Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Patay

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

Duplicate person

[edit]

Under the Aftermath heading it is stated that 'both Talbot and Shrewsbury became French prisoners', but Talbot and Shresbury is the same person. Perhaps it should have been some other person? O0pyromancer0o 04:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turning Point

[edit]

So this is basically the turning point?Cameron Nedland 00:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders

[edit]

Why isn't Joan of Arc on the Commanders list along with La Hire and Xaintrailles? Phu2734 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The battle is described from a very La Trémoille political perspective: La Hire and Xaintrailles were supporters of his. The omission of his rival Arthur III, Count of Richemont, Constable of France, is breathtaking! 114.76.8.62 (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Jean Dagneau

[edit]

This comment seems to refer either to a previous (possibly deleted) sentence, or perhaps an image, but it is not clear where or what it refers to presently:

"This is the Captain Jean Dagneau, under the command of the Grand Ecuyer Pothon Xaintrailles, who captured the famous General John Talbot. After this feat of arms, Jean Dagneau was ennobled in March 1438 by Charles V, King of the French, which is at the origin of the family name of Dagneau de Richecour."

Does anyone know what is missing here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.93.54.27 (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

[edit]

Its clear that the French outnumbered the English in Total numbers. The 1,500 number is the vanguard count. If anyone knows the exact count of the French main force it may be of use. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced numbers would be better, instead of opinions or guestimates. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Patay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This victory was to the French what Agincourt was to the English

[edit]

This phrase needs clarification or, better, to be replaced with a more detailed description of what is meant by the vague allusion.

Even the body of the text describes the disproportionate casualties and the "devastating consequences for the English position in France" itself a vague enough phrase, the introductory passage should be clearer, since it could mean anything

Does the writer mean the battle "was to the French what Agincourt was to the English" in terms of strategic advantage and war aims? National pride and folk lore?

Do the French still discuss and analyse the battle of Patay today and cite speeches written by their national poet, put in the mouth of a hero king? That's what Agincourt means to the English. JF42 (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the dreaded bowmen"

[edit]

This description is of little value as it stands. There is no reference to the bowmen inspiring dread in the preceding text. Their reputation is not shown to have any impact on the outcome of the battle. Indeed, the fatal indiscipline of at least some bowmen and the archers' subsequent rout suggests quite the opposite.

If the writer means to suggest that the reputation of the 'English' bowmen as the sourge of the French (were they only English?) proved ill-founded, or that their reputation as 'battle winners' suffered irreparable damage as a result of their defeat, with ]important consequences for ensuing campaigns, etc. etc. then that would be better stated clearly.

For the moment, I believe it is best to excise 'dreaded,' as currently it deprives the article of authority.

JF42 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On average the bowmen were 4/5 English and the remainder Welsh, though in certain battles they could be as much as one-third Welsh.
You are correct though; the bowmen present at Patay were a very inexperienced 'new' corps, not a veteran one, as indicated by their behaviour. Alooulla (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Patay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]

Could someone take a look at these? The English casualties as they stand make no sense, adding up to more than was present, and the French casualties are too low as well, given the body of the text says up to 100 killed. Alooulla (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Patay&oldid=1206178299"