard is called Lord. Mugginsx (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Best guess is that this Richard would have either been in the employ of, or was a relation of, Marie de St Pol the dowager countess of Pembroke. She owned lands in the Le Marche which is where on the 4th August the Black Prince had started his attack up from La Peruse, Lesterps, Bellac, Le Dorat ... burning and sacking the towns, abbeys, and villages. The Countess's lands were spared by order of King Edward. John lilburne (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou, well that settles that. John, I was wondering why you did not put the estimate of the forces at Poitiers in the article since you had such a good reference. I am restrained by a basic ignorance of the subject and try to insert information based on my limited and only incrementally increasing knowledge and understanding, but it seems that it would be very good for you to insert this into the article since the reference originates with a letter by the Black Prince, even if you chose to qualify it in some way. Mugginsx (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As to more source of numbers of forces

http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7172318M/Chronicon_Galfridi_le_Baker_de_Swynebroke 300 Notes and Illustrations (error states 3CO instead of 300)

' The prince therfore committed the vaward of the armie to the earles of Warwicke and Oxford, the middle ward was guided by the prince, and the rereward was led by the earles of Salisburie and Suffolke. In all the whole armie of the prince there was not above foure thousand men of armes, one thousand armed souldiours, and two thousand archers.

' The pompous nobility of the Frenchmen drew nigh, greatly disdaining the small company of the Englishmen, for they had in numbers eight thousand fighting souldiours, they had also seven antients.

Seems to come "close" to numbers given by Jonathon Sumption in "Trial by Fire". We will probably never know the exact truth, nevertheless it is interesting to note. Mugginsx (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag Removal

The POV tag stated there would be an explanation on the talk page here. Since the editor did not do so the tag was removed because it violates the wiki guidelines with regard to the application of the tag. It was also removed because the sources used in the section tagged: i.e., Battle are all legitimate sources used for centuries by scholars and a modern scholarly source thus adhering to Wiki guidelines for referencing. There is another source which is an educational website which uses as their sources further scholarly sources. These sources had additionally been used in many Wiki articles and there is no reason for them to be challenged here when they have not to my knowledge been challenged on any other articles of this time period anywhere else on Wiki.

If the editor who placed the tag wishes to have a proper discussion on why he or she believes this section is biased then they are invited here to provide references which provide an alternate point of view of the battle and challenge through a discussion on this page which is designed for that specific purpose. I think that has always been the standard and I see no reason for one editor to decide to arbitrarily change it against Wiki guidelines. Mugginsx (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Essay Tag Removal

I have made some edits and the section no longer contains individual or unreferenced viewpoints so that tag was also removed since it is no longer applicable. Mugginsx (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Gaius Cornelius Re: Battle of Poitiers

Hi. Would you please explain to me what changes you did to Battle of Poitiers article and why you used AWB? As I look at the diffs I see no significant changes. In fact I see no changes at all. Why do you not make changes the conventional way? Repeated on your talk page. Thanks in advance for you for your explaination. Mugginsx (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem is, I and other editors cannot readily see the changes to either agree or disagree with. Could you please make you changes in the conventional way. My understanding is that AWB is primarily to be used for spelling, punctuation, and other such changes. Content changes should be made in way that other editors can see and acknowledge. That is all I am saying. Edit summarys are important for viewing and possible discussion and they are also educational to new or newish editors.I have looked and still cannot tell what you changed because the previous edits look the same as the red linked changes you show. Perhaps I am doing something wrong?Mugginsx (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser AutoWikiBrowser (often abbreviated AWB), is a semi-automated MediaWiki editor for Microsoft Windows 2000/XP/Vista/7 designed to make tedious repetitive tasks quicker and easier. (AWB also functions reasonably well under Wine on GNU/Linux but this is not officially supported.) It is essentially a browser that automatically opens up a new page when the last is saved. When set to do so, it suggests some changes (typically formatting) that are generally meant to be incidental to the main change. (taken from Gaius Cornelius page where he answered).

Thanks for explanation. Mugginsx (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Battle of Poitiers. Favonian (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Battle of Poitiers (1356) → Battle of Poitiers – This is the only battle normally known by this name, the other battle sometimes known by this name is normally known as the Battle of Tours, it should be dealt with by a hatnote. PatGallacher (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Both Britannica and A Dictionary of World History give this subject as "Battle of Poitiers", the 732 battle as "Battle of Tours". They don't seem to worry that anyone will confuse the two. Kauffner (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Just looking at WorldCat and even Library of France and there are many hundreds of books about or entitled Battle of Poitiers or have the name of the (1356) battle somewhere in the title. The 1356 Battle of Poitiers title is well-known throughout English speaking countries by this title. Tours is used for 732 battle as stated above. Mugginsx (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with all those above – this can be handled by a hatnote. Jenks24 (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Decisive?

More of a general question about something I've noticed in other battle articles, how come this battle is described as a decisive English victory? I always thought decisive meant that, while it might not immediately end a conflict, a decisive battle determined the outcome of a war. While Poitiers was a massive blow to France, ultimately France won the war. Shouldn't battles like this and Cannae be described as 'major victories' or something since ultimately they didn't really decide anything? 123.243.214.202 (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this is considered a major and decisive victory for many reasons, it is in the description of the battle, the comparison of the forces, the difficult terrain, and of course, the capture of the king and his son. The capture of the French King and his son and the killing of much of the nobility and the greatest knights of France in one battle could certainly be described as decisive by any definition.

It is still discussed in detail in major universities today. Mugginsx (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

For several afterwards the French government was powerless and attempts to regain some control over France resulted in the Jacquerie uprising. John lilburne (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, infoboxes should list unqualified factual information and should avoid debatable (and ill-defined) terms like "decisive" and "Pyrrhic." Save that stuff to be explained (and sourced) in the Results and Aftermaths sections of an article and let the readers decide how "decisive" a battle was.

In this article, I think it would suffice to simply say the following:

- English victory

- John II captured Milhisfan (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of approximations

Moved from Mugginsx Talk page

Please don't perform outright removals of figures regarding forces in historical battles, as you did in Battle of Crécy. You not only removed unsourced (through basically sound) figures in the infobox, but actually blasted approximate figures that were well-referenced. The nature of historical research of this kind is not exact, but that doesn't mean it's "UNKNOWABLE"[1], as you have suggested. You can't simply blast away useful information because you personally don't agree with it.

Peter Isotalo 20:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically sound? What is that. A new Wikipedia guideline? I have read many books on the battles of the Hundred Years War and no one knows the amount of forces or casulaties, including Froissart and it is preposterous to say that 11 Noblemen killed, 1,542 knights killed, 2,300 Genoese Crossbowmen killed Several thousand infantry killed and then put "citation needed". That is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Same with Forces and Casulaties. I have changed it to say "an approximation". The rest is pure conjecture. Mugginsx (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

By basically sound I mean it seems to correspond with what I've seen academic historians write about Crécy, but I don't have a specific citation right now. You're technically right that unsourced information should be removed, but in this case you're basing your removals on a sweeping generalization that these kind of facts are utterly "unknowable". That's not a reasonable interpretation of the current state of medieval historical research.

You are right in that casualties and the size of armies in medieval battles are difficult to ascertain in the exact numbers we're used to from early modern or modern battles. The size of these forces are by necessity approximations. However, that certainly does not equate to an "anything is possible"-attitude in describing pre-modern military history. I have just been reading a very interesting work (Rogers 2007) that uses Crécy as an example to discuss the often highly lopsided nature of casualty figures in medieval battles, and why very figures concerning killed knights are perfectly believable. The uneven casualties is because most kills occured when the losing side lost cohesion and routed. The very exact number of killed knights is because these people were of the nobility or at least high-standing retainers of nobility. The death of these individuals left clear traces in records and any dispatch with reports on battle casualties about high-ranking individuals would have to be quite exact since those on the receiving end would eventually find out about those killed anyway. The very simple reason is because they would have known these fallen men personally.

So if anything, I would say that the casualty figures should be considered quite believable, though naturally less exact when it comes to the common men among archers, crossbowmen and the infantry. If there are different approximations of the total size of the armies among historians, there should be some sort of discussion of what the most common approximations are. The infobox can easily summarize this with a "c." or "2,000-3,000" and such. And I would like to stress quite adamantly that the sources that should be used in these case should only be works by professional historians. Anything else would amount to original research.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Only Peer-reviewed historians. Still they are estimates and should be stated as such. No one liviing today was there. No one living then counted them in the heat of battle and there are no records to suggest the casualties were from anything but memory. True many of the nobles were well-know, certainly, Charny, Earl of Warwick, etc. but not ALL were known. An examples is that John of Ghistelles is said to have perished at the Battle of Crecy AND the Battle of Poitiers. Mistakes are made even in modern warfare but fortunately we have DNA and computer files to give certainty to the facts, when dna is available. Even so, soldiers, including POWs names are still unaccounted for from Korean and Vietnam and names, especially common names have caused glaring mistakes in modern records.

At any rate, you must follow Wikipedia guidelines. When they are estimates you MUST state them as estimates.Mugginsx (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability states "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." I will read the source, if it is a credible one, then I will not challenge. Since it is clear that Sumpton is estimating, it still must say "estimated or approximate" Mugginsx (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:CITE adds to this statement ."...However, editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any detail risks being unexpectedly challenged or even eventually removed."

WP:BURDEN WP:UNSOURCED The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source.

There's nothing in any of those guidelines that says we have to put "estimates" before everything, nor in any guidelines I've ever seen. Not even in for infoboxes. So that appears to be your interpretation of them, and it doesn't at all agree with how FAs and GAs on pre-modern battles are written. And why would you insist on inserting that particular word before figures that are in of themselves approximate like "fewer than 100 killed" and "c.11,000-13,000 infantry"?

If you're concerned about presenting a nuanced account of pre-modern battles, I really recommend that you help out by looking up what various historians have to say about the credibility of the size of forces and casualty figures. It'll be a lot more useful to readers than removal of information and putting "estimated at" before every imaginable figure.

You were the original editor. You should never have inserted the figures without reference (which you have now fixed) and without adding they are approximate or estimated figures. Does someone really have to tell you that the figures in a medieval battle need to be estimated? The burden is on the original editor. Mugginsx (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As to the "minimal" that you added - that is allowing an assumption that there were not fewer than that figure. You cannot make that assumption either for the same reasons given previously. Mugginsx (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this discussion is currently being conducted at talk:Battle of Crécy since it's about the exact same issue (formatting of information in the battle infobox). The posts signed by me that predate this posts have been pasted in here by Mugginsx, not me. I do not wish to duplicate discussions and anyone who is interested in chiming in is welcome to do so at talk:Battle of Crécy#Removal of approximations. I will not engage in discussion in a thread on a talkpage where posts signed by me are inserted against my expressed will.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter, had you not engaged me on my talk page, I would not have been forced to move it to the article talk pages where it should be. The issues are identical on both articles. Really. Mugginsx (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Continued on the Talk:Battle of Crécy as Peter has stated. Mugginsx (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter, I have been reading more closely your statistics and find that I owe you an apology for your statistical estimations. It seems that I jumped to the wrong conclusion without doing proper research Mugginsx (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Froissart/ penetration of armour

I believe most of the comments attributed to Froissart in this section are actually those of Geoffrey le Baker.

Froissart says on this topic at Poitiers the archers were 'piercing everything with their long barbed arrows,' 'the English archers were a huge asset to their side and a terror to the French, their shooting was so heavy and accurate that the French did not know where to turn to avoid their arrows.' - Froissart in Bereton's 1968 translation, pp 136 - 7.

Le baker says at one point 'arrows aimed at them either shattered or glanced off' - Life and campaigns of the black prince, p. 77. This though is in reference to one particular group of heavy cavalry, armed with additional leather shields designated to attack the archers. Generally the archers were effective at close range against French armour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobiov (talk • contribs) 05:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The comments I attributed to Froissart are referenced and are his. Geoffrey is also used and referenced as such. If you have other information that you wish to insert, that would be good for the article. Mugginsx (talk)

King Jean

King Jean II was NOT a POW. He and his son were Hostages who were well treated in the medieval tradition. They were always meant to be returned after the Ransom was paid. Someone keeps inserting POW into this battle here and in other articles that mention him, his son and other hostages. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Jean II was captured in the battle, which does make him a prisoner of war. The fact that during the middle ages noble prisoners of war were given the "opportunity" to ransom themselves, doesn't change that fact and still makes him a POW. One of his sons however was a hostage for the good behaviour of the King during the time he was allowed to return to France to raise the enormous ransom. Those are (POW and hostage) thus are two different things. -- fdewaele, 22 August 2012, 14:40.

You and I both know the term POW was not used in medieval times and is inappropriate to use here. Mugginsx (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. You could make that analogy for other things/terms/situations as well but he still was a prisoner of war: the exact wording "Prisoner of War" may first date from 1660 but they existed in all times, the only thing that has changed in the hundreds of years since the battle is the way those prisoners are treated and the rules applying to them. The term POW conveys better the reality of the situation and makes a clearer understanding of the difference of being made prisoner in battle as John was, or being a hostage for good behavior as his younger son was. -- fdewaele, 26 August 2012, 16:05

Froissart's "Hainowes"

Is that an older spelling for Hainault? Varlaam (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It is also in this translation of Froissart, in a different narrative, spelled the same way. Mugginsx (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Mercenaries

The Flemish mercenaries who fought with the English at the time of the Battle of Poitiers were well organized under their leader, identified as Jacques. This can be found in The Chronicles of Jean de Venette, Jean Birdsall edited by Richard A. Newhall. (N.Y. Columbia University Press, 1953), p. 33. Mugginsx (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparent duplicate article The Battle of Poitiers

The Battle of Poitiers appears to cover the same topic as this article. Is there any material in it that can usefully be merged into this article, before The Battle of Poitiers is turned into a redirect to here? -- The Anome (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is a shortened version of the full article Battle of Poitiers written years ago. Delete or merge material from there (if there is any new material there to merge) into older article Battle of Poitiers. Mugginsx (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

On review, I couldn't find anything significantly mergeworthy in it, so I've just turned it into a redirect to this article. -- The Anome (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and Help

Hello! My name is Grovyle4life, and I'm a new Wikipedia user. I was the one who was editing the Battle of Poitiers page. Did I do something wrong? Anyway, Please correct me so I don't keep making mistakes! -Grovyle4life (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia! The sections that you entered about who survived, etc., are usually indicated in the substance of the article and not as individual sections. Unless it was a complete list, which would be impossible to compile, I do not know how you could reconstruct who did and did not survive, with the exception of the most notable persons, so it is deceptive to put in a few notable names in a separate section. If there are a few names you can reference as to their death at this battle and it is not already in the text, why don't you put it in there? As you can see, even Froissart had trouble with who did and did not survive - and that was a short time after the actual battle. That is why I have to make a special notation in the section entitled: Nobles and Men-at-Arms who fought with the Black Prince at the bottom of the paragraph regarding John of Ghistelles. I took out POW and inserted captured because I thought the term more appropriate in a medieval article since I have never heard the term POW used in any medieval book or article I have ever read.

Also, I think you are suggesting that Ellis Hicks was in the Battle on another page. That may very well be true, and I do not doubt you, unfortunately it appears that you are using an ancestral website which are not considered adequate Wiki references. I had a Thomas Fenton website which indicated that his ancestor was in the battle and was a cousin to the Black Price and would loved to have put it in the article, unfortunately, I had the same problem as you so far. I am still looking however for a better reference. See: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for help in that area.

I did not know what you were doing with the categories, so I took it out since it did not seem correct Wikipedia procedure.

You are welcome to ask an administrator and perhaps they can help give you a better explanation as to what you want to put into the article. Unfortunately, I am unqualified for the "where to find" as to prove your assertion as to the man you put into the article. If I see it anywhere along the way, I will give it to you with a proper reference that wiki will accept. If you are truly worried about making mistakes, join the club. That is how most of us learn. OK?

Ok, I understand the survivor problem, but could we at least try to make a list of participants? If it's too big, could we create another page with the participants of the battle? I really want to help out, but I'm kinda new to this. -Grovyle4life (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC) (Thanks for still putting up with my stubborness. <==I think I spelled that wrong.)

Some of these names are mentioned in the two sections: Nobles and Men-at-Arms who fought with the Black Prince and Nobles and Men-at-Arms who fought with King Jean II at, or just prior to the Battle, but mention few that did not survive. Look at the Reference Section at the bottom and link on and see what you can find. I know Geoffroi de Charny (carrier of the Oriflamme), did not survive. We can look for some others such as the Scottish contingent and, I believe there were some German mercenaries. Mugginsx (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Grovyle4life, Perhaps you could personally contact some of the people on the list of the ancestral site. They may have actual documentation somewhere. If he was a member of the Knights of the Garter, I think there are some documents which show the names of many of the knights. He is not mentioned here under ellis or hicks http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/garterlist.htm#list but it is probably not a complete list. Keep looking and contact some of these people. Mugginsx (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible source for you claim as to Ellis Hicks Grovyle4life: http://www.e-familytree.net/F51/F51957.htm - mentions his source as: Note Source: Broderbund WFT Vol. 21 Tree 139. If you can find that source, you will probably have an excellent reference. Try to locate it through the person who put it into the source. You might get lucky. Good luck! Mugginsx (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see that it is just another ancestral source. Perhaps you could personally contact some of the people on the list. They may have actual documentation somewhere. If he was a member of the Knights of the Garter, I think there are some documents which show the names of many of the knights. He is not mentioned here under ellis or hicks http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/garterlist.htm#list but it is probably not a complete list. Keep looking. Mugginsx (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Persistence Hello again, I know I am being a little persistent now. So yes or no, would the list of participants work? (I am saying, all known participants, not just 'Nobles and Men-at-Arms'). -Grovyle4life (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Poiters or Ponthieu also as to Men at Arms. OK, now you have lost me completely. Men at Arms should cover archers, mercenaries and other men who were fighting with arms on or off a horse. Who exactly is left other than these groups? Also, I see you mention Ponthieu at User:Grovyle4life/Ellis Hicks under the Section: Poem About His Knighthood as the place where Hicks was knighted. It is a completely different location than Poitiers where you also have him being knighted at Poitiers at the same page in your section entitled: Timeline on the same page. Mugginsx (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mugginsx"

Now I'm sorry I was such an idiot. I though men-at-arms where nobles too. Oops. So, to finalize it, could I add some "English Soldiers" under "Nobles and Men-at-Arms Who fought with the Black Prince?" (And about the poem, it is talking about "long ago" when he was knighted. He was currently in Ponthieu, but was remembering the days in Potiers. We done yet?)

-Grovyle4life (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your poem states: ...We are to believe that when the battle was over Ellis Hicks was knighted there and then, kneeling on the ground in the shade of the windmill sails. Since Pontheiu changed hands many times during The Hundred Years' War, it would seem to have meant Ponthieu. I am not disputing your information, only your interpretation of it. The poem is quite actually quite beautiful.

I don't know any reason why you could not add names into either section with a reference.Mugginsx (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, please do not berate yourself. Wiki is supposed to be fun and educational. Here is a reference to a Hicks but a later one. It is at http://www.archive.org/stream/dictionarynatio06stepgoog#page/n428/mode/2up Unfortunately, the updated Dictionary of National Biography is a subcription based Dictionary through Oxford. You seem to have a very wonderful family history. Keep searching and I will help if you want but I think your best bet is with the England-based family members. Mugginsx (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The Ellis Hicks story is actually apocryphal. There was a real Sir Ellis Hicks who was knighted for battlefield exploits in France but it was at the Siege of Montauban in 1621 (see https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hicks-443). The story about his being knighted by the Black Prince is first recorded in 1795 (17th century genealogies have no mention of it), and it's probably a distorted recollection of Sir Ellis' remarkable military career merged with some half-remembered tale about the three fleurs-de-lis device in the various Hicks' arms, which were granted to several individuals in the 17th century. Tarchon (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Battle of Poitiers → Battle of Poitiers (1356) – There were three Battles of Poitiers. The first one in the spring of 507, it is also called the Battle of Vouillé. The second one on 10 October 732, it is also called the Battle of Tours, or, by Arab sources, the Battle of the Highway of the Martyrs. Therefore on the name Battle of Poitiers should be disambiguation page as it is done in 25 Wikipedias [2]. Vorov (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. A hat note works fine. Calidum 15:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no other article that needs the title. Agree that a hatnote works just as well or better than a dab page. Station1 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LaHire07's edits

@LaHire07: If I could just insert myself into your editing here, with regard to this edit, some clarification is required. It is not, in fact, the case that it is Gog the Mild's responsibility to bring their issues with you to the talk page (f you want to discuss on the talk page, it's up to you). Wikipedia policy—specifically WP:ONUS—states The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. That, I'm afraid, is you.

Secondly, the very fact that, in your own words, My edits are not improvements, they are corrections puts them deep in original research territory. We follow what reliable, secondary sources say, not what we think the article should say.

Thirdly, your addition of citations to the infobox is unnecessary; per WP:INFOBOXCITE, references are generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere, as of course, these statistics are. It certainly is not "dishonest", and that is an aspersion you should retract (a subject we will return to, in fact).

Fourthly, while only a guideline rather than policy, WP:BRD—which you have already been pointed at—is one all Wikipedians are encouraged to follow: if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change. As you will now, hopefully, do.

Fifthly, and more broadly, your general approach to editing here can, unfortunately, be interpreted as overly aggressive, as demonstrated by, on the one hand, an unwillingness to discuss issues, while on the other, casting aspersions at editors. And not just that I highlighted here; elsewhere, I note, you are edit warring—which is a separate issue I'll be discussing with you elsewhere—with edit summaries such as How old are you seriously?([3]) and Just go away([4]), which are singularly unhelpful in maintaining a collegiate editing environment. SN54129 17:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention.

Firstly, indeed, Wikipedia policy states that the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I am afraid, however, that I am not concerned by this, since the veracity of the content I'm including is not disputed. Same material, same sources. It's only about precisions, but important ones. You second point exactly describes what I'm trying to do : following what reliable, secondary sources say. I am literally quoting the sources that Gog the Mild used.

Secondly, you know very well that most people read the infobox, not the entire article, which is exactly why in close to 100% of the cases where estimates are sourced, citations are put in the infobox. But you misunderstood the whole point of my edits, and why I called him "intellectually dishonest". I'm not contesting the estimates in themselves. Even though Gog the Mild misread or misunderstood some of his own sources and made some mistakes. I'm saying he shouldn't claim that these figures come from modern sources when the latter explicitely refer to these figures as coming from primary sources. As such, they are just the relay of these estimates, not their source. People will believe that these numbers result of modern computations, which is absolutely false. However, it is never even mentioned in the article that these figures come from primary sources.

Thirdly, I didn't want to engage in an edit war. I just thought that he would simply realize his mistake. I should have open a discussion before.

Fourthly, your last point is out of context. I had intervened in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karbo%C4%9Faz%C4%B1_ambush about something that fell under the rule that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. In this case, it was being claimed that 44 Turkish peasants defeated 1,000 French, killing more than 200 and capturing 673. The source being used had an extremely biased tone. Thus, one editor was extremely unhappy that I decided to add "Turkish claim". Since then, he's reverting my edit on the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(warfare), which is quite boring.

First of all, thank you for your intervention Serial Number 54129. It is pretty obvious that this user LaHire07 has this behavior of edit warring with the purpose of French propaganda. Our discussions with LaHire07 is not the subject of this talk page but to make it clear that his behavior was no different than what he did on this page, and to answer the accusations he did about me, I will briefly explain it here and then I will give other examples of his edit war. On the page he mentioned, Karboğazı ambush, he previously deleted the entire section of Turkish numbers and wrote 'Unknown'([5]). Because it clearly can be seen in his edits that he may not be honest in his edits, I added an academic source and rebuilt the numbers section. But it wasn't enough for him so he asked me to add a quotation and the exact page, which was not a problem for me. So, I provided the quotations and pages and added more details to the page. But, of course, he wasn't satisfied and proceed to add 'Turkish claim' next to numbers. If it was coming from any other user, I wouldn't be disturbed by that but it was him changing it and his previous edits were clearly dishonest. Because of that, I kept reverting his vandalism until another user came and made a genuine edit, which I did not intervene in afterward. Please check the talk page. I reverted him only because his past behavior was also suspicious. About the second part, thank you for mentioning the language he used while talking to me(How old are you seriously?([6]) and Just go away([7]). Here is an example of his edits ([8]). Now, I would like to ask any user who reads these messages, what might be the reason for this edit? No source, no information, no contribution, just rephrasing a random sentence just to make it look more in favor of French. And when I reverted it, he began his personal attacks. Here is another rephrasing([9]). And a website source he used, while he is very picky and criticizing towards other users' sources([10]). Examples can be increased by checking his contributions but I think it is enough as an answer from me. Thus, I will not discuss further with him because he doesn't 'watch the language he uses'. Thank you all.Hsynylmztr (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

My goodness. And he was surprised I was asking you how old you were. You're indeed not the subject of this talk page, but the accusatory inversion and victimization you're making here is of high level. I didn't delete the "entire section" of Turkish numbers, I deleted the "44", since the source that was attached to it was just an article. The "academic" source you have added shouldn't make you more confident, on the contrary, since it says : "Mesnil, the commander of the French battalion, who won the victory against the Germans in Verdun in the First World War, surrendered to 44 villagers in these lands that he unjustly occupied, submitted to the unique Turkish heroism, and cried as an unfortunate man". Seriously.

You then added "Turkish people kicked your colonial genocidal country out of Anatolia. And your unjust occupation ended." And you want to be taken seriously?

If I added "Turkish claim", it was because it was obvious that this source was absolutely not enough for such a claim. So what did the other editor change? He only brought the fact that what seemed obvious to everyone except you was actually submitted to a Wikipedia rule.

Now, you're comparing an article and an online book, can I call it "intellectual dishonesty"?

The only reason why you're reverting my edit on the article "Charge" is because you're unhappy that people can now see the number of "44" is not supported by competent sources.

I would suggest to all editors involved to refrain from off topic and/or personalized comments. If there are behavioral issues take those concerns to AN/I.--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrong methodology

It is obvious that primary sources explicitly used by secondary sources shouldn't be described as "modern sources". Why is it the case in this article? It makes people believe that these estimates come from modern computations, whereas the authors using them explicitly mention that they are primary estimates. Sumption, Rogers or Hoskins are the relays of these primary estimates, not the source of any of these estimates. Therefore, to say that "according to different modern sources, 2,000 to 3,000 French men-at-arms and either 500 or 800 common soldiers were taken prisoner during the battle" is wrong. And to add that "approximately 2,500 French men-at-arms were killed" in an assertive tone is also wrong. It is the same thing for the infobox, it should be precised that these estimates come from contemporary (English for the highest, French for the lowest) sources. Why are the (real) sources of these estimates never mentioned?

Also, Gog the Mild, you've made several mistakes. The French source mentioned by Hoskins (have you read it?) claims that 800 French were killed and 700 captured, in total (not 800 common soldiers killed and 700 captured). It's obviously lower than the truth, just like the claim that 3,800 common soldiers were killed or captured is higher than the truth, since it would mean that the common soldiers were annihilated at 100% or more. However, it is never mentioned that this estimate comes from a contemporary source.

When you write that "According to different modern sources 2,000 to 3,000 French men-at-arms were taken prisoner", for the high estimate, you're referring to Sumption. However Sumption writes that "the very large number of prisoners attracted unfavourable comments when it became known in France. There were 3,000 of them" He never mentions that these are only men-at-arms. Indeed, he adds "they included about 1,400 belted knights".

Also, I don't really see why you decided to keep the casualty numbers used by Sumption but not the strength of the French army he proposed.

Hello Gog the Mild, you've told me to open a discussion to talk about our recent edits, so here it is... LaHire07 (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey La Hire, I'd just like to say that I agree with basically everything you say here. the Casualties section is fairly incoherent in both the info box and in the section towards the end of the article. There should be multiple claims for numbers and losses with the sources either in ()'s or footnoted clearly. There's no reason why there can't be multiple different claims for numbers and losses so that the reader can best figure out the real quantities. Sir Eyre Coot (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sir Eyre Coot, it's an interesting article, isn't it. There is currently an FAC taking place regarding it here, which would be a good place to bring up any issues or concerns. You may also find WP:PSTS interesting. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)