Talk:Second Hundred Years' War

Carthage and Rome

This comparison doesn't make any sense. If one looks at the Second Punic War, the mother of the Punic Wars, it is the Carthaginians who have terrestrial supremacy on land with Hannibal winning many battles whilst the Roman fleet in the Mediterranean ensures that Hannibal is isolated in Italy.

Therefore, it is Britain that is Rome and Carthage that is France. This comparison is strengthened by the fact that the British won (Romans won) and the British won the colonies in India and America from France (just as Rome took Sicily and Spain). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Carthage was originally a naval power. In the First Punic War the Romans built a fleet and conquered Sicily, Sardinia etc. Carthaginian Empire in Spain came later, and in Second Punic War Hannibal was isolated in Italy as a result of Roman campaigns in Spain, defeat of Hasdrubal at Metaurus etc. Contemporary comparison (ie. by the French before they had lost) is as described in article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This comparison is clearly a plea to the emotions and nationalism of the French. If you try to apply logic the similarities quickly break down. That's not the point. Compare it to American usage of comparing the Germans in the World Wars to the Huns. Pure propaganda. marnues (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Does this really make sense ?

Am I alone to think the very idea of a "second hundred years war" doesn't make much sense ? Much of that period is dominated by the rivalry between the French Kingdom and the Hapsburgs or French expansionism within Europe triggering various european alliances. To suggest the "primary belligerants" were France and GB or that it was "a war between and over the future of each state's colonial empires" seems very far stretched to me and pretty British-centric. 82.231.41.7 (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I hadn't heard the term until this article I think it does make sense. The Hapsburgs at this point were a major power but they were already fading. France remained strong and continued to grow while Britain was becoming the most powerful economic and military force in the world. It is true that the first Hundred Years War took place almost exclusively between England and France, but that was a different era. In fact, I see the later wars that required alliances of the most powerful states as a direct consequence of the Hundred Years War. Given the period of the Second Hundred Years' War, I think it appropriate to allow other actors besides the French and English. Since Nation-States had become real entities, neither kingdom was looking to take land from the other, but both wanted to gain colonial lands and greater hegemonic power. And I don't think any other nation could contest with them. Even the Empire was probably weaker than either state due to its poor unity. The Hapsburgs' power peaked in the 16th century and had been in decline since with power slowly shifting to Prussia. The British and French both had the ability to prop up the Hapsburgs and neither did. I think that in itself goes to show that almost all European activity in the 18th century was centered in the Anglo-French rivalry. Of course history is written by the victors and the British had plenty of time to frame things in such a way to make them more important. marnues (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn't make any sense and is a purely subjective POV of reading history, just like the author of this expression admitted "The Expansion of England: Two Courses of Lectures " not only reducing the role of other countries into those conflicts, but also making links between conflicts who motivations, actors, political and military aims and ERA and place's campaign have nothing to see. "Of course history is written by the victors and the British had plenty of time to frame things in such a way to make them more important" British are not the victor as far as i know, French ultimately finnished being a Republic which was against british goal since first revolutionnary wars. Monarchy placed in France by British coalition after Napoleon defeat didn't last and republic won again some years later. It's just that this article as much as its sources are British-centric, all from London but one.77.197.174.175 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Commonwealth of England and all that

The article currently says "Charles II and James II had even actively supported Louis XIV in his War against the Dutch Republic", they also actively supported Spain against France Battle of the Dunes (1658). It seems to me that in their case Churchill's statement to the house sums up their positions "If Hitler were to invade Hell, I would find occasion to make a favourable reference to the devil." The English fought the Dutch when they were a trading rival. As general rule the English and later the UK has always opposed the most powerful continental European state. -- PBS (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"artificial periodization"?

English isn't my first language, therefore I might not understand this expression correctly, but I think that all periodization in history is artificial. It is based on an interpretation of historic events and can lead to different results, which also means that more than one periodizations can exist without one being "more correct" than the other. 91.50.57.203 (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

To a certain extent it is artificial. I doubt the soldiers fighting in 1689 though of themselves as fighting in a second hundred years war (though they might of figured they were fighting the old enemy). When I was a history student in teh late 1980s, my European history professor usually referred to the period by this term (he was very Irish-American and very anti-English and he referred to the 1798 portion as "The Year of the French"). I have a feeling this term is not often used today, as most historians see the Wars of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars as a more discreet grouping, while the others are seen more as a quest for empire. But who knows, in a few years, historians might look at it all differently again. Amcalabrese (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

A bit of a garden path?

The various wars between the two states during the 18th century usually involved other European countries in large alliances; except for the "War of the Quadruple Alliance" when they were bound by the Anglo-French Alliance, France and Britain always opposed one another.

The semicolon strikes me as a bit misleading. — MaxEnt 09:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Since this a conflict article like the 100 Years War or the 30 Years War, it makes perfect valid sense for a military conflict infobox. However RedUser (talk) keeps removing this template saying it is debatable. Thoughts? Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This not a "conflict" by any metric, it's a clipping of several disconnected wars collage together by a highly doubtful historiographical periodization used by almost no-one. But about the infobox per-si:

date: The time spam arbitrarily implies the "war" runned for 126 consecutive years, which is absurd, they were even allies during this timeframe.

place: "Worldwide" where? They fought on Antarctica? North Pole? Japan?

result: Implies that Britain won all the disputes, hardly the case with a Spanish Bourbon king and a independent United States.

combatants: Implies that Britain and France fought each other alone and without allies, which again is absurd.

commanders: Implies that the Hanoverians and the Bourbons were at war with each other, absurd one more time. Also, the first Hanoverian king is only from 1714, it also miss the French Republic.

units: ???

strength: ???

casualties: ???

So the infobox basically and only says that France and Britain had fought each other sometime and somewhere in the past, something that they had been doing for the last thousand years, and it mislead when they fought, for how long they fought, for what they fought, with who they fought, with what they fought, etc. For being anachronistic and incorrect it has been challenged on this diff. Given the arguments above addressing the issues of detail, sources, information and per the WP:BRD cycle, a discussion must occur to stablish a new consensus as to why an infobox is appropriate and suitable for this type article or not. RedUser (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read what you have just put and now look at the 100 Years war article. You have contradicted yourself on every front. In that article France lost on a number of points too but the infobox there is still valid. That war wasn't 100 years anyway it lasted 116 years, as you rightly said this war lasted 126 years. In that article's infobox there are no units, strength and casualties. Yes the infobox in this article needs to be tweaked, re worldwide locations, allies and commanders for example could be expanded. As for historiography what was the 100 years war then or the thirty years war etc? These were all agreed upon by historians as this one has. Historians have made valid cases which is the reason this article was created.

• "The Second Hundred Years' War, 1689-1815: Review Article." Historical J, 35 (June 1992)
• "The Second Hundred Years' War, 1689-1815 Arthur H. Buffinton
• J. R. Seeley in his influential work The Expansion of England: Two Courses of Lectures
• Even in In French - La seconde guerre de Cent Ans (1689–1815)', in F. Bédarida, F. Crouzet and D. Johnson (eds.), Dix siècles d'histoire franco-britannique: de Guillaume le Conquérant au Marché Commun (Paris: Albin Michel, 1979)

No one has argued that their wasn't a 2nd Hundred years war except yourself, which begs one question - if you state what you have said then why the need for the article let alone an infobox? If you question the need for an infobox then you question the need for the article. Your argument then doesn't win over on any points whatsoever. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Common Name

I think this article fails wp:common name. There have been 3 academic papers in the last 100 years that labeled the 126 years from 1689 - 1815 as a single unit? That implies that this article should have a different name, such as "English-French Relations between 1689 and 1815". Rockphed (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Where is your source for that? Are there any academic papers that say those exact words? Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you'll find there a few more than three academic papers - for one there a couple of books dedicated to said subject as well its first mention in J. R. Seeley's The Expansion of England: Two Courses of Lectures (1883):

• The Second Hundred Years War, 1689-1815 by Arthur Howland Buffinton (1949)
• De Guillaume le Conquérant au Marché commun: Dix siècles d'histoire franco-britannique 1979 chapter on The second Hundred Years' War (1689-1815) by D. Johnson, F. Crouzet and F. Bedarida (eds.), 1980

In terms of journals

• The Second'Hundred Years War', 1689-1815 by HM Scott - Historical journal, 35 (1992)

Many books references the term (I've counted several). Some even debated - a good account of this is from The Channel by Renaud Morieux on pages 1- 2. Others have said the use of the term 'is conventional' (p.74)- The Birth of a Great Power System, 1740-1815 By Hamish Scott.

Pus a number of blogs websites discussing the subject including this one The Second Hundred Years War: A Series of Anglo-French Wars, & this The Second Hundred Years War .

Hope that helps. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Controversial military infobox& description of article

To RedUser, Eastfarthingan The users who try to keep military infobox in this article say that this is similar to Hundred Years' War or Thirty Years' war. However, there are old famous proverb saying "Don't judge the book by its cover." This article is not same as Hundred Years' War or Thirty Years' war. Because its characteristics are different from those two conflicts.

• Naming

Unlike Hundred Years' War or Thirty Years' war, this conflict is collection of different wars between Britain and France. So, its characteristics are rather similar as Anglo-French Wars, Russo-Turkish wars or Austro-Turkish War which are also collectibles of many wars rather than single one. As collectibles of many wars, Anglo-French Wars, Russo-Turkish wars or Austro-Turkish War didn't include any military infobox. So, opposing to put military infobox is not a denial of article itself.

• Characteristics (1) - difference of goals

As "collectible" of wars, Second Hundred Years' War is different from Hundred Years' War or Thirty Years' war.

First, there is no clear object/goal for Second Hundred Years' War itself. In Hundred Years' War, England claimed the land and crown of France, and France tried to stop the England and their allies. That is the goal for belligerents of Hundred Years' War. In Thirty Years' war, Protestants and Catholic tried to enlarge their rights, and allied countries sought what they want from this conflicts. (land, independence, money, or influence over German territory)

But what about Second Hundred Years' War? What did British and France fought for? It's hard to answer, because its object differs to each wars and conflicts. Like Russo-Turkish wars or Anglo-French wars, the objective and goals are changed from each conflict, so we cannot conclude it. Also, by diplomacy and situation of international affairs, belligerent cannot be described as one. Well, I think this can be explained more below "Continuity"

• Characteristics (2) - Continuity

Unlike Hundred Years' War, Second Hundred Years' war doesn't have continuity. Well, many can agree that rivalry between British and France continues, and their conflict didn't stop until 20th century. Well, rivalry is not a conflict itself, and its conflict suspended by diplomacy and situation of international affairs. If you see the military infobox, there are lots of historical error. First, we cannot conclude this conflict as British victory. There is a saying, "The final winner is the true winner" but well as this shouldn't be accpeted in Wikipedia articles, especially in historical articles. The result of War of the Spanish Succession, Nine Years' War, War of the Austrian Succession is rather stimulate. Also, the belligerents of conflict changed different times. Well, in military infobox it says House of Stuart and House of Bourbon is belligerents. Well, if you see Nine Years' War, the House of Stuart allied with French. And, House of Bourbon was enemy to House of Bonaparte during Napoleonic Wars.

Well, so belligerents and results differ time from time in Second Hundred Years' war, but belligerents and results of Hundred Years' war didn't change. There is "Like the Hundred Years' War, this term does not describe a single military event" which is quite controversial. Hundred Years' war is single event, and Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347 or Hundred Years' War, 1337–1360 is a phrase of conflict, not a different event from Hundred Years' war itself. (If you see those articles, they say "phrase" of war has begun)

• Conclusion of my opinion

Well, my opinion is that this article is not quite good for articles itself, because there are too many incorrectness all over articles, especially in military infobox. Of course, infobox of articles should be deleted like Austro-Turkish War or Anglo-French Wars. Well, thanks for reading long opinions. I would like to hear your opinion for mine and this article. Wendylove (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You're using your own opinion - let's look at this comment - As "collectible" of wars, Second Hundred Years' War is different from Hundred Years' War or Thirty Years' war. So where is your proof from reliable historians that this isn't? Clearly this is going to need consensus. You are oblivious it seems to the bibliography in the article -

• Buffinton, Arthur H. The Second Hundred Years' War, 1689–1815. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1929. 115pp.
• Crouzet, François. "The Second Hundred Years War: Some Reflections." French History 10 (1996), pp. 432–450.
• Scott, H. M. Review: "The Second 'Hundred Years War' 1689–1815." The Historical Journal 35 (1992), pp. 443–469. (A collection of reviews of articles on the Anglo-French wars of the period, grouped under this heading). Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it is you who are using your own opinion. "Like the Hundred Years' War, this term does not describe a single military event but a persistent general state of war between the two primary belligerents." How can you prove it without any references? And if you are taking every opposite opinion as "their own view", this is not a stance who want to talk, but just to refuse again, which was same you did to Reduser. -- Wendylove (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you not seen the sources above? I'm still awaiting your proof to say that it isn't. Stop changing the subject in regards to 'opinion' when you have nothing to back up. Also don't vandalise the page anymore or else it would become n edit war. Use this page either find sources or build up a consensus. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• The term is new to me, and I'd like to see how widely it is used. But the distinction made above that "Unlike Hundred Years' War or Thirty Years' war, this conflict is collection of different wars between Britain and France" doesn't seem accurate. Both of those "wars" were also a group of more specific wars; both of those wars were characterised by numerous specific conflicts with a varying assortment of allies. The hundred yearswar was a seeries of separate militatrry events, with intervening periods of peace. They all were centered on the conflict between England andFrance, just as is this one, butthe y involvewd other nations and other national aspirations also. So, depending on a check of usage beyond the two boooks emphasised here, it might be justified. Of course all periodization of history is in a some sne an artifical schema: but that is the practical way in which students learn them and think about them. If there is confusion about which infobox to use, there's no rule that we have to use one at all. DGG ( talk ) 11:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• @웬디러비: what is your brief and neutral statement? At well over 4,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Redrose64: I think the whole article is quite biased on English side, and military infobox is quite not accurate, so I want to get a consensus to other people. -- Wendylove (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

    That is certainly brief, but it's no good saying so here: the brief and neutral statement of the problem must be the first thing after the RfC tag, per WP:RFCST item 3. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  • @Eastfarthingan: I want to ask did you check what it's inside the military infobox, or do you just insist your own opinion which is under some historians' resources. I do not deny the Second Hundred Years' War itself, but I deny your accuracy on description in infobox and article itself. What I want to say is, if you want to say your opinion has no flaws, then you should compare the contents of article with other articles, although you have a plenty of proof for that. The talk page is not a page for fighting who has much better proof. It is a course of making consensus to make articles better. And there are lots of flaws in this article, especially in military infobox. For example, House of Stuart allied House of Bourbon after Glorious Revolution (see Jacobitism), and House of Bourbon also allied with British government during Coalition Wars. (Army of Condé/ Armée des Émigrés) I am not giving the references, but other Wikipedian articles. Yes, it cannot be a reference because there is a policy for it, but at least I can prove that I am not based on my own opinion. If you keep saying "You're just insisting your opinion", you are denying the consensus and verification for those article which proves that the contents of military infobox is flawed. -- Wendylove (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

    If anything the infobox is due for an improvement, and like the Hundred Years War article infobox, allies/enemies can be adjusted and added accordingly. It does not warrant complete deletion. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no idea what this RFC is about. Wendylove, clearly you are passionate about your topic!, but RFCs are supposed to be written with a *short* statement that people can either support or not with a yes or no type statement. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Deathlibrarian and Redrose64: I think I should delete the article then, and learn how to use it first. Thank you for your help and advice. -- Wendylove (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Cheers, wendylove - yes, in creating the RFC, it has to be a neutral statement, and we should be able to just type "support" or "oppose" or "option 1" - so if you can re-do it so we can read a short statement and respond like that, you'll get responses. If you want in depth help with a major issue from other people, you may be looking for mediation, or a third party opinion. You can see lots of examples of the current history/geography RFCs here to give you an idea - cheers. So for example, if you wanted to fix up the infobox, you might suggest some new content options, and get people to vote on the best one (options 1, 2 or 3) for example. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Thanks for advice. I will consider that. -- Wendylove (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This article really needs a historiography section

Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging Long Eighteenth Century into Second Hundred Years' War, the reason being that the two articles cover the same historical context and period of time.GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)