h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Joan of Arc and the Role of Medieval Women - A414325 Author: Almighty Rob - mourning the old h2g2 - U144149 This entry was submitted to Peer Review and then was moved to the Update HQ (though none of the italics know why). So here we go again, back to Peer Review... The old PR thread is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F60915?thread=70045 And even though the author has 'left the building' I think it's pretty good...

It's an interesting entry, Jimi!

Very scholarly. I read Anhuilh's play whilst doing my degree, however it's so long ago that I can't remember that much, so no comment about the content.

Looks intriguing.

no time now, must dash (like Jehanne, I'm heading for Paris - hope they don't close the city gates on me!)

I'll definitely be reading this come Monday am.

bon weekend
spiff

Well it's a good entry on an interesting topic, if the authour themselves had submitted it to peer review I would point out that they did not need to write in such a soclarly style here especially as it can make it a little difficult for the rest of us to read!

As far as I can see there are a couple of things that I think need changed about the entry before it becomes Edited...

It needs to be split up into sections and I personally think a heading to ten wouldn't go amiss.

Also the large sections of quotes, the referances and the biolography really need to go! there isn't much point in them being there at all.

But as the autour didn't submit it themselves would sub editor be willing to make these changes? are there any sub's out there who could comment on this?

Before it was moved to the Update HQ, this entry was submitted by the original author. But it seems he had some 'moderation issues' and eventually left the building.

I think your points are valid, but I'd be hesitant to remove someone's source material... All told, I do agree that a Sub could clean this one up nicely.



- Jimi X

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

ah... er... well... erm... i didn't state *which* monday am i meant...



Congrats -

@ Spiff

Good one!

Jims

Since one of my articles was extensively cited (and unfortunately misinterpreted) in this essay, I thought I should respond.
The author cites aristocratic women (Countess Jeanne de Montfort, Lady Marcia Ordelaffi, etc) whom my article mentioned as examples of women who led armies during the Hundred Years War period, but the author has misquoted or misinterpreted my article when he claims that such women fought in combat: with perhaps rare exceptions (and even these are in dispute), they most certainly did not fight in combat, but merely had titular command of an army in the absence of their husband (a fairly common arrangement under feudalism, roughly analogous to Queen Victoria's role as the symbolic commander-in-chief). They did not fight, and neither did Joan: she was quoted both in the Condemnation transcript and by an eyewitness (Friar Seguin) at the Rehabilitation trial as saying that she carried her banner into battle so she wouldn't have to fight. Her armor was made for her (by an armorer at Tours named Colas de Montbazon for the cost of 100 livres-Tournois) to protect her from arrows and other projectiles while carrying her flag, not so she could fight hand-to-hand. Jeanne de Montfort probably wore armor for the same purpose. As I recall, my article used the analogy of the modern bulletproof vest, which can be worn by non-combatants (e.g., the "embedded journalists" seen in the recent war with Iraq) simply for their own protection, not as preparation for a combat role.
At any rate, I suppose my article should have been more carefully worded in order to avoid misconceptions. I was simply making the point that Joan was not the "only" woman to lead an army in that era, and was not embarking on any sort of "proto-feminist" crusade to change gender roles: after all, during Joan's own lifetime French Royalist forces in the Auvergne were led by Duchess Marie de Bourbon (since her husband was a prisoner and their son was leading troops farther north), and Countess Jacqueline of Hainault led a war against the Duke of Burgundy in Holland (in order to retain the territories she had inherited from her father). This is feudalism, not feminism, and Joan was granted a similar form of command simply because she was accepted as a religious visionary - another facet of the medieval system, in an era in which religion was of paramount importance. I was merely making the point that she wasn't doing anything "subversive" in the context of the period.
Since these essays are supposed to be a collaborative effort (as I understand it), is there a possibility of changing the essay in light of the above?
Regards,
Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive
([email protected]) http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/

Maybe someone should address the concerns of that last posting?