Talk:French Wars of Religion

Not NPOV

"She planned to have the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre after the wedding, so she persuaded King Charles IX to follow through with it, and had 3 thousand Huguenots killed in Paris and 20 thousand killed around France. She did nothing but exacerbate the situation and keep her lineage in power until the death of her son Henry III of France"

This is not NPOV. Historians disagrees about the causes of the Massacre. I am not enough of an expert to rewrite.

---

I've tried to stick two unsatisfactory bits together and come up with a piece that is still not very chronological, not very informative and still has a lingering POV feel about it. Unless anyone strongly objects, I suggest rewriting the whole thing. djnjwd

---

Wars of Religion War of Religion

what was the main conflict between the huguenots bisides religion?

There seems to be discrepancy in the information. In one place it says Catherine de Medici issued the Edict of Toleration in 1562, but that it was revoked after a massacre of Protestants at Vassy. It later says that she issued the Edict of St. Germain in 1570, but when you follow the link to that article, it says the Edict of St. Germain was in 1562, that it is usually known as the Edict of Toleration, and that it was revoked after the massacre at Vassy. Which is it?

J

You're right, there is some confusion here... This article is correct, but "Edict of St. Germain" should actually be called "Peace of St. Germain" (it was a truce in 1570 that allowed the Huguenots control of four cities in France)... Earlier the article had said "Treaty of St. Germain", but that linked to an article about the 1919 Treaty ending WWI... I changed it to link to the article "Edict of St Germain" but noted that that article describes the Edict of Toleration (1562) and is misnamed. The 1562 Edict of Toleration was not, as far as I know, called "Edict of St. Germain", so that article should be renamed "1562 Edict of Toleration", and if an article about the 1570 truce is written, it should have the title "Peace of St. Germain." Codex Sinaiticus 18:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

There are two Edicts of Saint Germain, the first, commonly known as the Edict of January, was made in 1562 in order to prevent open hostilities between the two conflicting groups (and obviously failed). This Edict is not providing for a peace like the other edicts of the wars of religion, but sought to give concessions to the Huguenots in order to avoid their rebellion. The second Edict of Saint-Germain was made much later in the wars (August 1570) and ended the Third War by giving the Protestants limited freedom of worship and freedom of conscience. Please do not rename the first edict of Saint-Germain an edict of toleration - the French Crown was not attempting to tolerate anyone, they wanted peace in order to reach an agreement over the reform of the Catholic church in order that the protestants would return to the Catholic Church. - 3rd year, history student, University of Warwick, please refer to books such as R.J Knecht's French Civil Wars (2000) or Grell and Schribner (eds.) Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation, for more authorative information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.30.37 (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This article should not be merged into any other

This is a very important chapter in our history. It has a special relevance to our situation today. For the sake of young people, doing research papers especially, trying to understand the importance of the Wars of Religion, it should stay as a separate article. Marknw 19:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Too much for one page

Seventy-eight years of turbulent history (1520-1598) cannot be crammed into one enormous page. You'll need to employ several long notices on such a page. Superslum 11:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The typical model would be something like the History of India model, with 40+ sub 'Main articles'. // FrankB 02:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

...or compare Italian Wars with the concise paragraphs and the main article... headings. --Wetman 16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree, there are not yet sufficent additional pages to make this format work. A great deal of work would need to be done to the adjoining pages before a short description could be given on this main page. —Preceding comment added by Dragonfang88 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 23:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Subsections

I think that this article should be divided into eight subsections, one for each war. See the article in Frenchfor a model. 83.176.83.83 08:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The Modifications I've made

I hope the modifications I've made are satisfactory and will not be immediately removed, I've tried to break the over-whelming topic down into its chronological, and mainly political, actions for simplicity's sake. Any entries on the themes and problems surrounding this study should really be on seperate articles. I find large blocks of prose rather intimidating, as might many users, so I've 'bulleted' it under titles to make it easier to skim read, while trying to maintain as much of the original script as possible. I am studying this topic for my degree and seek to source my materials when I have opportunity, as well as continue what I've started for the rest of the page. As a student, I also disagree with the over use of the word 'toleration' as the 16th century concept of toleration was not as positive as it is today, therefore their aim was not necessarily one of toleration, even if they used it as means. The article should be careful not to fall into the trap of making this period of history seem radically forward thinking. (I'm not saying it does, as I've not made it the whole way through the article, I'm just noting that this should be looked out for in future.)

- Dragonfang88 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Further improvements: making the main article a chronology with each 'part' of the war dealt with individually? I.E: Treaties, Edicts, Battles, Military engagements for each war on their own pages linking to this main article which gives brief description followed by chronology??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.30.37 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Giving proper names to the individual wars

I'm not sure it's stylistically correct to refer to each individual conflict as a properly-named war, using capital letters (i.e., the "First War," the "Third War," etc.). There is in fact some ambiguity as to the number of wars that were actually fought from 1562-98, because the line between peace and war during this time was so blurry, and because the combattants sometimes changed. The most common number given (which we have accepted) is eight, but some sources only consider there to have been six wars (see, for instance, [1]), while others believe there to have been nine, distinguishing the War of the Three Henrys from the conflict against Spain. So I think it's a bit misleading to our readers to give them proper-sounding names like "Seventh War of Religion" when in fact it's debateable when - or if - that "Seventh War" took place. I think the collective name for the conflict should be in majuscules ("French Wars of Religion") but not the individual "wars" (first war, second war, etc.). Funnyhat (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point, I was just trying to find a way of formatting the situation chronologically, in a way which others may find easier to understand. I am unsure how to revise this though, perhaps the main headings should be listed as the dates alone, and the 'first', 'second' etc war designations should be dropped from the article altogether? Or perhaps in the main paragraphs we can mention their 'common' designation as 'the First War'. Maybe decapitalise it to make it the 'first war'? Any suggestions? Dragonfang88 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Which "queen mother"?

The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre and after (1572-3) section refers to the queen mother, even with a wikilink. The wikilink leads, obviously to a disambiguation page. I cannot easily decipher who is meant by "the queen mother", so I cannot fix this myself. Can someone please pipe the link so it points to the correct queen mother's article? Thanks. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Catherine de'Medici. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfang88 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

New Pages/Clean-up

Some new pages/lists to consider which we could link to this article, giving greater detail to this immense topic:

• Massacre at Vassy (now Wassy)
• Military Action in the French Wars of Religion: a list or description of military events in the wars/individual battles/seiges - not all are given here, and the ones available seem disasociated from the war-efforts as a whole
• Religious Violence in the French Wars of Religion: could give a more balanced view of the nature of religious conflict, maybe centre it around the different Historical interpretations - I'm thinking off the top of my head but Denis Crouzet's thesis come to mind. Or it could just come down to Civil Disturbances/Iconoclasm/etc.
• Henry IV's Succession: this was a whole series of military-diplomatic events which get tagged onto the end of the French Wars of Religion but encompass much more than religion
• War in Brittany: same again really, a seperate conflict almost
• The Committee of 16 (Catholic League in Paris) needs more information
• The War with Spain under Henry IV (is there already a page?)
• Theories on Monarchy and Resistance during French Wars of Religion: lots and lots of discussion/famous theorists in here which are related: Bodin for instance, Theodore Beze, Montaigne.
• Catholicism during the French Wars of Religion: Confraternities, Catholic leagues (not attatched to Guise - made between local catholic confraternaties), Preachers and religious violence, Millenialism (debated by historians), Jesuits, Moderates and Ultra-Catholics, Gallicanism, Ultra-Montaine Catholics, reassertion of the true presence of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist...

Just some suggestions, I don't know how much of this is viable.

Also, this article may imply the Guise had strict control over the League which they did not (but as I've only just started reading about it I really can't comment any further...) Dragonfang88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

Regnans in Excelsis

"...and that any private citizen was morally free to commit regicide, a declaration reminiscent of the Papal bull Regnans in Excelsis against Elizabeth I."

I removed part of this sentence refering to regicide. I read the bull and found no mention of regicide, not even conclusional. Therefore I find the above sentence ujust because it may mislead readers to regard this bull as if containing reference to regicide.

Isidoros47 (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe, if memory serves, Regnans in Excelsis may not explicitly command nor even encourage the Catholics of England to commit regicide. However, as the pope had (via this bull) excommunicated Elizabeth, and freed her subjects of allegiance to her, he had effectively removed her crown. So you are right, if only on the basis that to certain Catholics, Elizabeth was no longer queen. Even if the docment itself did not say 'go commit regicide', it effectively gave English Catholics the right to rebel, and replace, Elizabeth by any means necessary, without facing repercussions in the afterlife. So I'd be careful not to underestimate what is implied in that document.

Regardless, it is probably a good idea to remove it from this context as the two situations are radically different, even if the effect of the Sorbonne's decision was like the effect of the papal bull: to remove the moral obligation of the subjects to serve the monarch.

Dragonfang88 (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Massacre at La Chapelle-Faucher

Please, have a look here : Talk:La Chapelle-Faucher. Thanks in advance. Alvar☮ ☎ 13:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry, haven't come across this massacre in my study, don't know anything which would help. Dragonfang88 (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish took Ardes?

...the Spanish launched a concerted offensive in the spring of 1596 capturing Calais and Ardes by April

The linked "Ardes" is a very small town in France (population about 600). I'm not sure it existed in 1596. Moreover, it is located deep within the borders of France, and the Spanish would have a hard time reaching it either from Spain itself or from the Burgundian circle. Maybe it's a completely different "Ardes"? Or something else altogether?

Top.Squark (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Too many images in the article, takes significant time for page to load

This article has way too many images in it. It took my computer a few minutes just to load the article. Can the number of images be reduced?--R-41 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Henry of Conde older or younger than Henry of Navarre?

Subchapter "The 'third' war (1568–70)": "nominally on behalf of Condé's 15 year old son, Henry, and the sixteen-year old Henry of Navarre"

According to this line Henry of Conde is younger than Henry of Navarre, according to the birthdates given in the respective biographies, the opposite is true. Maybe someone can change, who is more familiar with the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.4.43 (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Lede does not need cites

The Lede is supposed to summarize content from the article. If such content is cited in the body of the article, the Lede does not need cites, and WIKI MOS generally suggests that cites be excluded from the Lede.Parkwells (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The {{FACT}} tags were added by an anonymous user (12.54.20.60) without edit summary or reason on 21 April 2010. That same anon editor has a number of warnings about edits without summaries and adding poorly sourced material. The fact tags are disruptive to the reading of the lead paragraph (and are actually the reason I came to the talk page - to find out why they'd been put there in the first place). The statements seem well-ref'ed in the body which is where citations belong. I am removing the tags per WP:CITE. If you want them back, please discuss it here on the talk page and reach consensus. Personally, I think the lead should be a generalize summary, that only direct quotes or contentious material really need citations, and that the {{FACT}} should rarely if ever appear in the lead. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Which prince?

Section: The 'seventh' war (1579–80) and the Death of Anjou (1584)
"Despite according his brother the title of Duke of Anjou, the prince and his followers continued to create disorder at court through their involvement in the Dutch Revolt."
This sentence is difficult. Which prince accorded his brother the title of Duke of Anjou? And who was the brother? There is no mention of a prince in the previous para.
"disorder at court" I make a wild guess this means the French court, but the previous para only mentions Spanish, England and German states. Apuldram (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Changed to : "Despite Henri according his youngest brother Francis the title of Duke of Anjou, the prince and his followers continued to create disorder at court..." Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Article doesn't display properly.

Don't know if this affects anyone else, but both this article and the talk page don't display properly on my browser/PC. The standard wikipedia left hand pane (i.e. the one with the wiki globe and main page and other languages links) is missing, the font becomes times new roman, infoboxes have no borders and other standard wiki features are missing. Never seen this odd formatting happen on other articles. Anyone any ideas?1812ahill (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Both article aand talk display normally on my computers (Windows XP and Windows 7). You need to provide more information. Is this a new development? Does it happen on websites that are not Wikipedia? Apuldram (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Must have been a ghost in my machine, it looks normal now. Silly me.:)1812ahill (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Date formatting

I've noticed that the date formatting in this article isn't consistent - for example, in the "The third war" section, we have "16 March 1569", "October 30, 1569", and "8 August 1570". Does anyone have strong views about which format to use? If not, the "MMMM DD, YYYY" format will require fewer changes. Tevildo (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• done. Apuldram (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Revocation of Edict of Nantes

Finally, in October 1685, Louis issued the Edict of Fontainebleau, which formally revoked the Edict and made the practice of Protestantism illegal in France. The revocation of the Edict had very damaging results for France

This is at best a vast oversimplification. There is no doubt that this deprived France of significant "human capital" (skilled workers and what today would be called entrepreneurs and capitalists) but on the positive side of the ledger it could be (and had been) argued that the social peace thus gained justified the cost. France had been wracked by almost a century and a half of confessional conflict and the Edict of Fontainbleu decided the matter decisively in favor of Catholicism. The imposition of ideological conformity from above (justifiably) offends liberal sensibilities, but it must equally be acknowledged that France's previous efforts to accommodate both faiths was highly problematic. Although this isn't obvious to modern sensibilities it was taken for granted in the 17th century that confessional uniformity was the sine qua non of political stability, which is why the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which ended the horrific Thirty Years War, affirmed the principle of Cuius regio, eius religio (i.e. the religion of the ruler dictated the religion of the ruled. Or as Abraham Lincoln would have said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand"). Lexington50 (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Like Hitler's persecution of the Jews. "the social peace thus gained justified the cost" That's a very dangerous philosophy. Apuldram (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, because anyone with two live brain cells to rub together can see that Louis XIV was totally like Adolf Hitler. Well ok, maybe not totally...but mostly.

If I can give you some free advice stop talking before you embarrass yourself further.

First of all I'm pretty sure Hitler never made the argument you impute - of course if you can provide a source, have at her.

Second, recognizing that social stability is sometimes achieved only by fairly radical means - such as the population transfers between Greece and Turkey in the early 20th century, or between India and Pakistan at mid century- does not amount to a endorsement of genocide. At least I think it is self evident that it does not -if you want to make that argument go for it. Lexington50 (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed sentence on Francis' sister being a Calvinist

The passage in Knecht, p. 17, about Marguerite of Angoulême is here: "though her major writings ... did share certain heterodox ideas with the works of her mentors, like them she never abandoned the Gallican Church for Protestantism". Yngvadottir (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The color "livid"

One of the maps illustrating the locations where the wars were fought shows four colors, two of which are described in the text as

        –Areas controlled and contested by Huguenots are marked purple and livid on this map of modern France.

There are more than two colors on the map (two purples, one grey, and one blue). Since grey is the base map color, it need not be described but the meaning of the other colors are not clear. Most English users would not recognize that "livid" meant something like "blueish grey". Perhaps this choice of name label is based on a hex color designation, but the article would be better served by describing the color as "blueish grey".

Presumably the "livid" color is meant to show Alsace Lorraine area, but a better color name should be applied to the text. There are two shades of purple in the map, one a lavender, and the other more of a reddish purple. Probably the later is being applied to areas where the conflict was the most intense, but its not obviously so.. Or is it that the two purple areas were "controlled" by French Huguenots, and the "livid area" was contested by them"? The caption text is ambiguous.

A simple fix to the caption would be all that might be needed, but the labeling is not very well thought out, and a revision to the graphic might also be needed. TwelveGreat (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not good with colors like much of male humans. Replace it with the new caption as you wish. The source for that map is: http://pages.uoregon.edu/mapplace/EU/EU20_France/Maps/EU20_02ReligiousWars.jpg and most other historical maps are pretty much the same. It misses two tiny regions northeast of Poitou (almost Normandy) that were controlled by Huguenots.Ernio48 (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Livid is not a colour, but in French can mean dark or intense, of any colour. I have redone the caption based on the file info (you know where that lives, right?). Whether the map is accurate I have no idea. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The current fixes seem reasonable. However, as to whether "livid" is a color or not, see Wikipedia:Blue-grayTwelveGreat (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Pie chart

I'm not sure we should have that pie chart with religious percentages for France in 1560. While it's generally believed that Protestants made up about 10% of the population in the 1560s, we do not have actual hard data on that. There was no religious census. 2602:306:CFEA:170:2818:2C24:5C6B:DC4 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Without being confounded by dynastic considerations?

"Unlike all other religious wars at the time, the French wars retained their religious character without being confounded by dynastic considerations."

I think, respectfully, this line in the intro should be taken out. Henry of Navarre's action (abjuring Catholicism, then rejoining after victory) suggest his involvement was more about dynastic consideration than anything else.

The very next paragraph seems to suggest 'dynastic considerations as well: "The conflict involved disputes between the aristocratic houses of France, mainly the Reformed House of Condé (a branch of the House of Bourbon) and the Roman Catholic House of Guise (a branch of the House of Lorraine), and both sides received assistance from foreign sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefete (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefete (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Discuss infobox claim: "Foreign powers fail to weaken France and gain territories"

As far as I know there is no evidence that Philip II had the goal of conquering French lands for the Spanish throne. There are no citations given for this alleged ambition for French territory. It is indeed true that he was depicted by his French enemies as using the League as a front for his own territorial ambitions, but that is to be expected from his enemies. His goals were religious and political, not territorial. He made no attempt to claim or hold onto the French lands and towns that were occupied by his armies when he signed the Peace of Vervins.

Map

While I acknowledge the work involved in making the map showing which areas of France were predominantly each of the three religions, it is not a map of France as it stood in 1560. It appears to be modern France. Take a look at this map http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/ward_1912/france_religious_wars_1562.jpg. CsikosLo (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Geography of the war - in opening paragraph

Opening paragraph mentions countries on the periphery of "today's France":

The conflict involved several pre-modern day principalities around the borders of today's France, like the Kingdom of Navarre and parts of Burgundy.

But surely, the Dukedom of Lorraine, which was not incorporated into France until the 1600s, which is after our period, should also be included as "not a part of today's France." According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "French domination of the area [Lorraine] dates from the 17th century". The fact is that the aristocratic families of these peripheral regions had designs on the French throne, either through entitlement by heredity (Antoine of Navarre), or marriage. Mary Queen of Scots (daughter of Marie of Guise) had been carried off from Scotland by her wealthy uncles the Duke Guise and his brother the Cardinal and married to the Dauphin (and briefly king) of France, the child, Francis. According to Knecht, after the death of Henry II the enormously wealthy and powerful Guises pushed aside the Bourbons who as Princes of the Blood ought to have been entitled to rule France during the minority of Francis II. (Knecht, The French Wars of Religion 1559–1598, pp 20–21) and ruled it themselves. I don't think this is mentioned in the article. In any case I don't know how pertinent it is to mention that these regions were not at the time part of "France" at all, because it is confusing. The Guises owned/ or at least controlled (in the case of Cardinal Charles of Guise) enormous properties and estates within France proper. Mballen (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Civil Infighting

In the opening summary the internal reference for "civil infighting" takes you to "civil war", if civil war is meant why not use that term, especially since, according to the dictionary, "infighting" refers primarily to hidden conflict within an organization or group, whereas the conflicts in the wars of religion were open conflicts between groups. Therefore I am removing it to make the sentence less redundant and more accurate. The war or wars involved dynastic power struggles as well as religious ones but were primarily set off and motivated by religion, according to Knecht -- hence the name they are known by, "Wars of Religion". As far as geography, the nation state as we now know it did not exist in the feudal system then in place. Instead, there was a system of rule by families and of acquisition of territories within and without "nations" by marriage, conquest, and hereditary right. It just confuses things to talk about borders and periphery especially in terms of modern borders. Mballen (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Coutras

How come the battle of Coutras is not even mentioned, let alone discussed, in the section of the War of the Three Henrys?

POV in the Lede

The section about Henry IV appears quite partisan "wise governance" and "reputation as France's best and most beloved monarch" . There is further no supporting citations for this view in the article body, could something more neutral be devised Sovietblobfish (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Or a reference for these very conventional views. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Went to check the Henri IV page to see if its legacy section could provide anything, while similarly glowing it is also entirely reference free, unfortunate Sovietblobfish (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Separating name/periodisation and list of events

I have renamed the section "Name and duration" to "Name and periodisation". Periodisation describes choices historians make in marking and subdividing a phenomenon in time, while duration implies a known quantity of time. As the section itself already said (albeit without sources), the periodisation of the French Wars of Religion, and how to number or call its periods, is contested, and so it would be best to leave this open. I added a list of 9 wars (plus the two major massacres) that seems to have a certain degree of consensus in English-language sources, although 'Ninth War of Religion' doesn't seem to be as widely attested in French-language (neuvième guerre de religion) or German-language sources (Neunte(r) Hugenottenkrieg). French-language sources that use the term neuvième guerre de religion are generally old and inconsistent with each other (e.g. one says "De 1620 à 1622, c'est une neuvieme guerre de religion. De 1625 à 1629, c'en est une dixième, la dernière", another says "La neuvième guerre de religion (1585–1589) bat son plein..."). German-language sources tend to lump all events from 1585 to 1598 together as 'Achter Hugenottenkrieg', some but not all French-language sources and an apparent minority of English-language sources do this as well. Meanwhile, there is a lot of confusion about whether one should consider 'Eight War of Religion / Eight Huguenot War' as a synonym of 'War of the Three Henrys' or not (German Wikipedia does, English and French Wikipedia do not, they end it in 1589, even though the latter two sometimes claim it was 'the last War of Religion', while claiming elsewhere that the Wars of Religion only ended in 1598).

It is clear from the above that the debate about how to periodise the French Wars of Religion is far from settled, between and even within language communities. Therefore, I don't think it's a good idea to so confidently assert periods in the "Chronology" section, where the existence of an Eighth War is assumed, and dated to 1585–1598 (which is problematic and contested for the reasons I've given above). However, a list of events including battles, massacres, treaties, assassinations/prominent deaths etc. surely has added value, because these are the relevant events that scholars are trying to frame with periods and names. To emphasise it is a set of events rather than periods, I'll rename it "List of events". I'll keep the periods for now, but will handle them more loosely than before to emphasise the contestation of the names and periodisation. Although this section could be moved to right below the "Name and periodisation" section because they are closely related, this normally isn't done, so instead I'll put a link to the "List of events" section in the "Name and periodisation" section. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Massacres of Catholics by Huguenots

This article lacks any mention of Huguenot massacres of Catholics, for example, of the 48 Mercedarian Priests and Monks of Santa Maria of Riscala in the latter part of the 16th century. 2601:18F:E80:894B:1D35:2146:F3AA:38D1 (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

You may need to look at the article a little more closely. The Michelade features in the body. sovietblobfish (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

As concerns your specific request. This period of French history is littered with massacres committed by both Protestants and Catholics (though most of the largest were committed by the latter group) that aren't included in this article. The Catholic killings at Castelnaudary in 1562 don't feature in this article, neither do the Protestant killings at Mornas in the same year. The best overview of the massacres is Allan Tulchin's article 'Massacres during the French Wars of Religion', which fortunately has been uploaded to Academia [2] . I can't say I see this 'Riscala' massacre you are referring to in his work though. Where is Riscala?

There is also the article St Bartholomew's Day massacre in the provinces which covers those killings committed in 1572 more closely. There will soon be an article that covers both Protestant and Catholic violence during the first French War of Religion in much more depth. That doesn't exist yet though, outside of my userspace. sovietblobfish (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)