Talk:Hundred Years' War

Total death toll

Is there no estimate of how many lives were lost, civilians and soldiers? --Marvel Avenger (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

13000000 64.188.179.191 (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Or 13.000.000 64.188.179.191 (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There estimates out there. I think what makes it hard to know how many died was due to the black death which caused a massive dip into the population census. I've seen estimates out there that suggest the lowest death toll could be as low as 2,300,000 while it could of claimed as many as 3,500,000 lives. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

First of all, the Emblems are missing. Second of all, the countries below England and France, did nót “support” them, they directly fought along side them. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Emblems are better unused than misused. Also, while I think "supported by" is unnecessary in any infobox, it's not really correct at all to say allies usually "directly fought alongside" the Plantagenets or Valois here. When? There was very little coordination like that, and less so at pivotal moments. Remsense诉 00:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I would recommend you focus less on infoboxes for the moment and gain more experience writing within the article bodies themselves—as I've said before, what an infobox should contain is much more clear when you're already written the article. Same for broad representations like flags and coats of arms, and other notions of "official status" regarding historical polities that we tend to impose backwards. Remsense诉 00:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah… í just like editing the first thing í see.. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The "First" Hundred Years' War

Hello everyone.

I wanted to gather thoughts on potentially renaming the article currently titled "Capet-Plantagenet Feud" to "First Hundred Years' War" which is an article I have been working to fix for a while now after finding it in a state of disrepair and am continuing to work on.

Some French historians lump this period together and refer it to the "First Hundred Years' War," (a reference to this is on the page within the first paragraph) which is why I believe any other sort of title, including what it is currently called, is sort of disingenuous. In fact, it was originally named the "Capetian-Plantagenet Rivalry" until I changed it in order to better reflect the violence in the conflict between the two rather than it just being a mere "rivalry" which implied little to no actual violence. However, I also understand that it may cause confusion to Wikipedia readers. But I am also having trouble finding any English-speaking historians refer to this period of time by any name as it seems to be a purely a French term which is why I am a bit hesitant to name it that on English Wikipedia.

What do you all think? AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

We use the WP:COMMONNAMES in English for article titles, see that page for our article titling policy in full. Remsense ‥ 论 23:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I get that, but one of the points described there is that it is best to discuss any name changes, and since my article is not nearly as full of activity as this one is, and because this article is relevant to the discussion, I am asking here. I want to hear actual pertinent opinions, not lazy redirects that just state the obvious. AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not a lazy redirect, it's supplying the basic policy whereby an answer to your question would be premised on. Remsense ‥ 论 23:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that it does not really provide a clear answer all that much. On one hand you could argue that the new title passes the characteristic of recognizability, even if that level of recognizability is relatively small, but still more so than the current name which is more of a general description of the conflict rather than the "real" name. Also, although it may seem to fail the characteristic of "precision" due to the title's similarity to this article, so does the "Second Hundred Years' War" and yet it is considered acceptable. However on the other hand, it also fails the characteristic of "naturalness" as Wikipedia describes it as being a title that the topic is referred to in English. And as I have already said, there is no known name in English as far as I can tell.

I am leaning to the former argument of course, especially now since I suppose the new name still fulfills the majority of the characteristics in the article you provided. I also believe the name existing in French speaking circles as well as the need for its own categorization in general outweighs its lack of a clear name in English. I will still leave this discussion open for a while though, so unless I hear some major backlash within a week or so, I will probably just go ahead with the name change. AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

the name existing in French speaking circles as well as the need for its own categorization in general outweighs its lack of a clear name in English

I would say this is rarely the case: we shouldn't really lean on our own translations over what terms may be used on English—taking a name that appears in English sources even if it's not predominant is preferable to a translation that never appears in English. Remsense ‥ 论 00:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand what you are trying to say, this isn't my own translation or interpretation, its a translation of what French historians refer to the conflict French: Première Guerre de Cent Ans, and there's no ambiguity in the translation since they call the Hundred Years War French: Guerre de Cent Ans the same thing, just without the "first" or French: Première. I don't think its fair for a very clear distinction to be neglected just because of a language barrier and because English historians seem to neglect it while the literal entire other side of the war does have a clear distinction for it. That's like saying French historians are not equally as qualified as historians as English ones are. In fact, since the "First" Hundred Years' War was more a French v. French conflict anyway due to both dynasties being French, rather than the English v. French conflict that the Hundred Years' War was, so that makes them even more important in determining what to name the conflict. But again I am perfectly willing to accept any name by English historians if it can be found. AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Right, it's still a translation from the French, and not a term that appears itself in English. Thus, it's not recognizable to an English readership in and of itself. Remsense ‥ 论 00:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Well for what it's worth, Britannica in English calls it the "First Hundred Years' War" on their Hundred Years War article. https://www.britannica.com/event/Hundred-Years-War as well. Also, when you search for the "First Hundred Years' War" and ignore the articles on the 1337-1453 conflict due to the search engine being confused, or better yet search "First Hundred Years' War 1159-1259" or " 'First' Hundred Years' War 1159-1259" there obviously seems to exist some familiarity with the 1159-1259 conflict as the "First Hundred Years' War" in English. Its not that it doesn't exist at all, but it is just relatively unknown in the public English speaking consciousness and isn't really discussed much by qualified English speaking historians. AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, what would we do with the Second Hundred Years' War? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Its still commonly referred to as the Second Hundred Years' War, at least in English, so it should stay that way unless historians rename it. It can just be explained away as a quirk in the method of how the conflicts are named, especially between cultures, and how the "first" Hundred Years' War is relatively unknown by English speaking people. Its sort of like how some people refer to various wars like the Seven Years War as "World War 0" retroactively when that would technically make it the first world war, and even how World War 1 itself was called simply as The Great War until World War 2. Also, even French historians from what I can see still refer to the 1337-1453 Hundred Years' War as THE Hundred Years' War, although I think I actually have seen a few refer to it as the "Second Hundred Years' War" French: Seconde Guerre de Cent Ans if I recall correctly. But point is, either way they seem to recognize the existence of the First Hundred Years' War. AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Victory Result

This article has stated "French Victory" for over a decade but on 27 July 2024, unregistered user 92.34.189.59 changed it to say "House of Valois Victory". Virtually all major sources state the war was primarily a war between England and France. For example a quote from Encyclopedia Britannica: "Hundred Years’ War, intermittent struggle between England and France in the 14th–15th century". But regardless an edit that significant should be suggested on the talk page first and consensus found before being edited into the article. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I changed it back. It's pretty inane to articulate things as if the Plantagenets held sway as French in France by the end. — Remsense ‥ 论 01:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)