This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
The present article seems incongruent with the information given in the [topic it's in]. It says that Henri de Grosmont defeated larger French armies; however, as the present article states, the French left a small fraction of their troops (which, can hardly be called ar army stricto sensu, since they were mostly local and Italian mercenaries led by small landowners), and the Strength part explicitly gives higher numbers to the English. The unchivalrous conduct of the English, such as fleeing from French forces trying to impose "fair knight-like" pitched battles in which the English were usually promptly slaughtered and routed, not fighting on horseback and relying solely on archers, could hardly have earned renown to de Grosmont name, and despite a reference made by a certain Rogers, I fail to find a trace of any contemporary chronicler praising him, in contrast to du Guesclin and La Hire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.57.53.109 (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IP author perhaps fails to recognise that Bergerac wasn't the only battle of the campaign and, while the Anglo-Gascon forces may have been larger at Bergerac (exact French numbers are unknown as the article makes clear), Grosmont's victory at Auberoche was definitely against superior numbers. For clarification "a certain Rogers" is Professor Clifford Rogers of West Point, one of the major historians of the Hundred Years War. The idea that the English were "unchivalrous" by not fighting on horseback and using archers, is a romantic notion rather than based either in the warfare of the time or modern scholarship. Monstrelet (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Gascony section here states Before the war commenced well over 1,000 ships a year departed Gascony for England. Among their cargoes were over 200,000,000 imperial pints (110,000,000 litres; 240,000,000 US pints) of wine.. I've changed this, because (a) wine isn't really measured in pints, and converting the amount into imperial/US pints as well as litres just looks weird; and (b) the source (NAM Rodger) gives the amount in tuns, which makes more sense altogether. I've added a footnote to explain what a tun is. Also, the amount was wrong; if a tun is 252 wine gallons (ie 210 imp, or 1680 pts, or 954 litres) then 80,000 tuns would be 134.4 million pints, and just under 80 million litres. I trust that is OK with everyone.. Moonraker12 (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonraker12: I am not OK with this. So I have reverted per BRD. Or BDR as you have helpfully already started the discussion. My thoughts:
These aspects were discussed at FAC. I am not necessarily personally happy with how it ended up, but it is consensus, and IMO needs consensus to change it.
Accessibility: I suspect that virtually any reader would be familiar with at least one of imperial pints, US pints or litres; and virtually none with tuns. Which is why you have had to explain it via a footnote. Why force a reader to refer to a footnote, and then get out a calculator, when we can simply give them the information in English?
You state that a tun contains 210 imperial gallons and source this to Rodger xix-xx. I am happy to believe you, but that information is not in Rodger xix-xx. He only gives an exemplar - which is for beer, at 288 gallons. If you have an RS for a wine tun of "the early 14th century" containing 210 gallons, could you provide it.
Cite 5 is broken as it is now incorrectly formatted.
You are quite correct that the maths seems to have gone awry. 80,000 288 gallon tuns is 23,000,000 gallons or 184,320,000 imperial pints. I will change the figures accordingly.
I will also change it so that the main measure is litres, per the MoS.
I hadn't realized this was a featured article, or that this had been discussed before; what was the issue last time?
Also, my apologies: I was careless with the Rodger citation when I split it (I forgot the equal sign)
But to clarify; I said in the article that the tun (according to Rodger) was 252 wine gallons: I said here that that it was equal to 210 imperial gallons, because of the discrepancy (illustrated here) between the two types of gallon (The wine gallon is roughly equivalent to the US gallon today, I believe). Also, my copy of Rodger doesn't mention beer gallons at all, does yours? I don't know what Curry says, I won't be able to check until I can get to a library.
On the issue of sources, my concern is just that; the text as it is doesn't match what the source says. Rodgers says, on p 79, that by the early fourteenth century over 80,000 tuns a year were being exported; and on p xx that tuns were actual casks containing (according to the modern standards) 252 gallons wine measure. So converting that into some other unit is just surmise.
And I'm aware that the tun had different values for different products, and over time; but the article is on a battle, and the purpose of the sentence is only to illustrate the value of Gascony to the English exchequer, not to comment on medieval economics, so it seems redundant to try and manufacture an exact comparison. I reckoned if anyone was unfamiliar with the idea of a tun they could mouse simply over the note, or follow the link to the tun article, where there is a full explanation of the term. Your thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonraker12 and Moonraker12: I see no problem with using a naval history to source a maritime measurement, but, as you say, a more specific source would be better. The source you refer to seems RS to me, even if no date is specifically given. I shall use it and amend to 252 gallon tuns. Just checking that we are all in agreement on that.
Yes, beer gallons to the tun at very top of p xx.
I follow your logic re the use of tuns, but disagree. I dislike putting anything in the main text which I wouldn't expect a reader to reasonably understand if I can avoid it. Plus there is that twitchy feeling that having reached consensus at FAC, to change it in any serious way I should really invite the reviewers to comment - which seems a lot of fuss for such a simple point. My real issue is with "tun", so how about if I give the total in "wine gallons", with a link, that's 80,000 x 252, and no conversions to pints or litres? Not my favourite choice, but it may be something both of us can agree on and not overly breach the spirit of the FAC. Thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, you are better at the wikprotocols than me. If the cited source uses a certain measurement, to what extent are we advised in MoS to stick with that and supply an appropriate conversion? Monstrelet (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Which translates as you can wade through the MoS. Well, the one which jumps out is "the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic". See WP:UNIT. You may feel that the second bullet of "Special considerations" applies. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at my naval history collection in the hope of finding more useable references. Ian Friel in The Good Ship (p.133) that , in the early 1300s, the Gascon wine exports were around 90-100,000 tuns, which is in the same ball park as we are talking, but that only 20% was shipped to England. The amount drops to about 9,000-10,000 tuns shipped to England by the late 14th century. Two things to note. Firstly, the figure in the article may be wrong and further checking of economic history may be required. The other is the customary quantities seem to be expressed in tuns and not referencing this would potentially lead to an error going unnoticed Monstrelet (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A quick check in Jonathon Sumption Trial by Battle p.69 gives a figure of 80,000 tuns exported in the early 14th century of which 25% was shipped to England. This book is, of course, already in the reflist for the article. Monstrelet (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog, Monstrelet: I have to say I still see this as a bit of a problem, in that the source specifically says 'tuns'. I understand your concern about what a reader might reasonably understand, but I think you may have the same problem with wine gallons as far as that is concerned. And, unless this is the first article on medieval history the reader has ever read, I can't believe the term 'tuns' will be that unusual. Maybe a way round it is to put tuns in the sentence with the citation, and put the conversion in a footnote: The [[tun]] was equivalent to 252 [[wine gallon]]s (ref) ie. approximately q gallons in total ( x imperial, y US, z litres). What do you think? Moonraker12 (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As already said, I think a reference to tuns, being the customary quantity referenced by our cited sources, should be made. The obvious conversion is litres (given the SI primacy in the MoS) and I think I'd then go for Imperial and US gallons, as current and commonly understood quantities. The wine gallon is an obsolete measure, the introduction of which doesn't help the general reader IMO, especially as this is simply contextual information, not the main subject of the article. I remain concerned that the text contains an error and that the amount of wine exported to England is overstated by four or five times. Monstrelet (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify what NAM Rodger says about this wine export : He doesn't say the wine came to England, only that over 80,000 tuns a year were being exported and that at least a thousand ships a year cleared the Gironde; the source he gives for that is Sumption's Hundred Years War, and Lewis & Runyan's Naval and Maritime History. He goes on to say the duty on the wine exported through Bordeaux was equal to, and sometimes greater than, the customs revenue of the whole kingdom of England and that Bordeaux was the largest and richest city in the English empire (source Fowler, Hundred Years War). He also says in 1324 Gascony's net contribution to the English exchequer was £13,000 (Sumption again), though converting that to modern value would be even more of a nightmare! I dunno if that helps any... Moonraker12 (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonraker12: I should have actually checked NAM Roger and saved you some effort - apols. But it does show that the source in use is being misquoted. I think we can fix it by simply removing the words "for England" - this is background information on the Gascon economy in a battle article, not a detailed analysis of trading arrangements.Monstrelet (talk) 10:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"unless this is the first article on medieval history the reader has ever read, I can't believe the term 'tuns' will be that unusual" I disagree with both legs of this. Over 17–19 October there were over 150,000+ views of Battle of Neville's Cross (1346). Are you suggesting that a significant fraction of the readers were Medieval-era aficionados? And despite being reasonably well up on things medieval (having nominated 15 articles from 1333–1370 for FA in the past year), I didn't know what a tun was until I researched for this article. I am not convinced that we should be presenting information in a way that even someone already an expert in the subject may well not understand. We also seem to be thrashing a minor point to death, as has been pointed out "this is background information on the Gascon economy in a battle article, not a detailed analysis of trading arrangements."
It all seems moot anyway. As I point out above, WP:UNIT requires "the primary units chosen will be SI units", ie litres. Which only leaves a discussion of the number to be placed in front of "litres" and what if any units to convert to. I have views on both, but could we first agree that a. "for England" goes, and b. that we are going to conform to the MoS? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I probably shouldn't have used hyperbole. But the fact remains, they will either know or they won't. I think more than a few will (I'm not a medieval-era aficionado, but I have been around for a while) but for those that don't, it'd be simple matter to mouse over the link and find out. Part of the fascination of an encyclopaedia is finding out just how much you don't know about what you don't know; I've learned things just from this conversation...
And I'm not saying (now) that there shouldn't be a conversion of some kind for the amount (though it should be in a footnote, IMO)
But if you want to throw MOS on the table, how about WPs RS, OR and SYNTH? My reading of those are that we shouldn't stray from what sources say, we shouldn't put in our own conclusions, and we shouldn't stitch together different references to say something the source hasn't said. Currently the article has an assertion that 100 million litres of wine left Gascony each year, with a reference to two different pages in a source that doesn't say that at all. And as we have three different results for the conversion in this conversation, and the total currently in the article doesn't match anything on the back of my envelope (I've shown how I arrived at my totals but I've no idea how you arrived at your figures) it can't stay as it is.
@Moonraker12: You are quite right. I am not convinced. I thought that I had agreed above with your calculation "You are quite correct that the maths seems to have gone awry. 80,000 288 gallon tuns is 23,000,000 gallons or 184,320,000 imperial pints. I will change the figures accordingly." If you have a different figure, I don't see that it matters so long as it is "over 100,000,000 litres".
We are not discussing "the cargo capacity of ships in the Middle Ages". If we were I would agree with you. We are discussing how to convey a sense of a particular volume of wine to a reader. Litres seems to me to be entirely "conventional" for that.
I could ping the editors who signed off on the article at GA, ACR and FAC to see what they think. It may well be that they are convinced; I have already changed two things in the article in the light of this discussion, and I imagine that they are at least as flexible/persuadable as me. Or, obviously, you could frame a question and ping them yourself. I treat consensus reached at ACR and FAC moderately seriously and would feel uncomfortable about significant changes being made without at least giving them an option to input. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog: Well, I’ve finally tracked down a copy of Ann Curry’s book, "The Hundred Years War". It turns out it doesn’t mention any number of ships leaving Gascony at all, or what they were carrying: What she does say is that the revenue from Gascony was £13,000 per annum, but she also says 'we ought not to place too much emphasis on the financial concerns', and that 'the English crown did not wish to hold on to Gascony because it brought in revenue', but because it was theirs by hereditary right (p35), which rather kicks a hole in the theory being presented in the article. (And, I’ve just noticed, Rodger doesn’t say ‘well over’ at all, he says ‘at least’; which isn’t the same thing, is it?). So, do you have a reliable source that actually supports your version of this sentence? Because otherwise I can see very little reason not to change it to the version I’ve outlined, per the guidelines I’ve quoted. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: To reply to your first point, yes you did agree that the maths was awry, but you then multiplied 80,000 by 288 (for no discernible reason) when the source you gave, and the webpage Monstrelet gave you, as well as our pages on the Tun, and Wine gallon, are clear that a tun is 252 gallons (ie 252 US, 210 imp, and just under 1000 litres (953.7, or 954.6, depending on the source). So 80,000 x just-under-a-thousand is just under 80 million, not 'over 100 million litres' as you insist.
As to your second, 'we are not discussing the cargo capacity of ships in the Middle Ages': well, the article makes a statement about the number of ships leaving Gascony in the 1340s, and the amount of wine they carried, so I'd say, yes, that is pretty much exactly what is being discussed, to which the latter part of WP:UNIT applies to. If you want to discuss 'how to convey a sense of a particular volume of wine to a reader' then I'd say it is equally important that what you convey can be verified: obliging your reader to track down the latest edition of Rodger's book, then marrying up the statements on two different pages there, then making their own rough calculation, in order to find you've made a mistake, is (IMO) less efficient than putting what the source actually says, with an explanatory footnote.
Third, 'significant changes'? You were arguing before that this is 'a minor point' that we are 'thrashing to death'.
@Gog: It’s been a month, now, and there’s no sign of any progress on this, so I’ve gone ahead with Plan B and fixed it, per the guidelines I quoted.
I’ve changed the text to what the source actually says, per VERIFY/UNIT, I’ve removed the Curry reference (as it doesn’t say what you say it says), I’ve deleted your estimate, per OR/SYNTH (and because it was wrong), and I’ve added a footnote with a new estimate based on the calculation above (which can be checked for accuracy if needed). But if any of the FAC reviewers feel I have acted precipitately, I’m open to challenge; I’m just amazed that a change of some 150 bytes of text has taken 18Kb of discussion/argument so far to resolve. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
Well, the one which jumps out is "the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic". See WP:UNIT. You may feel that the second bullet of "Special considerations" applies. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
