Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Medieval warfare task force/Archive 1

Scope

Out of curiosity, is there any particular reasoning behind going with round dates (500 and 1500) rather than putting down specific events to delimit the period in question (not that it really matters, though). —Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fall of the Western Roman Empire is a good starting point although it only really matters to Europe and the Mediterranean basin. Durova 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless of course you believe the Donner hypothesis that it was the Islamic conquests starting in 634 that began the Middle Ages in Europe. BTW, for the Middle East, I'm pretty sure the starting date is the rise of the Abbasid Caliphate in 750. Palm_Dogg 17:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Either way, Military tactics changed dramatically with the fall of Rome. I think that's sufficient for our purposes. Durova 16:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, the "middle ages" or "medieval society" refers more to a particular sort of society and a particular stage in the development of a culture or civilization. Depending on which culture one is talking about, the medieval or feudal period may extend far beyond the year boundaries set here. It's a rough guideline. The separation between classic/ancient and medieval China is I think a rather fuzzy one, and Japan (among many other places) could be argued to have remained "medieval" all the way up into the 19th century. Kirill, anyone else, if you think the dates should be considered more solid than I'm proposing, feel free to contradict me. LordAmeth 11:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely a fuzzy line. It depends, I think, on whether we consider social changes (the abandonment of feudal social structure) or military changes (the widespread use of firearms) as the deciding factor. So long as we have some guideline dates, we can handle anything outside of those as a special case. —Kirill Lokshin 13:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia is also a a difficult case. Using social changes as a guideline doesn't help: at least one historian has argued that Ethiopia became more of a feudal society under the 20th century Emperor Haile Selassie than it was 100 years before. As for tactics, Ethiopian military history could be divided into 3 periods (here I'm ignoring the military history of Axum -- But I have failed to find much about this period anyway):

• Combat before the introduction of firearms. Troops armed with spears, shields & no body armor.
• Introduction of firearms. This happened between 1520 & 1530 when the Muslim Ahmad Gragn obtained about 200 muskets & some cannons & with these overran the Ethiopian highlands. Eventually his christian adversaries obtained their own firearms, & these augmented spears & shields. Cavalry (especially Oromo cavalry) was also a major factor in this period.
• The introduction of modern warfare. Ethiopian tactics did not advance much until the 19th century; perhaps one of the most influential events was the British 1868 Expedition to Abyssinia, where many Ethiopian leaders witnessed their first modern army. I may be speculating here, but its hard not to see this exposure influence Emperors Yohannes IV & Menelik II in their own actions: Yohannes recruited John Kirkham to help train his soldiers along British lines, & Menelik successfully persued a course of obtaining modern firearms, which led to his vicotry at Adowa.

I would say that the first 2 periods best fit what might be thought as "Medieval warfare": all of the battles up to the last one of the reign of Emperor Tewodros II, or until 1868.

(Note: I just saw Durova's note on Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board asking about medieval African battles; I can't explain why no one at least pointed him to Category:Battles of Ethiopia.) -- llywrch 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Like we have seen here, trying opt fit the medieval periode via historic or social events can be mind boodling on a world scale. It could be that a simple, nearly random and rounded, set of dates could be the most objective parameter. For this 500 to 1500 seems to fit. Of course we could always produce more task forces to cope with some of the very good points presented above, i.e. European Medieval, African, "Islamic", Oriental... This though would probobly be more complicated a solution than anything we come up with here.

Being of European descent I've always thought of the middle ages comprising of the era between fall of the Roman Empire and the final collapse of that Empire's influence with the Byzantine Empire's end. But I do concure that the middle ages had a distinct set of social and cultural parameters, or at the very least some pronounced charactersistics. Dryzen 13:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that there's a distinction to be drawn between medieval warfare and medieval/feudal social systems. From a warfare standpoint, there's a clear separation between pre-firearms warfare and post-firearms warfare; and this happens to coincide with the adoption of the arquebus in Europe circa 1500. This seems a natural point at which to split task forces; and while the exact dates may vary to some degree around the world, we could simply say that anything involving firearms to any significant degree is outside the scope of this task force. Kirill Lokshin 14:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My own interests run from the 250s to the 550s. A lot of the general overviews of ancient history either leave off c. 200 or include one extra chapter c. 200-500; and many of the general overviews of medieval history either start off c. 700 or include one extra chapter c. 400-700, e.g. Contamine's book on Medieval Warfare. I don't want Late Antiquity to slip through the cracks. Jacob Haller 01:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Template

Thanks for making a template so quickly. It's hard to see the image in such a small box - maybe pick a simpler logo? I'll look around for alternatives. Durova 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I just picked one of the first pictures to show up in a search. If you can find something simpler, that'd be great. —Kirill Lokshin 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I particularly like the last two images. Paolo Uccello did some fine work. Durova 02:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The first two aren't that good, since they won't show up too well on the yellow template background. The other three look fine; maybe go with the fifth one? —Kirill Lokshin 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The fifth one is more dramatic. The fourth one shows the best contrast. Of course, there's a soft spot in my heart for... :) Durova 02:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Image:Kingarthur montypython.jpg

Careful, you'll bring the fair-use police down on us ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. BTW when I take a step back from my computer no. 4 is easiest to recognize. Let's go with that one. Durova 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. —Kirill Lokshin 03:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't know a template existed. While building my Userbox I searched for Task Force templates. I ended up making one based off of the canadian Military Task Force template. Here are the tempaltes I produced:

• User:Task Force/Middle Ages Mil-Hist
• User:Task Force/Classicla Rome Mil-Hist (this one has a type-o if anyone can fix the page name please feal free to proceed.
• Template:User Byzantine
  

Dryzen 18:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Recruitment

In the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold I've added an invitation to the community bulletin board on the community portal. I'll go tag some articles now. Yesterday I started Siege of Compiègne and it's too depressing to write about Joan of Arc's capture. Durova 03:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Finished the siege and nominated for "Did you know...?" Think it's good enough for Wikipedia:Good articles? It has 11 line citations. Durova 20:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit on the short side, but I suppose that may be more due to lack of available material. More fixably, it needs {{Infobox Military Conflict}} and {{Campaignbox Hundred Years' War}} added. —Kirill Lokshin 20:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mongolia

It looks like the military history project neglected the Mongol empire. None of the articles I saw were even tagged for the main project and the subject is undercategorized. It could use some attention. Durova 05:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think oldwindybear was doing some work in that area, but it would be more content-writing and less administrative stuff. —Kirill Lokshin 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Medieval warfare

This is an underused category that needs our attention. Durova 05:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries

Dates with fewer than 5 events listed: Durova 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• January: 6, 10 - Battle of Vaslui (couldn't add, page protected), 12, 13, 19, 26
• February: 1, 7
• March: 2
• April: 13, 24, 29
• May: 12, 15
• June: 3, 10, 20 Added Battle of Chalons.
• July: 5, 9
• August: 7
• September: 2, 28
• October: N/A
• November: N/A
• December: 4, 19, 25

Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages

Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages already exists so there might be a little duplication of effort...but if you create new articles, please also let us know at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/New Articles. Adam Bishop 02:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

True enough. It's scope is rather broader than military history, of course, and I don't think it's very active in any case. —Kirill Lokshin 02:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Knights

The article Knight needs a lot of work. One of the things it needs is a straightening out of the various meanings of "the origin of knighthood", which can mean a number of things: origin of the institution, origin of the English word, origin of the equivalent French/Latin/Greek words, and origin of the technology of heavy cavalry.

The last, as it now exists, has been contributed by an Iranian nationalist, who is certain that medieval heavy cavalry is directly copied from Sarmatian/Arsacid/Byzantine prototypes. My recollection is that the situation is far more complicated, but I don't have the sources in front of me; would one of you please have a look at it? Septentrionalis 16:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a brief look at the page and contributed to linguistics. Some of its assertions are dubious. I'll give it some more attention, although probably not enough to raise to Wikipedia:Good article status. Durova 16:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It needs a lot of work indeed. In regards to the heavy cavalry influence, I've read a lot on medieval knights and warefare and that is the first I have heard of that suggestion. He mentions Sarmatians and England, but the English didn't develop any mounted warfare. The Normans brought the heavy cavalryman to England. The Saxon Huscarl fought on foot. I would agree there was probably some influence on it, but probably indirectly. The Germanic tribes were known for their cavalryman, many of which fought with the Romans throughout Gaul, Britain, etc. as auxilleries. The early knights wore mail armor which had been around for over a thousand years, cavalryman had been wearing it for just as long. When you take all this into context, it was probably more just an evolution of the cavalryman.

Military advances of Genghis Khan

Here's something quick. Something fails to recognize the new category Category:Military history of the Mongol Empire as a category, so the category notice floats up to the references and the article doesn't appear on the category page. Anyone know a fix to this glitch? Durova 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. "Category" was misspelled as "Cateogry" ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 23:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Durova 04:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I was looking for external links to improve Do-maru and found this site. Now I'm considering nominating the page for deletion as copyvio. Seeking second opinions before I act. [1] Durova 16:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a definite similarity in sentence structure, but it doesn't look like an actual copyvio to me, considering how different the texts are. Most likely the person who wrote the original stub just tried to follow the style used by the source. —Kirill Lokshin 18:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Knights Templar

Please be cautious about jumping in and making any changes related to Knights Templar articles, including both the medieval order and the freemason degree, especially if you have not previously participated in any of those discussions. We've been going through some elaborate consensus-building negotiations with some very strong opinions in a "page renaming" RfC, so it's important that this Middle Ages task force (which overall is a good idea), doesn't go in and make things further complicated by forcing through changes without getting consensus. If anyone does want to participate in the RfC, you are more than welcome. Best current location is: Talk:Knights Templar (military order). --Elonka 20:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've received a message about that on my user page and responded on article talk. Hadn't realized the new category could step on any toes. I'll be watching that talk page for any other concerns. Cheers, Durova 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Stub sorting and category creation

Here's a brief on what I've been doing lately: Category:Medieval warfare was severely underpopulated when this task force started. Logically it should be our top tier category, but fewer than twenty articles used to connect to it. I've made it a navigation hub: as of this writing it holds 47 subcategories and 133 individual articles.

A lot of those individual articles are battles. As much as possible, I sort those individual battles into subcategories or create new subcategories to house them. I prefer to create subcategories devoted to specific wars and campaigns. Some of the subcategories are for countries, but I've only included extinct countries. Burgundy fits neatly because France subsumed it in the fifteenth century. I've also included Bavaria, which ceased to be an independent state in the nineteenth century. I don't include Norway. Country-based categories are somewhat problematic. In the long run I'd like to see more war- and campaign-based subcategories and very few individual battles within the main category.

In the meantime the reverse will occur. I'm sorting orphaned stubs and the easiest place to drop them is into the main category. Quite frankly I'm not familiar with all of this vast period. The effort could use assistance from editors who know the wars of Irish history (or Balkan history, etc.). Durova 02:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Outstanding work! I might add that it's always been our intention to have more categories for wars and campaigns (see the "Categories" section on the main project page for the general idea); but medieval warfare has, as you noted, been suffering from a certain lack of coordinated effort. —Kirill Lokshin 02:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• blush* I wasn't fishing for compliments... Actually my reasoning has been, a first step toward improving the subject of Middle Ages warfare is to make the existing information easier to locate. It probably wasn't obvious why there are so many unsorted battles under the general category. BTW all the relevant battle articles I work on get the tag for the Middle Ages task force. So if another editor finds an article that already has that tag on the talk page, it's near certain that the article is already in our category architecture. Durova 03:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's get another new article onto Did you know?

I started Chausse yesterday. It has two images but it's still a bit thin on content. Fellow armor buffs, let's improve this so it's ready for Did you know? Durova 23:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

My flurry of entries under the work list should subside for a while. I'm collaborating toward raising Joan of Arc in art to FL status. Still making improvements to things more directly related to this task force, but not the kind of major changes that need logging. Durova 07:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A little tangential to this task force: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. Durova 01:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We've made our third appearance on Wikipedia's main page with chausse. Durova 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hussites

I have recently completed a research paper on the Hussite Wars and thus might be able to assist you all in cleaning up that section. I used some of it as a source but I could see work needed to be done. The thing is I am very new to Wikipedia so I'll need someone over my shoulder to help with the proper format. Timotheus4 03:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fortress or Fort?

Hi.

What is the main difference to a Fort and a Fortress?

We are not quite sure what we should call this "Trelleborg". It was also used as settlements.

Description of the Fortress or Fort

The fortress of Trelleborg covers an area of approximately 15 acres. It is constructed as an inner and an outer court, situated between the Tude Stream and the Vaarby Stream, which serves as a natural protection in three directions. The outer fortress is enclosed by a rampart stretching from stream to stream, thus cutting off the entire peninsula. It has been estimated that 50% all oak on Zealand was cut down to construct the fortress.

The inner court consists of a perfectly circular earthen rampart, approximately 180 meters in diameter. Four gates pointing towards the four corners of the world give access to the inner court, and the gates are connected by two wooden walkways crossing in the middle, and by a narrow road following the rampart. The inner rampart is approximately 17 meters wide, 5 meters high, and contains about 25.000 square meters of earth, stone and timber. The rampart was entirely covered in oak planks, and almost vertical on the outside. On top of it was a palisade, and a shooting gallery streched all the way around the outside of the rampart. The inner as well as the outer rampart is supplemented by a moat, the inner one being distinctly larger than the outer. With its width of almost 17 meters and a depth of app. 4 meters, it would present a serious obstacle to a charging enemy. The moats were never water filled, but in the bottom of the inner one was found traces of a series of poles that may have been sharpened at the top, or may possibly just have been an simple fence.

To the south east was a wooden bridge, situated exactly between the two main gates to the inner court. Thus, an enemy had the furthest possible distance to move along the rampart to reach the gates, exposed to the weapons of the defenders. The gates were covered, and considerable stone foundations around the gates indicate some kind of towers on top of the gates.

The inner court has traces of 16 longhouses, built in four courts with a common square. On two of these squares – the northeastern and the soutwestern – were smaller rectangular buildings. At the northern and the western gate were two small, square houses. Traces have been found of a number of other buildings in the fortress, but it is uncertain whether these are a part of the fortress; it is possible that they are not contemporary with the fortress. Furthermore, a number of wells and waste deposits were found in the area.

In the outer court are 15 longhouses, side by side along the outer rampart. However, two of these are situated about 30 meters from the others. The outer court also has traces of other, smaller types of buildings. The northern end of the outer rampart has a rectangular extension, enclosing the burial area of the fortress. 157 graves were located here, most of them single graves, but a few are minor mass graves. There were very little grave goods found with the skeletons.

The size of the garrison is not known with certainty, but a total of between 500 and 800 persons is not unlikely. It is, however, possible that the fortress has not been fully manned at all time, but was kept by a small garrison that could be supplemented in times of crisis.

While the houses of the inner court were primarily living quarters, the finds from the outer court suggest that these houses were also used as stables and workshops. Only the two southernmost buildings of the outer court had traces of fireplaces. The outer rampart and moat were considerably smaller than those of the inner court, and no traces of palisades or other reinforcements were found; possibly the outer defences were never completed. The outer moat was more narrow and shallow than the inner one, and there are no indications of a series of poles at the bottom. Access to the outer court was via an opening in the rampart in the westernmost end towards Vaarby Stream, across a small bridge over the moat.

The characteristic longhouses are all basically the same, about 30 meters long and 10 meters wide. The walls are curved, and all of the inner court longhouses and 9 of the outer court ones were divided into one large central room, 18 meters long, and a smaller room in each end. The longhouses were built entirely from wood and supported on the outside by a series of tilting beams; possibly the beams carrying the roof were continued into the ground to strengthen the entire construction.

--Comanche cph 23:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any formal distinction between the two terms, but I would tend to use "fortress" or "castle" for medieval structures, particularly complex ones. (You could, of course, use "fortification" and avoid the issue; but it's a somewhat less-used term.) Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've generally senn and used therms fort and fortress wiht consideration to there size and location, such as the Fortress of Louisbourg vs. Fort Carillon. The fortress being a large structure with multiple systems of defences holding a strategic location and manned by a large garrison, usualy nearby or encopassing a sizable civillian population.(Webster says: a large and permanent fortification sometimes including a town ) Wherehas fort will generally be a keep, bailey and rampart holding a strategic way (a road, valley or seaway) manned by a contigent of forces, usualy in a less populous region. (Webster says:a fortified place occupied only by troops and surrounded with such works as a ditch, rampart, and parapet). These distinctions could also mainly be within the french language.Dryzen 13:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine Numbers and organization

I've been reading aroudn on the subject nad have been colelcting some large amounts of valuable information. I've posted within the Byzantine Navy and the Byzantine aristocracy and bureaucracy talks for a go ahead on making some changes. Just wanted to post here where it might be seen a bit faster. Any suggestiosn on proceedure and form are welcomed.Dryzen 13:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, silence is acquiescence ;-)

(If you're looking for more specific advice on how to structure things in regards to Byzantine topics, you might ask Adam Bishop, as he's very knowledgeable in that area.) Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Dryzen 17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You probably don't want to ask me, I can't be bothered getting involved in Byzantine stuff anymore. Try, I don't know, Imladjov, or check Talk:Byzantine Empire and ask one of the petty squabblers there. Adam Bishop 21:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well for the moment the squalblers are re-living that time loop Greek-Roman debate and are not paying attention to the other sections. I'll slowly build up some innformation and put the titles where the rest of them are. Possibly put in some more information in the Byzantine battle tactics and Byzantine Navy. Once done I'dd appreaciate your comments, or if you have any suggestiosn along the way. Thanks.Dryzen 13:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Castle

Posted at Military History Wikiproject (it was suggested I let you guys know, too):

I've been working on a number of castle-related articles over the past few month (list can be seen at my user page), but it struck me today that Castle, which I've been avoiding because the size of the topic, should really be a featured article.

I'm really only knowledgable about British castles up to about 1400, with a smattering of knowledge of Crusader castles.

I'm prepared to start tackling Castle but could do with some help, particularly beyond the limits of my knowledge. --Dweller 15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine army article needs a lot more work

I am surprised by how little interest there seems to be in such an important article. It really needs some work - there are whole sections missing, there is very little about where and against whom the army fought, how effective it was, or any mention of its major battles. I've been doing quite a lot of work on it recently, but it needs more. Please, surely there must be somebody on here who knows or cares about this article, and would be willing to help improve it? It's been 7 months since my last appeal for help, but apart from some contributions by Dryzen, almost nothing has been done by anyone other than myself... Bigdaddy1204 15:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It as mostly been lack of time that has been keeping me from introducing more information. I have now na extencive librabry on the subject yet have had little chance to delve within its knowledge. Heed the call of Bigdaddy1204 and come lend a hand with Byzantine articles.--Dryzen 17:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexandrian Crusade

I just created this article and, although I'm not a member of this WikiProject, I used one of your templates on the talk page. I hope this is OK.

I see from the FAQ for this WikiProject that non-members can add such tags but of course if people involved in the project wish to alter it or remove it then I'll defer. Nach0king 10:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks for creating the article! Kirill Lokshin 15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Moirae (military)

Any of you ever hear of this Byzantine military administration? From its name I would think it a Meros (Merẽ)/Turma. From its commander's title its a Drungus/Chilliarchy and from its unit tree half the Imperial Tagmata. What ever it is it needs attention. Opinions and information is greatly appreaciated. --Dryzen 20:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I delete this or change it to Meros?--Dryzen 13:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, doing something to it is probably a good idea. Hopefully it can wind up redirected somewhere so that it doesn't get recreated; but please do whatever you think is most appropriate. Kirill Lokshin 13:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

New map

If anyone here is good at maps, I request a new map showing the partition of the Byzantine Empire after the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Ideally, the territories taken by each power should be shown in different colours. Can anyone help? Bigdaddy1204 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll check what I can find. I just received Gibbons(fall) and Treadgold(State) and can put the maps in ArcMap. I have both Theme maps of Treadgold (Armies) digitized and am fillign in the GIS information in my spare time. BTW, ever heard of the Moirae?--Dryzen 13:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The map of the fourth Crusade has been kindly provided by Varana. However, I think the Byzantine Empire article really needs a map to show the empire in about 867AD. There are maps showing 717, and 1025, but there is nothing to show what happened in between. If someone could either find or make a map to show this period, that would be great. :) Bigdaddy1204 15:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thematic map based on Treadgold's Byzantium and Its Armies, 284-1081, of the Themes and Turmae thought to be in existance in the year 840.

Hmmmm I'll investigate that, but it could take some time as a little prior to my early post I lent my sources to a friend of mine who as since been hard to reach. Well, lo and behold, I do have a map, somewhat. Its only the Byzantine Themes without the local geography, this is a layer that's supposed to be coupled with other layers of information on a finished map. --Dryzen 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request

There's a new peer review request for English longbow that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 16:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

How about Middle Age battle stub category?

There seems to not be one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.132.173 (talk • contribs)

I'm not quite certain that it would be particularly useful, actually. Kirill Lokshin 23:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it would help in concentrating attention to where it's most needed. Ancient Roman battle stubs has one for example.

Peer review request for Caspian expeditions of the Rus

There's a new peer review request for Caspian expeditions of the Rus that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

pictures and text agreement

Dear Kurt,

Thank you for writing. I apologize for being slow to respond. I am thrilled to be able to help with an article on cuisses.

I have added a license statement to the “Links and Contacts” page of my Web site. You may use any of the text from http://www.charlesfleming-sca.com. You may also use any photos that that I took myself. They are generally named:

· my*.jpg

· his*.jpg

· her*.jpg

· our*.jpg

I can't give you re-distribution rights on anyone else's photos, since I am claiming fair use for them and have no explicit license.

Have fun!

C. Brian Towey

(Stage name: Charles Fleming)

---

Original Message-----

From: kurt Scholz [2] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 5:55 AM To: ib-ent.com Subject: images for wikimedia

Dear Charles Fleming

The online encyclopedia www.wikipedia.org is chronically suffering from a lack of images for historic articles, especially the article on cuisses.

Actually you could help if it is possible to release some of the images >from your site http://www.charlesfleming-sca.com/ under a fair use agreement (for example http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ or http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/), so we can upload them on www.wikimedia.org

In accordance with fair use, we usually provide in exchange a link to the homepage of the friendly author or licensor.

Greetings Kurt Scholz

next deal

4th September

Dear Kurt,

Thankyou for your email. I am happy for images on my server to be used in Wikipedia articles. I like and support Wikipedia, although I would be much happier were the entries signed.

The great majority of images on my site were taken by me, and I waive my copyright for such academic/informational use. Some, however, were mounted to serve students under the appropriate copyright conditions. Perhaps if any of your writers are doubtful about particular images, they might consult me first? Generally speaking, all images over 2mp were taken by me.

Best wishes,

Michael

Professor Emeritus of Art History The Australian National University Canberra, ACT 0200 Australia ArtServe: http://rubens.anu.edu.au

It's good to hear that people are interested in helping us. Unfortunately, the terms under which these images are released aren't really sufficient for our needs. In particular, we can't make use of material under a "non-free" Creative Commons license (e.g. one with a "non-commercial" clause) or a similar release (e.g. a release only for "academic/informational use"), except via a fair-use claim (which may or may not be reasonable, depending on the nature of the image). It's entirely understandable why people would pick such an option when making content available; but, sadly, it's not quite what we're looking for. Kirill Lokshin 23:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, you just have to explain the legal issues several times. As he pointed out, this are his pictures, so he can give us an appropriate licence. In my request mails, I suggest such terms and usually get an answer concerning these terms. In this case the legal owner didn't care much about legal issues, so I have to ask again. I just wanted to present these (look, there is even a blank formula) to show people how yo can solve things yourself. Wandalstouring 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; it's just my experience that people sometimes will object once we explain that we need them to permit others to make a profit from their pictures. Kirill Lokshin 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Who's making the profit?--Dryzen 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

For-profit Wikipedia mirrors (e.g. Answers.com). Kirill Lokshin 15:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point.--Dryzen 17:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Added book

Just for the record, I added the "History of England" by Macaulay in the free downloadable booklist. It covers well more than the Middle-Age so I wasn't sure it fits. If it doesn't feel free to remove it :) Matthieu 01:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Longsword

The longsword article is currently undergoing some relatively heavy re-writing by myself and a couple of other contributors. I thought I would post here to let the WPMH Medieval Warfare task-force know that changes were occurring and that contribution, citation, or editing is more than welcome. Join the fun! -xiliquiern^Talk 01:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Roncevaux Pass

Hi. I've just revamped this article that was asessed as "start" class (and was very poor actually). I'd like some of you to reasses it and suggest any possible improvements. Regards, --Sugaar 09:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Angevin Empire

There's a new peer review request for Angevin Empire that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

220.101.124.134

Could people keep an eye out for the edits of 220.101.124.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? This user's recent unsourced edits have removed content from articles relating to the Mongol invasion of Europea and downplayed Mongol successes and tactics. These edits are contrary to the scholarship that I am aware of. Olessi 16:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. Not a topic that I would have thought to be subject to POV-pushing; I guess you learn something new every day! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles

Might I draw your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles. Neddyseagoon - talk 13:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Medieval armour stub

The template {{medieval-armour-stub}} and associated category, Category:Medieval armour stubs are currently up for deletion. If people here are interested in associating the stub type with the task force (which I think is a good idea; see my arguments at the deletion page), it's probable that the stub will remain. --Eyrian 06:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can dig up in terms of getting the needed number of stubs here; it seems like an entirely obvious thing otherwise. Kirill Lokshin 21:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the "associated with" clause is predicated on the assumption that the scope of the wikiproject (task force, work group, etc) is the same as the scope of the stub type. (Otherwise one would be able to 'associate' any given stub type with such a thing, making the proviso pretty meaningless.) As Category:Medieval military stubs or Category:Medieval military history stubs would easily have sufficient numbers anyway, the question on that score is just "is it a good idea?" (and likewise for any other stub types with any other similar scope). Alai 07:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Castle

Just to let you all know that this article is nominated at WP:ACID. --Dweller 13:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is going to fail nomination if another three people do not vote today. Please contribute! --Grimhelm 22:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Knights Templar

There is a Peer review request for the Knights Templar article. All comments appreciated.  :) --Elonka 19:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you to those who participated in the peer review. This article has now been nominated for featured status. Interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion. --Elonka 17:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Crécy at WP:ACID

The Battle of Crécy article has been nominated at the Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive. It is a key article for the Hundred Years War, and should be important for any encyclopedia, yet it is only start class and fails on referencing sources.

I thought I should notify the members of this task force --Grimhelm 16:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Crac des Chevaliers

A move is suggested in the article. See its talk page. It will be moved if no objections are raised in two days. —Anas ^talk? 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Siege of Calais cleanup

I don't know why I didn't notice this being added, as the page is on my watchlist, but a large amount of text has been added to the Siege of Calais article with no paragraph formatting or wikilinks. It claims to be a direct translation from a French source... and needs to be worked into the main text of the article. Thank you. LordAmeth 18:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Laupen

This article seriously needs help. It is a major battle in swiss history, the history of infantry units, the history of cavalry units, and had a substantial effect on the balance of units within standard militaries--71.112.12.132 22:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Tours

Could someone pls have a look at the date of Battle of Tours? Many minor wikis are copying this possibly incorrect date. t.i.a., TeunSpaans 05:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles and just reviewed Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I am leaving this message at this task force, along with the other relevant task forces to the article, since the article falls under this topic and figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further. The article needs some more inline citations, an expanded lead, and uniform inline citation formatting. If added, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine-Ottoman wars GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles and just reviewed Byzantine-Ottoman wars. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering the lead and some sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I am leaving this message at this project page, along with the other relevant task forces/WikiProjects to the article, since the article falls under this topic and figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further. The article needs just a few more inline citations, an expanded lead, and some minor cleanup, and if fixed, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Early Muslim military history

I propose to move the articles of this era which Europeans didn't participate in it like Battle of Karbala and Islamic conquest of Persia to Early Muslim military history task force. What's your idea?--Seyyed(t-c) 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Task forces are meant to be overlapping, not mutually exclusive; there's absolutely no reason why such articles can't be in scope for both task forces. Kirill 02:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please check

I want to know what this book says on Eastern European armies and weapons, especially Wallachian(Romanian), Hungarian an Cuman around 1330. The problem is that this book is not available in German libraries and it is a painstacking process to get it from a foreign one.

"Medieval Warfare Source Book, Vol. 1 Warfare in Western Christendom" David Nicolle, London: Arms and Armour Press, 1995. This recent book is among the all times best on the subject with excellent illustrations. Very useful and readable. Includes rare material on Eastern European medieval warfare and on influences from the Middle East (perhaps with too much emphasis). Also contains some material considered debatable.

Thanks a lot. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article review of Ali

Ali is nominated as a good article. all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!--Seyyed(t-c) 06:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal?

Is there any interest in creating a Portal:Medieval warfare for this area? I'm thinking of putting one together, so does anyone have any suggestions, input, objections, and so forth? Kirill ^(prof) 13:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

1345

An admin moved the summary version of this article to 1345 (summary) from the main 1345 spot. This article is part of this project. Commentary is needed on whether summaries in year articles should be encouraged or not. Discussion is here. Wrad (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Medieval warfare

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine navy FAC

Hello to all! Following an unsuccessful attempt to get the Byzantine navy article to FA, all editors are invited in participating in the second nomination of a much expanded & improved article. Thanks in advance, Constantine ✍ 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:24, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [3]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Viking Axe

I have inadvertently placed a request for the renaming/rescoping of the article Viking Axe on the main MH talk page [4]. Thoughts welcomeMonstrelet (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

History of Weapons

The History of Weapons being developed by User:Nefirious has reached the Middle Ages. I have offered him/her a number of bits of advice, as have other editors. However, (s)he could really do with other medieval warfare expertise - as much on sifting the wheat from the chaff as anything else. If there are any admins out there, I think (s)he could do with advice on how to develop this article - he has taken on a huge topic and to make a worthwhile article will need attention to structure. Thanks in advance for your supportMonstrelet (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!

Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder but, with about 18 hours to go until nominations close, you'll need to get your skates on if you're thinking of standing as a coordinator. The election is based on self-nominations, so please don't be shy in putting your name forward. The last elections will give you an idea of what to expect.

Otherwise, voting starts tonight at 00:01 (UTC). Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. You should cast your votes here.

 Roger Davies ^talk 06:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Klis Fortress now open

The peer review for Klis Fortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Morning Star

I've raised a few points over the content and development of Morning star (weapon) on the talk page there. Essentially, the content there is an assembly of descriptions of loosely connected weapons which could do with more clarity in how it deals with the relationships between the weapon families. And a request for citations (as always). Comments from other editors and admins with a knowledge of the weapons or just an eye for article structure appreciated. Monstrelet (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Siege of Trsat now open

The peer review for Siege of Trsat is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Franco-Mongol alliance now open

The peer review for Franco-Mongol alliance is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuisance edits

Could someone have a look at [Bannockburn]? I'm trying to maintain the current version against the attentions of IP user 194.75.128.200, who is also seemingly using 212.18.245.126. This user seems to have started off with a problem with Gaelic but now just seems to be making a nuisanceMonstrelet (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

New Wikiproject Anglo Saxon Kingdoms

Hey all, we would like to invite all of you to join WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. This newly formed WikiProject is seeking to improve the articles associated with the period between the departure of the Roman Empire in 410 to the Norman Conquest in 1066. Any help would be sincerely appreciated! Sadads (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Klis Fortress now open

The A-Class review for Klis Fortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Franco-Mongol alliance now open

The A-Class review for Franco-Mongol alliance is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Stanhope Park

The above article has lost most of its text due to a copyvio. Rather than rewrite it, I have suggested here is that it is replaced by an article on the Weardale Campaign of 1327 as a whole (the "battle" itself being a small night-time raid). What I would suggest is a new article then merge the existing one into it. I have offered to assist with such an article but haven't the time currently to do the whole. If anyone wants to take up the challenge, it would be much appreciated. Monstrelet (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Mangonel

I've done some serious modifications in the Mangonel page, I'd really appreciate some help with the style and whatever you consider necessary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbartelsm (talk • contribs) 06:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Tower of London now open

The featured article candidacy for Tower of London is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Kourkouas now open

The A-Class review for John Kourkouas is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 08:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Thurisind now open

The peer review for Thurisind is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Medieval invasions help needed

In response to a request on the project main page, an editor has created Medieval invasions of Britain. After some discussion, this has been structured around invasions of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. A great deal more detail is required on the last three in particular. Editors with an interest in the history of these countries, or of particular campaigns are invited to contribute Monstrelet (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A-class review for Battle of Kalavrye now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Kalavrye is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Constantine ✍ 20:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Ivan Vladislav of Bulgaria now open

The peer review for Ivan Vladislav of Bulgaria is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A-class review for Sack of Amorium now open

The A-class review for Sack of Amorium is now open! All editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Constantine ✍ 09:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sword B-class status

Hello, I've noticed earlier This Week that even due sword is such a vital article to military history and Wikipedia it's not even a B class article. The template in the talk section showed that only the "Citations and referencing" section didn't meet the criteria. so I've found the necessary references and added citations wherever a "citation needed" appeared and many in other places. I think the article now meets the criteria but would like a second opinion from a more seasoned editor.

thanks, --87.70.124.157 (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't actually read this article before but based on a quick review, the citations/referencing standard is still not met for MilHist B-Class. Our B-Class bar is set quite high, meaning that each paragraph needs at least one citation (at the end of the paragraph to signify that all info in that para is from this particular source; if more than one source is needed to justify the para's info, then all sources need to be cited). Structure, prose, detail and supporting materials all looked okay (there were a couple of minor formatting issues that I corrected) but there is a lot of citing to do. Note also that if you have a bulletted list, such as "Swords in history", then you need to provide sources for those as well (my one quibble with the structure, however, would be that there are many lists; some may be their own articles and hence should simply be linked to from this article). Hope this helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)