Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Morlaix/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 13:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) 12:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cough!

Gog the Mild, I recommend a brown spirit for that cough  :) SerialNumber54129 18:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. ,,,,
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images are appropriately tagged.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. A map would be sweet. All images have alttext provided.
7. Overall assessment. See your talk.
And is not "Own work", but lifted from page 6 of Bennett.

Note: This version reviewed.

Background
  • Firstly, this was an excellent edit. I fear I was going to make myself unpopular over its predecessor. Not for me to dispute Sumption (but fear no gods or men!), but while he's the vital historian on the HYW, Jones is more the specialist on the BCW. It might be worth expanding the page range to 8–11, as the theory of sovereignty is expanded on ('by the late fourteenth century the duke had come to exercise most prerogatives then normally ascribed to a sovereign prince' is a succinct summation, p.10)
Expanded.
  • But I would avoid the word 'province', with its modern implication of being a section of a section of a nation state but still very much part one, which doesn't apply that neatly... suggest 'a fief of the Kingdom of France' or somethng.
Province was I believe used at the time, and I am not sure that it does have the implication you suggest - Catalonia used to be a province of Spain (I know, it's called a "nationalliy" these days) but ... And I may as well use Klingon as 'fief' for the information I would convey to most readers. I am not wedded to province, but it is the least bad option I can think of.
  • I guess as a result of that change, Jones 1988 needs adding to the bibliog and Wagner doesn't need his b.
Fixed.
Linked
Done, although I think you're getting a tad MOS:OVERLINK.
  • Disputed succession; could this be glossed in a few words, perhaps 'having attempted to disinherit his brother's children' could be inserted.
Good grief no. I mean, obviously I could - see Breton Civil War, 1341, from which I could cut and paste. But there is no logical line at which to stop adding one more layer of explanations of the explanations, and I really can't see that a reader wanting to read up on the battle of Morlaix either needs to know or is interested in knowing more than is currently there. I have switched the Further information to Breton Civil War, 1341.
  • Out of curiosity, how was Charles of Blois 'militarily orientated? (Or rather, why did this make him stand out in an age when military business was the nobility's raison d'être?)
I just follow the sources. But yeah, even by the standards of the day he was considered the chevalier's chevalier.
  • '...was being supported by the English king, Edward III' seems more natural
Done.
  • Perhaps swap out 'the rightful duke' for 'the rightful heir', as duke is mentioned a few words later.
Good point, done.
  • Actually that sentence: could it be tightened? Perhaps something like 'Philip believed that having a relative as duke would bring the duchy closer to the French crown. As such he was willing to commit...'
You're right. Gone with a slightly different wording along similar lines.
  • Might be worth noting that the collapse of eastern Brittany was in no small degree due to John's own people deserting him (the relevancy being: it indicates to the reader, but without stating, that his wife was more popular than he was!)
Happy to overtly state that his wife was more popular - there are sources - while doubting its relevance. I'm not sure that they were John's own people. Overwhelming force and heads being lopped off just out of bow shot seem more compelling explanations to me.
  • '...was at Rennes': mention she possessed the treasury?
Done.
  • 'She acted rapidly, decisively and aggressively'. Stirring stuff! But, except 'rapidly', it sounds like it should be a quote, rather than in Wiki-voice. Sumption says she made 'acute decisions', and Mortimer that she not only 'held out', she 'did more than just hold out', doing her Jeanne d'Arc bit, 'with stern realism'.
I have had several rounds of this at FAC and ended up with "Modern historians consider her to have been an energetic and effective leader, and she acted decisively and aggressively." Quotes from HQ RSs include "heroic", "energetic", "courage", "played the part of a warrior" and "stern realism"
  • '...to Edward III' in England?
Added.
English intervention
  • Can 'little was left to Jeanne's forces' be clarified? Was there little left to it in size, or little left for it to do, or little left of it?
Rewritten to be more specific.
  • Suggest 'when the English fleet arrived', and then 'This comprised', or whatever.
Done.
  • Just 'took the Genoese by surprise' perhaps; or even 'the besiegers'.
Done, I think.
  • 'a force far inferior to that of the French besieging Brest'. Suggest tightening to 'an inferior force to the French army besieging Brest'. And you can tell my why you don't like it  :)
It's not a tightening, it's a loosening; a reader has to read your version (at least) twice to understand it; mine starts with what was last mentioned - "1,350 men" - and then moves on the French, rather than jumping 'Englis - French - English'. Is that what you wanted? :-)
As in 'an inferior force to the French', I think I meant.
  • By the way, if we know the English army was inferior, does that mean we can put a figure on the French forces?
"a vast host", "an enormous French army". So, sorry, no we can't. I could insert "The historian Jonathan Sumption describes this French reaction as 'extraordinary'."
  • 'Montfort's Breton partisans': were these partisans as we might understand it today—a paramilitary force behind enemy lines—or was this more the remnants of his army?
I can't be held responsible for how you might understand the term, ie as was current 80 years ago. You have just caused me to switch on the Leonard Cohen! I mean it in either or both of the first two senses of partisan.
  • '...to follow on': not playing cricket? :) I wonder if another word work; not that most of our readers probably understand cricket anyway!
Assuming you are being serious, and I don't see how you can be, unless you have been staying up late to watch the test these last three nights, then may I point out that "follow on" was a normal English phrase even before 1787. And if I did mean it in a cricketing sense, it wouldn't make any.
  • Either way, 'further' is unnecessary, if this force has already been established to be subsequent.
Removed.
  • Did Charles withdraw to Guingamp?
Er, yes, as in "but the bulk of the army accompanied him to Guingamp".
  • Perhaps 'capturing everything to its west'.
That may be pushing the sources a little.
  • I've bit my nails not to mention commas thus far; but 'arriving on 3 September and finding the garrison well-prepared to stand a siege he assaulted the town'?!
Ok, I have read it three times and it reads fine to me. At what random point would you like one inserted. As you have been so good so fae I won't even quibble. Do you disfavour Sumption because he uses even fewer commas than me?
I think you probably have a bad rep; I note that your comma usage is actually increasing. Inform the naysayers.
  • 'Montfortist Bretons': are these John's partisans of above?
Yes, but in the first two Wiktionary definitions, not the third. Although I suppose they could be that as well.
  • 'Edward's contingent was still in England awaiting etc'.
Oops. Implemented.
  • 'his imagined threat. including many'. Hate to ask... but shouldn't that be a comma  :)
Yep. *blush*
  • '...took part in the battle'; subsequent battle?
Inserted.
  • Why is Burne a 'modern historian', when he died >60 years ago, while Sumption, DeVries, Mortimer et al. are still alive, but aren't?
I like to distinguish "modern" and "contemporary" historians/chroniclers, but some reviewers dislike this, so I a trying to wean myself off it. That one was old habits coming back, no doubt because I had just written "There is disagreement among modern historians". Fixed.
Not a major thing; Oxford still determines modern history to begin with the, err, Battle of Maldon or something.
  • Whose was the earlier (than 1955) estimate of 30,000?
A de la Borderie, whom Burne describes as "the careful French historian of Brittany'.
  • Just DeVries is fine on the second mention.
Fixed.
  • '...he describes the last' > perhaps '..describing the last'.
Done.
Done.
  • 'Matthew Bennett has...' > 'Matthew Bennett has suggested'?
  • [Always surprises me that John Wagner hasn't got an article...]
There are several like that. It seems a bit random.
  • Do the sources specifically say that more experienced men wore more plate armour? That they would be wealthier is a given, but I don't see that experience need have been a factor. It's hard to imagine that soldiers needed to be told to protect themselves as much as they can afford!
I did have a source when I wrote the same sentence for battle of Crecy. Something about the more experienced guys being able to scrounge decent gear off corpses, prisoners or just their lords (as an investment in an asset). I can't find that source on a skim, let me dig.
  • For those not wearing bascinets, a gorget was essential.
Tell me about it. But what they actually used was chain mail. Don't look at me like that; in the 1650's the Ironsides (the NMA) steadily shed their cuirasses in favour of jackets of uncured leather. (Don't ask.)
Opposing forces
Done.
  • Any idea how many of the 234 remained?
Nope.
  • Men-at-arms and archers having 0ow been mentioned a few times, perhaps just 'a further 800 men from England, whose composition is unknown' might work.
Much neater. Thanks.
  • To omit the repetition, perhaps 'The depth of penetration would be slight at that range, but would have increased...'
Good thinking.
  • [Apropos arrows, at the Battle of Towton, Easter 1461—admittedly fought in a blizzard!—archers with the wind on their side could pick up and use the fallen-short arrows of the enemy back them.]
Or even the not fallen short. But not applicable here. (From the Poitiers article "and recovered what arrows they could find in the immediate vicinity, including those impaling dead and wounded Frenchmen." That's gonna sting.)
  • Link the business theorist, consultant, lecturer and author of management books, Morgen Witzel. He is especially known for his book, 'Doing business in China'.
Done. Some sources lead a strange double life. I used Yuval Noah Harari to anchor Battle of Calais before realising he was mostly famous for Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.
  • Link crossbow. Perhaps a brief footnote summarising the pros and cons of the crossbow (shorter range, greater penetration, increased accuracy, slower re/loading etc)?
Done.
Battle
  • '... decided to attempt to relieve Morlaix and marched his host back to the west'. Suggest 'and returned west', or the like. He clearly took an army with him, so that's redundant.
I hate the 'great man theory of history': "Hannibal crossed the Alps" as if on a solo walking holiday. I try to avoid it. I don't think its redundent. If pushed hard I'll restructure thee sentence to take Charles out.
  • Lots of English. The last three mentions are probably unnecessary—no one is going to think Northampton was situating French horses in a wood, or digging a ditch for the French, or deploying a standard French formation...
Three "English" removed.
  • '...would explain'. I think this probably falls under WP:VOICE ('Avoid stating opinions as facts'); suggest attributing inline.
Firmed it up, as the source says "This would account for ..."
French attacks
  • If I was Buidhe I would probably tell you that you need a source explicitly stating that 'the majority state...', rather than citing several and suggesting that's a majority  :) (by the way, Burne a modern historian for the second-time!)
Happily you're not. (Basically they all do, including several not cited, except for Sumption who as so often does his own thing, and DeVries who is clearly staring at the same sources as everyone else but goes into verbal contortions because they don't match his "interesting" theory.)
He is a modern historian - happy to argue the details - compared with those dead and buried 600+ years ago.
No need to try and persuade me.
  • I assume that the brook crossed by the French wasn't the 'stream which bent' to the right of the English line (or was it?), but either way it suggest a map of the battle would be worth its weight in bodkins for reader clarity.
It was. See above.
Above where? But: I only asked as it's described as running parallel to the English and also bending of to the right. I'm sure it did both these things, but I was trying to visualise it. Bloody map!
  • Any idea how long a pause?
Not a Scooby. "Blois held a quick tactical planning session", "took council ... regarding the next step. Eventually ...", "after a moment's hesitation"; possibly they forgot to synchronise their watches.
  • Is there another word for baffled? I understand what you mean, but that usage could easily be misunderstood. I mean: 'they retreated in confusion'.
But they weren't confused. They knew exactly what was happening. They were thwarted or foiled They were "Baffle[d]: "To defeat, frustrate, or thwart (someone or their efforts, plans, etc.); to confound, to foil". Changed to "confounded".
  • A suggestion as to why the mercs had deserted would be useful.
The primary sources are frustratingly vague about anything non-knightly. I assume they got shot up with the rest of the infantry in the fist attack. But that is entirely OR.
  • 'where they continued the siege': had the siege been temporarilly lifted then?
No, that's why they continued it - as in continuous - rather than restarted or reimpose or similar.
Ah, so they rejoined it.
  • Any news on the French prisoners' subsequent fates?
I assume they were held for ransom. A little oddly the sources don't mention them again. Charney's Wikipedia article has "Taken captive, Charny was transported to Goodrich Castle in England as the prisoner of Richard Talbot, 2nd Baron Talbot, who according to an English letters patent of October 1343 allowed him to return to France “to find the money for his ransom"." But this is cited to Calendar of Patent Rolls 1343–45: 130, not helpful.
True. For a cite, you could use Kaeuper & Kennedy's Livre de Chevalerie (p.8: 'Richard Talbot, his captor, sent Charny for honorable safe-keeping to his principal residence, Goodrich castle in Herefordshire'), which also has some interesting factoids (his frontal charge described as 'the classic French tactic', dead knights etc).
I have plenty of stuff on M. Charny. He is a main man in "my" FAs Battle of Calais and Siege of Guînes (1352), and gets a walk on role at Siege of Aiguillon and Battle of Poitiers. But I am not sure of the relevance of going overboard on Charny just because we have lots of sources. I could put something general in about ransoms and then say a (smallish) bit about Charny by way of example. Wadaya think?
Completely up to you! Just throwing sources out, catch what you want  :) SerialNumber54129
Aftermath
  • '...withdrew east'.
Reads clunkily to me, but done.
  • Any more detail available as to what was held by the English and what by the countess? (After all, strictly John had signed the whole kit and caboodle over to Edward in London,but obviously he didn't claim exclusive rights).
Nope. The countess pretty much fades out of history once Mauny arrives. There is even half a journal article as to why this is. The English and French pretty much ignore the niceties until after Bretigny.
  • 'Treaty of Brétigny in 1360 with Philip's successor, John II...'
"Northampton ... was one of the negotiators of the Treaty of Brétigny ..." But he didn't negotiate it with John II, he negotiated it with french negotiators.
  • 'A stunning English victory' is a somewhat coy way of describing the Battle of Poitiers. I mean: of course you're right, it was, so why not name it?
It doesn't describe Poitiers. It is the stunning end to the war of 1337-1360.
What was a stunning end?
"which ended the Edwardian phase of the war with a stunning English victory." The last five words relate to the six words immediately before them.
  • 'Wagner writes that Morlaix...', he writes plenty, but he considers that Morlaix etc, would be a more accurate description of his opinion (not saying he's wrong).
Nah, it would be different, it is not more accurate: we know he wrote that, we have no idea if he considered it true. He may have been summarising the consensus through gritted teeth.
  • Does Sumption use the phrase 'wrong-headed'?
I knew that would get picked up. Of course not, that would be plagiarism! He says "They made the classic French tactical error of ... [blah, blah'. "wrong-headed" seems a good paraphrase.
  • Per WP:LQ, is it correct in the Livingstone/Witzel quote?
Yes. [1]
  • I'd be tempted to give the final para ('Wagner writes...') its own sub-section ('Historiography', or your choice), as it's no longer about the aftermath, but about the broader role of the battle in the historical context, its contribution to tactics, and a general airing of opinions, etc.
Good idea. Done.
Notes
  • Note 1: The stand out question here is, if john had a safe conduct, why was he imprisoned, not to be released until 1343? Suggest a few words explaining that Philip's sworn word was worth spit in the wind, in a more encylopaedic way (and in doing so, Mortimer comments, 'disregarding what this said about the value of his own guarantees of safety'). Also, he stayed in England and and did fealty to Edward for Britanny, might be worth mentioning, considering this was while his wife was fighting his battles for him.
We are well into SN footnote territory here, and while I am tempted (because I find it fascinating) I am going to resist. It is not even adjacent to the topic.
  • Note 2: The latter half of the second sentence ('It is known... being Welsh') is confusing, not to say a tautology. The army included many welsh troops, but was also reinforced by Welsh troops?
It looks clear to me. Suggestions for tweaks welcome. I am trying to pre-empt the "But weren't many/most of those "English" archers actually Welsh?" queries.
It could be clarified without losing any of the anti-Welsh sentiment :) will it get raised at FAC though?
Who knows. I would be delighted if you could suggest a better wording.
  • Note 3: *Are these material scientists? Can we name some of the disputant historians, those for >300m/<200m?
It's a footnote. If a reader cares, which I doubt, they can read the article, or go to longbow.
If the reader doesn't care...!
  • Note 4: What's with the CITEVAR for Pratt 2010? I'd expect something like 'Peter Pratt has argued that they were 'in good agreement, etc., followed by an sfn?
I have no idea what happened with the ref, now fixed. Yeah, Prof Pratt needs citing in line. A brain storm over that one all round.
Citations/sources
  • Already noted Wagner 2006b and Jones 1988.
Yep
  • Suggest archiving Magier, Nowak et al, purely on the grounds that you've archived everything else.
It's been so long since I hand archived anything that I have forgotten how to do it. No, really!
  • The EHR's ISSN is 0013-8266 and its OCLC is 474766029, whichever you want.
Thanks. My version had cobwebs on it.
  • ISBNs are inconsistently formatted (compare Wagner 2010, Strickland/Hardy 2011, for examples)
I'm not seeing it. Could you run it past me slowly. (I assume you mean Wagner 2006.)
Well, e.g. Jones 1988 is 3-1-6-2-1, Wagner 2006 3-1-3-5-1, and Hardy 2010 (and '11) is 3-1-5-3-1.
And so. That's how ISBNs work, innit? Looking at the five random paper sources I have on my desk, three are 1-5-3-1, Sumption is 1-3-5-1. A volume of poetry is also 1-5-3-1. What am I supposed to do? Complain to Faber?
  • Don't think you need the |publication-date= as well.
No. Trimmed.
  • Might want to look at Green, D., Edward the Black Prince: A Study of Power in Medieval Europe; Hart, C., The Rise & Fall of the Mounted Knight; Esposito, G., Armies of the Hundred Years' War 1337–1453, etc; Ayton, A., Knights and Warhorses: Military Service and the English Aristocracy Under Edward III, all contain useful material which shouldn't expand the article too much.
I will see if I can dig out copies. It is such an obscure battle that useful snippits turn up in odd places, often linked to other battles.
I'll send you Keauper/Kennedy, Ayton, Green and Hardy. Or where did Hardy come from, on the longbow? Esposito is on Gbooks (although it's a Pen & Sword job), as is Hart (on both counts).
Great. (Although I have some of them. (Possibly due to your previous generosity.)
Hardy, you mean Strickland & Hardy (2011)? That's The Great Warbow: From Hastings to the Mary Rose.
Do you know anything about C Hart? A couple of things he states as facts contradict every other source - old and modern - and all of his other work seems to be historical fiction.
Well, he's primarily a scholar of 20th-century English lit, specifically James Joyce. See [2]. Personally, I wouldn't use him in a FAC; in fact, I imagine a competent source reviewer would have something energetic to say. Perhaps give him a swerve, no one will fault you. SerialNumber54129 17:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've gone through those. Ayton was interesting and yielded a couple of nuggets. I have added a footnote on ransoming prisoners - we could do with an article on this - and expanded the footnote on Charny. Put in a bit on crossbowmen. A couple of the sources you suggested had either only passing references to Morlaix or nothing worth adding to the list of sourcing which is already approaching the epic. Everyone is clearly working from the same limited contemporary chroniclers.

Obviously I have to fail this on the princip majora of AN INSUFFICIENCY OF COMMAS, but I'll wait until you do all the leg work first  :)

Good Article and great read. Put me down for the FAC SR. SerialNumber54129 19:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously.
  • That's what I call a proper GAN review. Any chance I can retain you to copy edit all of my tosh, er articles? Great stuff. I think I have covered everything above, but I am going to bed anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hardcore Gog! Made a few replies. Thanks for the words... I wouldn't want to deprive you of an opportunity to be offensive to me  :) SerialNumber54129 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Morlaix/GA1&oldid=1262113529"