Talk:Battle of Bouvines

Untitled

Does this really have anything to do with the Investiture Conflict, as the battlebox says? Adam Bishop 19:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Marginal French victory?

"Marginal French victory"? Is that a joke? The answer is in the article, at the end of it : "John returned to England to face the barons whose possessions in Normandy he had lost. After Bouvines there were no important wars in Western Europe until the 1290s." Bouvines IS NOT à "marginal" victory... Clio64B 00:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Importance

I'm quite sure this isn't well-known to the average reader; please see the importance scale for the criteria being used. Kirill Lokshin 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, I agree with you about how well it's known (that is, it isn't that well known), but to be honest I dislike that importance criteria in the first place. This battle may not be well known outside of France, but it was probably the most important battle in French military history (some historians say this battle made modern France).UberCryxic 03:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we need to try and work towards some consistency in how we assess these things. Having said that, is it actually well-known (as in by non-historians) in France? That would qualify it for "Top" importance. Kirill Lokshin 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, non-historians don't really know about this battle. It doesn't mean it was not an important battle for France. The France remained in peace until 1337 after that. And it was the first time that a victory was used to reinforce the national pride. Nowadays, nobody remember it, of course, that was some time ago, you know. Karap 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.53.225.27 (talk)

It was taught in French, but not in English, schools, just as Agincourt was taught in English but not in French schools. Things are moving on, it's a pivotal point in the argument about eliminating Nationalism from European history in a project undertaken by Presidents Chiraq and Merkel, now adopted by President Sarkosy as well. However, to say that France was peaceful for a hundred years after that is nonsense: the French were engaged in the consolidation of the Angevin empire into their holdings via the Albigensian Crusade, which kept them militarily occupied for the next 30 years, more or less, quite apart from the various abortive Crusade efforts made by Saint Louis. There was also considerable conflict with Brittany and Normandy. Arguably, however, Agincourt is more important, as it eliminated feudal deadwood from the older ranks of the French nobility and allowed a more flexible younger generation to come to the forefront under Jeanne d'Arc in 1432. Their introduction of heavy artillery onto the battlefield laid the foundation for Imperial France from 1500-1814. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This page does not represent a world view or even a realistic view

• Somebody please put up that tag, and maybe another tag. This article is not encylopedic, and the person who substantively wrote it knows little about medieval history. Its has zero background, zero context, and basically zero infos on the actual structure of the battle. This phrase says it all for me "After Bouvines there were no important wars in Western Europe until the 1290s." LOL. Even heard of the Albigensian Crusade? How about the Barons' War? Both are pretty important in world history. CJ DUB 14:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did the French win?

The article says both forces used identical formations but that the Germans had more troops. How did the French win? Were their individual knights and infantry just better? AThousandYoung (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Logistics problems on the Angevin/German side: King John was supposed to come up in support from Poitou, but got bogged down and never made it. The man was never a soldier, but his mother's spoilt darling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Germans are weak, we naturally triumphed over them --86.220.205.69 (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The odd assertion that Bouvines is not in France

Pigsonthewing has made the odd assertion that Bouvines is not in France. In case anyone is interested in the background of this revert dispute (I don't blame you if you don't because at this point there are about zero applications that can use this metadata). His edit does not affect the content of the article but the metadata. His edit was motivated I believe from the mistaken idea that the metadata must record the location details at the time of the battle. This would be true if I encoded it a certain way, but I didn't. More information see here. I could be wrong about this bit of esoterica, but in any case, folks here may see a few more reverts back and forth but not see any visible differences and wonder what it is about. Well now you know. So I am reverting his revert after a technical explanation of his error. -J JMesserly (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made no such assertion. There are a number of applications which use microformat metadata. Please desist in making false claims about my actions; and about microformats. And please desist in edit warring. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we misunderstand each other. You reverted an edit of mine that recorded the location of Bouvines as in France. On the basis of the fact that Bouvines was in Flanders in 1214, you reverted the edit, did you not? I pointed out that there is nothing that says that the location specified for an event cannot refer to a present day location (Bouvines, France). You have declined to provide any evidence that using current place names is incorrect. You do not volunteer a substitution, but instead struck my contribution entirely, including the valid event dates. Please provide evidence of your claim that this is as you claim not a valid microformat encoding for place. To date, you have not on the above discussion page or anywhere else to my knowlege. -J JMesserly (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edit effectively asserted that the event took pace "in Bouvines, France in 1214"; that is a false; and semantically invalid. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Pardon me. On the microformat talk page I was under the impression that you had agreed in advance to this edit. If the text should not read Bouvines, (present day France), how do you wish it to read? Further, what purpose is there in also reverting the date of the event? Why not leave the date encoding alone rather than make a blanket revert? -J JMesserly (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agreed to no such thing, nor anything like it. Please re-read what I wrote. And I most certainly didn't agree to the mess which I removed in my last edit to the article: location=Bouvines {present day France)Bouvines {present day France)Bouvines,  Francelinkback:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bouvines). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that your objection was theoretical. Do you no longer have an objection based on your "wasn't in France in the time period" argument? This is a new objection. Although very few people can see this, it is true that some can. I am refining formatting, and I am sure will be more pleased with the non CSS output. If you have further bugs, it is more efficient to post a note on the talk page for the template. -J JMesserly (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I missed a point in your little argue but As Bouvines was into the county of Flanders and as the count of Flanders was at this time rebellious but still formally vassal of the king of France, does that not make Bouvines in France at that time ? 90.9.28.237 (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, because Flanders was more closely aligned with Burgundy, socially, and England, economically. Just because some bully forced you into an oath of allegance never meant that the oath was solid - this is why oaths were often backed with hostages. The Flanders we're talking about was founded by Burgundian mercenaries after they defeated the French at the Battle of Cassel (1071) in a Civil War which brought the French Duchy of Flanders to an end, and although France never accepted the reality of the defeat (which just brought down the Belgian government yesterday 6 May 2010, for example), none the less it is a reality. Much the same, oddly enough, can be said about the House of Brabant, who spun off from the losing side at Cassel, and even that of Hainaut! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That’s not because some Burgundian mercenaries helped one chap from the Flanders family that we can say there was for sure a close alignment with Burgundy, socially. Even rebellious, Scotland was under the control of England, that's the same for Flanders under the rule of France. "A Civil War which brought the French Duchy of Flanders to an end, and although France never accepted the reality of the defeat." Which duchy of Flanders are you talking about ? Flanders’ never been a duchy, it was a county. France did not have to accept that reality because Flanders was removed from French control only at the beginning of the 15th century only. That's a long time after 1071. Finally that’s not enough to take one single battle and create a reality about it.86.206.109.46 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Better Article

I think this article is too short an badly researched although it is a remarkable historic event. The number of troops for example seems to be directly taken from some medieval chronicles, without knowing that those authors always exagerate the numbers. Furthermore the importance for the history of England, France anf Germany aren't represented in a good way. For people with a good knowledge of the german language or a good transalator i would recomend the article in the german Wikipedia - it's way better. 87.178.119.11 (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. Not to mention it also needs cleanup and copy edits. I did some of that, but have to take a break. I will try to find some other sources to expand this article. In the meantime I would like to continue doing copy edits just to get this page cohesive and in a proper tone. From there, building off of it and adding more details will be a lot simpler, once people can understand the already present details well enough.DaltonCastle (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Exaggerated Significance - Deposition of Otto and signing of Magna Carta

The opening section suggests that the defeat at Bouvines was the main reason for the signing of magna carta and the deposition of Otto of Brunswick. This is not true - in both cases numerous factors were involved. The article is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.156.180 (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Conquest?

The article as it presently stands asserts that "Philip conquered most of Plantagenet's continental possessions, namely Anjou, Brittany, Maine, Normandy, and the Touraine, leading to the effective end of the Angevin Empire."

Certainly Philip defeated King John's forces, but is "conquered" an accurate verb? Given that those provinces (duchies and counties) had rebelled against King John with the support of Philip Augustus some years earlier, Philip had little or no conquering to do. Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoetropo (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Numbers

The numbers given by Verbruggen seem quite odd to me, considering the importance of the battle as well as the powers involved. Even though the French army had to be divided in order to face the threat of John Lackland and the English army at Roche-au-Moine, it still seems strange that the Holy Roman Empire and the counties of Flanders and Boulogne, as well as an English contingent, were not able to raise an army of more than 9,000 men, for a battle of such a strategic importance. The numbers here are only based on one source, Verbruggen. For instance, wikipedia pages from other languages base their sources on the Xenophon Group, or on J.E Kaufmann and H.W Kaufmann, who give 15,000 French against 24 to 25,000 allies, which seem plausible. Britannica uses the same figures. Also, why weren't there mounted sergeants in the allied army?

Potentially Incorrect battle contingents for the allies

I am curious to know what source was used when deciding the battle formations for the allies, according to Roger of Wendover who wrote between 1219-1225 the 1st battle was Ferrand, the Count of Flanders, Renaud, Count of Boulogne, and William earl of salisbury, the second William, Count of Holland, and by Hugh of Boves with his Brabancons, and the third under the command of the Roman Emperor Otto.

Furthermore the Marchiennes account of the battle (a monastery near bouvines) records Ferrand, Count of Flanders, and Renaud, Count of Boulogne as being together and being the only ones not to retreat. Tgec17 (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)