Talk:First Barons' War

more detail

Having appropriated the rebels cause, the military defeat of Louis came soon after and ended with the signing of the Treaty of Lambeth in 1217

This part needs more detail that I do not know. How did the rebel barons respond to the royalists crowning of Henry and how did this affect the military defeat of Louis? Stbalbach 09:59, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have added two references in the end of the article to replace the citation need, but they don't appear to show on the page. The code and the citations are there though. Peharps a more experienced wikipedian could correct this Matthieu 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. You put this in at the bottom of the page (without the 'nowiki'), for future reference: Neddyseagoon - talk 17:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

==Notes== <references/>

thanks Matthieu 14:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Waverley ironic quote

The Norman invasion had been 150 years prior, and the relationship between England and France is revealed by the annals of Waverley, in a passage that would seem bizarre today, that the French Prince was asked to invade England in order to "prevent the realm being pillaged by aliens".

I dont understand what this quote means, the relationship is not revealed by the quote (for me anyway). Can we expand further, or is it a trivia asside that takes away from the narrative? Stbalbach 18:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

yes it's strange, as it would imply that the Angevin were stranger to England (which was true, just as the Norman were too) but not the king of France... it does not make much sense to me really

Matthieu 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Combattants

I changed

Pro-monarchy forces and Anti-monarchy forces, and
Kingdom of France

for

Pro-Angevin forces and Pro-Capetian forces, and
Kingdom of France

As the Capetian side wasn't anti-monarchic in the sense "against the concept of a monarchy."

Matthieu 13:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Alexander II's invasion

It seems rather odd that there is no mention of Alexander of Scotland's invasion of England, in suppoert of the Barons and Louis. Bringing the army of Scotland further south than any other in the history of the two Kingdoms, , will do some editing here I think.

Furthermore have clarified the fact that Alexander, as with other Scottish Kings, (with the exception of his father, coerced by the Treaty of Falaise) only paid homage for his English possessions, much in the same way that Edward I did homage to Philip le Bel, for Gascony. Brendandh (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Reigate and Chichester Castles

No mention of Reigate or Chichester Castles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.5.47 (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sealed

From Article:The war resulted from the king's refusal to accept and abide by the Magna Carta he had sealed (not signed) on 15 June 1215, and from the ambitions of the French prince, who dragged the war on after many of the rebel barons had made peace with John.

In the Middle Ages, a seal served the same purpose as signing a document does today. Can someone give me a reason as to why the article was written like this? I am changing it, if someone can present a suitable reason as to why the article should remain as it is above, then it will be changed back. Thank you,Hawkrawkr (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sealed

From Article:The war resulted from the king's refusal to acept and abide by the Magna Carta he had sealed (not signed) on 15 June 1215, and from the ambitions of the French prince, who dragged the war on after many of the rebel barons had made peace with John.

In the Middle Ages, a seal served the same purpose as signing a document does today. Can someone give me a reason as to why the article was written like this? I am changing it, if someone can present a suitable reason as to why the article should remain as it is above, then it will be changed back. Thank you,Hawkrawkr (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Outcome

While French and barons forces managed to have some successes in the early stages of the war, this conflict ended up with the decsive English victory at Lincoln, repelling the invasion forces. Thus, the outcome of the war was an English victory. @Snowded:, @Eastfarthingan: your thoughts ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep the final outcome matters not what happened during; it should state 'Pro Angevin or English Royalist victory'. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

My concern is that putting 'English victory' in the infobox could be confusing as it was a civil war so both sides were English, albeit one with a French leader. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: This is why Eastfarthingan's proposal was "Pro Angevin victory" or, even better, "English Royalist victory" and i fully agree with him. Would you agree too ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think 'English royalist victory' would be preferable, but I'm not sure the result of the conflict fits comfortably into the formula 'x victory over y'. Henry III was crowned and his authority as king recognised, but it sounds a bit strong considering John was dead and Magna Carta was reissued by the new king to mollify the rebels. I've just dipped into the ODNB and David Carpenter's The Minority of Henry III but haven't spotted terminology which would help settle the infobox issue. Granted I might be overthinking it! Richard Nevell (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I get your point, but it seems quite clear that Henry won the war against the barons and the French forces. Indeed, John died and Henry took some measures to molify the barons, however, when some of them left Louis, French troops were crushed at the battle of Lincoln and at the battle of Sandwich. The result was French withdrawal and Louis promising to desist from any support of future uprisings in England. Sounds like a clear cut victory to me. The current outcome of the infobox is all but accurate and misleads our readers. Thank you very much for your thoughts.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I changed the outcome to "English Royalist victory" since we all agree with it. Maybe someone could improve it later, but this is better than a dodgy "Baronial victory".---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You are all arguing opinions no sources. The Barons forced concessions and while the crown took some back it was never the same again - I've removed it for the moment, If someone can show a source then we can look at it again -----Snowded ^TALK 18:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think seeing how sources on the subject describe the outcome would be sensible! Does anyone have access to The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages? That's the kind of source which is likely to cut to the chase and succinctly describe the outcome. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Snowded: I pinged you above to have your thoughts, in my humble opinion you should have discussed here before removing the outcome. Anyways, here are some sources :

• [1] : "The royalist naval victory of 1217 meant that the war was finally over. A month later, the Treaty of Lambeth ensured that Prince Louis and his men left England, never to return."
• [2] : "Louis’ defeat. With half his army gone and Dover still resisting, Louis’ position became untenable. After two more reinforcement fleets were sunk at the sea battles of Dover and Sandwich, he was forced to leave London and give up his claim to the throne at the Treaty of Lambeth."
• [3] "Initially the French force was very successful, but when John suddenly died in October 1216 and his nine-year-old son was hastily crowned Henry III, the barons reconsidered. The French withdrew in 1217." and "With John dead, the rebellious barons who had encouraged French aid, saw the young king as the safer option. Many rejoined the royal cause and eventually the French were defeated at Lincoln in 1217. They withdrew with a large financial payment."
• [4] "1217 : The French lose the battles of Lincoln and Dover and are driven back to France"

If you're able to read and comprehend french properly i can also provide some sources in french. Here is an exemple :

• [5] "La conséquence ne se fait pas attendre : en mai 1216, les Français débarquent. En juin, ils sont accueillis en libérateurs à Londres. A la mort de Jean en octobre, son fils Henri III devient roi à 9 ans. Les barons se rallient peu à peu à lui, et les Français finissent par être chassés, en septembre 1217."

Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem for me is that those sources talk about the French defeat. While that was an aspect of the conflict, it was a civil war between the King's supporters and the rebelling barons and the segments above don't really address that part. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, the war began as a civil war, but after John's death, Henry became king at 9 years old, the vast majority of the barons then dropped the stick and joined Henry, the rest of them were decisively defeated at Lincoln and Sandwich with their French allies. Btw, the above quote in French and that quote : "With John dead, the rebellious barons who had encouraged French aid, saw the young king as the safer option. Many rejoined the royal cause and eventually the French were defeated at Lincoln in 1217. They withdrew with a large financial payment." actually address your concerns.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

In The Minority of Henry III David Carpenter describes tje conflict as a civil war, even with Louis' involvement. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

(i) I removed any reference to victor pending agreement which seems sensible (ii) I see no reference above to a third party source which says "X won it" (iii) I see a lot of speculation and argument with ambiguous sources. Personally I think the Barons won as they forced concessions and then with the death of John went back to supporting a child King and without all of this we would now have had De Monfort and all that came after. But that is an opinion. Needs sourcing -----Snowded ^TALK 12:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this sounds like a misconception of the war. You are right when you say the Barons joined Henry after the death of John and probably succeeded in making him accept some of their demands, however, this is not the end of the story. This war was a turning point in the history of British nationalism, and winning on the battlefield against arch rivals French forces is not to be ignored. Also you say that there is no source saying "x won over y" while all the above sources support a defeat of the French side, including the French language source which is well known and serious in France (Courrier international). Also, i would suggest everyone to desist from editing the article until a consensus is found here. Here is another source from James Lancaster, a military historian, supporting an English royalist victory : [6] "John died in October 1216 at Newark Castle eliminating the main cause of the war. William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke had been appointed Regent and under his guidance Magna Carta was re-issued minus the 'security clause'. There was now little reason to continue fighting with many of the Barons reluctant to deny the nine-year old King Henry III his rightful inheritance. Dwindling support coupled with defeats for Louis at the battles of Lincoln and Sandwich saw Louis give up his claim at the Treaty of Lambeth sealed on 11 September 1217."

so if the fighting between the Barons and loyalists ended, it was because of John's death and the barons recognizing Henry as being a legit king. Also the decisive defeats at Lincoln and Sandwich brought an effective end of the war. If the French had won this war, england would have been a French province.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with wikaviani, also it might better to put the Barons underneath the Pro Angevin combatants after John's death in 1516 since vast majority switched sides after Marshall's plea? Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The infobox could for example be changed with the Barons fighting against the royalist forces between 1215 and 1216 and then against the French forces between 1216 and 1217. Also, the outcome could be "Barons abandon the fight after John's death, English royalist military victory and French invasion of England repelled" Just an example. This outcome is supported by all the above source and sounds quite well balanced. thoughts ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)]]

As I said everyone has an opinion. Until someone comes up with a reliable third party source which is explicit as to who won then it needs to stay black - most of the comments above are original research or synthesis -----Snowded ^TALK 18:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Snowded: Please explicit how my above proposal of new content in the infobox is original research ? I posted numerous sources supporting the alliance switching of the barons between Louis and Henry and the French defeat. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The French withdrew after the Barons sided with the young Henry. The Barons forced John into the Magna Carta which Joun then reneged on but it was reinstated in modified form (the deMontfort period) and so on. When this thing ends, what is the result, is something that needs a definitive reference or we should leave it blank. References can support a series of statements (like the French were defeated, the Barons won, etc etc. It's a very messy set of events and the outcome is far from clear. -----Snowded ^TALK 23:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This is why i made the below proposal, no mention of "English victory" since all this mess began as a civil war and there were English fighters on both sides, but the Barons rejoining Henry after Marshal's plea and a new Magna Carta (modified form of the previous one) with the French defeat and returning home are quite well sourced in my opinion. We cannot just leave it blank, this is not helpful for the readers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Identity

Creating a new heading as a point was made above about the influence of the war on national identity. It was phrased as 'British nationalism' but that would be a distinctly post-medieval reception issue. These are interesting points which could be included in the article. What source material do we have that tackles this subject? Richard Nevell (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this section. here is a source :

this one, mainly based on David Carpenter "Henry III (1207-1272) was king of England from 1216 to 1272. His reign saw the rise of English nationalism and the development of a strong baronial claim to participate in government."

With more time i could bring more sources. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

A proposal

This is a proposal for the infobox. I'll write the sentences i suggest to add to the infobox and for each of them, some sources.

• Barons joined Henry III after John's death in 1216

Sources :

[7] "With John dead, the rebellious barons who had encouraged French aid, saw the young king as the safer option. Many rejoined the royal cause "

[8] "A la mort de Jean en octobre, son fils Henri III devient roi à 9 ans. Les barons se rallient peu à peu à lui"

• French defeat

Sources :

[9] "The royalist naval victory of 1217 meant that the war was finally over. A month later, the Treaty of Lambeth ensured that Prince Louis and his men left England, never to return."

[10] "1217 : The French lose the battles of Lincoln and Dover and are driven back to France"

[11] "A la mort de Jean en octobre, son fils Henri III devient roi à 9 ans. Les barons se rallient peu à peu à lui, et les Français finissent par être chassés, en septembre 1217".

@Snowded, Eastfarthingan, and Richard Nevell: Gentlemen, your comments are welcome.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a good call. I think it should say 'French defeat' since that was final outcome as this what most sources say. I was going to look for sources but now I won't bother. Like I said the final outcome matters which was after John's death - not before and not during. I also think the Baronial forces should be mentioned as changing sides from 1216. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I changed the above sentences. Thanks for the feedback.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

If I remember aright (without access to any books from an airport lounge) - those defeats resulted in the French King negotiating and he took money to renounce his claim to the throne and his supporters got an amnesty. All very very messy and we are still in the period where the idea of England as distinct from England and lots of bits of France was still forming - multiple wars between cousins. -----Snowded ^TALK 23:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You remember well, but the main goal of Louis was the crown of England not the money and amnesty for his supporters, this is why almost all the sources i've read on the subject underline the French withdrawal and Louis' renunciation to the English crown. The above sources also support the fact that Louis' position was untenable, he had no other choice but to try to negociate the best treaty he could and quit England with his forces. Given the sources, Would you agree with my above proposal ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Well they really rejoined William the Marshall not Henry III and he was one of them! Its not clear they abandoned the fight either - in some ways they thought they had won it and no longer needed Louis. I just think its all too messy to talk about anyone winning or loosing and the implications were many and varied and best handled in the main text.-----Snowded ^TALK 12:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Snowded: Hmmm, i think we should go by what the sources say. The above sources say that the Barons joined Henry after John's death not Marshall. The sources also support the French defeat (including the French source ...). However, you have a point when you say that we're not sure if they abandoned the fight, this is why i changed the above sentence accordingly. I think it's fair enough now, but i would welcome your opinion. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Well he was regent so its not unsupported by the sources. My point stands - outcome is all too confusing here for an information box entry. We are better leaving it blank and allowing the main body to explain things. Also the sources support the statement that the Barons joined with the King after the death of John, but that is not the same as the sources saying that was the outcome of the War. I've seen the Provisions of Oxford traced to the War but that doesn't make them the Outcome per se. Withdrawal of Louis and reuniting of the various forced previously at war is closer to it - but again I don't see the need -----Snowded ^TALK 15:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the need is that almost all of our military conflicts contain an information about the outcome in the box. Also readers often don't read/have time to read the whole article, it's better to provide them a summary in the infobox. When we have such informations that are supported by reliable sources, i don't see why we should keep them unpublished. You seem to have concerns primarily about the barons and what they did, then we could just leave this part out and include the French defeat that is well sourced and more consensual.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I've just changed the lede and placed an aftermath section so that the article has been given more scope on the outcome. Hope this helps? Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, just checked your edits, you did a great job according to me. I'm still waiting for Snowded's input in order to include the French defeat in the infobox, this part is quite clear, well sourced and in accordance with your recent edits. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd be OK with "French withdrawal" but happier still with nothing -----Snowded ^TALK 14:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but then i think it's better to say "French defeat and withdrawal" since they withdrawn because of their defeats at Lincoln, Dover and Sandwich. This is well-sourced and should be included. Maybe we could ask for other users' input with a RfC.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I would still stick to 'French defeat'. William Marshall used the death of John as a way to unite the Barons and repel the French. There is no doubt that Louis' whole campaign was a failure - the sources all point to this. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but i'm trying to find out the most consensual outcome, as the current blank one is absolutely not helpful according to me. However, i would say that the majority of the involved editors agree with "French defeat" and the sources too, so i would go with that. If reverted, then a RfC should be opened.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Added the outcome, sources and treaty of Lambeth since the majority of the involved editors would go for that ( Richard Nevell said above that the sources "talk about the French defeat" ). Hope this will help. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur with this. Best description for the outcome. Thanks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources talk about French withdrawal. Yes the defeats may have triggered it - no point in going on with William the Marshall there rather than John. But te actual outcome is a French Withdrawal, they could have chosen ti carry on - its a sensible conmpromise and we don't 'vote' but if you really want a RfC .....-----Snowded ^TALK 19:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources couldn't be more clear; I don't see what the problem is? Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

They are very clear - they say he gave up his claim after three defeats. All wars include defeats - the Treaty of Lambeth resulted in withdrawal. I'll revert but if you really don't like it then we go back to the older version and have an RFC-----Snowded ^TALK 20:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite ok with the current outcome, even if i find that the previous one was more accurate. If Eastfarthingan does not agree with it then i would go for a RfC.To be honest, Snowded, i find that you're quibbling, what's the difference between being defeated and a subsequent withdrawal and a simple defeat ? The French withdrawal was a consequence of losing the war, nothing less, nothing more. Also, i would like to point out that your above sentence "they could have chosen ti carry on" is wrong since it goes against what the sources state. At least one of the above source says that Louis's position was untenable, this is cristal clear right ? So the French could not carry on and were simply defeated. I would suggest to go with what the sources say and moving forward. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

One person's quibble is another person't historical accuracy. The sources say that WIlliam the Marshall took over, the Baron's alliance therefore shifted, the French were isolated and had to withdraw. It is as I have said very messy with mutiple shifting alliances so it is far from clear that anyone lost. The French were opoprtunistic but came in to support the Barons so did the Barons's loose? Did John loose then conveniently die? The simplist and best approach remains to leave it blank but we have some editors who can't cope with a war which doesn't have a winner - so I have tried to compromise -----Snowded ^TALK 21:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I get you, but it's a question of accuracy for me too. I did not say that the barons lost, i said the French lost the war, this is supported by the sources. No matter how the alliances shifted, when we talk about the outcome of a war, we need to represent the result in the best way. If you want my opinion, the barons did pretty well, they were freed from John's rule as soon as 1216 and got some significant conscessions from the (very) young Henry, but the French defeat is undeniable. Louis' forces were defeated on the battlefield and on sea, they had no choice but to retreat. In my humble opinion, there is nothing messy with the latter point (i.e. the French defeat) and this is why i insisted to include it in the infobox. Anyway, as i said i would go with the current outcome if Eastfarthingan agrees with it too. Thank you very much for your help and contribution. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Louis rejected English terms three months before he was defeated at Sandwich. The defeat there meant that Louis finally conceded to the English terms at Lambeth. What's more the infobox result can't be used as a whole sentence. I would be happy with - 'French defeat & withdrawal'. This is adequate enough for the article. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

"French defeat and withdrawal" sounds very good according to me, even better than just "French defeat". It makes the outcome more accurate.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The outcome is so much more than the loss of three battles and withdrawal and if we are going to have an outcome we need to reflect that. It was not a war between France and England but between different and shifting alliances over north-western Europe - one of the periods where England starts to emerge as something distinct. I've restored the older version pending agreement. The sources support the fact that the French retreated following some losses (the version I put in place more or less directly quoted the sources. If you want to have "French Defeat" then you have to have something about the radical changes in the balance of power between the King and the Barons. Remember after this we get the De Montfort rebellion. -----Snowded ^TALK 05:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

So we come to a compromise where we combine your views.. you go and backtrack and go back to square one?? Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually you didn't and as yet there is not a consensus so the article stays in the position it was in before this discussion started pending consensus. I've explained clearly why I think a simple 'French defeat' is not enough. The sources in the main say withdrawal after battle field defeats, they do not say that the outcome of the war was french defeat. Each source elaborates multiple consequences. It shouldn't be that difficult to agree something. I've restored the pre-dispute version and tagged it as dubious (which is what you should have done). I -----Snowded ^TALK 12:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Another proposal

It seems to me that the following from the prior text is correct:

French Invasion and occupation of England lasting 16 months Return to Status quo ante bellum

Consolidation of Magna Carta

We could add to the first phrase "French withdrawal following a series of defeats" How about that? -----Snowded ^TALK 12:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Snowded: You said previously (see above) "You are all arguing opinions no sources." when i exposed my opinion about the outcome. We have reliable sources supporting the French defeat and the treaty of Lambeth in the current, while you"re the one who gives his opinion now. Eastfarthingan's recent changes to the article are clear cut improvements and well sourced. You're a veteran editor, so please stop edit-warring and let's keep the current version since it's well sourced (the previous outcome you reinstated was not sourced at all). Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I am a veteran editor as you say and I know that in a dispute the version prior to the dispute stands, not the version of one side to said dispute. I tried leaving it blank while we sorted it out but that wasn't accepted so I've followed a strict interpretation of WP:BRD. I've said clearly above, having read the sources that they do not support a bald statement that the French lost, they show multiple outcomes. Adding The Treaty of Lambeth to the above proposal I would support. -----Snowded ^TALK 13:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

When the sources say things like "Louis' defeat" or "withdrawal of the defeated French forces", we can reasonably say that the French defeat is supported.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources reference a battlefield defeat following giving up a claim to the throne in a negotiated settlement (including payment). They also reference a return to the status quo, the consolidation of the Magna Carta and also longer term consequences. Portraying this as a battle between the English and the French is really bad history -----Snowded ^TALK 13:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It was not a war between France and England from the beginning but only after Marshall's plea and the death of John, when barons shifted side, however, the sources are obviously supporting a French defeat as part of the war and its consequences. Your above interpretation sounds like original research.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"Two civil wars fought in England between the King and the barons. The first began in June 1215 at Runnymede, King John, faced by the concerted opposition of the barons and Church, conceded Magna Carta. He failed to honour his promise and thereby provoked the barons to offer the crown to Louis, Dauphin of France, who landed in Kent in May 1216. John's death (October 1216) and the reissue of Magna Carta by the regent of his son Henry III prevented a major civil war. With his defeat at Lincoln and the capture of his supply ships off Sandwich, Louis accepted the Treaty of Kingston-upon-Thames in September 1217."

That is from the Oxford reference. It supports an outcome which compromises:

• Restoration of the Magna Carta
• Prevention of a major civil war
• Acceptance of a Treaty to withdraw by Louis following two defeats

To portray this in a single statment "French Defeat" does not reflect the sources, is a gross over simplification and a context free statement -----Snowded ^TALK 13:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This reference also supports the French defeat and withdrawal. The rest of the story is, ad you said yourself, very messy and better detailed in the body of the article.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It certainly supports withdrawal (defeat is more questionable). But you are not addressing the issue here - the references do not support a single statement of outcome -----Snowded ^TALK 13:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I added a source you seemed to have overlooked, "Magna Carta Uncovered" by Arlidge & Judge. It clearly states & I quote: The Treaty of Lambeth in September 1217 formalised the end of the civil war and the departure of the defeated French p. 19. I dont know what more proof we need. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There are two questions here (possible three) (i) were the french defeated or did they withdraw following defeats (ii) was that the only outcome of the war. Please address the second then we can talk about the first. The third is the pair of you thinking that two editors compromise consensus -----Snowded ^TALK 13:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

To answer to your first question, i would say that the French were defeated AND they did withdraw subsequently. Following their 3 defeats at Lincoln, Dover and Sandwich, their position was untenable, as sources say.

An answer to your second question is not easy to summarize in an infobox, as you said yourself above, it was very messy as the alliances shifted between the barons and the kings (John and Henry). Thus it's better to include the French defeat in the infobox, since, again, it's sourced, and leave the rest out, i.e. in the body of the article.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That misleads the reader - it was not the only outcome and other outcomes are clearly sourced. The original text had multiple outcomes so that isn't an issue. I have suggested two above and listed the source - what reason is there not to add them? -----Snowded ^TALK 15:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

As i said above, it's not easy to summarize the rest in the infobox, if you have a suggestion, then please make it here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll make changes tomorrow when I have checked some more sources to see if there is some succinct wording; that out of the way we can return to item (i) where we have various options provided in the sources. But one thing at a time -----Snowded ^TALK 15:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, but please make you proposals on the talk page first. Wish you a great rest of your day.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a practice you have ahered to so far -----Snowded ^TALK 16:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

If this is "not a practice i have adhered so far" then what was that ? Let's just wait tomorrow when everybody will be rested. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You have directly edited the article and removed tags without consensus -----Snowded ^TALK 17:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

While you haven't ?? As i said, let's wait everybody to be rested.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Just to make it clear - the insertion of "French defeat" by two editors is not accepted as a valid change from the previous version of the article. Return to Status quo antebellum is probably more accurate. Attempts to leave it blank or tag it as disputed while we resolve this have resulted in tag-teaming by said editors and I've got better things to do than engage in an edit war. My intention is to put together proposals for consequences and the headline which more accurately reflect what was a confusing period in history and, if we can't reach agreement use the RfC process or dispute resolution. But this is to make clear that the current wording is disputed on grounds of weight and misrepresentation of the sources -----Snowded ^TALK 08:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The valid sources we have used & even quoted now show what happened at the end of the war along with its consequences, I don't understand how you can change the perspective of what happened in this conflict despite what the sources clearly say. I also seem to be repeating this over and over again which makes it very frustrating. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Its equally frustrating to make the point time and time again that many sources use 'French withdrawal following battlefield defeats' and ALL sources provide multiple outcomes and none support the idea that French defeat was the principle outcome. The fact that the pair of you refuse to follow Wikipedia practice in respect of disputed material is equally frustrating. -----Snowded ^TALK 15:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

So what about "French defeat and withdrawal" ? I don't agree with your interpretation of the outcome. The French defeat is largely covered by the sources and was the main result of the war.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Snowded are serious?? 'French withdrawal following battlefield defeats' means a defeat altogether! Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Guys there is an equally valid view that the Barons won as they got Magna Carta back and John died - so they dumped Louis - hence the original text (which you have deleted without consensus). One of the sub-items in the previous text was 'Return to Status quo antebellum'. Promoting that as the main outcome with 'French defeat & withdrawal' as one of the sub-items along with reinstatement of Magna Carta and the treaty reference would make more sense and be more authentic to the sources as a whole. This is not about an aspect of the end of the war, but the outcome of the war as a whole. -----Snowded ^TALK 16:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The current result in the infobox reflects exactly what you have just said. The Treaty of Lambeth, the defeat of the French & the restoration/enforcement of Magna Carta, so what's the problem? Also there is no source pointing to say that the Barons won - the vast majority actually defected to Marshall. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it has the main outcome as 'French Victorydefeat' which is no more accurate than 'Barons Victory'. The sources say that the french withdrew and/or that the french lost but they also list multiple other outcomes. It is your particular interpretation to say that is the main outcome. The Barons got what they wanted so they answered the Marshall's call to support the young Henry III and dumped Louis (and payed him off) - hence my suggestion to have 'Return to Status quo antebellum' as the main outcome with 'French withdrawal following defeat as a sub point.-----Snowded ^TALK 16:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The outcome was a French defeat NOT a French victory and sources have been added (as I've already said) with quotes to support this (repeat & repeat). Like I said find sources to say that the Barons won or the return to Status quo, rather using your opinion. You should then place on them here & we can discuss further. Good luck because I couldn't find any. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I made the correction - many, many abject apologies for that. Actually, it isn't my opinion it is a reasonable summary of the sources which do not state a single outcome. You are taking one aspect from those sources, elevating it as the main outcome and refusing to discuss compromises while tag-teaming without gaining consensus. You really should have accepted either the original text, or leaving it blank while we resolved this but you chose otherwise. So I posted this notice to make it clear that the current text is disputed, although I would have been in my rights to reinstate the origial text or the disputed tag in accordance with standard wikipedia process. Your rejection of yet another attempt to compromise tempts me to reinstate the disputed tag or just blank it. I'd remind you that using two editors to impose over (now two others) without consensus is not how wikipedia is meant to work. -----Snowded ^TALK 16:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I've tagged the article to reflect the issue. To be clear the argument is that stating the outcome as a French defeat is unbalanced as it reflects only one aspect of the sources. I understand that editors who specialise in this category of articles like to have a simple outcome but it was not the case here. A French withdrawal following defeats or a french defeat both have supporting sources. There is no reason to pick one over the other. Further, all the sources list multiple other outcomes of equal or more significance. I've made one reasonable suggestion above - the French left, the Barons returned to the new King, Magna Carta was reinstated - ie it was more or less as it was before the whole thing started -----Snowded ^TALK 16:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You stick to "the French left", but this is not what the sources say, they say French defeat and withdrawal. Also, your other points are already listed (restoration of Magna carta and treaty of Lambeth). You would like to reinstate the old outcome, but that outcome was wrong and unsourced. I sincerely don't understand what more proof you need, you asked for sources and sources are here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)'

I'll try once more to make the point. I am happy to have 'French withdrawal following defeats' and I might accept 'French defeat and withdrawal' as ONE of the outcomes along with the 'Treaty of Lambeth' and 'Reinstatement of Magna Carta'. What is in question is the first outcome statement - and French defeat is not the main outcome, it is one of the outcomes. Hence the suggestion of a summary statement.-----Snowded ^TALK 17:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

So let's put it this way :

* Treaty of Lambeth

* French defeat

* Restoration of Magna carta

Eastfarthingan thoughts ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Snowded - You've tagged the article even though sources state such facts? If one source isn't enough then how about these?:

• Defeat of the French by his return to France at the end of February 1217 'The Cambridge Medieval History: The rise of the Saracens and the foundation of the Western empire' page 253
• Louis's defeat in 1217 'Scotland, England and France After the Loss of Normandy, 1204-1296: "Auld Amitie"' M. A. Pollock, page 85
• Increased isolation following Louis's defeat clearly reinforced English insularity after 1217 'The Knight Who Saved England: William Marshal and the French Invasion, 1217' Richard Brooks, page 281
• the death of John, the coronation of Henry III, and the defeat of the barons and Prince Louis in 1216 and 1217 'Magna Carta' Katherine Fischer Drew, Page 101
  

and so on and so on. Need I go on?? Now... let's put this to rest shall we? Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiviani - I'm happy with that as I am with the way it is.. I have enough firepower to keep it that way. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Let's wait for Snowded to respond and then, if needed, we'll change the outcome according to the consensus found. the unbalanced tag should be removed too.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed and yes it should be removed; placing it there was wrong. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You need to be a little less agressive and engage. Words like 'firepower' are really uncalled for. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THERE ARE NOT SOURCES WHICH SAY THE FRENCH WERE DEFEATED. Some of the sources also say that they withdrew after defeats, ALL of the sources also give mutiple other outcomes. I'm OK with Wikaviani's articulation above although I think it would be better with a summary statement. If that is put in place I agree to the removal of the unbalanced tag -----Snowded ^TALK 18:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Snowded, informations in the nfobox are to be the most concise possible. I don't think a summary is really needed. Please make a proposal of summary if you really think it's needed.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said I'm happy with your proposal above. I have suggested a summary but you guys don't like it so for the sake of peace and some sanity I'll drop it -----Snowded ^TALK 18:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I made the changes and removed the unalanced tag. Gentlemen, many thanks to both of you for your precious input and valuable time. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

LOL look forward to working with you again -----Snowded ^TALK 18:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Im glad to have worked with you all. It's been a pleasure. Regards. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry guys but there is NO consensus

All we can see when looking at the discussion is that the user Snowden got tired of arguing with two British, and thus not-neutral on that topic (it's not an insult/attack, we're all biased and so am I), high-ranking users and gave in. Still this doesn't change the fact that "X's defeat" as a subpoint in an infobox result is NOT an appropriate formulation. Usually we have "Y's victory" or "X's withdrawal" (when involving an overseas war like in this one). So you can make it "French withdrawal following the battle of Lincoln", but "French defeat" has to go (especially since the Barons that had initially sided with the French achieved their goals). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.119.68.246 (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, as shown in previous discussion there is proof from various soruces that it was a French defeat. If you have sources to back up your claim then go ahead and please use them - then there can a basis for further discussion. Here is what was said if you need to be reminded:

• Defeat of the French by his return to France at the end of February 1217 'The Cambridge Medieval History: The rise of the Saracens and the foundation of the Western empire' page 253
• Louis's defeat in 1217 'Scotland, England and France After the Loss of Normandy, 1204-1296: "Auld Amitie"' M. A. Pollock, page 85
• Increased isolation following Louis's defeat clearly reinforced English insularity after 1217 'The Knight Who Saved England: William Marshal and the French Invasion, 1217' Richard Brooks, page 281
• the death of John, the coronation of Henry III, and the defeat of the barons and Prince Louis in 1216 and 1217 'Magna Carta' Katherine Fischer Drew, Page 101
  

If you want more? No problem. Good day. Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

French IP, what is or not written in other wikipedia articles does not matter (see WP:OTHER), sources matter. As Eastfarthingan said above, we have plenty of sources that are supporting the current outcome. If you have reliable sources to support your claims, then go ahead and post them here, otherwise, i strongly suggest you to desist from posting forum-like messages here. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

To the French IP - the essence of wikipedia is to compromise within the constraint of citation support. For the record I'm Welsh (which means I am also European and British in that order) and my track record on wikipedia does not show me as getting tired :-) Eastfarthingan, aggressive lists of citations for one perspective when the other (French retreat after defeat at Lincoln) also has support in the citations almost tempted me to open this up again. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

So I looked at Template:Infobox military conflict and it turns out the way the "Result" section is currently displayed isn't allowed. The only terms allowed are "X victory", "Inconclusive" or (and I think this one should prevail here) "See the Aftermath section" if the other two don't describe the result accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.119.68.246 (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Many more references needed

On a controversial subject of history, references are needed. It's shocking how many whole paragraphs in this article (not to mention how many individual assertions) are completely without any reference citation at all. And given the amount of debate on this Talk page, about this subject, it's graphically clear that this article needs reference citations (preferably citations referencing multiple sources) for each. Please, editors, be mindful of this responsibility when editing. Respectfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)