Talk:Siege of Carlisle (1315)

Suggestions for Improvement

(1) Structure; not written in stone, but generally Background (why are they fighting there?), Siege (the fight), and Aftermath (what happened next). For me, its light on Background and Aftermath.

(2) My personal crusade :) but Wikipedia is written for users, so maps, pictures etc are always good (60% of users look at it on a tablet, so breaking up the text helps drive traffic.

(3) Lead should summarise all the article (again, 60% of users only look at that part), and this seems light.

(4) Sources; don't use Victorian/Edwardian unless you have to. You can access an updated version of Harclay on the ODNB online (free if you have a UK library account).

(5) Grammar could be tighter - I've made some edits to show what I mean.

(6) Some of the facts either need checking (regular garrisons were generally 40-50 men, not hundreds), or expanding (what defensive weapons? what infantry tactics? - doesn't need massive detail but if raised, should be answered.

Let me know if you have questions. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Robinvp11: Thanks for the suggestions, I've already started expanding the content, but I'm hoping you might be able to help clarify a couple of things:

For your points 2 and 3, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but I would be interested to know where I could find more details about usage stats. Do you know if these are shared on a regular basis anywhere?

For point 4, it should be easy enough to find other sources, and I intend to do so, but what is the issue with sources from that era?

For point 5, I'm not seeing any edits with your name next to them. Were you meaning edits on a different article?

Thanks for the helpful comments so far :) --CSJJ104 (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@CSJJ104: Please note, lots of people in Wikipedia will tell you 'This is how it should be done' :) - I don't claim that, I've made a few changes and explained why, but always up to you.

Sources; if at any stage an article goes beyond B, then you'll need to list them so I do it anyway. Theoretically, it is 'References' (or Citations), 'Sources' (back up References), 'Bibliography' (further reading).

Links; there are a ton of articles in Wikipedia, so worth linking to them; they're not always obvious eg Auld Alliance, the Great Cause but they make life a to easier

Grammar; made a few changes, hope they make sense

Sources; Victorian/Edwardian sources are often overly prolix and biased; the idea of historical impartiality is relatively new, which applies to Macaulay as much as Sir Walter Scott (who has a lot to answer for). It still informs how we see the past eg Civil War (Romantic Cavaliers, Repulsive Roundheads); the new BBC series 'Blood of the Clans' is totally based on Victorian versions of blood and honour, romantic clansmen etc.

Anything that says 'Historical Tales of Chivalry' sets my alarm bells ringing :). Not that you can't use them (contemporary accounts of battles and trials are often more accurate) but be wary of building articles on them. Its also why its worth linking to other Wikipedia pages, because the writer has often done the work of digging out a reference for you to check/use.

Stats - 60% comes from here, which is worth reading anyway;Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section You can get the rest from various tools that monitor page views and access type.

Robinvp11 (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Oman page - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/47753/47753-h/47753-h.htm#Page_178. Hopefully, you can see what I mean about using it with care - Oman is undoubtedly one of the leading mediaevalists ever, but... Robinvp11 (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: Yes, sorry, after you suggested they might be biased, I had another look and could see what you mean. I had moved the sources concerned into the Bibliography, thanks for pointing it out :) While I remember, I was intrigued by your revision comment "they're attacking the castle, not the town". The impression I got was that the town was attacked as well, e.g. from https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WaEaIsb1Y6gC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=siege%20of%20carlisle&f=false did you find a source which said otherwise? --CSJJ104 (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Until the 19th century, defences were split between the castle (or citadel) and the town (see my article of December 1745 Siege of Carlisle). Harclay was Governor of Carlisle Castle, not the town of Carlisle (they later split the two roles). You couldn't defend the town, it was simply too expensive but a strong castle only required a few dozen - for example, Carnarvon Castle had a permanent garrison of about 50, hence why I'm sceptical about the idea Harclay had 'hundreds of soldiers'.

When the Scots turned up, the townspeople took their gear into the castle, and left it to be sacked and burned - that's why they built in wood. Siege operations were conducted against the castle, which was built in stone.

Edward granted a Royal charter because it gave the town economic rights; otherwise, why live somewhere which is going to be sacked every other year because your king can't protect you? The walls of Constantinople were so famous because they were an almost unique example of a fortified city - and it fell in 1452 because they didn't have enough men to man them. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)