Talk:First Hundred Years' War

Battle of Taillebourg

I have added two cites to the effect that this battle did not include the subsequent action at Saintes; the first explicitly has separate headings for "Battle of Taillebourg" and "Battle of Saintes", and the second ends its treatment of the battle, for which it lists only the date of the 21st july, with the assault on the bridge at Taillebourg. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"French victory"

Isn't that a bit redundant given that both dynasties were French? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.241.233.34 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

One of them was rulers of the Kingdom of France. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Two trained bilingual late-medieval historians, native speakers of English and French, needed!

   I expect that the topic gets more intensive study south of the Channel, but my sense is that two specialized professional medievalists, each fluent in both languages, could express their shared insights for English readers far better than we've seen so far. I fear my own contributions should go no further, but hopefully I've made some pertinent observations than can goad those more skilled than I toward work on what will better serve this WP edition's users. I flatter myself that my own efforts point up some weaknesses in the revision I found, and may be helpful in revealing more, of what seem to my poor eye, current shortcomings.
--JerzyA (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible extension of the timeframe of the rivalry

I am considering adding sections for the various conflicts and campaigns in France during the reigns of Edward I and Edward II. Both of these conflicts occurred roughly around the turn of the 14th century which would extend the period of the overall rivalry by about another 60 years. I see it as fitting because it occurred over similar disputes in the Gascon region that had been occurring for about a century at that point, and also because it included the same two royal families in question. I have to emphasize the fact that it was the same two royal families since someone here was upset by the fact that I added information on the Hundred Years War despite the fact that that war still technically involved two cadet branches of the same royal families. AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The House of Valois, the House of Lancaster, and the House of York are cadet branches. But the Hundred Years' War starts with the policies of Edward III of England. He was still part of the main line in the Plantagenet dynasty, and he is the direct ancestor of the Lancasters and the Yorks. The earlier rivalries between the two dynasties are precursors to the Hundred Years' War. Dimadick (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Considering changing the title of the article

I am considering changing the title of the article to "Capetian-Plantagenet feud." Medieval feuds were a real and widespread phenomenon, and I believe the term captures the essence of this conflict much more than it being a mere "rivalry." The term "rivalry" implies that there was little to no real violent conflict between the two parties which is simply not true and should be made evident by the content in the article. Of course, as far as I can tell, we have no English speaking historians who have labeled this period as a whole, nor is there any generally accepted name in English, so there is no way to have a more objective agreement on what it should be, but I believe my proposal is the best option for now. The closest thing we have to a name that is more or less widespread is the somewhat common French usage of the 'First' Hundred Years War which is the entire basis of this article for lumping all of these wars together. However, changing the name to this would be sure to cause more controversy with historians and enthusiasts who specialize in the more well known Hundred Years War, not to mention the confusion it would cause. It would definitely need to be agreed upon by historians first. So if there is no disagreement to my proposed name change, different proposals for a better name, or even a source naming the conflict that I have missed, then I will be going ahead with the change within around a week of this post. The only other idea I have is to name the conflict something in relation to the fact that it revolved around the Angevin empire i.e. "Angevin War" or something of that nature. AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 'feud' vs 'rivalry', I'm not so sure. See Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud. —Srnec (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on why you are not sure? I believe it still may be the most accurate term for the conflict for the reasons I have already mentioned, but also especially because this conflict is arguably non-nationalistic in nature and was truly was a violent conflict between two families mostly within what is technically the same kingdom (with the exception of the French intervention in the First Barons War) as opposed to a war between the two respective nations per se as would later be seen in the actual Hundred Years' War which is why I am also hesitant to call this conflict a "war" as well (but not necessarily against the plural form - "wars"). I would only accept it if it were commonly referred to as such in the English language which does not seem to be the case. I am still open to discussion on new article title ideas though.

I have been thinking about calling it the "Angevin-Capet feud" as well in order to emphasize the conflict revolving around the Angevin empire and because the Plantagenets who ruled over this supposed empire are also commonly referred to as Angevins despite having an unbroken connection to other Plantagenet kings. AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

First Hundred Years' War

Hello everyone.

I have decided that I would like to rename the article to 'First Hundred Years’ War.' The title 'Capet-Plantagenet Feud' (or '...Rivalry,' as it was previously called) is arbitrary and, as far as I’m aware, rarely used outside of Wikipedia, except on bot sites that simply copy Wikipedia content. Additionally, the old title is too broad, as it implies that later conflicts between the two dynasties, such as the Gascon War, or any war between the two dynasties before the formation of the Angevin empire, should be included, when it is widely accepted that the primary focus of the conflict was on the empire, which officially ended with the 1259 Treaty of Paris.

This change is also more in line with established terminology. 'First Hundred Years’ War' is a more commonly accepted name, recognized by both scholars and the general public. I have worked with French Wikipedia admins to rename their article from 'Conflit entre Capétiens et Plantagenêts' to 'Première guerre de Cent Ans' (First Hundred Years’ War), and since our English version is a derivative of the French article, it makes sense to update the English title accordingly.

Although many of the scholars who refer to it by this name are predominantly French (Bautier being a notable example), even in English, the term 'First Hundred Years’ War' is used as often as one could expect for a relatively lesser-known conflict.

Here are a few English literary sources I have found that refer to the conflict as the “First Hundred Years’ War”:

[1] [2] [3](pg 230) [4] [5]

Britannica refers to the conflict by this name as well in their main Hundred Years’ War article:

[6]

It has also been referred to as such on Quora:

[7] [8]

And on Reddit:

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

On history-related forums:

[15] [16] [17]

And various other sites:

[18] [19] [20]

One might ask, 'What should we do with the title of the "Second Hundred Years’ War"?' The answer is simple: nothing. The term 'Second Hundred Years’ War' is still the most widely recognized name for that conflict, and unless scholars or the general public begin referring to it by a different name, it can remain as is. This naming quirk can be attributed to the fact that the 'Hundred Years’ War' is the most well-known and historically significant of these conflicts, which retroactively influences the naming of the other two. It's similar to how some people refer to the Seven Years’ War as 'World War 0,' even though that would technically make it the first World War. Likewise, World War I was originally called 'The Great War' until the onset of World War II. AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)