This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
"Fire" is commonly used by many RSs to mean the discharge of bolts or arrows by bows and is entirely appropriate. See for example page 236 here, "arrow-fire", or the title of this. There are many, many more. Could anyone not happy with this usage please come up with a RS which states that it should not be used? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - Period phrase would be to “loose” the arrows. “Fire” became the phrase for firing a flint lock or cannon, which appears by modern usage to have been corrupted for use for loosing off arrows. No objection to use of fire as this is now commonly used. Regards Newm30 (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree re contemporary usage. And fully understand people who consider it an anachronism. But in terms of writing the article there is a need for expressions like "arrow fire" and "under fire" etc, and 'loose' just doesn't work. I can understand why historians have given up and gone with "fire". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I edited the article earlier today without having read this debate here. I would suggest that often it is painless to replace "firing arrows" with "shooting arrows", which keeps everyone happy. I agree that there is no easy equivalent for, for instance, "under fire" or "rate of fire" that sounds as natural, although in the latter case one might sometimes rephrase the sentence as "they were shooting at a faster/slower rate". It is not so serious, as everyone understands the meaning and appreciates the issues, but "firing arrows" does grate with some of us, and might look ignorant, so it is worthwhile considering equivalent alternatives. Jmchutchinson (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying whether I agree or disagree. I have tried to keep my opinion out of this one. What we feel makes sense, is appropriate, keeps us happy etc is irrelevant. This is Wikipedia: The question is "What do the high-quality reliable sources say?" They all - that I have taken note of - say "fire". Come back with four or five which have some other usage and we can have a discussion, but at the moment it seems a bit "I don't like it". Which is entirely understandable. I am not saying that I like it. But as I wrote above "historians have given up and gone with "fire"". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gort61 - you have repeatedly changed the word 'quiver' to 'sheaf' here. I don't see how this is an improvement. Wikipedia has an article called quiver. It does not have one called sheaf; rather, it has a disambiguation page at that title, and none of the entries it links to match the thing that is being described here. I think the closest is probably Sheaf (agriculture), which is a bundle of stems, which I guess looks a bit like a bundle of arrows. Please don't reinstate the change, but feel free to describe why you are making it below for consideration. GirthSummit (blether)14:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Girth - The article is excellent. Please consider my edits as nit-picking. I was only trying to make the point that the quiver is the container of the sheaf of arrows that archers got. Best, Gort61 14:30 UTC 17.02.2023 Gort61 (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gort61. I use "quiver" because that is what the sources use. Possibly because that is in turn what the primary sources use. A quiver, at this time and place, was a specific number of arrows; perhaps as one may refer to a number of rifle magazines, meaning ones fully loaded with ammunition but without feeling it necessary to specify this. Although the modern sources do sometimes use "sheaf" when referring to the manufacture or acquisition of arrows. I'm happy to discuss this further if you have sources specific to Crécy that use "sheaf". Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit, can I suggest that we discuss it one issue at a time. Firstly, the claim is not "incorrect": it accurately reflects what a HQ RS says. You can't just change the text without citing the source. What is the source you are relying on, exactly what does it say, and why is it an up to date HQ RS? (I am not doubting any of these, just wanting to get them nailed down before we move on.) Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current article claims the crossbow strings are made of leather, but this is incorrect and contradicts its own source. The source does NOT say the bowstrings are made of leather, but actually says the bowstrings were made of hemp and they had leather coverings. Intranetusa (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Intranetusa: Quite right. I am not sure how that happened. Quite possibly my misreading. Or acceptance without checking of someone else's. Thank you for picking it up. I have slimmed your change down a little to "A contemporary account, followed by some modern historians, has the rain weakening the Genoese crossbows' strings, reducing their power and range; other modern historians state that their bowstrings were protected by leather coverings and so the Genoese were as unaffected by the storm as the English archers." How does that read to you? The point about mud and stirrups is already covered by "The mud also impeded their ability to reload, which required them to press the stirrups of their weapons into the ground, and thus slowed their rate of fire." Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I've looked into in some considerable depth. The long and the short of it is that Livingston's arguments do not stack up at all. Perhaps it's worth adding under a "controversy" heading, but there's honestly not enough published to really give the other side. Andrew Ayton and Michael Prestwich only reviewed The Battle of Crécy: A Casebook, which only gave them limited space, and David Fiasson published his own book on the battle in 2022 as well, so he's only responding to the original arguments, not Livingston's fine tuned versions.
I've written up my own thoughts on the matter here, but it's up to you all to decide if that's sufficient sourcing for the article. Those who want a summary of Livingston's arguments can also look here for my summary of his views. I've done my best to be as fair and even handed in summarising them as possible. 185.194.184.52 (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That La Croix De Bohême has nothing to do with the battle and is probably a boundary marker later associated with the battle is one thing that Ayton and Livingston agree on. Prestwich IIRC allowed the possibility that the battle flowed as far as there, but it's so far from any plausible English position that there's almost no chance the battle was fought there. Hergrim (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
