This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Orders, decorations, and medalsWikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsTemplate:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsOrders, decorations, and medals articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Timeline Tracer, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Timeline TracerWikipedia:WikiProject Timeline TracerTemplate:WikiProject Timeline TracerTimeline Tracer articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
On what source/argument is the claimed misunderstanding based on? Hainault was French but fought on the English side as far as I know.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hainault was actually divided in this battle. The Count was both an ally of Edward III and a vassal of Philip VI and chose to fight for Philip. His brother Jean with about half the Hainault men-at-arms fought for Edward. As the story itself is well-established in contemporary chronicles, the source of the error does seem to be based on a simple misunderstanding of which side the Count was on. The error is not Wikipedia-generated - it does occur in older source material - so a mention with a correction from more modern works seems to be the way to go.Monstrelet (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with principal approach but i'm still a bit wary with regard to details. Did you check the original chronicle by Jean Froissart? And what exactly is written in what chronicle?
The problem with many current sources referring directly to the order, is, that most of seem to be "low reliability" tertiary sources, which also give slightly different accounts. Some mention Hainaut and some don't and none that I've seen explicitly references William II (the closest was mentioning a "lord of Hainaut"). However there were also Hainauts fighting for Edward in that battle (in particular John of Hainaut), which makes it even more confusing, since a Hainaut might have indeed knighted squires on the English side. Moreover I haven't seen any source associating the knights of the hare with the French king. So if we have no source that associates the order with the French king or French knights explicitly, I wonder if we rather skip Hainaut completely and just mention that some commotion caused by hare led to knighting on the English side and that these knights were called knights of the hare.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The essential problem with that approach is that it wouldn't be true - the contemporary accounts say otherwise. Take for example Froissart http://www.maisonstclaire.org/resources/chronicles/froissart/book_1/ch_026-050/fc_b1_chap042.html . 14 Knights of the Hare made by the Earl (recte Count) of Hainault as part of a knighting spree in the French army. The problem we have here is that Wikipedia wouldn't allow us to use a primary source as evidence (it would fall under WP:OR) so we need a reliable secondary one. The initial version of this article used inaccurate 18th-19th century references available on line that gave the false Edward III option. In wiki terms we need to correct it by modern reliable sources. Barber is one such but there are surprisingly few mentions in recent books (that I can find, anyway).Monstrelet (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the encounter as following this timeframe:
1 - The French frontline spots a hare coming closer to them
2 - The French frontline start yelling at it, possibly joking that it's the English coming
3 - Chinese whispers and the commotion of the yelling causes confusion with troops in the rear
4 - The whole of the French army is now on edge and yelling. Orders are being thrown around, nobody is quite sure what's happening on the front line.
5 - The English see this, and think that an attack is imminent
6 - William II Count of Hainault, brother-in-law of King Edward III AND Emperor Ludwig, knights some Hainault squires.
I don't see how history could consider William II Count of Hainault as an ally of King Philippe VI. 49.185.169.107 (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to go back to the story as told by Froissart
The kings that were there with king Philip of Valois was the king of Bohemia, the king of Navarre, and king David of Scotland: the duke of Normandy, the duke of Bretayne, the duke of Bourbon; the duke of Lorraine and the duke of Athens: of earls, the earl of Alencon brother to the king, the earl of Flanders, the earl of Hainault, the earl of Blois, the earl of Bar, the earl of Forez, the earl of Foix, the earl of Armagnac, the earl Dolphin of Auvergne, the earl of Joinville, the earl of Etampes, the earl of Vendome, the earl of Harcourt, the earl of Saint-Pol, the earl of Guines, the earl of Boulogne, the earl of Roucy, the earl of Dammartin, the earl of Valentinois, the earl of Auxerre, the earl of Sancerre, the earl of Geneva, the earl of Dreux ; and of Gascoyne and of Languedoc so many earls and visco
Thus in striving of divers opinions the day passed till it was past noon ; and then suddenly there started an hare among the Frenchmen, and such as saw her cried and made great bruit, whereby such as were behind thought they before had been fighting, and so put on their helms and took their spears in their hands ; and so there were made divers new knights, and specially the earl of Hainault made fourteen, who were ever after called knights of the hare.
My emphasis. This is the Berners translation, and, because 16th century England didn't have counts, he has used the term earl instead. Froissart says "conte de Haynault". This seems quite clear cut, unless there are other period sources which place the knighting on the English side. Monstrelet (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}