Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Calais (1346–1347)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion 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.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Calais (1346–1347)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Siege of Calais (1346–1347) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Ten years into the Hundred Years' War, after an eleven month siege, the French port of Calais fell to Edward III. This article attempts to give some idea of the military and political background to the siege, an outline of its impact on other theatres of the war and a sketch of its immediate and longer term consequences, as well as the major features of the siege itself. No doubt it fails to do this in various ways, but hopefully you can nudge it back on track. All input gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


CommentsSupport by Constantine[edit]

As usual, a well-written, well-researched, and interesting article. I've added some links to technical terms that the average reader might not be familiar with, and made some copyedits going through it, feel free to revert as you see fit.

All of the changes seem to me to be improvements, but I expected no less.

I only have a few comments:

  • "Parliament grudgingly agreed to fund the siege". Why "grudgingly"? Is it somehow connected to the fact that "Edward declared it a matter of honour "?
  • Good point. No. Elaborated. (Edward's declaration was probably intended to put pressure on Parliament, but that is OR.)
  • "The two cardinals representing Pope Clement VI travelled between the armies" I assume trying to mediate? Then state it explicitly, as it is already indicated further below.
  • At first mention I had introduced their mission as "had been attempting to negotiate a halt to hostilities since July 1346" so that seemed redundant. See what you think of my revised formulation.
  • And change "Two cardinals acting as papal emissaries" into "The two cardinals..." since they are already mentioned earlier.
  • Good point. Changed, although differently to how you suggest.
  • I would recommend adding the dates of the works (and possibly also the painters, as far as known) to the two kings' portraits; it should be made clear that these are ahistorical representations. Likewise add a descriptive caption for the infobox picture, as this is a generic medieval siege, not an illustration of the siege of Calais specifically.
  • Dated to their centuries of origin. Artists not added. Infobox image caption added.
  • Map not ordered by me, but I thought that I had checked that. I have asked the map orderer to confirm the source (although I am pretty sure that I know what it is) and will then update the infopage.

Otherwise I really have nothing to remark on. The context is well presented, and the narrative coherent and lucid. Well done. Constantine ✍ 09:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Constantine. Thanks for stopping in on this one. Your queries addressed above, although you may wish to hang fire until I have added the map source. I shall re-ping once I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Constantine Sources for the map added. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: On the papal emissaries, these were always the two cardinals, or not? If so, then introduce them at the first mention. I would simply move "Two cardinals acting as papal emissaries from Pope Clement VI had been attempting to negotiate a halt to hostilities since July 1346, with no success." up and merge it with "Pope Clement VI's emissaries continued to travel between the armies, but neither king would speak to them" and then "In an attempt to save face, Philip now admitted the papal emissaries, whom he had until now ignored..." or something like that. Otherwise the changes look good to me. Constantine ✍ 13:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Constantine, I was being slow on the uptake. Fixed. I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it looks good now. Once again, well done :). Constantine ✍ 15:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Back to the game.

  • number of German and Breton mercenaries and allies. Link Breton.
Done.
  • The English fleet paralleled the army's route Wiktionary and yourdictionary claim that parallelled is British but Oxford doesn't support this claim. So which one should this article uses?
I write in standard British English and not Oxford English.
  • @Gog the Mild: I know you do write it in standard British English, but likewise Wiktionary and yourdictionary claims that parallelled is British English. Of course I am not British and this could be both correct, I am not sure that's why I ask it better to a real Briton than trusting my sources like those dictionaries. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I misunderstood. Well I think that I know, but let's refer that to a language expert as well. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Put not your trust in Rileys: I am not an expert – just an amateur grammar fancier. But for what it's worth my view, backed by the OED and all four editions of Fowler, is that "paralleled" is the only acceptable past tense of the verb. Tim riley talk 18:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tim. I have left it in that format. I assume that you took into account that I do not write in Oxford English? Do you have a view on north-west etc immediately below? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha funny "just an amateur grammar fancier". Well I'm happy to get an answer by you Tim. Really weird that Wiktionary uses this kinda verb and claiming that it is British. I understand that yourdictionary could be wrong because their web page doesn't look like it can be trusted it is also possible that they copy-pasted from Wiktionary. Anyway thanks for your involvement. Also Gog I use British dictionaries like Oxford and Cambridge I only don't like the -ize concept. Because I can barely say it in my tongue and it sounds/looks wrong to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of these days the Oxford University Press will finally admit that ize endings – familiar to students of Ancient Greek and unthinkable to anyone else in England – are absurdly old fashioned. I'm not sure I shall live to see that happy day. Tim riley talk 21:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • north-west VS north west.
Well, usually I write it as two words, eg "campaigning in the south west", but I have been told by those who know that when used adjectively, as in "financial centre of north-west Normandy" it should be hyphenated. Mr Riley, I wonder if, as expert in such things, you could confirm or otherwise this view?
  • Hmm intresting and when do you use it without hyphenates?
At a quick glance this looks like the difference between an attributive and a predicative adjective or adjectival phrase, as in 'an up-to-date list' but 'the list is up to date'. But I don't care to venture a view on hyphenating geographical directions when used attributively. Tim riley talk 18:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: I have queried a (retired) modern languages professor and they confirmed that a hyphen should be used when a compound direction is used adjectively; and that in other cases it is acceptable to use two separate, unhyphenated words. The article now complies with this; it didn't before, so a good spot. I think that that is all of your queries addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Flanders in the body.
Done.
  • Link Calais. in the body
Whoops. Done.
  • for the rest of the war,[61][28] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
Done.
  • to be deployed overseas prior to 1600.[57][42] Look what I found. Could you see the issue? I do.
:) Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day CPA-5 how is this tracking from your perspective? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My God time goes fast. Is it already 10 days ago when Gog replied to me? Well sure I think I can give him my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Suggest using |lastauthoramp=y for multi-author works
Done.
  • Overlinking of authors in the sources
Corrected.
  • Sometimes you use a full stop after an author's initial, other times not. Be consistent.
Oops. Apologies. Fixed.
  • No other niggles. Refs and sources are properly formatted and are highly reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Thanks for looking those over. Your niggles addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle[edit]

  • If casualties for both sides are unknown, I see no reason to include it in the infobox.
It is established practice for military infoboxes. I for one would wish to know that the total casualties were unknown. But removed.
  • Although Gascony was the cause of the war.. Some clarification or revision might be needed here, as the information in the first paragraph implies that both Gascony and Ponthieu were the source of tension.
Revised. Hopefully clearer now.
  • Edward's aim was to conduct a chevauchée, a large-scale raid, across French territory to reduce his opponent's morale and wealth. His soldiers razed every town in their path and looted whatever they could from the populace. The English fleet paralleled the army's route, devastating the country for up to 5 miles (8 km) inland...The map seems to suggest that the fleet was able to "parallel" the army's route because the army moved along the coast, but the text does not make this clear. Suggest clarifying this, if this is the case, or if the fleet was making use of rivers and waterways to move beyond the beaches. Also not sure how the fleet was able to devastate land 5 miles inland unless they were using aforementioned waterways or landing parties, as I'm under the impression that naval artillery was not capable of such range in those days. This should be specified.
Good catch. I am too close and missed the obvious. The role of landing parties added.
  • Aside from the looting, did English soldiers directly harm the populace? "Slaughter" implies they murdered civilians, but this is not exactly clear.
Erm. "slaughter" seems clear to me. I have added a little more detail about Caen ("Most of the population was massacred, there was an orgy of drunken rape and the city was sacked for five days"), which was the worst and best documented example, and expanded slightly on the slaughter bit. Is it any clearer?
That's good.
  • After resting for two days and burying the dead... Their dead, or all dead in general?
The dead; ie all of the dead. Is there a better, or clearer, way of phrasing it?
All good, just making sure.
  • A total of 853 ships, crewed by 24,000 sailors, were involved... Was this at all about the same time, or cumulatively over the course of the 11 months?
Cumulatively. Silly me. Clarified.
Linked.
  • Is it known how much the siege cost England? Did Parliament appropriate a specific amount, or was it more of a blank cheque?
Blank cheque is a good analogy. I could provide a little more detail if you think it useful. I don't think that the siege was expected to last so long (this is OR) and sources of funding were pretty much exhausted by the end of it.
Very well; if it was an open agreement to fund the siege then the text is probably best left as is.
  • Taxes proved ever more difficult to collect. Is it known why?
In broad terms yes. If you think that it would be useful, I could boil them down to a paragraph or so. Currently it a short sentence in a list of Philip's difficulties. I could expand each into a paragraph, or more, but it seems WP:UNDUE
A full para on the matter would probably be undue, but if the major reasons (particularly if they pertained directly to the war situation i.e. disorganisation in the administration) could be be put in a sentence or two, that would do. If this is not possible, probably best left as is.
OK. I have expanded to "Taxes proved ever more difficult to collect, with many large towns using all available funds to reinforce their walls or equip their militia, and much of the nobility crippled by debt they had accumulated paying for the previous nine years of war."
  • As soon as Calais capitulated, Edward paid off a large part of his army... Was this done with the loot seized in Calais?
Hah! To a very limited extent. Also other booty, tax income, promissory notes, offices, land grants, promises of same, including formal promises of shares of the income from the wool staple. You name it. Actually, pay was not too far behind in the English army and (OR alert) much of it had had enough and was happy to head home.
  • Edward also had difficulties in raising money, partly due to the unexpected timing of the need; he employed draconian measures... I assume these were draconian measures to collect the needed funds. Of what sort were they? Expropriation of property?
From the first source I checked:"... a fresh round of forced loans, the third in six months. It was extremely badly received." This from a very sober modern historian. (Who is currently a supreme court judge.) Edward was usually imaginative, I could probably find other things.
Perhaps state "including forced loans" or some other example of these draconian measures, or change the word "draconian" to something with a less violent connotation e.g. "extreme". A Google search of "draconian" turns up synonyms such as brutal, oppressive, ruthless, relentless, despotic, tyrannical, repressive. Draconian's connotation is one of negativity generally reserved for "tyrannical" violations of liberties, which would not necessarily be assumed to apply to financial measures (I've yet to hear a non-partisan, respected academic refer to higher taxes—for example—as draconian).
The connotations you suggest, are more or less what I wanted to indicate. That was both a common view of the time and the consensus of historians. The first source I turned to, Ormrod's biography of Edward III has "the king's almost complete failure to justify his huge expenditure", "an extraordinary bout of public taxation", "controversial", "oppressive", "real hardship and widespread resentment", "provoked criticism", "highly unpopular", "protest literature", "iniquities of royal taxation", "corruption of the king's agents", "wilful and obstinate king [Edward]", "[parliament made]heartfelt pleas for the alleviation of onerous taxes and outright condemnations...". This is just page 11, the first reference in the index to "Taxation"; there are about a hundred more references .
A random opening of Sumption to the planning for the 1346 campaign yields, in terms of taxation: "Edward proceeded brutally", "It is unlikely he could have got away with [his taxation policies] if the military tide had not turned in his favour". A little earlier "enforcement had become brutal". Sumption directly blames fiscal policy for a "breakdown of public order". "enforce an onerous scheme".
Massive forced loans, confiscation of crops and livestock on a huge scale. This was considered a tyrannical violation of liberty at the time and by modern scholars. At one point, earlier in the war, Edward pawned his crown and surrendered his sovereign self as surety for the repayment of loans to foreign creditors. He was under extreme pressure to raise money, and certainly didn't baulk at outright robbery in some cases. (This was in 1338, long before the financial screws really tightened.)
I could go on. This was just a swift dip into the first two sources to hand. The point is that I am aware of the connotations of "draconian" and believe that the sources support it.
I see; the draconian label seems most apt then.


-Indy beetle (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indy beetle. Many thanks for taking a look at this one. Your comments seem to be on the money, so thanks again for that. Your comments above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: Your two outstanding points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting for promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: Thank you for the support, and especially thank you for the challenging of how I had phrased or explained things. I appreciate that and the article is the better for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I can see that other editors have looked at some of the images, but just for completeness, I've conducted a full review and have concluded that they are all appropriately licensed, and have appropriate captions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Siege_of_Calais_(1346–1347)&oldid=899632080"