Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military history of France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Military history of France

Self-Nomination This article was checked by the Military History Peer Review and the regular peer review, although it has received no replies at all on the latter (but many on the military history one), so I decided to place it here on FAC.

I decided to expand and improve this article because I’m interested in the subject and I felt it was very under-covered in its initial version. Pictures were added, information referenced, sources increased, categorization improved, grammatical and spelling errors fixed, the number of battles and wars greatly expanded, visual quality got better, and descriptions also became more detailed. I greatly appreciate any and all input. I also just want to clarify a few things (these will become clearer after you’ve read/reviewed the article, so please do that first):

1. The article is somewhat long, but this is out of necessity, not oversight. I can’t change the fact that French military history was long, but I did try to be as economical as I could.

2. On the other hand, someone could claim that the article is short. For example, one could object to the fact that some wars (Revolutionary and Napoleonic) are covered as separate categories while whole periods of centuries received a category. This is because some periods, like the ones mentioned, witnessed profound change in warfare, and the literature also reflects this division. One of the books I used (it was on general world military history), for example, devotes one chapter of about 20 pages on 1,000 years of Medieval warfare while giving one chapter of the same length to 23 years of Revolutionary and Napoleonic warfare.

3. Because the article may be judged as (probably) long, I have included many pictures for variety and “visual entertainment,” but I would more than concur should anyone suggest some need to be taken away. However, the very reason why I put so many up was to provide some balance.

4. Below the descriptions for each era of warfare are the major conflicts (organized into wars and battles) that occurred in that era. But you’ll notice that for most categories, not every war or battle featured in the tables at the end is included in the descriptions; this is because those descriptions are meant to give a feel for what happened and why it happened. They are not meant to regurgitate every war or battle that French military history covers (that in itself is impossible, anyway). In the military history peer review, there was an objection that the tables at the end of the descriptions should perhaps be removed. This is very sensible indeed, as it would save a lot of space, but on the other hand, it would take away a unique experience for those readers who want to delve further into the topic and check out a battle in 1799, let’s say, that wasn’t covered in the description. The battle and war selection is also arbitrary and selective, but this is mostly due to the fact that wikipedia has limited resources on the respective topics, not because I forgot a certain important war or decided not to include this or that battle because I didn’t feel like it. Furthermore, there is much analysis of society and politics and how they shaped particular eras. This just follows from modern military theory that war has many different aspects besides what happens on the battlefield.

5. There are some online footnotes (six), which I more than realize is a weakness. However, they do not in themselves represent important claims, and because of that I thought it would be more convenient if I used online sources. One was a copy of part of the Versailles Treaty (primary source). One is a Britannica article on the “Grand Empire,” which does little more than give a casual description of that term (and I wanted nothing but that, so I thought it would suffice). One is a link to another wiki page on the Demographics of France, and if I must find another source for that then I will. One is a site on French colonization that I used for the size of the French colonial empire; a book might have been more reliable here, but I went back myself and added the number of squared miles of France at the time in question and found the number to be correct. The last is a site that talks about the controversy regarding the date of a battle, and the issue at stake is between several different historical authorities claiming different things (you’ll see in the site).

6. Articles in wikipedia look different depending on the text size or screen size in which you are viewing them. The way in which I expanded this article means that for optimal visual quality you should use the “Larger” text size. To do this (in Internet Explorer), go to “View,” then “Text Size,” and select “Larger.” If you don’t do this, the spatial relation between the words and the pictures will look disjointed. This can sometimes be a big problem in wikipedia, and someone needs to find a way to fix it. Also, a desktop would be ideal because of the large screen size.

7. An earlier judge objected to pictures being right underneath headers. Fortunately, the article’s creator pointed out that several other articles have this. In fact, many others do (including some very recent ones), and this article is definitely among them. It makes stylistic sense to do that; putting pictures at the top, right besides the text, is a way to lure in readers and keep them interested.

8. Almost at the very end of the article, there are three lists of military institutions, alliances, and leaders. Some of these have been mentioned during the regular parts of the article, and others haven’t. Still, they are there to provide outlets for others wishing to learn more about different aspects of French military history.

That’s it. Thank you in advance for all comments and suggestions.UberCryxic 03:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. I think that the "French Colonial Empire" section should be immediately before "Modern Period" and not after. My understanding of French military history is far from thorough, but what I saw here I liked. Andrew Levine 03:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a good article, and I think it does a satisfactory job of meeting the required standards. It is well-written and looks superb. On the other hand, even though I support, I think a few things could be revamped. For example, the lists at the end of the article are complete unnecessary and should be taken off. There's no real sense that they "provide outlets." It's just basically lists, without explanations of the alliances or leaders, that take up space. The "French Expeditionary Corps" redlink should probably be removed, leaving just the "Russian Civil War" (this was done with other wars where no battles were listed). The intro could also use a bit more work (in being shorter). But overall, I think the standards have been met, and we have an article worthy of fa here.Prometheus123 03:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great, relevant images and prose that is very easy to read. Does a great job in avoiding bias, and even treats all periods of French history equally instead of favoring the more recent like some editors (i.e. me) would've done. Definite FA material. Juppiter 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help guys. Ok, the French Colonial Empire has been placed before the Modern Period and I've removed the redlink to the Expeditonary Corps. But Prometheus, I'd like to see what the opinions of others on the lists are. I think some people may support them.UberCryxic 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think those lists are very helpful. If they were removed from the article I'd put them back in. Andrew Levine 04:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- 1) The article is long, but you can definately author it in summary style. Move unnecessary detail to daughter articles, and summarise the same here. 2) Those bulleted text at the end of each section look downright ugly. 3. There are issues with all browsers and resolutions but 800x600, the standard web resolution is regarded as the default. 4. A copyedit is needed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm still not happy with a lot of the issues.
  1. =Themes in French military history= reads like an overview (which is the function of the lead). Military history of Canada for example is chronological and starts off immediately with "European colonization".
  2. Important milestones in Caesar's conquest: is a list and be prosified.
  3. Immediately prior to Charlemagne, the Franks were preoccupied with.. why is the article not written chronologically? Why not merge the two sections?
  4. Lots of essay type phrases: It could be said that French military history; the zenith of their power; afford a better understanding; By the time of the Crusades; Indeed, given the successes of Henry V,; It could be claimed
  5. France had a particularly favorable climate ... sophisticated and increasingly more expensive and more impenetrable armor. How does one the link climate with armor? Why is France singled out?
  6. more impenetrable???

I'd have to stop here. There's also simply too much detail (specific instances, figures etc.) in the article. A summary is definately needed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok Nichalp, I've made the following changes: the Gauls section is now completely in prose, the Franks and Carolingian sections have been merged (so have the wars and battles in the list at the French wars and battles category), and I cleared out many of those annoying phrases (also, Wayward already performed a wonderful copyedit). I deleted the parts about the armor. A note on the themes section: it is not like the lead because it is not chronological. It merely informs people of important characteristics of the topic without many references to events (a fundamental difference with the lead). I believe it is a very important and crucial section in the article since it gives beginners a good starting point; something to keep in the back of their mind as they actually are reading the chronological accounts. Let me know if you have any more requests. Thanks very much.UberCryxic 17:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

1. It still needs a copyedit. I've still found two "Indeed"s and wesel terms such as "Some have aruged"; "Perhaps some of the most celebrated military rivalries". 2. I'm not convinced with the argument that the themes need to exist. Such a section conflicts with the goal of having a smooth and logical flow of the matter at hand. See Wikipedia:Lead section. The lead section needs to be trimmed down by omitting names of people, specific wars and dates. The =themes= section can be heavily condensed into three sentences and included right in the beginning of the lead section. 3. =Napoleonic France= needs to be cut down. The section is too long. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The indeeds have been removed and the "Some have argued" now reads "Some historians have argued" (I have to phrase it like this because it's not an undisputed fact). The Napoleonic section has been considerable shortened and looks visually better; I think it's now in line with the others. I based much of this article on the Military history of Canada, and the lead there mentions both specific years and wars. Also, for a 53 kb article, a 3-paragraph lead with that size seems appropriate. The themes section does many good things that just simply aren't covered in other areas (and that would be better if they were covered in a section like this). If you would like to give people a stronger sense of chronology, then what do you think about moving it all the way to the end, so the article starts with "Gauls" right away? I'm just hesitating to remove it because I think it serves some very useful functions; things that the lead can't do (the lead is expected to give the chronological account of French military history, and it does that, but it is not expected to provide information on motifs or themes; neither the lead in the Military history of Canada or the Military history of the Soviet Union does that). Thanks again!UberCryxic 17:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think some historians have argued is any better or needed. What historians argue that? It's partially covered in that the refutation of the theory at least tangentially covers the existance of the argument, but that's not ideal. It's a pretty good article, but I'd like to see that last few short paragraphs expanded or merged to eliminate choppy prose. - Taxman Talk 18:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
=Themes in French military history= Is it original research? these rivalries and objectives give a better understanding of French military history than a mere chronological listing. ..for whom? I'm still not convinced why we can't use a summary the themes section in the lead. I usually never copyedit, but I can summarise over the weekend if needed. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nichalp, it is my opinion that readers unaccustomed to the topic will benefit from that section by learning why some of these wars occurred rather than "here are the wars; have fun." For that reason, I am strongly disinclined to remove this category. Including the themes in the introduction would make it embarrasingly long as the lead is unequivocally the place for the chronological account of French military history. But, if you do want it removed, then I guess I'll have no choice but to comply. Before I do that, however, I want you to tell me whether you have any other requests so I can take care of those first. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to excide the =themes=, but weave it within the lead section instead. I'll support the article once this is done. (I have a small minor request. That roundel image can be converted into an .svg image. Not essential though.). Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)r

Done and done Nichalp. After careful consideration though, I decided to just delete the themes section and not include any of its information in the lead as I didn't think it was essential enough to merit being placed there. I know it's not exactly what you wanted, but now the lead remains of appropriate length and the structure of the article follows that of its Canadian counterpart more closely. Tell me what you think; thanks!UberCryxic 14:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep I agree with you. I've removed the "Some have argued part" and it now just says "One of the driving.." and so on. French air force, navy, and linguistic influence have all been merged under the section "Topical subjects" (someone welcome to suggest a better name for it).UberCryxic 19:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

About the copyedit, would you mind if you did it? My worry is that because I wrote most of this article, I'll be hesitating about taking things away. I've already done several copyedits and we've still been having problems. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

All-right, I did another copyedit.UberCryxic 15:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed some .gif images in the article. They need to be converted to png. GIFs are only meant for animated images. Secondly, please try and fix a standard width to the images (this applies to images where width>height). I've done the svg roundel image for you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made the png versions. Support' now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Nichalp on the copyediting, but the article is very well written, so in no way would I use that to oppose. Also, the bulleted texts aren't ugly at all. They're very well-placed and fit in well with the rest of the text. I agree with Andrew on the lists at the end; keep them. Only thing I would suggest is to make the Franks category larger; as it is, a bit too small. In the end, great article and deserves FA.ThePro2 05:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support An interesting subject complex due to the length of time the article covers. I particularly like the list battles at the end of each section, very useful further reading. The only minor issue i have is in formatting around those list. Suggest a repositioning of Images to fill the large white areas as has occured in French Colonial Empire, this being a minor issue that its not sufficient to object. Suggest you consider an image of the periods major weapon(s) to fill the space as opposed to reformatting the current document. Gnangarra 10:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
comment continued support even with the loss of the list. Gnangarra 04:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Article very reader-friendly for the layperson. -- Sinatra 12:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nichalp. Those lists are really unsightly, and 60+ KB is too much for one article. — BrianSmithson 13:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Further comment: In addition to my aversion to the aesthetics of the lists, they also bother me the same way all "See also" sections bother me. If something is a pertinent associated article, it should be linked in the main text of the article. Can you imagine if every article followed this one's example by appending lengthy "see also" lists at the end of each section? It's not a style I'd like to see mimicked by other pieces. If the lists are kept, they should be broken out into secondary articles, such as List of French wars and battles of the Middle Ages or some better name. The same goes for the long lists at the end of the article ("List of famous French military leaders" etc.) These lists are a large part of the reason this article is so large (66 KB!), and this is precisely because this is the type of stuff that should be broken out per summary style guideliness. Make these sepearate list articles, provide your links, and the main article will look and read better. The people who have supported the lists above will still have the information available, and I can forgive any excess of length at that point. — BrianSmithson 13:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Changing to Support. Bon travail! — BrianSmithson 12:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

All-right, I've made the following changes and the article has now shrunk to 57kb: I deleted the Medieval, Ancien Regime, French Revolutionary Wars, Napoleonic Wars, and Modern Period war and battle lists. I also deleted French military alliances. A lot more material has been taken to the "See also" around the bottom of the article. As of yet, those lists have not been made into their own articles to link off from "See Also," (so far I've only done this for the famous French military leaders and the naval battles at the end of the navy cateogry) but if there's support for this, then I'll go ahead and create those. However, I left out the lists in the first few categories and the lists in the French Colonial Empire, Air Force, and Navy since there's not much white space in those categories. But if you want them taken away Brian, I'll do it. Just tell me how you think it looks now. Thanks for your comments.UberCryxic 15:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks better. One thing you might consider (in order to get rid of all the lists but not lose any content) is to start List of French battles or List of battles in France (or some better title) where you could list as many battles as will fit (including all of those you have listed now, as well as red-linked ones that will hopefully spur further efforts from other editors). Best of all, you could add a piped link to this article after each section, thus clearing away all the boxes. For example, [[List of French battles#Frankish_period|List of Frankish battles]] would bring the reader to a list virtually identical to the one under "The Franks" now while keeping the article sleek-looking and smaller KB-wise. — BrianSmithson 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: I noticed somebody changed a particularly important part in the very first paragraph. What used to read as "peoples of France" now reads "the French." This makes it easier to read, but I'm afraid it's somewhat historically incorrect (which is why I used the phrase I did). The Franks, which made many of those important military developments, were Germanic and inter-mixed with the indigineous Gallo-Roman population, so Germany and France have just as much a right to claim them as "theirs." The reason why I wrote "peoples of France" is to avoid conflict like this. I don't think most laypeople would care, but a military "hardass" like myself would be skeptical about that comment. But I won't press it anymore. Overall, I liked the copyediting very much (thanks Wayward). UberCryxic 15:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say change it back. You researched this topic, so you know what you're talking about and what the best wording should be. — BrianSmithson 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I did change it back, and I'm in the process of implementing your suggestions. When I'm done, there should be no more boxes (*tears*).UberCryxic 16:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok I created a List of French wars and battles article, so the remaining Gallic, Frankish, Carolingian, and French Colonial Empire battles/wars have been moved there. I deleted the five articles on the French Navy since they describe the current navy. But there is a link to the French Navy in the summary, and those five articles are linked in that article for anyone who wants to check them out. Also, the Zouaves picture had to go since when I took out the lists it was intruding on the space of the Modern Period. However, there is still one more box left, and that's under the Air Force. This last remaining box holds the three historical articles on the French Air Force, and because it doesn't hurt visual quality and doesn't repeat anything mentioned in the summary, I'd like to keep it there. But once again, check it out and let me know how you think it looks.UberCryxic 17:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget my suggestion to pipe a link to the appropriate section of List of French wars and battles at the end of each section. I prefer it the way it is now, but I'm anticipating that some who liked the boxes above may object to their removal. Linking as I described would be a good compromise, in my opinion. But back to the article: Bravo! It looks much cleaner. I still n'aime pas the long list of see alsos, but I won't object based on that alone. However, regarding the French air force box: Have you tried to move that information up to the top of the section with the {{main|Armée de l'Air (Part I: From birth to "Torch", 1909-1942)}} then the other and the other? That's the standard way to do this kind of thing. Finally, I'm fairly certain that there shouldn't be any wikilinks in the title of the ariticle. Unfortunately, I can't find the relevant policy page at the moment! — BrianSmithson 21:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooops forgot about the pipelinks, but they're in there now. I also put the main articles at the top for the air force. On the wikilinks, I got that idea from the Military history of Canada, which is a featured article, so I think I'm with "legal" bounds for that one lol.UberCryxic 22:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Got rid of the many see alsos at the end too; the list looks more palatable now.UberCryxic 23:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Support. Needs a copyedit, I'm sure, but all long articles could benefit from some good proofreading. I don't believe in length as an actionable FA requirement, so I'm going to go ahaead and say that the length is appropriate. I personally don't like the lists that aren't converted into prose, but if that's just me, I suppose I can let it go. RyanGerbil10 04:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotr, I share and sympathize with your concerns. However, due to space restrictions and the gargantuan, event-filled military history of France, it would be difficult for me to focus on almost every single alliance or minor engagement. Your opposition is sensible, of course, but carried to its logical conclusion, you must also object to the fact that I didn't include French military missions to Japan in the 19th century, or French military missions to the Ottoman Empire in the 1730s, or the dozens of other French military missions with advisory roles to various areas and nation-states throughout history that have been just as significant, no? Furthermore, the mission to Poland is listed in the List of French wars and battles (so is the French Expeditionary Corps to Russia, thought it's currently redlinked); that category is incomplete, but you'll find wars and battles aplenty there nonetheless. I sincerely hope you will reconsider your opposition. I tried to be as thorough as I could with the length I am reasonably allowed to have. If you would like, maybe I could search for some online sources dealing with the topics you've raised. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help. Thank you.UberCryxic 06:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment : If the lenght requirement becomes a restriction to how complete an article can be,than IMO the requirement is the thing that fails.--Technosphere83 11:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I definetly agree with Technosphere83. The article should be comprehensive first, summary-style second. Of course we should not aim for gargantuan 1mb articles - this is what subarticles are for. Nonetheless I think that few mor kb could be spared to include more info, and that you can reduce some sections from several paragraps by one paragraph to include info on other events. One can make a good case that Napoleonic times deserve more coverage than Franco-Polish alliance, but not that Napoleonic ones deserve 5 paragraphs and FPa (or FJapanese or FOttoman relations) does not need to be mentioned at all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I should emphasize that it's not the only problem preventing me from significantly expanding this article. I could go on with this in summary style for such a long time that 100 kb would seem short. It's just in the nature of the topic. Because it's so vared and complex, there are bound to be things left out. My objective is to cover the main periods, and the main struggles that covered those periods. The pictures also provide good, additional information and links where users can explore the subject further. Moreover, French alliances with other superpowers or alliances that produced decisive results on the battlefield are included; Franco-Ottoman partnership in the 16th century, Franco-Swedish cooperation in the 17th century, and the Entente Cordiale (mentioned in the article as something like "France, with British aid..."). But the Franco-Polish alliance didn't produce any decisive military result; in the Polish-Soviet War, the Poles were actually lucky to ignore the advice given by the French mission, or there would've gone one of the greatest victories of the 20th century, the Battle of Warsaw. In World War II, the French pulled off a measly Saar offensive to distract Germany from Poland, but it did nothing. In a strictly militaristic realm, this alliance was not as great as some other ones that France has had (which, again, have been mentioned). Thank you.UberCryxic 15:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comments (haven't read through the entire thing yet)
    • Squeezing text between pics is poor layout. Either remove or redistribute them. Readers should never have to change their settings for an article to look right. Basic principle of webdesign.
    • It'd be nice to see a conversion to the Cite.php (i.e. the <ref> format). I can do it myself if you don't have objections.
    • I think Piotr does make a valid point, although I won't be objecting over it, lacking the knowledge to do so, but a shorter section covering this period could be reasonably made. After all, if it is suposed to cover the entire Military history of France, then shouldn't it cover the Interwar period just as well?
  • Circeus 15:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Circeus. I wholeheartedly agree that it is a good principle of design; however, it looks weird through no fault of mine. For example, I am now watching the Palazzo Pitti (current FAC) on the "Larger" text. Looks fine. Then I switch to "Medium," and an ugly gap emerges between the "Palatine Gallery" and the paragraph beneath it. This gap did not exist in the "Larger" style. This is the stuff I'm talking about. It's not just this article; every wikipedia article seems to look better on the larger setting. Yes, go ahead and make the conversion (thank you so much for that btw). Piotr does make a good point; let there be no mistake about that. However, the amount of detail and analysis that would need to be added if I were to keep this article fair (presumably I shouldn't just add a section or paragraph on the inter-war period, but also on obscure subjects like the Saintonge War, which in its time used to be important) would positively drive every single wikipedia reader crazy (including me, having to bear such a promethean task), even the fans of military history. I also just want to mention that it does talk about France in the inter-war period; there's a paragraph that mentions Charles de Gaulle's ideas on armored warfare and France's population problems leading to longer conscription terms, making military life increasingly unpopular. On top of that, I want people to read Military history of Canada and compare it with this. You should be noting major differences; notice how wars set the tempo and categorization in that article. Well, that's because whoever wrote it could afford to do that with Canadian military history, which is immensely shorter (in terms of events) than what we have here. I can't do that with French military history because the article would never end. That's why this article is organized into important military "themes" in French history; so it says "Modern Period" instead of "World War I" or "Inter-war period." For those who want to find out more, there are the lists at the end of each category. Finally, it is my opinion that whoever reads this will come away with a very good understanding of the developments, as seen in wars and battles, and the general themes in French military history.UberCryxic 19:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the gap you describe, but then, that is probably because I use Firefox, not Internet Explorer (Firefox has Wiki-related issues of his note, though). Also, I'm afraid this article cannot have Cite.php refs until the bug that prevents them being used in Picture captions is solved. Circeus 20:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotr, I am pleading with you to revoke your wish, not because it’s not a good one, but because if I were to comply, this article would turn into a fortress of useless information and unnecessary details that would completely turn off laypeople. If that were to happen, I would also be greatly disappointed. It’s not just about Franco-Polish, Ottoman, or Japanese relations; there are many other things that you did not mention. I would have to include those too. I am not opposing you because I don’t want more work for myself; I love this topic. I’ve studied French military history (and particularly Napoleonic warfare) for years, which is why I sincerely hope people listen to my warnings. If I do this, I want to add my own big, bold-face “OPPOSE” to this article for FA. It would ruin it; it would be flooding with redlinks. This article is based on the premise that French military history should be covered in themes, not wars, battles, or alliances. To that end, I’ve included what I thought was the best information that would allow people to understand the general nature of French warfare in a particular theme or era. If, however, you want an exclusive and explicit mention of Franco-Polish cooperation during the inter-war period, then I’d be more than happy to do it. However, that would make it very arbitrary, so also keep that in mind. But if you want it done, I'll do it.UberCryxic 19:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just thought of this: I could take the Louis Fary picture from the French military mission to Poland and use it on my article, then explain some basic things about the Franco-Polish alliance in the caption. Tell me what you think.UberCryxic 20:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do agree it is a relatively minor issue (for the same reason I don't think that Polish Legions in Italy need to be linked. Nonetheless I think that eventually all those things should be included in the subarticle, and I'd gladly see such subarticles created now - even if filled mostly with copied content from the main sections - so I (and you, and others) can then start adding such links (red or not) and related info to them, without overbloating the current article. When I see those subarticles, I'll support this one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotr, I'm trying to better understand what you want me to put in these subarticles. Do you want me to include summary content in the sections about what we've been discussing? So, for example, in the Modern Period, do you want me to include something like the "Inter-war period" and then there mention the Franco-Polish alliance and other relevant matter? If so, how many subarticles do you want for each main article (or do you just want this subarticle on the Modern Period)? One, two, as necessity dictates?UberCryxic 04:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you - do what you think is best. Eventually I'd expect to see a subarticle for every section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank God those horrible lists have been removed! Look, I don't know much about French military history (at least I didn't before I read this article), but I completely agree with Uber. This article is very comprehensive. Like Juppiter said up top, it covers all the major time periods, and does so in an effective fashion. I wouldn't change the summary content. If people have questions or desires about other material, just see the lists. And if your particular concern isn't there, then be proactive and put it in those lists. But the main article shouldn't be covered with litter because this or that was left out.Prometheus123 22:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Circeus, another problem for me could be that I'm using a laptop with a much-smaller screen than my normal home desktop (I'm in college now). And yeah, I've got IE.UberCryxic 23:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, very good article; provides a comprehensive overview of the material without getting bogged down in endless trivia. I might add that the alliance with Poland, while undobtedly significant in regard to the start of World War II, is a miniscule part of France's military history overall; if we are to significantly expand the article (which I don't really recommend), we should concentrate on things like the Italian Wars and the French Wars of Religion, which involve decades of bitter warfare, rather than on advisory missions to other countries. —Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well done for the effort put in to write this article. --Terence Ong 05:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article, great lack of bias, despite obvious pride. Very, very good indeed. --PopUpPirate 00:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Support. You've won me over. An article of this scope presents a great challenge. The piece is well organized and generally encyclopedic in tone. When editors take on this type of subject there's always a risk that someone who knows one part of the material well will come along and pick things apart. For this nomination, I'm that person. I'm very uncomfortable with the amount of unsourced POV on the topics I understand best. Details follow. Durova 21:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "In approximately the 10th century, iron armor started to replace the use of other materials like leather or bronze." unsourced France remained in the bronze age until the tenth century? This would place the country well behind its neighbors in Europe where iron helmets and weapons predate that by centuries.
  • In reference to the fifteenth century: "France could easily field over 10,000 knights in full plate mail, with a large number of those on heavy warhorses with their own armor. A knight on horseback would most likely have felt invincible except to another knight on horseback." unsourced Even before Agincourt, the English longbow had proven itself at the Battle of Crécy and the Battle of Poitiers and Swiss pikemen had earned their reputation in other engagements. Pope Innocent II had tried to ban the use of arbalests and bows because of their effectiveness in killing cavalry. Moreover, where does that enormous number come from? The most generous estimates of the 1429 campaign place the entire French army at 10,000, a figure which is probably exaggerated and certainly includes a preponderance of infantry, artillery, and noncombatants.
  • "However, by the late 14th century and the early 15th, French military power declined because of the sudden obsolescence of men in armor." unsourced English technology and tactics barely changed between Poitiers and Agincourt. Armor didn't become obsolete until the seventeenth century. What did happen during the reign of Charles VI was a king who suffered from psychotic fits and a cousin of his who started a civil war. Before the middle of the century French men in armor humiliated the English at the very important Battle of Patay.
  • "Given the successes of Henry V, the French could consider themselves fortunate that they recovered virtually all their territory by the end of the Hundred Years War." unsourced That makes adaptive tactics seem like luck. The French learned to ambush the English in open fields rather than charge against fully prepared longbowmen, and they learned to make greater use of bombardments and frontal assaults in siege operations.
  • "Popular conceptions of the victory in the final stages of the Hundred Years War are often dominated by Joan of Arc, but there were far deeper reasons for the French triumph. The main step was taken by King Charles VII, who, with the Compagnies d'Ordonnance, 20 companies of 600 men each, created the first standing army in the Western world since Roman times, giving the French a considerable edge in professionalism and discipline. Additionally, developments in artillery made it the finest arm of the French army..." unsourced Arguably the English longbow corps was the first standing army since Roman times and the French reacted rather belatedly. The historians I've read give primary credit to diplomatic realignment at the Treaty of Arras and the weak leadership of Henry VI for the outcome of the war. This also implies that Joan of Arc was wholly uninvolved in artillery. Actually the men who fought alongside her considered her a tactical genius with artillery placement as her particular strength.
  • Jumping ahead in time, but back to the article's introduction, we also find this: "In the 18th century, global competition with Britain led to defeat in the French and Indian War, where France lost its North American holdings..." unsourced Nothing in the body of the article clarifies or corrects this. In fact France retained large claims in North America which Napoleon sold in the Louisiana purchase. The transaction roughly doubled the land area of the United States.

Ok let me just chop off one thing first and then later on I'll address other more substantial claims. First of all, France did lose nearly all of its North American possessions following the Seven Years War. You forgot the Treaty of San Ildefonso in 1800, when Spain ceded Louisiana to France and Napoleon sold it three years later to America. The statement in the introduction is therefore correct (and it doesn't need to be sourced; it's a general historical fact). Also, I am 1000% sure that the Compagnies were the first standing army since Roman times (will be sourced). What I'm going to do about the Medieval category is use a site which up until now was listed as an "External Link." That site has terrific information on French medieval warfare and it's written by military historians. I'll notify you when I'm done with the changes (because essentially I agree with you; there's some things there that need to be referenced).UberCryxic 22:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, New Orleans was nominally Spanish - their lasting influence is demonstrated by the famous Spanish Quarter. ;) Durova 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

K the information about the Compagnies d'Ordonnance has now been fully referenced from credible sources. In the process of addressing other concerns....(will keep you updated moment by moment)...UberCryxic 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

From the Atlas of World Military History (editor Richard Brooks): "Much has been made of the success of the English longbow. However, it was not a war-winning weapon. Reliance on this defensive weapon on the battlefield gave the initiative to the French; its victories also depended on the French bungling their attack. The English were fortunate that their opponent failed to get it right three times in a 70-year period." My own research confirms the essence of this statement; the French would've crushed (excuse the wording but it's true) the English even with their longbows; they failed because terrain prevented the full maturation of an attack (Agincourt) or whatever attacks they did launch were poorly coordinated. The French tactical plan for Agincourt was superb, but the terrain prevented its implementation. The Henry comment is now cited, though quite unnecessarily. Every other book ....nvm, EVERY book on the Hundred Years War has the comment: "French got lucky when Henry died." Pejorative? You bet. But it seems to be a standard thing, and this is an encyclopedia, so standardization counts. Also, the article's comments don't in anyway belittle Joan of Arc's achievements; all the article says is that other, more substantial reasons than Joan of Arc can explain why the French won (which is true). Keep in mind that in this particular part I have to explain why the French won with little recourse to specifics (otherwise I'd break the structure of the article, which is not to get heavily involved in anyone part unless it's necessary....saying Joan of Arc spotted the artillery correctly at this or that battle is a bit irrelevant when I can talk about general trends).UberCryxic 23:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the French got lucky when Henry V died. No quarrel there. The war continued more than 30 years after his death, though. Joan of Arc didn't end it either. However, DeVries (Joan of Arc: A Military Leader ISBN 0750918055) and Richey (Joan of Arc: The Warrior Saint ISBN 0275981037) cite the testimony of the French commanders who fought alongside her. They consistently single out her artillery tactics for special praise. Obviously you can only give this a cursory mention in such a general article. My point is that it misleads the reader to juxtapose artillery and Joan of Arc. I'd still like to know your source for the "10,000 knights in full plate mail." Durova 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh on the possibility that the English 'longbow corps' was the first-standing since Roman times, Andrew Ayton and J.L. Price in the Military Revolution from a Medieval Perspective (1998): "How far should the development of standing armies be regarded as a distinctive characteristic of the last century of the Middle Ages? Some states, like England, resisted the transition from contract armies to a standing army..."UberCryxic 23:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't dispute a citation. My point is that, during an era when armies disbanded in the autumn and peasant soldiers brought in the harvest, the English maintained a corps of longbowmen who practiced their weapon throughout the year. Obviously that wasn't organized in the comprehensive capacity that Charles VII established. Durova 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The comments about the artillery and their significance have been cited.UberCryxic 23:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The comments in the first paragraph about the 10th century have been reorganized and extensively cited; review them now and tell me what you think.UberCryxic 23:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the changes. I've been expanding Category:Medieval armor. You might want to Wikilink to a couple of items. Overall, thanks for responding quickly both here and at the article. Your subject deserves to be featured. You're very close to converting my vote into a support. Cheers, Durova 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I strongly disagree with your comments about 10,000 being the number of French troops at Agincourt. The truth is that there is much controversy surrounding those figures. For example (I'm getting this off the wikipedia article on Agincourt), Juliet Barker's Agincourt: The King, the Campaign, the Battle says 6,000 English and Welsh fought against 36,000 French troops. I'll get rid of that number though.UberCryxic 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read my comment again. I referred the drive to Rheims in 1429. BTW regarding your Agincourt numbers, each knight needed at least one squire in order to dress for battle. So if the French fielded 10,000 knights in full armor at Agincourt out of a force of 36,000, more than half their army is already accounted for. Durova 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok Durova, I believe I've addressed all of your concerns, both through writings here and the changes I've made on the main page. I'd like you to have a second look and tell me what you think. Thank you very much!UberCryxic 01:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support This is a terrific article. Good information, well-researched, and very well-written.MichaelBr 03:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong support - very well written, though I have two items I have added to the talk page that need to be addressed. They are relatively minor, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)