Jump to content

Talk:Invasion of England (1326)

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

French invasion?

[edit]

We are led to believe from unsourced claims that this was a French invasion yet the troops were not led by the king of France nor was the invasion for France's gain. It was not just led by Isabella (who was Queen consort of England by right) but also by Roger Mortimer. The fact that the French troops were actually mercenaries from Brabant & Hainaut (present day Holland and Belgium) as cited from Weir's Queen Isabella: She-Wolf of France, Queen of England; would suggest that they were not even French at all. In that context who should the combatants be listed as? ChrisWet (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Isabella's campaign was indeed an invasion that was launched from France with French king support against England Ruler Edward II. There are several aspects where you are erroneus. Isabella hired mercenaries from Brabant and Hainaut when at the time, county of flanders were French fiefdoms as you can see here Battle of Cassel (1328), Louis I, Count of Flanders.
Besides, part of the money Isabella used to hire mercenaries was lent by her brother King of France. The fact that Isabella was not alone but also with english support(as referred in the infobox as English rebels and her lover roger Mortimer) doesn't mean you have to ignore the french support and interests in this conflict.
De facto ruler of England Edward II had political ennemies from both England and France, were gathering at the French court, including Marcher lord Roger Mortimer. Charles IV refused to send her sister back, against Edward's request. To the contrary he helped her rise an army and launch an invasion of England against its ruler.(see Isabella of France)
English navy under Edward II oders failed to intercept Isabella on the channel. Isabella then conquered england
Finally if we talk about Isabella's family, she is from the house of Valois of Capetian dynasty (French) as such her coat of arms comported fleur-de-lys as the French flag. Her only link to England is by marriage, which got uneffective at a later period when Edward ignored her in favor of the despenser and confiscated her lands.
In conclusion, withdrawing the french aspect from the article or making it look like a purely english internal war would be some kind of history denial. Contrary to the war of the roses, this campaign is hugely foreign concerned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.196.163 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In conclusion ones own opinion should not be counted. I am using notes already placed in article from reliable sources. As mentioned they do not claim any ideas that this was an invasion purely for French interests or even that it is a French invasion. This was in the interests for the crown of England and England alone to rid Edward II and to place Edward III on the throne. A consensus or a number of cited sources would be sticking to wiki procedures. If we go by your rules then perhaps we should write that the battle of Bosworth was a French victory because Henry VII launched his invasion from France. Henry's troops were 'mercenaries' from Brittany paid for in loans by the Duke of Brittany's treasurer all supported by the King of France. I digress.. but in line with sources in the article France should be in infobox as supported by but nothing more. If sources are found that mention that this was a French invasion (I have yet to find any) or even victory then by all means cite it as such or if a consensus is finally decided then it would also be mentioned as such. ChrisWet (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously yes, if Henry VII got so much support from France when invading England then France should be quoted as well, just like England should be, and is, quoted in the coalitions England supported financially against France, or when recruiting German mercenaries, in spite of sometimes no fighting directly,
1066 is considered as a Norman invasion because the Leader was norman and invaded from foreign country with foreign soldiers, not a purely English civil war in spite of William being promised kingdom of England.
Aside of that, "consensus" is already found, as the article has quoted this campaign as an Invasion of England from France since the beginning of its creation in 2010 by the creator and source provider of this artcle. You are the one wanting to edit, remove, for obscure reasons and with absolutely no source nor consistent contribution to the article, the fact that a French princess with troops from French vassalities hired with French kingdom financial support has invaded the Kingdom of England against English king will.
So until we get more information, let's keep this article as it was. When you find proof that Isabella of France was not french nor capetian, feel free to edit the article, good luck however Isabella of France......house of valois
You mean unsourced or cited? Well it won't last very long especially with Queen consort of England too. ChrisWet (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage or power taking doesn't change one's "nationality" (anachronistic term at the time). Are you saying Henry V was french for marrying a french princess? Treaty of Troyes. I believe most people would consider him english. Besides, what she got by marriage in England was later confiscated to her in favor of the despenser (see Isabella of France biography) and that's the whole reason of her asking support in her french family and invading England. She was queen of England like William I had been King before her and William III of England would be after her, however this doesn't make them english (respectively Norman and Dutch) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.196.163 (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said if it is not cited from a reliable source or sources then it will be changed according to wiki procedures. ChrisWet (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Wiki procedures do not include edit wars Wikipedia:Edit warring, content deletion out of no source by non-contributing membersWikipedia:Citing sources, and history denial. I suggest you learn a little more about a subject before trying to remove/edit anything from it.86.66.196.163 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one is edit warring which is why this discussion being held here. In addition I am fully aware of the wiki guidelines. ChrisWet (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having read this discussion, I have to say that we need sources when making claims. Reliable, verifiable, academic sources. Because this is starting to look like a discussion based on Original Research. So before proceeding to edit (again), please mention your sources.
With regard to the "victory for the French and rebels" and other information in the infobox:
I looked up the sources mentioned in this article, checked with a academic standard work on medieval history: Ormrod, W. Mark. "England: Edward II and Edward III." The New Cambridge Medieval History. Ed. Michael Jones. Cambridge University Press, 2000. Cambridge Histories Online. Cambridge University Press. (pages 286-288 give a discussion of the events leading up to the invasion as well as the political make-up of the invading party). There is no mention in this literature of a "French" invasion - these books talk of an invasion by Isabelle and Mortimer and a group of disgruntled English noblemen. They were supported by the king of France, but the he never actually took part in this invasion. Medieval warfare 101: We have to detangle the nationality of hired mercenaries - who will fight for anyone regardless of nationality or goal of the military actions, as long as they're paid - from the nationality and purpose of the military leaders. Thus: the origin of mercenaries did not determine whether is was a foreign invasion. Second point: where the military leaders of this invasion French? No they weren't (mostly). The argument that this was a "French" invasion by the virtue of Isabelle being born in France is false and disregards the nationality of the other military leaders (Mortimer, the dukes and other aristocracy that came over to France, fleeing the Despenser regime --> They were English: Ormrod, p. 287-288). So at the head of the invasion were: one woman of French origin married to an Englishman and heavily invested in English politics and big group of English guys. Would the involvement of the French king make this invasion French? No, it wouldn't. He did support the invasion politically and economically, however he did not take part militarily - he did not lead this army, nor his banner unfurled (a sign of him "leading" the army even without his personal presence) during these military actions.
Thus: there is no French invasion as the army is lead by the English aristocracy. It is incorrect to name the victors the "French", or to use the fleur de lys. The support of the French king and the involvement mercenaries from French regions is explained in the text-body and it nuances the foreign involvement in the invasion very well.
About the use of the French fleur de lys: that is entirely inappropriate for this article. The French king supported Isabelle and Mortimer, but - as mentioned - he did not lead the invasion nor was his banner ever unfurled during this invasion. The fleur de lys was the personal heraldry used by the king of France. As he didn't participate militarily, the use of the fleur de lys is incorrect. Isabelle had her own heraldic device. I furthermore contest the use of the English flag for Mortimer, the Marcher Lords and the medieval Kingdom of England, as it is simply not the correct heraldry (and anachronistic!).
The correct heraldy can be found here:
I will now proceed to edit the info box according to my argumentation made above Gadifere (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully concur with this; in addition to what the authors Wier, Omrod, Doherty and Mortimer state in their books and used as such in citations on this page. The battles in this 'invasion' will also be changed in line of what has been put forward here.ChrisWet (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits on banners are correct, however banners are family related not personal. I already provided sources for house of valois fleur-de-lys, which Isabella used as part of the Valois family. When marrying and becoming part of Edward family, half of it became Edward family's gold lion banner, giving what you call "personnal banner" which isn't personal but family related and would be used by her son Edward III, fleur-de-lys included. Thus you are wrong when you say Fleur-de-lys is not related to Isabella. You agree on this? Another aspect to consider is that her marriage was DE FACTO nullified.
"where the military leaders of this invasion French? No they weren't (mostly)". Wrong (source "Queen Isabella: She-Wolf of France, Queen of England" by Alison Weir) Isabella is the main actor of the invasion, for 2 reasons: She is responsible for it, did earn the main benefits of it (power as regent, and the wealth of Edward II (p259) ) and she participated in almost every battle leading to taking the power (see Invasion of England (1326)), hence the name "Invasion of England by Queen Isabella" and not "by the marcher lords". Besides, she got herself the support from her brother (king of france) due to familial relationship to hire mercenaries. Until she was removed from power, it is incorrect to disminish her role to "minor" status in the whole invasion event.
most important point, the foreign support Foreign mercenaries and Foreign support, by wikipedia standards, have importance and should be quoted in infobox, even when the leader wasn't milarly taking part. Wikipedia standard is to quote all involvments as you can see here: Chouannerie, Battle of Hastings, or Haitian Revolution.
As you see for the chouannerie, or Haitian Revolution, no British military leader participated, however financial support gets British involved in the infobox.
In conclusion, I will keep your edits, which are correct, however will in addition bring the French king support in the infobox, to comply with wikipedia standards showed above, and acknowledged French king support, there should be no problem on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.196.163 (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I would like to point out the negative behaviour of ChristiaandeWet who quotes authors he obviously didn't read, even mispelling their names to backup his vandal edits on Isabella campaign battles, heavily editing/removing out of no source. Considering his vandalistic behaviour for the last three years that even got him banned (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChristiaandeWet), needless to say that I will revert his vandal edits on this subject.86.66.196.163 (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I agree with you that the Marcher lords as sole party on the side of Isabella and Mortimer was incomplete, however at the point of the edit I only removed the kingdom of France and did not know an alternative I could propose. Question for you: are those lists of belligerents meant to show the troops who participated in the military action? Or are they used to show each and every party that was possibly involved (politically, economically, or merrily giving their blessing over the whole proceeding without anything else)? From what I could see on other pages of other battles - included the ones you linked to - they show only the parties military involved. The kingdom of France was never militarily involved in this invasion. Three points on that:
1) Mercenaries: this article mentions mercenaries from Brabant (a duchy of the Holy Roman Empire) and Hainaut. Following what was done on the page of the Battle of Hastings, but also on well-done pages of other medieval battles, such as the Battle of Crécy, I propose to name specifically that it were mercenaries from Brabant and Hainaut (as done with the genoese mercenaries in the battle of Crécy), and not generalize it to "France".
The heraldry for Brabant and Hainaut, which I will use to edit accordingly:
2) on Isabella: I'm beginning to see on what point exactly we disagree. Your argumentation (if I understand correctly) is: Isabella was one of the (military) leaders of this invasion + she is the sister of the king of France --> this makes it a military involvement of the kingdom of France. I do not deny Isabella's crucial involvement, and indeed leadership of this invasion. Nor do I deny that she is the sister of the king of France and could therefore be classified as "French". However, I disagree with jumping to the conclusion, based on those fact, that the kingdom of France was military involved in the invasion. Medieval warfare prior to the (second part of) the Hundred Years War was warfare between persons, not kingdoms. Kingdoms only got involved when their rightful leader (ie. king) got involved. See for an explanation on this personal warfare, for instance, Maurice Keen, Laws of War (1968). From this follows that the only way in which the kingdom of France could be militarily involved, if the king of France himself was militarily involved. I never read you claim military involvement of the king of France and therefore I assume we agree on that point. From that point of no military involvement of the king of France + that medieval warfare was personal follows --> the kingdom of France was not militarily involved. If you wish to represent Isabella in some way in the box of belligerents, there needs to be the name for the lands she owned and from which she could muster soldiers, political support and resources for this invasion --> to my knowledge no lands qualify as such.
3) If you do wish to claim military involvement of the kingdom of France: where in your literature is this mentioned? As I said in my previous post, I never saw any credible source that said that this was a military invasion involving the kingdom of France. You refer to Weir in your previous post. Does she also typefy it as military involvement of France (page nr please!)? Gadifere (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding Brabant and hainaut. It should have been done since the beginning particularly for Hainaut, however, it would have been County of Hainaut because William 1 of Hainaut was a political ally of both Isabella and kingdom of France. "mercenaries" isn't precise enough
And yes, any party politically or economically involved must be added. Particularly on the page describing the whole campaign.
Isabella could hire an army thanks to her brother financial support (see "Queen Isabella at the Court of France" by carla Lord p47) besides, Charles IV supported the marcher lords. As a consequence of his actions and Isabella's victory, Charles IV received large compensations in the form of territories and money in 1327 ("The Hundred Years War" by Robin Neillands, page 32). I'm adding both County of Hainaut and the Kingdom of France. Feel free to add and expand the article if you have additional information that I do not have.86.66.196.163 (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before accusing me of vandalism and negativity there is none as such or W:3RR taking place. The matters are being discussed here as per wiki rules. Please also pardon my spelling of Weir. If you look back on what I said initially I did agree on Kingdom of France in the infobox but only as supported by. I was against the use of the fact that it was a French only invasion which it wasn't. I am quite happy to see the use of mercenaries of Hainaut and Brabant which is a known and cited fact. I shall leave the consequential battles and sieges to be reverted by someone else if you feel unhappy about ME doing them. ChrisWet (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


86.66.196.163, just saying that economical and politically involved parties should be mentioned is not enough. I'm not going to just take your word for it, especially not after you got several other things blatantly wrong, so who's to say you haven't got this wrong either? (the ones that annoy me the most: claiming Isabella was a Valois - three times! read the wikipage you're linking to - that Edward III got the fleur de lys on his heraldry through his mother's family, or that Brabant and Hainaut were a fiefdom of France because Flanders was (what?))
As I said above, all the well-written pages of battles I've seen - ranging from the middle ages to WW2 - only mention parties militarily involved. The article on the Haitian Revolution, which you linked to, specifically says Great Britain and France declared war on eachother and where thus both militarily part of the conflict. For the Chouannerie, it is a very confusing article in which the involvement of Great Britain is not even explained. However, the French Revolutionary Wars made Great Britain the military allies of the French Royalists. Whether they deserve to be named under the "belligerent" section is doubtful to me.
I've asked on the discussion board of the wikiproject for military history for people to have a look and correct me if I'm wrong. I will refrain from editing for now as every argumented edit I've made has been reverted (and frankly, to me this is starting to look like you want to win this argument whether you're right or wrong).Gadifere (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to William Kibler (Medieval France), Isabella advised her uncle Charles of Valois to invade Duchy of Aquitaine in 1324. Any other sources on this?86.66.196.19 (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is France even being included as a belligerent since according to Weir, Charles actually refused to support Isabella and Roger forcing them to go elsewhere into the Low Countries for support? Shire Lord 21:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Invasion_of_England_(1326)&oldid=1202986122"