Talk:Franco-Flemish War

Title

Just out of interest, why is this article not simply entitled "Franco-Flemish War"? Wikipedia doesn't seem to think there are any others and, even if there were, this would surely be the most notable! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

French victory

would this qualify as a victory for France, the towns they got were small and not important, im not sure what the payment was, but the war was to take control of Flemish areas and for the most part they were unsuccessful in that, especially with the disastrous defeat at the battle of Golden Spurs, which killed over a thousand nobles and was a monumental black eye for France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.158.249.116 (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Golden Spurs aside, the County of Flanders was virtually ripped apart by the defeat and suffered its own heavy, heavy losses. A victory at a heavy price is still a victory. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Come to the talk page before simply reverting please @Brigade Piron: :). The King of France invaded Flanders with the intent of annexation. The annexation was complete in 1301 but by 1302 it was undone. The treaty did not change that. Do not forget the war was equally costly for the kingdom of France. Wars are costly.

Despite the setbacks of the reparations and the 4 ceded cities, the objectives of the Flemish rebels were largely succesful. Namely freeing Flanders from the control of the French king.

The exact victory text cannot be sourced as it differs greatly between sources. It is a matter of deducing the fact, which are sourced.

Here are the facts as we all know:

-The annexation of Flanders to the personal royal domains of the king is undone

-Flanders secedes 4 cities

-The County of Flanders regains its semi-independence from before the war

-Flanders pays yearly reparations

-The Count of Flanders is freed and reinstated

At the cost of just 4 cities and some reparations Flanders regained control of 95% of its territory. Tell me how is it a French victory? CineadAnDuine (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to be supplying a reliable source for your Flemish pyrrhic victory edit? Else it should be removed until it has a reference.

I am not interested in your breaking down of facts, Wikipedia is written using reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

From Ad Hoc to Routine: A Case Study in Medieval Bureaucracy, by Ellen E. Kittell appears to address some of this issue. Although, there is no mention of a pyrrhic victory and I can only see one page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Kansas Bear:, that is a much more elegant solution. I was not aware simply removing the victory was an option ':)

No I think you solution is the best option. The victory sentence was unsourcable in both cases. I will copy your edit on the Dutch wikipedia ;) CineadAnDuine (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, the article will become clearer with more referencing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This is embarrassing, but could you edit the Dutch wikipedia page as well? I can't seem to remove it without breaking the list markup. This was going to be my edit comment 'Verwijdering van de overwinning, te open voor interpretatie wie de oorlog zou gewonnen hebben'

And yes more sources would be better. But as for who won the war exactly is a highly controversial subject as you might have noticed. Many French sources speak of a French victory (probably), many Dutch ones contradict this. I guess it's just better to leave it out completely. CineadAnDuine (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The War was a French victory. 1) The treaty came after Mons-en-Pevele which enabled the French to gain a favourable peace. 2) While the whole of Flanders wasn’t annexed, the French crown gained important territories and Flanders was still a Fiefdom (Vassal of the French post war.) 3) Flanders had to pay an extortionate reparations to the French crown. 4) The Treaty was extremely unpopular in Flanders and led to uprisings 20 years later. 5) The main aim of the French King was to strengthen the French crown, not to necessarily annex Flanders in totality.

All this is in the treaty article and the main article. TDF444 (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The goal of the French king was to annex Flanders into the royal domains of the crown (before it was a fief of France lent to the count of Flanders). That goal was not met in the end (except for 4 cities). What you claim is simply wrong. If the French king did not have the goal of annexation in mind then there wouldn't have been a war in the first place. Because before the war Flanders was already a fief of France (and at the end of the war it was again a fief of France). The rebellion only happened during the war, not before. The war also had a huge cost for France, that's simply the nature of war. Considering all these facts to claim it was a French victory lacks any nuance, that's why @Kansas Bear: decided to simply link directly to the treaty. Then visitors can make up their own mind if it was a victory or not.

CineadAnDuine (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The main aim of the French king was strengthen the French crown and gain greater control of his vassal. One such way was to annex into the Royal Domains, but this was not necessarily the only way and the way to achieve this aim was developed over the campaign. This was achieved by the end of the campaign even if the complete annexation strategy was not and the treaty was deeply unpopular in Flanders which led to rebellion against the more pro-French count. Even if you don't agree with that, military/tactical victory had been achieved by the end of the war with Mons-en-Pevele and Zierikzee. In addition territorial changes don't need to be repeated twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ::TDF444 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

"The main aim of the French king was strengthen the French crown and gain greater control of his vassal."

This is your personal opinion, though you are talking more sense now. One could also argue that by enraging the Flemish populace France in fact weakened its position in Flanders. Hence why indeed there were further rebellions (as you have said yourself) in the next 80 years. In fact this is what historian J.F. Verbruggen argues, that this war ruined Franco-Flemish relations and that Flanders remained hostile even after the war. Mons-en-Pevele en Zierikzee undid the independence of Flanders which was gained after the Battle of the Golden Spurs. But it did not result in the annexation of Flanders to the royal domains, which again was the entire point of the war. Seeing as these conditions were not met, we can neither objectively speak of victory or defeat. I will restore @Kansas Bear:'s changes. Please come back with sources.

"but is a Fief of Philip IV" is weird phrasing, it was not a fief of him personally but of France. That's why I fixed what you added.

CineadAnDuine (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Enraged the population but greater control was established and consequently the treaty is favourable to France. I appreciate the better wording of the Fief point. I don't like the wording of the first point, i'm going to reword it and see if that is a good compromise. We shall leave out the defined victory to interpretation for now of the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDF444 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• "The War was a French victory."

Then I am sure you can provide a reliable source(s) that state that. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Favourable treaty for France"

Do you have a source for this statement? --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@TDF444: okay this is a good compromise. Thank you. I had removed the 'heavy' from 'heavy reparations' as these are slightly emotionally charged words that are subjective to a certain degree. It is better to let the readers judge for themselves. But it is minor, so I'll leave it.

CineadAnDuine (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Flemish war of Independence

Considering the characteristics of the war, would it be this wrong to call the Franco-Flemish War as such? Besides, I also find it hard to qualify the result as a French victory, even if the French had the upper hand in the end and definitely the more profitable side of the treaty. Their main goal, stripping Flanders from their status as an independent nation, was not accomplished and and surely suffered some heavy losses. --- Abyssxox (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. This was a defensive war for Flanders. But after the surprising victory of 1302 it turned into a short bout of independence. Though this is all a matter of opinion because many counties and duchies of France have been de facto independent for long periods of time yet there were still considered part of (West-)Francia.

I think it is better to see it as a Flemish pyrhicc victory as the main goal of the French king, annexation to his royal domains, was undone. CineadAnDuine (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The Treaty was ultimately a favourable one to France following the Battle of Mons-en-pevele. The main goal was to strengthen French Monarchy, territory was annexed and he gained greater control of the region through reparations. TDF444 (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)