Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Breton Civil War, 1341/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Breton Civil War, 1341

[edit]

Breton Civil War, 1341 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 28 November 2024, 21:05 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the beginning there was a happy little dukedom. Then the wise old duke died. And for 24 years afterwards everything went very badly indeed. This is the story of how it all began. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Michael Jones isn't the same guy as Matthew Bennett?
It took me forever to work out what you meant. Thanks. Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also a little surprised not to see Jones, Michael, 'The Breton Civil War', in Palmer, J. J. N. (ed.), Froissart: Historian (Woodbridge, 1981), 64-81.

Cheers, SerialNumber54129 18:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha. Several searches threw up nothing for "Breton Civil War", which surprised me. Of course, if I now add "The" I find it, but even so buried deep. And very little cited. Any hints as to how I could access an electronic copy? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, apologies—I didn't watchlist this so missed your reply. Yes Palmer'thing seems to be as rare as rocking horse teeth but luckily he republished it in a collection in 1988. Winging its way to you AWS. SerialNumber54129 17:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • At first, I was confused about the article scope, thinking that the article is a complete coverage of an event called the "Breton Civil War". But in fact, it seems to cover only the first year of a longer event. This would be clearer if "Breton Civil War" would be linked to the main article in the first sentence.
  • In the infobox, "Breton Civil War" links to War of the Breton Succession, which seems to be the main article. But is "War of the Breton Succession" just an alternative term for the Breton Civil War, or does it convey a different meaning? If the former, shouldn't be the title of this article under the same name, for consistency?
  • Adding to the confusion is the "Campaignbox Breton War of Succession" below the infobox. This has "Initial campaign" bolded, which seems to indicate that's our article here (again, consistency? Shouldn't it be "1341" then?). It also has "Nantes" (in brackets) which links to "French defence" in the same article. Why have this Nantes in the box when it is not a separate article, why is it not "French defence" (the actual section in the article), and why does "English Invasion" (the other main secion in our article) does not appear in that box?
  • A complicating factor was the war between France and England which had broken out in 1337. (This was the Hundred Years' War, which lasted until 1453.) – The gloss feels unnecessary; I would instead suggest simply A complicating factor was the Hundred Years' War between France and England, which had broken out in 1337.
  • In the lead: John refused to give way and Philip sent an army nominally commanded by his son to impose Charles. – I found this confusing, since this son has not been mentioned before. The lead also does not mention why it is so important that his son commanded. As the son has no further context here, I would suggest to just remove "nominally commanded by his son" from the lead.
  • Charles of Blois was present when John arrived and was almost captured. – This is ambiguous; I first thought it was the other way around, that John was almost captured, not Charles of Blois.
  • "River Loire" – Since "River Loire", in a capitalised form, would be a proper name, I would have expected that the entire name is linked (River Loire), or, alternatively, that "river" is not capitalised ("river Loire" or "Loire river").
  • That's all from me. Very good read, as usual. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Jan_z_Montfortu.gif needs a US tag

UC

[edit]

I concur with Jens that the title is confusing: "[Events of] 1341 in the Breton Civil War" would be clearer and follow practice in other articles. As written, it sounds as though it should refer to a discrete civil war that took place entirely in 1341. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. I am happy to change it. The usual procedure is for this to happen as soon as the article leaves FAC - either archived or promoted - as the FAC bot gets upset if asked to process an article which changes its name mid-process. I undertake to so rename the article once it is out of FAC. Hi Jens, that work for you? If so I'll put a heads up on the article's talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • duchy of Brittany: gets a capital, when used like this as a proper noun.
Capitalised.
  • A complicating factor was the war between France and England which had broken out in 1337. (This was the Hundred Years' War, which lasted until 1453.): the bracketed sentence is, frankly, a bit ugly. Generally speaking, it's not great practice to bracket a whole sentence. Why not expand "the war" into "the Hundred Years' War", or add (which became known as the Hundred Years' War) after "France and England"? I'm not sure we need to know in the lead of this article that it lasted another century.
Done.
  • A truce was in effect, which was due to expire in June but was extended to June 1342.: I think we need to add "1341" for clarity here.
Done.
  • Rumours of this reached Philip: of his promises to make a treaty, or laziness about doing so?
Clarified.
  • Joan's claim was through her husband, Charles of Blois, a nephew of the King of France, Philip VI (r. 1328–1350): it becomes clear later that this meant Charles would become the Duke, but it isn't spelled out here. Do I have it right that Joan would strictly inherit the duchy, but Charles would then hold it jure uxoris?
Academics have written whole articles on issues closely related to this. My understanding from the sources I have read is that Joan couldn't inherit at all, being female, but there was an argument that this impediment didn't prevent her from passing the title on to her husband. Two of the sources I have read state that John had the stronger legal claim. Note that this is according to French law, Breton law was slightly different. Gah! This is defying easy summary, I could send you a page of Sumption who describes the situation fairly clearly. (Perhaps not surprisingly as he went on to become the highest paid lawyer in the UK and then a member of the Supreme Court.)
I'd be interested to give that a read, if you don't mind. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • set up her two-year-old son, also John,: I think we need also named John or similar.
Done.
  • This was the start of the Breton Civil War which was to last 24 years.: comma before which, I think, though appreciate that this can be a contentious one.
It is indeed a contentious one. However, before getting here I had already copy edited the first bit away as a duplication of the opening sentence.
  • the Duchy of Brittany, while a part of the Kingdom of France for most purposes, was in many ways an independent principality: Can we indicate what at least the most important of these ways was? How do we square it being basically independent with the "most purposes" for which it was part of France?
  • John had the better legal claim, but it was widely accepted within Brittany that Charles would inherit: any idea why?
Hey, this is summary style. Sources are vague, it would be stretching a bit to even say that the Breton nobility expected Philip to back his nephew. (As he eventually did.) John III had advocated for "anyone but Montfort" for most of his life, marrying Joan to Charles was largely to improve Joan's political and legal claim. These long held assumptions probably contributed to the expectation, but again it would be stretching to overtly say so. Sumption puts these next to each other, making it obvious what he thinks, but declines to spell it out. I don't know that the sources let us go much further than what the article currently says.
I might be able to have an informed view on this after reading the Sumption source you kindly agreed to send, but will reserve judgement for now, as I don't currently have one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, encouraged by his ambitious wife, Jeanne of Flanders,: my WP:GNL siren is going off here. We've introduced a whole plethora of men, all claiming a duchy, and the only one who gets labelled as ambitious is the wife? If we have reason to suspect that Jeanne was unusually ambitious by comparison with Charles and the Johns, we should give it: otherwise, this reads as negatively judging a woman for something that would be considered unremarkable or positive in a man. Advise cutting.
  • He then successfully took control: advise cutting successfully as redundant: we would hardly think he unsuccessfully took control if it weren't there.
Hah! True. Done.
  • John moved on to an alternate plan: alternative, I think.
Oops. Corrected.
  • The caption alignment seems a bit odd on a few (Charles of Blois, Philip and the siege). It's best for accessibility to keep a consistent left margin, and I can't really see the thinking behind what we've done here instead.
I am not sure that I understand your point here. If it is about the captions being centred that is becouse IMO they are more readable and more aesthetically pleasing that way with no down side I can see and no policy nor MoS reason to prevent it. If you meant something else, apologies, I am having a slow brain week; perhaps if you repeated using smaller words.
It took me a while to realise that it was centre alignment: there's a little graphic that gets added to them, which means that in two-line captions, the first line looks as if it's left-aligned and the second looks like it's right-aligned. I think this falls under the heading of something that each of us would do differently, but you're welcome to do it your way just as I would do it my way. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving Nantes John secured Champtoceaux: I know the usual style here is to avoid commas with introductory clauses, but here I think there's a strong argument for one: as written, it sounds as if "Nantes John" is a place, or "Leaving Nantes John" a person. Generally speaking, commas are used after participle clauses in most varieties of English (I realise I've just inadvertently provided an example).
I have rephrased to avoid that unhappy commaisation.
Much better in several ways. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a brief, fumbled and pallid defence: I can work out what a fumbled defence (fumbling?) is, but what does pallid mean in this context? MOS:IDIOM applies, I think.
pallid: "Appearing weak, pale or wan". I would be happy to go with 'brief and fumbled' if you don't like pallid.
I think you can only really get away with "weak" in that sense for a person: at the very least, this is metaphorical language, and the MoS would advise something concrete (or just cutting that word) instead. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saint-Aubin-du-Cormier, a strong fortification defending the approach to Rennes from Paris, and the walled town of Dinan followed suit: given that there's a glossing clause on Saint-Aubin but not on Dinan, this would be clearer if the two were swapped around, or as Saint-Aubin-du-Cormier, a strong fortification defending the approach to Rennes from Paris, followed suit, as did the walled town of Dinan (I assume they're written in this order because they fell in this order?)
  • Originally due to expire on 24 June 1341 it was extended: again, I think we really need a comma here after 1341.
  • it was extended to 29 August on 9 June, and to 14 September on 10 August: I think this would be clearer if the decision dates came before the deadline dates.
  • Attending on Philip VI it became clear that he had lost the French King's confidence: a few things here. We've got a dangling participle clause at the start, which should be reworked. Secondly, "king" should decap in this context per MOS:PEOPLETITLES ("French King" isn't a formal title that acts as a replacement for someone's name; it's a description of that person).
  • Philip found the idea of bringing the traditionally semi-autonomous province more firmly under royal control attractive: a long gap between these two parts of the compound verb: not great for readability. Any possibility of working?
Of course. Does "the idea of bringing the traditionally semi-autonomous province more firmly under royal control was attractive to Philip" work for you?
It does. Would it be too far to go even more straightforward: "Philip decided to bring..." or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The English army was disbanded for the winter and the fleet paid off. No sooner was this done than representatives: MOS:CLICHE, I think -- presumably it wasn't literally a matter of minutes.
  • Strategically Edward saw the chance to set up a ruler in Brittainy at least partially under his control which would greatly aid England's naval war as well as give a ready entry to France for English armies.: this one needs a look for clarity.
  • Amaury de Clisson: the general practice in this article seems to be to Anglicise all names and titles: so Charles of Blois rather than Charles de Blois. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of that decision (which is within the writer's discretion, in my view), this is an apparent exception. Perhaps related: in her article, "Jeanne of Flanders" is named "Joanna of Flanders": is that discrepancy intentional?
Nope, I slipped with Amaury, corrected. I am not helped by the sources - I have just checked the four I used most, all are inconsistent, and inconsistent between each other. As this is the English language Wikipedia I usually go for the English spelling in articles if the sources permit it.
  • a 7,000-strong army together with a strong force: suggest fixing the repetition here.
That was sloppy of me. I can tell that it was 18 months since I was last at FAC. To lose it I have rewritten the first sentence and a bit of the section. [1]
  • Jeanne of Flanders was in Rennes, with her children, the duchy's treasury and a strong garrison when news of the fall of Nantes arrived: comma needed after garrison, as we have preceding commas in the list: as written, it is implied that she only had the garrison at the moment that the news arrived.
Added.
  • She acted rapidly, decisively and aggressively: is this bit of telling doing anything that the showing in the following sentence doesn't do better?
IMO, yes. It took Philip five months to send an army west against Brittany; John of Normandy two days to move a few men three miles to rescue Charles when he (Normandy) had overwhelming force. The contrast seems worth commenting on. And the showing sentences give no idea of how rapidly, decisively or aggressively they were carried out.
That's true, at least for rapidly, but it would still be better (in my view) to make it concrete: can we give a timeframe here, for example? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • battle of Auray: capitalise Battle.
Done. But it will get reverted on the grounds that most sources don't. (Eg [2].)
Looking at the actual results on Google Books and filtering by C21st results gives the opposite impression: most do capitalise. There is however a large series of (pulp?) historical novels by G. A. Henty that have recent reprints but don't capitalise: I wonder if they're contaminating the ngrams sample? At any rate, the overwhelming practice in good sources is that "Battle of X" is capitalised when it refers to a discrete, recognisable battle as a proper noun. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is not. This was thrashed out at some length at MilHist and the the old curmudgeons - among whom I definitely number myself - had to be bludgeoned with data and examples. But this is a side discussion, not least because capitalising battle is my personal preference and because I have already done so in this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks: I'll take that under advisement for the future (don't suppose you remember where that discussion was?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • recognising John of Montfort's son as duke of Brittainy: typo in Brittany, and capital needed on Duke.
Both changed, although IMO "Duke of Brittany" does not comply with MOS:OFFICE: the first example there is Mitterrand was the French president.
  • Why is the location of the war given as "Province of Brittany" but linked to "Duchy of Brittany"?
  • Including a "result" in the infobox implies that the war finished: per the guidance on infoboxes (I forget exactly which bit of it), if we can't fill a parameter in a concise way that needs no further explanation, we should omit it.
The article is not about the war, it is about the war in 1341. I think you are looking for Template:Infobox military conflict, possibly "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say ..."
This may solve itself with the article title change, assuming that the infobox title also changes to "Events of..." -- in this case, the infobox will (correctly) say that the events of 1341 in the Breton Civil War had no conclusive result. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was my next position, more or less. I think we agree on this. And apologies for how long it is taking to get my responses up: I have taken on a bit much on Wikipedia, have had a couple of minor RL events, and am finding some of your, and others, comments thought provoking.

I think that's my lot for now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]
  • "his younger half brother, John of Montfort" – the OED hyphenates "half-brother", as does Chambers.
Wiktionary prefers half brother, giving half-brother as an alternative spelling. But hyphenated.
  • "well connected and militarily orientated" – according to the current edition of Fowler the verb "orientate" is "a pointless longer variant of "orient".
Hmm, rendered more pointful.
  • "an alternate plan – this use of "alternate" as an adjective is an Americanism. The English form is "alternative".
You are quite right. Changed. (I read too much SF.)
  • "there was only fighting at Brest – I'm not one of those pedantic souls who always insist on the logical placing of "only" rather than a more natural one, but here I really do think "there was fighting only at Brest" or "only at Brest was there fighting" would be better.
Tim, I rarely argue argue with you on this sort of thing, but really really? (!)
I don't in the least press the point. I thought, and think, it would be clearer my way, but I can't in conscience object to yours. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Requests for assistance from Charles of Blois were ignored" – ambiguous: were these requests from Charles for assistance or requests from someone else for assistance from Charles?
Clarified.
  • "deliberations were liable to be long drawn out" – I have quoted before (will whoever shouted "ad nauseam" kindly leave the room?) the dictum "If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad", and so I merely mention that the OED uses two hyphens for "long-drawn-out".
I am with you and the OED there. Apologies.
  • "regarding John recognising Edward as king of France in exchange for Edward recognising John's claim" – would it be insufferably pedantic to point out that both "recognising"s here are gerunds – verbs in noun form – and so they should be "John's recognising" and "Edward's recognising"? Probably, but I'm doing it anyway.
A twofer, gerund-hog day.
  • "in the event of Philip deciding in favour of Charles" – another gerund in need of a possessive.
Haven't we been here before?
  • "Instead he commenced planning" – I know battles traditionally commence, but I think planning can simply be begun or started. In this context "commenced" is a touch genteel and refained.
Philip was a very genteel king. Changed to 'began'.
  • "allocated £10,000 for military expenditure" – is it even faintly practicable to give some idea of the modern equivalent of that sum?
Not in my opinion. My response to Matarisvan raising much the same comment two weeks ago was "I used to be an enthusiast, but these days I think it actively misleads a reader. So the £30,000 will come out as a bit under £40,000,000 today. Say the cost of a large luxury yacht or three main battle tanks. But that's not it. We are talking about the total government income of a medium-sized nation state and that just doesn't translate (IMO) when you run it through an inflation converter."
I was vaguely wondering about a comparison of the £10,000 with the annual royal income, if known, which I daresay it isn't. I'm wholly content to leave this in your hands for action or inaction as you think fit. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I read past your comment far too quickly and thank you for making me come back to it. Of course I can do that. Footnote added. If the MoS permitted, I would dedicate it to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid! Thank you, dear boy: it puts the sum of money in context comprehensively. Bravo! Tim riley talk 21:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the deaths of many of large force" – missing a word, by the look of it
Oops. Inserted.
  • "The Treaty of Guérande, recognising John of Montfort's son as duke of Brittainy (Brittany, presumably) was agreed in 1365. John of Montfort died in 1345, still a prisoner in Paris – given the 20-year lurch backwards between the two sentences I wonder if "died" might be better as "had died".
It is ugly. Hmm. Moved up the paragraph into chronological order. (Better?)
Much, me judice. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 13:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, many thanks, much appreciated. Changes here. You may be pleased to hear that the next is coming down the track - a proper lance and longbow affair. (It ends "Livingstone and Witzel suggest it is difficult to take lessons from the battle as "Charles ... was a military incompetent". However, Sumption states that the French behaved in the same wrong-headed way they usually did in battles of the 1340s.") Mind it has yet to survive SN reviewing it at GAN, pray for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I shall remember you in my orisons and will look forward to seeing the new piece at FAC in due course. Meanwhile after a final read-through of this one I am very happy to support its elevation to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria and has been a pleasure to review. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Breton_Civil_War,_1341/archive1&oldid=1260093584"