Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Edward I of England/archive1

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

Notes

[edit]
Questions arising
[edit]
  • Legacy and end of reign sections don't fully cover the difficult situation left to his son (debt, fractious Parliament and unwinnable war; chaos in Ireland and discontent in Wales)
  • Edward's relations with the Papacy and church could be better developed
  • Edward's reign in Gascony has also come in for signficant criticism regarding subsequent chaos in its aftermath, notes @LlywelynII on the talk page.
  • done Edward as French crown's vassal in Gascony had the same challenges as his English, Welsh and Scottish vassals, is a point often raised
  • Request on talk page for better explanation of his reinternment
  • Noted above for action Scottish sources used are rather old (GWS Barrow), while still well regarded, newer sources should be checkd

  • (dealt with on page as minor item using Veach 2014) Some of the positive assessments in the "Legacy" section belong to a group of authors (Spencer and Burt) whose work focuses narrowly on Edward from an English law and administration perspective, their conclusions are notably in tension with the authors from the "four nations / British Isles" perspective. This could do with sourcing and commentary.
  • (dealt with on page as minor item) Request on talk page for better acknowledgement of the massacre at Berwick
  • (dealt with / in progress) Edward's innovations in propaganda have been noted in relation to the use the church and also in architecture, could do with a line or two.
  • (dealt with / in progress) There is a strand of literature looking at the history of the "British Isles" in this period (as with others, cf the revaluation of the English Civil Wars as the "Wars of the Three Kingdoms". With Edward I this would draw the threads together of the commonalities between the England to Ireland, Scotland and Wales relationships. Needs a check starting with Barrow 1983, Davies 1998 and Frame 1990.
  • (dealt with / in progress) The "character as King" section will need rewriting to take account of the more negative perspectives, regarding abuse of law, going back on his word, acts of petty vengeance, contempt for the Welsh, for example

Jim Killock (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish policies review: From main page as mostly resolved

[edit]

Could I suggest that @Serial or others take a look at the content I added about Edward's Jewish policies as a first step? These are to be found at:

  • Edward I of England#Diplomacy and war on the Continent: short sentences about his fall and the expulsion in Gascony. (On Easter Sunday 1287, Edward was standing in a tower when the floor collapsed. He fell 80 feet, broke his collarbone, and was confined to bed for several months. Several others died. Soon after he regained his health, he ordered the local Jews expelled from Gascony,seemingly as a "thank-offering" for his recovery.)
  • Edward I of England#Finances, the expulsion of Jews, and Parliament: the two enlarged paragraphs on his Jewish policies. The prior version can be read here. As well as underplaying the issues, there were some factual / inferential errors I noted on the talk page.
  • Edward I of England#Legacy: here I added a paragraph setting out views of Edward from an Anglo-Jewish studies perspective.

There are also some efn's I added where the material didn't belong in the main text, eg regarding Jews being banned from the new towns in Wales. I'm happy to help with any source checking needed. A lot of it should be easy to access and is frequently available online, eg with Stacey's articles.

Some quick notes on the emphasis: I think the section on Edward's Jewish policies would sit better under its own heading. It is strange to read about these events in between currency reform and how good Edward was at setting up Parliaments.
The Edict of Expulsion seems to run as the destination of about a significant group of the readers of the Edward I page (the figures track that way at least) and is the most popular Edward I related page after the main page - it is a topic that people seem to want to find out about from this page and regard as important.
The Henry III of England page has much more content on his Jewish policies, and its own section, for comparison.
I am starting work on the other additions here. I've identified some other missing information regarding Edward's character that needs to be looked at later. Jim Killock (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure page views a good guide to what is WP:DUE—we would usually look at coverage of Edward I eg. in reliable sources, especially those focused on him personally. One might also consider that the number of Jews expelled was a few thousand, compared to the population under Edward's rule—as many as five million (according to England in the Middle Ages). (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, except:
    • The Jewish policies dominated Parliamentary politics to 1290 so were clearly a major concern of the time
    • There is a similar level of concern and activity in the Church (see John Peckham, Thomas de Cantilupe, Richard Swinefield) much directed of it at Edward.
    • The impact of these policies was to make England a nation with a consciously antisemitic identity for several centuries (the unique nation that is unique because it is free of Jews)
    • Edward's impact on anti-Jewish sentiment included giving decisive credibiity to blood libel and setting a precedent for the later Spanish expulsions
    • There is a large historiography which points out that the older mainstream sources on Edward has consistently underestimated the importance of these matters (see review summary at Michael Prestwich#Biography of Edward I).
    • Newer sources are rebalancing the emphasis
    This is outlined at Edward I of England#Legacy. Assuming that Prestwich or biogs in general get the balance right is perilous, the minimum that needs to be done is to check other relevance literatures to see if they agree. Prestwich got a lot of criticism for the things he left out, and concentrating too much on admin and warfare. Morris' more recent work is closer to the mark, but according to the FAC checks said little from the perspective of Wales, and none of the biographies seem have looked at the Irish literature at all.
    From a WP:DUE policy perspective it is quite simple: "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Biographies of English Kings are not the only potential reliable sources for English Kings. Anglo-Jewish, Irish, Welsh and Scottish sources are also important and may reflect a different emphasis on what is relevant.
    On the other hand, taking English biographers views as a definitive guide to what is important to emphasise about an English King, could understandably lead to a rather English and NNPOV - which arguably is what we currently have in this article. Jim Killock (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wales section moved to talk as mostly resolved

[edit]

Wales I: Edward I of England#Conquest of Wales

[edit]

Hi there, here's my first suggestions for amendments, regarding the section "Conquest of Wales". I've included notes from the sources to help show why I've selected what I have and to help with any source checking anyone wants to do. --Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The changes below are now applied. Jim Killock (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph Three
[edit]
  • current text: "For the Welsh, this war was over national identity, enjoying wide support, provoked particularly by attempts to impose English law on Welsh subjects.[1]"
Notes from sources: See endnote.[a]
Suggest: "For the Welsh, this war was over national identity and the right to traditional Welsh law, enjoying wide support, provoked by attempts to abuse the English legal system to dispossess prominent Welsh landowners, many of whom were Edward's former opponents.[2]"
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • current text: "For Edward, it became a war of conquest rather than simply a punitive expedition, like the former campaign.[3]"
Notes from sources: See endnote.[b]
Suggest:"For Edward, it became a war of conquest aimed to "put an end finally to … the malice of the Welsh"."[4]
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph Three and Four
[edit]
  • current text: Further rebellions occurred in 1287–88 and, more seriously, in 1294, under the leadership of Madog ap Llywelyn, a distant relative of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd.[5] This last conflict demanded the King's own attention, but in both cases the rebellions were put down.[6][7]
Notes from sources: See endnote.[c]
suggest: Move this sentence to after the legal reforms and admin paragraph four. Add to that paragraph: The Welsh aristocracy were nearly wholly dispossessed of their lands.[8] Edward was the greatest beneficiary of this process.[9] and then place afterwards: Further rebellions occurred in 1287–88 and, more seriously, in 1294, under the leadership of Madog ap Llywelyn, a distant relative of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd.[10] The causes included deep resentment at the occupation, poor, colonial-style governance, and very heavy taxation.[11] This last conflict demanded the King's own attention, but in both cases the rebellions were put down.[12]
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph Five: on castles
[edit]
Notes from sources: See end note.[d]
Suggest: These included the Beaumaris, Caernarfon, Conwy and Harlech castles, intended to act as fortresses, royal palaces and as the new centres of civilian and judicial administration.[14]
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath: missing content
[edit]
  • current text: Nothing substantial after the revolt, except in the final paragraph regarding making Edward II Prince of Wales; The King seems to have hoped that this would help in the pacification of the region. (This is clarified as heading a system of patronage rather than symbolic act in the Welsh history sources, as below.)
Notes from sources: See end note.[e]
Suggest: After the section on the revolts: The revolt was followed by immediate punitive measures including taking 200 hostages.[15] Measures to stop the Welsh from bearing arms or residing in the new boroughs probably date from this time, and the Welsh administration continued to be nearly wholly imported.[16]
Suggest: At the end of the Conquest section, after the detail about Edward II as PoWales: Edward began a more concilatory policy to rebuild systems of patronage and service, particularly through his son as Prince of Wales, but Wales remained politically volatile, and a deep divide and distrust remained between the English settlers and the Welsh.[17]
Suggest: In the para here about Edward II as PoWales: cut "The King seems to have hoped that this would help in the pacification of the region, and that it would give his son more financial independence"; replace with hoping to give his son more financial independence attached to prior sentence.
NB I moved David Powel, a 16th-century clergyman, suggested that the baby was offered to the Welsh as a prince "that was borne in Wales and could speake never a word of English", but there is no evidence to support this widely reported account.[122] to an endnote.
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Killock (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wales II: Edward I of England#Legacy

[edit]

This short section on Wales needs replacing. No other part of this section refers to contemporary views, so that should go. Morris is a general medieval not a Welsh historian, although presumably he has family connections; his views are not relevant to Welsh historiography. Whether the conquest was "justified" isn't a discussion point in the Welsh literature; it is rather why and how it was done, and the consequences of it that are discussed.

  • Current text: Modern commentators have conflicting opinions on whether Edward's conquest of Wales was warranted. Contemporary English historians were firmly in favour of the King's campaigns there. Morris takes the position that the poor condition of Wales would have allowed England to dominate it at some point or another, whether by direct conquest or through natural deterioration.
Notes from sources: Taking queues from the commentary in endnotes on talk page
  • Suggested text: Welsh historians see Edward's reign and conquest as a disaster for Welsh national confidence and culture. R. R. Davies finds Edward to engage in the "gratuitous belittling of his opponents", being "one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as King", and views his methods in Wales as essentially colonialist,[18] creating deep resentment and an "apartheid-like" social structure.[19] John Davies noted the "anti-Welsh fanaticism" of the English colonists introduced by Edward's conquest.[20] They acknowledge Edward's eventual attempts to rebuild some kind of co-operation with native Welsh society, but state that this was insufficient to heal the trauma of conquest.[21]
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New sections on Ireland and EWSI perspectives

[edit]
Fromer status, Ireland: Mentioned in passing as a source of revenue.
Sentences on Ireland added to "early life": Split control caused problems. Between 1254 and 1272, eleven different Justiciars were appointed to head the Irish government, encouraging further conflict and instability; corruption rose to very high levels.[22]
Section on Ireland, added to Law and administration: Edward’s primary interest in Ireland was as a source of resources, soldiers and funds for his wars, in Gascony, Wales, Scotland and Flanders. Royal interventions aimed at maximising economic extraction.[23] Corruption among Edward's officials was at a concerningly high level, and despite Edward’s efforts after 1272 to reform the Irish administration, record keeping was poor.[24]
Disturbances in Ireland increased during the period. The weakness and lack of direction given to the Lordship’s rule allowed factional fighting to grow, reinforced by the introduction of indentured military service by Irish magnates from around 1290.[25] The funnelling of revenue to Edward’s wars left Irish castles, bridges and roads in a state of disrepair, and alongside the withdrawal of troops to be used against Wales and Scotland and elsewhere, helped induce lawless behaviour. Resistance to 'purveyances', or forced purchase of supplies such as grain, added to lawlessness, and caused speculation and inflation in the price of basic goods.[26] Pardons were granted to lawbreakers for service for the King in England.[27] Revenues and removal of troops for Edward’s wars left the country unable to address its basic needs, while the administration was wholly focused on providing for Edward’s war demands;[28] troops looted and fought with townspeople when on the move.[29] Gaelic Ireland enjoyed a revival, due to the absence of English magnates and the weakness of the Lordship, assimilating some of the settlers.[30] Edward's government was hostile to the use of Gaelic law, which it condemned in 1277 as "displeasing to God and to reason".[31] Conflict was firmly entrenched by the time of the 1297 Irish Parliament, which attempted to create measures to counter disorder and the spread of Gaelic customs and law, while the results of the distress included many abandoned lands and villages.[32]
Legacy section on Scotland, Ireland and EWSI perspective
[edit]
Former text, Scotland: G. W. S. Barrow, in his biography of Robert the Bruce, accused Edward of ruthlessly exploiting the leaderless state of Scotland to obtain a feudal superiority over the kingdom followed by his determination to reduce it to nothing more than an English possession.[33]
Applied replacement text: G. W. S. Barrow saw Edward as ruthlessly exploiting the leaderless state of Scotland to obtain feudal superiority over the kingdom and reduce it to an English possession.[34] In his view, Edward's insistence on war and misapprehension of Scottish capacity for resistance created a "bitter antagonism … which endured for centuries".[35]
Former text, Ireland: nothing mentioned
Applied additional text: (after Wales and Scotland, same paragraph) Irish historian James Lydon regarded the thirteenth century and Edward's reign as a turning point, as the Lordship extracted resources for his wars, failed to maintain peace, and allowed a resurgence in the fortunes of Gaelic Ireland, leading to prolongued conflict.[36]
Prior, EWSI perspective: nothing mentioned
Applied additional text: A number of historians, including Simon Schama, Norman Davies, and historians from Scotland, Wales and Ireland, have tried to assess Edward's reign in the context of the development of Britain and Ireland.[37] They emphasise the growing power of the law, centralised state and crown across Europe, and see Edward as asserting his rights within England and regarding the other nations of Britain and Ireland.[38] Centralisation tended to imply uniformity and increasing discrimination against peripheral identities and hostility to Irish and Welsh law.[39] While this group of historians do not see Edward as having conducted a planned policy of expansionism,[40] they often see the tactics and results of his policies as often having caused unnecessary division and conflict.[41]
Legacy section regarding Edward's assessment
[edit]
Prior revision: See 09:04, 29 May 2024
Current version: See 07:12, 8 June 2024
Diff: See Legacy section diff
Additional changes to Legacy section regarding modern assessments: The section on modern assessments of Edward lacked depth and contained errors regarding the commentators views. This has been rewritten to reflect the positions of the historians mentioned, which do not uniformly regard Edward as "great" as previously drafted. Rather, all see him as highly significant, but differ in their assessment of his motivations, strategic sense and the nature of his impact as to whether generally or highly positive, or containing negative elements.
Character section on EWSI perspective
[edit]
Previous: Nothing mentioned
Applied additional text: Edward is often noted as exhibiting vindictiveness towards his defeated enemies, and triumphalism in his actions.[42] Examples include the seizure of fragments of the Holy Cross from Wales after its defeat in 1283, and subsequently the Stone of Scoon and royal regalia from Scotland after defeats in 1296.[43] Some historians question Edward's good faith and trustworthiness in relation to his dealing with Wales and Scotland, believing him to have been capable of going back on his word or behaving duplicitously.[44]
Character section on religion
[edit]
Previous: missing role of propaganda, crusader angle, personal certitude
Applied additional text: Edward's use of the church also extended to war mobilisation including disseminating official justifications for war, usually through the issue of writs to England's archbishops, who distributed his requests for services and prayers.[45] Edward's architectural programme also had an element of propaganda, sometimes combining this with religious messages of piety.[46]
Note: More to follow
Lead inclusion of additional perspectives
[edit]
Previous: Did not include impacts on Ireland, negative evaluations of relations with Wales and Scotland, or antisemitic policies in general.
Applied additional text, lead para 2: In Ireland, he had extracted soldiers, supplies and money, leaving decay, lawlessness and a revival of the fortunes of his enemies in Gaelic territories.
Previous text re criticisms: At the same time, he is also often condemned for his wars against Scotland and for expelling the Jews from England in 1290.
Applied additional text re criticisms, end of lead: At the same time, he is also often condemned for vindictiveness, opportunism and untrustworthiness in his dealings with Wales and Scotland, coupled with a colonialist approach to their governance and to Ireland, and for antisemitic policies leading to the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290.

Notes

[edit]
Sources for convenience
[edit]

Not yet consulted

  • Allen Brown, R.; Colvin, H. M.; Taylor, A. J. (1963). The Middle Ages. The History of the King's Works. Vol. I. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

not consulted in this round

Citations

  1. ^ Davies 1984, pp. 51–69
  2. ^ Davies 1984, pp. 51–69, Davies 2000, pp. 346–7, Morris 2009, pp. 175, 178, Davies 2007, pp. 153–4, Prestwich 1997, pp. 185–88
  3. ^ Prestwich 1997, p. 188.
  4. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 346–7, Morris 2009, pp. 175, 178, Prestwich 1997, pp. 188–9
  5. ^ Prestwich 1997, pp. 218–220.
  6. ^ Prestwich 1997, pp. 221–225.
  7. ^ Hamilton 2010, p. 71.
  8. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 361
  9. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 362–3
  10. ^ Prestwich 1997, pp. 218–220.
  11. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 367, 382–3, Prestwich 1997, pp. 216–22, 232, Davies 2007, pp. 168–9 Morris 2009, p. 196
  12. ^ Prestwich 1997, pp. 221–225, Hamilton 2010, p. 71.
  13. ^ Prestwich 1997, p. 160; Brears 2010, p. 86.
  14. ^ Prestwich 1997, p. 160; Brears 2010, p. 86; Davies 2000, p. 360.
  15. ^ Davies 2000, p. 384
  16. ^ Davies 2000, p. 385, Davies 2007, pp. 173–5
  17. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 384, 382–3, Davies 2007, pp. 173–5
  18. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 346–7, 366, 383 Quotes at p. 347
  19. ^ Davies 2000, p. 384
  20. ^ Davies 2007, pp. 173–5, quote p. 174.
  21. ^ Davies 2000, p. 384-5, Davies 2007, pp. 173–5
  22. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 180–81, 193–4.
  23. ^ Lydon 2008a, p. 181.
  24. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 193–4.
  25. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 185–86.
  26. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 196–7, 202–3.
  27. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 202–3.
  28. ^ Lydon 2008a, p. 201.
  29. ^ Lydon 2008a, p. 203.
  30. ^ Lydon 2008b, pp. 271, 273.
  31. ^ Davies 1990, p. 115.
  32. ^ Lydon 2008b, pp. 272–3, Lydon 2008a, p. 203
  33. ^ Barrow 1965, p. 44.
  34. ^ Barrow 1965, p. 44.
  35. ^ Barrow 1983, p. 408.
  36. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 185–86, 203, Lydon 2008b, pp. 272–3
  37. ^ Schama 2000, pp. 168, 185, 203, Davies 1999, pp. 314, 325, Frame 1990, pp. 142–4 Barrow 1983, p. 306-9, 408-9, Davies 1990, pp. 22–30
  38. ^ Schama 2000, pp. 168, 185, 203, Davies 1999, pp. 314, 325, Frame 1990, pp. 142–4 Barrow 1983, p. 306-9, 408-9
  39. ^ Davies 1990, pp. 118–9, Frame 1998, p. 172
  40. ^ Frame 1990, p. 142-3, Schama 2000, pp. 185–6, Davies 1999, pp. 314–5
  41. ^ Davies 1990, pp. 62–3, Barrow 1983, p. 408, Frame 1998, p. 172
  42. ^ Frame 1990, p. 142-3
  43. ^ Davies 1990, p. 125-6
  44. ^ Barrow 1983, pp. 394–5, Davies 2000, pp. 346–7
  45. ^ Bachrach 2004, p. 396.
  46. ^ Stocker 1986, p. 115.


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Edward_I_of_England/archive1&oldid=1235671835"