Talk:Angevin Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France Portal
Angevin Empire is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Angevin Empire is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

  • Has sufficient information
  • Article too long
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Contents

[edit] Map Request

Anyone have a map highlighting the areas that correspond to Henry II's control? Hiberniantears 21:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Matthieu 18:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eventual additional references

If you have any question on a specific detail just ask. I have enough references around to answer every question I think. If there is a need for more references that is.

Matthieu 23:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling and correcting

Actualy, I'm soon done with it. But not yet done Matthieu 21:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems fairly done, now I'll make it more user friendly and correct the spelling and grammar Matthieu 18:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit on a halt until Monday. But I'll finish correcting it as soon as possible. Matthieu 20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The former history section

Since everything that was in that section is now into other subsection of the article, I remove it, but I copy/paste it here if people want to revert the changes. Matthieu 16:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

The lands of Normandy and England had been in personal union since the time of the Norman Conquest. The prospect of a union between the lands of Anjou and Normandy was first suggested during the time of Henry I, who intended his daughter, the dowager Empress Matilda (Maud) to succeed him as Queen. A dynastic alliance with the counts of Anjou made a lot of sense to Henry. The counts of Anjou had recently gained control of Maine though the marriage of Fulk V to Eremburge of La Flèche, and their increased power and influence in Northern France offered a potential threat to Henry's control over Normandy.

Unfortunately for Geoffrey and Matilda, this plan failed as the English Barons ignored the wishes of Henry, choosing Stephen of Blois as the next king. This led to a time of troubles known as The Anarchy in the Anglo-Norman nation as Matilda and Stephen fought for control, ending with the signing of the Treaty of Westminster which allowed Stephen to remain king, but ensuring Henry, the son of Geoffrey and Matilda, would succeed him.

The lands under direct control of the Empire were essentially complete with the marriage of Henry II to Eleanor of Aquitaine. Over the next two decades Henry consolidated his power, taking surrounding states, most notably the duchy of Brittany, into various forms of vassalage.

The height of the Angevin Empire came during the reign of Richard I of England, an avid imperialist and unquestionable patriot of Christendom. Richard wed Berengaria of Navarre, to provide a strong ally to the south of his realms, possibly with the hopes of inheriting the Kingdom of Navarre as part of her dowry. This was in like kind to his mother's Aquitaine being held by Henry and added to the English Crown. Richard's marital negotiations for his nephew Arthur of Brittany, were to add Sicily into the English Domain.

If the Third Crusade had met with success, Richard would have come back to regain the Kingdom of Cyprus and possibly even the Kingdom of Jerusalem (his great grandfather Fulk, was King of Jerusalem).

The fall of the Angevin empire can be traced to the capture and ransoming of Richard I by Leopold V of Austria and Henry VI of Germany. Philip Augustus took the opportunity of Richard's absence to pursue his claims to the lands, in part by encouraging rebellion amongst the vassals of the empire. His attempts were aided by the pressure put upon the economy of the region due to collection of the ransom. Upon his release Richard spent the remainder of his reign attempting to regain the territory he had lost to France.

The reign of John saw the end of the Angevin Empire. John can claim to be the first English king (as opposed to a king of England) as he was born in the lands, and spent much of his time within England. Contrary to received impressions of history, in the early part of his reign John was popular among his barons. However his political talents were no match for the successful expansionist strategies of Philip Augustus, and the French lands, with the exception of Gascony and the Channel Isles, were lost by 1202.

The true end of the Empire could be seen in 1216 when the Barons of England offered the crown to Prince Louis (future Louis VIII of France), thus confirming the supremacy of France. However ideas of reclaiming the Angevin lands in France remained a dream of English kings, and was a contributing factor to the Hundred Years' War.

[edit] He, his, whose?

In the section "Accession of Henry and nominal foundation of the Angevin Empire" we have the line

"To compel Henry to make an oath he ordered that his corpse should be left without a sepulture until Henry swore that he would renounce Anjou if he was to acquire England."

Who decreed. The grammar implies that Henry decreed. Logic says it was not Henry who decreed. Who's body. From the grammar, it's Henry's body. Logic says it was not Henry's body. The phrase is not clear on who is who. The "he" and "his" are ill deffined. They both need to be named.Rincewind42 10:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


  • Thank you very much, I'll look on it right now, I really appreciate that people come and give their opinion on how to improve the article. Matthieu 02:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention

I find then naming convention used in this article confusing. There are many people with the same or very similar names. For example Henry I of England, Henry II of England and Henry I of Champagne. All three of these people are refered to only as "Henry". For example on this line.

In July 1152, Capetian troops attacked Aquitaine while Louis himself, along with Eustace, Henry and Robert attacked Normandy.

It would be implied by the context that Henry was Henry II of England. But clicking the wikilink I find he's Henry I of Champagne. I shouldn't have to click every wikilink to check who is who. It should be obvious in the text.

Also, why is every single name wikilinked. The normal guidline is to link only the first occurance of a name in each article (Unless the links a physically distant on a long article). In this article, it's common for the same name to be linked several times in one paragraph. Also see: [of Style - Overlinking]. Rincewind42 10:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I did it because they had the obnoxious trend to give them the same names all the time. It is indeed one of the major problem I had writing this article between all these Henris, Roberts, Geoffroys and so on. It was a big headache, I'll try to find a way but putting the nickames ALL the time would make the article pretty heavy to read. I'll think about another way to put it but not now at 3am. Matthieu 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is currently very long. I note at this time it is 82 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. Maybe we should look at which sections could be split off into sub articles and adapt the main article, or part of the main article, to a summary Style. This might help tidy the names up a bit; since many short articles would deal with only a few people each, ergo less duplication.
What do you think of putting the old History section (backup up in this page) on that article and the putting:
  • Formation of the Angevin Empire (1135 - 1156)
  • The highest moments of power (1160 - 1199)
  • John's reign, the collapse (1199 - 1217).

in different article (expansions should remain here)? Matthieu 17:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't put the old history back up, since that would not match the structure or content of the new sub articles. The current page should have summaries of the contents of the sub pages. So the summery and sub page can be linked with the { {main|sub article here } } template. But the main section/header structure of the existing page should remain as is. I'd think about making at least 8 sub articles using the text of the exiting page. Though there is not need to split them all off in one go. Do the biggest and most important ones first then see where we are.
An example of the summery style can be seen in the page History of United States which is a series of summaries of other more in depth articles, which are themselves often summaries of even more in depth articles. An example of what to avoid is something like the History of Scotland which tries to do everything on one page despite there being a large number of potential sub articles like Prehistoric Scotland, Scotland in the High Middle Ages, Scottish Reformation and the Scottish Enlightenment. Instead of linking them all together and complimenting each other, the individual pages are competing, duplicating and often contradicting each other. Rincewind42 09:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'll consider about it later. How would you rate my English level (since you're an English teacher). I rated myself at 3 (advanced) is that correct? Matthieu 13:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 3 advanced is probably correct. Level 4 implies near perfection, and you do have the odd grammatical error. Though many native speakers would do not much better. I've had several arguments with people about grammar on wikipedia and even though they are native speakers (maybe because they are native speakers) they just can't grasp the concepts. Rincewind42 14:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Ok thanks, I don't have a single grade in English lol. So I would say I'm pleased (yet not satisfied) with 3. I'm less pleased by the B rating of the article considering all the damned time I spent on time, double checking (even triple checking) informations. I blame the lenght and the English. Matthieu 15:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length and language

Matthieu, I am very impressed by this article, it is extremely informative, there is obviously a vast amount of research contained here and I especially like the use of pictures to illustrate the text. However I do have a few concerns (I know most of these are mentioned above anyway, but I thought I'd add my 2 pence worth since you seem to welcome constructive criticism).

  • 1) Firstly it is 81 kilobytes, which is simply too long. Try to find sections which could be either edited down or preferably transferred to aricles of their own to shorten the page. If new sub-articles have already been created as they have for some sections (e.g. Norman Ireland), try to sqeeze information from this article into those leaving just a short explanatory paragraph here.
  • 2) Some comments above about use of unencyclopedic language and places where it is not clear who the text is referring to are correct, and the article needs a general copy edit to smooth out these problems. Without them it could be one of the best articles on Wikipedia.
  • 3) The list of relevant people at the end is not strictly necessary as the people there are all mentioned in the text anyway. It is however a useful glossary, and I'd suggest some form of infobox to condense the information contained in this section rather than simply removing it.
  • 4)Your references need work, firstly there are not really enough inline citations for an article of this size, more must be added to really explain where all your information comes from and these could also be better laid out, check featured articles for tips on the layout of references. Secondly, add all the sources you used with all relevant information (author, date, ISBN etc.) in their own section at the end entitled Further reading, and then just give the Page number, title and author in the inline citation.
  • 5) Add a longer opening section, explaining more out the Angevin Empire's place in history and possibly delete the title of the first section and move that into the introduction. Try to find either a photo or an infobox to offset the very long contents box at the top so it looks more even.

Thats all I can think of right now, but well done, its an impressive piece of work there and with a bit more work it could reach featured article status. If that is your aim then try to get a peer review and good article status after sorting out some of the problems above before submitting it to FA adjudication. I'm afraid I don't have much time right now to help with copy editing etc, but if I can do a bit I will.--Jackyd101 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I am actually busier that expected but I'll try to improve the article. Matthieu 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have reworked the last sections (Capetians in England and Cultural Influence) with less texts and more references. I think that's the idea for the rest isn't it? Matthieu 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former figures section

[edit] Important Figures of the time

[1]

[edit] House of Normandy

[edit] House of Blois
  • Stephen of Blois (Etienne de Blois): Count of Mortain, Count of Boulogne, King of England and Duke of Normandy
    • Eustace IV (Eustache de Blois): Count of Mortain and Count of Boulogne
  • Theobald the Great (Thibault le Grand): Count of Champagne and Count of Blois (please note he is both Theobald II of Blois and Theobald IV of Champagne)

[edit] House of Anjou
  • Fulk V (Foulque V): Count of Anjou and King of Jerusalem
    • Geoffrey V the Handsome (Geoffroy V le Bel): Count of Anjou, Count of Maine, Count of Mortain and Duke of Normandy. Married Matilda
      • Geoffrey (Geoffroy): Count of Nantes.
      • Henry II Plantegenet (Henri II Plantagenêt): Count of Anjou, Count of Maine, Duke of Normandy, Count of Mortain, Duke of Aquitaine, Duke of Gascony, Count of Poitiers, King of England and Count of Nantes. Married Eleanor.
        • Henry the Young King (Henri le Jeune Roi): Count of Anjou and King of England (never ruled).
        • Richard I the Lionheart (Richard Coeur de Lion): Duke of Aquitaine, Duke of Gascony, Count of Poitiers, Count of Anjou, Count of Maine, Duke of Normandy, and King of England.
        • Geoffrey (Geoffroy): Archbishop of York (illegitimate child).
        • Geoffrey II (Geoffroy II): Duke of Brittany.
          • Arthur I (Arthur): Duke of Brittany and Count of Anjou.
        • John Lackland (Jean Sans Terre): Lord of Ireland, King of England, Duke of Normandy, Count of Maine, Duke of Aquitaine and Duke of Gascony.
          • Henry III (Henri III): King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Aquitaine, Duke of Gascony.

[edit] House of Capet

[edit] House of Dunkeld

[edit] Assessment

It's a pretty decent B-Class article; to move to a higher level in the scale, it should be nominated to one of the formal review processes listed here. I would also suggest that a project peer review may be helpful. Kirill Lokshin 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Angevin Expansion

I removed that section someone added because this article isn't about the Angevin Dynasty but the Angevin Empire proper. Edward II and III or Fulk or Jerusalem are irrelevant to this era proper. Matthieu 11:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)