Talk:Siege of Orléans

Untitled

I apologize for overwriting what was here before, eliminating almost entirely the previous work on this page. It seemed largely irrelevant and ungrammatical, if not inaccurate. Generally, I try not to do this, since I would hate for it to be done to my articles, but there just didn't seem to be much worth keeping... sorry.

LordAmeth 18:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Wikipedia is editable by everyone for a reason, and you did a great job on the article. Kairos 22:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Fixed a few things. Joan of Arc was a peasant but not a shepherdess. Characterization of both her and Charles VII is more NPOV now. She did not attack the English when she first arrived in town (although she had wanted to). Dunois (or rather, the future count Dunois) was in charge of the city's defense. She did not gain co-command until after Orleans, and then her co-commander became the duke of Alencon.

This article still needs quite a bit of attention. It says nothing about how the citizens of Orleans ceded control of the bridge at the start of the siege or about the Battle of the Herrings, the most significant action before Joan's arrival. It fails to mention the Tourelles, the most significant fortification and site of the fiercest fighting. The Tourelles was a stone fortress guarding the bridge. St. Loup was a small wooden structure. Other military commanders at Orleans deserve mention: Gilles de Rais, Poton de Xaintrailles, Etienne de Vignolles (la Hire), and Sieur de Gaucourt.

Some explanation of the city's importance and the reasons behind its resistance would be in order. The duke of Orleans remained a prisoner in England 13 years after the Battle of Agincourt because of his leading role in the Armagnac party. Hence the city's inhabitants could expect brutal treatment at the hands of the English if their defense failed. Strategically Orleans was important as well. See Joan of Arc for a discussion.

Perhaps it would be better if this article were titled Siege of Orleans. Hardly any history refers to it as Battle of Orleans. Durova 04:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Update: fixed a battlebox description that confused the future count of Dunois with the duke of Alencon. Added an aftermath section with links to the other Loire campaign articles, most of which are newly created. Added Wikilinks. Durova 16:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Battle of Orléans → Siege of Orléans – Reason for request: (1) it was a siege, and not a battle; (2) "Siege" and not "battle" is the name by which it is commonly known - it is referred to as a siege in virtually every source work and other writing on the subject, including Pernoud, Gies, Warner, deVries . . . (3) the previous move (from siege to battle) was not justified JFPerry 03:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support. Olessi 01:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support for reasons stated in discussion JFPerry 02:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. NB Siege of Orléans has only 1 edit in the history - anyone should be able to do the move. Rd232 ^talk 16:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move it to Siege of Orleans and drop the funny French squiggle as most English speaking people don't include it--Philip Baird Shearer 01:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, and retain the accent: Philip's argument is more relevant to simple:. Tomer^talk 06:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, and retain the accent per the above comment. I assume this move will go ahead, so fixing the redirect at Siege of Orleans will be all that's required --Lox (t,c) 17:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Durova is quite correct in suggesting the page be moved (back!) to its original title Siege of Orleans. It is almost universally referred to in the literature and histories (and in the article itself!) as a siege which is what it was, and not a battle. In fact, I know of no sources or works which refer to it as a battle. All use the term siege. Unfortunately, the target (Siege of Orleans) is now occupied with the older material and history and hence the need to go through this cumbersome process. JFPerry 03:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Two other points should be noted regarding the name of this article.

First, the principal literary source concerning the events which are the subject of this article is the Journal of the seige of Orleans (in French: Journal du siege d'Orleans). Note: siege, not battle.

Finally, there are the words of Jeanne La Pucelle (known to most of the English speaking world as Joan of Arc) herself: "Four things are laid upon me: to drive out the English; to bring you to be crowned and anointed at Reims; to rescue the Duke of Orleans from the hands of the English; and to raise the siege of Orleans." (spoken to Charles at Chinon) Note again: siege, not battle. She was there. She ought to know. JFPerry 16:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I support the requested move. This was in fact a siege - it lasted more than half a year - and is known as a siege in all or nearly all references in both French and English. To my knowledge no justifiable reason has ever been provided for naming this differently in Wikipedia. Durova 21:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Support, and retain the accent: Philip's argument is more relevant to simple:. Tomer^talk 06:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The naming conventions WP:NC "Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form." and Google returns:

• about 571 English pages for "Siege of Orléans " -Orleans -wikipedia.
• about 13,200 English pages for "Siege of Orleans" -Orléans -wikipedia.

So "Orleans" ought to be used if this page is to follow the guidelines. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Or the guideline should be changed. Our article on the city, after all, is at Orléans, not Orleans. Tomer^talk 18:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Google:

• about 336,000 English pages for Orléans -Orleans -new -Wikipedia
• about 2,520,000 English pages for Orleans -Orléans -new -Wikipedia

Orleans is clearly more popular on Enlish pages on the web than Orléans however this is about the name of the "siege of Orleans" and the over whelming usage in English for the name of the siege is to use "Orleans" not "Orléans". Why should an English encyclopaedia use a French version of the name when common English usage is for a name without a funny French squiggle? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

(1) Calling an accent "a funny French squiggle" does nothing to prop up your arguments. (2) your opposition to Orléans based on Google searches is less than scholarly, but given (1) that's unsurprising. If you'd take the time to construct a better search, or to bother to look at the results of the ones you cite, you'd quickly realize that in scholarly articles Orléans is overwhelmingly preferred for the city in France (as well as for the Île d'Orléans). If we were having this discussion at simple:Talk:Orleans I'd be inclined to agree with you, but this is not simple:, this is en:. Tomer^talk 22:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Battle of the Herrings: Joan and Baudricourt

The story of Joan's apparently miraculous prediction is quoted in the Joan of Arc Wikipedia article as though it were a simple, historical fact. It is also recounted in, for example, Sackville-West's biography where she refers to Quicherat's 5 volume Proces as well as the Journal du siege d'Orleans. The story is not universally accepted.

On the testimony of what witnesses it is based, and when they testified, I do not know. JFPerry 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually that's Quicherat, Volume IV. Quicherat cites both the Journal du Siege d'Orléans and the Chronique de la Pucelle. Chronologically this fits the known facts and it's mentioned in more than one source. Modern historians probably take this seriously because it offers the best explanation for Robert de Baudricourt's change of heart. The previous summer he had ridiculed her and threatened to let his guards molest her. Soon after this meeting he sent her to the king. The prediction itself might have been a lucky guess. What mattered was that people perceived it as a miracle. Durova 11:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the source of the information that Robert de Baudricourt ridiculed Joan and threatened to let his guards molest her during the first visit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Vita Sackville-West cites the Procès Vol 4 p 205 which reports eyewitness evidence. It is to be noted that because of the substantial surviving documentation of Joan's trial and rehabilitation the primary sources about her are extremely detailed, more so than of many eminent people of that age. Statements of fact in the article can be taken to be accurate. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC).

Are you saying the sources can be taken as accurate simply because of how detailed they are? That doesn't follow. J.R.R Tolkien wrote some obsessively detailed descriptions of Middle-Earth.

French casualties

I've recently received the info via e-mail. All casualties occurred mainly in the first year:

• on October 17 one woman died of cannon fire;
• on October 21 ca. 200 Frenchmen died betweem Tourelles and Saint-Jean-les-Blant;
• on January 18 one home guard arbalester died of cannon-ball in La-Belle-Croix;
• on January 26-го it's said that one archer from the marshal's Saint-Severe company died by mistake of French cannon-ball near the Banier gates;
• on January 29 there were many casualties, but the number is unknown;
• on January 30 one bourgeois militiaman was deadly wounded by arrow;
• also some casualties took place on March 19 of 1429 but the number is unknown.

In all the casualties figure is over 204. Brand 13:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the siege lasted less than one year. So it would be surprising if casualties occurred outside that time span. Durova 13:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Forces at the Siege

I noticed that Wikipedia states that a scottish army fought alongside with the French Army. I was under the impession that they weren't there at all. Does anyone know if they were? --Philip Auguste 21:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the Scots participating in this battle, but I'm pretty sure they were involved to some degree in the war. France and Scotland had been allies to varying degrees for a while (the enemy of one's enemy and so on). I can't say since when, but it kept going for a while after the war, too: the "Auld Alliance" between France and Scotland also came up in a biography I read of Mary, Queen of Scots.  — AnnaKucsma  Speak! 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate painting

Two different images of the same painting are used in the article: Image:SiegeOfOrleans1429.jpg and Image:Siege_orleans.jpg. I do not know which section it is more appropriate for, so I haven't removed one. ~MDD4696 06:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking off the second one, on the basis that in the picture, the English (longbows) are attacking the French (crossbows), as opposed to the other way around. Though the article does look rather bare without it... 74.32.229.23 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A map of the ground would be helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC).

the first major French success after Agincourt?

The article says this was "the first major French success to follow the crushing defeat at Agincourt in 1415". Why don't the Baugé and the La Brossinière count? Web wonder (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Battle of Orléans should be merged into Siege of Orléans. It is a fairly recent creation, but much of what it says might be salvaged, though it is entirely unreferenced. But the two articles are certainly covering the same ground. StAnselm (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fiction?

Add a quote by the historian Roger Caratini claiming the battle never happened. Whether he's right or wrong it's a fact that he wrote a book in which he claims that this battle didn't occur. If you have evidence that Caratini is wrong then post the rebuttal, rather than just deleting the original claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanime5 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You have it backwards. the WP:BURDEN of proof is on you to show that it is a non-fringe WP:RELIABLE source. fr:Roger Caratini doesn't seem to be very reliable according to his French wikipedia page. (Hohum ^@) 20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. If Uanime wanted to simply claim that the event didn't occur, then yes, the editor would have to show that Caratini is a reliable source. However, since Uanime is specifically labeling it a claim of Caratini's, all that really matters is that Caratini is notable and that we can verify that he claimed it. -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the policy WP:V is clear. "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question". Caratini doesn't seem reliable, and it is up to the person adding the material to show that he is. (Hohum ^@) 21:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And the book that was cited seems to be a very reliable source by which to verify that Cartini has made this claim. -- Fyrefly (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Battle" of the Herrings

The Loire Campaign of Joan of Arc, in conventional history, consists of the 5 actions of Orlean, Jargeau, Meung-sur-Loire, Beaugency, and Patay. Of course there were many other encounters at the time, but the "Battle" of the Herrings is minor, and undue weight ought to to be given it. Xxanthippe has failed to engage in discussion or respond to my questions - but has instead labeled me a "vandal" multiple times. Sillystuff84 (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Battle of the Herrings, which is significant enough to have its own Wikipedia article, took place near Orleans in February and is important because (a) the French failed to stop supplies getting to the English/Burgundians thereby allowing the continuance of the siege and (b) Joan's "prophecy" of its result was instrumental in inducing the faith in her that led to her arrival at Orleans and its relief. (Saint Joan of Arc, V Sackville West, 1936, Cobden-Saunderson page 113). The actions referred to by Sillystuff84 were associated with the relief of the siege, but the siege itself had been going on for a long time before that. The battle was crucial to the eventual relief of the siege and deserves to be mentioned in the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC).

Xxanthippe asked me to comment -- First in general, we will write a separate article about each significant battle in a campaign, if the battle is called by a distinct name in standard histories, as would appear to be the case here. Normally, we use summary style: each of the ones that has a separate article has a summary paragraph in the main article on the campaign. however', both that article and this one are insufficiently documented. Judgements about the relative significant of different events must be documented by sources, and if sources differ on this, we rely on modern authoritative academic secondary sources must be presented; if they differ, we give them all. . Not just this point, but many other points in the two articles are judgments, and every single one of them needs to be documented in this fashion. The general citations used for the article on Battle of the Herrings are not in this case sufficient-- there should be some sources from modern reliable academic general & military history of the period, which will give a better perspective than popular works devoted to Joan of Arc particularly. There exist a number of such, both English and French, and they need to be used and cited . Therefore, neither of you should be judging this or quarreling about it--you should both be reading the proper sources. And, as for the specific question, the section can appropriately be restored here, without the statement of its importance, with good specific references to be added , as for everything in the two articles. My opinion, but I think my view of what are adequate sources is the standard guideline.

Thank you for your contribution. The issue here is not the military details of the Battle of the Herrings; that should be dealt with in its own article as you suggest. The issue is that the battle is accounted to be one of strategic importance in the Siege of Orleans for the reasons I gave above. I also think it is unfair to dismiss Sackville-West's book as popular history. She accesses and extensively quotes the most important primary sources, the records of the trial and rehabilitation of Joan of Arc. It is these records that are the source for Joan's "precognition" of the defeat at the battle which began to establish her spiritual prestige among the French political and military establishment and led to her adoption by them and her participation in the finally victorious campaign. Sackville-West's book was certainly popular, but so are books of other historians like Barbara Tuchman, A L Rowse, David Starkey, Hugh Trevor-Roper and John H. Plumb, whose scholarly credentials are impeccable. I think her book can be considered a reliable secondary source unless contradicted by later historians. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC).

Battle of the Herrings

Following the discussion on the talk page I have re-added this section. Both Battle of the Herrings and Siege of Orleans appear to be reliably sourced from here [1] and here [2] (where the distinction is made between the Siege of Orleans and the subsequent Loire Valley Campaign) and the references therein. Generally, I think the two articles are well sourced from these references [3], ,which were already in the article, but there is always room for improvement. The claim of a lack of in-line citations is hardly relevant because one reference [4] gives many sources. This is an encyclopaedia article, and it need not be referenced with the density appropriate to a PhD thesis. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

If you can find and directly quote a reliable source that states that this battle was a significant event, then you can include it - but only if you do not give it too much weight. What you have done so far is just carried out your own internet-based research. Sillystuff84 (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note. Sillystuff84 has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file Blason comte fr Longueville (ancien).svg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

other events with the same name

I believe eventually there should be an article about Ceaser's siege of Orleans in 52 bce.Slipandslide (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Au Nom De Dieu

She actually said "En nom Dieu" according to the source cited. And she didn't use American capitalization. 2A02:AA1:1629:6E2B:5CD2:81E6:7EA2:6723 (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)