Talk:Philip II of France

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philip II of France article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

France High‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / European / French / Medieval / Crusades

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Crusades task force

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

Middle Ages: Crusades High‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

Sorbonne

The Sorbonne was founded in 1257, so how could he have given it a charter in 1200? olivier 11:32 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It was not the Sorbonne, but the Université de Paris. The Sorbonne was founded in 1257 as one of the colleges of the Université de Paris. It then became the name of this university (today, of three parisian universities).

"Capetitian? --Wetman 21:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Can someone provide a picture of the king?

There is no authentic image of Philip Augustus. The first king of France whose features were accurately carved in stone was Saint-Louis, the grandson of Philip Augustus. There exist no accurate images of any king of France before Saint-Louis. Hardouin 02:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm Justanormalguy2000 (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Wines

I added a reference to the famous Battle of the Wines that Philip commissioned (or rather the poem written about it.) I placed it in the later years since it was right before his death that the tasting happened. However, I don't think it quite flows in the section but I was hestitant to reword the section due to my overall lack of familarity with Philip. If any of the article's editors know of a better way to fit it in, they by all means. Thanks! Agne27 00:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to mention Philip's gay fetishes?

Well are we? -Augustulus

I guess not. But he's the funniest of the bunch! Augustulus 00:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what you mean by gay fetishes, but I do have a similar grievance. I haven't read all of the page but the only mentions of Richard Lionheart say nothing about the alleged romantic relationship between the two of them which is mentioned in History of homosexuality and History of sex#Same-sex relations. If this relation is mentioned in the above mentioned pages of wikipedia, why is it not mentioned here?Asinthior (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, throw it in if you can document it. Carinae986 (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly speculation, there isn't actually much evidence of it and modern historians seem to discount the rumours. I'd like to see it included but Wikipedians seem to be against rumour.Gymnophoria (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. Seems like a reliable source, but the author concludes: "The big question here is what does "men sleeping together" mean? Some authors deny it has any sexual overtones." Roger of Hoveden: Philip II Augustus and Richard The Lionheart from Annals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:CA81:2840:7C1B:A8E1:FD9E:F65D (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of if they maintained a sexual relationship or not, this Wikipedia article (as of today) seems to deliberately avoid mention that Richard I and Philip II were so close for a time as young men that they were inseparable and Richard refused to go home to England because he wanted to stay with Philip. Instead, it starts after that period, when they part ways, and I think leaves out some important context. They loved each other before they became enemies. Wrww1 (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charcoal Burner

I have a question about Philip's misadventure in the woods. It says he was recused by a peasant carrying a charcoal burner. Now, does that mean that he was carrying a brazier? Why does a peasant carry a brazier through the woods? Or is this a mistake and should it say that the peasant was a charcoal burner, one of those patient, sleep-deprived souls who cut piles of timber and burned them into mounds of charcoal under heaps of turf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wynfryda (talk • contribs) 14:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. DrKiernan (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip II of France → Philip Augustus — Per WP:NCNT If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. I certainly think this is the case here. —Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support as nom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I prefer 'numerals' to 'nicknames'. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I'd prefer "Philip II Augustus". john k (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nomination. Better known as "Philip Augustus." Less impersonal than as a number. But might in future consider "Philip II Augustus." Nihil novi (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support general name. Sometimes you see Philip II Augustus. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for consistency with other French monarchs. The ordinal is hardly obscure enough that the nickname can trump it. Srnec (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Undoubtedly known in French as Philippe II, but in English Philip Augustus seems as common and Philip II Augustus is not uncommon either. Bradbury's bio is called Philip Augustus. I have the vague recollection that this is how he's called in The Lion in Winter and also how he appeared in the Ladybird book on Richard the Lionheart I had when I was a kid. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Consistency. Space Cadet (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not just for consistency, but because he is not commonly known as Philip Augustus. Deb (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Not common? On what possible basis can you make such a claim? john k (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've read a few history books on this era, and, without exception, they all refer to him as Philip Augustus, not Philip II. Philip II usually refers to this guy. *** Crotalus *** 01:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The merits may be fine but this volume of requests should be dealt with wholesale, maybe with a change of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). — AjaxSmack 03:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Nickname test cases. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Systematics (= regnal number) is better, as his nickname is however not so overwhelmingly better known that it really shadows his regnal ordinal. Shilkanni (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As with other recent move requests, see Talk:Casimir I of Poland. -- Matthead Discuß 00:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. Seems a line call to me... Some think Augustus is commonly used, others have never heard of it. And of course others cite grounds such as consistency which aren't the issue at all IMO. Andrewa (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I think the form "Philip II Augustus" would be proper because it is almost as common for him as for Octavian. However it would create inconsistency and do more harm than good. Dimadick (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this one should have the territorial designation. Charles 17:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is just the kind of argument that we will be having constantly, if we allow the guidelines on nicknames to weaken. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would rather have consistency in the naming of monarchs, in the format of "monarch name (ordinal) of country". As Philip Augustus redirects to Philip II of France, I really don't see a problem with the current name. – Axman (☏) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The current name is surely not obscure. The proposed name is just an epithet. He is known by both but the status quo is more encyclopaedic. Parable1991 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) Also a mass proposal like this should have been discussed on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) to see if there was a consensus before a mass WP:RM was made. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Nickname test cases. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

War with John Lackland

In the section with this heading, there is no mention made at all of a John "Lackland". Has part of this section been removed? Or is it a case where "every schoolboy knows" who John Lackland is?JGC1010 (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War with Richard Ist

Why no mention of the series of defeats Phillip suffered at the hands of Richrad Couer de lion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.90.167 (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of Philippe Auguste

Here's a photograph of the last remaining part of the wall built by Philippe Auguste around Paris before going to the Crusades. Feel free to insert it in the article. Cheers. PHG (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{{name}}} in info box.

Hi. I'm kinda new here, and the info box about him (the one with the picture and dates of coronation, etc.) has as its heading, "{{{name}}}" I looked in the page for a place to edit this, but couldn't find it. Does anyone know where this field is found?

-MMTrebuchet

Coins of Philippe Auguste

Here are coins with the effigee of Philippe Auguste. Hummm, not so artistic I'm afraid, but representative of the numismatics of the period. Feel free to insert them into the article. Cheers PHG (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When was he called Auguste?

I learned that it was not part of his birth name.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THE

What's with this "the" Vermandois? I've been browsing some Wikipedia articles and "the" keeps cropping up before place names. Is this usage correct? Emerson 07 (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, yes. Lots of French locations are phrased this way in English (similar when we speak about "the Cotswolds", I suppose), and tourist guides like Michelin refer to the Vermandois with that phrase. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen here, the the looks to be the result of translating directly from the French. Though not necessarily incorrect, it is often used awkwardly in Wikipedia articles where the name would read better if the English definite article were omitted. Eric ^talk 22:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical appreciation?

The article lacks any assessment or summation of Philip's character and his abilities as a ruler, over and above the historical narrative 'per se'. I have always understood him to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, and most capable rulers in Europe of the mediaeval period. Surely a section on this aspect is necessary for the sake of completeness? (cf.The French version of the article)Geoff Powers (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret's dowry

Eric, dower and dowry are different things. Margaret received dowry (the territory of Vexin) from her father. Dower was what she received from her husband's family. Philip demanded the return of her dowry, Vexin, to the French royal domain. If you do not mind, I will correct the article again. Surtsicna (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Surtsicna- Sorry, I took from the context of "widowed sister" that dower was the intent. I reverted my revert. By the way, I found several instances of dot (dowry or dower) in the French article, none of which referred this dowry as far as I could tell. Eric ^talk 15:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ingeborg

I would need to read through several books to find the exact passages and original sources again, but Ingeborg was accused of "witchcraft in the bedchamber" by Phillip , which is suggested by some historians to allude to him not being able to consumate his marriage with Ingeborg on account of a bout of erectile dysfunction. That or her being ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerdic1096 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible plagiarism

Hello all- I don't have time to look into this thoroughly now, but wanted to alert the community. Some of this article seems to have been copied from a 2017 book entitled The 100 Most Influential Military Leaders of All Time. The book is written and laid out poorly enough that we may have to consider an even sadder possibility, that the book's author plagiarized Wikipedia to write the book. Just wanted to send up a flare in case anyone's interested. Eric ^talk 19:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That book is a publication of Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.. Dimadick (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?

The article says “On 15 August 1193, he married Ingeborg, daughter of King Valdemar I of Denmark, receiving 10,000 marks of silver as a dowry.” In the very next sentence it says “Philip met her at Amiens on 14 August 1193 and they were married that same day.” Which one is it? The 15th or 14th? Tickery (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response. I have corrected this issue. Bradbury states the same thing as Baldwin, that Philip and Ingeborg met at Amiens on 14 August 1193 and married the same day. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial conquests Map with no key

This map is used under 1200-1206 section but has no English key explaining what the four different colours are. Even the Wikimedia commons description is in French. I added an English key to this article but it was reverted as not necessary. Is it blanked out in the bottom of the image? I still think it is necessary. The red seems to be Kingdom of England? Darrelljon (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DJ and all- I don't think a key in the caption is necessary for a map of the size as it displays in the article. When you click on that thumbnail, you're taken to the full-size map image, on which the key (in English) is visible. I don't see anything in French on the image's Commons page. Maybe I'm missing something? Eric ^talk 00:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, the key in English on the map at the bottom appears to have been obscured because I had dark mode on. Perhaps the black text on transparent background could be fixed. Darrelljon (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that transparency on mouseover yesterday and was wondering about it. I've found the French original, will try making a new English version. Eric ^talk 12:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darrelljon, I tried a reworking of the map graphic, covering the transparent text areas with white, then adding new, sharper text over that. Uploaded it as a new version of the graphic you link above. Also reworked the translations from the French original. What do you think, and how is it viewing? I was thinking of adding links in the description there on Commons to terms such as "ecclesiastical fiefdom". As you may well already know, you can compare the file versions on that Commons page. Eric ^talk 14:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]