Gascon campaign of 1345

Between August and November 1345 Henry, Earl of Derby, conducted the whirlwind Gascon campaign of 1345. Commanding an Anglo-Gascon force he carried out "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Years' War" against the French. He defeated larger French armies in open battle at Bergerac and at Auberoche, taking numerous noble and knightly prisoners. In the border region between English-occupied Gascony and French-ruled territory morale and prestige swung England's way following this campaign, providing an influx of taxes and recruits for the English armies. The French lost numerous towns and fortifications and their remaining, large, field army fell apart and was disbanded.

edit | discuss

Gascon campaign of 1345

Three articles

Battle of Bergerac

Battle of Auberoche

Contributor(s): Gog the Mild

This is my first nomination of a Good Topic, so I doubtless have some things wrong; I hope that these will be considered sympathetically. The proposed GT covers a specific geographic area and time span and includes an article on the campaign and separate articles on each of the two main military clashes during it. There are no other articles within this period and area and no other separately notable events. I have worked up the articles covering the two battles from start class over the last three months and wrote the campaign article myself in October. Two of the articles are currently undergoing ACR at MilHist. --Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks like the topic is complete and up to quality. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks complete from a battle perspective, but I'm left wondering whether key commanders should be included in such a GT? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gog the Mild: What do you think of Peacemaker's idea to include key commanders? Kees08 (Talk) 07:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peacemaker67 and Kees08: Apologies, I seem to have been asleep at the wheel on this one. Interesting point, and probably not one I am up to speed enough to have an informed opinion on. IMO the only "key" commander was the Earl of Derby, who is already a GA (not my work), so I don't think that it makes much/any difference to this nomination. However, I am unconvinced that key commanders are needed in military campaign good topics. I will try to outline some of my thinking below. (Going out, so I will post this as a place holder and come back to it when I can.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peacemaker67 and Kees08: I think that I am correct in saying that no other GT (nor FT) covering a campaign includes an article on a leader, with the exception of Peacemakers's 1st Army Group GT which has been promoted since I made my nomination. This seems to be a well established precedent. If there is to be a new requirement requiring commanders to be included, will all of the existing topics need to be reviewed? In most cases there is a more clear cut chain of command than existed in 14th century Gascony, so I assume the answer would be "yes".

In Gascony the situation was not at all clear cut. The French operated on a regional command basis - arguably one reason why they lost. In addition the repeated death, capture and replacement of commanders means that there is either no commander{s} to nail down or a plethora of stubs, several of which sprang from red links created when I wrote these article. Overall command was a royal prerogative, and Philip's son, Duke John, was appointed to nominal overall command late in the campaign. But he never saw action, nor came particularly near it, nor, so far as the sources I have show, made any notable decision which was actually carried out. The English situation is more clear cut, with the English King's commercial contract with Derby laying out reasonably clearly that he was in command, a role which he filled in practice.

This may not be a good reason, but I am also concerned that for earlier periods adding a requirement to include the commanders, and leaving aside discussion as to whether they can be unambiguously identified, will create a requirement to promote articles about figures for whom military activity was a small part of their notability. (This would certainly deter me from writing about them.)

While I understand that many GT noms will spark a debate as to just what should be included, I can forsee quibblingly detailed debates requiring "expert" knowledge to ascertain just who to classify as leaders in, for example, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Battles of the Greco-Persian Wars.

Leaving campaign GT and FTs as needing to cover a specific geographic area and time span and include an article on the campaign and separate articles on each of the main military clashes during it seems to me to be clearer, as well as more appropriate.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm happy with the rationale. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Seems to cover the major battles of the campaign, and I agree with the above notes re: the challenge of unambiguously determining who were the "key" commanders. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2019 8(UTC)8

• Support. I tread cautiously here, as (i) my knowledge of the Hundred Years' War is minimal and (ii) I am unfamiliar with Featured/Good Topics as a species. But I have carefully studied the criteria and I am happy to support the nomination. I reviewed the articles on the two battles at GAN, and later supported the promotion of the Battle of Auberoche article at FAC, so am very satisfied about the quality of the whole caboodle. As to the draft introduction it looks right to me, but I defer to more expert editors on that. Tim riley talk 21:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic - GamerPro64 04:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]