Do you think its historic importance is overlooked? Or am I generalizing its importance?
Last edited:
Is the Battle of the Bouvines Overlooked?
- Thread starter King of Rome
- Start date
Do you think its historic importance is overlooked? Or am I generalizing its importance?
I'm wondering how this battle can not be considered as one of the major battle of Middle-Ages.
Otto lost its crown, and the imperial figure was seriously weakened after this.
Flanders is tied to the kingdom of France for centuries depsite its interests.
England lost almost all the Angevine desmene and the Magne Carta is a indirect consequence of the battle.
The Capet dynasty not only kick out the major threat to its power, but for the first time take significant lands, opening a "royal" way to the gradual grabbing of feudal lands in the kingdom, up to the point of making a proto-centralized state since Louis IX.
The alliance between England and Germany is somewhat put into oblivion.
For the first time since Roman Empire, we have an army that is gathered for the defense of the kingdom. Not for lands, not for direct gains.
I don't know if the book of Georges Duby "Le Dimanche de Bouvines" was translated, but if it's I strongy suggest you to read it as it was both a critic of an overused historiographical date, but also of underlining the importance of the battle in ideological and political consequences.
Otto lost its crown, and the imperial figure was seriously weakened after this.
Flanders is tied to the kingdom of France for centuries depsite its interests.
England lost almost all the Angevine desmene and the Magne Carta is a indirect consequence of the battle.
The Capet dynasty not only kick out the major threat to its power, but for the first time take significant lands, opening a "royal" way to the gradual grabbing of feudal lands in the kingdom, up to the point of making a proto-centralized state since Louis IX.
The alliance between England and Germany is somewhat put into oblivion.
For the first time since Roman Empire, we have an army that is gathered for the defense of the kingdom. Not for lands, not for direct gains.
I don't know if the book of Georges Duby "Le Dimanche de Bouvines" was translated, but if it's I strongy suggest you to read it as it was both a critic of an overused historiographical date, but also of underlining the importance of the battle in ideological and political consequences.
Thank you, I'll try and read some of that. I just do not understand why this battle is not given as much attention as say Agincourt. I am not trying to downplay the consequences of that battle, but to me, Bouvines was more important.
Maybe it is just me, but I did not learn about it in school.
Maybe it is just me, but I did not learn about it in school.
Because at Bouvins, the English lost, and the French won. I guess in France it might be different.
Well maybe. I do think there is a lot of English-Bias in English language sources (go figure), but still, Bouvines had an important effect on the development of the English Parliamentary System. The Magna Carta largely resulted from the incompetency of King John during the campaign, is what I am lead to believe.
And I do not think historians back then experienced a sort of English/French/German/etc national pride?
And I do not think historians back then experienced a sort of English/French/German/etc national pride?
Last edited:
Alex Richards
Donor
Agincourt is the only battle in the entire HYW most people know about, and half of that's from the plays about it. Geneally speaking, the first time you'll even get to do a history module on the HYW is going to be A-Level or even at Uniersity. It's not so much a pro-English bias a a complete lack of medieval history.
I see. But still, how does a pivotal battle escape even rudementary European History? We obviously have some information on the battle and its aftershock. Again, maybe its just I don't remember learning it or my school just didn't deem it important and im an isolated case.
Alex Richards
Donor
I don't know about what it's like elsewhere, but you can pretty mcuh sum the British education system wrt History as 'Romans, Tudors, WWII, perhaps some Greeks, Vikings and Victorians until GCSE, then more Tudors and some actual new stuff from then on'.
We didn't have any history on France outside of a brief mention of the Angevin Empire and Dunkirk at all, Germany wasn't covered until the A-Level module the Sixth Form had chosen, I did do one module on modern China, but that's pretty unusual, and apart from some stuff on the American West and a brief Egyptian jaunt I don't think there was anything that wasn't British before GCSE.
Actually no.
Of course the English sources about HYW are so biased that is hilarous, but Azincourt is probably more known here.
Probably because of the same problem that made the Battle of Tours more known as the Battle of Tolosa : historiography.
Bouvines is the triumph of Capet dynasty, while Azincourt is the defeat of the Valois dynasty.
From a republican point-of-view, you have more interest of showing the latter, because it's why a king is bad, why nobility is bad for France.
Of course, since the XX, you have a great revival of Bouvines, but it wasn't always the case. I'm not saying Bouvines wasn't taught, it was just AS important than Agincourt, and had a less important mind in the common mind.
Maybe another reason, less based : i would think that french mind is more impressed and more marked by defeat than victory. Today, you have still books about Alesia, German occupation, but less continually and regularly than Bouvines, Crimean War, First World War, ...
Really? No Anglo-Saxons, (Anglo-) Normans, Angevins and HYW or (
) the Anglo-Dutch (trade) wars (one of the greatest Dutch admirals Michiel de Ruyter), which lead to England overtaking the Netherlands as the European trading nation. All were rather important, even the latter (as a part of a larger process), because that contributed to the success of the British Empire. OTOH certain parts of Dutch history aren't covered good either; Egypt/Mesopotamia, Romans/Greeks, briefly middle ages, suprisingly few on the Burgundian Era (without them there might not have been the Netherlands and Belgium), Charles V, Philip II and the Dutch Revolt, the Dutch Republic Golden Age, French Revolution and restoration upto the Belgian revolt, briefly on the developments before and during WWI (Dutch neutrality), interbellum & WWII and Cold war, decolonization (especially the process leading to Indonesian independence wasn't completely nice, furthermore the USA as the Western World power made it clear to the defeated and/or exhausted European Colonial powers to change their imperial ways (like during the Suez Crisis and for the Netherlands Indonesia) OTOH one can also discuss the US actions during the Cold War) & post Cold war.
Not every thing is covered evenly well though, except WWII and the Cold War (that might have helped to further develop my interest for history before 1900
).
Last edited:
Maybe because in most of the other (not French or English) (Western) European countries they had their own events, which were important for their own development during that era?
However I wonder how successful the movement, which lead to the Magna Carta, could have been, if the Angevins managed to keep all their holdings in France (empire IMHO is kind of misnomer).
Potentially not much different - John's problem is how the barons feel about royal abuse of power, not simply losing territory (which makes him a tyrant at home and incompetent abroad).
Well the Barons might tolerate more from a successful king and it would have given the king much more resources. A king with resources from Aquitaine, Anjou and Normandy will have a lot stronger position in England.
True. Although John did still have Aquitaine, and if I'm not mistaken had already lost Anjou and Normandy (he might regain them with a win here, yes).
I guess it depends on how hated John is. He might well manage to do better or fail just as hard.
Snake Featherston
Banned
It's because French history is a great big blank spot in the minds of English-speaking countries, especially when it's English-speakers on the receiving end of Francophone awesome moments.
Snake Featherston
Banned
A king with those resources will still be thinking in Angevin terms, not English.
Alex Richards
Donor
Really? No Anglo-Saxons, (Anglo-) Normans, Angevins and HYW or (
There was a small bit on 1066, but the rest was just 'we had Saxon rulers, 1066, the French took over for a bit now onto the Battle of Bosworth.'
As for the Anglo-Dutch Wars, the first time I even had a module on the British Empire was at A-Level (besides the usual sort of asides along the lines of 'we had this big Empire before WWI, Germany got jealous, so that's one cause of the War). Our Stuart module basically ended with the Restoration and the Empire module 1688-1783, so we missed the earlier Anglo-Dutch Wars but did do a fair bit about the 18th Century wars.
Yeah, I did history up to GCSE, and I don't remember doing anything at all on the Angevins (there might have been a brief reference when talking about the Magna Carta), the HYW or the whole period 1750-1914, except a little bit on the industrial revolution in primary school (!). And it was all completely focused on Britain except when we were doing the 20th century. And then there was a lot on "Conditions in the trenches" and "Life in Nazi Germany" with hardly anything on the actual progress of the two World Wars.
Then again, I get the impression that the Indian system is much worse after talking to some of my family...
Then again, I get the impression that the Indian system is much worse after talking to some of my family...
Interesting discussion here. So I assume it is safe to say that such a politicaly important battle should at least be mentioned in a standard, European History Class? (No matter where you are).