Talk:Louis VII of France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Louis VII of France as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

add mention to second crusade

Contents

[edit] WP:MILHIST Assessment

Nice length and detail. Needs references. Also needs expansion of the introduction - identifying him as King of France and giving the years of his reign are crucial, but that still leaves us with a very short sentence. What separates him from other kings of France? Why is he notable or significant? LordAmeth 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

What is the purpose of the infobox? I will enumerate my reasons for supporting its exclusion:

  1. Aesthetics. It's not very nice and the image it used was worthless. It is primarily a list of descendents, but why do we need that in a box at the top right of the article?
  2. Redundancy. The "Direct Capetians" template contains mostly the same information as regards descendants and the article contains all the information at some point.
  3. Content. It is primarily genealogical and this is hardly the most important thing about Louis VII: his place in the dynasty. Any infobox should contain more useful information about its subject.

All the above basically holds true for most monarch infoboxes and it's why I oppose their use in general. Srnec 01:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at it? A monarch box gives a useful summary of information - date and place of birth and death, dates of reign, coronation, spouses, children. It's more than a list of children, I can't say it's particularly aesthetically displeasing, and I'm not convinced you've actually taken a proper look at it if you seem to think it 'primarily genealogical'. Michael Sanders 02:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
If one know his birth and death dates, reign, coronation dates, spouses, and all his "issue", one still knows next to nothing about King Louis VII. "Issue" takes up far too much of the size of the infobox, that's what I meant. I think that image is absolutely worthless and I can't understand why you would put it back. I also cannot believe you took a proper look at my edits if you reverted again to a previous version. Srnec 02:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I originally reverted because you had removed the monarchbox, and added sectional divides which, quite frankly, were rather unnecessary, considering the size of the article (and a bit of opinion about the Capetians at the beginning). There's nothing wrong with the image, it is worth as much as the manuscript, with the added bonus that the King is a clear figure. He had issue, and it is shown, along with the other basic facts. Articles are meant to focus on the benefit and convenience of the reader, not the writer. And if you have a problem with monarch boxes, take it to wherever you'd complain about the general policy, instead of causing problems by excising it from a single article. Michael Sanders 03:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to start a revert war, so I am going to list my reasons for disagreeing with your reverts:
  1. The image is not of Louis VII. It is a later invention with no attempt to correspond to the real man and it does not display him doing anything he actually did, as the other image does. In fact, the series of images from which this one is taken includes an image of John I of France as an adult looking very similar to Louis VII! The image tells us nothing about Louis and is consequently worthless! (Why show the king as a clear figure, when the clear figure could be of anybody?)
  2. My section headings made sense. The current ones do not. "Early life" is so undescriptive, at least "Life as a younger son" implied that what made his early life notable was that he was not his father's heir. "King of France" as a section header? We know what he was! Besides, the other headers ("A shift in..." and "Diplomacy") all correspond to when he was King of France, so why the distinction? Why is "Status Quo" capitalised?
  3. The article could use expansion, and that should be taken into consideration when making headings.
  4. You removed the sources and the "unrefenced" notice. Were you not paying attention?
  5. I have no problem with gathering his children together, but not if you are going to insist on an infobox which already does that! The redundancy makes both editor and reader look stupid.
  6. I still oppose the infobox for reasons stated above and not adequately refuted by you. (You didn't address every point.)
  7. My lead was an improvement. I inserted no opinion, only fact. What was opinion? I would argue that the sentence "His reign was dominated by feudal struggles (in particular with the Angevin family), and saw the beginning of the long feud between France and England" is nonsensical. Were the conflicts feudal or national? Between the Capetians and Angevins or France and England? Now that's opinion...
  8. The linking in the current article is not the best: "archbishopric of Bourges" instead of "archbishopric of Bourges" for example. And links for things like "Easter"...
  9. Redundancy, redundancy, redundancy... Why does every person need his dates after his name? Just click on the link!
  10. Piousness? Isn't that piety?
  11. French where it ought to be English. eg, Adélaide --> Adelaide.
  12. Style. Why is the long quotation both italicised and in quotation marks? There are hyphens where there ought to be em dashes. There is duplicate linking. Inconsistent comma use.
I could probably go on, but I tried to fix all this in my edits. I don't see why you can't just make your improvements (I did notice some) within the improved framework of my compelte copyedit? I hope I don't have to bring other editors into this, because I really believe my version to be a large improvement and I don't want an edit war. Srnec 03:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


1)The image is of Louis VII. Yes, it is a later artist's rendition of him, but so is the manuscript - and at least he is shown clearly in the main picture (which is where the main value comes in, since neither can claim to have shown him from life, and he is pretty indistinct and crowded out in the manuscript picture). Try finding some other work - a contemporary statue, or something, which will work well as a main picture.
2&3)'Life as a younger son' contained information not relating to life as a younger son - e.g. his situation after the death of his brother - and is hardly an indepth view of his life as a younger son. 'Early life' is a common phrase in wikipedia to denote 'early life', suprisingly enough, because the reader knows exactly what s/he is getting. 'King of France will be corrected to 'early reign', if you disagree with it. Expansion can be made where necessary, but these headings recognise what is already there, and some of your sections were haphazard - why did Constance die under 'conflict with the Angevin Empire' (the whole point is that it didn't precipitate conflict)?
4) Which will be restored, though it would be more helpful to cite references than to stick in the unreferenced tag.
5)Stupid? Hardly. Children are now gathered under one heading, where they can easily be found by the reader. The infobox gives the basic names at the top; the sectional gives dates, marriages, etc. You'll notice it's the same in any other monarch box - Henry III of England, for example. What you object to is common practice, so a persecution of one article is profoundly unhelpful.
6) Take it elsewhere, please. There's no reason why Louis VII in particular should not have a monarchbox.
7)Your introduction was opinion. "His long reign, typical of the early Capetians, was occupied almost completely by efforts to strengthen the monarchy vis-à-vis the feudal class and to secure the heredity of the crown in the Capetian family." - really? I could say 'it was occupied almost completely by piety and devotion to religion, at the expense of French power, and by attempts to limit English power.' "By his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, he extended Capetian control further south than ever before. By early wars against the Duchy of Normandy and County of Champagne, he consolidated his power in the royal demesne in the Île-de-France. Through his piety — construction began on Notre-Dame de Paris during his reign — and his participation in the devastating Second Crusade, he nurtured an alliance with the church that counterbalanced the might of his neighbours, Henry II of England and Frederick Barbarossa." - demonstrably wrong - his wars with Champagne made him a laughing stock and were eventually a complete failure for him, as well as a violation of feudal law that resulted in his own vassals failing to give him feudal respect; the Crusade was a disaster, and devastating only to the crusaders (so wrong terminology there); moreover, the Crusade made him a laughing stock with the Church, and decreased his alliance with it (as did his divorce), and I'd dispute that any alliance with the church counterbalanced the power of Henry II and Frederick Barbarossa. By contrast, "Louis VII the Younger (French: Louis VII le Jeune) (1120 – September 18, 1180) was a member of the House of Capet, and King of France from 1137 to 1180. His reign was dominated by feudal struggles (in particular with the Angevin family), and saw the beginning of the long feud between France and England. It also saw the beginning of construction on Notre-Dame de Paris, and the disastrous Second Crusade." - nothing wrong there, so far as I can see - his reign was dominated by feudal struggles (especially the Angevins, with whom he was in conflict with even before their accession in England - with which he initially had good relations), and did see the beginning of the serious Anglo-French wars (after the Angevins acceeded there).
8)You are perfectly welcome to fix such sunspots, you know.
9) Reader-orientated? It is more convenient for a reader to see the date than to go to the article. And it is common to show dates for important figures when they are first introduced in an article.
10)Fix it?
11) There's no such language requirement within the body of the article.
12)If you want to fix those, you're welcome.
Anything else? Michael Sanders 16:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
For now, I will only point out that the things you charge me to fix, I had already tried to fix only to find my edits reverted. I cannot see why you had to revert instead of just editing. Srnec 02:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Text

I would like to respond now to some of your "opinion" on my opinion. I said:

His long reign, typical of the early Capetians, was occupied almost completely by efforts to strengthen the monarchy vis-à-vis the feudal class and to secure the heredity of the crown in the Capetian family.

Can you deny this? His reign was long by the standards of any age and such was typical of all the capetians before him save Hugh. All the early Capetians made efforts to strengthen the monarchy against the feudal class. Louis warred with Champagne for one. He tried to limit the power of his vassal, the English king, in Normandy, Anjou, and Aquitaine. He tried, at times, to take Toulouse or simply prevent it from going to his most powerful foe. He attempted to enlarge the royal demesne, like his predecessors, witness the Vexin. Asides from his Crusade, what else did he do? His wars with the Angevins had little to do with, as you say, "English power" and far more to do with the the "feudal class", as I said. By efforts to secure the heredity of the crown I meant his three marriages in search of an heir and his crowning of the Dieudonné before his own death.
You say:

it was occupied almost completely by piety and devotion to religion, at the expense of French power, and by attempts to limit English power.

But this does not contradict my statement. He could be pious and devout without it limiting his actions against his vassals and in securing his dynasty. I never said his efforst to strengthen the demesne and the dynasty were successful or beneficial for "French power", so, again, no contradiction. I already showed that your final statement is incorrect. Louis did very little warring with the English. The Angevins were his vassals, ie members of the feudal class. I believe my "opinion" is just the facts and that you do not contradict me at any point.
I said, and you objected to:

By his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, he extended Capetian control further south than ever before. By early wars against the Duchy of Normandy and County of Champagne, he consolidated his power in the royal demesne in the Île-de-France. Through his piety — construction began on Notre-Dame de Paris during his reign — and his participation in the devastating Second Crusade, he nurtured an alliance with the church that counterbalanced the might of his neighbours, Henry II of England and Frederick Barbarossa.

Certainly the part about his marriage to Eleanor is not wrong.

Further, what does the fact that he was a laughing stock (not at first, mind you) after his Norman-Champagnois wars have to do with his power in the demesne?

Also, your bit about "feudal respect" is just opinion.

The royal demesne at the end of Louis VII's reign was safe and secure, not as it was at the start of his father's reign and improved from its state at the beginning of his own. Do you deny this?

I will admit that my use of the word "devastating" was incorrect, "disastrous" was what was meant. Chock it up to a misreading of my own writing. The article itself makes the point that he was a devoted son of the Church. He had some problems at the beginning of his reign, but he was more a monk than a king and this bore itself out over time, especially by Henry and Barbarossa's time. His Crusade nurtured his relationship, even if it did little to help him in the long run.

Also, is it not true that Henry and Frederick were in conflict with the Church around the time of Louis's death, more or less? (Henry perhaps not so much, but his relationship was rocky.) Louis, however, was close to it and had its support. The "counterbalance" statement is more controversial, but it could be reworded.

My one problem with your current opener is the statement about Anglo-French wars. It seems to early to call them Anglo-French and you admit as much when you call his struggles with the Angevins "feudal".

Finally, why object to the more nearly contemporary image that at least shows Louis doing something he did over the current image? Because the current fake representation is a head on image? So what?! It's innaccurate. The other one is an improvement, though not perfect. Srnec 03:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

His reign was long, yes. So what? You're not making any relevant point by saying it; any relevant and sourced assertions that the length of his reign had any particular effect other than that it a long period under one monarch should be in the summing-up. In any case, his reign was only that particular length because he was only 16/17 when his father died. The only other Capetian who ruled 40 years was Philip I (a minor on accession). The others ruled, on average 30 years - some less (e.g. Hugh Capet, Louis VIII, Philip III, not to mention the last of the Direct Capetians).
It's debateable that 'he tried to strengthen the monarchy vis a vis the feudal class'. He showed, as in many things, a distinctly uncertain attitude to the feudal classes. His war with Champagne was founded more on his dispute with the church over Pierre de la Chatre, and tangentially upon the Count of Champagne's outrage at Louis' trying to overrule church law by having Ralph of Vermandois' marriage annulled - and it was a conflict which Louis lost. Thereafter, he showed a large amount of dependence on feudal vassals in order to rule, particularly when challenging the Angevins - note his significant marriage to Adele of Champagne. His policy towards Toulouse was profoundly self-contradictory - after he was defeated in his attempt to conquer it, he supported it - even marrying his sister to the Count. The Vexin is a good example of his lack of distinct policy regarding enlargement of the demesne, or securing of the monarchy against the feudal class/England, since he agreed to give up that very valuable land to Anjou as part of the marriage between Marguerite and Young Henry. He regarded Aquitaine as the rightful inheritance of his daughters, and the marriage between Henry of Anjou and Eleanor as illegal, yet he failed to adequately pursue that cause, to his own detriment. He increased the power of Geoffrey Plantagenet by confirming him as Duke of Normandy, instead of supporting his own allies the English.
His conflicts with Angevin England were very much to do with England. Prior to the accession of Henry II, there were no significant conflicts between France and either England or Anjou. I.e. the fact that he had to deal with a major neighbour also owning major territory in his own realm. As for "efforts to secure the heredity of the crown I meant his three marriages in search of an heir and his crowning of the Dieudonné before his own death." - it was far more 'efforts to secure the crown in his own line of descent'. It was already largely accepted that the crown belonged to the Capetians - the major question was whether, should Louis die without issue, it would pass to his daughters and their line, or to other males in his family. Whereas a son would secure his own descent on the throne. And the custom of crowning heirs was already outdated - Philip Augustus was the last to be so crowned.
Well, it did. His reign was dominated by religion and piety, to the detriment of everything else - he failed to produce an heir for so long because he spent more time in prayer than in the bed of his wives (Eleanor reportedly claiming that she had married a monk, and that the King had thought her body horrific and devilish); the Crusade collapsed because strategy was placed second to piety (thus they went to Jerusalem instead of fighting for Antioch, attacking the friendly city of Damascus because they were Muslims); and he spent more time in his religious devotions than pursuing any sort of policy a lot of the time. And his reign was marked by a great deal of struggling with England, because England was so powerful thanks to the Angevin and Aquitainian inheritance. In which he tried to limit English power in general, by dividing, or attempting to divide, its resources, and by trying to embarrass it in various issues (e.g. Thomas a Becket).
Well, there were Capetians in Portugal. The Hugh Capet and his father had attempted to take control of Aquitaine. There was not effective control in Aquitaine by the French monarchy. More to the point, I fail to see the point of saying "By his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, he extended Capetian control further south than ever before" in his introduction - he failed to establish any real control in his wife's domains, he was pushed out again by 1152, and that particular extension of control per se had little influence on future events - it was the marriage, divorce and remarriages of both parties that exerted the major influence on history, rather than an extension of power on the feudal level arranged by Louis VI which dismally failed.
You're going to have to point that out to me.
At the end of Louis' reign, the Capetians no longer faced widespread low-level disorder; instead, they faced an extremely powerful and controlled enemy in the Espace Angevin. The royal demesne was not safe and secure when Louis VII died; it required the politicking of Louis and Philip II to keep the Anjou sons disunited, and even then it required the death of Richard and the accession of the incompetent John - and John's struggles with Arthur - as opposed to the very able Philip to safeguard the Capetians: note the squabbles between Richard and Philip over Chateau Gaillard.
Because he didn't consolidate his power in the royal demesne by his wars. On the contrary he weakened it - he demonstrated that the King of France could not defy the Pope and St Bernard of Clairvaux, that he could not keep hold of feudal lands, that he had no control over either his church or his lords.
His piety was a dominant feature, I agree, and could (and will) be mentioned in the lead. But this relationship was nurtured less by the Crusade and his early behaviour, more by his later behaviour (where he protected the rights of the church and did as little as possible to tread on anyone's toes, except for Henry).
Henry never had any major problems with the church, so much as with his own priests (especially Becket). And the approval (hardly support) of the church wasn't a major factor in Louis' foreign policy.
His struggles with the Angevins throughout his reign were in part feudal; but after Henry Plantagenet became King of England, it went from "the troublesome vassal" to "the King of England who rules part of his enemy's kingdom". And it is, I think, generally accepted that the marriage between Eleanor and Henry, which upset the balance of power between England and France and which severely altered English policy in all areas (because the Kings of England now had to protect and expand their formidable interests in France), and which took until the end of the 100 years war to rectify, was the beginning of the Anglo-English feud - there had never been the major wars between England and France that there were after the accession of Henry II.
I would ask you why you think a picture from a "late medieval manuscript" is superior. What reason do you have to think that it is "more nearly contemporary"? Why is a picture of "Louis doing something" preferable to a good picture of him? "Something he did" - what clergymen is he receiving? Is it meant to be showing any event in particular? I fail to see how the manuscript picture is an improvement - neither can claim any benefit of contemporary making, neither has a greater claim than the other at showing a better image of him, so we are better off showing an image - of dubious accuracy - which at least shows clearly how he was thought to look at the earliest point we have a picture from, than showing an image - of dubious accuracy - which doesn't even show that. Michael Sanders 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young or Younger?

The opening text says Louis the Younger, the box says Louis the Young. My source (Alistair Horne, La Belle France: A Short History, Vintage Books, 2006) says he was called Louis the Young because he was only 11 when crowned - which, incidentally, would mean he became co-King in 1131, not 1137. A few other Internet sources agree with the Young, but the Britannica calls him the Younger. Any thoughts on resolving the inconsistency?Aldrichio 05:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never before heard him called "the Young," but if there are sources for this, then both epithets ought to be included. (The French definitely translates "the Young," however.) Srnec 05:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)