Military history: British / European / French / Medieval Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force French military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

@Newm30, Paine Ellsworth, Srnec, and Avilich: @Dicklyon, RetiredDuke, Jay D. Easy, and TiltuM: @SilkTork, Cozy00, Colonies Chris, and Jeff5102: This campaignbox seems to have picked up two articles from the Second War of Scottish Independence (Battle of Neville's Cross and Burnt Candlemas). It seems to me that either all of the articles from the Second War of Scottish Independence should be included or none. None would seem most appropriate, as that war has its own campaignbox and this one is already in danger of becoming overloaded. So I propose removing the two stray articles. Thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with removing for now. Avilich (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, if those two don't belong in this template, then they should be removed. They are definitely included at ((Campaignbox Second War of Scottish Independence)). P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Compliments on getting consensus – though perhaps a little unnecessary given the logic of your argument. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 17:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm only involved in this template because I made a minor update in an article title - this is not my area of interest or expertise. But I did look at Battle of Neville's Cross, and found this sentence in the lead: "The battle was the result of the invasion of France by England during the Hundred Years' War. King Philip VI of France (r. 1328–1350) called on the Scots to fulfil their obligation under the terms of the Auld Alliance and invade England." This information is sourced to Sumption, Jonathan (1990). Trial by Battle. The Hundred Years War. I. London: Faber and Faber. I did a quick Google of the terms "Battle of Neville's Cross hundred years war" which threw up historic-uk.com which also has Neville's Cross as being part of both the Hundred Years War and the Second War of Scottish Independence, I feel satisfied that this template is appropriately placed in that article, and that it would be acceptable for a battle to be part of two different campaigns where they shared related interests. I haven't looked at Burnt Candlemas. SilkTork (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Should maybe link the Scottish war in the template. I agree with removal of the battles. Srnec (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There are elements of the Scottish conflicts that formed part of the Hundred Years War, due to the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France, which caused the Scots to lead attacks on England, as an ally of France. Not all battles of the Second War of Independence were a result of events of Hundred Years War, however, so need to careful about linking whole series of battles of the Second War of Independence. This is a very complex war,, with a disinherited nobility trying to reestablish their power bases in Scotland, which were IMO not part of the Hundred Years’ War. There are however battles that are as a result of Scotland’s alliance with France that were. Regards Newm30 (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Do you have an opinion regarding removing, or not, either of these specific articles from this campaignbox? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, I would probably take lead from Sumption or Wagner as to whether the battles were intrinsically part of the Hundred Years’ War. If so I would leave them in the template. I wouldn’t support putting the whole Second War of Independence within the template, as it may confuse the matter. Regards Newm30 (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumption states "The battle was the result of the invasion of France by England during the Hundred Years' War". Which is true, and is a long way from saying that the battle was a part of the Hundred Years' War. I would use Sumption to support that battle not being a part of the Hundred Years' War, he is saying that England invading France was the Hundred Years' War. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you could group any Scottish campaigns (also English counter attacks) in a sub header grouping within the campaign box may have merit. My only concern then would be how to deal with the Flemish and other broader campaigns against England’s allies that fit with the scope of the Hundred Years' War? Regards Newm30 (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume in the same way that other linked wars, such as the War of the Breton Succession or the Second War of Scottish Independence are dealt with - with its own campaignbox.

There would seem to be a thin consensus for removal, so I shall take them out. Thank you all for your thoughts and contributions. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be an idea to include the Second War of Scottish Independence in the Hundred Years War-infobox? The aricle of the Second War of Scottish Independence says it is a Part of the Wars of Scottish Independence and the Hundred Years' War, so including it would be logical. Moreover, some conflicts in Spain are included in the Hundred Years War-box already, so at least there is no geographic argument against including this one. For the rest: I agree with the removal of the two conflicts with the Scots from this box. Jeff5102 (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]