Wagner J. a. Encyclopedia of the 100 Year War

8/15/2019 Wagner J. a. Encyclopedia of the 100 Year War

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wagner-j-a-encyclopedia-of-the-100-year-war 1/432

Encyclopedia of the

Hundred Years War

John A. Wagner

GREENWOOD PRESS



Encyclopedia of the

Hundred Years War





Encyclopedia of the

Hundred Years War

John A. Wagner

GREENWOOD PRESSWestport, Connecticut London



Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Wagner, J. A. (John A.)Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War / John A. Wagner.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-313-32736-X (alk. paper)

1. Hundred Years’ War, 1337–1453—Encyclopedias. I. Title.DC96.W34 2006944'.02503—dc22 2006009761

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available.

Copyright # 2006 by John A. Wagner

All rights reserved. No portion of this book may bereproduced, by any process or technique, without theexpress written consent of the publisher.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2006009761

ISBN: 0-313-32736-XFirst published in 2006

Greenwood Press, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.www.greenwood.com

Printed in the United States of America

The paper used in this book complies with thePermanent Paper Standard issued by the NationalInformation Standards Organization (Z39.48-1984).

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1



To my father, Joseph L. Wagner,

who encouraged me to be whatever I wanted to be and worked ceaselessly

to give me opportunities to do so.

I have begun [this book] in such a way that all who see it,read it, or hear it read may take delight and pleasure in it,

and that I may earn their regard.

—Jean Froissart, prologue to Chronicles





Contents

List of Entries ix

Guide to Related Topics xiii

Preface xxiii

Acknowledgments xxvii

Chronology: The Hundred Years War xxix

Maps li

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE HUNDRED

YEARS WAR 1

Appendix 1: Genealogies 314

Appendix 2: Chronological Listing of Major Battles,

Sieges, and Campaigns 321

Appendix 3: European Monarchs and Rulers, 1250s–1450s 323

Appendix 4: Popes, 1294–1455 326

Appendix 5: Holders of Selected English, French,

and Continental Titles of Nobility during

the Hundred Years War 327

Appendix 6: Constables and Marshals of France and England

during the Hundred Years War 332Appendix 7: Counties, Duchies, and Regions of Medieval France 334

Appendix 8: Annotated Listing of Selected Sources for the

Hundred Years War 343

Bibliography 353

Index 365

vii





List of Entries

Agincourt, Battle of (1415)Aiguillon, Siege of (1346)Albret, Arnaud-Amanieu, Lord of (d. 1401)Albret, Bernard-Aiz, Lord of (d. 1359)Albret, Charles, Lord of, Constable of France

(d. 1415)Amiens, Treaty of (1423)Anglo-Burgundian Alliance (1420–1435)Anglo-Flemish Alliance (1339)Anglo-French War of 1294–1303Anne of Burgundy, Duchess of Bedford

(1404–1432)Anti-French Coalition (1337–1340)AppanageAppeal of the Gascon Lords (1368–1369)

AquitaineArchersArmagnacsArmies, Command ofArmies, Composition ofArmies, Recruitment ofArmies, Size ofArmies, Supplying ofArmor and Nonmissile WeaponryArras, Congress of (1435) Arriere-ban

Artevelde, James van (c. 1290–1345)Artevelde, Philip van (1340–1382)Arthur III, Duke of Brittany (1393–1458)ArtilleryAuberoche, Battle of (1345)Audley, Sir James (d. 1369)Audrehem, Arnoul d’, Marshal of France (c.

1300–1370)Auray, Battle of (1364)Avignon Peace Conference (1344)

Badefol, Seguin de (c. 1331–1366)Bastides

Battle, Nature ofBauge, Battle of (1421)Beauchamp, Richard, Earl of Warwick

(1382–1439)Beauchamp, Thomas, Earl of Warwick

(c. 1314–1369)Beaufort, Edmund, Duke of Somerset

(c. 1406–1455)Beaufort, Henry, Cardinal-Bishop of

Winchester (c. 1375–1447)Beaufort, John, Duke of Somerset

(1403–1444)Beaufort, Thomas, Duke of Exeter

(c. 1377–1426)Bentley, Sir Walter (c. 1310–1359)

Bergerac, Capture of (1345)Bernard, Count of Armagnac (1391–1418)Black DeathBohun, William de, Earl of Northampton

(c. 1312–1360)BordeauxBordeaux, Truce of (1357)Bourges, Treaty of (1412)Bretigny, Treaty of (1360)Breton Civil War (1341–1365)Brignais, Battle of (1362)

BrittanyBruges Peace Conference (1375–1377)Bureau, John (d. 1463)Burghersh, Henry, Bishop of Lincoln

(1292–1340)BurgundiansBurgundyBuzancais, Treaty of (1412)

Cabochiens (1413)

Cadzand, Battle of (1387)CalaisCalais, Siege of (1346–1347)

ix



Calais, Truce of (1347)Calveley, Sir Hugh (d. 1394)Canterbury, Treaty of (1416)Capet, House ofCastilian War of Succession (1362–1369)

Castillon, Battle of (1453)CasualtiesCatherine of Valois, Queen of England

(1401–1437)Cervole, Arnaud de (c. 1320–1366)Chandos, Sir John (d. 1370)Charles, Duke of Orleans (1394–1465)Charles IV, King of France (1294–1328)Charles V, King of France (1338–1380)Charles VI, King of France (1368–1422)Charles VII, King of France (1403–1461)

Charles VII, Military Reforms ofCharles of Blois, Duke of Brittany

(c. 1319–1364)Charles the Bad, King of Navarre (1332–1387)Chevauche eChevauche e of 1355Chevauche e of 1373ChivalryChristine de Pizan (c. 1364–c. 1430)Clement VI (1291–1352)

Clisson, Olivier, Constable of France(1336–1407)Cocherel, Battle of (1364)Combat of the Thirty (1351)Cravant, Battle of (1423)Crecy, Battle of (1346)Crisis of 1340–1341

Dagworth, Sir Thomas (c. 1310–1350)David II, King of Scotland (1324–1371)Diplomacy

Dordrecht Bonds (1337–1338)Douglas, Archibald, Earl of Douglas

(c. 1369–1424)

Edmund of Langley, Duke of York(1341–1402)

Edward, the Black Prince, Prince of Wales(1330–1376)

Edward I, King of England (1239–1307)Edward II, King of England (1284–1327)

Edward III, King of England (1312–1377)Esplechin, Truce of (1340)Estates, General and Provincial

Fastolf, Sir John (c. 1378–1459)FlandersFormigny, Battle of (1450)Fougeres, Sack of (1449)Franco-Scottish Alliance

French Civil WarFresnay, Battle of (1420)Froissart, Jean (c. 1337–c. 1404)

Garter, Order of theGasconyGrailly, Jean de, Captal de Buch

(d. 1376)Great CompanyGuerande, Treaty of (1365)Guesclin, Bertrand du, Constable of France

(c. 1320–1380)Guines, Treaty of (1354)

Halidon Hill, Battle of (1333)Harcourt, Godfrey of (d. 1356)Harfleur, Siege of (1415)Hawkwood, Sir John (c. 1320–1394)Henry IV, King of England (1366–1413)Henry V, King of England (1387–1422)Henry VI, King of England (1421–1471)

Henry of Grosmont, Duke of Lancaster(c. 1310–1361)Herrings, Battle of the (1429)Holland, Thomas, Earl of Kent

(c. 1315–1360)Hostages, Treaty of the (1362)Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester

(1390–1447)Hundred Years War, Causes ofHundred Years War, Naming ofHundred Years War, Phases of

IndenturesIsabeau of Bavaria, Queen of France

(c. 1370–1435)Isabella, Queen of England (c. 1292–1358)Isabella, Queen of England (1388–1409)

Jack Cade’s Rebellion (1450) Jacquerie (1358) Jean le Bel (d. c. 1370)

Joan of Arc (c. 1412–1431) John, Count of Dunois and Longueville(1402–1468)

LIST OF ENTRIES

x



John, Duke of Alencon (c. 1407–1476) John, Duke of Bedford (1389–1435) John, Duke of Berry (1340–1416) John II, King of France (1319–1364) John IV, Duke of Brittany (c. 1340–1399)

John V, Duke of Brittany (1389–1442) John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster

(1340–1399) John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy

(1371–1419) Justification of the Duke of Burgundy (1408)

Knolles, Sir Robert (c. 1325–1407)

Lancaster, House ofLa Roche-Derrien, Battle of (1347)

La Rochelle, Battle of (1372)Leulinghen, Truce of (1389)Limoges, Sack of (1370)Loire Campaign (1429)LondonLondon, First Treaty of (1358)London, Second Treaty of (1359)Louis, Duke of Anjou (1339–1384)Louis, Duke of Guienne (1397–1415)Louis, Duke of Orleans (1372–1407)

Louis X, King of France (1289–1316)Louis de Male, Count of Flanders(1330–1384)

Louis de Nevers, Count of Flanders(c. 1304–1346)

Maine, Surrender of (1448)Malestroit, Truce of (1343)Marcel, Etienne (1310–1358)Margaret of Anjou, Queen of England

(1430–1482)

Margaret of France, Queen of England(1279–1318)

Marguerite de Flanders, Duchess ofBurgundy (c. 1349–1405)

MarmousetsMauny, Walter, Lord Mauny (d. 1372)Mauron, Battle of (1352)Meaux, Siege of (1421–1422)Melun, Siege of (1420)Montagu, Thomas, Earl of Salisbury

(1388–1428)Montagu, William, Earl of Salisbury(1301–1344)

Montargis, Siege of (1427)Montereau Conference (1419)Montfort, John de (d. 1345)Morlaix, Battle of (1342)

Na jera, Battle of (1367)National Consciousness, Growth ofNaval WarfareNeville’s Cross, Battle of (1346)Nogent-sur-Seine, Battle of (1359)Norman Campaign (1417–1419)Norman Campaign (1449–1450)Normandy

OriflammeOrleans, Siege of (1428–1429)

Papacy and the Hundred Years WarParisParis, Treaty of (1259)Parlement of ParisParliamentPatay, Battle of (1429)Pa tisPeasants’ Revolt of 1381Philip IV, King of France (1268–1314)

Philip V, King of France (c. 1290–1322)Philip VI, King of France (1293–1350)Philippa of Hainault, Queen of England

(c. 1314–1369)Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy

(1342–1404)Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy

(1396–1467)Plantagenet, House ofPoitiers, Battle of (1356)Pole, Sir William de la (d. 1366)

Pole, William de la, Duke of Suffolk(1396–1450)

Pontoise, Siege of (1441)ProcessPropaganda and War Publicity

RansomRheims Campaign (1359–1360)Richard, Duke of York (1411–1460)Richard II, King of England (1367–1400)

Robert of Artois (1287–1342)Rouen, Siege of (1418–1419)Routiers

LIST OF ENTRIES

xi



Saintes, Battle of (1351)Saint-Omer, Battle of (1340)Saint-Sardos, War of (1323–1325)Salic Law of SuccessionScales, Thomas, Lord Scales (c. 1399–1460)

ScotlandSeine, Battle of the (1416)Shakespeare and the Hundred Years WarSiege WarfareSluys, Battle of (1340)Stafford, Ralph, Earl of Stafford (1301–1372)Star, Order of theStewart, John, Earl of Buchan (c. 1380–1424)Strategy and TacticsStratford, John, Archbishop of Canterbury

(c. 1275–1348)

Talbot, John, Earl of Shrewsbury(c. 1384–1453)

Taxation and War FinanceThierache Campaign (1339)Thomas, Duke of Clarence

(1389–1421)Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of

Gloucester (1355–1397)Tournai, Siege of (1340)Tours, Truce of (1444)Towns and the Hundred Years WarTroyes, Treaty of (1420)

Valmont, Battle of (1416)Valois, House ofVerneuil, Battle of (1424)Vignolles, Etienne de (c. 1390–1443)

Winchelsea, Battle of (1350)

Xaintrailles, Poton de (1400–1461)

LIST OF ENTRIES

xii



Guide to Related Topics

ALLIANCES AND COALITIONSAnglo-Burgundian AllianceAnglo-Flemish AllianceAnti-French CoalitionBourges, Treaty of

Buzancais, Treaty ofCanterbury, Treaty ofDiplomacyFranco-Scottish Alliance

AQUITAINE/GASCONYAiguillon, Siege ofAlbret, Arnaud-Amanieu, Lord ofAlbret, Bernard-Aiz, Lord ofAlbret, Charles, Lord of

Anglo-French War of 1294–1303Appeal of the Gascon LordsAquitaineAuberoche, Battle ofBadefol, Seguin deBastides

Bergerac, Capture ofBernard, Count of ArmagnacBordeauxCastillon, Battle ofChandos, Sir John

Charles IV, King of FranceCharles V, King of FranceEdward, the Black Prince, Prince

of WalesGasconyGrailly, Jean de, Captal de BuchHenry of Grosmont, Duke of LancasterLimoges, Sack ofLouis, Duke of AnjouPhilip IV, King of FranceRoutiers

Saintes, Battle ofSaint-Sardos, War of

BATTLESAgincourt, Battle ofAuberoche, Battle ofAuray, Battle ofBattle, Nature of

Bauge, Battle ofBrignais, Battle ofCadzand, Battle ofCastillon, Battle ofCasualtiesCocherel, Battle ofCombat of the ThirtyCravant, Battle ofCrecy, Battle ofFormigny, Battle of

Fresnay, Battle ofHalidon Hill, Battle ofHerrings, Battle of theLa Roche-Derrien, Battle ofLa Rochelle, Battle ofMauron, Battle ofMorlaix, Battle ofNa jera, Battle ofNeville’s Cross, Battle ofNogent-sur-Seine, Battle ofPatay, Battle of

Poitiers, Battle ofSaintes, Battle ofSaint-Omer, Battle ofSeine, Battle of theSluys, Battle ofValmont, Battle ofVerneuil, Battle ofWinchelsea, Battle of

BRETON CIVIL WAR (1341–1365)

AND BRITTANYAmiens, Treaty ofArthur III, Duke of Brittany

xiii



Auray, Battle ofBentley, Sir WalterBohun, William de, Earl of

NorthamptonBreton Civil War

BrittanyCalveley, Sir HughChandos, Sir JohnCharles V, King of FranceCharles of Blois, Duke of BrittanyClisson, Olivier, Constable of FranceCombat of the ThirtyDagworth, Sir ThomasEdward III, King of EnglandGuerande, Treaty of

John II, King of France

John IV, Duke of Brittany John V, Duke of BrittanyLa Roche-Derrien, Battle ofMalestroit, Truce ofMauron, Battle ofMontfort, John deMorlaix, Battle ofPa tisPhilip VI, King of France

BURGUNDYAmiens, Treaty ofAnglo-Burgundian AllianceAnne of Burgundy, Duchess

of BedfordArras, Congress ofBurgundiansBurgundyCabochiensCharles VI, King of FranceCharles VII, King of France

Henry IV, King of EnglandHenry V, King of EnglandHenry VI, King of England

John, Duke of Bedford John the Fearless, Duke of

Burgundy Justification of the Duke of BurgundyLancaster, House ofMarguerite de Flanders, Duchess of

Burgundy

Montereau ConferencePhilip the Bold, Duke of BurgundyPhilip the Good, Duke of Burgundy

CAMPAIGNS

Chevauche eChevauche e of 1355Chevauche e of 1373Loire Campaign

Norman Campaign (1417–1419)Norman Campaign (1449–1450)Rheims CampaignThierache Campaign

CAROLINE WAR (1369–1389)Albret, Arnaud-Amanieu, Lord ofAppeal of the Gascon LordsAquitaineBordeaux

Bruges Peace ConferenceCadzand, Battle ofCharles V, King of FranceCharles VI, King of FranceChevauche e of 1373Clisson, Olivier, Constable of FranceEdmund of Langley, Duke of YorkEdward III, King of EnglandGuesclin, Bertrand du, Constable

of France John, Duke of Berry

John of Gaunt, Duke of LancasterKnolles, Sir RobertLa Rochelle, Battle ofLeulinghen, Truce ofLimoges, Sack ofLouis, Duke of AnjouMarguerite de Flanders, Duchess of

BurgundyRichard IIThomas of Woodstock, Duke of

Gloucester

CASTILIAN WAR OF SUCCESSION(1362–1369)Audrehem, Arnoul d’, Marshal of FranceCastilian War of SuccessionClisson, Olivier, Constable of FranceEdward, the Black Prince, Prince

of WalesGuesclin, Bertrand du, Constable of

France John of Gaunt, Duke of LancasterNa jera, Battle of

GUIDE TO RELATED TOPICS

xiv



CHURCHMEN AND POPESAvignon Peace ConferenceBeaufort, Henry, Cardinal-Bishop of

WinchesterBurghersh, Henry, Bishop of Lincoln

Clement VIPapacy and the Hundred Years WarStratford, John, Archbishop

of Canterbury

COMMANDERS AND CAPTAINS,ENGLISHAlbret, Arnaud-Amanieu, Lord ofAlbret, Bernard-Aiz, Lord ofArmies, Command ofAudley, Sir James

Beauchamp, Richard, Earl ofWarwick

Beauchamp, Thomas, Earl of WarwickBeaufort, Edmund, Duke of SomersetBeaufort, John, Duke of SomersetBeaufort, Thomas, Duke of ExeterBentley, Sir WalterBohun, William de, Earl of

NorthamptonCalveley, Sir Hugh

Chandos, Sir JohnDagworth, Sir ThomasEdmund of Langley, Duke of YorkEdward, the Black Prince, Prince

of WalesFastolf, Sir JohnGrailly, Jean de, Captal de BuchHenry of Grosmont, Duke of LancasterHolland, Thomas, Earl of Kent

John, Duke of Bedford John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster

Knolles, Sir RobertMauny, Walter, Lord MaunyMontagu, Thomas, Earl of SalisburyMontagu, William, Earl of SalisburyPole, William de la, Duke of SuffolkRichard, Duke of YorkRobert of ArtoisScales, Thomas, Lord ScalesStafford, Ralph, Earl of StaffordTalbot, John, Earl of Shrewsbury

Thomas, Duke of ClarenceThomas of Woodstock, Duke ofGloucester

COMMANDERS AND CAPTAINS,FRENCHAlbret, Arnaud-Amanieu, Lord ofAlbret, Charles, Lord ofArmies, Command of

Arthur III, Duke of BrittanyAudrehem, Arnoul d’, Marshal of FranceBernard, Count of ArmagnacBureau, JohnCharles, Duke of OrleansClisson, Olivier, Constable of FranceDouglas, Archibald, Earl of DouglasGuesclin, Bertrand du, Constable

of France Joan of Arc John, Count of Dunois and Longueville

John, Duke of Alencon John, Duke of BerryLouis, Duke of AnjouPhilip the Bold, Duke of BurgundyStewart, John, Earl of BuchanVignolles, Etienne deXaintrailles, Poton de

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL MATTERSArmies, Composition of

Armies, Recruitment ofArmies, Supplying ofBlack DeathCabochiensCasualtiesChivalryChristine de PizanCombat of the ThirtyDordrecht BondsIndenturesLondon

National Consciousness, Growth ofParisPa tis

Pole, Sir William de laTaxation and War FinanceTowns and the Hundred Years War

EDWARDIAN WAR (1330s–1360)Aiguillon, Siege ofAlbret, Bernard-Aiz, Lord of

Anglo-Flemish AllianceAnti-French CoalitionAquitaine


xv



Artevelde, James vanAuberoche, Battle ofAudley, Sir JamesAudrehem, Arnoul d’, Marshal of FranceBadefol, Seguin de

Beauchamp, Thomas, Earl of WarwickBentley, Sir WalterBergerac, Capture ofBlack DeathBohun, William de, Earl of NorthamptonBordeauxBordeaux, Truce ofBretigny, Treaty ofBreton Civil WarBrittanyBurghersh, Henry, Bishop of Lincoln

CalaisCalais, Siege ofCalais, Truce ofCalveley, Sir HughCervole, Arnaud deChandos, Sir JohnCharles V, King of FranceCharles of Blois, Duke of BrittanyCharles the Bad, King of NavarreChevauche e

Chevauche´ e of 1355Combat of the Thirty

Crecy, Battle ofCrisis of 1340–1341Dagworth, Sir ThomasDavid II, King of ScotlandDordrecht BondsEdward, the Black Prince, Prince of WalesEdward III, King of EnglandEsplechin, Truce ofFroissart, Jean

Garter, Order of theGrailly, Jean de, Captal de BuchGuines, Treaty ofHarcourt, Godfrey ofHenry of Grosmont, Duke of LancasterHolland, Thomas, Earl of Kent

John II, King of FranceKnolles, Sir RobertLa Roche-Derrien, Battle ofLondon, First Treaty of

London, Second Treaty ofLouis de Nevers, Count of FlandersMalestroit, Truce of

Mauny, Walter, Lord MaunyMauron, Battle ofMontagu, William, Earl of SalisburyMontfort, John deMorlaix, Battle of

Philip VI, King of FrancePhilippa of Hainault, Queen of EnglandPlantagenet, House ofPoitiers, Battle ofPole, Sir William de laRheims CampaignRobert of ArtoisSaintes, Battle ofSaint-Omer, Battle ofSluys, Battle ofStafford, Ralph, Earl of Stafford

Thierache CampaignTournai, Siege ofWinchelsea, Battle of

FLANDERSAnglo-Flemish AllianceArtevelde, James vanArtevelde, Philip vanBruges Peace ConferenceDordrecht Bonds

Edward III, King of EnglandFlandersLouis de Male, Count of FlandersLouis de Nevers, Count of FlandersMarguerite de Flanders, Duchess of

Burgundy

FRENCH CIVIL WAR (1410s)Anglo-Burgundian AllianceArmagnacsBernard, Count of Armagnac

Bourges, Truce ofBurgundiansBurgundyBuzancais, Treaty ofCabochiensCatherine of Valois, Queen of EnglandCharles, Duke of OrleansCharles VI, King of FranceCharles VII, King of FranceChristine de Pizan

French Civil WarHenry IV, King of EnglandHenry V, King of England


xvi



Isabeau of Bavaria, Queen of FranceIsabella, Queen of England (1388–1409)

John, Duke of Berry John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy Justification of the Duke of Burgundy

Lancaster, House ofLouis, Duke of GuienneLouis, Duke of OrleansMontereau ConferenceTroyes, Treaty of

HISTORIOGRAPHY AND SOURCESFroissart, JeanHundred Years War, Causes ofHundred Years War, Naming ofHundred Years War, Phases of

Jean le Bel Justification of the Duke of BurgundyPropaganda and War PublicityShakespeare and the Hundred Years War

INSTITUTIONS, LAWS, ANDCONVENTIONSChivalryEstates, General and ProvincialGarter, Order of the

Parlement of ParisParliamentRansomSalic Law of SuccessionStar, Order of the

KINGS, QUEENS, AND ROYAL HOUSESCapet, House ofCatherine of Valois, Queen of EnglandCharles IV, King of FranceCharles V, King of France

Charles VI, King of FranceCharles VII, King of FranceCharles the Bad, King of NavarreDavid II, King of ScotlandEdward I, King of EnglandEdward II, King of EnglandEdward III, King of EnglandHenry IV, King of EnglandHenry V, King of EnglandHenry VI, King of England

Isabeau of Bavaria, Queen of FranceIsabella, Queen of England (c. 1292–1358)Isabella, Queen of England (1388–1409)

John II, King of FranceLancaster, House ofLouis X, King of FranceMargaret of Anjou, Queen of EnglandMargaret of France, Queen of England

Philip IV, King of FrancePhilip V, King of FrancePhilip VI, King of FrancePhilippa of Hainault, Queen of EnglandPlantagenet, House ofRichard II, King of EnglandValois, House of

LANCASTRIAN WAR (1415–1453)Agincourt, Battle ofAlbret, Charles, Lord of

Amiens, Treaty ofAnglo-Burgundian AllianceAnne of Burgundy, Duchess of BedfordArmagnacsArras, Congress ofArthur III, Duke of BrittanyBauge, Battle ofBeauchamp, Richard, Earl of WarwickBeaufort, Edmund, Duke of SomersetBeaufort, Henry, Cardinal-Bishop of

WinchesterBeaufort, John, Duke of SomersetBeaufort, Thomas, Duke of ExeterBernard, Count of ArmagnacBordeauxBureau, JohnBurgundiansBurgundyCanterbury, Treaty ofCastillon, Battle ofCatherine of Valois, Queen of England

Charles, Duke of OrleansCharles VI, King of FranceCharles VII, King of FranceCharles VII, Military Reforms ofChristine de PizanCravant, Battle ofDouglas, Archibald, Earl of DouglasFastolf, Sir JohnFormigny, Battle ofFougeres, Sack of

Fresnay, Battle ofHarfleur, Siege ofHenry V, King of England


xvii



Henry VI, King of EnglandHerrings, Battle of theHumphrey, Duke of GloucesterIsabeau of Bavaria, Queen of France

Joan of Arc

John, Count of Dunois and Longueville John, Duke of Alencon John, Duke of Bedford John, Duke of Berry John the Fearless, Duke of BurgundyLancaster, House ofLoire CampaignMaine, Surrender ofMargaret of Anjou, Queen of EnglandMeaux, Siege ofMelun, Siege of

Montagu, Thomas, Earl of SalisburyMontargis, Siege ofNorman Campaign (1417–1419)Norman Campaign (1449–1450)Orleans, Siege ofPatay, Battle ofPhilip the Good, Duke of BurgundyPole, William de la, Duke of SuffolkPontoise, Siege ofRichard, Duke of York

Rouen, Siege ofScales, Thomas, Lord ScalesSeine, Battle of theStewart, John, Earl of BuchanTalbot, John, Earl of ShrewsburyThomas, Duke of ClarenceTours, Truce ofTroyes, Treaty ofValmont, Battle ofVerneuil, Battle ofVignolles, Etienne de

Xaintrailles, Poton de

MILITARY MATTERS

ArchersArmies, Command ofArmies, Composition ofArmies, Recruitment ofArmies, Size ofArmies, Supplying of

Armor and Nonmissile Weaponry Arriere-ban

Arthur III, Duke of Brittany

ArtilleryBattle, Nature ofCasualtiesCharles VII, Military Reforms ofChevauche e

ChivalryCombat of the ThirtyIndenturesNaval WarfareOriflammePa tis

Propaganda and War PublicityRansomSiege WarfareStrategy and Tactics

NAVY AND NAVAL BATTLES

Cadzand, Battle ofLa Rochelle, Battle ofNaval WarfareSeine, Battle of theSluys, Battle ofWinchelsea, Battle of

NOBILITY, ENGLISH

Anne of Burgundy, Duchess of BedfordBeauchamp, Richard, Earl of WarwickBeauchamp, Thomas, Earl of WarwickBeaufort, Edmund, Duke of SomersetBeaufort, John, Duke of SomersetBeaufort, Thomas, Duke of ExeterBohun, William de, Earl of

NorthamptonEdmund of Langley, Duke of YorkEdward, the Black Prince, Prince of WalesHenry of Grosmont, Duke of Lancaster

Holland, Thomas, Earl of KentHumphrey, Duke of Gloucester

John, Duke of Bedford John of Gaunt, Duke of LancasterMauny, Walter, Lord MaunyMontagu, Thomas, Earl of SalisburyMontagu, William, Earl of SalisburyPole, William de la, Duke of SuffolkRichard, Duke of YorkScales, Thomas, Lord Scales

Stafford, Ralph, Earl of StaffordTalbot, John, Earl of ShrewsburyThomas, Duke of Clarence


xviii



Thomas of Woodstock, Duke ofGloucester

NOBILITY, FRENCH/CONTINENTAL

Albret, Arnaud-Amanieu, Lord of

Albret, Bernard-Aiz, Lord ofAlbret, Charles, Lord ofAnne of Burgundy, Duchess of BedfordArthur III, Duke of BrittanyBernard, Count of ArmagnacCharles, Duke of OrleansCharles of Blois, Duke of BrittanyCharles the Bad, King of NavarreGrailly, Jean de, Captal de BuchHarcourt, Godfrey of

John, Count of Dunois and Longueville John, Duke of Alencon John, Duke of Berry John IV, Duke of Brittany John V, Duke of Brittany John the Fearless, Duke of BurgundyLouis, Duke of AnjouLouis, Duke of GuienneLouis, Duke of OrleansLouis de Male, Count of FlandersLouis de Nevers, Count of Flanders

Marguerite de Flanders, Duchess ofBurgundy

Montfort, John dePhilip the Bold, Duke of BurgundyPhilip the Good, Duke of BurgundyRobert of Artois

POLITICAL MATTERS

AppanageAppeal of the Gascon Lords

ArmagnacsArras, Congress ofAvignon Peace ConferenceBurghersh, Henry, Bishop of LincolnBurgundiansCabochiensChristine de PizanCrisis of 1340–1341DiplomacyEstates, General and Provincial

Hostages, Treaty of theIsabella, Queen of England (c. 1292–1358)Isabella, Queen of England (1388–1409)

Maine, Surrender ofMarcel, EtienneMargaret of Anjou, Queen of EnglandMarmousetsNational Consciousness, Growth of

Papacy and the Hundred Years WarProcessPropaganda and War PublicityStratford, John, Archbishop of Canterbury

PROVINCES, REGIONS, TERRITORIES,

AND APPANAGES

AppanageAquitaineBrittanyBurgundy

Estates, General and ProvincialFlandersGasconyMaine, Surrender ofNormandy

REVOLUTIONARIES, REBELLIONS,

UPRISINGS, AND USURPATIONS

Anglo-Flemish AllianceArtevelde, James van

Artevelde, Philip vanCabochiensCharles the Bad, King of NavarreCocherel, Battle ofEdward II, King of EnglandHarcourt, Godfrey ofHenry IV, King of EnglandIsabella, Queen of England (c. 1292–1358)

Jack Cade’s Rebellion JacquerieLancaster, House of

Marcel, EtiennePeasant’s Revolt of 1381Richard II, King of EnglandRobert of Artois

ROUTIERS

AquitaineBadefol, Seguin deBernard, Count of ArmagnacBrignais, Battle of

Calveley, Sir HughCervole, Arnaud deGreat Company


xix



Hawkwood, Sir JohnKnolles, Sir RobertNogent-sur-Seine, Battle ofRansomRoutiers

SCOTLAND

Bauge, Battle ofCravant, Battle ofDavid II, King of ScotlandDouglas, Archibald,

Earl of DouglasEdward I, King of EnglandFranco-Scottish AllianceHalidon Hill, Battle ofNeville’s Cross, Battle of

ScotlandStewart, John, Earl of BuchanVerneuil, Battle of

SIEGES AND SACKS OF TOWNS/

FORTRESSES

Aiguillon, Siege ofArtilleryBergerac, Capture ofCalais, Siege of

Fougeres, Sack ofHarfleur, Siege ofLimoges, Sack ofMeaux, Siege ofMelun, Siege ofMontargis, Siege ofOrleans, Siege ofPontoise, Siege ofRouen, Siege ofSiege WarfareTournai, Siege of

Towns and the HundredYears War

TREATIES, TRUCES, AND PEACE

CONFERENCES

Amiens, Treaty ofAvignon Peace ConferenceBordeaux, Truce ofBourges, Treaty ofBretigny, Treaty of

Bruges Peace ConferenceBuzancais, Treaty ofCalais, Truce of

Canterbury, Treaty ofClement VIDiplomacyEsplechin, Truce ofGuerande, Treaty of

Guines, Treaty ofHostages, Treaty of theLeulinghen, Truce ofLondon, First Treaty ofLondon, Second Treaty ofMalestroit, Truce ofMontereau ConferenceParis, Treaty ofProcessTours, Truce ofTroyes, Treaty of

TROOPS AND WEAPONS

ArchersArmies, Composition ofArmies, Recruitment ofArmies, Size ofArmies, Supplying ofArmor and Nonmissile WeaponryArtilleryCasualties

TOWNS

BastidesBlack DeathBordeauxCabochiensCalais

Jack Cade’s Rebellion JacquerieLondonMarcel, Etienne

ParisPeasants’ Revolt of 1381Siege WarfareTaxation and War FinanceTowns and the Hundred

Years War

WARS RELATED TO OR PRECEDING

THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR

Anglo-French War of 1294–1303

Breton Civil WarCastilian War of SuccessionCharles IV, King of France


xx



Edward I, King of EnglandEdward II, King of EnglandFrench Civil WarMargaret of France, Queen of EnglandParis, Treaty of

Philip IV, King of FranceSaint-Sardos, War of

WOMEN

Anne of Burgundy, Duchess of BedfordCatherine of Valois, Queen of England

Christian de PizanIsabeau of Bavaria, Queen of FranceIsabella, Queen of England

(c. 1292–1358)Isabella, Queen of England (1388–1409)

Joan of ArcMargaret of Anjou, Queen of EnglandMargaret of France, Queen of EnglandMarguerite de Flanders, Duchess of

BurgundyPhilippa of Hainault, Queen of England


xxi





Preface

The Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War provides its users with clear, concise,and basic descriptions and definitions of people, events, and terms relating insome significant way to the series of intermittent conflicts that occurred betweenFrance and England in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and that later cameto be known collectively as the Hundred Years War. Because this volume focuses

exclusively on the war itself—what caused it, how it was fought, and what effectsit had on the political, social, economic, and cultural life of England and France— it is not a general overview of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century history in eithercountry, but a specialized treatment of the Anglo-French warfare that occurredduring those centuries.

The Encyclopedia was written primarily for students and other nonspecialistswho have an interest—but little background—in this period of European history.Besides providing a highly usable resource for quickly looking up names andterms encountered in reading or during study, the Encyclopedia offers an excellentstarting point for classroom or personal research on subjects relating to the

course, causes, and consequences of the Hundred Years War. The entries providethe basic information needed to choose or hone a research topic, to answer smallbut vital questions of fact, and to identify further and more extensive informationresources. The Encyclopedia also serves as a handy guide for those interested inrecreating the military and social aspects of the Anglo-French wars, as well as auseful reader’s companion for those whose reading on the period—whetherfiction or nonfiction—is more for enjoyment than for study.

SCOPE OF THE BOOK

In chronological terms, the Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War concerns itselfmainly with the period 1337 to 1453, the traditional dates for the start and end of

the Hundred Years War. As discussed in the entry ‘‘Hundred Years War, Phasesof,’’ actual fighting was intermittent across this period, which many historiansdivide into different wars conducted by different leaders but for largely the samereasons. Some entries, such as those on the Treaty of Paris of 1259 or the Anglo-French War of 1294–1303, examine topics and events that led up to the HundredYears War, while others, such as those on Aquitaine or the Salic Law of Suc-cession, cover broader topics or issues related to the long-term causes of theHundred Years War.

In geographical terms, the Encyclopedia is concerned not only with the course ofpolitical and military events in France and England, but also with how the Anglo-

French wars both affected and were influenced by people and happenings inother countries and states. Because of its length and intensity, the Hundred YearsWar spilled over into neighboring states and affected the whole of Western

xxiii



Europe. Readers will thus find entries on various of those states, includingBrittany, Flanders, and Scotland; on various rulers of those states, such as DavidII of Scotland and Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy; and on important relatedevents in those states, such as the Castilian War of Succession and the Anglo-Scottish Battle of Neville’s Cross.

CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION

To be included in the Encyclopedia, a topic, event, or person had to have a role insome significant aspect of the Hundred Years War. Nonbiographical entries re-late mainly to military issues—for example, the raising of armies, the nature ofcombat, and the use of naval forces—to political terms and events—for example,truces and treaties, legislative and judicial bodies, and peace conferences andalliances—to the major battles of the Hundred Years War—for example, Poitiers,Agincourt, and Verneuil—and to the chief political and military leaders of thewar—for example, Edward III, Bertrand du Guesclin, and Joan of Arc.

Because medieval warfare was the domain of kings and magnates, the great

majority of biographical entries cover members of the French and English royalfamilies and the most important noblemen to command armies, conduct di-plomacy, or govern provinces. Besides the kings of both countries, such asCharles V and Richard II, and the leading noblemen of both realms, such as Johnof Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, and Louis, duke of Anjou, the Encyclopedia alsoincludes entries on the royal families themselves, such as the Houses of Plan-tagenet, Valois, and Lancaster, and on non-noble figures of importance in bothrealms, such as Etienne Marcel, Sir Thomas Dagworth, Christine de Pizan, andWilliam de la Pole.

STRUCTURE OF ENTRIES

The Encyclopedia’s 256 entries, 104 of which are biographical, average about 750words in length. Each entry opens with a sentence or brief paragraph thatcarefully places its subject, whether a person, event, or term, within the context ofthe Hundred Years War, explaining the subject’s significance for the emergence,course, or impact of the conflict. Each entry also contains numerous cross-references to related entries (which appear in SMALL CAPITALS) and concludes withone or more recommendations for additional reading. These reading recom-mendations include both scholarly works and popular treatments. In a few cases,older books have been included if no more recent study has been published or ifthe older work remains the accepted scholarly standard on the subject, as is the

case, for instance, with biographies of some lesser-known figures. Also includedin the readings are some important essays and papers published in journals orcollections of articles. All works appearing at the ends of entries as furtherreading are listed in the general bibliography, which also contains numerousother worthwhile books not found among the entry recommendations. A readerinterested in further reading on a particular person or topic should check boththe general bibliography and the further reading listings at the ends of relevantentries.

All biographical entries provide the person’s title or office. For titles of nobility,only the highest title attained is given; thus, Louis, younger brother of Charles VI,

is noted as duke of Orleans, the title he acquired in 1392 and is best known by,and not as duke of Touraine, the title he had held previously. In a few cases, suchas John, the Bastard of Orleans, who is best known as count of Dunois and only

xxiv

PREFACE



later became count of Longueville, both titles are given. Except in cases wherebirth dates are unknown, as is often the case with medieval figures, life dates arealso supplied for all biographical entries. When exact birth or death years areuncertain, the c. notation, meaning ‘‘circa’’ or ‘‘at about that time,’’ precedes thedate to indicate that the year given is approximate. When a single year is pre-

ceded by d., the year given is the death date, and the birth date is totally un-known. The date ranges supplied for ruling monarchs are birth and death dates,not the years of their reign, which are given in the text of the entry. Because thisvolume is meant for English-speaking readers, French men and women are notedby the name that is most commonly employed in English historiography, thus

Joan of Arc, rather than Jeanne d’Arc, and John II, rather than Jean II, but JeanFroissart, rather than John Froissart.

ADDITIONAL FEATURES

The entries are augmented by maps of battlefield sites, French provinces, and theEnglish position in France at various stages of the war. A detailed chronology

and six genealogical tables depicting the royal houses and important noble fam-ilies are also provided. Appendixes include a chronological listing of majorbattles, sieges, and campaigns, as well as listings of European rulers and mon-archs from the 1250s to the 1450s; popes from the 1290s to the 1450s; holders ofimportant titles among the higher nobility of each country; and the constablesand marshals of both realms. Other appendixes offer brief annotations describingimportant provinces and regions and selected chronicles and sources for the war.Besides an extensive general bibliography, which is divided by broad topics, theEncyclopedia also includes various illustrations and a detailed subject index.When used with the cross-references in the entries, the ‘‘Guide to Related Top-

ics’’ will allow readers to trace broad themes, such as diplomacy, Scotland, orwomen through all their most important events, ideas, and personalities and sohelp provide users with a sound, basic understanding of the Hundred Years War.

xxv

PREFACE





Acknowledgments

I wish to thank the staffs at Arizona State University’s Hayden Library and at theScottsdale, Arizona, Public Library for assisting me in finding important researchmaterials, particularly those relating to French medieval history. At GreenwoodPublishing, I want to thank Gary Kuris and Kevin Ohe for their willingness tosign a work of medieval history, Mike Hermann for his development and

oversight of history projects, Liz Kincaid for advice on the gathering of illus-trations, and Tom Brennan for the preparation of maps and genealogical charts.My thanks also to Mark Kane at Greenwood and to Sheryl Rowe at BythewayPublishing Services for smoothly guiding me through the production process.Although their assistance was of a less technical nature, I must mention my littlebutton-nosed friends, Kirby, Midnight, and Snuffle, three shih tzus who kept mecompany through long hours of reading and writing. Finally, as usual, nothingwould have been possible without the love and support of my wife, Donna.

xxvii







26 September Death of seven-year-old Queen Margaret of Scotland

28 November Death of Queen Eleanor of England

1291 May Edward I of England declares himself rightful overlord ofScotland

13 June Guardians and nobles of Scotland swear fealty to Edward I asoverlord of the kingdom

1292 17 November Court of claims presided over by Edward I awardsScottish Crown to John Balliol

30 November John Balliol crowned king of Scotland under the auspicesof Edward I

1293 Birth of Philip of Valois, son of Charles, count of Valois; Philip is thenephew of Philip IV, and future king of France as Philip VI

15 May Gascon seamen, in furtherance of a dispute with Normansailors, sack the town of La Rochelle, thus initiating a series of events

leading to war between England and FranceOctober Philip IV summons Edward I to appear at the French court asduke of Aquitaine and vassal of France to answer charges of breakinghis feudal oath by interfering in the affairs of his feudal overlord

1294 Birth of Charles, son of Philip IV and future king of France asCharles IV

January Edward I summoned to appear before the Parlement in Paristo answer appeals against his administration in Aquitaine

March Edward I is again summoned to appear at the court of his

feudal suzerain Philip IV19 May The French Parlement, noting Edward I’s failure to answer thesummons of his feudal overlord, confiscates all his property in France

July Edward I formally renounces his allegiance to Philip IV as hisfeudal overlord and sends troops to Aquitaine, thus beginning a nine-year Anglo-French war

1295 22 October Conclusion of Franco-Scottish alliance, eventually knownas the ‘‘Auld Alliance’’

1296 March War erupts between Edward I and King John Balliol ofScotland

27 April Edward I defeats a Scottish army at the Battle of Dunbar

10 July John Balliol abdicates the Scottish throne

1297 May William Wallace kills the sheriff of Lanarkshire, initiatingScottish rebellion against Edward I

11 September Scots army led by William Wallace defeats English forceat Battle of Sterling Bridge

October Wallace invades northern England

1298 27 June Pope Boniface VIII, empowered by both sides to settle theirdispute, declares perpetual peace between England and France and

imposes the prewar status quo on Aquitaine1 July Edward I invades Scotland

xxx

CHRONOLOGY: THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR





2 February Assembly of French nobles meets in Paris to ratifycoronation of Philip V and affirm that ‘‘a woman cannot succeed tothe throne and kingdom of France,’’ thereby overthrowing the claim of

Jeanne, daughter of Louis X

April Roger Mortimer, a Welsh nobleman, checks the Scottish advance

in Ireland1318 14 February Death of Margaret of France, widow of Edward I and

sister of Philip IV

2 April Scots capture town of Berwick on Anglo-Scottish border

14 October Death of Edward Bruce in Ireland

1319 Birth of John of Valois, son of Philip, count of Maine (the future PhilipVI), and future king of France as John II

June Edward II pays homage by proxy to Philip V for the Plantagenetlands in France

20 September Scots raiders defeat an English army in northern Englandat the Battle of Myton, thereby helping lift the English siege of Berwick

1320 June Edward II does homage to Philip V for duchy of Aquitaine

1321 England drifts toward civil war as a coalition of barons opposesEdward II and his powerful favorites, the Despensers

1322 2 January Death of Philip V; accession of his brother, Charles, count ofLa Marche, to the French throne as Charles IV

16 March Edward II and the Dispensers defeat baronial opposition atthe Battle of Boroughbridge

22 March Execution of Thomas, duke of Lancaster, the leadingopponent of Edward II

1323 March Roger Mortimer, an imprisoned opponent of Edward II,escapes to France

15 October Raymond-Bernard, lord of Montpezat, precipitates the Warof Saint-Sardos by destroying the bastide at Saint-Sardos and hangingthe French official in charge

1324 July Start of the War of Saint Sardos—Charles IV confiscates the duchyof Aquitaine

August French armies invade Gascony

22 September Gascon town of La Reole in Aquitaine falls to armies ofCharles IV

1325 March Queen Isabella of England arrives in France to arrange asettlement of the War of Saint-Sardos; while at the French court, thequeen becomes the lover and ally of Roger Mortimer, an exiledopponent of her husband, Edward II

May Charles IV restores Edward II’s French fiefs under settlementbrokered by his sister, Queen Isabella

14 August Peace is proclaimed ending the Anglo-French War of Saint

Sardos

xxxii




10 September Prince Edward leaves England to join his mother inFrance

24 September Prince Edward (the future Edward III), now duke ofAquitaine, pays homage for his duchy to Charles IV

December Death of Charles, count of Valois, brother of Philip IV andfather of the future Philip VI

1326 23 September Determined to overthrow Edward II and the Dispensers,Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer land in England with a force ofmercenaries

26 October Barons of England declare Prince Edward keeper of therealm

27 October Execution of Hugh Despenser the Elder

16 November Edward II is captured by his opponents

24 November Execution of Hugh Despenser the Younger

1327 20 January Deposition of Edward II

21 January Accession of Edward III to the English throne

1 February Coronation of Edward III

21 September Probable date of murder of Edward II

1328 30 January Edward III marries Philippa of Hainault

1 February Death of Charles IV; Charles’s cousin, Philip of Valois,count of Maine and Anjou, becomes regent of France pending outcomeof queen’s pregnancy

17 March Conclusion of Anglo-Scottish Treaty of Edinburgh, which,when ratified by English on 4 May, recognizes Robert Bruce as king ofScotland as Robert I

1 April Queen Jeanne, widow of Charles IV, gives birth to a daughter

2 April Acting as regent, Philip of Valois convenes an assembly ofnotables that declares him rightful king of France

20 May English deputation arrives in France to present Edward III’sclaim to the French throne; the French nobility largely ignore Edward’sclaim

29 May Philip of Valois is crowned king of France as Philip VI

23 August Battle of Cassel—French royal army defeats the rebel townsof Flanders

1329 14 April Edward III writes to Philip VI promising to come to Franceand do homage for his duchy of Aquitaine

6 June Edward III pays homage to Philip VI for the duchy of Aquitaine

7 June Death of Robert I (Robert Bruce), king of Scotland; accession ofDavid II to Scottish throne

1330 4 March Coronation of Philippa of Hainault as queen of England

8 May Convention of Bois de Vincennes is ratified; the agreement calls

for the creation of joint commissions of inquiry to investigate and settleall disputes between Edward III and Philip VI over Aquitaine

xxxiii












November John II founds a new order of chivalry, the Order of the Star

1352 6 January Inauguration ceremony for French Order of the Star is heldat royal manor of Saint-Ouen

14 August BATTLE OF MAURON —major English victory in the Bretoncivil war

October John II transforms the Order of the Star from an order ofchivalry to a confraternity for common worship

1353 1 March Charles of Blois, the French-backed duke of Brittany,concludes an agreement for his release from English captivity

1354 January Charles the Bad, king of Navarre, arranges the murder ofCharles of Spain, constable of France

February John II concludes the Treaty of Mantes with Charles the Bad,king of Navarre, who is pardoned for the murder of Charles of Spain

6 April Anglo-French Treaty of Guines is concluded

10 April Anglo-French encounter at castle of Tinteniac in Brittany

September John II repudiates the Treaty of Guines

1355 May John II retrieves the Oriflamme from Saint-Denis, thus ending theseries of Calais truces and indicating his intention to resume the war

September John II imposes Treaty of Valognes on Charles the Bad, kingof Navarre; Henry of Grosmont, duke of Lancaster, is made king’slieutenant in Brittany

21 September Edward, the Black Prince, is officially installed inBordeaux as king’s lieutenant in Aquitaine

5 October–9 December C HEVAUCHE E OF 1355—Edward, the Black Prince,leads a highly destructive chevauche e across southern France

1356 5 April John II arrests Charles the Bad, king of Navarre, during abanquet given by the dauphin at Rouen

August Charles of Blois, French-backed duke of Brittany, is releasedfrom English captivity

19 September BATTLE OF POITIERS —English army under Edward, theBlack Prince, defeats and captures John II of France

1357 23 March Truce of Bordeaux is concluded between Edward, the Black

Prince, and his captive, John II5 May John II lands in England with his captor, Edward, the BlackPrince

October David II of Scotland is released from English captivity

9 November Charles the Bad, king of Navarre, escapes from prison

1358 22 February Parisian rebels led by Etienne Marcel slay two marshals inthe presence of Dauphin Charles, who soon after flees Paris; the routier army known as the Great Company sacks the town of Sainte-Maximin

May-June Peasant uprising known as the Jacquerie erupts in northernFrance

8 May First Treaty of London is concluded

xxxviii




31 July Etienne Marcel is murdered by a Paris mob

2 August Dauphin Charles reenters Paris after overthrow of Marcelregime

23 August Death of Queen Isabella, wife of Edward II and mother ofEdward III

November Edward III abandons First Treaty of London

1359 24 March Conclusion of the Second Treaty of London

23 June BATTLE OF NOGENT-SUR-SEINE —French forces defeat routier army in Champagne

4 November RHEIMS CAMPAIGN —Edward III launches large campaignthat aims to take Rheims and have him crowned king of France

1360 11 January Edward III abandons his siege of Rheims

10 March During Rheims Campaign, Edward III concludes Treaty ofGuillon with Burgundy

13 April Sudden severe weather causes many deaths from exposure inEnglish army, causing day to be known as ‘‘Black Monday’’

8 May Preliminaries of Anglo-French peace agreed at Bretigny

10 May News of the acceptance of the Bretigny agreement by DauphinCharles ends the long English Rheims Campaign

July John II is sent to Calais from England in preparation for hisrelease

16 September Death of the English captain William de Bohun, earl ofNorthampton

24 October Modified Bretigny peace agreement is ratified at Calais; John II is released from English captivity

December John II obtains regular indirect taxes, including the gabelle,from the Estates-General

1361 23 March Death of Henry of Grosmont, duke of Lancaster, aprominent English captain and royal kinsman

November John II annexes the duchy of Burgundy to the Crown ofFrance

1362 6 April BATTLE OF BRIGNAIS —Large routier force defeats a French royal

army19 July Edward, the Black Prince, is made Duke of Aquitaine

November Treaty of the Hostages in concluded between Edward IIIand the French hostages being held to ensure payment of John II’sransom

1363 13 March John II reluctantly confirms the Treaty of the Hostages

27 June John II invests his fourth son, Philip the Bold, with the duchyof Burgundy

September Louis, duke of Anjou, breaks parole and refuses to return to

English captivity; duke’s dishonorable act leads John II to voluntarilyreturn to captivity in 1364

xxxix






3 June Edward III resumes title of king of France

19 June Philip the Bold, duke of Burgundy, marries Marguerite,daughter of Louis de Male, count of Flanders

15 August Death of Philippa of Hainault, queen of England and wifeof Edward III

13 November Death of the English captain Thomas Beauchamp, earl ofWarwick

30 November Charles V confiscates the Duchy of Aquitaine

1370 1 January Death of the English captain Sir John Chandos

19 September SACK OF LIMOGES —Edward, the Black Prince, recapturesand destroys Limoges, a town in Aquitaine that had surrendered to theFrench

4 December After the chevauche e led by Sir Robert Knolles breaks up,part of this English force is defeated at Pontvallain

1371 January Edward, the Black Prince returns to England, leavingAquitaine to his brother, John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster

22 February Death of David II of Scotland; accession of Robert II, firstking of the House of Stewart

28 May Birth of John the Fearless, the second Valois duke ofBurgundy

1372 January Death of the English captain Walter Mauny, Lord Mauny

23 June BATTLE OF LA ROCHELLE —Castilian fleet destroys an Englishfleet sent to restore English authority in Poitou

23 August French capture famed Gascon captain Jean de Grailly,captal de Buch

September La Rochelle falls to the French

1373 August–January 1374 C HEVAUCHE E OF 1373—John of Gaunt, duke ofLancaster, leads one of the largest English chevauche es of the war

1375 March Bruges Peace Conference opens

1376 28 April So-called Good Parliament opens; Commons impeachesseveral royal ministers and removes the king’s rapacious mistress,Alice Perrers

8 June Death of Edward, the Black Prince1377 February Parliament passes first poll tax to support the English war

effort

21 June Death of Edward III; accession of Richard II to the Englishthrone

Summer French warships raid the south coast of England

1 September Battle of Eymet—French defeat an Anglo-Gascon army,taking prisoner Thomas Felton, the English seneschal of Gascony

1378 Charles V precipitates the Great Schism by supporting the election of

the Avignon pope Clement VII20 October English Parliament endorses the Roman pope Urban VI

xli




18 December Charles V, angered by the pro-English stance of Duke John IV, confiscates the duchy of Brittany

1379 April Parliament enacts the second English poll tax to fund the war

1380 13 July Death of Bertrand du Guesclin, constable of France

Summer Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, launches the lastgreat English chevauche e of the century

16 September Death of Charles V; accession of Charles VI to Frenchthrone

November Parliament enacts the third English poll tax, resistance towhich precipitates the Peasants’ Revolt in 1381

1381 4 April Second Treaty of Guerande restores John IV to power inBrittany as a Valois vassal

May-June Spurred by resistance to the poll tax, the Peasants’ Revolterupts in England

15 June Richard II meets Wat Tyler and the Kentish rebels atSmithfield

November Parliament issues a pardon to those involved in thePeasants’ Revolt

1382 20 January Richard II marries Anne of Bohemia

24 January Philip van Artevelde is elected captain of Ghent

3 May Philip van Artevelde launches a successful surprise attack onBruges, which is held by Count Louis de Male

27 November Battle of Roosebeke—French army crushes Flemish rebel

forces1384 January Death of Louis, duke of Anjou, brother of Charles V and eldest

uncle of Charles VI

30 January Death of Louis de Male, count of Flanders; control ofFlanders now passes to Louis’s daughter Marguerite and her husband,Philip the Bold, duke of Burgundy

1385 French forces arrive in Scotland

17 July Charles VI marries Isabeau of Bavaria

1386 16 September Likely birth date of Henry of Monmouth, son of Henry of

Bolingbroke (the future Henry IV) and future king of England as HenryV (some authorities date Henry’s birth to 1387)

October Wonderful Parliament impeaches royal ministers andestablishes a commission to reform royal household and limitauthority of Richard II

1387 1 January Death of Charles the Bad, king of Navarre

24 March BATTLE OF CADZAND (MARGATE)—Richard Fitzalan, earl ofArundel, defeats and captures a Franco-Castilian wine fleet

August Royal judges declare parliamentary commission in violation ofroyal prerogative

14 November Lords Appellant, led by Thomas of Woodstock, duke ofGloucester, gather troops and demand arrest of royal favorites

xlii




20 December Appellant force defeats royalist army at Radcot Bridge,putting Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, in control of Englishgovernment

1388 February Under leadership of Lords Appellant, the MercilessParliament condemns and exiles Richard II’s favorites

3 November Charles VI declares himself of full age and dismisses hisuncles; Marmouset regime takes power in Paris

1389 May Richard II declares himself of full age and assumes personalcontrol of the English government

18 June Anglo-French Truce of Leulinghen is concluded

1390 February John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, is created duke ofAquitaine by his nephew Richard II

19 April Death of Robert II of Scotland; accession of Robert III

1392 5 August Charles VI experiences his first schizophrenic episode; the

king’s incapacity allows his uncles to reassert control and overthrow theMarmouset regime

1393 28 January Charles VI narrowly escapes death when a torch sets alightthe masque costumes of the king and others at the so-called Bal des

Ardents (Burning Men’s Ball)

1394 16 March Death in Italy of the great English routier captain Sir JohnHawkwood

23 April Death of the English routier captain, Sir Hugh Calveley

7 June Death of Anne of Bohemia, queen of England and wife of

Richard II1396 Birth of Philip the Good, the third Valois duke of Burgundy

4 November Richard II marries Isabella, the daughter of Charles VI

1397 10 July Richard II arrests his uncle Thomas of Woodstock, duke ofGloucester, who later dies in custody in Calais

September Richard II appeals the former Lords Appellant beforeParliament for treason

1398 16 September Richard II exiles his cousin Henry of Bolingbroke, son of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster

1399

3 February Death of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster; Richard IIsubsequently makes Bolingbroke’s banishment permanent andconfiscates the Lancastrian estates

1 June Richard II leaves to campaign in Ireland

4 July Henry of Bolingbroke, son of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster,lands in England to reclaim his father’s estates

19 August Richard II is taken prisoner

29–30 September Abdication of Richard II; accession of Henry IV to theEnglish throne

November Death of John IV, duke of Brittany

1400 Henry IV sends Richard II’s queen, Isabella of Valois, daughter ofCharles VI, back to France

xliii




c. February Murder of Richard II

1402 14 September Anglo-Scottish Battle of Homildon Hill

1403 22 February Birth of Charles, son of Charles VI and future king ofFrance as Charles VII

1404 27 April Death of Philip the Bold, duke of Burgundy; John the Fearlesssucceeds as new duke of Burgundy

1405 21 March Death of Marguerite de Flanders, duchess of Burgundy; herlands in the Low Countries and the Empire are inherited by her son,

John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy

5 October Christine de Pizan writes letter to Queen Isabeau urging her tointervene in political struggle between dukes of Burgundy and Orleans

1406 22 March James, heir to the Scottish throne, is captured at sea by theEnglish

4 April Death of Robert III of Scotland; accession of James I, whose

imprisonment in England necessitates a regency government1407 23 April Death of the former French constable Olivier de Clisson

15 August Death of English routier captain Sir Robert Knolles

23 November Louis, duke of Orleans, the brother of Charles VI, isassassinated in Paris

25 November John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy, confesses that heordered the murder of Orleans through ‘‘the intervention of the devil’’

26 November Barred from the royal council, John the Fearless, duke ofBurgundy, flees Paris

1408 February John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy, returns to Paris8 March John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy, presents his written

Justification for the murder of Louis, duke of Orleans, to Charles VI andthe royal council; the Justification legitimizes the murder by accusingOrleans of numerous acts of tyranny

September Charles, duke of Orleans issues his own manifestoanswering the changes leveled against his father by John the Fearless,duke of Burgundy, in his Justification

1409 9 March Charles VI presides over a formal ceremony of reconciliationat Chartres; all French princes of the blood swear friendship for oneanother and promise to keep the peace

13 September Death of Isabella, former queen of Richard II

1410 April Anti-Burgundian League of Gien is created by leadingArmagnac princes

November Peace of Bicetre temporarily ends the French civil war

1411 July Charles, duke of Orleans, demands that the king punish John theFearless, duke of Burgundy, for the murder of Orleans’ father, Louis,duke of Orleans

October English army lands in Calais to assist John the Fearless, duke

of Burgundy, against the Armagnacs; Burgundy breaks the Armagnacsiege of Paris

xliv






15 August BATTLE OF THE SEINE —John, duke of Bedford, wins navalvictory that breaks the French siege of Harfleur; Treaty of Canterbury isconcluded between Henry V and Emperor Sigismund

1417 5 April Death of John, duke of Touraine, dauphin of France; later inthe month, the new dauphin, Charles, exiles his mother, Queen Isabeau,

from Paris1 August NORMAN CAMPAIGN (1417–19)—Henry V launches hiscampaign to conquer Normandy

September Caen in Normandy falls to the English

8 November Queen Isabeau escapes from confinement in Tours and joins with John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy, against the Armagnacregime

1418 29 May Pro-Burgundian riots erupt in Paris; Dauphin Charles flees thecapital

29 June Dauphin assumes title of lieutenant-general of France on hisown authority

12 July Armagnac leader Bernard, count of Armagnac, is slain by aBurgundian mob in Paris

14 July John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy, re-enters Paris

29 July SIEGE OF ROUEN —Henry V lays siege to the Norman capital ofRouen

September John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy, imposes the Treaty ofSaint-Maur on the Dauphin Charles

1419

19 January Rouen surrenders to the English; Henry V formally entersthe town next day, thus effectively completing his Norman Campaign

July Henry V captures Pontoise, putting the English within strikingdistance of Paris; Dauphin Charles and John the Fearless, duke ofBurgundy, meet at Corbeil to discuss ending the French civil war

10 September Duke John the Fearless is murdered by partisans ofDauphin Charles while meeting with Charles to discuss peace on thebridge at Montereau; Philip the Good succeeds his father as duke ofBurgundy

19 December Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, responds to his

father’s murder by the Armagnacs by formally allying with the English1420 January Henry V sends representatives to Troyes to begin peace talks

with the French court

3 March BATTLE OF FRESNEY —English army defeats large Franco-Scottish force attempting to besiege Fresnay-le-Vicomte

21 May Treaty of Troyes, making Henry V heir to Charles VI, is signed

2 June Henry V marries Catherine of Valois, daughter of Charles VI

9 July–18 November SIEGE OF MELUN —Henry V besieges and ultimatelycaptures French town of Melun

1 December Henry V enters Paris

xlvi




1421 January Parlement of Paris declares Dauphin Charles incapable ofsucceeding to the French throne and banished from the realm; ThomasBeaufort, duke of Exeter, becomes English military governor of Paris

February Henry V returns to England with his new bride, Catherine ofValois

22 March BATTLE OF BAUGE —Thomas, duke of Clarence, brother andheir of Henry V, is slain by a Franco-Scottish army

6 October–2 May 1422 SIEGE OF MEAUX —Henry V besieges town ofMeaux; long winter siege undermines English morale and the king’shealth

6 December Birth of Prince Henry, son of Henry V and future king ofEngland as Henry VI

1422 31 August Death of Henry V; accession of Henry VI to the Englishthrone

21 October Death of Charles VI leaves disputed succession to theFrench throne between his son, Charles (later crowned as Charles VII)and Henry VI of England

1423 13 April Tripartite Treaty of Amiens signed by John, duke of Bedford;Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy; and John V, duke of Brittany

18 April Burgundy and Brittany sign a secret agreement to remainallies even if one reconciles with the dauphin, thereby in effect negatingthe Treaty of Amiens

13 May John, duke of Bedford, marries Anne, the sister of Philip theGood, duke of Burgundy

31 July BATTLE OF CRAVANT —English victory in eastern France

1424 March Archibald Douglas, earl of Douglas, lands at La Rochelle with alarge Scottish army sent to assist the dauphin

April English government releases James I, king of Scotland

17 August BATTLE OF VERNEUIL —Major English victory over Franco-Scottish army; often called ‘‘the second Agincourt’’

1425 March Dauphin appoints Arthur de Richemont, brother of Duke JohnV of Brittany, constable of France

December Conclusion of Franco-Breton Treaty of Saumur

1427 15 July–5 September SIEGE OF MONTARGIS —John, Bastard of Orleans,breaks English siege of Montargis

September Duke John V of Brittany repudiates the Treaty of Saumurwith France and reaffirms his support for the Treaty of Troyes

1428 12 October SIEGE OF ORLEANS —English forces lay siege to Orleans onthe Loire

c. 24 October Thomas Montagu, earl of Salisbury, is mortally woundedby cannon fire while conducting surveillance at the Siege of Orleans

3 November Death of Thomas Montagu, earl of Salisbury, the English

commander at Orleans

xlvii




1429 12 February BATTLE OF THE HERRINGS (ROUVRAY)—French armysurprises but fails to stop an English supply convoy bound for Orleans

6 March Joan of Arc arrives at dauphin’s court at Chinon

22 March Joan of Arc dictates her ‘‘Letter to the English’’

29 April Joan of Arc enters Orleans8 May French forces, led by Joan of Arc, lift the siege of Orleans

10 June–18 June LOIRE CAMPAIGN —French army led by Joan of Arctakes Jargeau, Beaugency, and Meung, clearing the Loire of Englishgarrisons

18 June BATTLE OF PATAY —French army concludes Loire Campaignwith major victory over English forces under Sir John Fastolf

17 July Dauphin Charles is crowned at Rheims as Charles VII ofFrance

8 September Joan of Arc leads an unsuccessful attack on Paris

November English coronation of Henry VI at Westminster

1430 23 May Joan of Arc is captured by Burgundians at Compiegne

December Joan of Arc is transferred to an English military prison inRouen

1431 21 February Joan of Arc’s trial begins in Rouen

24 May Joan of Arc recants her voices

30 May Joan of Arc is burned to death for heresy in Rouen

11 August Battle of the Shepherd, named for presence of a French

shepherd boy who is touted as the successor to Joan of Arc16 December Henry VI is crowned king of France in Paris

1432 14 November Death of Anne, duchess of Bedford, wife of John, duke ofBedford, and sister of Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy

1434 English suppress a series of revolts in Normandy

1435 September Death of Isabeau of Bavaria, queen of France and widow ofCharles VI

1 September English withdraw from the Congress of Arras

14 September Death of John, duke of Bedford

20 September Franco-Burgundian Treaty of Arras is signed, therebyending the Anglo-Burgundian alliance

1436 13 April French retake Paris

1437 3 January Death of Catherine of Valois, widow of Henry V and motherof Henry VI

13 February John Talbot retakes Pontoise for the English

21 February Murder of James I, king of Scotland; accession of James II

12 November Henry VI is declared of full age and assumes control ofthe English government

1439 30 April Death of Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, the Englishlieutenant in France

xlviii




November Charles VII declares military recruiting a Crown monopoly

1440 July Richard, duke of York, is reappointed king’s lieutenant in France

1441 6 June–19 September Siege of Pontoise — French army besieges andcaptures Pontoise

1443 March John Beaufort, duke of Somerset, is made lieutenant-generaland captain-general of Aquitaine in preparation for leading a major

campaign against the French

July–August Somerset’s campaign is a complete failure; duke returnsto England in disgrace

1444 February William de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, sails to France to begintalks that will lead to conclusion of the Truce of Tours

27 May Death of John, duke of Somerset, possibly by his own hand

28 May Anglo-French Truce of Tours is concluded

1445 23 April Henry VI marries Margaret of Anjou, niece of Charles VII

22 December Henry VI secretly agrees to surrender Maine to theFrench

1447 23 February Death in royal custody of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester,uncle of Henry VI and leader of pro-war faction at English court

11 April Death of Cardinal Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winchester,leader of the peace party at the English court

December Edmund Beaufort, earl of Somerset, becomes king’slieutenant in France

1448 February Charles VII lays siege to Le Mans in Maine

15 March Le Mans in Maine surrenders to the French

28 April Charles VII issues ordonnance creating the franc-archers

1449 24 March SACK OF FOUGERES —English attack on the Breton fortress ofFougeres breaks the Truce of Tours and leads to resumption of activewarfare

31 July Charles VII orders a French invasion of Normandy

12 August NORMAN CAMPAIGN (1449–50)—French armies begincampaign for reconquest of Normandy

29 October French capture Rouen, the capital of Normandy

2 November Charles VII enters Rouen

1450 28 January Parliament impeaches William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk,leader of Henry VI’s government

15 April BATTLE OF FORMIGNY —French defeat the last major Englishfield force in Normandy

May–July Jack Cade’s Rebellion erupts in southeastern England

2 May William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk, is seized and beheaded byunknown parties as he attempts to sail into exile

1 July Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset, surrenders Caen in

Normandy to the French

xlix




12 August Cherbourg falls to the French, thus ending the NormanCampaign

1451 30 June Bordeaux surrenders to the French

1452 23 October John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, recaptures Bordeaux

1453 17 July BATTLE OF CASTILLON —French force under Jean Bureau defeatsEnglish force under John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, in Gascony, thus

effectively ending the Hundred Years War

19 October French recapture Bordeaux—the subsequent fall of allEnglish Aquitaine is usually taken as the end of the Hundred Years War

1455 21 May First Battle of St Albans is usually taken as the start of theseries of English civil conflicts known as the Wars of the Roses

1461 March Henry VI is deposed and driven into exile in Scotland by hiscousin, Edward, duke of York, who becomes king of England asEdward IV

22 July Death of Charles VII; accession of Louis XI as king of France1467 15 June Death of Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy

1471 21 May Murder of Henry VI in the Tower of London

1475 4 July Edward IV launches the first English invasion of France sincethe end of the Hundred Years War

29 August Conclusion of the Treaty of Picquigny, whereby Edward IVof England agrees to withdraw from France in return for an annualpension from Louis XI

1558 January Calais, the last English holding in France, falls to the French

l






Major Battles and Sieges of the Hundred Years War

lii







France in 1429, at the Advent of Joan of Arc

lv







brothers to join the royal army. Despite itsweak leadership, the French force was largeand confident, a marked contrast to the small,tired, and hungry English army, whose lackof confidence was demonstrated by Henry’soffer to restore Harfleur in exchange for safepassage to Calais. When this was rejected, theEnglish had no choice but to fight.

Next morning, the two armies deployedon a wet, muddy field flanked on both sidesby woods and lying between the villages ofAgincourt and Tramecourt. The English,with Henry commanding the center, formedinto three battalions of dismounted men-at-arms with bodies of archers projectingslightly forward at the wings and in the gapsbetween the battalions. The French formedin two long lines of dismounted men-at-arms supported on the flanks and in the rear

by mounted cavalry. With neither armywilling to attack, the two forces faced eachother for several hours until Henry orderedhis flanking archers forward. Entrenchingthemselves behind lines of sharpened stakes,they opened fire, causing great disorder inthe enemy lines and forcing the French cav-alry to charge. However, the mud, arrows,and stakes broke up this attack before thefirst wave of dismounted men-at-arms could

strike the English lines, thereby allowing thearchers to disrupt the French column with adevastating flanking fire. Forced into a tight

mass and immobilized by the thickmud, the French knights were thenset upon by the archers, who, beingunarmored and therefore able tomove more quickly, did great ex-

ecution with their knives, axes, andswords. Once a French knight wasknocked down, he was dead, eitherfrom a dagger thrust through a visoror from suffocation in the mudunder the bodies of fallen comrades.

When the second French columnattacked, it fell into similar disorderand met a similar fate, the Englishnow fighting from atop piles ofFrench dead. As this second wave

receded, the English began gather-ing prisoners and arranging RAN-

SOMs, a process that was suddenly inter-rupted by a French assault on the Englishbaggage train and by the rumored arrival ofFrench reinforcements. Fearing a new attack,Henry ordered the immediate execution ofall prisoners except those of the highestrank. This act, despite the circumstances thatprompted it, was a serious breech of the

rules of medieval warfare, especially sincethe third attack never materialized. The re-maining French, although still outnum-bering their enemy, had seen enough; theywithdrew from the field without strikinganother blow.

French casualties were enormous, withsome estimates putting the number of deadat ten thousand. Among the slain wereConstable Charles d’Albret; three dukes,including John, duke of Alencon, who at one

point had actually beaten Henry to hisknees; six counts; both brothers of Bur-gundy; 120 barons; and over 1,500 knights.The 1,500 French prisoners included Mar-shal Boucicaut. The English dead barely ex-ceeded three hundred, although amongthem were the king’s cousin Edward, dukeof York, and Michael de la Pole, earl ofSuffolk. Reaching Calais on 29 October,Henry was joyously received, although his

men were forced to pay exorbitant prices forfood and drink and were soon relieved oftheir booty and captives. Arriving in LON-

A depiction from the Chronique d’Angleterre of the Battle ofAgincourt, 1415. HIP/Art Resource, New York.

AGINCOURT, BATTLE OF (1415)

2



DON on 23 November, Henry was acclaimeda national hero and enthusiasm to both fightand pay for new campaigns was un-bounded. See also FRENCH CIVIL WAR.

Further Reading: Burne, Alfred H. The Agin-

court War . Ware, England: Wordsworth EditionsLtd., 1999; Curry, Anne. Agincourt: A New History.

Stroud, England: Tempus Publishing Limited,

2005; Hibbert, Christopher. Agincourt. London:

Phoenix, 1995; Seward, Desmond. The Hundred

Years War . New York: Penguin, 1999.

AIDES. See TAXATION AND WAR FINANCE

AIGUILLON, SIEGE OF (1346)

Running from April to August 1346, theunsuccessful French siege of the Gascontown of Aiguillon seriously weakened theFrench military position throughout south-western France.

In late 1345, Ralph STAFFORD, Lord Staf-ford, captured Aiguillon after a brief siege.Situated at the confluence of the Lot and theGaronne, the town commanded the ap-proaches to La Reole and BORDEAUX; control

of Aiguillon was therefore vital to the se-curity of English GASCONY. An arrangementseems to have been made in advance withconfederates within the town, who attackedthe French garrison and opened the gatesshortly after Stafford’s arrival. Determinedto restore French fortunes in the southwestafter the recent successful campaigns thereof HENRY OF GROSMONT, earl of Lancaster,PHILIP VI dispatched a large army to the re-gion in March 1346. Commanded by the

king’s son, John, duke of Normandy (see JOHN II), and numbering almost twentythousand, the army arrived at Aiguillon on1 April. After proclaiming the ARRIERE-BAN

for southern France, the duke settled downfor a long siege, vowing that he would notwithdraw until the town fell.

To prevent the kind of surprise attack froma relieving force that had recently destroyedan army of French besiegers at AUBEROCHE,

the duke ordered that defensive trenches bedug behind the French siege lines. However,Lancaster, whose army was far inferior in

numbers, withdrew to Bordeaux to regroup,waiting for an opportunity to disrupt theFrench lines of supply and communication.Commanded by Stafford and by the captainof the town, Sir Hugh Menil, the garrison

numbered about nine hundred men—sixhundred archers and three hundred men-at-arms, with the latter including the famouscaptains Walter MAUNY and Alexander deCaumont. In the early weeks of the siege, thegarrison made frequent sorties on foot andby barge to prevent the French from bridgingthe rivers and completely encircling thetown. By June, the French had cut off com-munication to the west, although, on 16 June,a daring sortie by Caumont captured two

French supply barges.In July, a contingent of Lancaster’s army

fought its way into the town with moresupplies, while Normandy found it in-creasingly difficult to feed his huge forcefrom the surrounding area. Lancaster alsoharassed the besiegers by killing foragers,seizing supply trains, and attacking isolatedunits. In late July, a force two thousandstrong, which the duke had detached to

check raids on his supply lines, was attackedand defeated by the Anglo-Gascon garrisonfrom Bajamont. With the siege stalematedand the CRECY campaign developing in thenorth, Philip recalled his son. On 20 August,after failing to persuade Lancaster to accepta local truce, Normandy abandoned thesiege of Aiguillon and marched east alongthe Garonne. With the duke’s departure,Lancaster moved quickly to clear the LotValley of French garrisons and to secure

English control of most of Gascony. See alsoSIEGE WARFARE.

Further Reading: Burne, Alfred H. The Crecy

War . Ware, England: Wordsworth Editions Ltd.,

1999; Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred Years War .

Vol. 1, Trial by Battle. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press, 1991.

ALBRET, ARNAUD-AMANIEU,LORD OF (d. 1401)

Arnaud-Amanieu VIII, lord of Albret, wasone of the Gascon nobles who in 1368 lodgedthe APPEAL OF THE GASCON LORDS, the eventual

ALBRET, ARNAUD-AMANIEU, LORD OF

3



acceptance of which by CHARLES V overthrewthe Treaty of BRETIGNY and restarted theHUNDRED YEARS WAR.

The son of Bernard-Aiz V, lord of ALBRET,Arnaud-Amanieu was heir to one of the

wealthiest lordships in GASCONY. AlthoughBernard-Aiz had fought for EDWARD III sincethe 1340s, the Albret family, which was largeand well-connected to the southwesternnobility, had a history of switching alle-giances when their interests called for it.Arnaud-Amanieu’s grandfather had foughtfor EDWARD I and against EDWARD II, whilehis father had briefly supported the VALOIS.Arnaud-Amanieu first appears in the 1350sas leader of the ROUTIER bands maintained

by his family. With Sir John Cheverston, theEnglish seneschal of Gascony, he led theAnglo-Gascon force that defeated the Frenchat SAINTES in April 1351. In the late 1350s, hisbands overran Quercy and Auvergne, twoprovinces devastated by routiers in the yearsafter POITIERS. Pressure from his father andfrom the English government of AQUITAINE,which was now directed by a resident duke,EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, forced Arnaud-

Amanieu to gradually curtail his activitiesand allow himself to be bought out of thefortresses his men had captured.

Succeeding his father as lord of Albret in1359, Arnaud-Amanieu maintained the fam-ily’s English allegiance. The Black Princenominated him as one of the conservators ofthe Truce of BORDEAUX in 1357, and receivedhis homage as a PLANTAGENET vassal in 1363.In 1362, Albret and many of his relativeswere captured at the Battle of Launac, the

latest encounter in the long feud betweenthe counts of Armagnac and Foix. The highRANSOMS demanded by Foix left Albret deep-ly in debt. In 1364, during the civil war be-tween Charles V and CHARLES THE BAD, kingof Navarre, Albret sent troops north to fightwith the royalist forces under Bertrand duGUESCLIN at the Battle of COCHEREL. He didnot go himself because he wished to avoidfighting against his brother-in-law, Jean de

GRAILLY, the captal de Buch, who com-manded the Navarrese army. However, in1365, Albret switched sides, agreeing to

command Navarre’s routiers in centralFrance for a fee of 60,000 florins. In 1367,hoping to further improve his financial sit-uation, Albret accompanied the Black Princeto Castile, where he fought at the Battle of

NA JERA.The failure of Pedro I of Castile to pay as

promised for the Anglo-Gascon army thatrestored him frustrated these hopes, andadded to Albret’s growing discontent withthe prince’s lordship in an enlarged Aqui-taine, where an influx of English adminis-trators and French nobility from newlyacquired provinces diluted Albret influence.When the prince instituted a new hearth taxto pay for the Castilian campaign, both Al-

bret and John, count of Armagnac, refused toallow its collection in their lordships. In May1368, Albret married the sister of the Frenchqueen in PARIS. While attending the festiv-ities, Armagnac, later joined by Albret, pre-sented an appeal against the prince toCharles V, whom they thereby recognized asoverlord of Aquitaine. In July, Albret joinedArmagnac and other Gascon lords in anagreement with Charles V whereby each

party agreed to support the other if attackedby the English. When war resumed in 1369,Albret, now in receipt of a French pension,

joined the Valois campaigns that recon-quered much of Aquitaine over the nextdecade. Eventually becoming grand cham-berlain of France, Albret died in 1401. Hisson, Charles of ALBRET, was raised at theFrench court with CHARLES VI and becameconstable of France in 1403. See also CASTILIAN

WAR OF SUCCESSION.

Further Reading: Sumption, Jonathan. TheHundred Years War. Vol. 2, Trial by Fire. Philadel-

phia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.

ALBRET, BERNARD-AIZ,LORD OF (d. 1359)At the start of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR,Bernard-Aiz V, lord of Albret, was head ofone of the wealthiest and most influentialnoble families of GASCONY. Assiduously

courted by both PLANTAGENET and VALOIS,Albret eventually supported the former, al-though his allegiance to EDWARD III was, like

ALBRET, BERNARD-AIZ, LORD OF

4



that of many Gascon lords, always temperedby personal and familial interests.

The Albret family controlled one of thelargest and most important lordships inEnglish Gascony. A tradition of loyalty to

the English Crown—Albret’s father hadundertaken diplomatic missions for EDWARD

I—was severed during the War of SAINT-SARDOS in the 1320s, when Albret, after aseries of quarrels with EDWARD II and thecalculated patronage of CHARLES IV andPHILIP VI, had allied himself with theFrench. At the start of war in 1337, Albret,thanks to the unwillingness of either side toprovoke him, maintained a careful neu-trality. In 1338, the expected arrival in

Gascony of an English army allowed theducal seneschal, Oliver Ingham, to threatenAlbert with military force if he did not de-clare for Edward. When cancellation of theexpedition removed the threat, Philip sentemissaries promising extensive rewards inreturn for Albret’s allegiance. Philip evenhad various French lords write personalletters asking for Albret’s support. In his,

John, duke of NORMANDY (see JOHN II),

frankly acknowledged how vital was Al-bret’s adherence: ‘‘We know that you haveit in your power to do more damage to ourinterests than any other man in those parts’’(Sumption, 1:330).

Despite these appeals, Albret joined theEnglish in 1339. Although his brothers hadbeen fighting for Edward since the start ofthe war, Albret’s decision rested on his as-sessment of his family’s best interests. Hischief rivals for territory and influence,

Roger-Bernard, count of Perigord, and Gas-ton de Foix, count of Foix, had declared forPhilip and, unlike Albret, had made littleattempt to improve their personal positionby playing one side against the other. Thus,increasing French support for his rivals ledAlbret to back Edward. This support provedvital in 1340, when Albret virtually financedthe English campaign in Gascony, supplyingthe government in BORDEAUX with over

£9,000, almost three-quarters of the normalannual revenue of the duchy of AQUITAINE.The extensive connections of Albret and his

family also provided much of the manpowerfor the campaign.

Named king’s lieutenant in Aquitaine in January 1340, Albret came to England in thefollowing year. At a December 1341 council

meeting, he outlined military plans for thereconquest of the duchy, but his personalambition was distrusted and his plans wererejected as tending more to the aggrandize-ment of his family than to the benefit of theEnglish cause. Nonetheless, Albret main-tained his English allegiance, recapturingSaint-Jean-d’Angely in 1344 and, on ordersof HENRY, earl of Lancaster, clearing theFrench from the Bazadais region in 1346. Inthe 1350s, Albret was a chief councilor of

EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, for whom hefought at the Battle of POITIERS in 1356. AfterAlbret’s death in 1359, his son, Arnaud-Amanieu, lord of ALBRET, maintained theEnglish allegiance until 1368, when failureto continue his pension and marriage to asister-in-law of CHARLES V led Albret to jointhe French (see APPEAL OF THE GASCON

LORDS).Further Reading: Sumption, Jonathan. The

Hundred Years War . Vol. 1, Trial by Battle.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,

1991; Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred Years War.

Vol. 2, Trial by Fire. Philadelphia: University of


ALBRET, CHARLES, LORD OF,CONSTABLE OF FRANCE (d. 1415)Charles, lord of Albret and count of Dreux,was constable of France and commander-in-

chief of the French army at the Battle ofAGINCOURT. Although the Albrets were oneof the most important noble families ofGASCONY, and thus vassals of the PLANTAG-

ENET dukes of AQUITAINE, Charles was a firmadherent of the House of VALOIS and a prom-inent figure in the FRENCH CIVIL WAR.

Although Charles’s grandfather, Bernard-Aiz V d’ALBRET, had been EDWARD III’slieutenant in Aquitaine, and his father, Ar-

naud-Amanieu d’ALBRET, had fought forEDWARD, the Black Prince, at NA JERA,Charles had been raised at the French court

ALBRET, CHARLES, LORD OF, CONSTABLE OF FRANCE

5















helped dissuade her brother from continuingtalks with the dauphin, and, in 1430, shetried to temper the imprisonment of JOAN OF

ARC, insisting that the guards not molesttheir prisoner and ordering her tailor to

make Joan women’s clothes, the Maid’swearing of male attire being one of the mostserious charges against her. Anne died on 14November 1432, having contracted feverwhen she cared for victims of an epidemicthat swept Paris that autumn. Broken, ac-cording to Enguerrand de Monstrelet, by a‘‘very great sorrow’’ (Williams, 222), Bedfordlost his personal link to Burgundy, who, in1435, ended the Anglo-Burgundian allianceby reconciling with CHARLES VII at the Con-

gress of ARRAS.Further Reading: Williams, E. Carleton. My

Lord of Bedford, 1389–1435. London: Longmans,

1963.

ANTI-FRENCH COALITION (1337–1340)Like his grandfather, EDWARD I, who pur-sued a similar policy during the ANGLO-FRENCH WAROF 1294–1303, EDWARD III beganthe HUNDRED YEARS WAR by constructing

a network of anti-French alliances withprinces of Germany and the Low Countries.Such a coalition relieved French pressureon AQUITAINE by promising Edward theopportunity and resources to invade theVALOIS domains in northern France. How-ever, because the allies’ commitment to thecoalition was based on money, not principle,maintenance of the alliance proved to bewell beyond the king’s financial resources.Edward was soon deeply in debt and

the payment of subsidies to his allies wassoon far in arrears. Thus, by late 1340, theanti-French coalition had proved a costlyfailure.

In late 1336, months before the confisca-tion of Aquitaine officially initiated the war,Edward was in communication with theprinces of the Low Countries, to whom hecomplained of Philip’s unjust retention of‘‘my hereditary property’’ (Perroy, 96),

meaning those parts of Aquitaine occupiedby the French since the War of SAINT-SARDOS.By spring 1337, Henry BURGHERSH, bishop

of Lincoln; William MONTAGU, earl of Salis-bury; and William Clinton, earl of Hunting-don, were in the Low Countries purchasingalliances with hard currency borrowed frommerchants and bankers. By the end of the

year, Edward’s anti-French coalition in-cluded John, duke of Brabant; William,count of Juliers; and Dietrich, count ofCleves, as well as the duke of Guelders; thecounts of Berg, Limburg, and Marck; andQueen PHILIPPA’s brother, William, count ofHainault. In August, Edward purchased thealliance of Holy Roman Emperor Ludwig,who spurned French overtures for Englishgold. In July 1338, the emperor, for a furthersubsidy, appointed Edward deputy vicar of

the empire, by which office the English kingwas empowered to exercise imperial au-thority in northwestern Germany. In thisway, Edward had more than a monetaryhold over his allies, and, in late 1338, hesummoned all vassals within his deputyshipto swear homage to him and the PLANTAG-

ENET cause.From the start, the coalition was ruinously

expensive; its maintenance made it virtually

impossible to pay for the men and suppliesneeded to launch an actual campaign. AnEnglish landing in France planned forautumn 1337 was cancelled for lack offunds, and a truce had to be arranged for thefirst half of 1338, since no campaign could becontemplated for the same reason. To raiseadditional funds, the king embarked on theultimately ill-fated DORDRECHT BOND scheme,whereby his agents bought up cheap wool inEngland and attempted to sell it at a profit in

the Low Countries, where an English woolembargo aimed at LOUIS DE NEVERS, the pro-French count of FLANDERS, had starvedclothmakers of their vital raw material.Heavily engaged in alliance DIPLOMACY, anddesperately short of cash, Edward waiteduntil September 1339 for his allies tosend their promised forces. Exasperated bytheir failure to send more than a few ill-disciplined mercenaries, Edward advanced

with his own army, but the THIE´

RACHECAMPAIGN, bedeviled by PHILIP VI’s refusal tofight, ended in failure after only a month.

ANTI-FRENCH COALITION

12









In 1259, this unsatisfactory situation wasresolved by the Treaty of PARIS, by whichLouis IX of France recognized Henry III ofEngland as duke of Aquitaine in return forHenry’s renunciation of claims to all other

former Plantagenet provinces. Although theduchy now comprised little more than astrip of Gascon territory running along thecoast from BORDEAUX to the Pyrenees,English authority in the region was gen-erally accepted by the people, who founddistant and often indifferent Plantagenetrule preferable to French taxes and bu-reaucracy. Also, the booming Anglo-Gasconwine trade, which developed in the thir-teenth century, became vital to the local

economy.Because the treaty made the king-duke of

Aquitaine subordinate to the king of France,the Gascon nobility could appeal any dis-putes with their feudal overlord to hisoverlord. The resulting French interferencein the rule of the duchy proved intolerable tothe Plantagenets and led twice to openconflict. During the ANGLO-FRENCH WAR OF

1294–1303 and the War of SAINT-SARDOS in

the 1320s, French monarchs confiscatedAquitaine after English king-dukes refusedto appear before the PARLEMENT in PARIS toanswer charges arising out of their admin-istration of the duchy. Both wars ended withnegotiated settlements that restored Aqui-taine to the Plantagenets. However, in the1330s, EDWARD III, in an effort to end con-tinual French encroachments on his ducalauthority, went to war with France to winfull sovereignty over Aquitaine. Thanks to a

marriage arranged as part of the 1303 peaceagreement, Edward was the grandson ofPHILIP IV. After the House of VALOIS re-placed the Capetian line on the Frenchthrone in 1328, Edward used this familyconnection to pursue a more radical solutionto the Aquitaine question—Plantagenet ac-quisition of the French Crown. If Edwardbecame his own overlord, all sovereigntyissues would fade away.

After capturing JOHN II at the Battle ofPOITIERS in 1356, Edward wrung the Treatyof BRETIGNY from the French in 1360. The

agreement gave a greatly enlarged Aqui-taine, amounting to almost one-third ofFrance, to Edward in full sovereignty. Theking’s heir, EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE,ruled over the new principality, but the

harshness of his rule alienated the Gasconnobility and by 1368 CHARLES V was againaccepting appeals against the duke, therebyoverthrowing the treaty (see APPEAL OF THE

GASCON LORDS). By 1380, the French hadreconquered much of the duchy and Englishauthority was again largely restricted tocoastal Gascony. In the 1390s, RICHARD IIgranted the duchy to his uncle, JOHN OF

GAUNT, duke of Lancaster, an attempt tocreate a new ducal line that was unpopular

with the Gascons. The problem resolved it-self in 1399 when Lancaster’s son becameking of England as HENRY IV, thus reunitingthe duchy to the Crown.

When HENRY V renewed the war withFrance in 1415, his efforts focused mainly onNORMANDY and northern France, and Aqui-taine saw less fighting than it had in theprevious century, when the duchy was dev-astated by frequent military campaigns

and destructive ROUTIER bands. In 1450,CHARLES VII, having expelled the Englishfrom northern France, launched a newcampaign against Aquitaine. Bordeaux fellin 1451, but the Gascons appealed to HENRY

VI, who dispatched John TALBOT, earl ofShrewsbury, with an expeditionary forcethat recaptured much of the duchy by late1452. However, in July 1453 at the Battle ofCASTILLON, the French slew Shrewsbury anddestroyed his army, thus ending the Hun-

dred Years War and English rule in Aqui-taine.

Further Reading: Labarge, Margaret Wade.

Gascony, England’s First Colony: 1204–1453. Lon-

don: Hamish Hamilton, 1980; Vale, Malcolm.

English Gascony, 1399–1453. London: Oxford Uni-

versity Press, 1970; Vale, Malcolm. The Origins of

the Hundred Years War . Oxford: Clarendon Press,

2000.

ARCHERSArchers were specialized troops who firedthe two main types of missile weapons used

ARCHERS

16









CIVIL WAR, when Charles was enfeebled bymadness, the constables were equally strongfigures, Charles d’ALBRET (1403–11, 1413–15)and BERNARD, count of Armagnac (1415–18).Under CHARLES VII, another nonmartial

king, the vigorous Arthur de Richemont (seeARTHUR III) (1425–58) led the campaigns ofreconquest and oversaw the vital militaryreforms of the 1440s (see CHARLES VII, MILI-

TARY REFORMS OF). According to the pres-ident of the PARLEMENT, by the time theFrench retook PARIS in 1436, the constablewas ‘‘the principal and first office of Francein honors and prerogatives, coming beforethat of chancellor and all others’’ (Fowler,119). The office became so prestigious that

the dauphin, who was anxious to attractmore volunteers from SCOTLAND, rewarded

John STEWART, the Scottish earl of Buchan,with it after his victory at BAUGE in 1421.

In the absence of the king, the constablehad power to make treaties and truces andto grant pardons; by the late fourteenthcentury, he was a member of the royal con-seil prive , where military policy and strategywere devised. Clisson, for instance, was a

strong proponent of avoiding pitched battle,a strategy employed with much successunder Charles V. The constable was alsoentitled to lodging at court and to assist atcoronations, where he carried the ‘‘HolyAmpule’’ containing the oil of anointment,and any crimes committed against him wereconsidered crimes against the king’s maj-esty. When the king was not in the field, theconstable had supreme command of the ar-mies, making all troop dispositions, tactical

arrangements, and personnel decisions. Hesent out all messengers and spies and alsodecided all garrison assignments and troopdetachments. The Crown met all his wartimecosts, including replacement of horses forhimself and his retinue and double pay of100 livres tournois per day during sieges andbattles. Save for gold and prisoner RANSOMS,he was also entitled to share all booty takenduring battle or from captured fortresses.

French marshals commanded the cavalryunder the constable and also had responsi-bility for army discipline and administration.

Their chief task was the supervision of troopmusters, preparing camps and reviewingtroops once in camp. Marshals also dealtwith all civilian complaints against soldiersand commanded the army in the absence of

the king and constable. They also enjoyednumerous perquisites and were paid 2,000livres tournois per year. The holders of themarshal’s office were less celebrated than thegreat constables. Jean de Clermont was slainat POITIERS in 1356, John de Boucicaut wascaptured at AGINCOURT in 1415, and Pierre deRieux was captured in 1419. One of the mostfamous French marshals of the war, Arnould’AUDREHEM, who was himself captured atNA JERA in 1367, had previously served in

another high military office, the keeper of theORIFLAMME, the war banner of French kings.The keeper, who was appointed for life,swore to die before surrendering the banner,an oath that Geoffrey de Charny, JOHN II’skeeper, fulfilled at Poitiers. Another im-portant French military officer was the mas-ter of the crossbowmen, who commanded allinfantry and ARTILLERY, although, in the fif-teenth century, the latter came under the

control of the master of the king’s artillery,who, like Jean BUREAU, was more adminis-trator and technician than military man.

In England, the offices of constable andmarshal were, unlike in France, hereditaryin great noble families, the former residing,up to 1372, with the Bohuns and the latter,after 1385, mostly with the Mowbrays. Evenwhen not held by members of these families,the offices were exercised by great noblemen,never by members of the lesser nobility as

occurred in France, for instance, with duGuesclin. During the most active phases ofthe war, the English had energetic martialkings and princes—EDWARD III, HENRY V,and EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE. Their dom-inance prevented English constables andmarshals from attaining the powers andprominence achieved by their French coun-terparts. Under less martial kings, highmilitary offices were held by relatives; THO-

MAS OF WOODSTOCK, duke of Gloucester, wasconstable for his nephew, RICHARD II, and JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD, exercised the same

ARMIES, COMMAND OF

20



office for his nephew, HENRY VI. Other im-portant English military commands usuallywent to noblemen, such as HENRY OF GROS-

MONT, duke of Lancaster; WILLIAM DE BOHUN,earl of Northampton; RICHARD BEAUCHAMP,

earl of Warwick; THOMAS MONTAGU, earl ofSalisbury; and John TALBOT, earl of Shrews-bury. However, command opportunities fortalented men of lesser social rank appearedin AQUITAINE and BRITTANY, where virtuallyconstant conflict, particularly during theBRETON CIVIL WAR, allowed such captains asSir John CHANDOS, Walter MAUNY, Sir Tho-mas DAGWORTH, Sir Hugh CALVELEY, and SirRobert KNOLLES to have famous and lucrativemilitary careers. See also ARMIES, COMPOSITION

OF; ARMIES, RECRUITMENT OF; ARMIES, SIZE OF;ARMIES, SUPPLYING OF; APPENDIX 6: CON-

STABLES AND MARSHALS OF FRANCE AND EN-

GLAND DURING THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR.Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher. The

Hundred Years War . Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, 1988; Fowler, Kenneth. The Age of

Plantagenet and Valois: The Struggle for Supremacy,

1328–1498. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1967;

Prestwich, Michael. Armies and Warfare in the Middle

Ages: The English Experience. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press, 1996.

ARMIES, COMPOSITION OFThe armies of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR werecomposed of two types of troops, men whofought on horseback, the cavalry, and menwho fought on foot, the infantry. Althoughthe war saw the former fight increasingly onfoot and many of the latter ride to the battle-field, the social and military distinctions that

defined these two groups remained largelyunchanged throughout the conflict. Drawnfrom the landed classes, the nobility and ar-migerous gentry, the cavalry was the elitewing of medieval armies. Drawn fromtownsmen and peasants, both free and un-free, the infantry lacked the social distinctionsof their mounted comrades, but it was theinfantry, particularly the English ARCHERS,who became increasingly important, both in

numbers and employment, during the war.The mounted knight dominated medievalwarfare until the late thirteenth century. In

England, Edward I’s campaigns in Wales andSCOTLAND, mountainous countries unsuitedto the use of cavalry, demonstrated the im-portance of foot soldiers, while in France, thedestruction of French knights by massed

Flemish infantry at Courtrai in July 1302 de-monstrated how foot soldiers could defeatmounted warriors. Nonetheless, the mountedknight was far from obsolete, as the French,still relying primarily on cavalry, provedwith their crushing defeat of later Flemishrebels at Cassel in 1328. However, to subduethe Welsh and defeat the Scots, the Englishneeded to modify their battle tactics in waysthat significantly altered the role and im-portance of cavalry. EDWARD I began recruit-

ing armies composed mainly of infantry; theforce he marched into North Wales in 1277comprised over fifteen thousand foot sol-diers, many of them bowmen, and less thanone thousand cavalry. Over time, the Englishdevised effective ways to integrate foot withhorse, such as at Maes Moydog in 1295, whenWilliam Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, de-feated the Welsh by employing the noveltactic of interspersing crossbowmen with the

cavalry. By July 1333, when EDWARD III de-feated the Scots at HALIDON HILL, the Englishhad learned to combine dismounted cavalrywith archers to create a defensive formationthat could withstand a cavalry charge. Whenthe French experienced the effectiveness ofsuch formations at MORLAIX, CRECY, andelsewhere, archers and infantrymen came tocomprise increasingly larger percentages ofboth armies. Cavalry also began to fight morefrequently on foot; at POITIERS in 1356, JOHN II

took the unprecedented step of ordering theFrench cavalry to dismount. Meanwhile, in-fantrymen and archers found themselves in-creasingly on horseback—not to fight, but toprovide mobility for rapid deployment inbattle or to maximize destruction duringraids. The border raids of the Scottish warsand the swift English CHEVAUCHE ES of theAnglo-French war proved the worth ofmounted bowmen and the light horsemen

known as hobelars.Fighting on horseback required wealth toacquire and maintain the necessary equi-

ARMIES, COMPOSITION OF

21



page, and freedom from other employmentto undertake the training. Knighthood alsoconferred honor and social distinction, andCHIVALRY was its code of conduct. Weapons,ARMOR, and, especially, warhorses were ex-

pensive and beyond the reach of anyone notin possession of land or in the paid service ofsomeone in such possession. In previouscenturies, all who fought on horseback werecalled knights (milites), but, by the four-teenth century, gradations of rank began toappear. Bannerets constituted a superiormilitary rank based not only on social status,but also on personal reputation. The rank ofbanneret was not hereditary, but its holderscommanded other knights, from whom they

were distinguished by their use of rectan-gular banners, rather than simple pennants.According to Jean FROISSART, EDWARD, THE

BLACK PRINCE, elevated Sir John CHANDOS tothe rank of banneret by cutting off the end ofhis pennant to form a banner. Below ban-nerets were knights. In France, knighthoodwas hereditary, but it was not necessarily soin England. The term ‘‘knight’’ could en-compass a wide range of men, from sub-

stantial landholders to landless men retainedas mounted warriors by the king or noble-men. In many cases, the term was simplyapplied to anyone who had the training andequipage of a mounted soldier, and bythe fourteenth century the main qualifica-tion for knighthood appears to have beenthe financial ability to bear the cost of arm-ing oneself as a knight. Below the level ofknight were various ill-defined ranks oftenencompassed in the generic term ‘‘men-at-

arms,’’ but also broken down into suchcategories as sergeants, valets, and squires,the last two being virtually synonymousand usually designating men in training forknighthood.

Medieval cavalry was organized around aseries of retinues attached to the king andgreat nobles. The knights, sergeants, andsquires of the royal household often formedthe core of the army. At the start of the war,

Edward III had seventeen bannerets, forty-four knights, and almost ninety squires inhis paid service. Such powerful lords as

JOHN OF GAUNT, duke of Lancaster, andPHILIP THE BOLD, duke of Burgundy, alsomaintained large retinues. In combat, thecavalry was often organized into ‘‘battles’’;Edward III divided his army into three bat-

tles at Crecy, as did John II at Poitiers. In the1440s, the military reforms of CHARLES VII,drawing upon organizational innovationsdeveloped by such ROUTIER captains as Sir

John HAWKWOOD, organized the French cav-alry into lances, a grouping that includedone cavalryman, one squire, two archers,and two pages.

Armed with bows, daggers, swords, axes,halberds, and similar weapons, and lightlyor totally unarmored, infantrymen were re-

cruited from the towns and rural peasantry.In England, the king sent commissions ofarray, composed usually of nobles orknights of local influence, into certaincounties or districts to raise a certain num-ber of men for royal service. In many cases,the selection of men was made by local of-ficials. Occasionally, townsmen or villagerspooled their resources to hire people toserve on their behalf. The system had great

potential for corruption and the troopsraised were often of poor quality. Pay wasmeager, meant only to provide subsistence.In English armies, an ordinary foot soldierreceived 3d per day, although a mountedarcher got twice that amount. The real in-ducements were the opportunities the warprovided for quick wealth through plunderand RANSOMS. In some cases, men fought forthe promise of a royal pardon for past crimes.Lacking the coats of arms of the cavalry, the

infantry saw the first appearance of uniformsto help men identify friend from foe in battle.French towns often dressed the men theysent in identical attire, while the Welshbowmen who accompanied the Black Princeon the CHEVAUCHE EOF 1355 all wore green andwhite parti-colored hats and tunics. The warprobably raised the social status of most in-fantrymen, since the poorest and least ca-pable of a village or town could not serve as

archers or hobelars; most such men werelikely free townsmen and peasants. How-ever, stories of men rising through the ranks,

ARMIES, COMPOSITION OF

22















armored joints and rob a man of mobility.The axe and hammer could crush botharmor and the flesh it covered. Against un-armored opponents, a skillfully wieldedpollaxe was devastating.

While the pollaxe was used only forcombat on foot, such other battering weap-ons as the battle-axe, the mace, and the warhammer were carried primarily by horse-men, who swung their weapon with onehand and held their reins with the other.Weighing from two to five pounds, the warhammer was serrated and usually carried afluke opposite the hammer head. Of a sim-ilar weight, the mace had a head composedof six interlocking serrated edges or some

similarly formidable configuration of spikesand points. Like the pollaxe, these weaponswere used to deliver crushing blows to ar-mored opponents.

Further Reading: DeVries, Kelly. Medieval

Military Technology. Peterborough, Ontario: Broad-

view Press, 1992; Prestwich, Michael. Armies and

Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.

ARRAS, CONGRESS OF (1435)Held in the Burgundian town of Arras inAugust and September 1435, the Congress ofArras was the largest, most comprehensivediplomatic gathering of the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR. Mediated by cardinals appointed bythe pope, the Congress brought togetherdelegations from England, France, BUR-

GUNDY, and other interested parties, such asvarious towns, princes, and the Universityof Paris. The first Anglo-French negotiation

since the talks that resulted in the Treaty ofTROYES in 1420, the Congress made no peacebetween the two Crowns, but, as intendedby its host, PHILIP THE GOOD, duke of Bur-gundy, replaced the fifteen-year-old Anglo-Burgundian alliance with the Treaty ofArras, a reconciliation between Philip andCHARLES VII that changed the nature of thewar and led eventually to the English ex-pulsion from France.

By 1431, interest in a negotiated settlementwas growing at both the French and Bur-gundian courts. Despite the victories in-

spired by JOAN OF ARC in 1429–30, CharlesVII, who preferred negotiation to combat,was financially unable to raise the armiesrequired to carry the war into Anglo-Bur-gundian France. Although he personally de-

tested Charles, the man he held responsiblefor the murder of his father, JOHN THE FEAR-

LESS, Philip had come to believe that he couldmore easily dominate a French governmentheaded by the weak and indolent Charlesthan one controlled by the forceful Englishregent, JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD. When deathremoved the mediation of ANNE OF BUR-

GUNDY, Philip’s sister and Bedford’s wife, inNovember 1432, relations between the twomen deteriorated. Also, with the French

blockading PARIS, the growing hardship oflife in the capital was turning many citizensagainst the English and threatening to erodeBurgundy’s great popularity within the city.With the pope also advocating peace, pri-marily as a means of strengthening his au-thority within the antipapal Council of Basle,the desire for some agreement was strongamong all parties except the English.

Although Franco-Burgundian talks re-

garding a reconciliation began in 1432, anagreement that resulted in the calling of anall-party congress was not achieved untilearly 1435. Philip’s desire to avoid the ap-pearance of betraying his ally was satisfiedby his chancellor, Nicholas Rolin, who de-clared that HENRY VI had no valid claim tothe French Crown since the Treaty of Troyespassed the Crown only to HENRY V, who haddied before actually inheriting it and socould not pass it on to his son. That the

Troyes agreement also disinherited CharlesVII was conveniently ignored. Under Rolin’sinterpretation, Philip could abandon theEnglish alliance while remaining technicallyfaithful to the treaty that created it.

When the Congress opened in August, theFrench delegation, led by Arthur de Riche-mont (see ARTHUR III) the brother of JOHN Vof BRITTANY, and Regnault of Chartres, arch-bishop of Rheims, demanded that Henry VI

renounce his claim to the French Crown as apreliminary to any further talks. The Englishdelegation, led by Henry BEAUFORT, cardinal

ARRAS, CONGRESS OF

29











environs of Paris of English garrisons ande corcheurs (see ROUTIERS). Following conclu-sion of the Truce of TOURS in 1444, Riche-mont worked with the king to reform theFrench army, transforming it into a profes-

sional force that was well trained, paid, andled. During the NORMAN CAMPAIGN thatbegan in 1449, Richemont was instrumentalin achieving decisive victory at the Battle ofFORMIGNY in April 1450 and was present atthe successful sieges of Caen and Cherbourgthat concluded the campaign in the follow-ing summer. On the unexpected death ofhis nephew, Peter II, in September 1457,Arthur became duke of Brittany, but ruledonly a short time, dying childless on 26

December 1458. See also CHARLES VII, MILI-

TARY REFORMS OF.Further Reading: Jones, Michael. Between

France and England: Politics, Power and Society in

Late Medieval Brittany. Burlington, VT: Ashgate

Publishing Company, 2003; Jones, Michael. The

Creation of Brittany: A Late Medieval State. London:

Hambledon Press, 1988; Vale, M. G. A. Charles

VII . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.

ARTILLERYThe evolution of modern artillery, largeguns capable of firing heavy stones or metalpellets, was one of the most important de-velopments in military technology to occurduring the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Artillery made its first appearance inEuropean warfare in the early fourteenthcentury. Although cannon never supplantedthe longbow or crossbow (see ARCHERS) dur-ing the course of the war, firearms eventually

altered SIEGE WARFARE by replacing the wood-en siege engines used since antiquity toassault towns and fortresses. The war alsosaw the beginning of changes in NAVAL

WARFARE that were not complete until thesixteenth century, when ships became float-ing artillery platforms. Small guns projectingquarrels (like crossbow bolts) or lead pelletswere used at the naval battle of SLUYS in June1340 and at the French defense of TOURNAI in

the following August. EDWARD III employedsimilar weapons at CRECY in 1346 and toguard the approaches to CALAIS during the

siege of 1347. The effect of these weapons,especially on the battlefield, was primarilypsychological; their noise and smoke fright-ened men and horses and caused confusionamong attackers.

The resumption of war in 1369 followingcollapse of the Treaty of BRETIGNY coincidedwith important breakthroughs in the pro-duction and use of artillery. Prior to 1370,most guns were made of copper or brass andweighed between 20 and 40 pounds; how-ever, during the last decades of the century,increasingly larger guns of wrought and castiron began to appear. In 1375, the Frenchbesieged Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte in AQUI-

TAINE with guns that weighed over a ton and

were capable of firing 100-pound stone balls.Although the English captain defendingCherbourg in 1379 had several guns capableof firing large stones, the English before 1400had few weapons to match the size of theSaint-Sauveur cannon. The end of the cen-tury also saw the appearance of varioussmall mortars, different types of handguns,and the ribaudequin, a large multibarreledweapon that could shoot stone balls and

lead pellets or quarrels.By the early fifteenth century, artillery ofvarying sizes and increasing effectivenesswere common in both armies. The largestguns, known as bombardes, could weighover 5 tons and fire stone balls weighing upto 300 pounds; bombardes were probablymore common among the French than theEnglish until the early 1420s. Veuglaires orfowlers could be up to 8 feet long and rangedin weight from 300 pounds to several tons,

while crapaudaux or crapaudins were 4 to 8feet long and generally lighter than veu-glaires. Many other types of much smallerand lighter guns, such as serpentines andculverins, also came into common use in thefifteenth century.

Intending a war of siege and conquest,rather than one of CHEVAUCHE ES, HENRY Varrived in France in 1415 with a large artillerytrain that immediately proved its effective-

ness at the siege of HARFLEUR. English artil-lery was vital to the success of the NORMAN

CAMPAIGN of 1417–19, and especially to the

ARTILLERY

34













BBABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY. See PAPACY

AND THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR

BADEFOL, SEGUIN DE (c. 1331–1366)Seguin de Badefol was a famous soldier of

fortune and a notorious captain of ROUTIERS.His company was widely known and fearedand was one of the largest components ofthe GREAT COMPANY, a powerful army ofroutiers that terrorized southeastern Francein the 1360s.

Badefol was the second son of the lord ofBadefol-sur-Dordogne, a small castle on thefrontier of GASCONY in territory that hadlong been in dispute between the kings of

England and France. He fought for theFrench at POITIERS in 1356, but the capturethere of JOHN II and the resulting truceended payments from the French Crownand led Badefol to form his own route, orcompany of men, which, with other similarbands, took to pillage to support themselves.Nicknamed ‘‘le Margot,’’ and numberingalmost two thousand men, Badefol’s com-pany was part of the Great Company thatattacked Pont-Saint-Esprit in the spring of

1361. Bought off by Pope Innocent VI andRobert Fiennes, constable of France, thecompanies were promised employment inItaly or Spain but the cessation of wars inthose lands largely frustrated the plan andBadefol remained in command of a largeforce of brigands that continued to plaguethe southern provinces.

In November 1361, Badefol abandoned hisleadership of the companies as part of a deal

whereby the local administrations in Tou-louse, Carcassonne, and Beaucaire paid theGreat Company to leave their territories.

Remaining quiet until the summer of 1363,Badefol resumed command of the GreatCompany and on 13 September seized andlooted the town of Brioude on the borders ofAuvergne. Making Brioude their base, the

companies devastated the surroundingcountryside. News of Badefol’s successdrew many other captains and their com-panies to Brioude, and by the late autumnof 1363 the town was said to contain almostten thousand routiers. Needing to expandhis area of operations to keep his men sup-plied, Badefol soon launched raids eastwardinto the wealthy duchy of BURGUNDY. InApril 1364, the Estates of Auvergne pur-

chased Badefol’s withdrawal from Brioudefor a royal pardon, a papal absolution, and40,000 florins, the largest RANSOM ever re-corded.

Ostensibly accepting employment withCHARLES THE BAD, king of Navarre, who wasthen at odds with the French Crown, Badefoland his routiers seized the town of Anse nearLyon on 1 November 1364. Although callinghimself one of Navarre’s captains, Badefolturned Anse into a second Brioude and again

became the scourge of the surrounding re-gion. Pope Urban V excommunicated Bade-fol and his associates, and even offered acrusade indulgence to anyone who expelledthem from the town, but the routiers did notdepart Anse until they were paid another40,000 florins in September 1365. Leaving thecompanies, Badefol withdrew to Navarrewhere he demanded the payment promisedhim by Charles the Bad. Unhappy with the

services rendered and offended by Badefol’simportunity, Charles, in January 1366, in-vited the routier to dine and offered him a

40



poisoned pear, from which Badefol diedafter six days of agony.

Further Reading: Henneman, John Bell. Royal

Taxation in Fourteenth Century France: The Captivity

and Ransom of John II . Philadelphia: American

Philosophical Society, 1976 (see particularly chap.5); Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred Years War .



BASTIDES

Bastides were fortified settlements estab-lished in western France in the thirteenthand early fourteenth centuries by kings ornobles for mainly economic purposes. In aperiod of population growth, a bastide gen-

erated for its lord an increased income fromland that had been previously underutilizedor uncultivated. In AQUITAINE, where bastideswere founded by both Capetian kings (seeCAPET, HOUSE OF) and PLANTAGENET king-dukes, the settlements also served to definespheres of influence within contested re-gions. As such, local frictions generated bybastides often aggravated the larger Anglo-French jurisdictional dispute over Aqui-

taine, and thus contributed to the coming ofthe HUNDRED YEARS WAR.Although bastide creation had occurred in

southwestern France since the 1240s, the firstnew settlement in Plantagenet Aquitaine wasMonsegur, established in 1263. Until con-clusion of the Treaty of PARIS in 1259, theuncertain status of English rule within theduchy had inhibited bastide foundation, andproliferation of bastides within the Plan-tagenet domains only followed EDWARD I’s

acquisition of the Agenais in 1279. However,by 1287, the seneschal of Gascony, actingunder the king-duke’s authority, foundedtwo dozen bastides, particularly within newlyacquired or weakly administered territories,where the settlements did not so much de-fend frontiers as define jurisdictional andadministrative boundaries. Such attempts atdemarcation often caused disputes thatwound up in ducal or royal courts. Bastides

also tended to disrupt established economicand social patterns, thus creating further jurisdictional friction. Because their founders

granted charters of settlement ( pariage) thatconferred attractive and valuable rights andfranchises on settlers, bastides came intoconflict with neighboring towns, villages, orlords, who were often adversely affected by

the activities of the new community. Sincebastides were settlements of free peasants,serfs from neighboring manors were drawnto the new communities, and economic priv-ileges granted to settlers frequently harmedthe trade of local merchants.

Bastide disputes gradually increased innumber over the three decades that pre-ceded EDWARD III’s accession in 1327. Typi-cal of such cases were the complaints thatducal officials lodged with Edward I in the

early 1290s regarding Jean Archier, admin-istrator of the new French bastide of Grenade,who frequently heard cases that were clearlywithin the king-duke’s jurisdiction. Twodecades later, EDWARD II asked PHILIP IV toensure that all French foundations in Aqui-taine observed the same law enforced by theducal administration in existing commu-nities. By the eve of the War of SAINT-SARDOS

in March 1324, at least five Gascon cases

involving bastides were pending before thePARLEMENT in PARIS. Because it was the im-mediate cause of the Anglo-French war ofthe same name, the bastide at Saint-Sardoswas the most famous of the disputed Gasconcommunities. In October 1323, a ducal vas-sal, Raymond-Bernard, lord of Montpezat,protested the construction of a French bastideat Saint-Sardos by burning the village andhanging the royal official in charge. WhenCHARLES IV intruded on ducal jurisdiction

by ordering Montpezat’s arrest, the resultingdispute led eventually to confiscation of theduchy and a French invasion that overranmost of Plantagenet GASCONY. Although theconflict ended in 1325 with the restoration ofAquitaine, which Edward II then granted tohis son, who did homage for it to the Frenchking, the war effectively halted bastide crea-tion in southwestern France, and the polit-ical crises of the 1330s and constant warfare

of the following decades destroyed the eco-nomic climate that had earlier favored theirfoundation.

BASTIDES

41





was happening on other parts of the field.Chroniclers who were able to interviewparticipants often got good accounts ofpreparations and aftermaths, but few in-formative details about the fighting itself.

The start of a battle was often extremelynoisy, in part to instill fear in the enemy.Trumpets, drums, and ARTILLERY opened thefighting at Crecy, while the noise of Poitierswas said to have reverberated off the wallsof the town seven miles away. Battle criesfrom thousands of men—‘‘Montjoie St.Denis’’ for the French and ‘‘St. George forGuienne’’ for the English—added to the din.Although long-distance archery duals wererare, many battles began with an exchange

of archer fire. Artillery made its presenceincreasingly felt in the fifteenth century, al-though big guns were a major factor on thebattlefield only at CASTILLON in 1453. AfterEnglish bowmen devastated French horse-men at Crecy, the coordinated cavalrycharge, which is traditionally consideredthe classic tactic of medieval warfare, wasrarely used to start battles. However, cavalrycharges still had their place. Derby’s knights

launched a surprise charge to good effect atAuberoche, while the Black Prince re-mounted some of his men to ride downgroups of dismounted French knights atPoitiers. The hardest part of the battle tocomprehend is the melee, the confused pressof horses and men engaged in combat atclose quarters. Friends advancing from therear could cause as much harm as enemies tothe front. At Agincourt, men in later wavescould only engage the enemy by climbing

onto piles of dead from the initial clash.Many men in heavy ARMOR, such as Edward,duke of York, died when they suffocatedunder piles of corpses six feet high. Themelee usually ended when one side could nolonger hold a line or maintain an attack, orwhen a new force, such as that led around theflank at Poitiers by Jean de GRAILLY, captal deBuch, tipped the balance.

Often, most of the CASUALTIES sustained

during a battle occurred at the end duringthe rout, when the beaten army fled andits members were run down and slain. At

NA JERA in 1367, more than half the Franco-Castilian army was slain fleeing the field.Many battles fought near a river ended witha great slaughter of men trying to cross thewater. The rout often took longer than the

battle itself. At Poitiers, the battle was foughtin the morning, but the pursuit continuedthrough the afternoon and into the evening.The duration of battles could vary greatly.Agincourt was over in a few hours as wasCrecy, which began in the late afternoon andended at dusk, but NEVILLE’S CROSS lastedfrom about nine in the morning until eve-ning and MORLAIX in 1343 was lengthenedby the repeated need for exhausted combat-ants to stop and refresh themselves. See also

CHIVALRY; SIEGE WARFARE; STRATEGY AND

TACTICS.Further Reading: Burne, Alfred H. The Agin-

court War . Ware, England: Wordsworth Editions

Ltd., 1999; Burne, Alfred H. The Cre cy War . Ware,

England: Wordsworth Editions Ltd., 1999; Prest-

wich, Michael. Armies and Warfare in the Middle

Ages: The English Experience. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press, 1996.

BAUGE´ , BATTLE OF (1421)On 22 March 1421, a Franco-Scottish army

overwhelmed a smaller English force nearthe village of Bauge, some twenty miles eastof the Angevin capital of Angers. The Battleof Bauge, a rare English defeat in pitchedbattle, resulted in the death of the heir pre-sumptive to the English throne and a greatboost in morale for supporters of the dau-phinist cause.

When HENRY V returned to England in

February 1421, he left his brother and heir,THOMAS, DUKE OF CLARENCE, in command inPARIS. Following the king’s instructions,Clarence led four thousand men on a largelyunopposed raid through Maine and Anjou,which culminated with the duke basinghimself at the castle of Beaufort, roughlyhalfway between Angers and Bauge. OnGood Friday, 21 March, a dauphinist armyof five thousand, composed of newly arrived

Scottish troops under John STEWART, earl ofBuchan, and a sprinkling of local Frenchlevies under Marshal Lafayette, reached

BAUGE, BATTLE OF

43





1415, but was then ordered to convey pris-oners to Calais and so missed the Battle ofAGINCOURT. The earl participated in theconquest of NORMANDY after 1417, includingthe sieges of Caen and ROUEN, and played a

major role in the negotiations surroundingconclusion of the Treaty of TROYES in 1420.He was deputy steward at the coronation ofQueen CATHERINE OF VALOIS in February1421, but was back in France with the kingby May to conclude the siege of MEAUX,and then to lead independent expeditionsthat captured Gamaches and St. Valery-sur-Somme. At Henry V’s death in August1422, Warwick was named an executor of theroyal will, and, in December, he joined

Henry VI’s minority council.Although one of the wealthiest men in

England and politically dominant in the westMidlands, Warwick’s influence declinedduring the early years of the new reign,when the earl became associated with thecouncil faction led by Cardinal Henry BEAU-

FORT. This connection persuaded Beaufort’srival, HUMPHREY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER, tosupport Warwick’s political opponents and

so diminish his local standing. Warwick re-turned to France in late 1425, when he wasmade custodian of Normandy by the regent,

JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD. In early 1427, the earlcaptured Pontorson in BRITTANY, but, inSeptember, he was defeated at the siege ofMONTARGIS by a dauphinist force under

JOHN, the Bastard of Orleans.In 1428, Warwick returned to England to

become governor of seven-year-old HenryVI, whom, in a famous episode, the earl

carried to his coronation in November 1429.Except for accompanying the king to hisFrench coronation in PARIS in 1431, Warwickremained in England until 1436, when heserved with Gloucester’s expeditions to Ca-lais and FLANDERS. In July 1437, the kingnamed Warwick lieutenant-general andgovernor of France and Normandy, but in-adequate manpower and funding allowedhim to do no more than maintain the status

quo against both CHARLES VII and PHILIP THEGOOD, duke of Burgundy, who had aban-doned his English alliance at the Congress of

ARRAS in 1435. Warwick died in Rouen on 30April 1439.

Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher. Henry

V . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993;

Carpenter, Christine. Locality and Polity: A Study

of Warwickshire Landed Society, 1401–1499. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992; Har-

riss, G. L. Cardinal Beaufort: A Study of Lancastrian

Ascendency and Decline. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1988.

BEAUCHAMP, THOMAS, EARL OF WARWICK (c. 1314–1369)Thomas Beauchamp, eleventh earl of War-wick and one of EDWARD III’s most importantand distinguished companions-in-arms, par-

ticipated in most of the early battles andcampaigns of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Beauchamp was only a child when hisfather, Guy de Beauchamp, tenth earl ofWarwick, died in 1315. EDWARD II gavecustody of the Warwick lands to his favorite,Hugh Despenser the Elder, but the youngearl’s person and marriage were entrustedto Roger Mortimer, the future earl of March,whose daughter Warwick married in about

1327. In February 1329, the minority regimeof his father-in-law and Queen Isabella (seeISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND [c. 1292–1358])allowed Warwick to be knighted and to takepossession of his lands, even though he wasstill under age. In the 1330s, Warwick foughtin SCOTLAND, where he was appointedcommander of the army in 1337. In 1339, heaccompanied Edward III to France and in1340 was present at the siege of TOURNAI andtook part in the talks leading to the Truce of

ESPLECHIN. From September 1340 until May1341, the earl was imprisoned in Malines assurety for payment of the king’s debts.

In 1342, Warwick served at the siege ofVannes in BRITTANY and in 1346 foughtalongside EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, atCRECY, where the earl’s already considerablemilitary reputation was enhanced. Warwickwas present at the siege of CALAIS in 1347and accompanied the Black Prince on his

CHEVAUCHE´

E through southern France in1355. The chronicler Geoffrey Baker wrotethat Warwick and his comrades fought ‘‘like

BEAUCHAMP, THOMAS, EARL OF WARWICK

45













mid-1340s, Bentley formed his own mer-cenary band and by 1346 controlled twocastles in western Brittany, including theisland fortress of Tristan, from which hismen levied tolls on passing ships. In about

1348, Bentley married Jeanne de Belleville,the widow of Olivier de Clisson, head of apowerful Breton family. For consorting withthe English, Clisson was executed in PARIS in1343, but his widow, with the aid of Englishsoldiers, saved most of the family landsfrom confiscation.

In 1349, Bentley began feuding with Raoulde Caours, the English lieutenant of Bas-Poitou, over the possession of certain Clis-son fortresses that Caours had seized from

the French. The quarrel divided the Englishcommand in the duchy and drove Caours tointrigue with the French, who promised himthe disputed fortresses in return for hischange of allegiance. The scheme collapsedwhen EDWARD III took the strongholds andtheir loyal English garrisons into his pos-session before Caours could act. In October1349, Edward granted these fortresses toBentley, who thereafter carved a personal

military fiefdom out of his wife’s lands.On 8 September 1350, Bentley succeededSir Thomas DAGWORTH as king’s lieutenantin Brittany. In June 1351, when the Frenchlaid siege to Ploermel, Bentley relieved theBreton town by gathering a force from theEnglish garrisons and raiding into Maineand along the Loire. In a memorandumwritten in early 1352, Bentley complainedthat many of the frontier captains supportedthemselves and their men through the ex-

action of PA TIS and thus were effectivelybeyond his control and that of the king. Thememorandum, which was a fair descriptionof Bentley’s own career, caused much con-sternation in LONDON but changed little inBrittany.

Bentley was in England in May 1352,when a French army under Guy de Nesleinvaded Brittany. Given a special subsidyand the right to recruit men in the West

Country, the lieutenant returned to theduchy in late July and on 14 August de-feated de Nesle at the Battle of MAURON, a

victory that secured English dominance inBrittany for the next decade. Dismissed fromhis lieutenancy in early 1353, Bentley re-sumed his mercenary career. Later in theyear, when the king demanded that he sur-

render the Clisson fortresses in accordancewith a treaty concluded with the captiveCHARLES OF BLOIS, Bentley refused and sailedto England to plead his case. Imprisoned inthe Tower of London, Bentley was even-tually released and allowed to return toBrittany, where, in January 1357, he and hiswife were granted the barony of La Roche-Moisan. Bentley died in December 1359 stillpossessed of most of his wife’s Breton lord-ships. See also BRETON CIVIL WAR.

Further Reading: Jones, Michael. ‘‘Edward III’s

Captains in Brittany.’’ In Between France and

England: Politics, Power and Society in Late Medieval

Brittany, 98–118. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub-

lishing Company, 2003; Sumption, Jonathan. The

Hundred Years War . Vol. 2, Trial by Fire. Philadel-


BERGERAC, CAPTURE OF (1345)In late August 1345, HENRY OF GROSMONT,

earl of Derby, captured Bergerac, a Frenchgarrison town on the Dordogne about sixtymiles east of BORDEAUX in southern Perigord.The sudden seizure of the town disruptedFrench operations in southwestern France,opened Perigord to English penetration, andinitiated an English campaign that even-tually cleared GASCONY of enemy garrisons.

On 9 August 1345, Derby, newly ap-pointed king’s lieutenant in AQUITAINE, land-ed at Bordeaux with two thousand men.

Accompanied by such veteran captains asSir Walter MAUNY and Sir James AUDLEY,Derby was to do ‘‘whatever could be done’’(Sumption, 455) to drive the French from theduchy. Although Derby’s expedition wasoriginally planned as part of a dual opera-tion involving a simultaneous campaign innorthern France by EDWARD III, the king’sexpedition, delayed by the overthrow of

James van ARTEVELDE in FLANDERS and vio-

lent storms in the Channel, was cancelled inlate July. With PHILIP VI now free to sendmen and resources to the southwest, Derby

BERGERAC, CAPTURE OF

51















brother of CHARLES V; CHARLES, DUKE OF OR-

LEANS, the son of Burgundy’s slain rival;Charles D’ALBRET, the constable of France;

John, Duke of Bourbon; John, Duke of Alen-con; and Armagnac himself—approached

Henry IV with even more attractive termsthan those conceded by Burgundy. Theprinces offered to recognize the Englishking’s right to the duchy of AQUITAINE andpromised to support his efforts to recover theduchy. They also agreed to hold certain oftheir lands as fiefs of the king of England andto cede twenty Gascon towns and castles (notin their possession) to Henry. In return forthese concessions, Henry promised to makeno agreements with Burgundy and to send

four thousand archers and men-at-arms toassist his allies against the duke. In July 1412,two months after the conclusion of the Treatyof Bourges, Henry’s second son, THOMAS,DUKE OF CLARENCE, led the agreed-upon forceto France.

Burgundy reacted to the treaty by sendinga royal and Burgundian army to besiegeBourges, the capital of the duchy of Berry.The success of this campaign and Burgun-

dy’s issuance of a royal letter ordering allFrench princes (including Burgundy) todisavow any agreements with the Englishoverthrew the Bourges alliance and isolatedClarence in Normandy. With the Treaty ofAuxerre, the VALOIS princes effected a sol-emn reconciliation within the royal familyand the FRENCH CIVIL WAR seemed at last tobe over.

Before leading his army on a destruc-tive CHEVAUCHE E to English-held BORDEAUX,

Clarence extracted ransom from the Frenchprinces, including handsome individualpayments for himself and the other Englishleaders. By the Treaty of BUZANCAIS, theArmagnac leaders bought off Clarence forthe sum of 150,000 ecus, with 66,000 ecuspaid immediately by Berry and the restguaranteed by the surrender of seven hos-tages, including Orleans’s younger brother.Although the Bourges agreement had not

brought the English the rewards it prom-ised, the treaty had revealed to the ambi-tious prince of Wales, who was soon to rule

as HENRY V, that the French princes weremurderously divided against themselvesand willing to make almost any concessionfor aid in defeating their rivals. See alsoGASCONY.

Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher. HenryV . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993;

Perroy, Edouard. The Hundred Years War . Trans.

W. B. Wells. New York: Capricorn Books, 1965;

Seward, Desmond. The Hundred Years War . New

York: Penguin, 1999; Vaughan, Richard. John the

Fearless. London: Longman, 1979.

BOWMEN. See ARCHERS

BRETIGNY, TREATY OF (1360)

Concluded on 8 May 1360 at the village ofBretigny near Chartres, the Anglo-FrenchTreaty of Bretigny ended the first phase ofthe HUNDRED YEARS WAR. Considered at thetime and by later historians to be a victoryfor EDWARD III and a disaster for VALOIS

France, the treaty was never fully im-plemented and war resumed within a de-cade of its signing.

Since the capture of JOHN II at POITIERS in

1356, Edward III had negotiated two abortivetreaties with the French, the First and SecondTreaties of LONDON. Both agreements foun-dered on the French inability to meet Ed-ward’s RANSOM demands for John’s releaseand on their unwillingness to accept Ed-ward’s territorial demands for almost half ofFrance in full sovereignty. To force the Frenchto accept a settlement on his terms, Edwardlaunched the RHEIMS CAMPAIGN in October1359. One of the largest campaigns of the war,

the march on Rheims aimed at having Ed-ward crowned king of France at the tradi-tional coronation site of French monarchs.However, the English were unable to takeRheims and the campaign, bedeviled by badweather, lack of supply, and the French re-fusal to fight a pitched battle, ended in failurein April 1360, forcing Edward to modify hisdemands and seek the best settlement hecould get. As a result, an English delegation,

led by EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, and HENRYOF GROSMONT, duke of Lancaster, met John’srepresentatives at Bretigny on 1 May.

BOWMEN

58



Although Dauphin Charles, believing theEnglish could no longer continue their cam-paign, was reluctant to treat with them, Johnwas eager to win his release and the finalagreement was largely the work of his ad-

visors, not the dauphin’s. With both sidesdesiring a quick settlement, the main termsof the treaty were agreed by 3 May. In returnfor renouncing his claim to the Frenchthrone, Edward received territory amount-ing to one-third of France in full sovereignty.In the southwest, an enlarged AQUITAINE in-cluded Poitou, Saintonge, Quercy, Rouergue,and the Agenais; and in the north, thePLANTAGENET holdings included Ponthieu,Montreuil, and CALAIS. Although a signifi-

cant concession by the French, these territo-ries also represented a significant reductionin Edward’s demands, which had earlierincluded the former Plantagenet possessionsof NORMANDY, BRITTANY, Maine, Anjou, andTouraine. Edward also agreed to surrenderall English-held castles and fortresses inareas remaining under Valois control and toforego any alliance with FLANDERS while theFrench agreed to end the ‘‘Auld Alliance’’

with SCOTLAND (see FRANCO-SCOTTISH ALLI-ANCE).

John’s ransom was set at 3 million ecus(about £500,000), another reduction of En-glish demands, and was to include sixteenprominent French prisoners taken at Poi-tiers. The French were to pay 600,000 ecusbefore the king’s release and the rest in sixannual installments, payment of which wasto be secured by the giving of hostages, in-cluding John’s sons LOUIS, DUKE OF ANJOU,

and JOHN, DUKE OF BERRY. The two kingsratified the treaty at Calais (thus the settle-ment is sometimes called the Treaty of Ca-lais) on 24 October, after which John wasreleased. The two most important provisionsof the agreement—the French renunciationsof sovereignty over the ceded territories andthe English renunciation of the FrenchCrown—were embodied in a separate char-ter known, from its opening words, as the

C’est Assavoir. This document was to be rat-ified upon completion of the territorialtransfers or by November 1361. In fact, the

ratification never occurred and the chiefterms of the treaty were thus nullified. Thereasons for this failure to ratify the charterare unclear. Edward may have wanted legalgrounds to resume the war and the French

Crown, should he decide to do so, and Johnmay have been simply unwilling to partforever with the ceded lands. In January1364, John returned to LONDON, ostensibly toexpunge the dishonor brought upon himwhen Anjou broke parole, but perhaps alsoto personally negotiate a reduction of hisransom, which had fallen seriously in ar-rears. When John died in London in April,implementation of the Bretigny settlementfell to the dauphin, now CHARLES V, who

had never supported it. In 1369, Charles re-sumed the war and effectively renouncedthe treaty by accepting the APPEAL OF THE

GASCON LORDS and thereby declaring Valoissovereignty over Aquitaine.

Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher. The


versity Press, 1988; Curry, Anne. The Hundred

Years War . 2nd ed. Houndmills, England: Pal-

grave Macmillan, 2003; Le Patourel, John. ‘‘The

Treaty of Bretigny, 1360.’’ Transactions of the RoyalHistorical Society, 5th ser., 10 (1960): 19–39; Sump-

tion, Jonathan. The Hundred Years War . Vol. 2, Trial

by Fire. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Press, 2001.

BRETON CIVIL WAR (1341–1365)Initiated by the death of Duke John III in1341 and ended by conclusion of the Treatyof GUERANDE in 1365, the Breton civil war,the result of a bitter succession dispute in

the duchy of BRITTANY, was prolonged andintensified by its incorporation into theHUNDRED YEARS WAR. By intervening in theBreton conflict on behalf of one of the claim-ants, EDWARD III gained a new front uponwhich to attack the VALOIS.

John III died childless on 30 April 1341,leaving two possible candidates for theducal title—his niece, Jeanne de Penthievre,who was married to CHARLES OF BLOIS, a

nephew of PHILIP VI of France, and his halfbrother, John de MONTFORT. In May, Mont-fort, who was not well known in Brittany,

BRETON CIVIL WAR

59















Continent to overthrow her husband. In January 1327, Burghersh was one of thecommissioners sent to Kenilworth to secureEdward’s surrender of the Crown, and, in1328, the bishop was appointed treasurer

and then chancellor of England. In June1329, Burghersh accompanied Edward III toAmiens, where the sixteen-year-old king didhomage to PHILIP VI for the duchy of AQUI-

TAINE. When disputes arose over the form ofhomage required, Burghersh, acting for theking, delivered a brief speech protesting theFrench demands and outlining the Englishposition. When Edward seized power fromhis mother in October 1330, Burghersh,being too closely associated with the pre-

vious regime, was imprisoned in the Towerof London and deprived of the chancellor-ship.

Being a capable administrator and diplo-mat, Burghersh was soon restored to favor,winning reappointment as treasurer in1334. By 1337, Burghersh, whom a contem-porary described as ‘‘an ingenious advisor,audacious and smooth’’ (Sumption, 194),became one of Edward’s most influential

councilors, assuming prime responsibilityfor the implementation of foreign policy.Having decided upon war with France andthe creation of a grand anti-French alliance,Edward left negotiation of the necessaryagreements largely to Burghersh, who, beingan ambitious man with few scruples, prom-ised whatever was necessary to carry out theroyal will. In March 1338, the bishop nego-tiated a favorable treaty with the new rev-olutionary government of FLANDERS; the

agreement effectively committed the prov-ince to neutrality in the coming Anglo-French war and thereby deprived Philip ofFlemish manpower and ports. In May 1338,Burghersh delivered Edward’s formal dec-laration of war to Philip in PARIS.

Throughout 1337 and 1338, Burghershnegotiated a series of agreements with var-ious princes, including the German emperor,Ludwig of Bavaria; the duke of Brabant; the

margrave of Juliers; and the counts of Hai-nault and Guelders. Although theoreticallycreating a large anti-French army, the agree-

ments also bound Edward to pay some£160,000 in fees as well as the usual costs ofwar. Because these commitments were farbeyond the king’s means, payments fell intoarrears, leading inevitably to desperate fi-

nancing schemes, such as the DORDRECHTBONDS, and to the eventual collapse of thealliance. In 1339, as Edward realized the im-possibility of meeting the financial obliga-tions to which he was committed, thebishop’s influence declined. By the time ofBurghersh’s death in Ghent on 2 December1340, many of Edward’s long unpaid allieshad opened negotiations with France. See alsoANGLO-FLEMISH ALLIANCE.

Further Reading: Sumption, Jonathan. The

Hundred Years War. Vol. 1, Trial by Battle. Philadel-


BURGUNDIANSOne of the political factions that fought theFRENCH CIVIL WAR, the Burgundian partycomprised adherents of the dukes of BUR-

GUNDY, particularly those supporting thepolitical supremacy of JOHN THE FEARLESS

between 1404 and 1419. The Burgundians

were opposed by the ARMAGNACS, a factionderived from supporters of LOUIS, DUKE OF

ORLEANS, chief rival of the dukes of Bur-gundy for paramount influence within theroyal government. After 1420, the ANGLO-

BURGUNDIAN ALLIANCE created by the Treatyof TROYES fostered development of an in-dependent Burgundy and maintained Lan-castrian rule in NORMANDY and northernFrance for two decades.

PHILIP THE BOLD, first VALOIS duke of

Burgundy, became a dominant figure in theroyal government in 1380, when his nephewCHARLES VI ascended the throne. Followingthe onset of the king’s schizophrenia in 1392,the duke filled the royal administration withmen devoted to his interests. AlthoughBurgundy’s position was increasingly chal-lenged by LOUIS, DUKE OF ORLEANS, Charles’syounger brother, the dukes’ rivalry did notbecome violent until after Burgundy’s death

in 1404. Because John, the new duke ofBurgundy, lacked his father’s experienceand authority, Orleans, in alliance with

BURGUNDIANS

66











rioters had alienated many Parisians, whoturned to the dauphin and the Armagnacleaders to save them from anarchy. In late

July, the dauphin, having secured a royalorder freeing those imprisoned by the Ca-

bochiens, concluded the peace of Pontoisewith the Armagnac princes. On 4 August,the dauphin was cheered as he rode throughParis, a welcome that incited a failed Ca-bochien attack on the Town Hall. Realizinghe had lost the support of the city, Burgundymade an unsuccessful attempt to kidnap theking and then fled the capital on 23 August.The Armagnac leaders entered Paris on 1September, and the Gascon bands of thecount of Armagnac immediately imposed

order by arresting or killing leading Ca-bochiens. On 5 September, the king formallyannulled the Ordonnance Cabochienne at anew lit de justice. Rather than ending the civilwar and securing Burgundian rule, the Ca-bochien insurrection aggravated civil strifeand handed power to the Armagnacs. Seealso ESTATES, GENERAL AND PROVINCIAL.

Further Reading: Famiglietti, Richard C. Royal

Intrigue: Crisis at the Court of Charles VI, 1392–

1420. New York: AMS Press, 1986; Perroy,Edouard. The Hundred Years War . Trans. W. B.

Wells. New York: Capricorn Books, 1965.

CADORET, BATTLE OF. See DAGWORTH,SIR THOMAS

CADZAND, BATTLE OF (1387)Fought off Margate on 24 March 1387, theBattle of Cadzand (or Margate) was a navalengagement between an English flotilla un-

der Richard Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, and aFranco-Flemish wine fleet. Besides lower-ing the cost of wine in LONDON and therebywinning much popularity for Arundel, thevictory gave the English temporary com-mand of the Channel and allowed the earl toraid the Flemish coast, although he failed toachieve the ultimate goal of his enterprise, theincitement of an anti-BURGUNDIAN uprising inFLANDERS.

In October 1386, the so-called WonderfulPARLIAMENT, angered by the financial ex-cesses of RICHARD II and his court, and

concerned by the government’s failure torespond to a threatened French invasion,established a commission to reform the royalhousehold and administration and re-invigorate the English war effort. With Par-

liament’s approval, the commission begangathering men and ships for a descent onFlanders, which was aimed at provoking aninsurrection that would replace the govern-ment of PHILIP THE BOLD, duke of BURGUNDY,with a pro-English regime. On 10 December,Arundel, a member of the commission, wasappointed admiral; a week later, the earlindented (see INDENTURES) with the Crown toserve with twenty-five hundred men forthree months beginning on 1 March 1387.

On 16 March, Arundel arrived at Sand-wich, where he took command of a fleet ofsixty ships. Intending to invade England, theFrench had gathered an army of thirtythousand men and a fleet of twelve hundredvessels at Sluys in the previous autumn, butwhen Burgundy, who was the driving forcein CHARLES VI’s minority government, fellill, the expedition was cancelled and the fleetdispersed. The ships that Arundel engaged

on 24 March 1387 were part of a 250-vesselfleet carrying wine from La Rochelle toSluys. Although significantly larger thanArundel’s flotilla, the French fleet, whichincluded contingents of Flemish, German,and Castilian vessels, was inferior in bothmanpower and armaments, having an in-adequate complement of soldiers to defendit from the English attack. After some Ger-man and Flemish vessels deserted to them,the English were eventually able to over-

come the enemy, capturing some fifty shipsand the fleet’s Flemish commander. Over adozen ships were sunk or burned, and al-most nine thousand tuns of wine were cap-tured and carried to London, where theysold for a fraction of the normal price.

Arundel, meanwhile, pursued remnantsof the enemy fleet to Sluys, which was vir-tually undefended. However, instead ofseizing the port, which might have initiated

the Flemish uprising he was seeking, theearl pillaged the surrounding countryside,thereby capturing much booty but setting off

CADZAND, BATTLE OF

71



no rebellion. On 14 April, with suppliesrunning low and his men falling ill, Arundelreturned to England. After refitting, the earlsailed to BRITTANY, where he resupplied thebesieged garrison at Brest, but failed to effect

a reconciliation with Duke JOHN IV. Al-though Arundel won a major victory, dam-aged French naval capabilities, and endedthe threat of French invasion for the nextdecade, he had failed to achieve his maingoal—the destruction of Burgundian rule inFlanders. When Arundel’s term of serviceended in June, the military initiative againpassed to the French.

Further Reading: Goodman, Anthony. The

Loyal Conspiracy: The Lords Appellant under Richard

II . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971;

Palmer, J.J.N. England, France, and Christendom,

1377–99. Chapel Hill: University of North Car-

olina Press, 1972; Saul, Nigel. Richard II . New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997; Tuck,

Anthony. Richard II and the English Nobility.

London: Edward Arnold, 1973.

CALAISLocated on the English Channel only twen-

ty-three miles from Dover, the French townof Calais was the closest continental port tothe English coast and thus of great strategicimportance during the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.Captured by EDWARD III in 1347, Calaisrapidly became vital to the economy andsecurity of England, and was the only Frenchpossession to remain in English hands after1453.

On 4 September 1346, only a week afterhis victory at CRECY, Edward laid siege to

Calais. Besides its proximity to English alliesin FLANDERS and the Low Countries, thetown was ideally situated to serve as a sup-ply depot and base of operations for Englisharmies in France. After a long and difficultsiege, Calais surrendered on 3 August 1347,thus beginning over two hundred years ofEnglish possession. After expelling most ofthe inhabitants, Edward resettled the townand its surrounding pale with English citi-

zens, who were granted tax exemptions andother privileges for taking up propertyabandoned by the French. The town imme-

diately became an important base for En-glish military operations, being, for instance,the staging point for the RHEIMS CAMPAIGN in1359. In 1363, when Edward established thewool staple in Calais, the town took on a

new economic significance. By concentratingthe export of English wool in Calais, Edwardmade easier the Crown’s collection of exportduties on wool, England’s largest and mostprofitable trade commodity. Besides ex-panding royal revenue, placing the staple inEnglish territory allowed the profits of thetrade to flow into the hands of a small groupof English merchants, known as the Com-pany of the Staple, whose resulting wealthallowed them to make regular loans to the

Crown.Calais also became vital to English de-

fense. The Calais garrison was the Crown’sonly standing army, numbering, by the earlyfifteenth century, eight hundred men inpeacetime and a thousand in war. Dividedequally between men-at-arms and ARCHERS,the garrison was paid out of the customsduties collected on the wool exported toCalais. By 1400, the wages and expenses of

the garrison came to over £10,000 per year,and more in time of war, sums that con-sumed almost one-quarter of the Crown’sannual income. In the fifteenth century, andespecially during the reign of HENRY VI,when the Crown was chronically short offunds, the profits of the Calais wool tradewere often diverted to meet other royal ex-penses, causing the unpaid garrison to rebel,as happened in 1407 and 1454. After thelatter uprising, the government instituted a

new system of payment, whereby the mer-chants of the staple collected the customsand paid the garrison, accounting for anysurplus to the Crown.

The king entrusted Calais to a lieutenantor captain, who was usually a military man.Besides commanding the garrison of Calais,the captain had authority over the captainsand garrisons of Guisnes, Hammes, Newn-ham Bridge, Rysbank, and the other for-

tresses defending the approaches to the town.The Calais captaincy was thus an importantand coveted position. During the Wars of

CALAIS

72







both monarchs to renew the truce for oneyear on 11 September 1351; the agreementlargely held in the north, but fighting con-tinued in the southwest. Despite frequentbreaches of the peace in Brittany and Gas-

cony, the truce was extended again in March1353 and once more in the following De-cember. On 6 April 1354, as part of thenewly concluded Treaty of GUINES, the trucewas extended to 1 April 1355. But by thatdate, the French had repudiated the treatyand both kingdoms were preparing for full-scale resumption of war. Any possibility ofcontinuing the series of truces ended in May1355, when John retrieved the ORIFLAMME

from Saint-Denis and proclaimed the AR-

RIERE-BAN to summon a new army for oper-ations against the English. See also ESTATES,GENERAL AND PROVINCIAL.

Further Reading: Barber, Richard. Edward,

Prince of Wales and Aquitaine. New York: Charles

Scribner’s Sons, 1978; Sumption, Jonathan. The



CALVELEY, SIR HUGH (d. 1394)

Sir Hugh Calveley was one of the mostprominent English captains and ROUTIER

leaders of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR. Servingon the Continent for almost forty years, hewas particularly active in BRITTANY duringthe BRETON CIVIL WAR and in Spain duringthe CASTILIAN WAR OF SUCCESSION.

Born into a Cheshire gentry family, Cal-veley was closely associated with his fellowCheshire captain, Sir Robert KNOLLES, who isoften portrayed as his close kinsman, al-

though no familial relationship can be prov-en. Calveley’s military career began inBrittany, where he fought under the Englishlieutenant, Sir Thomas DAGWORTH, at theBattle of LA ROCHE-DERRIEN in 1347. In 1351,he and Knolles were among the Englishknights who participated in the famousCOMBAT OF THE THIRTY, which ended withtheir capture. In 1354, Calveley was cap-tured again at Becherel, a Breton town under

his command. He fought for EDWARD, THEBLACK PRINCE, at POITIERS in 1356, butthereafter took service with CHARLES THE

BAD, king of Navarre, for whom he com-manded a large company in NORMANDY andcentral France in 1358–59.

Following conclusion of the Treaty ofBRETIGNY in 1360, Calveley led his own band

of routiers, capturing Bertrand du GUESCLINat Juigne-sur-Sarthe in about 1360 andfighting for Pedro the Cruel of Castile in acampaign against the Moors in 1362. By1364, he was back in Brittany, where hefought for JOHN IV at AURAY. In 1365, Cal-veley joined the routier army that du Gue-sclin was recruiting for service in Spain.Since the ultimate aim of this French-backedexpedition was the replacement of Pedro theCruel with his pro-French half brother

Henry of Trastamare, EDWARD III orderedCalveley and all other English captains tokeep English soldiers out of Spain. Thisorder arrived too late to prevent Calveleyfrom contracting to provide troops for thecampaign in return for wages and an inter-est in the territorial grants promised to duGuesclin by Trastamare and Pedro IV ofAragon. Although the contract allowed himto withdraw if the English actively inter-

vened in the Castilian war, Calveley com-manded a company of a thousand men inthe campaign that placed Trastamare on theCastilian throne.

In 1367, Calveley returned to AQUITAINE

and joined the Anglo-Gascon army that theBlack Prince was recruiting to restore Pedro,an objective that was accomplished at NA-

JERA on 3 April. In 1368, Calveley married anAragonese lady who brought him lands andwealth in that kingdom. However, if his in-

tention was to settle in Spain, his planschanged in 1369, when the Black Prince re-called him to Aquitaine to lead raids intoArmagnac and the lordship of ALBRET. In1370, Calveley joined the CHEVAUCHE E led byKnolles, and, in 1371, he was retained by

JOHN OF GAUNT, duke of Lancaster, whom heaccompanied on the great CHEVAUCHE E OF

1373. In 1374, when LOUIS, DUKE OF ANJOU,besieged La Reole in GASCONY, Calveley

vigorously but unsuccessfully defended thetown. In 1375, Calveley returned to England,where he was appointed captain of CALAIS

CALVELEY, SIR HUGH

75





CAPET, HOUSE OF

The House of Capet was the ruling dynastyof France from 987 to 1328, although thekings of the succeeding House of VALOIS andall later monarchs down to the French Rev-

olution were descendents in the male line ofthe first Capetian king. Initially little morethan rulers of PARIS and its environs, theCapetians gradually expanded their terri-tory and succeeded in enforcing their su-zerainty over their vassals. This processbrought the later Capetians into conflict withthe House of PLANTAGENET, the royal dy-nasty of England since 1154, and, as lords ofvarious territories in western France, vassalsof the French Crown. Because the English

kings found this feudal subordination to beincompatible with their status as sovereignmonarchs, Capetian overlordship of thePlantagenet provinces became a root causeof the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Although the term ‘‘Capetian’’ first cameinto use during the French Revolution, thename ‘‘Capet,’’ meaning cap or cape, hadbeen applied to Hugh, the founder of thedynasty, since the thirteenth century. Hugh

Capet and his immediate successors exer-cised little authority outside Paris, but thedynasty enjoyed important advantages overall other ducal and comital families andthus gradually made effective its claim tooverlordship. First, the Capetians were seenas heirs of Charlemagne and the Carolin-gian kings, and thus attained a sacred aurathat prevented any other family fromclaiming royal authority after the tenthcentury. In the eleventh century, Robert II

extended this quasi-religious status byclaiming the ability to heal by his touch thedisease scrofula, which became known as‘‘the king’s evil.’’ Second, the Capetiansproduced a male heir to the Crown in everygeneration for over three hundred years.Until the twelfth century, the dynastypracticed anticipatory succession—crown-ing eldest sons before the deaths of theirfathers. Third, several Capetians had only

one son, thus eliminating the kinds of sib-ling quarrels that disrupted twelfth-centuryEngland. The Capetians always passed the

original family patrimony intact to the el-dest son, finding endowments for youngerbrothers in newly acquired lands or throughadvantageous marriages. This practice es-tablished cadet branches of the family in

important provinces and became the basisof the APPANAGE system, which developedin the thirteenth century.

In the early twelfth century, Louis VImarried his son, the future Louis VII, toEleanor, heiress of the duchy of AQUITAINE.However, Capetian control of Aquitaineended in 1152, when Eleanor divorced Louisand married Henry, count of Anjou, whobecame Henry II, the first Plantagenet kingof England, in 1154. Although the other

French territories held in virtual sovereigntyby Henry, including NORMANDY, Maine, andAnjou, were conquered and annexed to theFrench Crown by Louis’s son, Philip II, inthe early thirteenth century, GASCONY, thesouthern portion of Aquitaine, remainedunder English control. In 1259, Philip’sgrandson, Louis IX (St. Louis), regularizedthe status of Gascony by signing the Treatyof PARIS, which recognized Henry III of

England as duke of Aquitaine in return forHenry’s renunciation of all other formerPlantagenet provinces. This formal subordi-nation of the Plantagenet king-dukes to theCapetians, and the growing tendency of theroyal bureaucracy to interfere in the ad-ministration of the great feudal territories,caused numerous jurisdictional disputes inAquitaine and led to the ANGLO-FRENCH WAR

OF 1294–1303 and the War of SAINT-SARDOS

in the 1320s. Because the former was settled

in part by arrangement of a marriage be-tween Isabella, the daughter of PHILIP IV ofFrance (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND [c.1292–1358]), and Edward (see EDWARD II),the son of EDWARD I of England, their sonEDWARD III, who assumed the EnglishCrown in 1327, had a strong claim to theCapetian throne. When the direct Capetianline ended with the death of CHARLES IV in1328, Edward’s claim was set aside in favor

of Philip, count of Valois, who, as eldestnephew of Philip IV, was the Capetian heirin the male line. As PHILIP VI, the count

CAPET, HOUSE OF

77



became first king of the House of Valois. Inhis reign, the continuing dispute over Aqui-taine and the Plantagenet claim to be rightfulheirs of the House of Capet became the un-derlying causes of the Hundred Years War.

Further Reading: Dunbabin, Jean. France in the Making, 843–1180. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1985; Fawtier, Robert. The Capetian Kings

of France: Monarchy and Nation, 987–1328. Trans.

Lionel Butler and R. J. Adam. New York: St.

Martin’s Press, 1960; Hallam, Elizabeth M. Cape-

tian France, 987–1328. London: Longman, 1980.

CASSEL, BATTLE OF. See FLANDERS; LOUIS

DE NEVERS, COUNT OF FLANDERS

CASTILESee CASTILIAN WAR OF SUCCESSION; JOHN OF

GAUNT, DUKE OF LANCASTER

CASTILIAN WAR OF SUCCESSION(1362–1369)Occurring during the nominal peace createdby the Treaty of BRETIGNY, the disputedsuccession in the central Spanish kingdomof Castile provided the French and English

Crowns with an opportunity to strike indi-rectly at each other’s interests. War in Spainalso offered the governments of France andAQUITAINE a way to employ the bands ofROUTIERS ravaging their territories.

On the death of Alfonso XI in 1350, theCastilian Crown passed to his son, Pedro I(1334–69), who quickly acquired the epithet‘‘the Cruel’’ by executing his father’s mis-tress, Leonor de Guzman. Leonor was themother of ten children by the late king, and

her death drove her eldest son, Henry ofTrastamare (1333–79), to declare himselfking and raise an unsuccessful rebellionagainst his half brother. Although Henryfled Castile, Pedro revived his rival’s causeby executing several of Henry’s brothers andby quarreling with the Castilian Church,actions which won Henry support from thepope and the king of Aragon. In 1361, themysterious death of Pedro’s French queen,

Blanche of Bourbon, soured Castilian rela-tions with France, where Pedro was sus-pected of poisoning his wife.

Fearful of the coalition building againsthim, Pedro sought an alliance with EDWARD

III’s son, EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, theruler of English Aquitaine. To honor theBretigny settlement, the prince agreed to

provide military assistance solely as duke ofAquitaine and not as a representative of theEnglish Crown. Besides a large sum ofmoney, Pedro offered the prince a Castiliandukedom, tax exemptions for English mer-chants, and the hereditary right to leadarmies into Castile. Henry, meanwhile,concluded a similar agreement with LOUIS,DUKE OF ANJOU, the brother of CHARLES Vand king’s lieutenant in Languedoc. Largelycomprised of routier bands from southern

France, an army bearing the flag of Castilebut led by the French constable Bertrand duGUESCLIN entered Castile in late 1365. Pedroimmediately appealed to the prince, butthe king’s support quickly dissolved and byApril 1366 Pedro was in exile in Aquitaineand his rival was king of Castile as Henry II.

Although opposed by many of his advi-sors, the prince honored his agreement withPedro and led an Anglo-Gascon army into

Spain. After Edward’s attempts at mediationfailed, the two sides met on 3 April 1367 atNA JERA, where the prince won a major vic-tory. Although Pedro was restored to power,his half brother eluded capture and imme-diately renewed his alliance with Anjou,who hoped a friendly Castile would assistthe French reconquest of Aquitaine. Unableto raise the money he owed, Pedro soonquarreled with the prince, who, ill and de-spairing of payment, withdrew to Aquitaine.

With the increasingly open assistance ofFrance, Henry of Trastamare launched asecond invasion that concluded with Ped-ro’s death after the battle of Montiel inMarch 1369. Firmly allied with France, thenew Castilian regime thereafter providedvaluable naval support for French cam-paigns against Aquitaine and England. Seealso LA ROCHELLE, BATTLE OF.

Further Reading: Harvey, John. The Black

Prince and His Age. London: Rowman and Little-field, 1976; Hillgarth, J. N. The Spanish Kingdoms,

1250–1516. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University

CASSEL, BATTLE OF

78



Press, 1976–78; O’Callaghan, James F. A History of

Medieval Spain. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press, 1992; Russell, P. E. The English Intervention

in Spain and Portugal in the Time of Edward III and

Richard II . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955.

CASTILLON, BATTLE OF (1453)Fought on 17 July 1453 near the town ofCastillon in eastern GASCONY, the Battle ofCastillon ended the HUNDRED YEARS WAR

and stripped the English of all Frenchholdings except the town of CALAIS.

After the French conquest of NORMANDY in1450, CHARLES VII focused his military re-sources on Gascony, the last English-heldprovince in France. As an army of seven

thousand entered the province, other Frenchforces besieged the fortresses protecting BOR-

DEAUX, the Gascon capital, while a joint French,Spanish,and Breton fleetblockaded the mouthof the Gironde to prevent the English fromrelieving the city. Isolated and outnumbered,the English garrison in Bordeaux surrenderedon 30 June 1451. A severe blow to Englishnational pride, the loss of Bordeaux was re-versed in 1452, thanks to the English sympa-

thies of the Gascon people and the militaryskill of John TALBOT, earl of Shrewsbury,who led an army of three thousand ashore on17 October. Within months of reentering Bor-deaux on 23 October, Shrewsbury had largelyrestored Gascony to English control.

Respected and feared in France, Shrews-bury was the most famous English com-mander of the war’s last decades. By thesummer of 1453, three French armies wereconverging on Gascony. Although rein-

forcements brought by his son raised hisstrength to over five thousand, Shrewsburywas still heavily outnumbered by the com-bined French forces, and his only option wasto wait in Bordeaux until an opportunityarose to fall upon one army before the otherscould support it. However, when a Frenchforce of nine thousand laid siege to Cas-tillon about thirty miles east of Bordeaux,Shrewsbury, against his better judgment,

yielded to the pleas of representatives fromboth Castillon and Bordeaux and marchedto the relief of the town on 16 July.

Early next morning, Shrewsbury arrivedat Castillon with his mounted contingents,and led an immediate and successful assaulton the French ARCHERS holding the Priory ofSt. Laurent. The surviving archers fled to the

fortified French camp east of the priory,thereby alerting the main army of Shrews-bury’s arrival. Although the French armywas commanded by committee, the campand been laid out by Charles VII’s ordinanceofficer, Jean BUREAU. Designed to maximizethe opportunity for oblique and enfiladingfire from the French ARTILLERY, which mayhave numbered almost three hundred gunsof all sizes, Bureau’s camp was protected onthree sides by a ditch and palisaded rampart

and on the fourth side by the steep bank ofthe River Lidoire.

Upon receiving reports that the enemywas retreating, Shrewsbury reversed anearlier decision to wait for the rest of hisarmy to arrive and attacked immediatelywith the twelve hundred men he had athand. The reports proved inaccurate, andwhen the French guns opened fire, the dis-mounted English suffered severe casualties.

Shrewsbury, who wore no ARMOR to honorthe pledge he had made when last releasedfrom French custody, pressed the attack,believing the arrival of his remaining troopswould secure victory. However, as rein-forcements came up, they suffered the samefate as the initial attackers, and the eventualarrival of French reserves broke the Englishattack and sent the survivors streaming backto Bordeaux.

With both Shrewsbury and his son dead

on the field, the English position in Gasconyquickly collapsed and the French enteredBordeaux to stay on 19 October 1453. Afterthree hundred years, English rule in Gas-cony, like the Hundred Years War itself, wasover. In England, news of the battle mayhave triggered HENRY VI’s mental collapse,for the king’s illness descended upon him inearly August, about the time he would havelearned of the disaster.

Further Reading: Pollard, A. J. John Talbot andthe War in France, 1427–1453. London: Royal

Historical Society, 1983.

CASTILLON, BATTLE OF

79








V . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997;

Griffiths, Ralph A., and Roger S. Thomas. The

Making of the Tudor Dynasty. New York: St.

Martin’s Press, 1985; Wolffe, Bertram. Henry VI.

London: Eyre Methuen, 1981.

CAUCHON, PIERRE. See JOAN OF ARC

CAVALRY. See ARMIES, COMPOSITION OF

CERVOLE, ARNAUD DE (c. 1320–1366)Arnaud de Cervole, known as ‘‘the Arch-priest,’’ was the creator of the GREAT COM-

PANY and one of the most feared ROUTIER

captains of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

The younger son of minor Perigord no-bility, Cervole joined the clergy, becomingarchpriest of Velines, the position fromwhich his later sobriquet derived. Eschew-ing his clerical duties for the companyof brigands, Cervole soon showed himselfto be more suited to warfare than to theChurch, which eventually deprived himof all his benefices. His first recorded mili-tary action, undertaken in VALOIS service,

was the capture of the Gascon fortress ofMontravel in April 1351. An associate ofthe French constable, Charles of Spain, Cer-vole received the lordship of Chateauneuf-sur-Charente and served as king’s lieutenantin the region between the Dordogneand Loire Rivers. After the constable’smurder by henchmen of CHARLES THE BAD,king of Navarre, in 1354, Cervole raisedhis own company of men and undertookmilitary operations on his own account,

seizing three castles in Angouleme and,later, while serving under JOHN II at thesiege of Breteuil, another fortress in NOR-

MANDY.In September 1356, Cervole was captured

by the English at POITIERS. In March 1357,Cervole, who had acquired several lordshipsin the region through marriage to a richwidow, was named in the Truce of BOR-

DEAUX as one of the French conservators for

Berry. Upon regaining his freedom, Cervolebecame the first routier leader to understandthe opportunities for enrichment offered to

men of arms by the capture of the king atPoitiers and the resulting breakdown ofFrench royal authority. From the bands ofGascon freebooters left unemployed afterPoitiers, Cervole formed the Great Company,

the name given to a succession of largeroutier armies that terrorized Provence andsouthern France after 1357. The ease withwhich Cervole and his brigands gatheredplunder and RANSOMS soon encouraged otherroutier leaders to follow the Archpriest’sexample.

Beginning in July 1357, Cervole led hisarmy, which eventually numbered almostthree thousand men, down the Rhone toProvence, where the routiers maintained

themselves through pillage and extortion.The Great Company even threatened Mar-seille, but the town proved too strong and inApril 1358 Cervole departed for the north,where revolutionary disorders in PARIS andthe intrigues of Charles of Navarre seemedto promise easier pickings. Although theGreat Company began to disband, manyroutiers were still active in Provence and thevicinity of Avignon when Cervole returned

in September 1358 to strike a bargain withPope Innocent VI. In return for withdrawingthe companies from Provence and restoringall captured papal properties, Cervole re-ceived a payment of 20,000 gold florins.From 1358 to 1361, Cervole was in the pay ofLOUIS DE MA LE, count of FLANDERS, whocommissioned the routier leader to defendBerry and the Nivernais from other brig-ands, an unfortunate decision that left bothprovinces open to the depredations of routier

bands.In 1362, Cervole fought for the Crown

against the Great Company at the Battle ofBRIGNAIS, where he was captured, and, in1364, he served under Bertrand du GUESCLIN

in the royal army that defeated the forces ofCharles of Navarre at COCHEREL. In 1365, theArchpriest received payment to lead rem-nants of the Great Company out of easternFrance and into the Holy Roman Empire,

where it was hoped most would join a cru-sade against the Turks. However, delays inarranging passage and payment made his

CAUCHON, PIERRE

82





politician, Orleans is today best rememberedas a talented and prolific poet.

In June 1406, Charles, then eleven, marriedhis cousin Isabella, the daughter of CharlesVI and widow of RICHARD II of England (see

ISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND [1388–1409]).Charles was only thirteen in November 1407when his father was murdered by agents of

JOHN THE FEARLESS, duke of BURGUNDY. Thedeath of his mother, Valentine Visconti, inDecember 1408, left the fourteen-year-oldboy as nominal head of his father’s politicalfaction, which, in the previous year, hadbeen excluded from power by Burgundyand his supporters. To curb the growingviolence between adherents of the two par-

ties, the king ordered all royal princes,including Orleans and Burgundy, to partic-ipate in a ceremony of reconciliation atChartres on 9 March 1409.

However, the Chartres agreement provedunworkable and, in April 1410, Orleans joinedthe League of Gien, an alliance of anti-Bur-gundian nobles that included JOHN, DUKE OF

BERRY, Orleans’s great-uncle, and JOHN V,duke of BRITTANY. Another member of the al-

liance, and, with Orleans, a driving force in itsformation, was BERNARD, COUNT OF ARMA-

GNAC, who became the duke’s father-in-law in1410, when Orleans married his daughterBonne, Duchess Isabella having died in Sep-tember 1409. Because of the count’s growinginfluence within the alliance and the escalat-ing violence that his Gascon supporters per-petrated on its behalf, the Orleanist factionsoon became known as the Armagnac party.

The Gien agreement created an army of

nine thousand men to be used ‘‘for the goodof the kingdom’’ (Vaughan, 82), which, in aSeptember manifesto, the allies defined asrescuing the king and the dauphin (seeLOUIS, DUKE OF GUIENNE) from Burgundy.Orleans led the alliance army on PARIS, butopen war was avoided by the conclusion ofthe peace of Bicetre in November 1410. In

July 1411, Orleans, having superceded Berryas effective leader of the Armagnacs, re-

opened the struggle by sending a defiantletter to the king demanding punishment ofhis father’s murderers.

In 1412, both factions sought military aidfrom England. In May, Orleans, with hisGien allies, signed the Treaty of BOURGES,whereby the Armagnac leaders, in return forsuch assistance, swore homage to HENRY IV

and recognized him as ruler of AQUITAINE.Controlling both the royal army and royalperson, Burgundy forced the Armagnacs todisavow the Bourges agreement. By theTreaty of BUZANCAIS, concluded in Novem-ber, Orleans and his allies bribed THOMAS,DUKE OF CLARENCE, leader of the Englishexpedition, to withdraw. The settlement wasguaranteed by the giving of hostages, whoincluded Orleans’s younger brother, John,count of Angouleme.

In 1413, Burgundy’s high-handed ruleand, in particular, his fomenting of the CA-

BOCHIEN uprising in Paris turned the kingand dauphin against him. The latter negoti-ated the peace of Pontoise with Orleans andhis allies in July and, in late August, Bur-gundy, sensing his loss of support in thecapital, fled Paris. On 1 September, Orleansand the Armagnac princes entered the cityand took control of both king and govern-

ment. In October 1415, the English capturedOrleans at AGINCOURT. Unable to pay hisRANSOM, the duke remained a prisoner inEngland for twenty-five years.

During most of the duke’s captivity, hisestates were administered by officials of thedauphin, Charles, who won the allegiance ofOrleans’s half brother, JOHN, COUNT OF DU-

NOIS, the leader, with JOAN OF ARC, of the1429 campaign that drove the English fromthe town of Orleans and allowed the dau-

phin to be crowned as CHARLES VII. Ironi-cally, the duke’s freedom was finallysecured by PHILIP THE GOOD, duke of Bur-gundy, the son of Orleans’s old enemy.Seeking allies against Charles VII, Burgundyformed an alliance with the duke and ar-ranged his marriage to a kinswoman, al-though Orleans took little part in politicsafter his release, preferring instead to pre-side over a court of poets at Blois. Orleans’s

son by his third wife became king of Franceas Louis XII in 1498. The duke died at Am-boise on 4 January 1465.

CHARLES, DUKE OF ORLEANS

84







CRECY and Poitiers and to regain AQUITAINE

and the other provinces lost to the PLANTAG-

ENETS through the Bretigny agreement. Tothis end, Charles made his capable brother,LOUIS, DUKE OF ANJOU, royal lieutenant in

Languedoc, where he arranged an ulti-mately successful French intervention in theCASTILIAN WAR OF SUCCESSION, thereby plac-ing a pro-French king on the Castilianthrone by 1369. Charles secured anotherimportant ally by convincing the pope toforbid a proposed marriage between MAR-

GUERITE, the daughter of LOUIS DE MALE,count of FLANDERS, and EDMUND OF LANGLEY,a son of Edward III. In place of that match,which would have created a dangerous En-

glish appanage on France’s northern fron-tier, he arranged for his brother, PHILIP THE

BOLD, duke of BURGUNDY, to marry Mar-guerite, thus turning Flanders and, eventu-ally, much of northwestern Europe, into aValois appanage. Although the resultingstate of Burgundy ultimately threatened theFrench Crown, it was in the short-term im-portant in helping to overthrow the Bretignysettlement.

Charles also used money and DIPLOMACYto cultivate the Gascon nobility, thereby in-ducing key southwestern noblemen to ig-nore the treaty and appeal to the PARLEMENT

against taxes imposed in Aquitaine by ED-

WARD, THE BLACK PRINCE. Accepted byCharles in 1369, this APPEAL OF THE GASCON

LORDS restarted the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.Led by such experienced Breton warriors asBertrand du GUESCLIN, whom Charles madeconstable, and Olivier de CLISSON, who

promoted the policy of avoiding battle, theroyal armies, now effectively paid and sup-plied, restored much of Aquitaine to Frenchcontrol by 1380. Despite this success,Charles, in 1378, made two misjudgments inforeign policy. He confiscated BRITTANY fromDuke JOHN IV, thereby alienating the Bretonnobility and losing their valuable militaryservice, and he recognized the questionableelection of Clement VII as pope, thereby

initiating the great schism that split theChurch for almost four decades. On hisdeathbed, Charles, who was a pious man

much concerned with the rightness of hisactions, cancelled the fouage (hearth tax),which had financed his armies. Althoughthis impolitic act eased the king’s con-science, it created problems for his succes-

sor. Charles died on 16 September 1380 atthe age of 42; he was succeeded by his son,CHARLES VI. See also MARMOUSETS.

Further Reading: Perroy, Edouard. The Hun-

dred Years War . Trans. W. B. Wells. New York:

Capricorn Books, 1965; Sumption, Jonathan. The

Hundred Years War. Vol. 2, Trial by Fire. Philadel-


CHARLES VI, KING OF FRANCE(1368–1422)

Afflicted by recurring mental illness,Charles VI, the son of CHARLES V and fourthVALOIS king of France, presided over thenear dissolution of his country and his dy-nasty. Unable to govern effectively, Charleswas for much of his reign a mere figurehead,while other members of the royal familysought to control his person and govern-ment.

Charles was eleven when he succeeded

his father in September 1380. Charles V hadappointed his eldest brother, LOUIS, DUKE OF

ANJOU, as regent, but, under pressure fromthe young king’s other uncles, JOHN, DUKE OF

BERRY; PHILIP THE BOLD, duke of BURGUNDY;and Louis, duke of Bourbon, Anjou agreedto share power. After Anjou’s death in 1384,power largely fell to Burgundy, who used itto promote his personal interests, and toBerry, who used it to finance his passion forcollecting. In July 1385, Charles, in fulfill-

ment of a match promoted by Burgundy,married ISABEAU OF BAVARIA, the sixteen-year-old king being so smitten that he ac-cepted her without dowry.

In November 1388, one month short of theking’s twentieth birthday, Charles’s youngerbrother, Louis, duke of Touraine, persuadedthe king to dismiss his uncles and takepower into his own hands. Weak and im-mature, the king, taking his brother’s lead,

gave himself over to a continuous round ofcourt festivities, while real power lay in thehands of a group of ministers allied with

CHARLES VI, KING OF FRANCE

87





dying on 21 October 1422. He waseventually succeeded by his son,who was crowned as CHARLES VIIin 1429. In the 1450s, Charles’sEnglish grandson, HENRY VI, also

suffered bouts of recurring mentalillness.

Further Reading: Famiglietti, Rich-

ard. Royal Intrigue: Crisis at the Court of

Charles VI, 1392–1420. New York: AMS

Press, 1986; Perroy, Edouard. The Hun-

dred Years War . Trans. W. B. Wells. New

York: Capricorn Books, 1965; Seward,

Desmond. The Hundred Years War . New

York: Penguin, 1999.

CHARLES VII, KING OFFRANCE (1403–1461)

Charles VII, the fifth VALOIS kingof France, is often known as ‘‘theVictorious’’ or ‘‘the Well-Served’’because his reign witnessed thefinal defeat of the English and theend of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.Although condemned by bothcontemporaries and later historians

for his abandonment of JOAN OFARC, his ingratitude toward long-time servants, and his avoidance ofcombat, Charles, during the courseof his reign, brought France andthe Valois Crown from weakness,disorder, and dismemberment to strength,peace, and unity.

The eleventh child and fifth son ofCHARLES VI and ISABEAU OF BAVARIA,Charles, in his youth, had no expectation of

the Crown. He became dauphin in 1417 atthe age of fourteen following the deaths ofhis older brothers, LOUIS, DUKE OF GUIENNE,and John, duke of Touraine. His politicalcareer began at a dark moment in Frenchhistory, with HENRY V, the recent victor ofAGINCOURT, poised to begin the conquest ofNORMANDY (see NORMAN CAMPAIGN [1417– 1419]), while the BURGUNDIAN and ARMA-

GNAC factions continued to fight one another

for control of the schizophrenic king and hisgovernment. As dauphin, Charles becamenominal head of the Armagnacs, whose in-

creasingly unpopular regime held PARIS.Dominated by the regime’s true leader,BERNARD, COUNT OF ARMAGNAC, Charlesquarreled with his mother, whom he ban-ished from the capital. In May 1418, an up-

rising in Paris delivered the city to JOHN

THE FEARLESS, duke of BURGUNDY, whosesupporters massacred the count and nearlytwo thousand other Armagnacs. Spiritedout of Paris at night by his servants Tanguydu Chatel and Guillaume d’Avaugour,Charles fled south of the Loire, where hebecame the center of an alternative courtdominated by Armagnacs. On 29 June, withhis addled father now under the influence of

Burgundy, Charles, on his own initiative,assumed the title of lieutenant-general ofFrance.

Jean Fouquet’s portrait of Charles VII. Erich Lessing/Art

Resource, New York.

CHARLES VII, KING OF FRANCE

89







‘‘franc-archers’’ or ‘‘free-archers’’ for theresulting militia units. Paid 9 livres tournoisper year and up to 4 livres tournois permonth when called into active service, thefranc-archers trained once a week and stood

ready to join their companies should warerupt. The ordonnance called for companiesof 500 men formed into four divisions 4,000strong, thus theoretically providing theCrown with an infantry force of 16,000. Al-though never fully mobilized, the franc-archers, like the professional cavalry units,played an important role in the final cam-paigns of the Hundred Years War, and inthe eventual suppression of the e corcheurs.See also ARTILLERY; NORMAN CAMPAIGN

(1449–1450).Further Reading: Contamine, Philippe. War in

the Middle Ages. Trans. Michael Jones. London:

Blackwell, 1984; Perroy, Edouard. The Hundred

Years War . Trans. W. B. Wells. New York: Cap-

ricorn Books, 1965; Vale, M. G. A. Charles VII .

Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.

CHARLES OF BLOIS, DUKE OFBRITTANY (c. 1319–1364)

Charles of Blois was the French-backedclaimant to the duchy of BRITTANY duringthe BRETON CIVIL WAR.

Charles was the second son of Guy deChatillon, count of Blois, and Margaret ofVALOIS, the sister of PHILIP VI of France. In1337, Charles married Jeanne, countess ofPenthievre, the niece of John III, duke ofBrittany, who, being childless, promisedthe ducal succession to Jeanne in preferenceto his half brother, John de MONTFORT.

However, upon the duke’s death in April1341, both Charles, by right of his wife,and Montfort claimed the duchy, leavingPhilip VI, as feudal overlord, to decide be-tween them. When Philip declared forCharles, Montfort refused to renounce hisclaims and the king imprisoned him in theLouvre. Montfort died in 1345. Charles, whowas supported by a majority of the Bretonnobility, quickly reduced most of the

Montfortist strongholds with the assistanceof a French army led by Philip’s son, John,duke of NORMANDY.

Besieged in Brest, Montfort’s wife, Jeanneof Flanders, appealed to EDWARD III, who,in 1342, seized the opportunity to open anew front against France and intervenedmilitarily in Brittany. Faced with a growing

English presence, Charles was unable tosecure the duchy, which now lapsed intocivil war. In 1347, an English force underSir Thomas DAGWORTH defeated and cap-tured Charles at the Battle of LA ROCHE-DERRIEN. After four years of captivity inVannes and LONDON, Charles was paroledin late 1351 and returned to PARIS where

JOHN II agreed to pay his RANSOM. When theking could not meet the first payment,Charles, a rigidly upright man, surrendered

himself and was again confined in theTower of London.

Disheartened by news of the English vic-tory at MAURON in 1352, Charles agreed toBreton neutrality in the Anglo-French war inreturn for his freedom (for a ransom of£50,000) and English recognition of his rightto the ducal title. This agreement was con-cluded on 1 March 1353 and Charles re-turned to the duchy on parole, but his sup-

porters continued the war, slaughtering theEnglish garrison of Tristan Castle in Sep-tember and forcing Charles to return againto English custody. Finally released in Au-gust 1356, Charles, who had pledged not totake arms against Edward, had to watchwhile a campaign led by HENRY OF GROS-

MONT, duke of Lancaster, brought much ofBrittany under English control.

In 1360, Brittany, its succession still indispute, was largely excepted from the

Treaty of BRETIGNY, and civil war flaredanew in 1362, when Edward III surrenderedthe duchy to Montfort’s son, John, who wasnow old enough to lead his own cause. Withthe assistance of Bertrand du GUESCLIN,Charles launched a series of campaigns thatculminated in September 1364 with his at-tempt to relieve the besieged port of AURAY.Overwhelmed by an Anglo-Breton forceunder Sir John CHANDOS, Charles was slain

and his cause overthrown. In April 1365, thelong civil war finally ended when Charles’swidow signed the Treaty of GUERANDE rec-

CHARLES OF BLOIS, DUKE OF BRITTANY

92



ognizing young John de Montfort as Duke JOHN IV.

Further Reading: Jones, Michael. The Creation

of Brittany: A Late Medieval State. London: Ham-

bledon Press, 1988.

CHARLES THE BAD, KING OFNAVARRE (1332–1387)Like EDWARD III of England, Charles II, rulerof the small Spanish kingdom of Navarre,had a claim to the Crown of France thatdescended through his mother. In the 1350s,Navarre, in furtherance of that claim, tried towrest the throne for his VALOIS kinsmen byexploiting the economic distress and socialunrest fostered by military failure in the

HUNDRED YEARS WAR. Because his quest forpower seriously weakened the authority ofthe Crown, Navarre became known in thesixteenth century as ‘‘El Malo,’’ ‘‘the Bad,’’ asobriquet later adopted by French historians.

The son of Philip, count of Evreux, and Jeanne, the daughter of LOUIS X, Charlessucceeded to his father’s title in 1343 and tohis mother’s kingdom of Navarre in 1349.When PHILIP V displaced Jeanne as heir to

the French throne in 1316, an action that ledto the formal prohibition of female royalsuccession, he promised her possession ofthe rest of her inheritance—Navarre, wherea woman could succeed, and the counties ofChampagne and Brie. However, neitherPhilip nor his Valois successors relinquishedthe latter two territories. When other landsand revenues promised as compensation forChampagne and Brie were also withheld ordelayed, the disgruntled House of Evreux

quickly became the focus of magnate dis-content in northwestern France. Royal at-tempts at pacifying the family includedPHILIP VI’s marriage to Navarre’s sister in1350 and Navarre’s marriage to JOHN II’sdaughter in 1352. However, John’s failure topromptly pay his daughter’s dowry and hisdecision to grant Angouleme, a county towhich Navarre had claim, to Charles ofSpain, a royal favorite recently made con-

stable, led Navarre to arrange the consta-ble’s murder in January 1354. With this act,and his subsequent attempts to negotiate for

English aid, Navarre initiated a decade-longrebellion against his father-in-law.

Because of the support Navarre enjoyedamong the French nobility, particularly inthe northwest, John was forced, in February

1354, to conclude the Treaty of Mantes,whereby Navarre agreed to renounce Cham-pagne and Brie in return for a pardon and asubstantial grant of lands in NORMANDY.However, Navarre continued to intriguewith Edward III, whose failed attempt toinvade Normandy in concert with Navarreallowed John to force the more favorableTreaty of Valognes on his son-in-law inSeptember 1355. But Navarre continued tofoment rebellion and even plotted to kidnap

the king and turn the dauphin against hisfather. On 5 April 1356, Navarre was a guestat a banquet hosted by the dauphin inROUEN. Leading a large body of armed men,the king burst in and, seizing Navarre by thethroat, denounced him as a traitor. WithNavarre in prison and his chief support-ers executed, Normandy erupted in civilwar between royalists and Navarrese parti-sans.

When the English captured John at POI-TIERS in the following September, criticism ofthe Crown and its policies overwhelmed theinexperienced dauphin, who faced a host ofdiscontented factions demanding Navarre’srelease. On 9 November 1357, he escapedfrom prison. Hailed as the savior of Franceby those who sought governmental reform,Navarre quickly eroded his popularity bycooperating with the Parisian revolutionar-ies led by Etienne MARCEL, whose excesses

alienated the nobility, and by negotiatingwith the English, an act that seemed moti-vated more by personal ambition than by aninterest in reform. Following John’s releasein 1360, Navarre began recruiting troopsamong the bands of ROUTIERS left unem-ployed by the Treaty of BRETIGNY. In 1363,when the king gave BURGUNDY as an APPA-

NAGE to his son PHILIP THE BOLD, Navarreclaimed the duchy, thereby initiating a new

civil war. In May 1364, only days before thedauphin was crowned as CHARLES V, a royalarmy commanded by Bertrand du GUESCLIN

CHARLES THE BAD, KING OF NAVARRE

93







magnac, having destroyed all the bridges,withdrew northward. The prince resumedhis march and continued unhindered toBordeaux, which he reached on 9 December.Returning with hundreds of carts of booty

and many prisoners for RANSOM, the expe-dition was a great success, having destroyedalmost five hundred villages, more thantwenty walled towns, and the trade andresidential centers of three large cities.What’s more, the outcry across Franceagainst the inactivity of the French com-manders embarrassed the royal governmentand forced the king, who was focused onEDWARD III’s activities in northern France, todevote more time and resources to the de-

fense of Languedoc.Further Reading: Burne, Alfred H. The Cre cy





CHEVAUCHE E OF 1373The largest and longest English CHEVAUCHE E

of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR, the five-monthcampaign led by JOHN OF GAUNT, duke ofLancaster, in 1373 brought great destructionto eastern and central France but accom-plished little for theflagging PLANTAGENET wareffort and was considered a failure in England.

With the resumption of war in 1369, theEnglish response to CHARLES V’s policy ofavoiding pitched battles was a series ofchevauche es designed to cripple the Frencheconomy and force Charles to fight. In 1369,

Lancaster led a brief raid from CALAIS toHARFLEUR, and in 1370, Sir Robert KNOLLES

led a chevauche e across northern France toBRITTANY. That expedition ended in failurewhen Knolles was deserted by his cocomm-anders, one of whom was subsequently de-feated by the French at Pontvallain. For the1373 campaign, Lancaster left Calais in Au-gust with a force of between ten and fifteenthousand men, over half of whom were AR-

CHERS. Instead of striking south towardAQUITAINE, which was under increasingenemy pressure, the duke moved east and

then south, ravaging Picardy, Champagne,and BURGUNDY, perhaps in an effort to drawCharles out of PARIS. The English inflictedtremendous damage on the provinces theyentered, but the French king forbade direct

confrontations and urged people to flee tothe fortified towns.

In late autumn, Lancaster turned south,moving through the Bourbonnais intomountainous, lightly populated Auvergne,where the French constable, Bertrand duGUESCLIN, subjected the English to the sameharassing attacks and ambushes they hadsuffered earlier from the forces of PHILIP THE

BOLD, duke of Burgundy. As winter arrivedin November and December, horses and

men died for lack of shelter, while du Gue-sclin’s attacks, which continued almost toBORDEAUX, became bolder and more fre-quent. Hungry, tired, and increasingly onfoot, the English army finally stumbled intothe Gascon capital at the beginning of Jan-uary 1374. About half the army had been lostto exposure, starvation, and enemy action.

The raid had covered almost a thousandmiles and had severely damaged the econ-

omies of the regions through which it passed;it also relieved French pressure on Brittany,from which du Guesclin was recalled todefend France, and brought reinforcementsto the shrinking remnant of PlantagenetAquitaine, which also experienced reliefwhile the French were focused on Lancaster.However, no battles had been won andno towns had been taken and the raid’s di-sastrous ending precluded the securing ofsufficient plunder to compensate for its

high cost in money and men. The Englishsubsequently conducted two more suchcampaigns—EDMUND OF LANGLEY, earl ofCambridge, raided in Brittany in 1375, andTHOMAS OF WOODSTOCK, earl of Buckingham,plundered northern France in 1380—butneither was successful, and no further che-vauche es were undertaken in the fourteenthcentury. By 1380, the only parts of Aquitainestill in English hands were Bordeaux and its

environs.Further Reading: Burne, Alfred H. The Agin-


CHEVAUCHE E OF 1373

96



Ltd., 1999; Packe, Michael. King Edward III . Ed.

L. C. B. Seaman. London: Routledge and Kegan

Paul, 1983; Seward, Desmond. The Hundred Years

War . New York: Penguin, 1999.

CHIVALRYRelated to the French word for knight— chevalier , from cheval, ‘‘horse’’—chivalry is acomplex term referring both to a class ofknights or armed horsemen, and to a set ofvalues, qualities, and behaviors that became,between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries,an internationally recognized code of con-duct for those who belonged or aspired tothe European aristocracy of mounted war-riors. Because war justified the existence and

privileged status of knights, the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR was the perfect stage for thepromotion of chivalrous ideals and thedisplay of chivalrous conduct. Many con-temporaries saw the war primarily in chi-valric terms, such as the chroniclers JEAN LE

BEL and JEAN FROISSART, who, in the words ofthe latter, wrote so that ‘‘the honourableenterprises, noble adventures, and deeds ofarms which took place during the wars

waged by France and England should befittingly related and preserved for posterity’’(Froissart, 37).

Medieval chivalry had its greatest flower-ing in France, where much of the literature ofchivalry, whether ecclesiastical, instruc-tional, or literary/romantic, was written anddisseminated. Although notions of chivalryvaried by time and place, certain virtues andvalues were near universal attributes of thechivalrous knight. The most prominent were

loyalty, which grew out of the feudal conceptof faithfulness to one’s lord, to whom oneowed military service in return for land, andmilitary prowess, which meant not only theability to handle arms, but to do so withcourage and style in battle. During the courseof the war, the feudal duty of loyalty to one’slord evolved into an obligation of loyalty toone’s king. As kings came increasingly to beseen as the embodiment of the state, disloy-

alty came to be treated as treason, as betrayalof one’s king and country. Thus, in 1350,when Constable Raoul de Brienne, count of

Eu, surrendered his castle of Guines, an im-portant strongpoint on the CALAIS march, toEDWARD III to pay Eu’s RANSOM, JOHN II in-terpreted the transfer, which the constablesaw as a private arrangement to meet a just

obligation, as treason and had Eu executed.The virtue of prowess in battle was particu-larly recognized by the great orders of chiv-alry established during the war—the Orderof the GARTER in England and of the STAR inFrance. At annual meetings of the latter, aspecial table was set aside for those memberswho were judged to have performed themost valiant feats of arms during the previ-ous year.

Other key chivalric qualities included

largess, courtesy, honor, and nobility. De-riving probably from the need for equita-ble distribution of booty among a warband, largess came to encompass the eco-nomic dimension of chivalry, for medievalknighthood was expensive, requiring a manto equip himself with a warhorse and muchcostly ARMOR and weaponry. Without land,a man could not acquire a knight’s trainingor equipage unless helped by his lord. Thus,

after many French knights were captured atAUBEROCHE in 1345, PHILIP VI demonstratedchivalrous lordship by paying to reequipthose who had to sell their horses andarmor to meet their ransoms. Beyond this,the quality of largess was much lauded bytroubadours, whose livelihood dependedupon the generosity of the nobility.

Although later associated mainly with theproper treatment of women, courtesy origi-nally encompassed protection of the weak

and defenseless, punishment of those whobroke the code of chivalry, and the expec-tation of being rewarded for chivalrous be-havior with land, office, or the hand of anheiress. In 1346, during the CRECY campaign,Sir John CHANDOS famously escorted twoFrench ladies safely away from the battlezone. In 1357, Jean de GRAILLY, the Captal deBuch, a famous companion of EDWARD, THE

BLACK PRINCE, assisted a band of French

knights in defending the wife and childrenof the future CHARLES V from the violence ofthe J ACQUERIE rebels.

CHIVALRY

97



Honor, the esteem of one’s peers andothers, was particularly important duringwartime, for it could best be won andmaintained on the battlefield. The war isreplete with stories of men who took un-

necessary risks to be the first into a besiegedcastle or to raid an enemy encampment. In1342, for instance, Sir Walter MAUNY, ratherthan evade a party of French horsemen byretiring, vowed to unhorse one of them andwas nearly captured as a result. One of themost famous episodes of the war, the COM-

BAT OF THE THIRTY, which occurred in 1351during the BRETON CIVIL WAR, was an entirelyunnecessary encounter between members oftwo Breton garrisons; nonetheless, partici-

pants on both sides won everlasting renownthroughout both kingdoms. Because onecould not win honor if one was not in theforefront of battle, Sir Hugh CALVELEY, inwhat was considered an act of chivalry ra-ther than one of insubordination, refused tocommand the rearguard at AURAY in 1364,while Edward, duke of York, lost his lifewhen HENRY V granted the duke’s request tolead the van at AGINCOURT. The maintenance

of honor also demanded that prisoners nottake up arms against their captors until theirransoms had been honorably met. Thus,

John II returned voluntarily to captivity in1364 when his son, LOUIS, DUKE OF ANJOU,broke parole, and CHARLES OF BLOIS, theFrench-backed duke of BRITTANY, twice re-turned to English captivity when he couldnot honor the terms of his parole.

The final attribute, nobility, encompassedthe social aspect of chivalry. By the four-

teenth century, many nonnobles, particu-larly among the royal bureaucracy in Franceand the urban merchant elites of bothrealms, had grown wealthy and were nolonger economically inferior to the aristoc-racy. This trend placed a new emphasis onhigh birth and aristocratic heritage as aqualification for membership in the chival-rous class. Thus, in 1369, John Hastings, earlof Pembroke, considered it socially de-

meaning to serve under the command ofeven so experienced and chivalrous a figureas Chandos.

Further Reading: Barber, Richard. The Reign of

Chivalry. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980;

Froissart, Jean. Chronicles. Trans. Geoffrey Brer-

eton. New York: Penguin Books, 1978; Keen,

Maurice. Chivalry. New Haven, CT: Yale Univer-

sity Press, 1984; Painter, Sidney. French Chivalry:Chivalric Ideas and Practices. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press, 1940; Vale, Malcolm. War and

Chivalry: Warfare and Aristocratic Culture in En-

gland, France, and Burgundy at the End of the Middle

Ages. London: Duckworth, 1981.

CHRISTINE DE PIZAN (c. 1364–c. 1430)Christine de Pizan was the first Europeanwoman of letters to earn her living by writ-ing. Influenced by the FRENCH CIVIL WAR and

the renewal of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR, andby the tastes of her patrons, Christine wrotea host of popular commentaries on monar-chy, CHIVALRY, war, and contemporary poli-tics, focusing particularly on the need for aleader to save France from itself and fromthe English.

Italian by birth, Christine came to Franceas a child, when her father won appoint-ment as CHARLES V’s astrologer. Through

her father’s position, Christine was able toindulge a studious nature and indirectlybenefit from the cultural and educationalopportunities made possible by contact withthe VALOIS court. She married Etienne duCastel, a royal clerk, in 1380, the year theking’s death ended her father’s associationwith the court. When her husband diedunexpectedly in 1390, Christine found her-self responsible for supporting three chil-dren and a widowed mother. To express her

grief, she wrote poetry, which soon attractedthe attention of LOUIS, DUKE OF ORLEANS, thebrother of CHARLES VI. Christine dedicated aseries of poems to the duke, including theE pistre au Dieu d’Amour (1399), a narrativepoem that pokes fun at the literary preten-sions of young courtiers; the E pistre Othea (c.1400), a partly prose commentary on classi-cal mythology that also offers advice toyoung knights; the Chemin de long estude

(1402–3), a partly autobiographical workthat proposes creation of an internationalmonarchy to cure society’s ills; and the

CHRISTINE DE PIZAN

98











which was nominally commanded by theson of the count of Auxerre but actually ledby the Breton captain Bertrand du GUESCLIN,to strike Navarre’s forces in Normandy. Bythe time the captal arrived in the duchy in

late April, most of Navarre’s strongholds,apart from Evreux and a few isolated hold-outs, had capitulated. Basing himself at Ev-reux, the captal raised an army of almosttwo thousand by mid-May, mainly by col-lecting the scattered remnants of Navarresegarrisons and by pulling together companiesof English and Gascon routiers operating inBRITTANY and western France.

Leaving Evreux on 14 May, the captalmarched east until his path was blocked by

du Guesclin, who had twelve hundred menon foot in a defensive line before the RiverEure—his numbers augmented by compa-nies of Breton and Gascon routiers. For twodays, the armies faced each other, neithercommander wishing to take the offensive.On 16 May, with his food running out, deGuesclin mounted his troops and began towithdraw. Unwilling to see his enemy es-cape, the captal sent a band of cavalry to

flank the French and block their access to theEure bridge. The rest of the Navarrese cav-alry then charged into du Guesclin’s men,initiating one of the bloodiest battles of thefourteenth century. Being the larger force, theNavarrese prevailed until they were out-flanked and forced to retreat by du Gue-sclin’s Breton reserves. The retreat quicklybecame a rout, with the French surroundingthe captal and about fifty companions. Theformer was wounded and captured, and

most of the latter were slain.The battle, which occurred three days

before the dauphin’s coronation as CHARLES

V, broke Navarre’s military dominance inNormandy and northern France and over-threw his political influence throughout thekingdom. Although he continued to intrigueuntil his death in 1387, Navarre never againseriously threatened the authority of theFrench Crown.



COEUR, JACQUES. See CHARLES VII

COMBAT OF THE THIRTY (1351)Fought on 26 March 1351 at a site midway

between the Breton castles of Josselin andPloermel, the Combat (or Battle) of theThirty was an armed melee arranged by thegarrison commanders of the two fortressesbetween two thirty-man groups of knights.Although of little military significance foreither party in the BRETON CIVIL WAR, theCombat is important because it became oneof the most celebrated episodes of the HUN-

DRED YEARS WAR and because it illustratesthe increasingly chaotic nature of the war in

the mid-fourteenth century.Accounts of why and how the Combat

was initiated differ. What is known is that Jean de Beaumanoir, the pro-French Bretoncommander of Josselin, and Robert (or Ri-chard) of Bamborough, the English com-mander of Ploermel, each agreed to selectteams of thirty knights to fight against eachother according to a set of agreed-upon rules.The combatants fought with any weapons

they chose, including swords, maces, andbattle-axes, but the battle was supervised byreferees who signaled the start of combatand oversaw truces for the provision of re-freshments and medical care. The Englishforce, which included Sir Hugh CALVELEY

and Sir Robert KNOLLES, also containedBreton and German knights.

The teams fought on foot for several hoursand were apparently watched by localpeasants. Although tradition states that one

or more of Beaumanoir’s men mounted acavalry charge at some point, this is uncer-tain. The Combat ended with Bamboroughand eight of his men slain and the survivingEnglish combatants, who eschewed flight asdishonorable, taken captive. Beaumanoir’steam lost four (or perhaps six) knights, andall participants on both sides sufferedwounds of varying severity.

The Combat inspired a long and famous

Breton ballad that was translated into sev-eral dialects and made heroes of the victors.In 1373, the chronicler Jean FROISSART wit-

COMBAT OF THE THIRTY

103



nessed firsthand the honor accorded to asurvivor of Beaumanoir’s thirty when hedisplayed his scars at a feast given byCHARLES V. Although some contemporariescriticized such melees as foolish, the Combat

of the Thirty, and similar battles arranged atvarious times during the war, reflected the

joy of combat and the desire for fame andprofit that characterized much fourteenth-century fighting. Also, the Combat, whichwas clearly in breach of the Truce of C ALAIS

of 1347, indicates how little centralizedcontrol either government exercised over thefighting, especially after 1350, when localcaptains often conducted local operations asthey saw fit. See also BRITTANY; CHIVALRY.

Further Reading: Burne, Alfred H. The Cre cy


1999; Seward, Desmond. The Hundred Years War .

New York: Penguin, 1999; Sumption, Jonathan.

The Hundred Years War. Vol. 2, Trial by Fire.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,

2001.

COMPAGNIES D’ORDONNANCE. SeeCHARLES VII, MILITARY REFORMS OF

CONSTABLE OF FRANCE. See ARMIES,COMMAND OF; CLISSON, OLIVIER, CONSTABLE

OF FRANCE; GUESCLIN, BERTRAND DU, CON-

STABLE OF FRANCE; APPENDIX 6: ‘‘CONSTABLES

AND MARSHALS OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND’’

COUNTER- JACQUERIE. See J ACQUERIE

COURTRAI, BATTLE OF. See FLANDERS

CRAVANT, BATTLE OF (1423)The Battle of Cravant was fought on 31 July1423 outside the besieged Burgundian townof Cravant, which lay on the River Yonne,some ninety miles southeast of PARIS. Wonby an Anglo-Burgundian force commandedby Thomas MONTAGU, earl of Salisbury, thebattle resulted in the destruction of a French

army, the strengthening of Anglo-Burgun-dian cooperation, and the thwarting ofFrench efforts to menace Paris.

Since the death of HENRY V in 1422, theEnglish war effort had been directed by

JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD, eldest uncle ofHENRY VI. In preparation for further ad-vances, the duke attempted to consolidate

the English position by eliminating enemyenclaves within Anglo-Burgundian territory.To this end, Bedford ordered Salisbury tocapture Montaiguillon, a dauphinist strong-hold about fifty miles southeast of Paris. AtMontaiguillon, the earl was well placed tomeet a new French offensive in the summerof 1423. The dauphin (see CHARLES VII) sent alarge army into the duchy of Burgundy todisrupt the domains of Duke PHILIP THE

GOOD, to relieve pressure on Montaiguillon

and other besieged dauphinist strongholds,and to threaten Paris. Marching with aboutfour thousand men, Salisbury reachedAuxerre on 29 July. Auxerre was nine milesfrom Cravant, the capture of which was thefirst goal of the French commanders, Sir

John Stewart of Darnley, constable of SCOT-

LAND, and Louis, count of Vendome. Al-though Salisbury was met at Auxerre by ahastily raised Burgundian force, his army

was still half or less the size of the dauphi-nist army, which probably numbered eightto ten thousand men, including a largecontingent of Scots and even some Span-iards and Italians.

Maneuvering to circumvent an impreg-nable French position on the heightsnorthwest of the town, Salisbury crossed tothe west bank of the Yonne and marchedsouth to Cravant, arriving opposite thetown and its French besiegers on 31 July.

The river in front of Cravant was swift andshallow, 40–60 yards wide and knee-to-waist deep. For several hours, the Englishheld their position, waiting in extremesummer heat for the French to make amove. Finally, Salisbury led the left wing ofthe army across the river, precipitating afierce fight along the narrow strip of landbetween the water and the town. On theright, Robert Willoughby, Lord Willoughby,

led his men against the town’s main bridge,which was stoutly defended by a largecontingent of Scots.

COMPAGNIES D’ORDONNANCE

104



As the French on the bridgeslowly gave way, the Burgundiangarrison of Cravant, although weakfrom hunger, attacked the Frenchfrom behind, thereby causing suffi-

cient panic to throw the dauphinistsinto disordered flight. Escapeproved difficult, with the only line ofretreat running southward betweenSalisbury’s men and the garrison ofthe town. The French lost perhapstwo thousand dead, with CASUALTIES

being particularly high among theScots, and another two thousandcaptured, with both Stewart andVendome among the prisoners. The

rest of the dauphinist army disin-tegrated, allowing the allies to drivethe French from Burgundy in thefollowing months.

Further Reading: Burne, Alfred H.

The Agincourt War . Ware, England:

Wordsworth Editions Ltd., 1999;

Waurin, Jean. Recueil des croniques et

anchiennes istories de la Grant Bretaigne, a

present nomme Engleterre ( A Collection

of the Chronicles and Ancient Histories of Great Britain, Now Called England).

5 vols. London: Longman, Green, Longman,

Roberts, and Green, 1864–91.

CRECY, BATTLE OF (1346)The Battle of Crecy was fought on 26 August1346 near the village of Crecy in Ponthieu, aPLANTAGENET possession in northern France.The first great land battle of the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR, Crecy was also the only timeduring the conflict when a king of Englandand a king of France faced each other acrossthe battlefield. Like POITIERS and AGINCOURT,Crecy was a major English victory, and thebattle that introduced the French to a newand devastatingly effective defensive tac-tic—coordinated formations of longbowmenand dismounted knights protected by pit-traps and baggage lines.

During the first months of 1346, EDWARDIII collected a fleet of over seven hundredships and an army of almost ten thousand

men. Although both BRITTANY and GASCONY

were considered as landing sites, the kingfinally brought his army ashore near Saint-Vaast-la-Hogue in NORMANDY on 12 July.During the next month, Edward led a de-structive CHEVAUCHE E across Normandy andthen southeastward toward PARIS, whichwas thrown into an uproar by the sight ofnearby villages in flames. After spending

three days at Poissy, Edward turned northon 16 August, hoping to cross the Sommeand reach FLANDERS before the French con-centrated their forces. As Edward withdrew,PHILIP VI, who had so far done little morethan shadow the English, suddenly gatheredhis troops and marched for the Somme.Finding all bridges broken and the line ofthe river strongly defended, Edward finallygot his men across the Somme at the ford of

Blanchetaque, which he reached after mid-night on 24 August. Although the Frenchheld the opposite bank in force, English

This illustration from Les Grandes Chroniques de France depicts

the English victory at the Battle of Crecy, 1346. Erich Lessing/

Art Resource, New York.

CRECY, BATTLE OF

105





precipitated the crisis in November by pub-licly blaming his ministers for his financialproblems. Edward’s increasingly unreason-able demands for money had strained rela-tions with his regency council in England

and with PARLIAMENT, which in the spring of1340 granted new TAXATION only on condi-tion that royal tax collectors be made re-sponsible to Parliament and that all moneycollected be used only for war costs. Believ-ing that Archbishop John STRATFORD, thepresident of his council, covertly opposed hispolicies and was convincing other ministersto do the same, Edward landed unan-nounced at the Tower of London on 30 No-vember and issued orders for the dismissal

or arrest of various officials, including thechancellor, treasurer, and several judges andfinanciers. Carried out in secret by a smallgroup of followers, these actions frightenedStratford, who retired to Canterbury andrefused all summonses to appear before theking. On 29 December, the feast of St. Tho-mas Becket, Stratford delivered an emotionaladdress in Canterbury Cathedral, the site ofBecket’s murder. Declaring that the king’s

supporters had arrested men in contraven-tion of the Magna Carta, had falsely accusedhim of treason, and might do even worse inthe future, the archbishop solemnly pro-nounced their excommunication.

A bitter pamphlet war now ensued. On 31December, Stratford circulated a letter, Sa-crosancta ecclesia, which stoutly defended theliberty of the church. The archbishop alsowrote to the king, declaring him the victim ofill counsel and reminding him of his coro-

nation oath. A new royal demand that thearchbishop appear at court elicited only aseries of letters denouncing the clerical ex-actions of 1340 and lamenting the king’sdisregard of the law. In February 1341, Ed-ward published his accusations against thearchbishop, angrily declaring him guilty ofinsubordination, treason, and misappropri-ation of royal funds. Calling the document alibellus famosus (infamous libel), Stratford re-

sponded in March with his Excusaciones, a

detailed and reasoned rebuttal of all theking’s charges and a firm refusal to answerthose charges anywhere but in Parliament.By standing on the constitutional principle ofa peer’s right to trial in Parliament and

by tapping into the commons’ frustrationover exorbitant taxation for an unsuccessfulwar, Stratford fostered development of adangerous coalition of domestic oppositionthat included not only the nobility and bish-ops, but also the commons and lower clergy.When the king’s household knights deniedthe archbishop admittance to the Parliamentsummoned to Westminster in April 1341, theoutraged assembly named a delegation ofbishops and lords to intercede for Stratford,

who, although never again appointed to highoffice, was formally readmitted to royal favoron 3 May.

Politically isolated and desperately inneed of supply, Edward, in return for a newgrant of taxation, reluctantly assented to aseries of parliamentary petitions. The lordsdeclared that no peer could be arrested,tried, or imprisoned except in full Parlia-ment, and both houses demanded a public

audit of the king’s finances and the ap-pointment of all high officers of state inParliament. Although Edward annulledthese statutes in October, declaring that theyhad been forced upon him against his will,he never again acted so arbitrarily, and animprovement in English military fortunes,highlighted by the victory at CRECY in 1346,rekindled public enthusiasm for the war andstrengthened cooperation between theCrown and its subjects.

Further Reading: McKisack, May. The Four-teenth Century, 1307–1399. Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1976; Ormrod, W. M. The Reign of Edward

III: Crown and Political Society in England, 1327–

1377 . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,

1990; Waugh, Scott L. England in the Reign of

Edward III . Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1991.

CROSSBOW. See ARCHERS

CROSSBOW

107





Caours, a former English captain who hadswitched sides.


Hundred Years War. Vol. 1, Trial by Battle.


1999; Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred Years War .Vol. 2, Trial by Fire. Philadelphia: University of


DAUPHIN. See CHARLES V; CHARLES VI;CHARLES VII; LOUIS, DUKE OF GUIENNE

DAVID II, KING OF SCOTLAND(1324–1371)David II, the son of Robert I and second kingof the House of Bruce, maintained the

FRANCO-SCOTTISH ALLIANCE that had existedsince the 1290s, making Anglo-Scottish re-lations an important factor in the comingand course of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

David was only five when he succeededhis father on 7 June 1329, and only sevenwhen he was crowned at Scone on 24 March1331. Although England had recognizedScottish independence in the 1328 Treaty ofNorthampton, EDWARD III, seeking to over-

turn the agreement, backed an invasionlaunched in August 1332 by the Bruces’rival, John Balliol, who was supported bynobles who had been dispossessed for sup-porting the English against Robert I. On 11August, the invaders defeated a Scottisharmy at Dupplin Muir, killing the king’sguardian, Donald, earl of Mar, and enablingBalliol to be crowned on 24 September.When Sir Andrew Moray, David’s newguardian, drove him into England, Balliol

paid homage for SCOTLAND to Edward III,thereby allowing the English king to invadeScotland on the pretext of defending hisvassal. On 19 July 1333, the English won amajor victory at HALIDON HILL, which al-lowed Balliol and his allies to secure muchof the kingdom under English overlordship.

In May 1334, David fled to France, leavingdefense of the Bruce cause in the hands ofMoray and Robert Stewart, David’s cousin

and heir apparent. The king’s arrival inFrance derailed a nearly completed Anglo-French agreement over AQUITAINE, which

might have prevented or at least delayed theHundred Years War. Realizing that he couldnot diplomatically abandon a king to whomhe had granted physical asylum, PHILIP VIstunned the English ambassadors by telling

them that the proposed treaty had to includeDavid. Since Edward considered Balliol theScottish king and could in no way counte-nance an independent, pro-French Scotland,the talks collapsed. David remained inFrance until June 1341, by which time theBruce forces, helped after 1337 by the En-glish preoccupation with France, had re-captured most of the strongpoints held byBalliol and the English, with Edinburghfalling in 1341.

During the 1340s, as Edward becamemore heavily committed in France, Davidsecured his throne and drove the Englishacross the border. In October 1346, onlyweeks after the English victory at CRECY,David invaded England on behalf of hisFrench ally, but suffered a devastating de-feat at NEVILLE’S CROSS, where the king wascaptured and the Scots nobility decimated.Imprisoned in the Tower of London, David

became friends with Edward and was at-tracted by the chivalrous aura of the Englishcourt, an atmosphere that he tried to recreateat his own court after his release in October1357. Negotiations for David’s RANSOM werelong and complicated. Although the kingwas willing to compromise with his captor,the Scottish government, led by Stewart asguardian, rejected Edward’s exorbitant ran-som demands and his insistence that anEnglish prince be recognized as David’s

heir. No settlement was possible until 1356,when the English capture of JOHN II at POI-

TIERS robbed the Scots of all hope of Frenchassistance. Under the Treaty of Berwick, theScots agreed to a ransom of 100,000 marks,the surrender of twenty-three noble hos-tages, and a promise to remain at peace withEngland until the ransom was paid in full.Because the ransom was so large, the lastclause in effect created an indefinite truce

that removed Scotland from active partici-pation in the Anglo-French war for the restof the century.

DAVID II, KING OF SCOTLAND

109



Because peace revived trade, the economyimproved after 1360. Accused of spendingsome of the money raised for the ransom onluxuries required to maintain his Englishlifestyle, David had to suppress a rebellion

led by Stewart in 1363. Thereafter, David’sthrone was secure, although his failure tosecure a final peace with England led him todelay ransom payments. Although thechildless king seemed amenable to Englishproposals that he be succeeded by a PLAN-

TAGENET prince, the Scottish PARLIAMENT rejected the notion and reaffirmed Stewart asheir. In 1362, David’s queen, Joan, the sisterof Edward III, died, thus ending their love-less and barren marriage and allowing

David to marry his mistress in hopes of anheir. David was in the process of annullingthis equally barren match when he diedunexpectedly on 22 February 1371 at the ageof forty-six. His death ended the Bruce lineand passed the Scottish Crown to the Houseof Stewart. See also CHIVALRY.

Further Reading: Nicholson, Ranald. Scotland:

The Later Middle Ages. New York: Barnes and

Noble, 1974; Penman, Michael A. David II, 1329–

71. East Linton, Scotland: Tuckwell Press, 2004.

DIPLOMACYThe HUNDRED YEARS WAR generated muchdiplomatic activity, not only between Franceand England, but also among the courts ofWestern Europe, including SCOTLAND, BRIT-

TANY, BURGUNDY, and the states of Spain,Italy, Germany, and the Low Countries.Also involved, usually in terms of media-tion, were the two supranational rulers of

Europe, the pope and the Holy Roman em-peror (see PAPACY AND THE HUNDRED YEARS

WAR). This expansion of diplomatic businessencouraged the development of interna-tionally accepted conventions of diplomaticpractice; of better training in the law for menwho specialized in the conduct of diploma-cy; and of archives for the collection, pres-ervation, and organization of diplomaticdocuments. The war also promoted a trend

toward greater royal participation in theconduct of diplomacy and a change in theselection criteria for ambassadors, with men

no longer being chosen solely for their socialstatus, but also for their diplomatic experi-ence, geographic knowledge, and linguisticand oratorical skills.

The sending of permanent representatives

to the court of another ruler began in the latefifteenth century in Italy and only becamecommon practice in Western Europe in thesixteenth century. During the HundredYears War, neither kingdom had a separatedepartment of state responsible for foreignaffairs, and diplomacy was still conductedon an ad hoc basis, with embassies returninghome on the conclusion of their particularmission. Diplomacy was also viewed to somedegree as an extension of military activity. In

1337 and 1415, respectively, EDWARD III andHENRY V put forward diplomatic proposalsthat they knew would not be accepted, andthen used the subsequent French rejectionsas justifications for war (see PROPAGANDA

AND WAR PUBLICITY). Truces that were os-tensibly arranged to facilitate peace negoti-ations, such as the 1343 Truce of MALESTROIT

that allowed CLEMENT VI to convene theAVIGNON PEACE CONFERENCE, were in fact

used by both parties as respites to preparefor the renewal of war. The Truce of TOURS,concluded in 1444, gave CHARLES VII time toimplement the administrative and militaryreforms that allowed his armies to expel theEnglish from NORMANDY and GASCONY in the1450s and thus effectively end the war (seeCHARLES VII, MILITARY REFORMS OF). Gov-ernments also used manufactured disputesover documents or procedures to buy timeor gain tactical advantages during negotia-

tions. At the BRUGES PEACE CONFERENCE inthe 1370s, the parties jockeyed for positionby quarrelling over the seating order forPHILIP THE BOLD, duke of Burgundy, and

JOHN OF GAUNT, duke of Lancaster. In 1418,during preliminary talks for the Treaty ofTROYES, the English ambassadors suddenlyobjected to discussions in French, claimingthat they could not understand the lan-guage. During the course of the war, such

aggressive diplomacy clearly fostered thegrowth of NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS in bothrealms.

DIPLOMACY

110



In England, the long dispute over AQUI-

TAINE and the many issues arising from theTreaty of PARIS, led in the late thirteenthcentury to creation of a diplomatic archiveand to development of personnel who spe-

cialized in diplomacy. This process of dip-lomatic specialization and record-keepingwas far advanced in England by the mid-fifteenth century, when Bishop Jean Juvenaldes Ursins recommended that Charles VIIinstitute a similar system for the FrenchCrown. About the time of the ANGLO-FRENCH WAR OF 1294–1303, EDWARD I ap-pointed a keeper of the PROCESSES, who notonly archived the records of those Anglo-French commissions, but also organized all

records pertaining to the duchy of Aqui-taine. In the 1320s, prior to the War of SAINT-SARDOS, these documents were calendared‘‘thus providing a fuller memory thereof inthe future’’ (Allmand, 117) to all Englishembassies handling matters relating toAquitaine. As war continued, the personnelof both English and French embassies be-came more professional, although speciali-zation in the affairs of a particular country or

the history of a particular issue was morecommon among the English. A new em-phasis was also placed upon legal trainingfor diplomats, and most English embassiescontained at least one legal expert who hadtrained at EDWARD II’s foundation of King’sHall, Cambridge, which became known forpreparing men for royal service. Other spe-cialized knowledge and skills were also in-creasingly valued, such as familiarity withpast agreements or the ability to speak well.

Thomas Bekynton, one of HENRY VI’s am-bassadors, was well known for his ability tospeak Latin (the English distrusted the useof French), while Henry V’s envoys com-plained during the Troyes discussions of theFrench ignorance of geography and theterms of the 1360 Treaty of BRETIGNY.

In both kingdoms, the importance of thewar increased the importance of diplomacyand fostered a growing respect for diplo-

mats and their work. Envoys were accord-ed a growing number of immunities andprivileges, although some commentators

complained that these were frequentlyabused and that ambassadors were oftenlittle more than spies. In most cases, how-ever, safe-conducts were respected and am-bassadors were allowed to come and go

without harm or hindrance, even whentraveling across enemy territory. Envoys toforeign courts were often well treated andmany were given gifts in hopes that it wouldinduce them to give favorable reports oftheir host to their own and other rulers. In-ternational agreements were also couched inmore ritualistic terms to give them a moresacred and binding character. The Treaty ofTroyes, for instance, was proclaimed in anelaborate ceremony before the high altar of

St. Peter’s Cathedral, with Henry V usingthe same seal with which Edward III hadsealed the Bretigny agreement in 1360. Atthe Congress of ARRAS in 1435, PHILIP THE

GOOD could only withdraw from the ANGLO-BURGUNDIAN ALLIANCE created at Troyes byobtaining a papal dispensation.

The need for alliances, military and politi-cal, also fostered the professionalization ofdiplomacy during the war. The French,

at various times, concluded agreements withCastile (especially during the CASTILIAN WAR

OF SUCCESSION), FLANDERS, and Brittany, andfrequently renewed the longstanding FRANCO-SCOTTISH ALLIANCE, while the English forgedvarious agreements with Flanders, Brittany,and rulers in the Low Countries and Ger-many, including the Treaty of CANTERBURY

with the emperor. To make the closest con-nection between those who formulated for-eign policy and those who implemented it,

royal direction and oversight increased dur-ing the war, with more diplomatic documentsbeing stored in the royal household and morediplomats being selected from among trainedroyal servants with access to the king. Thus,CHARLES V was closely involved in the dip-lomatic efforts that preceded acceptance ofthe APPEAL OF THE GASCON LORDS and the re-sumption of war in 1369, and Henry V keptclose direction of English diplomacy prior to

the AGINCOURT campaign of 1415 and duringnegotiations for the Troyes agreement. In thismanner was military and diplomatic effort

DIPLOMACY

111



more effectively coordinated in both king-doms.




Years War . 2nd ed. Houndmills, England: Pal-grave Macmillan, 2003.

DORDRECHT BONDS (1337–1338)In February 1338, EDWARD III, as part of aplan to fund the war by exploiting the sale ofwool, bought up ten thousand sacks of woolawaiting sale to continental purchasers atthe Dutch city of Dordrecht. The king paidthe English owners of this wool with notesof acknowledgment that entitled the holders

to remission of customs duties owed to theCrown on future wool exports. Known as‘‘Dordrecht bonds,’’ these notes and otherdubious financing schemes were made nec-essary by the severe financial strain placedon the English economy by the enormouscost of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

By 1337, Edward, having promised morethat £120,000 in payments to his allies in theLow Countries, found himself increasingly

unable to meet his war-related obligations.Despite resorting more frequently to loansand direct TAXATION authorized by PARLIA-

MENT, Edward needed large additional sumsto fund his aggressive military plans andmaintain his ANTI-FRENCH COALITION (see alsoANGLO-FLEMISH ALLIANCE). Because woolwas England’s chief export, Edward hopedto raise significant new revenue by splittingthe profits derived from the sale of woolwith a syndicate of merchants led by Wil-

liam de la POLE. The merchants agreed topurchase thirty thousand sacks of wool forthe king’s use. Recent government embargoson wool exports ensured a plentiful supplyin England and an eager demand on theContinent. The king set the domestic price ofwool at the minimum fair market value,which allowed the syndicate to buy on fa-vorable terms, while wool hunger on theContinent allowed them to sell high. Se-

cured by assignments on the wool customs,the king’s half of the expected profits wasestimated at £200,000.

However, cooperation between the syn-dicate and royal officials quickly brokedown when Henry BURGHERSH, bishop ofLincoln, demanded even greater sums fromthe merchants to meet the subsidies he had

promised to Edward’s allies. When Pole andhis associates balked at the amount, the kingseized all the wool gathered at Dordrecht bygiving the owners bonds that could be usedto pay future customs duties. Upon issuanceof these Dordrecht bonds, the monopolyinitiative collapsed, and the syndicate agreedthat the government should dispose of thewool in its possession as it saw fit. To facil-itate this sale and to assist the collectionof wool in England, Edward temporarily

banned wool exports, thereby reducing theusefulness of the bonds to their holders.Many smaller merchants lost heavily andwere soon forced to sell their Dordrechtbonds at steep discounts. The Crown even-tually authorized various domestic and for-eign merchants—including a new syndicateorganized by Pole—to buy the bonds, whichthey obtained for shillings on the pound butredeemed at the Exchequer for full value in

remission of customs duties.Edward, meanwhile, tried other ways toraise ready cash. In 1338, he persuadedParliament to authorize Crown preemptionof half the kingdom’s wool production inreturn for assurances that private traderscould dispose of the other half without royalinterference. On the strength of this grant,Edward raised new loans from his Italianbankers. In 1343, the king permitted a groupof financiers headed by Pole to collect the

wool customs in return for cash. However,despite these efforts, the collapse of theoriginal monopoly scheme was a financialdisaster for Edward, who was forced intobankruptcy in the early 1340s largely as aresult of it.

Further Reading: Fryde, E. B. William de la Pole:

Merchant and King’s Banker . London: Hambledon

and London, 2003; Lloyd, T. H. The English Wool

Trade in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1977; McKisack, May. The Four-teenth Century, 1307–1399. Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1976.

DORDRECHT BONDS

112





Douglas quickly took into his possession.For three months, Douglas and his menlived off his new lands, where they quicklybecame highly unpopular. In August, Doug-las marched to NORMANDY and captured the

town of VERNEUIL, which provoked JOHN,DUKE OF BEDFORD, to offer battle. Against theadvice of the French nobles, Douglas andBuchan accepted the challenge, and bothmen died in the subsequent battle, whichalso resulted in the virtual destruction of theScottish army in France.

Further Reading: Boardman, Stephen I. The

Early Stewart Kings: Robert II and Robert III, 1371–

1406. East Linton, Scotland: Tuckwell Press, 1996;

Brown, Michael. The Black Douglases: War and

Lordship in Late Medieval Scotland, 1300–1455. East

Linton, Scotland: Tuckwell Press, 1998.

DOUGLAS, EARL OF. See DOUGLAS, AR-

CHIBALD, EARL OF DOUGLAS

DUAL MONARCHY. See TROYES, TREATY OF

DUNKIRK, TREATIES OF. See FLANDERS;LOUIS DE MALE, COUNT OF FLANDERS

DUNOIS, COUNT OF. See JOHN, COUNT OF

DUNOIS AND LONGUEVILLE

DOUGLAS, EARL OF

114



EECORCHEURS. See ROUTIERS

EDMUND OF LANGLEY, DUKE OFYORK (1341–1402)The fifth surviving son of EDWARD III and

PHILIPPA OF HAINAULT, Edmund of Langley,first duke of York, participated in the lastmilitary campaigns of his father’s reign andexercised significant political influence dur-ing the reign of his nephew, RICHARD II.Although a supporter of HENRY IV and theHouse of LANCASTER, the duke was founderof the House of York, which eventuallyoverthrew the Lancastrian dynasty.

In 1347, the king granted Edmund nu-

merous manors in northern England thatcame in the fifteenth century to comprise thecore of the Yorkist dynasty’s landed wealth.In 1359, Edmund accompanied his father onthe RHEIMS CAMPAIGN. Elected to the Orderof the GARTER in 1361 and created earl ofCambridge in 1362, Edmund in the mid-1360s became the focus of his father’s effortsto create an English APPANAGE in the LowCountries by marrying the earl to MAR-

GUERITE, the daughter and heir of LOUIS DE

MALE, count of FLANDERS. In combinationwith CALAIS and other PLANTAGENET hold-ings in northern France, the possession ofFlanders would have made Edmund apowerful prince in northwestern Europeand a serious check on VALOIS ambitions.However, in 1364, the French pope Urban Vforbade the match on grounds of consan-guinity. The pope’s true motives were re-vealed in 1367 when he readily dispensed

with the same impediment for Marguerite’sproposed marriage to PHILIP THE BOLD, dukeof BURGUNDY, the brother of CHARLES V.

With the resumption of the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR in 1369, Edmund joined hisbrother, EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, at thesack of LIMOGES in 1370, and his father on theabortive attempt to relieve La Rochelle in

1372. He was king’s lieutenant in BRITTANY

in 1374 and commanded a CHEVAUCHE E

through the duchy in 1375. In 1372, Cam-bridge, like his brother, JOHN OF GAUNT,duke of Lancaster, married a daughter of thelate Pedro I of Castile, and thereby becameassociated with his brother’s ambition towin the Castilian Crown. In 1381, the earlled an English expedition to Portugal,where, with the help of the Portuguese

Crown, he planned to join Lancaster’s in-vasion of Castile. However, neither Lan-caster nor the Portuguese arrived, andCambridge, having lost control of his men,was forced to return to England in 1382.

After the accession of Richard II in 1377,Cambridge, who is traditionally portrayedas retiring and unambitious, supported thepolicies and bolstered the influence of Lan-caster. Created duke of York in 1385, Cam-bridge served on the governing council

established by the Wonderful PARLIAMENT in1386, but otherwise opposed his brother,THOMAS, DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM, and theLords Appellant in their attempt to controlthe royal government during the politicalupheavals of 1387–89. With Lancaster, Yorkexercised a moderating influence in gov-ernment in the 1390s, and participated in theAnglo-French peace negotiations that fol-lowed conclusion of the Truce of LEULIN-

GHEN in 1389.After his destruction of Buckingham andthe other Lords Appellant in 1397, the king

115



granted many of their lands to York, whowas appointed custodian of the realm dur-ing Richard’s Irish campaign in 1399. WhenHenry of Bolingbroke, Lancaster’s son, re-turned from exile during the king’s absence

to reclaim the estates Richard seized fromhim, York abandoned the king and joinedthe men he raised in Richard’s name withBolingbroke’s forces. York’s approval of Ri-chard’s subsequent deposition placed him inhigh favor with Bolingbroke, who took theCrown as Henry IV. On the night of 3 Jan-uary 1400, York, having learned from hisson Edward—who was one of the plotters— of a plan to murder Henry and reinstateRichard, rode to Windsor to warn the king,

thereby saving his life. York died shortlythereafter on 1 August 1402.

Further Reading: Biggs, Douglas. ‘‘ ‘A Wrong

Whom Conscience and Kindred Bid Me to Right’:

A Reassessment of Edmund of Langley, Duke of

York, and the Usurpation of Henry IV.’’ Albion 26,

no. 2 (1994): 253–72; Russell, Peter E. The English

Intervention in Spain and Portugal in the Time of

Edward III and Richard II . Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1955; Saul, Nigel. Richard II . New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press, 1997.

EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, PRINCEOF WALES (1330–1376)Edward of Woodstock, prince of Wales andAQUITAINE, was the eldest son of EDWARD IIIand PHILIPPA of Hainault, and thus heir tothe PLANTAGENET throne. Because he wasone of the most successful commanders ofthe HUNDRED YEARS WAR, the prince wasregarded by contemporaries as a model ofCHIVALRY and the greatest knight of his age.

For reasons that are now lost, Edward hasbeen known since the sixteenth century as‘‘the Black Prince,’’ a sobriquet that is oftentied to his alleged use of black ARMOR, butthat may actually stem from attempts todistinguish the prince, who was frequentlycalled Edward IV in anticipation of his ac-cession, from the fifteenth-century Yorkistking Edward IV. Born at Woodstock on 15

June 1330, the prince was sixteen when hefirst accompanied his father to France.Knighted by the king upon landing at Saint-

Vaast-la-Hogue in NORMANDY on 12 July1346, the prince, acting with the advice ofsuch veteran captains as William de BOHUN,earl of Northampton, and Thomas BEAU-

CHAMP, earl of Warwick, held nominal

command of the English center at the sub-sequent Battle of CRECY, where he distin-guished himself in combat and establishedhis reputation as a warrior. In honor of King

John of Bohemia, who was slain fighting theEnglish at Crecy, the prince adopted John’sbadge of ostrich feathers as his own, andmay likewise have acquired his motto, Ichdene (I serve).

In 1347, the prince participated in thesuccessful siege of CALAIS, and in about 1348

became a founding member of the Order ofthe GARTER. In 1350, he helped his fatherdefeat a Castilian fleet at the naval Battle ofWINCHELSEA. Following expiration of theTruce of CALAIS, the prince received his firstindependent command, being named king’slieutenant in GASCONY, from which helaunched the highly destructive C HEVAUCHE E

of 1355, during which the prince’s armypillaged more than five hundred towns and

villages in southern France. A second CHE-VAUCHE E in 1356 culminated in the Battle ofPOITIERS, where the English captured JOHN IIand many members of the French nobility.After concluding the Truce of BORDEAUX

with his captive, the prince conveyed Johnto LONDON, where both were rapturouslyreceived. In 1359, after the collapse of theFirst and Second Treaties of LONDON, theprince accompanied his father on the RHEIMS

CAMPAIGN, which failed to achieve Edward

III’s coronation as king of France but didmake possible conclusion of the Treaty ofBRETIGNY. Under the treaty, which the princenegotiated for the English with HENRY OF

GROSMONT, duke of Lancaster, the Plantage-nets acquired a much enlarged Aquitaine infull sovereignty.

On 19 July 1362, Edward III granted hisson the principality of Aquitaine. Beforesailing for Bordeaux, the prince married

Joan, known as the ‘‘Fair Maid of Kent,’’ thewidow of Thomas HOLLAND, earl of Kent.They kept a brilliant court at Bordeaux,

EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, PRINCE OF WALES

116



where their two sons—Edward, who died in1371, and the future RICHARD II—were born.In 1366, the prince intervened in the CASTI-

LIAN WAR OF SUCCESSION, concluding theTreaty of Libourne with Pedro I of Castile,

who had been deposed in favor of his halfbrother by a French-backed army of ROU-

TIERS led by Bertrand du GUESCLIN. Leadinghis own routier force into Castile in 1367, theprince defeated and captured du Guesclin atthe Battle of NA JERA, thereby restoring Pedro.However, when the Castilian king renegedon his promises to pay for the campaign, theprince, who had contracted what was likelychronic dysentery, was forced to return toAquitaine empty-handed. The resulting

need for funds compelled the prince to de-mand a fouage (hearth tax), the collection ofwhich caused leading members of the Gas-con nobility to appeal to CHARLES V. Whenthe French king accepted this APPEAL OF THE

GASCON LORDS by summoning him to PARIS,the prince declared himself willing to comeonly at the head of an army. Charles there-upon confiscated the principality and thewar resumed in 1369.

Increasingly ill, the prince left defense ofthe principality in the hands of his mostloyal lieutenants—Sir John CHANDOS, Sir

James AUDLEY, and Jean de GRAILLY, captalde Buch. In 1370, stung by the capitulationof LIMOGES, the prince, although forced totravel by litter, personally led an expeditionto effect its recapture. The city was retakenand sacked, although the massacre of civil-ians described by Jean FROISSART and longconsidered a stain on the prince’s chivalrous

record seems unlikely to have occurred. In1371, the prince sailed to England and re-turned the government of Aquitaine to hisfather. The prince’s illness thereafter grewso debilitating that little is known of his ac-tivities until the meeting of the Good PAR-

LIAMENT in 1376, when it is claimed that heinfluenced the actions of the Commons.However, his role, if any, in this assemblyhas probably been exaggerated, and Parlia-

ment was still in session when the princedied on 8 June. An orthodox man who fullyshared the martial interests of his time and

class, the prince was a popular figurearound whom legends gathered both duringand after his life. Much was written abouthim, including the French verse biographylater titled La Vie du Prince Noir (Life of the

Black Prince), which was completed in about1385 by Chandos Herald, an unknown na-tive of Hainault who served as Sir JohnChandos’s officer of arms.



Scribner’s Sons, 1978; Chandos Herald. Life of the

Black Prince by the Herald of Sir John Chandos. Ed.

and trans. Mildred K. Pope and Eleanor C. Lodge.

Oxford: Clarendon, 1910; Harvey, John. The Black

Prince and His Age. London: Rowman and Little-

field, 1976; Hewitt, Herbert J. The Black Prince’s

Expeditions of 1355–1357 . Manchester: Manchester

University Press, 1958; Sedgwick, Theodore

Dwight. The Life of Edward, the Black Prince. New

York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.

EDWARD I, KING OF ENGLAND(1239–1307)The son of Henry III and grandfather ofEDWARD III, Edward I was an able and en-

ergetic monarch who conquered Wales, re-structured royal government, revised thecommon law, fostered the development ofPARLIAMENT, and initiated almost three cen-turies of Anglo-Scottish hostility. By vigor-ously resisting French encroachment on hisexercise of ducal authority in AQUITAINE,Edward commenced the long quarrel overthe duchy that eventually culminated in theoutbreak of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR. Ed-ward also inadvertently created one of the

prime components of that later war by ar-ranging a dynastic union with the House ofCAPET that eventually gave the PLANTAGE-

NETS a claim to the French throne.Edward first came to political prominence

in the 1250s during the ongoing strugglebetween his father and the barons of En-gland, who had been alienated by Henry’sreckless and spendthrift policies. In May1264, the baronial opposition, led by Simon

de Montfort, earl of Leicester, defeated theking at Lewes, where Edward’s impetuouscharge routed Montfort’s Londoners but left

EDWARD I, KING OF ENGLAND

117



the rest of the royalist army unsupported.Surrendering himself as a hostage to ensurethe king’s compliance with the settlementsubsequently imposed by Montfort, Edwardescaped a year later and raised an army that

slew the earl at Evesham in August 1265.Having led the royalist recovery, Edwardnow assumed the leading role in his father’sgovernment. Taking the crusader’s cross in

June 1268, Edward arrived in North Africain November 1270. In June 1272, a Muslimassassin wounded Edward with a poisoneddagger. Narrowly escaping death, he re-turned to Sicily, where he learned of his fa-ther’s death on 16 November. Although nowking, Edward did not return to England

until August 1274, having spent the previ-ous year in Aquitaine, where Anglo-Frenchrelations were generally friendly until the1290s. In PARIS in August 1273, Edward didhomage for the duchy to Philip III, andthereafter the two kings conducted a per-sonal DIPLOMACY that resolved most disputesarising from the Treaty of PARIS. In 1279, theAnglo-French Treaty of Amiens gave Ed-ward the Agenais, in which the king

authorized the foundation of numerousBASTIDES over the next decade. In 1285, whenthe French invaded Aragon, the potentialconflict between Edward’s obligation asduke to support his feudal overlord and hispolicy as king to avoid continental war wasresolved by Philip’s death.

During the first two decades of his reign,Edward undertook a sweeping systemiza-tion of English government, devising andimplementing a series of parliamentary stat-

utes dealing with the royal confirmation ofliberties and franchises, the limitation of landgrants to the Church, and the prohibition ofnew feudal tenures. These acts and Edward’slater need for funds to wage war in SCOT-

LAND and Aquitaine greatly accelerated theinstitutional development of Parliament. In1277, Edward invaded Wales, which he fi-nally subdued in 1284, when the Statute ofWales attached the principality to the En-

glish Crown. In 1290, following the deaths ofAlexander III and his young granddaughter,Margaret of Norway, Edward accepted an

invitation from the Scottish nobility to act asarbitrator in a succession dispute between

John Balliol and Robert Bruce. Edward’sdecision for Balliol was largely unopposed,but his claim to be Balliol’s feudal overlord

and his demand that Balliol perform mili-tary service and allow Scottish appeals toEnglish courts convinced the Scottish nobil-ity to ally with PHILIP IV, thus initiating aFRANCO-SCOTTISH ALLIANCE that lasted intothe sixteenth century.

Already at war in Scotland, where hesought to impose his overlordship, Edwardin the 1290s also found himself at war withFrance, where he sought to deny Capetianoverlordship. In 1286, Edward did homage

to Philip IV in Paris. From the autumn of1286 to June 1289, Edward was resident inGASCONY where he tried to limit appeals tothe PARLEMENT by making the ducal ad-ministration more efficient. However, after1292, Philip, pressed by a court faction ledby his brother, Charles, count of VALOIS,sought means to more strictly enforce hisGascon overlordship, and French policy inAquitaine shifted from dealing with Edward

as a sovereign monarch to dealing with himas a feudal vassal. Following a series of vi-olent encounters between French and Gas-con seamen, Philip had Edward summonedbefore the Parlement in 1294. When the En-glish king failed to appear, Philip suggesteda secret compromise involving a temporarysurrender of Aquitaine, but once French of-ficials had possession, Philip reneged onthe agreement and confiscated the duchy,thereby initiating the ANGLO-FRENCH WAR OF

1294–1303.Heavily committed in Scotland, Edward

had few resources for war in Gascony, andsought to relieve pressure on the duchy byforging alliances in the Low Countries, par-ticularly with the count of FLANDERS. How-ever, this policy foundered on Edward’sinability to support his allies militarily. De-spite marrying his sister MARGARET to theEnglish king in 1299, Philip did not restore

Aquitaine to Edward until 1303, when re-bellion in Flanders and BORDEAUX compelledhim to do so. As part of the peace settlement,

EDWARD I, KING OF ENGLAND

118



the two kings agreed to a marriage betweenEdward’s son, Prince Edward, and Philip’sdaughter, Isabella (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF

ENGLAND [c. 1292–1358]), a match thateventually gave Edward’s grandson a claim

to the French Crown. In 1306, Edwardgranted Aquitaine to his son. Edward diedon 7 July 1307 and was succeeded by his sonEDWARD II.

Further Reading: Prestwich, Michael. Edward I.


EDWARD II, KING OF ENGLAND(1284–1327)The sixth king of the House of PLANTAGENET,Edward II was ill suited to rule a kingdom

and much of his reign, which ended with hisdeposition, was spent in open conflict withhis barons. Edward’s relations with theFrench Crown, particularly in regard toAQUITAINE, were bedeviled by the king’sindecisive personality, by his reliance onroyal favorites, by ongoing baronial oppo-sition, and by the rapid turnover of Frenchmonarchs during the last years of the Houseof CAPET. By the 1320s, these factors led to

another confiscation of the duchy of Aqui-taine and to another ANGLO-FRENCH WAR.Born at Caernarvon, the fourth but only

surviving son of EDWARD I, Edward was thefirst heir to the English throne to be calledprince of Wales. Although he was namedtitular regent of England during his father’sabsence in GASCONY in 1297, and made dukeof Aquitaine at his knighting in May 1306,the prince’s relations with his father werestrained during the king’s last years. In June

1305, the king banished his son from courtand ordered the Exchequer to refuse himany financial support. The prince was re-stored to favor in October, following inter-ventions on his behalf by his sisters andstepmother, MARGARET OF FRANCE. The exactcause of the quarrel is unknown, but likelyinvolved the prince’s friend Piers Gaveston,a young Gascon knight, whom the king fi-nally banished from England in February

1307. Historians have long speculated on thenature of the prince’s relationship with Ga-veston, debating whether it was based on a

homosexual liaison or, as one writer hassuggested, on an oath of adoptive brother-hood. On his accession in July 1307, EdwardII immediately recalled Gaveston, whom healso created earl of Cornwall and betrothed

to his niece. In 1308, when Edward traveledto France to marry Isabella, the daughter ofPHILIP IV (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND

[c. 1292–1358]), he named Gaveston regentduring his absence. A haughty man with asarcastic wit, Gaveston antagonized both thenobility, who considered him an arrogantupstart wielding inappropriate influence,and the new queen, who complained thatthe king preferred Gaveston’s company toher own. Banished several times at the in-

sistence of the barons, Gaveston was seizedand executed in 1312 by a coalition of op-position magnates led by Thomas, earl ofLancaster.

In 1311, Lancaster and his allies forced theking to accept the Ordinances, a reformprogram that limited royal authority. A se-ries of military reverses in SCOTLAND, par-ticularly the defeat at Bannockburn in 1314,weakened Edward’s position and allowed

Lancaster to dominate the government dur-ing the late 1310s. The king, however, turnedto a new favorite, his chamberlain, HughDespenser the Younger. Although there isno evidence of a sexual relationship betweenEdward and Despenser, the latter used hisinfluence with the king to enrich himself andhis family. In 1321, the barons forced De-spenser’s banishment, but the king, in anuncharacteristic burst of energy, routed hisopponents at Boroughbridge in March 1322.

Following Lancaster’s execution, Edwardand Despenser began four years of unchal-lenged rule.

While Edward struggled with his baronialopponents, the English position in Francedeteriorated. Having been invested withAquitaine prior to his accession, Edward paidhomage for the duchy to Philip IV on the daybefore marrying Philip’s daughter in January1308. Although the Anglo-French commis-

sions known as the PROCESS of Montreuil(1306) and the Process of Perigueux (1311)attempted to settle issues remaining from the

EDWARD II, KING OF ENGLAND

119









they had been obtained, and all prisonerswere to be paroled with the understandingthat they must return to captivity shouldhostilities resume. By promising to preventthe return of all Flemings who had fled to

France, and to seek the lifting of all ecclesi-astical sanctions imposed on Flanders, Phil-ip reassured the pro-English regime of

James van ARTEVELDE, who had opposed thenegotiations.

The truce benefited Philip by achievingthe break-up of the allied army and thewithdrawal of the English king; it benefitedEdward’s noble allies by buying them timeto repair their relationship with Philip; andit benefited Edward by canceling a planned

Scottish attack on Sterling and a developingFrench campaign against the English garri-sons in Gascony. However, believing him-self cheated of victory, Edward was bitterand accused his ministers, particularlyArchbishop John STRATFORD, of failing tosupport him, a charge that provoked theEnglish political CRISIS OF 1340–1341. Al-though the truce raised expectations of talksfor a permanent settlement, Edward was

uninterested and eager to resume the war.He accepted extension of the truce to 29August 1341 and then to 24 June 1342, butthe eruption of the BRETON CIVIL WAR in theautumn of 1341 and the subsequent Anglo-French intervention in the duchy essentiallyended the truce. See also ANTI-FRENCH COA-

LITION; NAVAL WARFARE.Further Reading: Perroy, Edouard. The Hun-



Hundred Years War. Vol. 1, Trial by Battle.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,

1999.

ESTATES, GENERAL AND PROVINCIALThe provincial estates of VALOIS France wereassembliesof nobles,clergy,andtownsmen— the three ‘‘estates’’ or classes of medievalsociety—that met in various provinces orfeudal jurisdictions to consider local issues

and provide financial support to local lords.The Estates-General was a national or re-gional assembly of the three estates that was

summoned by the king to render advice andgive consent, primarily in regard to theraising of taxes for war. Although the no-bility and higher clergy had long attendedroyal and local assemblies of various kinds,

the term ‘‘estates’’ applies only to thosebodies that included representatives oftowns among their membership. During theHUNDRED YEARS WAR, when the royal needfor funds was especially acute, the Crownconsulted both local and national estatesmore regularly in an effort to fully engagelocal elites in the war effort.

Many provincial assemblies developedout of the right of a feudal lord to summonhis vassals to his court to provide aid and

counsel. By the thirteenth century, two newconcepts encouraged the development oftripartite assemblies of clergy, townsmen,and feudal nobility. The first was the notionthat society was broadly divided into threegroups—warriors, priests, and workers. Thethird group, essentially nonnoble laymenin the towns, was large, diverse, and, by thethirteenth century, growing in wealth, edu-cation, and influence. The second concept

was the principle of representation, whichallowed groups to appoint one or more oftheir number to represent their corporateinterests at the court of the king or local lord.Thus, the clergy and laity developed thepractice of electing representatives to act intheir name just as it became politically use-ful to include such groups in local assem-blies.

The Crown found provincial estates use-ful as instruments for obtaining the consent

of local communities to the collection of wartaxes. Provincial elites used the estates topresent grievances to the Crown, to defendlocal interests at court, and to administerfunds collected locally for defense and themaintenance of transportation systems. Es-tates functioned in more than half theprovinces of the realm, including NORMANDY

in the north and Languedoc in the south.Although some provincial estates met

rarely, others developed permanent bu-reaucracies, devised clear procedures, keptcareful records, and levied taxes for their

ESTATES, GENERAL AND PROVINCIAL

123









THE BOLD, duke of BURGUNDY. In 1379, Ghentagain rebelled against comital authority. Therebel regime, which was eventually led byPhilip van ARTEVELDE, son of James, sought anew English alliance, but the minority gov-

ernment of RICHARD II was in no position toassist, and Burgundy, summoned by his fa-ther-in-law, crushed the Flemings at Roose-beke in November 1382.

Upon Louis’s death in January 1384, Bur-gundy became count, making Flanders aValois APPANAGE and ending any Englishhope of controlling the county. In the fif-teenth century, Flanders was part of theBurgundian state constructed by Duke Phi-lip’s descendents and, as such, was again

allied with England during the ANGLO-BUR-

GUNDIAN ALLIANCE of 1420–35. However, thecounty itself ceased to be an important wartheater.

Further Reading: Lucas, Henry Stephen. The

Low Countries and the Hundred Years’ War, 1326–

1347. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,

1929; Nicholas, David. Town and Countryside:

Social, Economic, and Political Tensions in Four-

teenth-Century Flanders. Bruges: De Tempel, 1971;

Prevenier, Walter, and Willem Blockmans. TheBurgundian Netherlands. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1985.

FLANDERS, COUNT OF. See JOHN THE

FEARLESS, DUKE OF BURGUNDY; LOUIS DE

MALE, COUNT OF FLANDERS; LOUIS DE NEVERS,COUNT OF FLANDERS; PHILIP THE BOLD, DUKE

OF BURGUNDY; PHILIP THE GOOD, DUKE OF

BURGUNDY

FLANDERS, COUNTESS OF. SeeMARGUERITE DE FLANDERS, DUCHESS OF

BURGUNDY

FLEURS DE LYS, TREATY OF. SeeHOSTAGES, TREATY OF

FORMIGNY, BATTLE OF (1450)Fought on 15 April 1450, the battle of For-

migny destroyed the last English field forcein Lancastrian NORMANDY and thereby en-sured the French reconquest of the duchy.

In June 1449, three months after the En-glish sack of FOUGERES, CHARLES VII repudi-ated the Truce of TOURS and reopened theHUNDRED YEARS WAR by invading Nor-mandy. Since the English had no field army

in the duchy, the campaign quickly becamea series of sieges; ROUEN capitulated in Oc-tober and HARFLEUR followed in December.To halt the French advance, the governmentof HENRY VI dispatched an army of twenty-five hundred men to Normandy under SirThomas Kyriell. Landing at Cherbourg on 15March 1450, Kyriell, acting at the request oflocal officials, deviated from his orders toproceed immediately to the relief of Bayeux.Instead, he asked Edmund BEAUFORT, duke

of Somerset, the English governor of Nor-mandy, for reinforcements to recaptureValognes, which fell on 10 April. Nowcommanding an army of four thousand,Kyriell marched toward Bayeux, reachingthe village of Formigny on 14 April.

The French had two forces in westernNormandy. John, count of Clermont, com-manded three thousand men at Carentan,while Arthur de Richemont, constable of

France (see ARTHUR III), lay twenty miles tothe southwest at Coutances with two thou-sand Bretons. Unwilling to engage the largerEnglish force alone, Clermont allowed Kyr-iell to proceed unmolested while Richemontmarched north to St. Lo, which he reachedon 14 April. At Formigny, the English wereonly ten miles from the safety of Bayeux, butinstead of resuming his march, Kyriell heldhis position, presumably waiting to catchClermont, whom he knew to be finally on

the move. Unaware of Richemont’s march ofthe previous day, Kyriell probably hoped toengage and defeat Clermont before Riche-mont arrived.

At mid-afternoon, Clermont encounteredthe English army drawn up much as HENRY

V’s had been at AGINCOURT, with a thin lineof men-at-arms fortified at intervals bygroups of ARCHERS that projected forwardfrom the English front. After a pause that

allowed the English to further entrench theirposition, Clermont’s dismounted men-at-arms assaulted the English line. When their

FORMIGNY, BATTLE OF

127



first attack collapsed, the French sent cavalrycharges against the English flanks, but wereagain unsuccessful. Clermont now broughtup his ARTILLERY, two culverins that werequickly captured by English archers, who,

goaded by the galling fire, surged forwardto overwhelm the gunners. The French werenow in disarray; had Kyriell attacked, hemight have driven them from the field.

At this moment, Richemont arrived fromthe south, his forces ideally positioned toassault the flanks and rear of the Englisharmy. Lacking a reserve, Kyriell had tomaintain his front against Clermont whileshifting part of his army to the left to meetRichemont’s attack, the sight of which en-

couraged Clermont’s men to resume theirassault. The English line quickly disin-tegrated under the pressure, with groups ofmen being surrounded and cut down. Al-though Sir Matthew Gough, commander ofSomerset’s reinforcements, led a small forceto safety, most of the English army was killedor captured, with Kyriell among the latter.Having disposed of Kyriell’s army, theFrench resumed their campaign of sieges,

which concluded on 12 August with the fallof Cherbourg, the last English-held fortressin Normandy. See also NORMAN CAMPAIGN

(1449–50).Further Reading: Burne, Alfred H. The Agin-


Ltd., 1999; Griffiths, Ralph A. The Reign of King

Henry VI. Berkeley: University of California Press,

1981.

FORTIFICATIONS. See SIEGE WARFARE

FOUGERES, SACK OF (1449)On 24 March 1449, Francois de Surienne, aSpanish ROUTIER captain who had longserved the English Crown, captured andsacked the Breton town of Fougeres in vio-lation of the Truce of TOURS. The attack,which was initiated by the English govern-ment as part of a plan to prevent BRITTANY

from establishing closer ties with France,

had disastrous consequences for HENRY VIand his ministers. The episode underminedEnglish morale, destroyed the credibility of

the Lancastrian regime, and precipitated asuccessful French campaign against NOR-

MANDY.Surienne, who was known as ‘‘l’Arrago-

nais’’ (the Arrogonese), had fought for the

English since at least 1437, when he com-manded the garrison at MONTARGIS. By 1447,he had become a key figure in a plan beingdeveloped by Henry’s chief minister, Wil-liam de la POLE, earl of Suffolk, to strengthenEnglish influence over Francis I, duke ofBrittany. In June 1446, the duke had im-prisoned his younger brother Gilles, whowas a personal friend of Henry VI, for hisforceful and ambitious advocacy of the En-glish cause. Suffolk believed that a military

demonstration along the Breton-Normanborder would compel Francis to forego anyrapprochement with CHARLES VII and to re-store Gilles to favor, thus allowing him tocontinue exerting a pro-English influence.The plan was given even greater urgency in1448 when Maine fell to the French (seeMAINE, SURRENDER OF), thus making afriendly Brittany even more important to thedefense of Normandy.

Surienne’s choice as the government’sagent in this plan was signaled in November1447 when he was elected to the Order of theGARTER and given possession of Sir JohnFASTOLF’s castle of Conde-sur-Noireau, afortress on the Norman frontier that wasideally situated to serve as a base for oper-ations against Fougeres. In March 1449,Surienne led a force of six thousand on awell-executed raid that quickly carried thesurprised town by assault. After thoroughly

plundering the wealthy citizens, the routierswithdrew to the citadel, where they weresoon besieged by the Bretons. When CharlesVII protested the attack, the English lieu-tenant of Normandy, Edmund BEAUFORT,duke of Somerset, who had been involved inplanning the venture, replied that the actionwas not a breach of the truce, since the dukeof Brittany was a vassal of the EnglishCrown. This contention was highly debat-

able. Although the English had surrepti-tiously included Brittany among their list ofallies when the truce was renewed in 1448,

FORTIFICATIONS

128



Francis had done formal homage to Charlesin 1446.

In June, PARLIAMENT congratulated Suri-enne on his success, but the English gov-ernment, finding its military resources

stretched thin and Brittany now firmly inleague with the French, refused to ac-knowledge its role in the attack or to sendrelief to Surienne, who was soon in direstraits. Bitterly disillusioned and angry thathe was being denounced as a truce breakerwho had acted on his own account, Surienneheld out until 5 November. Shortly thereaf-ter, he returned his Garter, renounced hisEnglish allegiance, and published a lengthy

justification placing responsibility for the

attack squarely on the English government.The entire episode reflected poorly on theLancastrian regime. In Normandy, moraledropped among troops who had seen acolleague abandoned. In England, whereSuffolk and Somerset were suspected ofconcocting the entire scheme for their ownbenefit, support for the government ebbed.In Brittany, Francis and his uncle, Arthur deRichemont (see ARTHUR III), acting in con-

junction with the French, invaded westernNormandy in November in a campaign thatconcluded with the recapture of Fougeres. InFrance, Charles, no longer trusting Englishprofessions of peace, used Fougeres as apretext for ending the truce and sending anarmy under JOHN, COUNT OF DUNOIS, intoNormandy, which, by the summer of 1450,was lost to England. See also NORMAN CAM-

PAIGN (1449–1450).Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A. The Reign

of King Henry VI. Berkeley: University of Califor-nia Press, 1981; Perroy, Edouard. The Hundred

Years War . Trans. W. B. Wells. New York: Cap-

ricorn Books, 1965.

FRANC-ARCHERS. See CHARLES VII,MILITARY REFORMS OF

FRANCO-SCOTTISH ALLIANCEKnown as the ‘‘Auld Alliance,’’ the military

and political connection forged betweenFrance and SCOTLAND in the 1290s was ini-tiated and maintained by the parties’ mutual

hostility toward England. Besides provid-ing both countries with important militaryand diplomatic assistance throughout theHUNDRED YEARS WAR, the alliance alsostrengthened social, economic, and cultural

connections between Scotland and the Con-tinent.

The Franco-Scottish alliance was createdby an agreement concluded in October 1295between PHILIP IV and a twelve-man councilof Scottish nobles. The latter had seizedpower from John Balliol, whom EDWARD Ihad placed on the Scottish throne as an En-glish vassal. On the Scottish side, the mainimpetus for the alliance was Edward’s un-precedented demand that Balliol and his

chief nobles perform military service for theEnglish Crown in France. On the Frenchside, the agreement, which called for a jointattack on England, provided Philip withvaluable assistance in his campaign againstPLANTAGENET Aquitaine (see ANGLO-FRENCH

WAR OF 1294–1303). Although the envi-sioned attack never materialized, the alli-ance damaged the English war effort bywasting Edward’s limited resources and by

offering Scottish exiles a continental refuge.From 1309, Robert I, like all his successorsdown to Mary, Queen of Scots, maintainedthe French connection. Rather than provid-ing each other with direct military assis-tance, the allies used diplomatic cooperationand the threat of joint action to hamper En-glish military activity in either country. In1326, CHARLES IV and Robert I formally re-newed the alliance at Corbeil.

In the 1330s, the alliance made the ongo-

ing Anglo-Scottish war an important causeand component of the Anglo-French conflict.By breaking Scotland’s isolation, the allianceended Scottish fears of unfettered Englishconquest while giving the French a means ofdiverting English attention from AQUITAINE.In 1334, a year after EDWARD III’s victory atHALIDON HILL gave him effective control ofsouthern Scotland, PHILIP VI granted DAVID

II asylum in France. Philip then destroyed a

prospective Anglo-French settlement inAquitaine by suddenly demanding that anyagreement include the Scots. With the start

FRANCO-SCOTTISH ALLIANCE

129



of the Hundred Years War, growing Englishinvolvement in France allowed the Scots toexpel most English garrisons by 1341, whenDavid, who had fought with the French armyin 1340, returned to Scotland. Although the

Scottish king attempted to repay his ally in1346 by invading England in the weeks fol-lowing the English victory at CRECY, Davidwas captured at NEVILLE’S CROSS and even-tually forced to accept a truce.

In 1371, Robert II sent an embassy toFrance to formally renew the alliance withCHARLES V. In the 1380s, plans were laid for a

joint attack on England. French knights ar-rived in Scotland, but their condescendingmanner and unconcealed disdain for a

country they considered poor and backwardbred resentment among their hosts andeventually frustrated the planned invasion.Nonetheless, Robert III and the MARMOUSET

regime that ruled for CHARLES VI renewedthe alliance in 1391. In the early fifteenthcentury, France, divided by the FRENCH CIVIL

WAR and hard-pressed by HENRY V, soughtScottish military assistance. Individual Scot-tish knights, such as William Douglas, earl of

Douglas, who was at POITIERS in 1356, hadfought with French armies since the start ofthe war, but, in 1419, the dauphin made adirect appeal for Scottish aid, thus initiatinga five-year period during which sizableScottish armies landed in France. Scottishtroops played a large role in the defeat anddeath of THOMAS, DUKE OF CLARENCE, atBAUGE in 1421, and Scottish nobles werehighly rewarded for their services to theVALOIS, including John STEWART, earl of Bu-

chan, who became constable of France, andArchibald DOUGLAS, earl of Douglas, whobecame duke of Touraine. In 1424, Buchan,Douglas, and most of the Scots in the Frencharmy were slain at VERNEUIL. Although thatbattle ended the dispatch of whole armies toFrance, small groups of Scottish knightscontinued to serve the dauphin, who, afterhis coronation as CHARLES VII in 1429, re-cruited such men for his personal body-

guard, the Garde E´

cossaise, a force of ahundred Scottish ARCHERS that eventuallycontrolled access to the king.

In 1424, the English sought to break thealliance by releasing James I of Scotland, whohad been an English prisoner since 1406.Although James had pledged to halt the flowof Scottish soldiers to France as a condition

of his release, he renewed the alliance in 1428.By promising to send a new army to France,

James also obtained the county of Saintongeand the marriage of his daughter, Margaret,to Charles’s son, Louis. However, the mur-der of James in 1437 effectively ended Scot-tish involvement in the war for the nextdecade. Charles renewed the alliance with

James II in 1448, but internal instabilityprevented the Scots from participating in thefinal campaigns of the Hundred Years War.

The Franco-Scottish alliance continued until1560. See also DIPLOMACY.

Further Reading: Bonner, E. ‘‘Scotland’s ‘Auld

Alliance’ with France, 1295–1560.’’ History 84

(1999): 5–30; Laidlaw, James, ed. The Auld Alli-

ance: France and Scotland Over 700 Years. Edin-

burgh: University of Edinburgh, 1999; Wood,

Stephen. The Auld Alliance, Scotland and France:

The Military Connection. Edinburgh, Mainstream,

1989.

FREE COMPANIES. See ROUTIERS

FRENCH CIVIL WARThe French civil war of the 1410s grew out ofa struggle between the duke of Orleans andhis kinsmen the dukes of BURGUNDY to con-trol the royal government. Erupting in theyears following Orleans’s murder by Bur-gundy’s agents in November 1407, the civilwar bitterly divided the House of VALOIS

and the French nobility, thereby deprivingthe country of strong leadership. Deter-mined to crush their opponents, both theBURGUNDIANS and the ARMAGNACS soughtEnglish assistance and thus allowed HENRY

V to successfully resume the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR and overrun much of northern France.By taking advantage of the civil war, Henrywas eventually able to impose a peace set-tlement that promised the French Crown to

the English House of LANCASTER.The younger brother of CHARLES VI, Or-leans had opposed the political ascendancy

FREE COMPANIES

130





pro-Burgundian butchers of Paris, led bySimon Caboche and thus called CABOCHIENS,to riot and attack Armagnacs. For threemonths,theCabochienreignofterrorgrippedthe capital, overawing the court, stymieing

the dauphin’s reconciliation effort, andforcing the proclamation in late May of agreat reform measure known as the Ordon-

nance Cabochienne. However, the Cabochienviolence frightened the Paris burghers, whoin late July assisted the dauphin in negoti-ating the peace of Pontoise with the Arma-gnac leaders. With his support in the capitaleroding, Burgundy, after a failed attempt tokidnap the king, fled on 23 August. Enter-ing Paris on 1 September, the Armagnacs

quickly restored order, with the Gasconbands of the count of Armagnac ruthlesslysuppressing the Cabochiens.

Both French factions now turned for aid toHenry V, who had become king of Englandin March 1413. Burgundy asked for twothousand English troops to join him inoverthrowing the Armagnacs, for which theduke offered Henry various Armagnac AP-

PANAGES on the borders of Gascony. When

Henry demanded reactivation of the Treatyof BRETIGNY and recognition of his right tothe French Crown, Burgundy, whose ulti-mate control of the royal government wasthereby threatened, broke off talks. Facedwith similar demands, the Armagnacs of-fered to pay the balance of JOHN II’s ransom;to provide a handsome dowry upon Henry’smarriage to Charles’s daughter, CATHERINE

OF VALOIS; and to accept Lancastrian sover-eignty over an enlarged AQUITAINE. But when

Henry refused to renounce his claim to theFrench throne without at least the surrenderof NORMANDY, Anglo-Armagnac negotiationscollapsed in February 1415. The dauphinthen negotiated the peace of Arras, whichlifted Burgundy’s banishment, but did notrestore him to power and thus failed toreconcile the factions. In August 1415, Henryinvaded France and in the following Octoberwon a major victory at AGINCOURT. The bat-

tle, in which Burgundy took no part, deci-mated the Armagnac leadership—Orleansand Bourbon were captured and Albret

slain. With these losses, and with the deathsof the dauphin in December, of Berry in June1416, and of Charles’s next son, John, dukeof Touraine, in April 1417, the regime wasleft under the nominal leadership of the

king’s last surviving son, the DauphinCharles, and under the actual dominance ofArmagnac. While the English systemati-cally conquered Normandy, and Burgundythreatened Paris, the count made ruthlessuse of his Gascon bands to suppress disor-der and maintain Armagnac authority in thecapital. After Armagnac and the dauphinquarreled with the queen, who fled to Bur-gundy in November 1417, their unpopulargovernment was toppled by a Paris uprising

in May 1418. The dauphin fled to safety, butArmagnac and many of his supporters weremurdered by the mob, allowing Burgundyto reenter the capital on 14 July.

In September, with the dauphin in controlof southern France and Burgundy ruling inParis, the latter imposed the Treaty of Saint-Maur on the former, but the settlementnever took hold, and by January 1419, whenHenry captured ROUEN, both sides sought

some agreement that would allow them tounite against the English. Hoping to destroythe remaining Armagnacs and rule thecountry through the dauphin, Burgundymet his rival in July at Corbeil, where apreliminary settlement was reached. How-ever, at a second meeting on the bridge atMONTEREAU on 10 September, former ser-vants of Orleans in the dauphin’s entouragemurdered Burgundy, an act of vengeancethat wrecked any hope of reconciliation.

Realizing that he needed English assistanceto destroy his father’s murderer, PHILIP THE

GOOD, the new duke of Burgundy, enteredinto an ANGLO-BURGUNDIAN ALLIANCE, and in1420 brokered negotiation of the Anglo-French Treaty of TROYES, whereby the dau-phin was disinherited in favor of Henry Vand his heirs. The French civil war was nowsubsumed into the Hundred Years War.After the deaths of Henry V and Charles VI

in 1422, a largely Burgundian administrationin Paris governed Normandy and much ofnorthern France in the name of HENRY VI,

FRENCH CIVIL WAR

132



while the remnants of the Armagnac factiongoverned France south of the Loire for thedauphin, who in 1429 was crowned asCHARLES VII. Always a reluctant Englishally, Burgundy abandoned the House of

Lancaster in 1435 at the Congress of ARRAS,where he made peace with Charles on ex-tremely favorable terms. Although the rec-onciliation with Burgundy was humiliatingfor Charles, it won him Burgundian recog-nition of his title to the Crown and therebyeffectively ended the civil war.

Further Reading: Famiglietti, Richard. Royal


1420. New York: AMS Press, 1986; Perroy,

Edouard. The Hundred Years War . Trans. W. B.

Wells. New York: Capricorn Books, 1965;

Vaughan, Richard. John the Fearless. London: Long-

man, 1979.

FRENCH SUCCESSION CRISES(1316–1328). See SALIC LAW OF SUCCESSION

FRESNAY, BATTLE OF (1420)Fought on 3 March 1420, the Battle of Fresnayresulted in thedefeat of a large Franco-Scottish

army attempting to break the siege of Fresnay-le-Vicomte and halt the English advance intoMaine. The English victory secured HENRY

V’s hold on NORMANDY and extended his au-thority southward to Le Mans.

In the spring of 1420, while Henry V wasnegotiating the Treaty of TROYES, WilliamMONTAGU, fourth earl of Salisbury, one ofthe English king’s leading commanders,completed the conquest of Normandy. Afterreducing the last Norman strongholds, in-

cluding Chateau Gaillard, the famous castlebuilt by England’s Richard I, Salisbury, whowas lieutenant of Lower Normandy, led anarmy into Maine, where the reduction ofFrench-held fortresses continued. By earlyMarch, Salisbury laid siege to Fresnay. As-sembling a large army at Le Mans, Jean deRieux, marshal of France, marched north torelieve the fortress. Learning of Rieux’s in-tentions, Salisbury, while maintaining the

siege, dispatched a force under John Hol-land, earl of Huntingdon, to deal with theFrench marshal. Huntingdon lay in ambush

along the Le Mans road about three milessouth of Fresnay, where he encounteredRieux’s army on 3 March.

The sizes of the two forces engaged atFresnay are uncertain, but all indications are

that the French army was considerably lar-ger, being augmented by a newly arrivedcontingent of Scotsmen that may havenumbered over five thousand. The course ofthe battle is also unknown, although theoutcome may have been in part due tooverconfidence on the part of Rieux’s army,for the Scots thought so little of the possi-bility of defeat that they adopted the un-usual practice of marching into battle withtheir treasury. When the fighting ended, the

French had lost over three thousand menkilled or captured, with Rieux, five hundredmen-at-arms, and numerous Scottishknights among the latter. The English alsoseized 12,000 crowns from the Scottishtreasury and the standard of Sir WilliamDouglas, the Scottish commander. The Vitaet Gesta Henrici Quinti, one of the chief En-glish sources for the period, called the battlea ‘‘glorious triumph’’ (Burne, 146), while

another source put the English dead at theunlikely number of three.Whatever the actual casualty figures, the

battle destroyed Rieux’s army, strengthenedthe English position in the talks at Troyes,and ensured the fall of Fresnay. The Englishvictory also opened Maine to Salisbury, whowithin the following weeks advanced un-opposed to Le Mans, the capital of thecounty. See also MAINE, SURRENDER OF; SCOT-

LAND.

Further Reading: Burne, Alfred H. The Agin-court War . Ware, England: Wordsworth Editions

Ltd., 1999.

FROISSART, JEAN (c. 1337–c. 1404)Best known for his Chroniques de France,d’Angleterre et des pais voisins (Chronicles of France, England and the Adjoining Countries), adetailed narrative of the Anglo-French warsof the fourteenth century, Jean Froissart, a

native of Hainault, is the most famous con-temporary chronicler of the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR.

FROISSART, JEAN

133



Born at Valenciennes into what was likelya bourgeois family, Froissart was first rec-ognized for his talent as a poet and writer by

John of Hainault, the uncle of EDWARD III’swife, PHILIPPA. Heavily influenced by hisfellow Hainaulter, JEAN LE BEL, who had

chronicled the chivalrous exploits of John ofHainault at the English court in the 1320s,Froissart began gathering material for hisown history in the late 1350s. Interested infeats of arms and deeds of CHIVALRY, Frois-sart collected information by traveling aboutand interviewing those who had witnessedthe wars he sought to recount. In 1361, hetraveled to England, where he enteredthe service of Queen Philippa, to whom he

presented a now-lost rhyming chronicle ofevents between 1356 and 1360. The queen’spatronage gave Froissart access to people

who provided information and in-sights that eventually enabled himto write his own chronicle of theAnglo-French wars.

At the English court in the 1360s,

Froissart met the French hostagesgiven to guarantee the Treaty ofBRETIGNY, including Guy, count ofBlois, a future patron, and JOHN,DUKE OF BERRY, for whom Froissartwrote the poem, Dit dou bleu che-valier . In 1362, he witnessed thedeparture of EDWARD, THE BLACK

PRINCE, for AQUITAINE, and in 1364,he saw JOHN II return voluntarily tocaptivity in LONDON. He also in-

terviewed the newly arrived heraldbearing news of the Anglo-Bretonvictory at AURAY in September1364, and visited DAVID II at Edin-burgh during a 1365 tour ofSCOTLAND that resulted in thepoem Meliador , an Arthurian epicof thirty thousand lines. In 1366,while on a diplomatic mission forthe queen, he met the duke and

duchess of Brabant, who later be-came his patrons. After visiting theWest Country of England and thentraveling through BRITTANY, Frois-sart kept Christmas with the Black

Prince and his family in BORDEAUX and wit-nessed the baptism of the future RICHARD IIin January 1367. He joined the prince’s ex-pedition to Castile (see CASTILIAN WAR OF

SUCCESSION), but did not see the Battle ofNA JERA, having been sent back to England

before it occurred. In 1368, in a party thatincluded Geoffrey Chaucer, Froissart ac-companied Lionel, duke of Clarence, toItaly, where he made an extensive tour ofthe country. Receiving news of the queen’sdeath in August 1369, Froissart did not re-turn to England but entered the service ofthe duke and duchess of Brabant.

While there in the early 1370s, Froissart,although continuing to write poetry, also

began working on book 1 of a French prosechronicle of the Anglo-French wars. Overthe next thirty years, Foissart expanded and

Jean Froissart, clad in clerical garb, presents a copy of hisChronicles to Edward III. Erich Lessing/Art Resource, New

York.

FROISSART, JEAN

134



revised his chronicle until it encompassedfour books that recalled the major eventsand personalities in Britain, France, Spain,and the Low Countries between 1327 and1400. Totaling about three million words

and existing today in various overlappingversions, Froissart’s chronicle is a dramaticand sophisticated narrative, full of vividcharacters and descriptions that sometimessacrifice accuracy for dramatic effect. Com-pleted by 1373 and revised from 1376, book1 covers the period from 1327 to 1376 and islargely plagiarized from the work of Jean leBel. Completed in about 1387, book 2, cov-ering the years 1377–85, includes Froissart’sfamous account of the PEASANTS’ REVOLT OF

1381. Completed in the early 1390s, book 3covers the years 1385–89, while book 4,completed around 1400, takes the narrativeup to that year.

Froissart continued to travel into his six-ties. He witnessed the coronation of CHARLES

VI in 1380, and, after entering the service ofGuy de Blois in 1384, visited SLUYS to see thefleet being assembled for an invasion ofEngland and Angers to speak with men who

had fought in the BRETON CIVIL WAR in the

1340s. In 1389, he returned to Bordeaux,where he saw a tournament held by JOHN OF

GAUNT, duke of Lancaster, and in 1395, hereturned to England for the first time in al-most thirty years. Disappointed by his

reception at Richard II’s court, which hebelieved paled in comparison to the chival-rous court of his grandfather, Froissartnonetheless renewed some old acquain-tances and attended the king’s marriage toIsabella of VALOIS (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF

ENGLAND [1388–1409]) at Saint-Omer in theautumn of 1396. Retiring to the abbey ofCantimpre in about 1400, Froissart, whosename and chronicles were already widelyknown in Western Europe, died at some

unknown date in about 1404.Further Reading: Ainsworth, Peter F. Jean

Froissart and the Fabric of History: Truth, Myth,

and Fiction in the Chroniques. Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1990; Diverres, A. ‘‘Froissart’s Travels in

England and Wales.’’ Fifteenth-Century Studies 15

(1989): 107–22; Froissart, Jean. The Chronicle of

Froissart. Trans. Sir John Bourchier. 6 vols.

London: D. Nutt, 1901–3; Palmer, J. N. N., ed.

Froissart: Historian. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and

Littlefield, 1981.

FROISSART, JEAN

135



GGABELLE. See TAXATION AND WAR FINANCE

GARTER, ORDER OF THE

Founded by EDWARD III in the 1340s and stillin existence today, the Order of the Garter is

the most prestigious order of English CHIV-

ALRY. Created at the height of English suc-cess in the HUNDRED YEARS WAR, the orderimbued the PLANTAGENET cause with theideals of chivalry and justice and linked thegreatest military figures in the realm withthe king in a brotherhood of honor and duty.Conferring prestige on its members by itsexclusiveness and its opportunities for as-sociation with a popular and victorious

king, the order was soon regarded as theheight of chivalric distinction both in En-gland and on the Continent.

Because the earliest extant records of theorder date to 1416, the origins of the broth-erhood and the exact date of its founding areuncertain. Perhaps inspired by a voluntaryassociation of knights recently formed inLincoln, Edward, at the conclusion of a greattournament held at Windsor in 1344, sworea solemn oath to create his own brotherhood

of knights in the image of King Arthur’sRound Table. Although Jean FROISSART

dated the formal inauguration of the orderto 1344, the most probable date appears tobe 23 April 1348, the first St. George’s Dayafter the king’s victories at CRECY and CA-

LAIS. It is for that day that royal letters patentfirst order the royal chapel at Windsor to bemade ready for the king’s use, and it is in thefollowing November that the financial ac-

counts of EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, makenote of twenty-four garters given as gifts tomembers of the Society of the Garter. The

order was dedicated to St. George of Cap-padocia and St. Edward the Confessor andwas headquartered at Windsor, where themembers met in solemn convention everySt. George’s Day. For the members’ use, the

king renovated the Chapel of St. Edward atWindsor, which was rededicated as theChapel of St. Edward and St. George, andthe Great Tower at Windsor became the siteof annual Garter Day feasts.

The exact reasons for the order’s foundingand for selection of the blue garter as itssymbol are also uncertain. Legend statesthat the young countess of Salisbury droppedher garter while dancing at a royal ball. The

king, who was smitten with the countess,picked up the garter, fastened it to his ownleg, and then, in rebuke of the amusedcompany, spoke the words that would be-come the order’s motto: ‘‘Honi soit qui mal ypense’’ (Shame to him who thinks ill of this).Declaring that he would make the garter asymbol of honor, the king used it as thebadge for his chivalric society. Other ver-sions of the story claim that the countessherself spoke the famous words of reproof

or that the garter belonged to Joan of Kent,future wife of the Black Prince. Althoughmodern research does not totally dismissthis tale, it appears that the garter also hadsome earlier military associations. In the latetwelfth century, Richard I, while on crusade,used the garter as a symbol to rally his menat the sieges of Cyprus and Acre, and Ed-ward III had himself employed it to signalacross the battlefield at Crecy.

Whatever its origins, the garter symbol-ized an unbreakable bond of friendship andhonor between the king and the exclusive

136



company of twenty-five knights who joinedhim as members of the order. Given greaterdistinction by Edward’s military fame andhis ongoing quest to secure his just rights inFrance, the order tapped into the highest

and most cherished ideals of fourteenth-century chivalry. Among the foundingmembers were the greatest captains of theEdwardian war, including the Black Prince;HENRY OF GROSMONT, duke of Lancaster;Thomas BEAUCHAMP, earl of Warwick; Sir

John CHANDOS; and Jean de GRAILLY, captalde Buch. Among those who filled the firstvacancies were Sir Walter MAUNY, Williamde BOHUN, earl of Northampton; and theking’s son, JOHN OF GAUNT, duke of Lan-

caster. Because Edward proclaimed his so-ciety in France, SCOTLAND, BURGUNDY, andelsewhere, the order was soon well knownand highly regarded across Western Europe.Over the next century, various foreign rulersfounded similar orders, including JOHN II ofFrance, who established his rival Order ofthe STAR in 1351; JOHN IV, duke of BRITTANY,who founded his Order of the Ermine in1381; and PHILIP THE GOOD, duke of Bur-

gundy, who created the Order of the GoldenFleece in 1430.Further Reading: Collins, Hugh E. L. The Order

of the Garter, 1348–1461: Chivalry and Politics in

Late Medieval England. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2000; Keen, Maurice. Chivalry. New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press, 1984; Vale, Juliet.

Edward III and Chivalry: Chivalric Society and Its

Context, 1270–1350. Woodbridge, England: Boy-

dell Press, 1982.

GASCONYA province of southwestern France, Gasconycomprised the southern part of the duchy ofAQUITAINE, and for most of the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR constituted that portion of theduchy under effective PLANTAGENET rule.

Except for the Pyrenees to the south andthe Atlantic to the west, Gascony had noclear geographical boundaries. The province

was a shifting collection of territoriesextending southward and eastward fromBORDEAUX, the provincial capital, into Lan-

guedoc, and usually comprising such coun-ties and viscounties as Armagnac, ALBRET,Bigorre, Comminges, Fezensac, Lomagne,and Marsan. Settled by Basques in the latesixth century, Gascony became an indepen-

dent duchy in the ninth century. In the1050s, Gascony was acquired through mar-riage by the dukes of Aquitaine, who, al-though vassals of the French Crown, werelargely independent in their dual principal-ity, which they ruled from Poitiers in thenorth and Bordeaux in the south. Gasconyand the whole of Aquitaine came to theEnglish Crown in the twelfth century, whenEleanor, duchess of Aquitaine, marriedHenry, count of Anjou, who, as Henry II of

England, ruled a conglomeration of statescomprising most of western France. In theearly thirteenth century, most of thesePlantagenet holdings, including much ofAquitaine, were conquered by the Houseof CAPET. Only Gascony remained underPlantagenet rule. With few political, social,or economic connections to northern France,the Gascons, who found the lax rule of adistant king-duke preferable to the more

invasive authority of the Capetians, devel-oped firm ties to England, which in thethirteenth century became a profitable mar-ket for Gascon wine.

In 1259, the Treaty of PARIS, by recogniz-ing the English king as duke of Aquitaine,clarified Gascony’s political status. How-ever, the Plantagenets found their feudalsubordination as dukes in Aquitaine-Gas-cony to be incompatible with their role assovereign kings in England. As overlords of

Aquitaine, French monarchs could readilyinterfere in how the king-dukes ruled theirprovince, thereby provoking frequent dis-putes and occasional wars. During theANGLO-FRENCH WAR of the 1290s and againduring the War of SAINT-SARDOS in the 1320s,the French Crown confiscated the province.Thus, the Hundred Years War largelyevolved out of EDWARD III’s desire to exer-cise in Aquitaine-Gascony the same sover-

eign rule he enjoyed in England.During the fourteenth century, Gasconywas a main battleground of the war, serving

GASCONY

137



as a base for English operations and a targetfor French campaigns. In 1360, the Treaty ofBRETIGNY recreated the enlarged sovereignAquitaine of earlier centuries, which wasgoverned from Bordeaux by EDWARD, THE

BLACK PRINCE. However, the harsher ruleand higher taxes of a resident duke alienatedthe Gascon nobility, who appealed for aid toCHARLES V. By accepting the APPEAL OF THE

GASCON LORDS in 1369, Charles overthrewthe treaty and revived the war. By 1380,French campaigns reduced Plantagenet ruleto the environs of Bordeaux and coastalGascony, an area smaller than that held byEdward III at the start of the war.

Despite several VALOIS attempts to take

Bordeaux, this reduced Gascony saw littlemilitary activity in the fifteenth century andremained under English control until 1451,when the armies of CHARLES VII conqueredthe province. In 1452, John TALBOT, earl ofShrewsbury, recaptured Bordeaux with thesupport of the Gascons and briefly recon-stituted Plantagenet Gascony. However, on17 July 1453, Shrewsbury was defeated andkilled at the Battle of CASTILLON, which

marked the end of both English Gasconyand the Hundred Years War.Further Reading: Labarge, Margaret Wade.

Gascony, England’s First Colony: 1204–1453. Lon-

don: Hamish Hamilton, 1980; Vale, Malcolm.

English Gascony, 1399–1453. London: Oxford Uni-

versity Press, 1970.

GIEN, LEAGUE OF. See FRENCH CIVIL WAR

GLOUCESTER, DUKE OF. See HUMPHREY,DUKE OF GLOUCESTER; THOMAS OF WOOD-

STOCK, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER

GODFREY OF HARCOURT. See HAR-

COURT, GODFREY OF

GODONS/GODDAMS. See PROPAGANDA

AND WAR PUBLICITY

GOOD PARLIAMENT. See PARLIAMENT

GRAILLY, JEAN DE, CAPTAL DE BUCH(d. 1376)A confidant and companion-in-arms of ED-

WARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, Jean de Grailly III,captal de Buch, was the most loyal and

consistent supporter of the PLANTAGENETcause among the fourteenth-century Gasconnobility. Recognized by the chronicler JeanFROISSART for his CHIVALRY and daring featsof arms, the captal de Buch had a distin-guished military career, serving both theEnglish Crown and CHARLES THE BAD, kingof Navarre.

The title of ‘‘captal,’’ which Jean deGrailly inherited in 1343, was used by only afew of the most prominent noble families of

GASCONY, such as the lords of Buch. Jean’sfamily had been associated with the Houseof Plantagenet since the mid-thirteenthcentury, when the captal’s great-great-grandfather served Henry III. The lords ofBuch controlled an extensive territoryaround the city of BORDEAUX, and also ex-ercised certain seigniorial rights in the townand its suburbs. De Grailly was related tothe highest nobility of southwestern France,

being first cousin of Gaston Febus, count ofFoix; second cousin of Charles of Navarre;and son-in-law of Bernard-Aiz V, lord ofALBRET. Although a captal de Buch was oneof only three foreign knights to become afounding member of the Order of the GAR-

TER in the 1340s, there is some confusionover the exact identity of this knight. Somesources identify him as Jean III, while othersclaim the Garter knight was Piers or Pierrede Grailly, Jean’s grandfather. Despite his

age at the time—he was probably onlyslightly older than Prince Edward, then inhis late teens—Jean seems more likely. DeGrailly’s military prowess first drew atten-tion in 1351, when he and his band ofGascons surprised the French garrison atSaint-Antonin in southern Quercy. After athorough pillaging, the captal turned thetown into a base for further raids intoFrench-held Quercy and Rouergue.

In early 1355, the captal and other Gasconlords sailed to England to consult with ED-

WARD III on the war in Gascony. Saying that

GIEN, LEAGUE OF

138



it would greatly hearten the people, thecaptal suggested that Prince Edward be sentto the duchy, which he was later in the year.De Grailly accompanied the prince on theCHEVAUCHE E OF 1355 and a led a series of

raids into Poitou in early 1356. In September,the captal distinguished himself at the Battleof POITIERS, where he led a band of sixtyknights and a hundred ARCHERS around be-hind the French army. Raising the banner ofSt. George as a signal to the prince that hewas in position, the captal attacked the rearof JOHN II’s division as the Prince’s horse-men attacked its front. The ferocity of thecaptal’s attack disguised his small numbersand threw the French into confusion, help-

ing the English to eventually win the day. In1358, upon returning from crusade in East-ern Europe, the captal gallantly joined aband of French knights in defending thedauphin’s family from the J ACQUERIE rebelsat Meaux. In 1360, the captal joined EdwardIII’s RHEIMS CAMPAIGN, during which he wasdispatched by Prince Edward to discusswith Navarre the possibility of a joint attackon PARIS.

In 1361, following conclusion of the Treatyof BRETIGNY, de Grailly entered the service ofNavarre. In 1364, the captal commandedNavarre’s forces at COCHEREL, where he wasdefeated and captured by Bertrand duGUESCLIN. Released for no RANSOM by thetreaty concluded between Navarre andCHARLES V, the captal swore fealty to theVALOIS Crown, but returned to his Englishallegiance by 1367, when he fought withPrince Edward at NA JERA. The captal was

present at the sack of LIMOGES in 1370 andwas appointed constable of AQUITAINE in1371. On 23 August 1372, the French cap-tured de Grailly in an action near Soubise.Refusing to abandon his English allegiance,the captal spent the remaining years of hislife as a prisoner in Paris, where he died in1376, supposedly of sadness at news of theBlack Prince’s death.


Prince of Wales and Aquitaine. New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1978; Sedgwick, Theodore Dwight.

The Life of Edward, the Black Prince. New York:

Barnes and Noble, 1993; Sumption, Jonathan. The



GRANDE CHEVAUCHE E. See CHEVAUCHE E

OF 1355 ; CHEVAUCHE E OF 1373

GREAT COMPANY‘‘Great Company’’ was the name given bycontemporaries to a succession of largeROUTIER armies that terrorized southern andeastern France in the 1360s. Although large-ly Gascon at its core (see GASCONY), theGreat Company comprised many individualcompanies of various nationalities operating

under the loose overall leadership of onecaptain or a small group of captains. En-couraged by the breakdown of royal au-thority that followed the capture of JOHN IIat POITIERS in 1356, the Great Companyformed, dissolved, and reformed in re-sponse to new opportunities for adventureand profit. Both LOUIS, DUKE OF ANJOU, theFrench lieutenant in Languedoc, and ED-

WARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, duke of AQUITAINE,

worked to rid their domains of the GreatCompany and its constituent bands.Arnaud de CERVOLE, the former cleric

turned mercenary who became known asthe ‘‘Archpriest,’’ formed the first GreatCompany in the summer of 1357. Attractedby the Mediterranean trade of Marseille andthe rich papal court at Avignon, Cervolecollected more than two thousand menalong the Rhone on the Provencal frontier.In July, he marched unopposed through

Provence, burning and looting as he went.By September, Cervole’s bands had infestedalmost the whole province, forcing people toflee to the larger TOWNS, which were the onlycenters of effective resistance. Impressed bythe easy success of Cervole’s enterprise,other routier captains flocked to Provence inthe following months. In February 1358, theGreat Company captured and sacked therich pilgrimage town of Sainte-Maximin, but

Marseille, which Cervole invested with al-most three thousand men in March, provedtoo large and well defended to be taken by

GREAT COMPANY

139



assault. As the Great Company began to dis-solve, Cervole led a remnant northward toAvignon, where he accepted a papal offer of20,000 florins to leave Provence and restoreall castles seized by his men. By October, the

first Great Company had largely disin-tegrated.

A new Great Company formed in easternFrance in the summer of 1360. Said tonumber over four thousand men, it wasoriginally led by the Scottish routier SirWalter Leslie, but came eventually under thecontrol of a fluctuating body of captains whodirected the army’s movements through anadministrative staff and command hierarchycopied from the national armies of England

and France. Rather than seize strongpointsand live by levying tolls and taxes on thesurrounding areas, the Great Company of1360 marched through open country, hold-ing towns and entire provinces to RANSOM.Lured by the promise of wealth andadventure, men from many backgrounds,including criminals from the towns anddisplaced monks, flocked to the GreatCompany, which by early 1361 numbered

over twelve thousand men, less than half ofwhom were professional soldiers. In De-cember 1360, drawn by an ultimately falserumor that money collected for King John’sransom was hidden there, the Great Com-pany seized the Rhone town of Pont-Saint-Esprit, which proved an ideal base forraiding Avignon and the Rhone Valley. Al-though the pope excommunicated the menof the Great Company and proclaimed acrusade against them, and the French king

sent Marshal Arnoul d’AUDREHEM to orga-nize local defenses, the routiers only began todisband in March 1361 when their growingnumbers made the army too unwieldy tofeed or control.

After concluding an agreement with thepope, who promised payment in return forthe army’s withdrawal, many routiers, suchas the English captain Sir John HAWKWOOD,crossed the Alps to offer their services to the

warring Italian states. However, a remnantof the Great Company, now under the lead-ership of the Gascon captain Seguin de BA-

DEFOL, invaded Languedoc, where they werereinforced by routiers from the north left un-employed by the Treaty of BRETIGNY. How-ever, local defenses proved more effectivethan in Provence, and, by the end of 1361,

the Great Company, having been aban-doned by Badefol, moved east toward BUR-

GUNDY. Motivated by this threat, the royalgovernment raised an army to defend theprovince. On 6 April 1362, five thousandmen of the Great Company surprised anddefeated the royal army at BRIGNAIS. Al-though news of the battle spread panicacross eastern France, the Great Companyhad again become too large to maintain itselfand by early 1363 the routier army formed in

1360 finally dissolved.In the summer of 1363, Badefol recon-

stituted the Great Company in Languedoc.This new incarnation extracted a huge ran-som from Toulouse, before seizing the townof Brioude in Auvergne on 13 September.From Brioude, the Great Company, nowswollen to almost ten thousand men, over-ran the whole of Auvergne. Needing foodand forage, the routiers then seized the abbey

of Savigny, which put them within twelvemiles of Lyon and within striking distance ofBurgundy. In April 1364, Badefol concludedan agreement with the provincial estates ofAuvergne (see ESTATES, GENERAL AND PRO-

VINCIAL), promising to surrender Brioudeand release his prisoners for a royal pardon,a papal absolution, and 40,000 florins. Ba-defol and his men next took service withCHARLES THE BAD, king of Navarre, but didlittle to advance Navarre’s cause, preferring

instead to seize the town of Anse, near Lyon,which, like Brioude, became a base to pillagethe surrounding countryside until the rou-

tiers were once again paid to withdraw.From 1365 to 1367, many routier bands

were employed either by Bertrand du GUE-

SCLIN or the Black Prince during the Anglo-French intervention in the CASTILIAN WAR OF

SUCCESSION (see NA JERA, BATTLE OF). When theprince disbanded his army in the autumn of

1367, many of its elements coalesced into anew Great Company. This force did muchdamage in Auvergne and Burgundy, but

GREAT COMPANY

140



was unable to establish a base and soonbroke up into smaller groups that movednorth and west into Champagne and NOR-

MANDY. The last of these groups, a mainlyEnglish force that operated in Normandy

and BRITTANY, where Duke JOHN IV had topay them off, remained in being until early1369, when it was paid to disband by Sir

John CHANDOS. Although routier bands re-mained active in many provinces, the re-vival of royal authority under CHARLES Vand the general improvement in local de-fenses prevented any new force worthy ofthe name Great Company from formingthereafter.



phia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001;

Wright, Nicholas A. R. ‘‘ ‘Pillagers’ and ‘Bri-

gands’ in the Hundred Years War.’’ Journal of

Medieval History 9 (1983): 15–25.

GREAT SCHISM. See PAPACY AND THE

HUNDRED YEARS WAR

GREGORY XI. See PAPACY AND THE HUN-

DRED YEARS WAR

GUERANDE, TREATY OF (1365)Ratified on 12 April 1365 in the Church of St.Aubin in Guerande in southern BRITTANY,the Treaty of Guerande ended the longBRETON CIVIL WAR. Since 1341, the twoclaimants to the duchy had served as sur-rogates for each side in the Anglo-Frenchwar; the Breton conflict frequently providedthe kings of France and England with op-

portunities to attack each other’s interestseven during periods of formal truce. Al-though the treaty ended most fightingwithin the duchy, Brittany’s dukes, at-tempting to maintain their independence byplaying one side against the other, thereafterremained important political figures in theHUNDRED YEARS WAR.

With the death of CHARLES OF BLOIS at theBattle of AURAY in September 1364, his

cause, which was supported by France, col-lapsed, and most of the Breton towns andnobility submitted to Charles’s English-

backed rival, John de Montfort. Despite histies to EDWARD III and England, Montfort,within days of the battle, offered his homagefor the duchy to CHARLES V of France.Charles, accepting the verdict of Auray and

seeking to gain advantage out of the formalpeace that followed a lost war, helped me-diate a final settlement between Montfortand Charles of Blois’s widow, Jeanne dePenthievre, in whose right Blois had con-tested the duchy.

By the terms of the Treaty of Guerande, Jeanne de Penthievre surrendered herclaims, as niece of the last duke, to the ducaltitle and recognized John de Montfort asDuke JOHN IV. In return, Jeanne was allowed

to keep the title of duchess for the rest of herlife and was granted the county of Pen-thievre for herself and her heirs. She couldalso retain the lands of her father, both in-side and outside the duchy, a conglomera-tion of territories that brought her annualrents in excess of 10,000 livres. John IV alsoagreed that title to the duchy would revert to

Jeanne or her heirs should the Montfort linefail. The Treaty of Guerande was thus highly

favorable to France, for, despite his militaryexertions in the duchy and the victory of hiscandidate, Edward III saw his influence inBrittany slowly decline after 1365.

Further Reading: Jones, Michael. Ducal Brit-

tany, 1364–1399. London: Oxford University

Press, 1970; Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred

Years War . Vol. 2, Trial by Fire. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.

GUESCLIN, BERTRAND DU,

CONSTABLE OF FRANCE (c. 1320–1380)Bertrand du Guesclin was constable ofFrance and the most renowned French cap-tain of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Born into a cadet branch of a noble Bretonfamily, du Guesclin began his military ca-reer in the 1340s as a mercenary captain inthe service of CHARLES OF BLOIS, the French-backed claimant in the BRETON CIVIL WAR. DuGuesclin entered the service of JOHN II in

1351 and succeeded his father as lord ofBroons in 1353. Knighted by Arnoul d’AU-

DREHEM, marshal of France, in April 1354, du

GUESCLIN, BERTRAND DU, CONSTABLE OF FRANCE

141



Guesclin took a leading role in defendingRennes when it was unsuccessfully besiegedby HENRY OF GROSMONT, duke of Lancaster,in 1356–57. In December 1357, in recognitionof his service at Rennes, Dauphin Charles

(see CHARLES V) granted du Guesclin a lifepension of 200 livres and named him captainof Pontorson, a strategic stronghold on theBreton-Norman frontier. In 1359, he wascaptured at Pas d’Evran in BRITTANY by theEnglish captain Sir Robert KNOLLES, and in1360 fell again into English hands at Juigne,where he was captured by Sir Hugh CAL-

VELEY. To pay his RANSOMs, du Guesclinborrowed money from Philip, duke of Or-leans, the brother of John II and himself a

prisoner in LONDON.In May 1364, du Guesclin defeated the

forces of CHARLES THE BAD, king of NAVARRE,at COCHEREL in NORMANDY, where he hadbeen active in royal service since the Treatyof BRETIGNY ended the Anglo-French war in1360. In September 1364, after returning toBrittany and the service of Blois, du Gue-sclin was captured again when Blois wasslain at AURAY. Ransomed by Charles V, du

Guesclin resumed royal service, this time inthe southwest, where he assisted the king’sbrother, LOUIS, duke of Anjou, in ridding theregion of ROUTIERS. In an effort to install apro-French regime in Castile and therebyundermine the government of EDWARD, THE

BLACK PRINCE, i n AQUITAINE, du Guesclinintervened in the CASTILIAN WAR OF SUCCES-

SION by leading a routier army into Spain,where it placed Henry of Trastamare on theCastilian throne in 1365. The deposed king,

Pedro the Cruel, appealed to the BlackPrince, who restored Pedro by defeating andcapturing du Guesclin at NA JERA in April1367. Ransomed again by the king, de Gue-sclin led a new army into Castile and re-stored Trastamare to power for good in1369.

In 1370, Charles, having resumed the warby accepting the APPEAL OF THE GASCON

LORDS, appointed du Guesclin constable, rec-

ognizing in the Breton, who was more skilledat leading routiers than fighting pitchedbattles, the ideal commander for the Fabian

tactics the king planned to employ againstthe English. Du Guesclin used them suc-cessfully against the English CHEVAUCHE E of1370, which was led in part by Knolles. Ig-noring English attempts to draw him into

battle, du Guesclin waited until disputesamong the expedition’s leaders caused themto split up; the constable then fell on thecontingent under Sir Thomas Grandison,which he routed at Pontvallain on 4 De-cember. In 1371–72, du Guesclin led theFrench reconquest of Poitou and Saintongeand in 1373 he overran Brittany, driving outthe pro-English duke, JOHN IV. For the nextfive years, the constable led a series ofcampaigns that retook much of English

Aquitaine. In the highly successful cam-paign of 1377, which included the defeatand capture of Thomas Felton, the Englishseneschal of Aquitaine, at the Battle ofEymet on 1 September, du Guesclin camewithin a day’s march of BORDEAUX.

An extremely ugly man who was highlypopular with the people, but much less sowith the king’s political advisors, the con-stable lost favor in 1378 when he opposed

Charles’s decision to confiscate Brittany.Dispatched to Auvergne to fight routiers, duGuesclin died there of fever on 13 July 1380.He was interred at Saint-Denis on the king’sorders. See also CHIVALRY.

Further Reading: Vernier, Richard. The Flower

of Chivalry: Bertrand de Guesclin and the Hundred

Years War . Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press,

2003.

GUIENNE. See AQUITAINE; GASCONY

GUIENNE, DUKE OF. See LOUIS, DUKE OF

GUIENNE

GUINES, TREATY OF (1354)Negotiated at the traditional site of Anglo-French conferences in Guines on the bordersof the CALAIS enclave, the 1354 Treaty ofGuines gave EDWARD III most of southwest-ern France in exchange for his renunciation

of the French Crown. Although growing re-sistance to the treaty led JOHN II to repudiateit five months later, the agreement, had it

GUIENNE

142



taken effect, would have given Edward morethan he was to achieve with the Treaty ofBRETIGNY in 1360, when the French king washis captive.

In February 1354, John pardoned his

kinsman, CHARLES THE BAD, king of Navarre,for his murder of the royal constable Charlesof Spain. John thereupon admitted to hisfavor many of Navarre’s friends and advi-sors, who soon formed a council majority infavor of negotiating a permanent peace withEngland. Talks began at Guines in March1354 with the French expressing a willing-ness to cede territory and Edward a will-ingness to abandon his right to the FrenchCrown in return for such cessions. As sealed

on 6 April, the Treaty of Guines gave Ed-ward the duchy of AQUITAINE, as it had ex-isted on the eve of the War of SAINT-SARDOS

in 1323, and the provinces of Poitou, Maine,Anjou, Touraine, and the Limousin, all infull sovereignty. Edward was also to retainthe town and enclave of Calais. In return foralmost the whole of western France, Edwardagreed to make peace and to formally re-nounce his claims to the throne of France.

Accompanying the treaty was an agreementto extend the Truce of CALAIS to 1 April 1355.The terms of the treaty were to be kept secretuntil published by the pope in Avignon on1 October 1354, when both sides were tomake public renunciation of the specifiedrights and lands.

Without divulging the terms of theagreement, Edward had it ratified by anenthusiastic PARLIAMENT. In France, all En-glish military operations were halted andvigorous attempts were made to restrain

local garrison commanders from committingbreaches of the truce. Although John initiallyendorsed the treaty, opposition to it soondeveloped. John, count of Armagnac, refusedto honor the truce and in May launched acampaign against English garrisons in theAgenais. Within the council, opponents ofCharles of Navarre informed the king thatmany of the treaty’s leading advocates hadbeen complicit with Navarre in the murderof the constable, leading John to conclude

that the treaty had been urged upon him bymen whose first loyalty was to Navarre.

John decided to repudiate the treaty inSeptember and did not send representativesto Avignon until January 1355, three monthsafter the agreed-upon date. When the En-glish demanded ratification of the agree-ment, the French ambassadors rejected theidea that Edward could hold any Frenchterritories in full sovereignty, declaring that

no king of France could authorize the dis-memberment of his kingdom. The Treaty ofGuines was thus a dead letter and war re-sumed in earnest in 1355.




GUINES, TREATY OF

143



HHALIDON HILL, BATTLE OF (1333)Fought on 19 July 1333 near the town ofBerwick on the Anglo-Scottish border, theBattle of Halidon Hill, an encounter betweenthe forces of EDWARD III and a Scottish army

under Sir Archibald Douglas, guardian ofSCOTLAND, resulted in a decade-long Englishoccupation of southern Scotland and theeventual flight to France of Scotland’s DAVID

II. Although not a battle of the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR, Halidon Hill is important to thesubsequent conflict because it made Scot-land an important factor in the deteriorationof Anglo-French relations and because itwas among the first battlefield demonstra-

tions of the new defensive tactics the Englishwere to employ with such success at CRECY

and other Hundred Years War engagements.On 9 May 1333, Edward III joined Edward

Balliol, the English-backed claimant to theScottish throne, in besieging Berwick-on-Tweed. After suffering continual bombard-ment by both gunpowder ARTILLERY andtraditional siege engines, as well as furiousassaults from both land and sea, the Scottishgarrison negotiated a truce whereby they

agreed to surrender the town if not relievedby 11 July. Although some supplies and re-inforcements entered the town by that date,Edward rejected Scottish claims that Ber-wick was thus relieved and began executingthe hostages given him by the defenders.The garrison then negotiated a second trucethat was to run until 20 July. On 19 July,Edward, warned of the approach of Doug-las’s army, prepared to meet the enemy near

Halidon Hill, about two miles northwest ofBerwick.

The exact nature and location of the En-glish formations are uncertain. Some ac-counts put the English in line of battle alongthe top of Halidon Hill, while others say thatthey stood at the base of the hill. Edward’s

men deployed either in a single body ofmen-at-arms supported on each flank bygroups of ARCHERS or into three separateformations of men-at-arms with each flankedby bodies of archers. All that is certain is thatthe English stood on the defensive and weredismounted, and that the archers and men-at-arms worked in concert in some fashionto disrupt the enemy charge. From contem-porary accounts, it appears that the fire of

the archers severely disordered the Scottishattack, allowing the English knights to re-mount and do great execution among thefleeing Scots.

Berwick surrendered the next day, andBalliol was able to win control of much ofScotland over the next year. In May 1334,David II fled to France, and Balliol shortlythereafter gave Edward eight counties insouthern Scotland. In France, PHILIP VI de-clared that Scotland had to be included in

any negotiated settlement of the growingAnglo-French dispute over AQUITAINE, ademand that angered Edward—who con-sidered Scottish affairs a purely internalconcern—and thus became an importantfactor in the coming of the Hundred YearsWar. Although Edward launched annualcampaigns in Scotland until 1338, the Scots,by David’s return in 1341, had taken ad-vantage of Edward’s preoccupation with the

French war to regain much of the occupiedterritory.

144



Further Reading: DeVries, Kelly. Infantry War-

fare in the Early Fourteenth Century: Discipline,

Tactics, and Technology. Rochester, NY: Boydell

Press, 1996; Nicholson, Ranald. Edward III and the

Scots: The Formative Years of a Military Career,

1327–1335. London: Oxford University Press,1965.

HARCOURT, GODFREY OF (d. 1356)A member of one of the oldest noble familiesof NORMANDY, Godfrey of Harcourt, youngerbrother of John, first count of Harcourt, waslord of the important Norman fortressof Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte. Chronically inrebellion against PHILIP VI and JOHN II,Harcourt swore allegiance to EDWARD III in

the 1340s and played an important roleduring the 1346 CRECY campaign. Harcourt’scareer illustrates how the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR and the rival claims of PLANTAGENET

and VALOIS allowed disaffected noblemen toplay one side against the other as their owninterests and ambitions dictated.

In 1341, a quarrel over the marriage of alocal heiress led to the outbreak of a privatewar between Harcourt and his rival, Robert

Bertrand, lord of Bricquebec. Philip VI in-tervened and summoned the two men tocourt, where, in September 1342, their mu-tual animosity caused them to draw swordsin the king’s presence. Ordered, like hisrival, to appear before the PARLEMENT, Har-court instead returned to Normandy and ledhis supporters in a series of destructive raidson the property of Bertrand’s family.The kingdispatched an army, which, by March 1343,had captured Saint-Sauveur and crushed the

uprising. Having fled to Brabant, Harcourtwas convicted in absentia of lese-majeste (i.e.,committing an affront to the royal dignity)and punished with banishment andforfeitureof property.

In 1344, rumors that Harcourt had ac-cepted the lordship of Edward III were givensubstance when three of Harcourt’s formersupporters were captured fighting for theEnglish in BRITTANY. All three were con-

demned and executed. Although the rumorswere probably untrue, Philip’s hostilityconvinced Harcourt to come to England,

where he performed liege homage for hislands to Edward in May 1345. According tothe chroniclers JEAN LE BEL and Jean FROIS-

SART, Harcourt was thereafter instrumentalin persuading Edward to change the desti-

nation of his 1346 expedition from GASCONYto the Cotentin Peninsula of Normandy.Harcourt supposedly told the king that theNormans were unaccustomed to war andtheir lands were wealthy, full of ‘‘greattowns without walls where your men shallhave riches to last them twenty years’’(Sumption, 1:498). Although Normandy hadalways been a possible landing site—it wasthe closest landfall to Edward’s embarkationpoint at Portsmouth—Harcourt’s knowl-

edge of conditions in the region and promiseof local assistance from his supportersprobably influenced the king’s thinking.During the resulting campaign, Harcourtwas one of Edward’s chief advisors, leadingdestructive raids into the Norman country-side and fighting at Crecy as one of thecaptains of EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE.

After the battle, Edward III’s realizationthat he could not hold Normandy and that

CALAIS was a better potential base than anyNorman port convinced Harcourt to leavethe English army and return to Brabant,from which he negotiated his return to Phil-ip’s favor. In December 1346, he appearedbefore the French king and received hispardon and his lands. However, in the1350s, Harcourt became a strong supporterof CHARLES THE BAD, the rebellious king ofNavarre. Although Harcourt briefly aban-doned Navarre after the Treaty of GUINES in

1354, he refused to swear homage to Dau-phin Charles (see CHARLES V) as duke ofNormandy in January 1356 and thereafter,in defiance of the rest of his family, heldSaint-Sauveur against the duke. In No-vember 1356, Harcourt was killed in com-bat with ducal troops. The barony of Saint-Sauveur thereafter passed into the handsof Edward III, to whom Harcourt had deed-ed it.

Further Reading: Sumption, Jonathan. TheHundred Years War . Vol. 1, Trial by Battle.


HARCOURT, GODFREY OF

145



1991; Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred Years War .



HARFLEUR, SIEGE OF (1415)

In the late summer of 1415, the six-weekEnglish siege of the Norman town of Har-fleur initiated HENRY V’s campaign to re-open the HUNDRED YEARS WAR. Although thetown’s eventual capitulation gave the En-glish a valuable base on the Seine, the un-expected length and difficulty of the siegeweakened the English army and convincedHenry to withdraw toward CALAIS, a retreatthat boosted French confidence of victoryand led to the momentous Battle of AGIN-

COURT.On 11 August, an invasion force of about

ten thousand men sailed from Portsmouth.Landing near Le Chef de Caux at the head ofthe Seine Estuary on 14 August, Henrymade for the nearby town of Harfleur,which promised to be an admirable basefrom which to launch the conquest of NOR-

MANDY. Henry expected the town to fallquickly, but Raoul, Sieur de Gaucourt, and a

force of three hundred men reinforced thegarrison before the town was surrounded on18 August. Although THOMAS, duke ofClarence, the king’s brother, turned back aconvoy carrying weapons and supplies tothe garrison, Harfleur’s defenses were for-midable. The walls had twenty-six towersand three strong barbicans—fortified gate-ways with drawbridges and portcullises—amoat, and a garrison of several hundredmen commanded by Gaucourt and the

tough and experienced Sieur d’Estouteville.While English ships blockaded the Estu-

ary, the army surrounded Harfleur with aditch and stockade, thus cutting the town offfrom any hope of supply or reinforcement.Because attempts to undermine the wallswere foiled by skillful countermining, Henryturned to his ARTILLERY, which includedtwelve-foot-long cannon capable of throw-ing stones weighing nearly half a ton. Such

artillery could batter down any walls pro-vided it could be brought in close enough,for the French also had artillery. Employ-

ing heavy wooden screens and awkwardwheeled platforms, and suffering heavylosses in the process, the English inchedtheir big guns forward and began inflictingdamage on the walls.

However, before further progress couldbe made, Henry’s army was swept by dis-ease, probably dysentery and malaria fos-tered by summer heat, marshy camps, andcontaminated food and water. The conta-gion slew many of all ranks, although thenobility seemed particularly affected, thedead including Thomas Fitzalan, earl ofArundel; Michael de la Pole, earl of Suffolk;and Richard Courtenay, bishop of Norwich.To conclude the siege quickly, Henry or-

dered an all-night cannonade that led to thecapture of one of the barbicans on 18 Sep-tember. Forced to parley, Gaucourt agreedto surrender the town if his messages to thedauphin, LOUIS, DUKE OF GUIENNE, did notbring relief within four days. When no helparrived, the garrison opened the gates on 22September. Angered by Harfleur’s resis-tance, Henry eventually expelled most of thetownspeople, replacing them with English

merchants and craftsmen who could turnHarfleur into another Calais. Leaving thetown on 6 October, Henry and his muchreduced force marched northeast, comingbefore the end of the month to the battlefieldat Agincourt. Harfleur remained largelyunder English control until 1449. See alsoSIEGE WARFARE.



Burne, Alfred H. The Agincourt War . Ware,

England: Wordsworth Editions Ltd., 1999.

HAWKWOOD, SIR JOHN (c. 1320–1394)Although most of his career was spent inItaly, Sir John Hawkwood is the best-knownEnglish ROUTIER captain to emerge from theHUNDRED YEARS WAR.

John was the second son of GilbertHawkwood, a minor landowner in Essex.Although little is known for certain about

his life before the 1360s, Hawkwood proba-bly began his military career in France inabout 1340, the year of his father’s death. He

HARFLEUR, SIEGE OF

146



may have served in BRITTANY in the 1340sand is said to have fought at both CRECY in1346 and POITIERS in 1356. However, his firstservice in France may not have occurreduntil the RHEIMS CAMPAIGN of 1359–60, by

which time he had achieved knighthood.The first reliable information on Hawkwoodcomes from 1360, when, in the aftermath ofthe Treaty of BRETIGNY, he joined one of thecompanies of freebooters that formed theroutier army known as the Tard-Venus (Late-comers), which threatened Avignon byseizing the Rhone town of Pont-Saint-Espritin late December. Bought off by the pope,the routier force split up, with Hawkwood

joining the group that took service in Italy

with the marquis of Montferrat. In 1361,Hawkwood apparently returned to France,where, as a member of one of the brigandbands comprising the GREAT COMPANY, hefought against a French royal army atBRIGNAIS in April 1362.

By 1363, Hawkwood was back in Italy forgood, serving in a company of Anglo-Ger-man mercenaries (known in Italy as condot-tieri) led by a routier named Albert Sterz,

who was appointed captain-general of Pisain July. In December, Hawkwood replacedSterz as commander of the Pisan bands,which were then reorganized as the EnglishWhite Company. The White Company wascomposed of units known as lances, groupsof four or five men consisting of twomounted men-at-arms, a page, and one ortwo mounted ARCHERS. Although Hawk-wood’s personal force was only a smallfraction of the troops under his command, it

became the stable and seasoned core of mostof his armies. Defeated at Bongard in July1365, Hawkwood joined the remnants of theWhite Company with English mercenariesled by the illegitimate son of the duke ofMilan to form the Company of Saint George,which he left in 1366. In 1372, upon takingservice with Pope Gregory XI, Hawkwoodbecame captain-general of the EnglishCompany, an amalgamation of bands that

had previously fought under other captains.An effective leader of men and a bril-liant tactician, Hawkwood soon found his

services in high demand among the warringstates of Italy. He fought for the duke ofMilan from 1368 to 1372, for the pope from1372 to 1377, and then largely, but not ex-clusively, for the Republic of Florence after

1380. Besides being led by Hawkwood,whose military reputation soon spreadthroughout Italy, the English companieswere much prized because they fought dis-mounted and could operate at night andwell into the winter.

Hawkwood amassed great wealth fromfees, pensions, and RANSOMS, but, unlikeother condottieri, did not aspire to become anItalian lord. In the mid-1370s, he begansending money to England, where his agents

bought property and even made war loansto the Crown. In 1378, Hawkwood, like an-other famous routier captain, Sir RobertKNOLLES, secured a pardon from PARLIAMENT

for all youthful indiscretions. Also in 1378,Hawkwood married an illegitimate daugh-ter of the duke of Milan, thereby acquiring alarge dowry and powerful family connec-tions. In 1392–93, Hawkwood began pre-paring to liquidate his Italian assets for a

return to England, but he was still in Italywhen he died of a stroke on 16 March 1394.He was given a magnificent funeral by theFlorentine Republic and buried in the Ca-thedral of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence.

Further Reading: Fowler, Kenneth A. Medieval

Mercenaries. Vol. 1, The Great Companies. Oxford:

Blackwell, 2001; Fowler, Kenneth A. ‘‘Sir John

Hawkwood and the English Condottieri in Tre-

cento, Italy.’’ Renaissance Studies 12 (1998): 131–48;

Mallett, Michael. Mercenaries and Their Master:

Warfare in Renaissance Italy. Totowa, NJ: Rowmanand Littlefield, 1974.

HENRY IV, KING OF ENGLAND(1366–1413)Although a grandson of EDWARD III, Henry IV,the only son of JOHN OF GAUNT, duke of Lan-caster, by his first wife, Blanche, the daughterof HENRY OF GROSMONT, duke of Lancaster,was not the direct heir to the PLANTAGENET

throne, and his deposition of his cousin RI-CHARD II in 1399 broke the natural line ofsuccession. Despite this dubious right to the

HENRY IV, KING OF ENGLAND

147



English throne and an even more tenuousclaim to the French throne, Henry came topower by criticizing his predecessor’s peacepolicy and demanding renewal of the HUN-

DRED YEARS WAR. However, years of internal

rebellion and physical illness preventedHenry from taking advantage of the FRENCH

CIVIL WAR and the mental illness of CHARLES VIto invade France and openly challenge thelegitimacy of the House of VALOIS.

Little is known of Henry’s childhood,which was probably spent on various Lan-castrian estates throughout the kingdom. Heassumed the title earl of Derby in 1377 andwas knighted by his father in 1378. In about1381, he married Mary de Bohun, the

daughter and heiress of the earl of Hereford,who had extensive land holdings in Walesand the West Country. Derby served withhis father in SCOTLAND in 1384 and remainedin England to oversee Lancastrian interestswhen the duke left the realm to pursue hisclaim to the Castilian Crown in 1386. In1387–89, Derby became one of the LordsAppellant, a group of five nobles who wereso named because they appealed (i.e., ac-

cused) the king’s favorites of treason. Led byDerby’s uncle, THOMAS OF WOODSTOCK, dukeof Gloucester, the Lords Appellants usedtheir control of the so-called Merciless PAR-

LIAMENT to secure the execution or banish-ment of most of the king’s supporters.Although Derby was more moderate thanhis older colleagues, he commanded theAppellant forces that defeated a royalistarmy at Radcot Bridge in December 1387.

Upon his father’s return in 1389, Derby

withdrew from politics. In July 1390, he joined the Teutonic Knights’ crusade in Li-thuania and in 1392 he went on pilgrimage to

Jerusalem. In 1397, following Richard’s de-struction of Gloucester and the other seniorAppellants, Derby informed the king thatThomas Mowbray, duke of Norfolk, who,like the earl, had been pardoned for his rolein the events of 1387–89, had warned himthat Richard meant to kill them both. When

Mowbray denied this, Richard arranged forthe dispute to be settled by trial of battle atCoventry. However, at the last minute, Ri-

chard halted the combat and declared bothmen guilty; the king then exiled Norfolk forlife and Derby for ten years. In February1399, Lancaster died. With Derby in PARIS,Richard declared the earl banished for life

and confiscated all the Lancastrian estates.Announcing that he came only to regain hisduchy, Derby landed in Yorkshire on 4 July,while Richard was on campaign in Ireland.

The English nobility, fearful of the prece-dent set by the king’s confiscation of a sub-

ject’s property, and distrustful of Richard’sincreasing taste for arbitrary government,rallied to Derby. On 30 September, a monthafter the king surrendered to his cousin inWales, Parliament deposed Richard and

gave the Crown to Derby, who, as Henry IV,became the first king of the House of LAN-

CASTER. Although the new king denouncedhis predecessor’s peace policy and declaredhis intention of renewing the war, Henryratified the Truce of LEULINGHEN in May1400. The suspicious death of Richard inFebruary 1400 and the outbreak of a series ofanti-Lancastrian uprisings over the next sixyears left Henry too insecure to consider

campaigning in France. However, he sig-naled his fundamental hostility to the Valoisby refusing to allow Richard’s queen, Isa-bella, daughter of Charles VI (see ISABELLA,QUEEN OF ENGLAND [1388–1409]), to return toFrance. When he finally did so in August1400, Henry kept her dowry and jewels,declaring them payment toward the arrearsof JOHN II’s RANSOM.

In France, PHILIP THE BOLD, duke of BUR-

GUNDY, and LOUIS, DUKE OF ORLEANS, dis-

agreed over the best response to Henry’susurpation. The former supported mainte-nance of the truce while the latter advocateddriving the English from GASCONY and CA-

LAIS while Henry was distracted by inter-nal rebellion. Half-hearted campaigns werelaunched against the English holdings, but,following the murder of Orleans by agentsof the new duke of Burgundy, JOHN THE

FEARLESS, in 1407, the French were them-

selves distracted by internal division. After1406, when uprisings in Wales and amongthe English nobility were at last quelled,

HENRY IV, KING OF ENGLAND

148



Henry suffered increasingly from illhealth. Between 1409 and 1411,England was ruled by Prince Henry,and only suggestions that he abdi-cate spurred the king to resume

control of the government. Henry’sillness prevented him from takingany significant advantage of theFrench civil war, although in 1412he made agreements with both theBURGUNDIANS and the ARMAGNACS,promising to help each fight theother in return for territorial con-cessions. The Treaty of BOURGES,concluded with the Armagnacs inMay 1412, resulted in the sending to

France of an expedition under theking’s son, THOMAS, DUKE OF CLAR-

ENCE. Although a temporary settle-ment of the civil war overthrew theagreement, Clarence forced hiserstwhile allies to pay him a largeransom in the Treaty of BUZANCAIS.With a feeble Anglo-French trucestill in effect, Henry IV died on 20March 1413, leaving renewal of the

war to his son, HENRY V.Further Reading: Kirby, John Lavan.

Henry IV of England. London: Constable,

1970; Wylie, James Hamilton. The History

of England under Henry the Fourth. 4 vols.

Reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1969.

HENRY V, KING OF ENGLAND(1387–1422)Henry V, the eldest son of HENRY IV and

second king of the House of LANCASTER,exploited the FRENCH CIVIL WAR to success-fully reopen the HUNDRED YEARS WAR. Abrilliant soldier and natural leader, Henryconquered NORMANDY and achieved formalFrench recognition as heir to the VALOIS

throne. Although he has traditionally beenportrayed as the most heroic and chivalrousof English monarchs, particularly by Wil-liam Shakespeare in the play Henry V , some

modern historians have questioned thisview, seeing Henry as cruel, bigoted, andself-righteous.

Henry was twelve in 1399 when his fatherdeposed his cousin, RICHARD II. In 1403,Henry was wounded at the Battle ofShrewsbury, where royal forces crushed thePercy Rebellion. After campaigning for hisfather in Wales, the prince took charge of the

government in about 1409 when the king’shealth began to fail. Although largely fic-tional, the wild, rebellious prince of Shake-speare’s Henry IV plays may reflect actualdisagreements from this period between fa-ther and son. In 1411, the king resumedcontrol of the government, reversing hisson’s pro-BURGUNDIAN foreign policy byconcluding the Treaty of BOURGES with theARMAGNACS. On the king’s death in March

1413, Henry, acting both on a desire to unitethe country around the new dynasty and ona firm belief that he was rightful king of

Thomas Hoccleve presents a book of poetry to Henry V. HIP/


HENRY V, KING OF ENGLAND

149



France, began preparing for war. Negotiat-ing both with the Armagnac regime cur-rently in power in PARIS and with theBurgundian leader, JOHN THE FEARLESS, dukeof BURGUNDY, Henry purposely made de-

mands he knew neither side could meet,including the surrender of Normandy andAQUITAINE, the payment of 2 million crowns,and the hand of CHARLES VI’s youngestdaughter, CATHERINE OF VALOIS. When bothsides rejected these terms, Henry used theFrench refusal as justification for war.

Before embarking for France, Henrysought to quell all internal opposition.Staunchly orthodox, he sparked the Old-castle Rebellion early in 1414 by allowing his

former friend, Sir John Oldcastle, to becondemned to death for Lollardy, an Englishheretical movement. Although the uprisingwas crushed, Oldcastle remained at largeuntil 1417, when he was captured andburned. In late 1413, the king tried to makepeace with his father’s opponents by ex-huming the body of Richard II and giving itrespectful reburial at Westminster Abbey.However, the gesture did not prevent the

Southampton Plot, a noble conspiracy tomurder the king and replace him with Ri-chard’s supplanted heir, Edmund Mortimer,earl of March. Led by Henry, Lord Scrope ofMasham, the king’s friend, and Richard, earlof Cambridge, the king’s cousin, the plotwas uncovered on the eve of Henry’s de-parture in 1415, and the conspirators werequickly tried and executed.

Landing in France on 14 August 1415,Henry immediately laid siege to HARFLEUR,

which, thanks to illness among the English,held out until 22 September. With his armyof ten thousand reduced to about six thou-sand, Henry set out on 6 October, intendingto march northeast through Normandy toCALAIS. Harassed by the enemy, and weak-ened and demoralized by bad weather andlack of supply, the English army was drivenforward by Henry’s energy and example.On 25 October, when an encounter with the

numerically superior French could not beavoided, Henry fought and won a stun-ningly unexpected victory at AGINCOURT.

The battle cemented Henry’s reputation as ageneral and generated great enthusiasm forthe war in England. Aiming, unlike hisgreat-grandfather, EDWARD III, to secure thewhole of France rather than just sovereignty

over particular provinces, Henry abandonedthe CHEVAUCHE E for campaigns of siege andoccupation (see SIEGE WARFARE). After se-curing additional funding from PARLIAMENT

and concluding the Treaty of CANTERBURY

with the Emperor Sigismund in 1416, Henryinvaded Normandy in 1417. Considering theNormans his subjects, Henry severely pun-ished any English soldiers who ill treatedthe local population. The NORMAN CAMPAIGN

concluded with the capture of ROUEN, which

capitulated in January 1419 after a gruelingsix-month siege marked by Henry’s cruelrefusal to allow the poor people expelledfrom the city to pass safely through his lines.With the onset of winter, most died huddledin a ditch outside the city walls.

The fall of Rouen demoralized the Frenchcourt, which had been under Burgundianinfluence since May 1418. In September1419, servants of the dauphin (see CHARLES

VII) murdered Burgundy at MONTEREAU,convincing PHILIP THE GOOD, the new dukeof Burgundy, to ally himself with Henry,who imposed the Treaty of TROYES on theFrench in May 1420. Besides creating anANGLO-BURGUNDIAN ALLIANCE, the treatydisinherited the dauphin in favor of Henry,who immediately became regent of France,and arranged a marriage between Henryand Catherine, which occurred on 2 June.Henry and his wife returned to England

in February 1421, following the successfulsiege of MELUN. In March, Henry’s brotherand heir, THOMAS, DUKE OF CLARENCE, wasslain at BAUGE, the first English defeat sinceHenry restarted the war in 1415. Returningto France on 10 June, the king visited Paris,which was now under Anglo-Burgundiancontrol. Leaving the capital to his uncle,Thomas BEAUFORT, duke of Exeter, Henrylaid siege to MEAUX in October. The difficult

winter operation, which was brightenedonly by news of the birth of Henry’s son inDecember, sapped English morale and

HENRY V, KING OF ENGLAND

150



weakened the king’s constitution. In June1422, only a month after the surrender ofMeaux, Henry contracted what was likelydysentery. He died at Vincennes on 31 Au-gust and was succeeded on the English

throne by his nine-month-old son, HENRY VI,whose reign saw the eventual loss of allEnglish territory in France except Calais.

Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher, Henry

V. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992;

Harriss, G. L., ed. Henry V: The Practice of

Kingship. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985;

Labarge, Margaret Wade. Henry V: The Cautious

Conqueror . New York: Stein and Day, 1976;

Seward, Desmond. Henry V: The Scourge of God.

New York: Viking, 1988.

HENRY VI, KING OF ENGLAND(1421–1471)The only child of HENRY V and CATHERINE OF

VALOIS, Henry VI ruled England during thelast decades of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.Although the only English king to becrowned king of France, Henry’s mentalinstability prevented him from functioningeffectively as monarch in either kingdom

and contributed to the eventual expulsion ofthe English from France.Born at Windsor on 6 December 1421,

Henry was less than a year old when hesucceeded his father as king of Englandand his maternal grandfather, CHARLES VI,as king of France. Having conquered NOR-

MANDY and northwestern France, Henry Vwon official recognition as heir to the Frenchthrone with the Treaty of TROYES in 1420.However, Henry VI’s maternal uncle, the

Dauphin Charles, rejected this settlementand maintenance of Henry’s French claimsand possessions required a continuous mil-itary effort. During the king’s minority, thelongest in English history, Henry’s eldestpaternal uncle, JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD,conducted both the war and the Englishadministration in France, while the King’syounger uncle, HUMPHREY, DUKE OF GLOUCE-

STER, presided in England over a minority

council.Acting in the child king’s name, thoughunable to make any permanent decisions

affecting his Crowns, the minority adminis-tration, through alliance with PHILIP THE

GOOD, duke of BURGUNDY, sought to main-tain Henry V’s conquests while extendingHenry VI’s authority into dauphinist France.

Despite English victories at CRAVANT in 1423and VERNEUIL in 1424, the advent of JOAN OF

ARC in 1429 inspired the French to break thesiege of ORLEANS and allowed the dauphinto be crowned at Rheims as CHARLES VII.Thus, after 1430, the English were on thedefensive, and their efforts focused more onmaintaining Henry’s French possessionsthan on securing his French Crown. Thedeath of Bedford and Burgundy’s aban-donment of the English cause at the Con-

gress of ARRAS in 1435, followed by the lossof PARIS in 1436, severely diminished theability of the English government to do ei-ther.

Crowned at Westminster in 1429 and atParis in 1431, Henry was declared of full agein 1437. He was eager to exercise his officeand to have his will in matters that inter-ested him, such as the royal foundations ofEton College and King’s College, Cam-

bridge, which the king planned in minutedetail and to which he diverted funds thatwere urgently needed for the French war.However, he had little understanding of theworkings of government, and was easilypersuaded by self-interested courtiers togrant titles, lands, offices, pardons, andmonetary rewards without any thought tothe merits or consequences of the request.

An exceptionally pious man, Henry, un-like his father, had no interest in military

affairs. In the 1440s, by ineffectively pursu-ing a peace policy, Henry allowed England’smilitary position in France to deteriorate. In1444, following the failure of a CHEVAUCHE E

ineptly led by John BEAUFORT, duke ofSomerset, Henry opened peace talks, whichled to conclusion of the Truce of TOURS andthe king’s marriage to Charles VII’s kins-woman, MARGARET OF ANJOU. Pressed by hiswife, and anxious to achieve a final settle-

ment in France, Henry, in 1445, secretlyagreed to surrender Maine, although the re-sistance of his officers in the province

HENRY VI, KING OF ENGLAND

151



delayed the actual handover until 1448. Thesurrender of Maine and the French re-sumption of the war bought much ill will inEngland for the king’s chief minister, Wil-liam de la POLE, duke of Suffolk. When the

French overwhelmed a poorly defendedNormandy, public outrage drove Suffolkfrom office in early 1450. The duke’s fall wasfollowed by JACK CADE’S REBELLION, whichprotested military failure in France and thebreakdown of royal justice in England, andwhich gave voice to the frustration of En-glish noblemen who felt themselves ex-cluded from royal patronage by a clique offavored courtiers.

Chief among these disaffected magnates

was RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK, who was heirpresumptive to the childless king. Especiallyangered by Henry’s support of EdmundBEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, who had hisown claim to the throne and whom publicopinion blamed for the loss of Normandy,York made several abortive attempts to forcehis way into the royal circle. He did notsucceed until 1453, when Henry suffered aserious mental breakdown that left him

completely incapacitated. In early August,Henry fell suddenly into a stupor that ren-dered him incommunicative. The exactcause and nature of Henry’s ailment remainmysterious. One contemporary chroniclerclaimed that it commenced when the kingsuffered a sudden shock, a suggestion thathas led modern historians to speculate thatHenry fell ill when he received the devas-tating news of the Battle of CASTILLON, thedefeat that ended the Hundred Years War.

Although rumors that Henry was childish orsimple had been whispered about the king-dom before 1453, he showed no signs ofmental illness until that date. He may haveinherited a genetic predisposition to suchillness from his grandfather, Charles VI,whose recurring bouts of violent madnesswere an important cause of the FRENCH CIVIL

WAR and the reopening of the HundredYears War. Henry displayed none of the

frenzy that had characterized his grandfa-ther’s illness, but he neither recognized norunderstood anyone, could not stand or

walk, and required round-the-clock carefrom his servants. When he finally recoveredaround Christmas 1454, Henry rememberednothing of the previous seventeen months,including the birth of his son, Prince Ed-

ward. Henry was again unwell in 1455,when his presence at the Battle of St. Albans,the first battle of the Wars of the Roses, mayhave triggered another episode.

From 1456, surviving accounts of Henry’scondition depict him as weak-minded, re-quiring inordinate amounts of sleep, andgiven almost entirely to a routine of reli-gious devotions. After 1457, the king foundseclusion attractive, and the queen, who wasthen engaged in a power struggle with York,

often housed him in monasteries, away fromany but loyal courtiers. Although the kinghad periods of lucid activity, he was largelya cipher during the last fifteen years of hislife, a symbol of monarchy rather than afunctioning monarch. The political factionsthat coalesced around the queen and Yorkafter 1454, when Parliament appointed theduke to the first of two royal protectorates,became the basis of the Lancastrian and

Yorkist parties, branches of the House ofPLANTAGENET that fought for control of theEnglish government during the Wars of theRoses, a civil war that was largely a result ofHenry’s incapacity.

In 1461, Henry was deposed by York’s son,who took the Crown as Edward IV. Henryspent the next four years in exile in SCOT-

LAND, or, after his family left for France, inhiding in northern England, where he wascaptured in 1465. Imprisoned in the Tower of

London until a Lancastrian revival restoredhim to the throne in October 1470, Henrywas a mere figurehead for the new regime.In April 1471, Edward reentered LONDON

and returned Henry to the Tower. When thebattle death of Henry’s son ended any needto keep the ex-king alive, he was murderedin the Tower on 21 May 1471. See also FOR-

MIGNY, BATTLE OF; MAINE, SURRENDER OF.Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A. The Reign

of King Henry VI. Berkeley: University of Califor-nia Press, 1981; Watts, John. Henry VI and the

Politics of Kingship. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

HENRY VI, KING OF ENGLAND

152



versity Press, 1996; Wolffe, Bertram. Henry VI.


HENRY OF GROSMONT, DUKE OFLANCASTER (c. 1310–1361)

A kinsman of EDWARD III and revered an-cestor of the House of LANCASTER, Henry ofGrosmont, first duke of Lancaster, wasamong the most important of England’smilitary and diplomatic leaders during thefirst decades of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Called Henry of Grosmont to distinguishhim from his father, Henry, earl of Lan-caster, Grosmont was knighted in 1330when he was called to PARLIAMENT in placeof his blind father. Descendents of Henry III,

his family led the baronial opposition toEDWARD II, who executed Grosmont’s uncle,Thomas, earl of Lancaster, in 1322. AlthoughGrosmont’s father supported the depositionof Edward II in 1327, his relations with theking’s supplanters, Queen Isabella (see ISA-

BELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND [c. 1292–1358])and her lover, Roger Mortimer, earl ofMarch, were equivocal and may have keptGrosmont from court until Edward III

overthrew his mother and March in 1330.Being of similar age, Grosmont quickly wonthe king’s confidence. In April 1331, he ac-companied the king to France, where, dis-guised as a merchant, Edward had a secretmeeting with PHILIP VI. Grosmont alsoserved in the Scottish campaigns of the1330s and in April 1336 was appointedking’s lieutenant in SCOTLAND.

In March 1337, Edward ennobled Gros-mont as earl of Derby, one of six young

noblemen given earldoms to enlarge theEnglish military command in preparationfor war with France. In August 1337, Derbyled a raid on Cadzand. In 1338, while in theLow Countries with the king, he partici-pated in negotiations that created Edward’sANTI-FRENCH COALITION, and he took part inthe brief THIERACHE CAMPAIGN. In June 1340,Derby fought at SLUYS and in September waspresent at the siege of TOURNAI and helped

negotiate the Truce of ESPLECHIN. He spentmost of the following winter in the LowCountries in the custody of the king’s cred-

itors. Beginning in 1343, Derby served as theking’s representative in a series of conti-nental negotiations that concluded in 1345with the failed Anglo-French peace talksheld at Avignon under the auspices of Pope

CLEMENT VI (see AVIGNON PEACE CONFER-ENCE).

Made lieutenant of AQUITAINE on 13March 1345, Derby launched a highly suc-cessful campaign that culminated in Octoberwith the battle of AUBEROCHE, a victory thatbrought the Agenais and most of Perigordand Quercy under PLANTAGENET control.Auberoche increased both the earl’s reputa-tion and his wealth; his great London palace,the Savoy, was built with the RANSOMS taken

in this campaign. In 1346, Lancaster—he hadsucceeded his father in 1345—conducted asuccessful CHEVAUCHE E that captured Poitiersand extended English authority into Sain-tonge. In 1347, he laid down his lieutenancyin Aquitaine to participate in the siege ofCALAIS and then helped negotiate the Truceof CALAIS on the town’s fall. He became afounding member of the Order of the GAR-

TER in 1348 and, in 1351, became, as reward

for his services, only the second duke inEnglish history (after EDWARD, THE BLACK

PRINCE). In an unprecedented show of favor,Edward III also gave the duke a lifetimegrant of palatine powers in the county ofLancaster, thereby making Lancaster virtualruler of his own APPANAGE.

Lancaster led another chevauche e in Aqui-taine in 1349, fought at the Battle ofWINCHELSEA in 1350, and was involved innegotiation of the abortive Treaty of GUINES

in 1354. Appointed royal lieutenant in BRIT-

TANY in September 1355, he oversaw theEnglish war effort in that duchy until 1358and also conducted a successful chevauche ein NORMANDY in 1356. Lancaster also par-ticipated in the RHEIMS CAMPAIGN of 1359–60and was chief English negotiator at the talksthat resulted in the Treaty of BRETIGNY in1360. However, he did not live to see thetreaty implemented, dying at Leicester Cas-

tle on 23 March 1361. Because of the Livre deseyntz medicines, a French memoir written byLancaster in 1354, we know a great deal

HENRY OF GROSMONT, DUKE OF LANCASTER

153



more about his personality than is commonfor nonroyal figures of the fourteenth cen-tury.

Further Reading: Fowler, Kenneth. The King’s

Lieutenant: Henry of Grosmont, First Duke of Lan-

caster, 1310–1361. London: Elek, 1969.

HERRINGS, BATTLE OF THE (1429)Known also as the Battle of Rouvray, for thevillage near which it was fought, the Battle ofthe Herrings began with a French attack onan English supply train carrying herringsand other Lenten commodities to the be-siegers of Orleans. Deriving its popular namefrom this circumstance, the English victorygreatly heartened the city’s attackers and

severely discouraged its defenders. The bat-tle initiated talks for the surrender of Orleansand prepared the way for the advent of JOAN

OF ARC by intensifying the atmosphere ofdefeatism that surrounded the dauphin (seeCHARLES VII) and his supporters.

In October 1428, English forces underThomas MONTAGU, earl of Salisbury, laidsiege to Orleans, an important dauphinisttown on the Loire about seventy miles

southwest of PARIS. Because Salisbury de-pended on provisions brought from Paris,the French commander at Orleans, John, theBastard of Orleans (see JOHN, COUNT OF DU-

NOIS AND LONGUEVILLE), persuaded the dau-phin to send an army to disrupt Englishsupply lines. If successful, such an actionpromised to divert much needed provisionsfrom the besiegers to the besieged and tostem growing criticism within the town ofthe Bastard’s seeming inaction. On 12 Feb-

ruary, the French army, commanded byCharles of Bourbon, Count of Clermont, in-tercepted a large English convoy of threehundred wagons, commanded by Sir JohnFASTOLF, about twenty-five miles north ofOrleans. Clermont’s army numbered be-tween three and four thousand men, whileFastolf led a force of five hundred to athousand archers and a similarly sized bodyof Parisian militia.

Fastolf formed his wagons into a circleand ordered his archers to ring the laagerwith sharpened stakes. The French opened

the battle with a highly effective ARTILLERY

bombardment. However, rather than waitfor the guns to decimate the English, whocould do nothing but hold their ground orretreat, a contingent of Scotsmen led by Sir

John Stewart of Darnley, constable of SCOT-LAND, attacked the English laager, therebysilencing the French guns and drawing En-glish longbow fire. The archers killed Stew-art and drove back the Scots in disorder.Clermont, perhaps believing that the artil-lery and the Scots had weakened the enemy,ordered a cavalry charge. When the archersand stakes disrupted the assault, the Englishslipped out from the wagons and attackedthe French knights from the flanks and rear.

With Clermont wounded, the French attackcollapsed and the dauphinist forces with-drew, thus allowing the siege to continueand causing morale at the dauphin’s court,and especially in Orleans, to plummet. Seealso ORLEANS, SIEGE OF



Ltd., 1999; DeVries, Kelly. Joan of Arc: A Military

Leader . Stroud, England: Sutton Publishing, 2003.

HOLLAND, THOMAS, EARL OF KENT(c. 1315–1360)Named king’s lieutenant in BRITTANY in 1354and royal lieutenant in France in 1360,Thomas Holland, earl of Kent, was one ofEDWARD III’s most prominent noble captainsduring the first decades of the HundredYears War.

The second son of Robert Holland, LordHolland, a Lancashire nobleman who died

in 1328, Thomas began his military career inSCOTLAND in the early 1330s. As a knight ofthe royal household, he served in the cam-paigns in FLANDERS and northern France in1338–39, and fought at the naval battle ofSLUYS in June 1340. Around this time, hecontracted marriage with the king’s cousin,

JOAN of Kent, a mesalliance that may havebeen approved by the king, but that wasoverridden by Joan’s mother, Margaret,

countess of Kent, who arranged a moreprestigious and lucrative match in 1341 withthe son of William MONTAGU, earl of Salis-

HERRINGS, BATTLE OF THE

154



bury. Not until 1349 was Holland able toobtain a papal decree confirming his mar-riage and invalidating the Montagu union.

Holland fought in the BRETON CIVIL WAR inthe mid-1340s and, in 1346, made a name for

himself by capturing the count of Eu, con-stable of France, at the siege of Caen inNORMANDY. Although he sold the count’sRANSOM to the king for 80,000 florins, it isunclear how much of this sum he actuallyreceived. Holland also fought in the CRECY

campaign in 1346 and, in 1348, becamea founding member of the Order of theGARTER.

Upon the death of his childless brother-in-law in 1352, Holland inherited, through his

wife, an extensive landed estate, and in 1354was summoned to PARLIAMENT as LordHolland. He became captain of CALAIS Cas-tle in August 1352, royal lieutenant in Brit-tany from March 1354 to September 1355,and keeper of the Channel Islands in June1356. In the late 1350s, he received numer-ous important military posts in Normandy,including the captaincy of Crocy Castle, thegovernorship of the lands of Godfrey of

HARCOURT, the keepership of Barfleur, andthe colieutenancy, with Philip of Navarre, ofthe duchy itself.

In September 1360, Holland was ap-pointed king’s lieutenant in Normandy andFrance with responsibility for overseeingimplementation of the provisions of theTreaty of BRETIGNY, an important and diffi-cult task that necessitated Holland’s eleva-tion to the earldom of Kent to enhance hisprestige and authority. Kent had just begun

his new duties when he died at ROUEN on 28December 1360.



Capricorn Books, 1965; Stansfield, M. M. N. ‘‘The

Holland Family, Dukes of Exeter, Earls of Kent

and Huntingdon, 1352–1475.’’ D.Phil. diss., Uni-

versity of Oxford, 1987.

HOSTAGES, TREATY OF THE (1362)

Concluded in LONDON in November 1362,the Treaty of the Hostages (also known asthe Treaty of the Fleurs de Lys) was a pri-

vate agreement between EDWARD III and theFrench hostages being held to guarantee fullpayment of JOHN II’s RANSOM. Essentially anundertaking of men willing to surrendermoney and territory to secure their release,

the agreement was reluctantly accepted byKing John but rejected by the French Estates-General.

In July 1360, John II, a prisoner since hiscapture at the Battle of POITIERS in 1356, leftLondon for CALAIS, where he remained inEnglish custody until November, when asufficient amount of ransom had been paidto permit his release. Since the greater por-tion of the ransom was still to be paid andvarious of the territories ceded to England

by the Treaty of BRETIGNY had still to besurrendered, a group of princely hostagesremained in London to ensure that theFrench Crown fulfilled its undertakings. Thehostages included John’s brother, Philip ofOrleans; John’s two sons, LOUIS, DUKE OF

ANJOU, a n d JOHN, DUKE OF BERRY; Pierre,count of Alencon; and Louis, duke of Bour-bon. In April 1362, the French government,stretched to its financial limits, dispatched

an embassy to Edward, asking him to extendthe schedule of ransom payments and torelease the hostages. The English kingwould accede to these requests only if theFrench surrendered more territory as secu-rity and agreed that these lands should beforfeited if the new payment schedule wasnot strictly met. Although John protestedthat he could not meet the timetable de-manded because of the devastation wroughtupon his kingdom by English ROUTIERS, Ed-

ward was adamant.As payment of the ransom fell further into

arrears, the captive princes, growing wearyof their prolonged confinement, openedtheir own negotiations. Acting without theknowledge of their king, the hostages agreedto obtain immediate payment of 200,000ecus of John’s ransom and to surrender toEdward all territories currently in dispute.Edward was also not required to do any-

thing further to rid France of routiers

, and allrenunciations of territory would be mutuallymade upon fulfillment of these terms. In

HOSTAGES, TREATY OF THE

155



return, Edward would parole the hostages,who agreed to give as security various im-portant castles and fortresses in their pos-session.

Although dismayed by the terms of the

agreement, John, who was eager to settlewith the English and go on crusade, con-firmed the treaty on 13 March 1363. Thehostages were duly transferred to Calais, butFrench reluctance to hand over the requiredsecurity delayed their release. In September,Anjou, who found captivity particularlygalling, broke parole and refused to returnto Calais after a three-day visit with his wife,whom he had not seen in over two years.When John demanded that his son surren-

der himself, the duke refused. The duke’sflight and the failure of the Estates-Generalof Languedoil to ratify the agreement at itsmeeting at Amiens in November killed theTreaty of the Hostages. In early 1364, Johnreturned voluntarily to England, where hedied in April. Whether John’s decision toreturn was a matter of honor, or an attemptto conclude his own personal agreementwith Edward, the remaining hostages were

not released until 1367 when CHARLES Vpaid a further 400,000 ecus and promisedthe rest of the ransom in regular install-ments. See also ESTATES, GENERAL AND PRO-

VINCIAL.Further Reading: Perroy, Edouard. The Hun-





HUMPHREY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER(1390–1447)The youngest son of HENRY IV, Humphrey,duke of Gloucester, played a leading role inthe military campaigns of his brother, HENRY

V, and in the minority government of hisnephew, HENRY VI. A consistent advocate ofoffensive war, Gloucester won the posthu-mous sobriquet of ‘‘the Good Duke’’ for hisopposition to the ultimately ill-fated peace

initiatives of the 1440s. A patron of poetsand writers and an avid collector of manu-scripts, Gloucester is also recognized as

the first English proponent of Italian hu-manism.

Humphrey was only nine when his fatherdeposed RICHARD II in September 1399. Al-though knighted two weeks later and elect-

ed to the Order of the GARTER in 1400,Humphrey received no office or title untilafter his brother’s accession in March 1413,becoming chamberlain of England in thefollowing May and duke of Gloucester ayear later. Upon Henry V’s resumption ofthe HUNDRED YEARS WAR in 1415, Gloucesterserved at the siege of HARFLEUR and waswounded at the Battle of AGINCOURT. Hereceived his first independent command inFebruary 1418, when, as royal lieutenant in

the marches of NORMANDY, he completed theconquest of the Cotentin Peninsula by suc-cessfully besieging Cherbourg. After joiningthe king at the siege of ROUEN, he partici-pated in the advance on PARIS beforereturning to LONDON at the end of 1419.Replacing his brother JOHN, DUKE OF BED-

FORD, as keeper of the realm, Gloucesterpresided over the PARLIAMENT that ratifiedthe Treaty of TROYES in 1420.

Before his death in August 1422, Henry Vnamed Gloucester tutor and protector of theinfant Henry VI. Gloucester interpreted thisas conferring upon him the regency, but theopposition of Bedford and the council forcedthe duke to accept the title of protector andthe titular leadership of a council that as-sumed corporate responsibility for govern-ing. In 1423, Gloucester married Jacquelineof Hainault, who required a champion tohelp her recover Holland, Zeeland, and

Hainault from her uncle and estrangedhusband. Because PHILIP THE GOOD, duke ofBURGUNDY, sought the eventual incorpora-tion of these provinces into his territory, themarriage seriously jeopardized the ANGLO-BURGUNDIAN ALLIANCE, upon which de-pended the continuance of Lancastrian rulein France. Despite the opposition of Bedford,Gloucester and his wife landed an army inCALAIS in October 1424. They quickly seized

Hainault, but Burgundy’s active interven-tion led Gloucester to abandon his wife’scause in March 1425, when he returned to

HUMPHREY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER

156



England, ostensibly to prepare for meetingBurgundy’s challenge to single combat.When Gloucester did not return, Jacquelinewas eventually forced to admit defeat andaccept papal invalidation of her English

marriage.From the mid-1420s, Gloucester pursued a

long and bitter feud with his uncle, HenryBEAUFORT, bishop of Winchester. In 1425,this rivalry erupted into open violence asBeaufort’s retainers clashed with the duke’smen. The disorder forced Bedford to re-turn from France and impose a settlementwhereby Beaufort resigned as chancellorand Gloucester declared himself reconciledwith Beaufort. In 1429, when Henry’s coro-

nation formally ended Gloucester’s protec-torship, the duke attempted to prosecuteBeaufort, who was now a cardinal, forpraemunire, that is, exercising an illegalforeign jurisdiction. In 1431, Gloucester woncontrol of the government by impoundingBeaufort’s treasure and removing his sup-porters from the council. However, becausethe war could not be financed without thecardinal’s loans, Bedford restored the car-

dinal to favor when he returned to Englandin 1433. In 1435, Bedford died and Burgundyabandoned the English alliance at the Con-gress of ARRAS, leading Beaufort to advocatea negotiated settlement of the war, a policyadopted by the king after he began his per-sonal rule in 1437. After another unsuccess-ful attack on Beaufort in 1440, and hissecond wife’s conviction on a charge oftreasonable necromancy in 1441 for consult-ing with astrologers concerning the king’s

death, Gloucester, who was Henry’s heirapparent, found himself increasingly out offavor at court. By 1445, when the duke wasdismissed from the council, the governmentwas dominated by Beaufort’s protege, Wil-liam de la POLE, earl of Suffolk, and the newFrench queen, MARGARET OF ANJOU, both ofwhom favored the king’s peace policy.

Opposed to negotiations with CHARLES

VII; the release of CHARLES, DUKE OF ORLEANS;

and the Truce of TOURS, Gloucester be-came increasingly popular among the mili-tary establishment in France and with

opponents of Suffolk, especially after ru-mors of the possible surrender of Maine be-gan to spread in 1446. To silence Gloucester,the government ordered his arrest, whichoccurred five days before his death on 23

February 1447. Because he died in custody,foul play was rumored, although the likelycause was stroke. Besides being a patronof men of learning and letters, such as thewriters John Lydgate and John Capgrave,Gloucester earned his humanist reputationthrough a benefaction of more than 260volumes that became the basis of the oldestpart of Oxford’s Bodleian Library, whichis still known as Duke Humfrey’s Library.See also LANCASTER, HOUSE OF; MAINE, SUR-

RENDER OF.Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A. The Reign

of King Henry VI. Berkeley: University of Califor-

nia Press, 1981; Harriss, G. L. Cardinal Beaufort: A

Study of Lancastrian Ascendancy and Decline. Ox-

ford: Clarendon Press, 1988; Williams, E. Carle-

ton. My Lord of Bedford, 1389–1435. London:

Longmans, 1963.

HUNDRED YEARS WAR, CAUSES OFHistorians have traditionally found the ori-gins of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR in two keyissues. The feudal issue arose from themany frictions generated by the fact that theking of England was duke of AQUITAINE andthus owed liege homage to the king ofFrance. The dynastic issue arose from theclaim of English kings to be rightful rulersof France. Intertwined with these main is-sues were such other factors as French

support of Scottish resistance to PLANTAG-

ENET ambitions in SCOTLAND, the extensionof Capetian authority throughout all thegreat feudatories of France; and Englishsupport for such French rebels as ROBERT OF

ARTOIS.The immediate cause of the war is gener-

ally taken to be PHILIP VI’s confiscation ofAquitaine in May 1337, but the roots of thedispute over the duchy, which is considered

by some historians to be the key to the entirewar, extend back to the eleventh centurywhen William, duke of NORMANDY, became

HUNDRED YEARS WAR, CAUSES OF

157



king of England. By the mid-twelfth century,William’s great-grandson, Henry II, the firstPlantagenet king, controlled western France,including Normandy, Anjou, Maine, BRIT-

TANY, and, though his marriage to Eleanor,

daughter and heiress of the last duke,Aquitaine. Stimulated in part by the threatfrom this great Anglo-Norman empire, theFrench House of CAPET, beginning in thereign of Philip II in the late twelfth century,sought to extend royal authority into thegreat feudatories by demanding liege hom-age from their lords. In 1200, Philip refusedto allow Henry’s son, John, to take posses-sion of his French holdings until he recog-nized them as fiefs of the French Crown. By

doing this, John opened the door to in-creased Capetian interference in his do-mains. The French conquered Normandyand Anjou in 1204 and the remaining Plan-tagenet provinces, except for GASCONY inAquitaine, by the 1220s. In 1259, the uncer-tain feudal status of the duchy was clarifiedby the Treaty of PARIS, whereby Louis IXrecognized Henry III as his vassal and a peerof France in return for Henry’s renunciation

of his claims to other former Plantagenetlands.Although the treaty stabilized Anglo-

French relations for several decades, it ledeventually to conflict because the Plantage-nets could not reconcile their sovereign au-thority as kings of England with their feudalsubordination as dukes of Aquitaine. Strictobservance of a vassal’s duty to support hislord, which PHILIP IV and his successorsdemanded of their Plantagenet vassals from

the 1290s, could undermine the ability ofEnglish kings to pursue an independentforeign policy. If, as almost happened in the1280s when Philip III invaded Aragon, theking of France went to war with a kingdomwith which the king of England was allied,the former as lord could insist that the latteras vassal ignore his alliance and support thewar. But the real source of friction was theability of the king of France, as feudal

overlord, to interfere in the government ofAquitaine, particularly his right to hear ap-peals of the duke’s decisions made by the

duke’s vassals to the Paris PARLEMENT. Suchappeals lay at the root of the ANGLO-FRENCH

WAR OF 1294–1303 and the War of SAINT-SARDOS in the 1320s. And it was the basicinsolubility of this jurisdictional problem, as

demonstrated by the failure of severalAnglo-French commissions (see PROCESS) inthe early fourteenth century, that led to the1337 confiscation.

By the 1330s, the dispute had also ac-quired a dynastic dimension. The death ofCHARLES IV without male heirs in 1328ended the Capetian line and left the Frenchnobility to decide between two mainclaimants to the throne: Philip, count ofVALOIS, Charles’s cousin through the male

line, and EDWARD III of England, Charles’snephew through the female line. Havingalready decided in 1317 to exclude womenfrom the throne, the French magnates in1328 extended that prohibition to a wom-an’s male heirs, selecting Valois, a Frenchnoble in his thirties who was already actingas regent, over Edward, a fifteen-year-oldforeign ruler who was dominated by hismother, Isabella (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF

ENGLAND [c. 1292–1358]). In no position toforce the issue, Edward performed homagein 1329, and later agreed that it shouldbe construed as liege homage. However,Edward’s unpursued claim remained amagnet for French rebels who sought todiscomfit Philip, such as Robert of Artois.One of the main reasons given by Philip forhis confiscation of Aquitaine was the re-ception Robert received at the English courtin 1334.

The question of how seriously Edwardviewed his claim is much debated. He didnot formally proclaim himself king of Franceuntil 1340, when it became necessary to givecover to the Flemings and other allies, whocould then technically avoid breaking theirfeudal oaths by recognizing Edward as theirrightful lord. While he would no doubt haveeagerly assumed the French throne if it hadbecome politically or militarily possible,

Edward showed himself willing at BRE´

TIGNYin 1360 to renounce his claim for sovereigntyover Aquitaine. Ironically, in the fifteenth

HUNDRED YEARS WAR, CAUSES OF

158



century, HENRY V, second king of the Houseof LANCASTER, whose claim to the FrenchCrown was far more tenuous than that of hisgreat-grandfather, nonetheless made thatclaim his main reason for resuming the war,

and, with the Treaty of TROYES in 1420, camecloser than Edward ever had to attainingthat Crown. Although the dynastic struggleis today the popularly accepted cause of thewar, it was, until Henry V, subordinate tothe dispute over Aquitaine.

Another contributing cause that has re-ceived increased attention from modernhistorians is Philip VI’s intervention inScotland, an action that Edward III viewedas unwarranted interference in his domestic

affairs. Initiated in the 1290s, the FRANCO-SCOTTISH ALLIANCE was a source of frictionthroughout the war, serving as a meanswhereby the Valois could forestall Englishinvasions of France by threatening Scottishinvasions of England. Because Scottish in-volvement in the war also threatened thepossibility of French attacks on England, theHundred Years War was different from anyearlier Anglo-French conflict, and thus

served as a further spur to English efforts toneutralize France. In 1334, Philip VI scuttleda proposed settlement over Gascony by in-sisting that DAVID II, who had recently fledto France, be included in any agreement. In1337, Edward III used French intervention inScotland as a justification for war. In 1346,David, now returned to Scotland, invadedEngland in support of his French ally,thereby suffering defeat and capture at NE-

VILLE’S CROSS only weeks after the French

disaster at CRECY. In the fifteenth century,large Scottish contingents fought with dau-phinist forces at BAUGE, CRAVANT, VERNEUIL,and elsewhere. Thus, Scotland was also animportant factor in the coming and course ofthe war.





grave Macmillan, 2003; Vale, M. G. A. The Originsof the Hundred Years War: The Angevin Legacy, 1250–

1340. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000.

HUNDRED YEARS WAR, NAMING OFUse of the term ‘‘Hundred Years War’’ todescribe the extended period of Anglo-French conflict in the fourteenth and fif-teenth centuries did not occur until the

middle of the nineteenth century, althoughthe notion that this ongoing Anglo-Frenchrivalry was characterized by a certain unityand coherence may be much older.

The term La guerre de cent ans (the Hun-dred Years War) was coined in France in thelate 1850s, following the 1855 publication ofhistorian Henri Martin’s influential Histoirede France. Martin divided his discussion ofthe period into separate chapters that he ti-tled ‘‘Guerres des Anglais’’ (Wars of the En-

glish), to reflect his view of the distinctivenature of each episode of Anglo-French hos-tility. However, in 1861, Edgar Boutaric re-ferred to the whole period as ‘‘la guerre de centans’’ in an article that appeared in the Bib-liotheque de l’E cole des Chartes, and HenriWallon also used it in 1864 in his volumeon RICHARD II. In 1869, the term was suffi-ciently accepted in French historiographyfor Edward Freeman to suggest in a Fort-

nightly Review article that it also be adoptedby English historians. When two widelyread histories of the 1870s, Francois Guizot’sHistoire de France (1873) and John RichardGreen’s Short History of the English People(1874) employed the term, it quickly becameestablished in the popular consciousness.Over the next two decades, the term ap-peared in numerous French and Englishmonographs, and it was first used in theEncyclopaedia Britannica in 1879. By the early

twentieth century, the term was in suchcommon usage that historians of the latemedieval period could not avoid employingit in some fashion.

By the late twentieth century, historians,while still obliged to use the term, beganto caution that it was misleading, putting toomuch focus on the dynastic issue and toolittle on the wartime process of nationaldevelopment that turned an Anglo-French

polity into two nation-states. Historians alsoargued that the period from 1337 to 1453, towhich the term had given a certain unity,

HUNDRED YEARS WAR, NAMING OF

159



was really part of a much longer period thatran from the Norman Conquest of Englandin the eleventh century to the French wars ofHenry VIII and the loss of CALAIS in thesixteenth century, and perhaps even later.

Anglo-French rivalry extended beyondEurope to America and Asia in the seven-teenth and eighteenth centuries and Englishmonarchs did not formally abandon theirtitle to the French Crown until 1802. Otherhistorians pointed out that the Edwardianwar of the fourteenth century was in manyways different from the Henrician or Lan-castrian war of the fifteenth century, duringwhich HENRY VI’s claim to the FrenchCrown came to be based not on his descent

from EDWARD III, but on the Treaty ofTROYES.

While many historians disagree, arguingthat the idea is a modern innovation, it ap-pears likely that some notion of a ‘‘hundredyears war’’ did predate the nineteenth cen-tury. In the early fifteenth century, Frenchwriters seeking to counter the claims ofHENRY V began developing a theory of theSALIC LAW OF SUCCESSION by tracing the cur-

rent Anglo-French war back to the demise ofthe House of CAPET in 1328. In the 1410s, John of Montreuil, a secretary to CHARLES VI,wrote that hostilities had then been going onfor a century, even though by traditionaldating he was about twenty years too early.In 1513, the historian Polydore Vergil notedin his Anglia Historia that Anglo-French warshad been occurring on and off for whathe termed ‘‘an eternity.’’ In his Histoire deFrance, published in 1643, Francois de Me-

zeray wrote for the first time of an Anglo-French war beginning in 1337 and runningfor 160 years. In his History of England (1762),David Hume found a unity in the Anglo-French wars occurring between 1337 and1453, as did Henry Hallam in his View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages(1818) and Guizot in his Sorbonne lectures of1828. It was from this tradition of viewingthe late medieval Anglo-French wars as a

unified whole that the term La guerre de centans arose in the 1850s. See also HUNDRED

YEARS WAR, CAUSES OF; HUNDRED YEARS

WAR, PHASES OF; NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS,GROWTH OF.

Further Reading: Curry, Anne. The Hundred


grave Macmillan, 2003; Fowler, Kenneth. The Age

of Plantagenet and Valois: The Struggle for Suprem-acy, 1328–1498. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons,

1967.

HUNDRED YEARS WAR, PHASES OFThe ‘‘Hundred Years War,’’ a term that firstcame into use in the nineteenth century, isthe name applied by historians to a series ofintermittent Anglo-French conflicts that intotal spanned a period of almost twelve de-cades in the fourteenth and fifteenth centu-

ries. Modern historians divide the HundredYears War into three periods of military ac-tivity separated by years of relative peacemade possible by various truces and treaties.These wars were also preceded and fol-lowed by lesser conflicts and campaigns ofvarying intensity. Although the fundamen-tal issues in dispute remained largely thesame across the period, each of the separatewars was dominated by a different royal

personality whose goals and plans dictatedthe nature of the conflict.

Early Anglo-French WarsThe conflicts comprising the Hundred YearsWar, which is traditionally dated as runningfrom 1337 to 1453, were preceded by twosmaller wars. The ANGLO-FRENCH WAR OF

1294–1303 arose from a series of disputesgenerated by the English king’s dual statusas a sovereign monarch in England and a

subordinate French vassal in AQUITAINE. ThePLANTAGENET kings, beginning with EDWARD

I in the 1290s, found the French Crown’sability to interfere in the governance ofAquitaine to be intolerable. When PHILIP IVconfiscated the duchy in 1294, he initiated awar that ended with a return to the statusquo and the arrangement of a marriage thatlater gave the Plantagenets a claim to theFrench Crown. This claim offered a potential

solution to the problem of Aquitaine, wherea Plantagenet king of France would be hisown overlord.

HUNDRED YEARS WAR, PHASES OF

160



The War of SAINT-SARDOS in the mid-1320sessentially replayed the causes and course ofthe earlier conflict. The continuing irritationover Aquitaine led to a second confiscation,which was settled by an agreement brokered

by Queen Isabella (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OFENGLAND [c. 1292–1358]), who arranged thather husband, EDWARD II, should send theirson, Prince Edward, to France to do homagefor Aquitaine to her brother, CHARLES IV.This agreement ended the war, but Isabella’sdeposition of her husband in 1327 and thefailure of the House of CAPET with Charles’sdeath in 1328 made EDWARD III, the newking of England, a legitimate claimant to theFrench Crown and helped set the stage for

the Hundred Years War.

Edwardian War, 1337–1360

The first phase of the Hundred Years War,running from 1337 to 1360, is termed theEdwardian War because it was driven by theaims and ambitions of Edward III, whosought sovereign authority in Aquitaine andremoval of the House of VALOIS from theFrench throne. The war began with a third

confiscation of Aquitaine in 1337, but ac-quired a new dimension in 1340 when Ed-ward formally declared himself rightfulking of France, a step that was taken mainlyto give cover to Edward’s allies in the LowCountries, many of whom were vassals ofthe French Crown. Even though Edwardspent huge sums of money constructing hisweb of alliances (see ANGLO-FLEMISH ALLI-

ANCE; ANTI-FRENCH COALITION), and both heand PHILIP VI collected taxes and raised

loans to fund large armies, no major landengagement occurred during the war’s firstcampaigns (see THIERACHE CAMPAIGN; TOUR-

NAI, SIEGE OF).In 1340, mutual financial exhaustion led to

the Truce of ESPLECHIN and a temporary endto hostilities. In 1341, the outbreak of theBRETON CIVIL WAR revived the Anglo-Frenchconflict as each side backed a differentclaimant to the Breton ducal title. In the late

1340s, following the Truce of MALESTROITand a failed papal attempt to mediate asettlement (see AVIGNON PEACE CONFERENCE),

the English won a rapid succession of majorvictories—AUBEROCHE (1345) in Aquitaine,CRECY (1346) and CALAIS (1347) in northernFrance, and LA ROCHE-DERRIEN (1347) inBRITTANY. The war was then halted by the

Truce of CALAIS, which was effectively ex-tended into the mid-1350s by the interven-tion of the BLACK DEATH. Another period ofEnglish triumph was opened by the CHE-

VAUCHE E OF 1355 and the Battle of POITIERS

(1356), which resulted in the capture of JOHN

II. The 1357 Truce of BORDEAUX created an-other respite during which Edward tried toimpose a treaty on the French, who werethrown into political turmoil and socialchaos by the king’s captivity; the intrigues of

CHARLES THE BAD, king of Navarre; and thewidespread discontent caused by high TAX-

ATION and military defeat (see J ACQUERIE;MARCEL, ETIENNE).

The failure of the First (1358) and Second(1359) Treaties of LONDON led Edward tolaunch the RHEIMS CAMPAIGN of 1359,whereby he sought coronation as king ofFrance as a means to force the French to cometo terms. Although militarily unsuccessful,

the campaign resulted in the Treaty of BRE´

-TIGNY, which ended the war by arranging forEdward to renounce his claim to the FrenchCrown in exchange for a greatly enlargedAquitaine held in full sovereignty. The Ed-wardian war thus ended in English victory.

Caroline War, 1369–1389

The Caroline War, which ran from 1369 to1389, is named for CHARLES V, who, throughgood fortune, more regular taxation, and

careful DIPLOMACY, largely reversed the out-come of the Edwardian conflict. After a de-cade of relative peace (except for the Bretonwar which ended in 1365 and the Castiliancampaign that concluded at NA JERA in 1367),Charles reignited the Anglo-French struggleby accepting the APPEAL OF THE GASCON

LORDS, a series of petitions addressed toCharles as feudal overlord of Aquitaine bythe Gascon vassals of EDWARD, THE BLACK

PRINCE, who had ruled Aquitaine since 1355.By accepting these petitions, Charles over-threw the Bretigny agreement and reasserted


161



his claim to sovereignty over the duchy.Hampered by Edward III’s senility and theprince’s chronic ill health, the Englishproved unable to defend Aquitaine against aseries of highly successful campaigns led by

LOUIS, DUKE OF ANJOU, and Bertrand duGUESLIN, constable of France. By 1380, Plan-tagenet Aquitaine had been reduced toBORDEAUX and coastal Gascony, an areasmaller than that held by the English in1337. The only English response was a seriesof large CHEVAUCHE ES made ineffective byCharles’s refusal to allow his armies to en-gage in pitched battle.

In the 1380s, both countries were ruled byminors—CHARLES VI in France and RICHARD

II in England. Minority regimes dominatedby royal uncles and distracted by domesticconcerns allowed the war to peter out withthe Truce of LEULINGHEN in 1389. Attemptsby Richard II to conclude a final peace set-tlement failed, but in 1396 he sealed a 28-year extension of the truce by marryingCharles’s daughter Isabella (see ISABELLA,QUEEN OF ENGLAND [1388–1409]). Althoughneither side was satisfied with the status

quo, the deposition of Richard in 1399 andthe outbreak of the FRENCH CIVIL WAR after1407 prevented the resumption of openhostilities. HENRY IV, first king of the Houseof LANCASTER, was too insecure to contem-plate renewal of the war, and Charles VI, avictim of chronic mental illness, was pow-erless to stop the escalating struggle be-tween the ARMAGNAC and BURGUNDIAN fac-tions. Thus, the Caroline War, itself a Frenchvictory, ended not in an Anglo-French peace

but in a period of feeble truce sustainedonly by the political instability of bothrealms.

Henrician or Lancastrian War, 1415–1453

The Henrician or Lancastrian War, namedfor HENRY V of the House of Lancaster, hadthree main phases—the period of Englishsuccess running from 1415 to 1429, the pe-riod of gradual French recovery running

from 1429 to 1444, and the final expulsion ofthe English from France between 1449 and1453. In 1415, Henry V, who was unin-

terested in reconstituting a sovereign Aqui-taine, invaded France with the intention ofseizing the French Crown. With the Frenchdivided against themselves, Henry won amajor victory at AGINCOURT in 1415 and

conquered NORMANDY by 1419 (see NORMANCAMPAIGN [1417–1419]). In September 1419,French attempts to resolve their differencesand unite against the English ended in di-saster at MONTEREAU, where servants ofDauphin Charles murdered JOHN THE FEAR-

LESS, duke of BURGUNDY. This act drove John’s son, PHILIP THE GOOD, into alliancewith England and, in 1420, facilitated con-clusion of the Treaty of TROYES, whereby thedauphin was disinherited by his parents and

Henry was declared heir to the Frenchthrone. Although the treaty technicallyended the war between England and France,hostilities continued between the forces ofthe Anglo-Burgundian government thatruled in PARIS, and those of the dauphin,whose area of control in southern Francewas contemptuously referred to as the‘‘Kingdom of Bourges.’’

The unexpected death of Henry V in 1422,

two months before that of Charles VI, gavenew hope to the dauphinists. However, theEnglish war effort was ably directed byHenry’s brother, JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD,who was regent in France for his infant ne-phew HENRY VI. Victories at CRAVANT in1423 and VERNEUIL in 1424 continued theEnglish advance, which was halted only inMay 1429, when the advent of JOAN OF ARC

inspired French campaigns that lifted thesiege of ORLEANS and cleared the Loire of

English garrisons (see LOIRE CAMPAIGN). In July, the dauphin was crowned king ofFrance as CHARLES VII. Although Joan wascaptured by the Burgundians in 1430 andexecuted by the English in 1431, the tide hadturned. In 1435, Bedford died and DukePhilip abandoned the ANGLO-BURGUNDIAN

ALLIANCE at the Congress of ARRAS. Deprivedof Bedford’s leadership and Burgundy’ssupport, the English lost Paris in 1436, and a

series of other English strongholds fell be-fore the Truce of TOURS ended hostilities in1444.

162




Charles VII used the truce to reform hisarmy and strengthen the system of taxationthat funded it (see CHARLES VII, MILITARY

REFORMS OF). In England, Henry VI, weak-minded and pacific, became the tool of noble

factions whose attempts to rule through thementally unstable monarch led in the 1450sto the civil conflict known as the Wars of theRoses. In the 1440s, Henry, urged on by hisFrench wife, MARGARET OF ANJOU, sought tomake peace on any terms, even agreeing tothe voluntary surrender of Maine, whichwas vital to the defense of Lancastrian Nor-mandy (see MAINE, SURRENDER OF). By 1449,Charles VII was ready to resume the war.His professional, salaried army, accompa-

nied by John BUREAU’s outstanding ARTIL-

LERY, which gave the French the kind ofmilitary advantage the longbow (see AR-

CHERS) had earlier given the English, retookNormandy in twelve months (see NORMAN

CAMPAIGN [1449–1450]). In 1451, JOHN, COUNT

OF DUNOIS, captured Bordeaux, although John TALBOT, earl of Shrewsbury, retook thetown with Gascon assistance in 1452. How-ever, the Henrician and Hundred Years

Wars ended in July 1453 when Bureau’sguns killed Shrewsbury and destroyed hisarmy at CASTILLON. Although no formaltreaty ended the war, the English had finallybeen expelled from GASCONY and their re-maining French holdings comprised only theport of Calais.

Campaign of 1475Although the Battle of Castillon in 1453 istraditionally taken as the end of the Hun-

dred Years War, no treaty formally endedthe conflict and English ambitions in Francedid not disappear. However, because theEnglish were soon distracted by their ownseries of civil wars, known as the Wars ofthe Roses, which eventually pitted theLancastrian and Yorkist branches of theHouse of Plantagenet against one another,they did not launch a new French campaignuntil the summer of 1475. Louis XI, who

had succeeded Charles VII as king of Francein 1461, had promoted continuance of theEnglish civil wars by backing a Lancastrian

revival that restored Henry VI to theCrown in 1470. Nonetheless, by 1475, Henrywas dead and his Yorkist cousin, EdwardIV, was securely seated on the Englishthrone.

Although a renewal of the war withFrance was highly popular in England, theFrench Crown was stronger in 1475 than ithad been earlier in the century when it hadbeen significantly weakened by civil warand economic and military exhaustion. Ed-ward IV was thus willing to avoid combatand accept an economic victory in place of amilitary one. On 29 August 1475, the twokings, meeting on a hastily erected bridgeover the Somme River at Amiens, agreed to

a treaty negotiated by their representatives atthe nearby town of Picquigny. The agree-ment established an Anglo-French truce thatwas to run for seven years and created freetrade between the two kingdoms. Edwardagreed to withdraw his army in return foran initial payment of 75,000 crowns and anannual pension of 50,000 crowns to be paidin two installments at Easter and Michael-mas (29 September). The treaty also called

for all disputes between the realms to besettled by an Anglo-French commission, forneither king to make a foreign alliancewithout the other’s knowledge, and for Ed-ward’s daughter, Elizabeth of York, to bebetrothed to Louis’s son, the DauphinCharles.

Engaged in an effort to reduce the powerand influence of Charles, duke of Burgundy,Louis was anxious to secure peace withEngland. He therefore offered lavish gifts

and generous pensions to the English no-bility to support the Treaty of Picquigny,which was initially unpopular in England.However, Edward quickly suppressed anyanti-treaty disorders and the economic ben-efits that flowed from the treaty—fewertaxes and lower tariffs—led to widespreadacceptance of the agreement and fewer callsfor war with France. Although Louis abro-gated the treaty in 1483, only three months

before Edward’s death and eight before hisown, the 1475 campaign and the Treaty ofPicquigny demonstrated that France, when


163



stable and united, was too large and wealthyfor England to successfully renew the Hun-dred Years War.



versity Press, 1988; Burne, Alfred H. The Agin-court War . Ware, England: Wordsworth Editions

Ltd., 1999; Burne, Alfred H. The Cre cy War . Ware,

England: Wordsworth Editions Ltd., 1999; Curry,

Anne. The Hundred Years War . 2nd ed. Hound-

mills, England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003; Perroy,


Wells. New York: Capricorn Books, 1965; Seward,

Desmond. The Hundred Years War . New York:

Penguin, 1999; Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred

Years War . Vol. 1, Trial by Battle. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991; Sump-

tion, Jonathan. The Hundred Years War . Vol. 2,

Trial by Fire. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-

vania Press, 2001.


164



IINDENTURES

The military indenture was a binding writ-ten contract that spelled out the terms ofservice and compensation offered by theEnglish Crown to those captains—usually

noblemen—who provided troops for royalarmies. Although it first appeared in thethirteenth century, the indenture came intocommon use and assumed a standard formin the fourteenth century during the HUN-

DRED YEARS WAR. The indenture was themost important administrative innovation tooccur in the recruitment of medieval Englisharmies.

Although the earliest surviving indentures

date from 1270, when Prince Edward con-tracted with several knights for a year’s ser-vice on crusade in the Holy Land, suchagreements may have been used earlier. TheCrown did not enter into military contractswith the English nobility until the 1290s,when EDWARD I indented with Edmund, earlof Lancaster, and with the earls of Lincolnand Cornwall, to supply a specified numberof men at a specified wage for service inGASCONY during the ANGLO-FRENCH WAR OF

1294–1303. The king also contracted withgarrison commanders, who undertook to re-cruit a certain number of men to hold a cer-tain stronghold for a certain time. In 1301, forinstance, John Kingston agreed to keepEdinburgh Castle in SCOTLAND for six monthswith eighty-four men in return for the sum of£220 to be paid in four installments. Not until1337 did the English government, in need ofmen for a Scottish expedition, raise an entire

army by military indenture.A typical indenture consisted of a pieceof parchment on which the terms of the

agreement were written out twice. The in-denture derived its name from the practiceof cutting the document in half along anindented or jagged line, with each party re-ceiving one copy of the contract. In case of

disagreements, the two halves were fittedback together; if the indentations matched,the agreement was held valid, accusationscould be brought, and disputes settled. Thefirst indentures were often vague and im-precise, but in the fourteenth century, as theCrown developed standard rates of pay forvarious types of soldiers and service, thecontracts became more elaborate and spe-cific. Most Hundred Years War agreements

specified the size and composition of theforce to be supplied (e.g., how many menwere to be ARCHERS or men-at-arms), thelength and place of service, the wages to bepaid, whether a regard (or bonus) was to beoffered, the division of spoils and RANSOMS,and details involving provision of transportand horses.

Just as the Crown contracted with them,so did the leading English captains contractwith their subordinates. JOHN OF GAUNT,

duke of Lancaster, who offered the same fi-nancial terms as the Crown, developed anextensive military affinity in the late four-teenth century. A fairly typical indenture isthe 1371 contract between Roger Maltraversand William Montagu, earl of Salisbury.Maltravers agreed to serve for one year withtwo archers, to provide his own horses andequipment, and to give one-third of anybooty or ransoms to the earl. Salisbury

agreed to provide shipping, wages, and aregard, as well as a fee of £20. Because theindenture system was open to fraud and

165



abuse, the practice of mustering troops tomake sure the Crown or contracting noblewas getting all the men promised becamecommon in the fifteenth century. See alsoARMIES, RECRUITMENT OF.

Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher. TheHundred Years War . Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, 1988; Prestwich, Michael. Armies

and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English

Experience. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press, 1996.

INFANTRY. See ARMIES, COMPOSITION OF

INNOCENT VI. See PAPACY AND THE HUN-

DRED YEARS WAR

ISABEAU OF BAVARIA, QUEEN OFFRANCE (c. 1370–1435)Isabeau (Isabelle) of Bavaria, the wife ofCHARLES VI and mother of CHARLES VII, wasa major political figure in France during thefirst decades of the fifteenth century, andparticularly during negotiation of the Treatyof TROYES in 1420.

The daughter of Stephen, duke of Bavaria,

Isabeau wed Charles VI on 17 July 1385, themarriage being promoted by Charles’s uncle,PHILIP THE BOLD, duke of BURGUNDY. Thesixteen-year-old groom, who first met Isa-beau only days earlier, was so smitten withhis bride that he married her without adowry or formal marriage contract. How-ever, after 1392, the king’s intermittent boutsof schizophrenia caused his feelings towardhis wife to veer between affection and sus-picion. Although traditionally depicted as

dissolute, promiscuous, and devoted only toher own interests, Isabeau was politicallyadept and, after the FRENCH CIVIL WAR

erupted in 1409, strove to protect the au-thority of the VALOIS Crown from the con-sequences of her husband’s illness. On 1 July1402, Charles gave his wife leadership of thecouncil during his periods of illness, al-though her freedom of action was curtailedin 1403 by a series of royal ordinances de-

signed to create a balance of power amongmembers of the royal family. Isabeau re-mained initially neutral in the rivalry be-

tween her brother-in-law, LOUIS, DUKE OF

ORLEANS, and his cousin, JOHN THE FEARLESS,duke of Burgundy. In 1405, Burgundy’sambition drove the queen closer to Orleans,with whom she plotted to kidnap the dau-

phin, LOUIS, DUKE OF GUIENNE, to keep himfrom Burgundy’s influence. The plan failed,and the queen’s association with Orleans ledto rumors that she and the duke were lovers.

In November 1407, Burgundy’s agentsassassinated Orleans, initiating a period ofcivil war that allowed Burgundy to domi-nate both king and court. Secretly opposedto the duke and anxious to shift power toDauphin Louis, Isabeau supported her son’sefforts to negotiate a settlement with leaders

of the ARMAGNAC (Orleanist) party. In 1413,with PARIS turning against him, Burgundyfled the capital, and the Armagnacs tookpower; because the new government wasnominally led, until their deaths, by thedauphin (d. 1415) and then his brother, John,duke of Touraine (d. 1417), Isabeau sup-ported the Armagnacs until 1417, when shequarreled with her third son, Charles. Aweak and sickly youth who served as fig-

urehead for an increasingly repressiveregime dominated by BERNARD, COUNT OF

ARMAGNAC, the new dauphin, responding tohis mother’s growing reputation for un-seemly extravagance and sexual license, cutoff her allowance and banished her fromParis. On 8 November 1417, Isabeau escapedfrom confinement at Tours and, with thesupport of Burgundy, put herself at the headof a rival government.

Isabeau reconciled with her husband after

the Burgundians retook Paris in May 1418,but she remained estranged from her son,especially after his supporters murderedBurgundy at MONTEREAU in 1419. In 1420,Isabeau promoted the marriage of herdaughter, CATHERINE OF VALOIS, to HENRY Vas part of the Treaty of Troyes, which,through Isabeau’s apparent admission ofinfidelity, disinherited the dauphin bybranding him a bastard. Although French

historians have condemned her support ofthe agreement, Isabeau, who viewed thedauphin as a tool of the Armagnacs, probably

INFANTRY

166



saw the treaty as the best way to preservethe independence of the monarchy. AfterCharles VI’s death in 1422, Isabeau, unpop-ular and increasingly corpulent, lived quietlyin Paris, where she died at the Hotel Saint-Pol

in September 1435.Further Reading: Famiglietti, Richard. Royal


1420. New York: AMS Press, 1986.

ISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND(c. 1292–1358)The daughter of PHILIP IV of France and thewife of EDWARD II of England, Isabellatransmitted to her son, EDWARD III, the claimto the Crown of France that he raised during

the HUNDRED YEARS WAR. In 1326, Isabellainstigated the uprising that led to the de-position and death of her husband, the earlyenthronement of her son, and her own ruleof the kingdom in concert with her lover.

Although discussions concerning Isa-bella’s marriage to Prince Edward hadbegun in 1298 as part of a proposed settle-ment of the recent ANGLO-FRENCH WAR, theceremony did not occur until 25 January

1308 after Edward had become king. Isa-bella’s early years in England were troubledby Edward’s relationship with his favorite,Piers Gaveston, who, the queen complainedto her father, had usurped her position.Marital relations improved after rebelliousbarons executed Gaveston in July 1312, fourmonths before Isabella gave birth to her son,Prince Edward. Three other children fol-lowed by 1321. In the intervening years,Isabella supported her husband in his on-

going disputes with the baronial oppositionled by Thomas, earl of Lancaster, and me-diated between the parties in 1313 and 1316.The queen exercised influence with herhusband in the issuance of grants and par-dons, accompanied him on campaign toSCOTLAND, and received several augmenta-tions to her income, including the revenuesof the French county of Ponthieu.

In October 1321, Isabella was refused ad-

mittance to Leeds Castle, which was held bya royal opponent. Furious, the queen or-dered an assault on the gates that ended

with the deaths of six men. This insult to hiswife allowed Edward to rally most of thenobility to his side and to reopen the civilwar, which the king successfully concludedby executing Lancaster in March 1322. Now

dominated by his new favorites, HughDespenser and his father, Hugh the Elder,Edward allowed them to systematicallyhumiliate the queen, whom he reputedlydeclared to have married against his will.Isabella’s lands were seized, her householdand income were reduced, and her childrenwere taken from her custody; Despenserapparently even approached the pope aboutannulling Isabella’s marriage.

In March 1325, in an attempt to use Isa-

bella’s influence with her brother, CHARLES

IV, to end the War of SAINT-SARDOS, Edwardsent his wife to the French court. WhenCharles agreed to accept his nephew’shomage for AQUITAINE, Prince Edward wasallowed to join his mother in PARIS. Anxiousfor revenge on the Despensers, Isabella re-fused to return with the prince until the fa-vorites had been removed. By early 1326,she had become the lover of Roger Morti-

mer, a royal opponent in exile at the Frenchcourt. The couple then moved to Hainault,where they betrothed the prince to thecount’s daughter, PHILIPPA, and used thedowry to hire a mercenary force with whichthey invaded England in September. Withthe nobility rallying to her cause, Isabelladeclared her son guardian of the realm, and,after Edward’s capture and Despenser’s ex-ecution, worked though PARLIAMENT to en-gineer her husband’s deposition in January

1327.For the next three years, Isabella and

Mortimer, now earl of March, ruled thekingdom. In September 1327, Edward II wasmurdered at Berkeley Castle, likely on thecouple’s orders. The new regime soonshowed itself to be as rapacious and tyran-nical as that of the Despensers, and as un-popular, as the queen and March followedno clear policy beyond their own self-

aggrandizement. Their foreign policy, re-sulting in an unfavorable treaty with Francein 1327 and the recognition of Scottish

ISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND

167



independence in the Treaty of Northamptonin 1328, was seen as a national humiliation.In 1330, the execution of Edmund, earl of

Kent, the late king’s brother, whom Isabellaand March entangled in a plot against thegovernment, turned many of the nobilityagainst them. On 19 October 1330, EdwardIII, finding his own loyalty to the regimequestioned, arrested March, who was exe-cuted shortly thereafter. Although she ap-peared at court on important occasions,Isabella took no further part in politics,being sent into retirement in Norfolk. In

1348, when PHILIP VI requested that she actas mediator between them, Edward III ig-nored the suggestion. Isabella died on 23

August 1358. A strong, beautifulwoman whom contemporaries con-sidered tragically misguided, Isa-bella much later acquired the fero-cious epithet ‘‘she-wolf of France.’’

Further Reading: Doherty, Paul. Isa-bella and the Strange Death of Edward II.

New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers,

2003; Fryde, Natalie B. The Tyranny and

Fall of Edward II, 1321–1326. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1979; Mor-

timer, Ian. The Greatest Traitor: The Life of

Sir Roger Mortimer, Ruler of England,

1327–1330. London: Pimico, 2004; Weir,

Alison. Queen Isabella: Treachery, Adul-

tery, and Murder in Medieval England.

New York: Ballantine Books, 2005.

ISABELLA, QUEEN OFENGLAND (1388–1409)Through her marriage to RICHARD II,Isabella of France, the eldestdaughter of CHARLES VI and ISABEAU

of Bavaria, sealed an Anglo-Frenchtruce that was to have ended theHUNDRED YEARS WAR for almost

three decades.Richard’s wife, Anne of Bohemia,died on 7 June 1394. Although dev-astated by the loss, the childless kingbegan looking almost immediatelyfor a new wife. Since conclusionof the Truce of LEULINGHEN in1389, Anglo-French diplomacy hadground to a halt, and Richard sought

with his new marriage to forge an alliancethat would check rising French ambitions.

To this end, the English proposed a mar-riage with Yolande, the daughter of France’ssouthern neighbor, King John of Aragon.The French opposed this match because itthreatened Yolande’s existing engagementto Louis, duke of Anjou, who needed theAragonese connection to further his Italianambitions, and it raised the possibility of afuture PLANTAGENET claim to the Crown ofAragon. To persuade Richard to abandon

this plan, Charles VI offered his six-year-olddaughter Isabella as an alternative. Becausethis proposal reopened the possibility of

In this illustration from the Chronicles of Jean Froissart, Charles

VI of France gives his daughter in marriage to Richard II of

England, 1396. Erich Lessing/Art Resource, New York.


168



concluding an actual peace between the twoCrowns, Richard accepted it.

Anxious to end the war, Richard directedhis representatives to work for a final peacetreaty with the marriage, but the French re-

fused and the best that could be obtainedwas a 28-year extension of the truce. Richardagreed to surrender Cherbourg and Brest,but was confirmed in his possession ofAQUITAINE, while Charles agreed to a dowryof 800,000 francs. The preliminary agree-ment was signed on 9 March 1396 andCharles personally handed his eight-year-old daughter over to Richard at a splendidlystaged meeting near Ardres on the following30 October. On 4 November, Richard mar-

ried Isabella in the Church of St. Nicholas inCALAIS.

According to the chronicler Jean FROIS-

SART, Isabella, who was twenty-one yearsyounger than Richard, fully understood theimportance of her marriage. Although shewas too young for carnal relations, Richardgrew fond of Isabella, treating her as a be-loved daughter, while she became devotedto him. Because Isabella was the embodi-

ment of Anglo-French entente, her standingat the English court fluctuated with the stateof diplomatic relations; in 1398, for example,complaints were heard about the size andcost of her French entourage. However, the

queen’s relationship with her husband re-mained warm and affectionate. Their tearfulparting when Richard left for Ireland in 1399led one chronicler to remark that he hadnever seen ‘‘so great a lord make so much of,

nor show such great affection to, a lady asdid King Richard to his Queen’’ (Hutchison,209).

The couple never saw one another again,and the peace policy their bond representedlingered weakly until shattered by the re-newal of war in 1415. After Richard’s de-position in September 1399, the new king,HENRY IV, sought Isabella’s hand for his son,the future HENRY V, even though Richardwas still alive. When these talks failed, Isa-

bella was transferred to various royal resi-dences before being returned to France in1400. Never accepting reports of Richard’sdeath, Isabella made several unsuccessfulattempts to return to England. In June 1406,she married her cousin, CHARLES, the son ofLOUIS, DUKE OF ORLEANS, a match to whichshe consented most unwillingly. Her newhusband, however, also grew fond of herand was much affected by her death in

childbirth on 13 September 1409.Further Reading: Hutchison, Harold F. The

Hollow Crown: The Life of Richard II . London: Eyre

and Spottiswoode, 1961; Saul, Nigel. Richard II .



169



J JACK CADE’S REBELLION (1450)In the early summer of 1450, only weeksafter the English defeat at FORMIGNY signaledthe imminent collapse of Lancastrian rule inNORMANDY, the commons of Kent, led by a

man named Jack (or John) Cade, rose in re-bellion. Because the uprising reflected pop-ular anger over the government’s conduct ofthe war, and because HENRY VI and his ad-visors suspected that RICHARD, DUKE OF

YORK, had instigated it, Jack Cade’s Rebel-lion is often viewed both as a consequence ofthe HUNDRED YEARS WAR and as a prelude tothe Wars of the Roses.

In late May, only three weeks after the

murder of Henry’s unpopular chief minister,William de la POLE, duke of Suffolk, a largebody of men from the towns and villages ofKent gathered at Blackheath across theThames from LONDON to demand redress ofvarious grievances. Composed of ruralpeasants, artisans and tradesmen from thetowns, and a small group of clergy andlandowning gentry, the Kentish rebels were,at least initially, well organized and disci-plined. Their elected leader was the myste-

rious Jack Cade, who also went by thenames John Mortimer and John Amendalle.Although he was probably seeking only toattract the duke’s supporters to his cause,Cade’s use of the name Mortimer—thefamily name of York’s mother—led thegovernment to seriously consider the possi-bility that York was somehow involved inthe rebellion. The rebels denied any con-nection with York, but their demand that the

king rid himself of all advisors linked to thelate Suffolk and turn instead to princes of

the blood like York, only heightened thegovernment’s suspicions.

Thanks to the obscurity of Cade’s back-ground, and perhaps to governmentattempts to discredit Cade, rumors soon

circulated that the rebel leader was anIrishman related to York, that he was a blackmagician, and that he had once fled therealm after murdering a pregnant woman.Whatever Cade’s history, his manner im-pressed the royal councilors who met him,and the rebel manifesto crafted under hisleadership—the ‘‘Complaint of the Com-mons of Kent’’—displayed his skill as apropagandist. Comprising fifteen articles,

the ‘‘Complaint’’ focused on the corruptpractices of royal officials in Kent, whowere charged with extortion, perversion of

justice, and election fraud. The commonsalso demanded an inquiry into the failure byEdmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, todefend Normandy and into the misappro-priation of royal funds by the king’s house-hold servants. Much of the rebels’ discontentwas also fueled by high war TAXATION andby economic hardship caused by wartime

disruption of the cloth trade.In early June, after submitting their

‘‘Complaint’’ to the council, the rebelsobeyed an order to withdraw from Black-heath. However, when a contingent of royaltroops followed them into Kent, the rebelsambushed and destroyed their pursuers. Atnews of this repulse, a nervous councilcommitted Lord Say, the hated formersheriff of Kent, and William Cromer, the

equally unpopular current sheriff, to theTower of London. The king then withdrew

170



from the capital. On 4 July, the Londoners,who were sympathetic to many of the rebels’grievances, allowed Cade and his followersto enter the city, where they immediatelyseized and executed Say and Cromer. On the

night of 5 July, as the rebels grew moredisorderly, the citizens, assisted by theTower garrison under Thomas SCALES, LordScales, drove the insurgents from the cityand recaptured London Bridge. This actionallowed the council to issue a free pardon on8 July, and most of the rebels returnedhome. After invalidating his pardon by at-tempting to seize Queenborough Castle,Cade was killed on 12 July while resistingarrest. A month later, on 12 August, Cher-

bourg, the last English-held town in Nor-mandy, surrendered to CHARLES VII, therebyfurther discrediting an already weakenedroyal government.

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A. The Reign


nia Press, 1981; Harvey, I. M. W. Jack Cade’s

Rebellion of 1450. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991;

Wolffe, Bertram. Henry VI. London: Eyre

Methuen, 1981.

JACQUERIE (1358)The Jacquerie was the largest and bloodiestpeasant rebellion of late medieval France.Involving violent attacks on the persons,property, and families of nobles, the upris-ing swept the region north of PARIS in Mayand June 1358. Although traditionally char-acterized as class warfare between noblesand nonnobles, the Jacquerie arose mainlyfrom the political instability and economic

distress unleashed by the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR.The Jacquerie derived its name from the

term Jacques, which was popularly used todescribe French peasants. The origins of theuprising are obscure, but it seems to havebegun in the Oise Valley north of Paris in thevillage of Saint-Leu d’Esserent, where, on 28May, a mob of armed peasants attacked acompany of soldiers stationed there by the

dauphin (see CHARLES V). Within hours ofthis event, much of the Beauvaisis rose in

rebellion, with bands of rioters attackingand destroying noble castles and manors.Because the region was at the center of apolitical struggle between the dauphin andCHARLES THE BAD, king of Navarre, both of

whom were garrisoning local strongholds,the initial cause of the Jacquerie was angerover the growing demands of both sides forlabor services to repair and strengthen cas-tles and fortifications. Also, Navarre’sintroduction into the region of English ROU-

TIERS may have aroused fears of the pillageand destruction that such troops had beencausing elsewhere in France since JOHN II’scapture at POITIERS in 1356.

Leadership of the rebellion was quickly

assumed by a wealthy peasant namedGuillaume Cale. Calling himself ‘‘Captain ofthe men of Beauvaisis,’’ and aided by self-appointed lieutenants who included edu-cated townsmen and a few minor noblemen,Cale formed the rebels into organized unitsunder their own banners. By early June, heled an army of almost five thousand men.Although most towns closed their gates tothe rebels, many townsmen were sympa-

thetic and provided the Jacques with food,weapons, and recruits. In Paris, EtienneMARCEL, leader of the urban revolution thathad driven the dauphin from the capital,received a deputation from Cale and urgedthe Jacques to destroy all fortresses and nobleresidences surrounding the city. Hoping tofrustrate the dauphin’s attempt to ring thecapital with troops, the Paris revolutionariestried to foment further rebellion in regionswest and south of the city. To the north, the

Jacquerie spread into Picardy, Brie, Cham-pagne, and parts of NORMANDY, as castlesand manors were burned and nobles andtheir retainers murdered.

In early June, Navarre, sensing politicalpossibilities, assumed leadership of thenoble reaction, the so-called counter- Jacque-rie. Assembling a force of over fifteen hun-dred that included his own men, a body ofEnglish routiers, and the nobility of north-

western France, Navarre crushed the mainrebel army on 10 June. Cale, who was lured

JACQUERIE

171



into Navarre’s camp under flag of truce, wasseized and beheaded. On 9 June at Meaux, asmall company of men that included thePLANTAGENET captain, Jean de GRAILLY, cap-tal de Buch, who put aside political differ-

ences to fight with his fellow nobles,destroyed the other main rebel force.

These actions ended the uprising, al-though the counter- Jacquerie continued asthe nobility slaughtered all peasants whowere known or suspected rebels, includingthree hundred who were burned alive in amonastery near Montdidier and anotherthirteen hundred who were slain when thenobles surprised their camp at Poix. Politi-cally, the Jacquerie proved beneficial to the

dauphin, who had done nothing to suppressit, and harmful to Navarre, who had led thecounterattack, and especially to Marcel, whohad backed the Jacques. The rebel violencerevived support for the Crown among thenobility, allowing the dauphin to recruittroops for action against both Navarre andthe Paris revolutionaries.

Further Reading: Bessen, David M. ‘‘The

Jacquerie: Class War or Co-opted Rebellion?’’

Journal of Medieval History 11 (1985): 43–59;Mollat, Michel, and Philippe Wolff. The Popular

Revolutions of the Late Middle Ages. Trans. A. L.

Lytton-Sells. London: Allen and Unwin, 1973.

JAMES I. See SCOTLAND

JARGEAU, SIEGE OF. See LOIRE CAMPAIGN

JEAN LE BEL (d. c. 1370)The fourteenth-century chronicler Jean le Bel

is the author of Les vrayes chroniques, one ofthe most valuable contemporary sources forthe first phase of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Born at Liege into a wealthy and influ-ential family, Jean le Bel was, like his fellowchronicler, Jean FROISSART, a native of Hai-nault. In 1313, he became a canon (i.e., aclerical member of a cathedral staff) atSaint-Lambert in Liege. Although a clergy-man, Jean moved easily within noble circles

and was deeply imbued with the values andideals of contemporary CHIVALRY. Accordingto one source, Jean lived the lifestyle of the

wealthy nobles with whom he consorted.His patron, John of Hainault, the uncle ofQueen PHILIPPA, wife of EDWARD III, ac-companied Queen Isabella (see ISABELLA,QUEEN OF ENGLAND [c. 1292–1358]) to En-

gland in 1326, when she overthrew herhusband, EDWARD II. In 1327, when John ofHainault participated in Edward’s cam-paign in SCOTLAND, Jean le Bel was amember of Hainault’s retinue, and hischronicle is thus an eyewitness account ofthat expedition. Because of Jean’s connec-tion to England and the English court, hischronicle views the war from an Englishperspective and its great hero is Edward III,whose military achievements are recounted

in detail.According to his prologue, Jean began

writing his chronicle at the request of Johnof Hainault. Jean’s stated goal was to faith-fully record the great battles, feats of arms,and chivalrous deeds that occurred duringEdward’s reign. Eschewing rhyme, which hebelieved required ‘‘too many embellish-ments and repetitions’’ (Gransden, 165),

Jean wrote in French prose, a practice later

followed by Froissart, who also incorporatedhis predecessor’s work down to 1361 intothe first draft of his Chroniques. Froissartadhered so closely to Jean’s text that amanuscript of Les vrayes chronicles discov-ered in the nineteenth century was at firstbelieved to be a copy of Froissart.

Jean began writing in about 1357, when herecorded the major events of the war up tothat date. Later additions brought the nar-rative into the 1360s. Although his writings

lack the narrative power of Froissart, Jean leBel was more careful of his facts. Writing inreaction to what he saw as the false or ex-aggerated histories related by poets andminstrels, Jean was determined to tell thetruth as he saw it. The first chronicler topresent the Anglo-French war and the deedsof its participants as things worth recording,

Jean, despite his pro-English stance, hadlittle influence on the writing of chronicles in

England, where, thanks to the war, the useof French rapidly declined in the late four-teenth century. In France, however, Jean le

JAMES I

172



Bel, through Froissart, became the impetusfor a whole series of important works ofchivalrous history. See also NATIONAL CON-

SCIOUSNESS, GROWTH OF.Further Reading: Gransden, Antonia. Historical

Writing in England. Vol. 2, c. 1307 to the EarlySixteenth Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press, 1974; Thompson, Peter E., ed. and trans.

Contemporary Chronicles of the Hundred Years War:

From the Works of Jean le Bel, Jean Froissart, and

Enguerrand de Monstrelet. London: Folio Society,

1966; Tyson, Diana B. ‘‘Jean le Bel: Portrait of a

Chronicler.’’ Journal of Medieval History 12 (1986):

315–32.

JEANNE, COUNTESS OF PENTHIEVRE.

See BRETON CIVIL WAR

JEANNE D’ARC. See JOAN OF ARC

JOAN OF ARC (c. 1412–1431) Joan of Arc, a French peasant girl whoseimprobable military leadership raised thesiege of ORLEANS and enabled the dauphinto be crowned king, is the most enigmaticand compelling figure of the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR. Although Joan’s intervention did notwin the war for the French, it did turn thetide in their favor by restoring the prestige ofthe House of VALOIS and inspiring its parti-sans to a renewed effort that ultimately ex-pelled the English.

Joan was born in about 1412 in Domremy,a village in the northeastern province ofLorraine. Her parents were prosperouspeasants and her uncle was a priest. At theage of thirteen, Joan began to hear the voices

of Saint Margaret, Saint Catherine, and thearchangel Michael, who, with increasingurgency, exhorted her to go to the aid of theking of France. By 1428, when Burgundianraiders forced Joan and her family to flee toNeufchatel, the voices made this seeminglyimpossible mission more precise—Joan wasto break the English siege of Orleans. InFebruary 1429, Joan persuaded Robert deBaudricourt, the dauphinist commander at

Vaucouleurs, to provide her with an escort tothe dauphin. Advised by her voices to cut herhair and assume male attire, Joan and her

attendants traveled for eleven days throughenemy territory to reach the dauphin’s courtat Chinon on 6 March. After being keptwaiting for several days while the dauphin’scouncilors debated the advisability of re-

ceiving her, Joan was summoned to court,where she made a sensation by immediatelypicking the dauphin, whom she had neverseen, out of a crowd. Joan and the dauphinthen held an intense private conversationduring which Joan, by unknown means,convinced him that she had been sent byGod to defeat the English and see himcrowned.

However, before he would give her anarmy to relieve Orleans, the dauphin sent

Joan to the University of Poitiers, where, foreleven days, she was interrogated by theo-logians charged with ensuring her ortho-doxy. Asked what language her voicesspoke, Joan, who spoke French with a pro-nounced Limousin accent, answered, ‘‘Abetter tongue than I’’ (DeVries, 46). Showingno fear or anxiety and offering such simpleand direct answers to complex questions,

Joan passed the test, convincing her inquis-

itors that her mission was divinely inspired.A few days later at Tours, Joan also passed aphysical test conducted by Yolande of Sicily,the queen’s mother, who assured her son-in-law that Joan was a virgin. At the end ofthese tests, on 22 March, Joan dictated herso-called ‘‘Letter to the English,’’ which wasa stern and confident ultimatum addressedto HENRY VI; JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD; andother English leaders. If the English werewilling ‘‘to give up France and pay for

having occupied her,’’ they could go inpeace; but if they refused, ‘‘then whereverwe find you we will strike at you there, andmake a great uproar, greater than any madein France for a thousand years’’ (DeVries,64). Dispatched in late April, the letter, notsurprisingly, elicited no response from theEnglish, but had an immediate effect indauphinist France, where men enthusiasti-cally flocked to join the army being raised to

convey Joan to Orleans.Assured of Joan’s sincerity and purity,and believing, perhaps, that he had nothing

JOAN OF ARC

173



to lose, the dauphin ordered that Joan besupplied with a suit of ARMOR and a specialstandard that she had designed on instruc-tion from her voices. On 29 April, Joan, ac-companied by a large relief force, enteredOrleans, where she demanded that thecommander of the garrison, John, the Bas-tard of Orleans (see JOHN, COUNT OF DUNOIS

AND LONGUEVILLE), launch an immediate as-

sault on the English. When the Bastard, be-lieving himself unready, did not attack until4 May, Joan filled the time by shouting

across to the English lines to de-mand that they withdraw and inreturn receiving insults and abuse.During four days of near-con-tinuous combat, the French, driven

by Joan’s sense of urgency and in-spired by her courage—she refusedto leave the field after being wound-ed by an arrow—seized key Englishdefenses. Shaken by the fervor ofthe French attacks, the Englishabandoned their remaining posi-tions and marched away on 8 May,thus lifting the siege and complet-ing the first part of Joan’s mission.To accomplish the second part, the

dauphin’s coronation, Joan, in mid- June, accompanied an army com-manded by JOHN, DUKE OF ALENCON,on a week-long campaign (see LOIRE

CAMPAIGN) that cleared the LoireValley of English garrisons andended with a major victory atPATAY. Inspired by these triumphs,the dauphin marched to Rheims,where, on 17 July, he was crowned

king as CHARLES VII in Joan’s pres-ence.Thanks to her military success,

Joan was now a political force, arecognized leader of the court fac-tion that favored vigorous prosecu-tion of the war over negotiation.

Joan urged the king to attack PARIS,but the failure of her ill-consideredassault on the capital on 8 Septem-ber convinced Charles to arrange a

truce and disband the army. InApril 1430, PHILIP THE GOOD, duke of BUR-

GUNDY, laid siege to Compiegne. Her influ-ence waning, Joan secretly left court to assistthe town’s Valois garrison. Captured by theBURGUNDIANS on 23 May, Joan was sold tothe English and transferred to a militaryprison in ROUEN in December. Accused ofwitchcraft and heresy, Joan, beginning on 21February 1431, was tried before a tribunal

led by Pierre Cauchon, bishop of Beauvais,whose brief from the English was to dis-credit Charles by associating him and his

Although it inaccurately depicts her in female attire, this

drawing of Joan of Arc in the margin of the register of the

Paris Parlement was done on 10 May 1429, only days after the

relief of Orleans, and thus is the only likeness of Joan done

during her lifetime. Reunion des Musees Nationaux/Art Resource,

New York.

JOAN OF ARC

174



cause with a witch and heretic. Convicted bythe court and by theologians from the Uni-versity of Paris, who were appalled by heruse of male attire, Joan was brought on 24May to the cemetery of Saint-Ouen, where

she was to be condemned to death. Beforesentence could be read, Joan recanted, de-nying her voices, confessing to blasphemyand sorcery, and promising to wear wom-en’s clothes. Sentenced to life imprisonment,

Joan asked to be sent to an ecclesiasticalprison, where she could have female atten-dants. Cauchon, however, returned her tothe English military prison, where, four dayslater, she overthrew her recantation by re-suming male attire. Although Joan said that

it was more suitable to dress like a manwhile she was in the keeping of men, his-torians have surmised that the English,angry that she had escaped the flames, sentsoldiers to gang-rape her or ordered her

jailers to hide her women’s clothes. In anyevent, her subsequent admission that hervoices had returned sealed her fate.

Joan was burned at the stake in Rouen on30 May 1431. Charles VII made no attempt

to help her and for twenty years said noth-ing about her. In 1456, a new trial, orderedby Charles largely to clear his name of in-volvement with a condemned heretic, re-versed the verdict of 1431 and declared Joaninnocent. In 1920, Joan, already a popularFrench icon and destined to become a sym-bol of the French resistance during WorldWar II, was canonized by the Roman Cath-olic Church.

Further Reading: Barstow, Anne Llewellyn.

Joan of Arc, Heretic, Mystic, Shaman. Lewiston, ME:Edwin Mellen Press, 1986; DeVries, Kelly. Joan of

Arc: A Military Leader . Stroud, England: Sutton

Publishing, 2003; Fraioli, Deborah A. Joan of Arc

and the Hundred Years War . Westport, CT: Green-

wood Press, 2005; Gies, Frances. Joan of Arc: The

Legend and the Reality. New York: Harper and

Row, 1981; Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By

Herself and Her Witnesses. London: Scarborough

House, 1982; Pernoud, Regine, and Marie-Vero-

nique Clin. Joan of Arc. Trans. Jeremy DuquesnayAdams. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999;

Richey, Stephen W. Joan of Arc: The Warrior

Saint. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003; Warner, Ma-

rina. Joan of Arc: The Image of Female Heroism. New

York: Knopf, 1981; Wheeler, Bonnie, and Charles

T. Woods, eds. Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc.

London: Garland, 1996.

JOAN OF KENT, PRINCESS OF WALES.See EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE; RICHARD II

JOHN, COUNT OF DUNOIS ANDLONGUEVILLE (1402–1468)The illegitimate son of CHARLES VI’s brother,LOUIS, DUKE OF ORLEANS, John, count of Du-nois, was CHARLES VII’s most loyal and ablecommander, and JOAN OF ARC’s most fa-mous companion at the siege of ORLEANS.

After the assassination of his father in1407, John, known as the Bastard of Orleans,was educated by the duke’s wife, ValentineVisconti, who saw the precocious boy as herhusband’s future avenger. After John’s half-brother, CHARLES, DUKE OF ORLEANS, wascaptured at AGINCOURT in 1415, leadership ofthe ARMAGNAC party, the Orleanist factionin the FRENCH CIVIL WAR, passed eventuallyto the Bastard’s childhood companion,

Dauphin Charles, whose service he enteredin 1417. In about 1418, the Bastard wascaptured by the Burgundians and remaineda prisoner for two years. With the death ofhis half brother Philip in 1420, John assumedactive leadership of the Orleans family andprime responsibility for raising Duke Char-les’s RANSOM. Among the most active dau-phinist captains in the 1420s, the Bastardfought at BAUGE in 1421, assisted in the de-fense of Mont-Saint-Michel in 1425, and

made a name for himself by breaking theEnglish siege of MONTARGIS in 1427.

In late 1428, the Bastard was given com-mand of the garrison in besieged Orleans.With the help of captains like Etienne deVIGNOLLES and Poton de XAINTRAILLES, helaunched a series of sorties against the be-siegers, but these were largely unsuccessfuland the Bastard’s defense of the city hasbeen criticized by some historians as inef-

fective and overcautious. In February 1429,his plan to disrupt enemy supply lines wasfrustrated at the Battle of the HERRINGS. In

JOHN, COUNT OF DUNOIS AND LONGUEVILLE

175



late April, he met Joan of Arc at Blois, wherea strong French relief force was gathering.Despite some doubts about her mission anddisagreements with her military tactics, theBastard accepted Joan’s moral leadership

and won a great reputation for himself asher most famous captain at the relief of Or-leans in May 1429 and during the subse-quent LOIRE CAMPAIGN, which ended on 18

June with the victory at PATAY.Throughout the 1430s, the Bastard led a

series of effective campaigns in the SeineValley that ended with the king’s triumphantentry into PARIS in 1436. Named grandchamberlain in 1433 and made count of Du-nois in 1439 and count of Longueville in 1444,

the Bastard played a major role in the im-plementation of French military reforms inthe 1440s (see CHARLES VII, MILITARY REFORMS

OF). He again commanded armies in theNORMANDY CAMPAIGN of 1449–50 and in GAS-

CONY in 1451. He testified extensively at Joanof Arc’s rehabilitation hearings in 1456 andheld various diplomatic and political postsduring the last years of Charles VII. Althoughdismissed from court on the accession of

Louis XI in 1461, he reconciled with the kingin 1465 and served as a royal councilor untilhis death on 23 November 1468.

Further Reading: DeVries, Kelly. Joan of Arc: A

Military Leader . Stroud, England: Sutton Publish-

ing, 2003; Pernoud, Regine, and Marie-Veronique

Clin. Joan of Arc. Trans. Jeremy Duquesnay

Adams. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.

JOHN, DUKE OF ALENCON(c. 1407–1476)

A friend and companion of JOAN OF ARC,who referred to him as ‘‘my fair duke,’’ JohnII, duke of Alencon, commanded the dau-phinist army during the 1429 LOIRE CAM-

PAIGN and the culminating Battle of PATAY.The second son of John I, duke of Alen-

con, who died at AGINCOURT in 1415, John IIgrew up at the dauphinist court, where hismother, Mary of BRITTANY, fled after HENRY

V granted the duchy of Alencon to his

brother JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD. In responseto this grant, the dauphin named John IIlieutenant-general of the duchy in 1420. In

1423, John also received appointment to thedauphin’s council. Captured at VERNEUIL in1424, John, who succeeded his brother Peteras duke of Alencon in 1425, remained aprisoner until February 1429. Burdened with

an exorbitant RANSOM of 80,000 gold saluts,the duke was forced to take extreme mea-sures to raise the money. His wife, Joan, thedaughter of CHARLES, the captive duke ofOrleans, pawned her jewels, while Alenconsurrendered several lordships, including thebarony of Fougeres, which passed to hisuncle, JOHN V, duke of Brittany.

On 7 March 1429, the day after her firstmeeting with the dauphin, Alencon met

Joan of Arc at Chinon. After jousting with

Joan and offering her a horse, the duke, whowas surprised at the ease with which shehandled arms, quickly became devoted tothe Maid and her cause. Although Alenconwas not present at the siege of ORLEANS, Joanstayed with him afterward, visiting hishome at Saint-Laurent between 22 May and2 June. Introduced to his mother and wife,

Joan promised the latter that she wouldbring the duke back from the coming cam-

paign ‘‘in the state he is in now or in a betterone’’ (DeVries, 98). Perhaps to ease thestrained relationship between Joan and

John, Bastard of Orleans (see JOHN, COUNT OF

DUNOIS AND LONGUEVILLE) and leader of theOrleans garrison, the dauphin appointedAlencon, who was a friend to the former anda brother-in-law to the latter, commander ofthe army. On 17 July, after the success of theLoire Campaign, Alencon was knighted byCHARLES VII at his coronation in Rheims.

The duke participated in Joan’s unsuc-cessful assault on PARIS in early September,but left her when Charles VII disbanded theroyal army shortly thereafter. Although hetook part in campaigns in Maine, Anjou, andNORMANDY in the 1430s, Alencon did notfight again with Joan, who was captured bythe Burgundians in 1430 and burned at thestake by the English in 1431. By 1439,Alencon’s friendship with the king had

cooled, and the duke joined the Praguerie,an uprising of disaffected nobles that wassuppressed by the constable, Arthur de

JOHN, DUKE OF ALENCON

176



Richemont (see ARTHUR III). Pardoned andreleased in 1449, when he took part in theNORMAN CAMPAIGN, Alencon was financiallyruined and attempted to repair his fortunesby marrying his daughter to the eldest son

(the future Edward IV) of RICHARD, DUKE OFYORK. This communication with an Englishduke was regarded as treason by CharlesVII, who ordered the duke’s arrest in themidst of his testimony at Joan of Arc’s nul-lification trial in 1456. Imprisoned in thefortress of Aigues-Mortes, Alencon was re-leased on the accession of his godson, LouisXI, in 1461. However, when he refusedLouis’s demand for control of three for-tresses and the wardship of his children,

Alencon was rearrested. Although convictedof treason and condemned to death in July1474, Alencon was never executed and dieda prisoner in the Louvre in 1476.






JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD (1389–1435)The third son of HENRY IV, John, duke ofBedford, governed England as lieutenant forhis brother HENRY V and France as regent forhis nephew HENRY VI. After his brother’sdeath in 1422, Bedford oversaw all phasesof the English war effort, maintaining theANGLO-BURGUNDIAN ALLIANCE, ruling NOR-

MANDY and Lancastrian France, and defend-ing his nephew’s right to the French throne.

John was knighted in October 1399, only

weeks after his father deposed RICHARD IIand established the House of LANCASTER onthe English throne. A member of the Order ofthe GARTER by 1402, John became constableof England and warden of the east marchwith SCOTLAND in 1403. Henry V made hisbrother duke of Bedford in May 1414 andentrusted him with the government of En-gland in August 1415, when the king invadedFrance and reopened the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR. In August 1416, Bedford commandedthe English fleet at the Battle of the SEINE, anaval victory that broke the French blockade

of HARFLEUR. In 1417–19, Bedford againserved as king’s lieutenant in England, pre-siding over PARLIAMENT and raising moneyand supplies for his brother’s conquest ofNormandy. In 1420, the duke returned to

France to attend the signing of the Treaty ofTROYES and to participate in the sieges ofSens and MELUN. Bedford became heir to thethrone in March 1421, when his elderbrother, THOMAS, DUKE OF CLARENCE, wasslain at BAUGE. After another term as royallieutenant, Bedford returned to France inMay 1422, and was thus present when HenryV died at Vincennes in the following August.

In accordance with Henry V’s wishes,Bedford assumed the French regency in late

1422 upon the refusal of PHILIP THE GOOD,duke of BURGUNDY, to take the office onbehalf of the infant Henry VI. In 1423, aspart of the Treaty of AMIENS, a defensiveagreement binding the regent, Burgundy,and JOHN V, duke of BRITTANY, in a triplealliance in support of Henry VI’s FrenchCrown, Bedford married Burgundy’s sister,ANNE. Until her death in 1432, the duchessplayed a vital role in easing relations be-

tween her husband and her brother and inmaintaining the vital Anglo-Burgundianalliance. Between 1423 and 1429, Bedford ex-panded the area of Lancastrian rule to in-clude most of non-Burgundian France northof the Loire. Understanding the need to rulethrough French officers and institutions,Bedford initiated popular reforms in theAnglo-Burgundian administration and tooksteps to control brigandage. Although heseldom took the field in person, the duke

commanded at the greatest English victoryof the decade, the Battle of VERNEUIL in Au-gust 1424. From December 1425 to March1427, Bedford resided in England, where heintervened in the bitter feud between hisbrother, HUMPHREY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER,and his uncle, Cardinal Henry BEAUFORT,bishop of Winchester, a quarrel that split theEnglish regency council.

In 1429, the tide of war turned against the

English. Inspired by JOAN OF ARC, the Frenchbroke the siege of ORLEANS, cleared the Loireof English garrisons (see LOIRE CAMPAIGN),

JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD

177



and secured the coronation of the dauphinas CHARLES VII. Bedford’s regency wastemporarily suspended in 1430–31, whenHenry VI, in a move urged by Bedford, cameto France for his coronation. Bedford took no

part in the 1431 trial and execution of Joan ofArc, whom the duke, a man of strictly or-thodox belief, later described as a witch. InApril 1433, five months after the death ofDuchess Anne, Bedford married Jacquetta ofLuxembourg, the seventeen-year-old nieceof the Anglo-Burgundian chancellor. Theduke’s relations with Burgundy, who hadbeen seeking means to honorably detachhimself from the English alliance, deterio-rated after Anne’s death, and the two men

met for the last time in May 1433. In June,Bedford returned to England, where heagain mediated between Gloucester andBeaufort and successfully defended himselfagainst charges of mismanaging the war,which may have been inspired by Glouces-ter. Returning to France in July 1434, Bed-ford’s health began to fail and he died atROUEN on 14 September 1435, only a weekbefore Burgundy made peace with Charles

VII at the Congress of ARRAS.Further Reading: Allmand, C. T. Lancastrian

Normandy, 1415–1450: The History of a Medieval

Occupation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983; Wil-

liams, E. Carleton. My Lord of Bedford, 1389–1435.

London: Longmans, 1963.

JOHN, DUKE OF BERRY (1340–1416) John, duke of Berry, was the son of JOHN IIand the younger brother of CHARLES V. Bestknown as a patron and collector of art, Berry

proved to be an inept soldier and a devious,unreliable politician, who, despite efforts tomediate the political disputes of his brothersand nephews, exacerbated the internal ri-valries that led to initiation of the FRENCH

CIVIL WAR and resumption of the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR.Born at Vincennes on 30 November 1340,

John was made count of Poitou in 1356.When Poitou was ceded to EDWARD III by

the Treaty of BRE´

TIGNY in 1360, John II cre-ated his son duke of Berry and Auvergne.From 1360 to 1364, following the French

king’s release from captivity, Berry and hisbrother, LOUIS, DUKE OF ANJOU, were amongthe hostages held in England to guaranteepayment of their father’s ransom. Berry wasthus involved in negotiation of the Treaty of

the HOSTAGES, an abortive 1362 agreementwhereby the hostages, acting on their ownauthority, attempted to speed their releaseby making further territorial and monetaryconcessions to the English.

When war resumed in 1369, Charles V re-granted Poitou to his brother as an incentiveto retake AQUITAINE from the English. How-ever, the subsequent French reconquest ofthe county and duchy had more to do withthe king’s success in persuading Gascon no-

bles to switch allegiance than with Berry’smilitary ability. In October 1374, Charles ex-cluded Berry from the list of guardiansnamed to govern for the dauphin should hesucceed as a minor, an omission that mayhave proceeded from the king’s disapprovalof his brother’s personal life. A man of cul-ture and taste, Berry was one of the greatestpatrons of art in French history. As such, hismain interest was not politics or war, but

using his lands and offices to increase hiswealth and enlarge his collections, whichranged in content from jewels, tapestries, andobjets d’art to castles, dogs, and books. Theduke is today best known for the survivingmanuscripts he commissioned, particularlyhis richly illuminated Tres Riches Heures, aprayerbook (known as a book of hours) thatcontains a calendar illustrated with depic-tions of the duke’s seventeen castles.

On the accession of CHARLES VI in 1380,

Berry was appointed royal lieutenant inLanguedoc, but he rarely visited the province,which he used mainly as a source of revenueto fund his collecting. The resulting overtax-ation and maladministration threw the regioninto disorder and forced the king to dismisshis uncle from office in 1389. In 1392, the onsetof Charles’s mental illness brought Berry backinto government. Lacking political ambitionhimself, the duke had sought, in the 1380s, to

temper the conflicting ambitions of hisbrothers, Louis, duke of Anjou, and PHILIP THE

BOLD, duke of BURGUNDY. After the latter’s

JOHN, DUKE OF BERRY

178



death in 1404, Berry, as the king’s sole sur-viving uncle, used his prestige and influenceto mediate the growing rivalry between hisnephews, LOUIS, DUKE OF ORLEANS, and JOHN

THE FEARLESS, duke of Burgundy. However,

when Burgundy, having arranged his rival’smurder, seized power after 1409, Berry re-acted to his exclusion from court by joiningthe ARMAGNAC (Orleanist) faction and thusbecame party to the 1412 Treaty of BOURGES,an agreement that surrendered many ofCharles V’s conquests in return for Englishassistance against Burgundy. Berry died inPARIS on 15 June 1416, a year after civil warhad brought the English back into France; hewas succeeded by his daughter, Marie,

duchess of Bourbon.Further Reading: Meiss, Millard. French Paint-

ing in the Time of Jean de Berry: The Late Fourteenth

Century and the Patronage of the Duke. 2. vols.

London: Phaidon, 1969; Perroy, Edouard. The

Hundred Years War . Trans. W. B. Wells. New York:

Capricorn Books, 1965.

JOHN I, KING OF FRANCE. See SALIC LAW

OF SUCCESSION

JOHN II, KING OF FRANCE (1319–1364) John II was the eldest son of PHILIP VI andthe second VALOIS king of France. Although

John became known to posterity as ‘‘le Bon’’(the Good), his reign was marked by mili-tary defeat, political instability, economicdistress, and social unrest, and reached itsnadir when the king, after four years ofcaptivity, agreed to the dismemberment ofhis kingdom. The last years of the reign,

however, saw the initiation of a political andmilitary recovery that came to fruition after

John’s death.In July 1332, John married Bonne of Lux-

embourg, by whom he had nine children. Heheld several important APPANAGES tied toformer PLANTAGENET possessions, becomingduke of NORMANDY and count of Maine andAnjou in 1332, and duke of Guienne in 1345.Normandy received his first military com-

mand in May 1340, when he launched an of-fensive against the chief members of EDWARD

III’s ANTI-FRENCH COALITION. Attacking Hai-

nault, Brabant, and FLANDERS, the duke se-cured most of the Scheldt Valley before anEnglish naval victory at SLUYS ended thecampaign in late June. In 1341, at the start ofthe BRETON CIVIL WAR, Normandy invaded

BRITTANY on behalf of CHARLES OF BLOIS, theFrench-backed claimant to the Breton ducaltitle. Quickly overrunning the duchy, heforced John de MONTFORT, Blois’s English-backed rival, to capitulate. In 1345, Normandycommanded an army in GASCONY, but failedto intercept the forces of HENRY OF GROSMONT,duke of Lancaster, and ended the campaignupon receiving news of the French defeat atAUBEROCHE. In 1346, he returned to Gasconyand invested AIGUILLON, but abandoned the

siege in late August when the developingCRECY campaign forced his recall. Frustratedby his failure either to take Aiguillon or reachCrecy in time for the battle, Normandy fellinto disagreement with his father. In October1346, the two quarreled over Philip’s refusalto honor a safe-conduct the duke had issuedto Sir Walter MAUNY. The estrangementdeepened in 1350, when Philip, having re-cently lost his queen, Jeanne de Burgundy, to

plague (see BLACK DEATH), angered Nor-mandy, who had been close to his mother, bymarrying a much younger woman, Blanched’Evreux, the sister of CHARLES THE BAD, kingof Navarre.

Normandy ascended the throne as John IIin August 1350. A brave man and a chival-rous knight, John as king was stubborn,impulsive, and easily swayed by strongerpersonalities and greater intellects. He wasalso rash, extravagant, and a poor judge of

character, tending to rely for advice on closefriends and cronies and allowing his councilto become the tool of faction. John’s firstaction was the sudden arrest of a recentlyparoled English captive, Constable Raoul deBrienne, count of Eu, who was subsequentlyexecuted for unspecified treasons. Unable topay his RANSOM, Eu had surrendered hiscastle of Guines, which lay on the CALAIS

march, to Edward III, an action that John

interpreted as treason. Angered by the hasteand secrecy that surrounded Eu’s death,most of the northwestern nobility attached

JOHN II, KING OF FRANCE

179





took effect, mainly because the French gov-ernment could not meet English ransom de-mands, and because Navarre’s ambitionalienated his allies and improved the dau-phin’s political position. In 1360, following

the failure of Edward III’s RHEIMS CAMPAIGN, John’s representatives negotiated the Treatyof BRETIGNY, whereby Edward agreed to re-nounce his claim to the French Crown inreturn for a ransom of 3 million gold ecusand an enlarged AQUITAINE held in full sov-ereignty. Released at Calais on 24 October1360, John soon fell behind on his ransompayments, being unable to squeeze taxesfrom a kingdom ravaged by English routiers.Although some historians credit the dau-

phin, the last years of John’s reign witnesseda gradual revival of royal authority. Theoverthrow of Marcel and the waning of Na-varre’s influence allowed the Crown to re-gain the support of Paris and the nobility andto convince the Estates to grant taxes thatallowed the eventual creation of a royal armycapable of suppressing routiers.

On 3 January 1364, John voluntarily re-turned to LONDON. Although he gave no

reason for his action, it was partially relatedto the flight of his son, LOUIS, DUKE OF ANJOU,who, while one of the hostages held in Ca-lais to ensure prompt ransom payments,broke parole and refused to return to cus-tody. A more important reason was likely

John’s desire to negotiate directly withEdward for a favorable revision of the Bre-tigny agreement. Discussions were well un-derway when John died in London on 8April. He was succeeded by his eldest son

CHARLES V. See also ESTATES, GENERAL AND

PROVINCIAL.Further Reading: Perroy, Edouard. The Hun-


Capricorn Books, 1965; Sumption, Jonathan.

The Hundred Years War . Vol. 2, Trial by Fire.


2001.

JOHN IV, DUKE OF BRITTANY

(c. 1340–1399) John IV, the first Montfort duke of BRITTANY,ended the BRETON CIVIL WAR, strengthened

ducal authority, and preserved the inde-pendence of the duchy.

John IV was the son of John de MONTFORT,who in 1341 claimed the succession to theducal title of his late half brother Duke John

III. Montfort’s claim was opposed by hisniece, Joan of Penthievre, whose cause waschampioned by her husband, CHARLES OF

BLOIS, a nephew of PHILIP VI. The civil warthat arose from these rival claims wasquickly subsumed into the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR, with Philip backing Blois and EDWARD

III supporting Montfort. When Montfortdied in 1345, Edward assumed direction ofthe Montfort cause and guardianship of theyounger John de Montfort, who had been

sent to safety in England by his mother Joanof FLANDERS. In 1356, Montfort accompaniedHENRY OF GROSMONT, duke of Lancaster, toBrittany, where the sixteen-year-old boyparticipated in the English siege of Rennes.Although the Anglo-French Treaty of BRE-

TIGNY called upon both parties to work to-ward a settlement of the Breton successiondispute, both JOHN II and Edward III ad-hered to their own candidates. In 1362, when

Edward terminated his guardianship andallowed Montfort to return to Brittany andassume leadership of his cause, the Bretoncivil war resumed. In April 1364, Montfort,with the assistance of Sir John CHANDOS andsuch English ROUTIER captains as Sir RobertKNOLLES and Sir Hugh CALVELEY, defeatedand killed Blois at AURAY. That victory led inApril 1365 to the signing of the Treaty ofGUERANDE, whereby Joan of Penthievre rec-ognized Montfort as Duke John IV.

The new duke paid homage to CHARLES V,but maintained close ties with England. In1370, he allowed Knolles to shelter in theduchy after his abortive CHEVAUCHE E innorthern France, and in 1372, he formallyrepudiated VALOIS overlordship, an unpop-ular action that cost him the support of theBreton nobility and forced him to flee toLONDON in 1373. After the exiled duke ac-companied JOHN OF GAUNT, duke of Lan-

caster, on the grand CHEVAUCHE´

E OF 1373, aFrench army under Bertrand du GUESCLIN

overran most of the duchy, save for Brest

JOHN IV, DUKE OF BRITTANY

181



and three other English-held fortresses inthe west. On the advice of Olivier de CLISSON

and other pro-French Bretons, Charles Vdeclared John contumacious and confiscatedthe duchy on 18 December 1378. Although

unhappy with John’s pro-English stance, theBreton people liked the idea of incorporationinto the Valois state even less. They invited

John to return, and on 4 April 1381, almostsix months after the death of Charles V, asecond Treaty of Guerande returned John topower as a Valois vassal. Thereafter, theduke followed a more neutral course inforeign affairs. He assisted the French in thesuppression of the Flemish revolt in the1380s but retained links with England even

though the English retention of Brest and of John’s English lordships strained Anglo-Breton relations later in the decade.

Domestically, the duke, in an effort toincrease ducal authority and therebystrengthen Breton independence, reorganizedBrittany’s government, reformed its finances,and enhanced the prestige of its courtthrough a more formalized ceremonial, whichincluded the founding of an order of CHIV-

ALRY, the Order of the Ermine. The last yearsof John’s reign were marred by a bitter feudwith John, count of Penthievre, who revivedhis mother’s cause. In 1387, the duke cap-tured and ransomed Clisson, Penthievre’sfather-in-law and strongest supporter, and, in1392, John may have been responsible for anattempt on Clisson’s life. In the 1390s, theduke moved closer to France, marrying hisson, the future JOHN V, to Jeanne, thedaughter of CHARLES VI. John died in No-

vember 1399.Further Reading: Jones, Michael. The Creation of

Brittany: A Late Medieval State. London: Hambledon

Press, 1988; Jones, Michael. Ducal Brittany, 1364–

1399. London: Oxford University Press, 1970.

JOHN V, DUKE OF BRITTANY (1389–1442)By constantly shifting allegiance to alignhimself with the stronger party, John V,second Montfort duke of BRITTANY, main-

tained Breton independence against bothFrance and England during the last decadesof the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

John was nine when he succeeded his fa-ther, JOHN IV, in November 1399. His mar-riage to Jeanne of VALOIS, daughter ofCHARLES VI and ISABEAU OF BAVARIA, pro-duced seven children. Although lingering

support among the Breton nobility for therival Penthievre claim to the ducal title al-lowed Olivier, count of Penthievre, to brieflyimprison the duke in 1420, Montfort au-thority was largely unchallenged during

John’s rule. Acting through such capableofficials as Chancellor John de Malestroit, theduke strengthened ducal administration, re-formed the military, and initiated diplomaticand trade contacts with most of WesternEurope. He also promoted Breton indepen-

dence by emphasizing the sovereign natureof ducal authority through employment ofnew coronation rituals, adoption of elaborateBurgundian ceremonial for the ducalhousehold, and issuance of gold coinage.

In foreign affairs, the duke vacillated be-tween French and Anglo-Burgundian alli-ances. Generally considered a weak manwho hated war and sought personal com-fort, John was often swayed by stronger

personalities, particularly his forceful youn-ger brother Arthur de Richemont (see AR-

THUR III). However, the duke was committedto Breton independence and genuinely con-cerned for the welfare of his people, and hisshifting alliances allowed Brittany to avoidthe suffering visited on the duchy by itsfourteenth-century entanglement in theAnglo-French war (see BRETON CIVIL WAR).

In January 1414, John concluded a ten-yeartruce with England, thereby ensuring Breton

neutrality when HENRY V invaded France inthe following year. In March 1419, John con-cluded a more formal alliance with Henry,then at the height of his military success,but repudiated that agreement after the En-glish defeat at BAUGE in March 1421. In thefollowing May, the duke concluded anagreement with the dauphin (see CHARLES VII)at Sable, which included a Breton undertak-ing to make war on England. In June 1422,

Henry undermined this alliance by releasingRichemont, an English prisoner since AGIN-

COURT, who persuaded his brother to abandon

JOHN V, DUKE OF BRITTANY

182



the dauphin and adhere to the Treaty ofTROYES. In April 1423, John brought Brittanyinto formal alliance with England and BUR-

GUNDY by signing the Treaty of AMIENS with JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD, and PHILIP THE GOOD,

duke of Burgundy. However, at Philip’surging, John immediately signed a secretunderstanding with Burgundy whereby thetwo dukes agreed to remain friends even ifone reconciled with the dauphin.

In December 1425, nine months after Riche-mont entered the dauphin’s service, Johnconcluded the Franco-Breton Treaty of Sau-mur, whereby the duke did homage to thedauphin and allowed the French to recruitin the duchy. After declaring war on Brit-

tany in January 1426, the English invadedand defeated Richemont. In September 1427,the duke repudiated the Saumur agreement,reaffirmed the Treaty of Troyes, and re-

joined the triple alliance. Constant clashesbetween English and Breton sailors dam-aged Anglo-Breton relations in the early1430s, although lengthy negotiations,marked by a growing friendship betweenHENRY VI and John’s younger son Gilles,

prevented hostilities. After the ANGLO-BUR-GUNDIAN ALLIANCE ended with the Treatyof ARRAS in 1435, John maintained a deli-cate neutrality, allied with England butfriendly with France and willing to brokerany Anglo-French peace. John died on 29August 1442 and was succeeded by his sonFrancis I.

Further Reading: Jones, Michael. The Creation

of Brittany: A Late Medieval State. London: Ham-

bledon Press, 1988.

JOHN OF GAUNT, DUKE OFLANCASTER (1340–1399)The third surviving son of EDWARD III andPHILIPPA of Hainault, and ancestor of the royalHouse of LANCASTER, John of Gaunt, duke ofLancaster, was the wealthiest and mostpowerful English magnate of the late four-teenth century.

Born in Ghent (a later corruption of which

became ‘‘Gaunt’’), John was created earl ofRichmond in September 1342. He was earlyimbued with the martial traditions of his

family, being attached as a youth to thehousehold of his elder brother, EDWARD, THE

BLACK PRINCE. Richmond was with hisbrother at the naval battle of WINCHELSEA inAugust 1350 and was knighted by his father

during the abortive English campaign inNORMANDY in 1355. He accompanied the kingon expeditions to SCOTLAND in 1355–56 andcommanded his own retinue during theRHEIMS CAMPAIGN of 1359–60. He witnessedthe ratification of the Treaty of BRETIGNY inOctober 1360 and was elected a knight of theGARTER in April 1361. Richmond marriedBlanche, the daughter of HENRY OF GROSMONT,duke of Lancaster, in May 1359, and suc-ceeded to his father-in-law’s lands and titles

in November 1362, thus becoming thewealthiest nobleman in England. In January1367, Lancaster sailed to AQUITAINE, where he

joined the Black Prince’s Castilian campaign(see CASTILIAN WAR OF SUCCESSION) and led thevan of the Anglo-Gascon army at the Battle ofNA JERA. In 1368, the death of his elder brother,Lionel, duke of Clarence, combined with thedeteriorating health of the king and theprince, forced Lancaster to assume increasing

responsibility for the conduct of the war.In June 1369, the king appointed Lancasterlieutenant of the PLANTAGENET realm inFrance. In 1370, the duke reinforced theprince in Aquitaine, where Lancaster waspresent at the sack of LIMOGES in Septemberand became his ailing brother’s lieutenant inOctober. He vigorously defended the duchyuntil July 1371, when his inability to pay histroops led him to resign the lieutenancy. InSeptember, Lancaster, a widower since 1368,

married Constanza, the daughter of Pedro I,the late king of Castile. Approved by theking and the prince, who sought means tobreak the Franco-Castilian alliance, thematch gave Lancaster a claim to the Castil-ian Crown and colored his attitude towardEnglish foreign and domestic policy for thenext two decades. Lancaster next com-manded the C HEVAUCHE E of 1373, the largestand longest English CHEVAUCHE E of the

HUNDRED YEARS WAR. Leaving CALAIS, theduke was forced to range far to the east ofPARIS before turning south for Aquitaine,

JOHN OF GAUNT, DUKE OF LANCASTER

183



where he stayed until April 1374 organizingthe duchy’s defenses. In 1375–76, the dukeled the English delegation at the BRUGES

PEACE CONFERENCE, the ultimate failure ofwhich promoted a rumor that Lancaster,

encouraged by the imminent deaths of hisfather and elder brother, intended to securethe English throne for himself. Acting as theking’s representative, Lancaster presidedover the Good Parliament of 1376, whichdefied his authority by impeaching thoseroyal officials believed responsible for theCrown’s insolvency and recent militaryfailures. Although he did not oppose thewill of PARLIAMENT, Lancaster largely re-versed its acts during the following year.

Granted palatinate rights in the duchy ofLancaster in February 1377, and havingconstructed the most extensive political af-finity in England, Lancaster dominated thegovernment upon the accession of his ne-phew, RICHARD II, in the following June.

Suspected of having designs on the throneand blamed for high taxes and an unsuc-cessful war, Lancaster was highly unpopu-lar, particularly in LONDON, where riots fol-

lowed his intervention in the 1377 trial of John Wycliffe, who won the duke’s supportby advocating a strong monarchy to reforma corrupt Church. During the PEASANTS’ RE-

VOLT OF 1381, the rebels, unable to harm theduke himself, who was then in Scotland,destroyed his London palace, the Savoy.Although influential in the minority gov-ernment, Lancaster’s relations with his ne-phew were strained. In 1384, Lancaster,perhaps through the machinations of Ri-

chard’s favorite, Robert de Vere, earl ofOxford, was accused of plotting treason;however, the king accepted his uncle’s pro-testations of loyalty and the scheme came tonaught. In 1385, Lancaster again clashedwith the king, this time over the latter’srefusal to personally lead an expedition toFrance. Royalist courtiers hatched an un-successful plot to assassinate the duke,which led to an angry confrontation be-

tween uncle and nephew and an eventualreconciliation brokered by the king’s mo-ther, Joan of Kent. In 1386, Gaunt led an

expedition to Castile to enforce his claim tothe Castilian throne. The campaign achievedlittle and the duke, after marrying hisdaughter by Constanza to the king of Cas-tile, eventually renounced his claim. With

the end of his Castilian ambitions, Lancasterno longer favored continuance of the Anglo-French war, and his return to England in1389 allowed the king to resume per-sonal control of the government, some-thing that he had lost during the duke’sabsence to a prowar faction led by Lan-caster’s younger brother, THOMAS, DUKE OF

GLOUCESTER.Supporting the Truce of LEULINGHEN, Lan-

caster, who was created duke of Aquitaine in

February 1390, played a leading role inAnglo-French peace negotiations and the ar-rangement of a marriage between Richardand Isabella, the daughter of CHARLES VI (seeISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND [1388–1409]). In1396, Lancaster married his longtime mis-tress, Katherine Swynford, by whom he hadfour children who were later legitimatedunder the name Beaufort (see BEAUFORT,HENRY; BEAUFORT, THOMAS). Lancaster’s death

on 3 February 1399 was hastened by theking’s banishment of his son, Henry of Bo-lingbroke, in September 1398. In July 1399,Bolingbroke returned to England, where heoverthrew Richard and took the throne asHENRY IV, first king of the House of Lancaster.

Further Reading: Goodman, Anthony. John of

Gaunt: The Exercise of Princely Power in Fourteenth-

Century Europe. London: Longman, 1992.

JOHN OF LUXEMBOURG, KING OF

BOHEMIA. See CRECY, BATTLE OF; EDWARD,

THE BLACK PRINCE

JOHN THE FEARLESS, DUKE OFBURGUNDY (1371–1419)

John the Fearless, second VALOIS duke ofBURGUNDY, was leader of the BURGUNDIAN

faction during the FRENCH CIVIL WAR. Eagerto assume his father’s dominant role in thegovernment of his mentally ill cousin,

CHARLES VI, Burgundy ordered the assassi-nation of his main rival, thereby initiating aperiod of internal strife that culminated both

JOHN OF LUXEMBOURG, KING OF BOHEMIA

184



in his own murder and in the English con-quest of NORMANDY.

The eldest son of PHILIP THE BOLD andMARGUERITE DE FLANDERS, John becamecount of Nevers in 1384. In 1396, Nevers led

the Franco-Burgundian contingent that par-ticipated in the Crusade of Nicopolis, a large-ly Burgundian effort to aid the king ofHungary against the Turks. On 25 Septem-ber, at the Battle of Nicopolis, Nevers wonhis appellation by leading a series of rashcavalry charges that ultimately destroyedhis force and left him captive. Put to RAN-

SOM, Nevers remained in Turkish custodyfor nine months, not returning to Burgundyuntil February 1398. Nevers succeeded his

father as duke of Burgundy in April 1404,and inherited his mother’s provinces in theLow Countries and western Germany inMarch 1405. A cold, brutal, and ambitiousman, Burgundy also inherited his father’sincreasingly bitter political rivalry with theking’s younger brother, LOUIS, DUKE OF OR-

LEANS. Lacking his father’s authority andexperience, Burgundy was frequently out-maneuvered by Orleans, whose more at-

tractive personality won him the support ofQueen ISABEAU. Clashing initially over aproposed new tax, the cousins were soon atodds over Burgundy’s desire for royal assis-tance in besieging CALAIS as retaliation forEnglish attacks on FLANDERS. When thecouncil, influenced by Orleans, rejected thisrequest, Burgundy, in an effort to weakenhis rival, began posing as a champion ofgovernmental reform, a dangerous policythat won him much support in PARIS but

also aroused popular expectations that theduke had no intention of fulfilling. In No-vember 1407, Burgundy, finding his inter-ests threatened and his ambitions thwarted,arranged Orleans’s murder.

Upon admitting his crime, which he as-cribed to the ‘‘intervention of the devil’’(Perroy, 227), Burgundy was forbidden thecouncil and forced to flee Paris. However,by taking advantage of the addled king’s

grief, Burgundy returned to court in Feb-ruary 1408, and on 8 March presented to thecouncil a long document entitled the J USTI-

FICATION OF THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY , whichportrayed Orleans as a thief, traitor, andpractitioner of black magic, whose murderwas a justifiable act of tyrannicide, both‘‘lawful and meritorious’’ (Perroy, 229).

When these brazen claims were largely ac-cepted by public opinion, the king par-doned Burgundy, although the supportersof CHARLES, the new duke of Orleans, con-tinued to demand vengeance. By 1410,Burgundy dominated the king and court,forcing the duke’s uncle, JOHN, DUKE OF

BERRY; the constable, Charles, lord of AL-

BRET; and various other princes to protesttheir exclusion from power by joining theOrleanists, who were now known as AR-

MAGNACS due to the adherence to their causeof BERNARD, COUNT OF ARMAGNAC. Besiegedin Paris in 1411, the duke, promising terri-torial concessions, sought military assis-tance from HENRY IV of England, whodispatched a small force to help break thesiege. In 1412, when the Armagnacs nego-tiated a similar compact with Henry (see

TREATY OF BOURGES), Burgundy defeated hisenemies before the English could arrive,

thus forcing the Armagnacs to repudiatetheir agreement and strengthening his holdon Paris.

In 1413, an attempt by his son-in-law, thedauphin, LOUIS, DUKE OF GUIENNE, to nego-tiate an end to the civil war, led the duke toincite the pro-Burgundian butchers of Paristo riot on behalf of his long promised pro-gram of reform. Known as CABOCHIENS, forone of their leaders, Simon Caboche, the ri-oters murdered opponents and overawed

the court, initiating a reign of terror thatsoon passed beyond the duke’s control. Bysummer, moderate city burgesses, alienatedby the Cabochiens’ excesses, joined withGuienne in inviting the Armagnacs intoParis. On 23 August, Burgundy, after anunsuccessful attempt to kidnap the king,fled the capital. Formally banished, Bur-gundy retreated to his domains, while theArmagnacs controlled the government. Like

his rivals, Burgundy negotiated with HENRYV, but no agreement resulted and in Febru-ary 1415 the two French factions concluded

JOHN THE FEARLESS, DUKE OF BURGUNDY

185



the Peace of Arras, which lifted Burgundy’sbanishment but did not restore him topower in Paris. The duke did not participatein the AGINCOURT campaign in 1415 and tookno part in the defense of Normandy (see

NORMAN CAMPAIGN [1417–1419]), preferringinstead to war on the Armagnacs.

In May 1418, Burgundy, now allied withthe queen, who, like most Parisians, hadbeen alienated by an Armagnac regimenominally led by her remaining son, Dau-phin Charles (see CHARLES VII), recapturedParis. Since repelling the English requiredan accommodation with the dauphin, whomthe duke believed to be weak and easilycontrolled, Burgundy opened talks with his

opponents and reached a preliminaryagreement at Corbeil in July 1419. To finalizethe reconciliation, the dauphinists organizeda new conference to be held in a speciallyprepared enclosure on the bridge at MON-

TEREAU on 10 September. During the courseof the meeting, old servants of Orleans in thedauphin’s entourage murdered Burgundy.Thereafter, the new duke, PHILIP THE GOOD,abandoned all attempts at peace and, as part

of the subsequent Treaty of TROYES, con-cluded a formal ANGLO-BURGUNDIAN ALLI-

ANCE.Further Reading: Perroy, Edouard. The Hun-


Capricorn Books, 1965; Vaughan, Richard. John

the Fearless. London: Longman, 1979.

JUSTIFICATION OF THE DUKE OF

BURGUNDY (1408)The Justification of the Duke of Burgundy

( Justification du duc de Bourgogne) was alengthy Latin document that justified themurder of LOUIS, DUKE OF ORLEANS, as an actof heroic patriotism made necessary by theduke’s many crimes and villainies. Pre-sented to the king and council on 8 March1408, the Justification transformed JOHN THE

FEARLESS, duke of BURGUNDY and instigatorof the murder, from a confessed killer to aselfless royal servant who had recognized

and acted upon his duty to rid the state of aruthless tyrant. Although an astoundinglybrazen piece of political PROPAGANDA, the

document was well received by publicopinion and thus instrumental in rehabili-tating Burgundy and initiating the FRENCH

CIVIL WAR.Assassins murdered Orleans in PARIS on

the night of 23 November 1407. On 26 No-vember, Burgundy fled the capital, havingconfessed to his uncle, JOHN, DUKE OF BERRY,that he ordered the attack. Devastated by hisbrother’s death and in the grip of chronicmental illness, CHARLES VI barred Burgundyfrom the council, but took no further action,despite the urgings of Orleans’s wife andsons. Although sympathetic to the Orleansfamily, Berry and the other princes of theblood shrank from civil war and remained

amenable to the king’s desire to reconcile theroyal family. Taking advantage of this op-portunity, Burgundy negotiated his returnto court in late February 1408. Always pop-ular in Paris, Burgundy was welcomed by

joyous crowds. Restored to the council,Burgundy now sought to portray himselfnot as a grateful penitent, but as a defenderof the common good who was absolutely

justified in his actions.

To this end, the duke commissioned JeanPetit, a University of Paris scholar, to pre-pare a detailed listing of the many misdeedsthat had made the elimination of Orleansimperative for the maintenance of order andgood government. Virtually everything eversaid or rumored about Orleans was includedin the Justification, which took Petit fourhours to read to the council. The late dukewas charged with employing black magic tokill the king by a slow and indetectible dis-

order that would arouse no suspicion. Healso, according to the Justification, attemptedto kill the king and the dauphin, LOUIS, DUKE

OF GUIENNE, by various other means, in-cluding through the use of a poisoned apple,a cherry branch dipped in animal blood, anda sword consecrated by two devils andtouched by the cadavers of executed crimi-nals. The duke was also accused of plottingagainst the king with numerous foreign

rulers, including the pope; his father-in-law,the duke of Milan; and HENRY IV of En-gland, whom Orleans was to help overthrow

186

JUSTIFICATION OF THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY



RICHARD II in return for the like service indeposing Charles VI. Among the duke’sother alleged crimes were an attempt tokidnap Queen ISABEAU and the royal chil-dren, the seizure of royal castles and for-

tresses, and the levying of war taxes thatwere in fact used to fund attempts to usurpthe Crown. Orleans, concluded Petit, was agodless tyrant whose murder, according totheology and history, was a good and nec-essary act for which the king should declare‘‘the duke of Burgundy’s loyalty and goodfame both within and without the kingdom’’(Vaughan, 72).

Although it is now impossible to knowhow much of the Justification was true, con-

temporary opinion, especially in Paris, large-ly believed it. The day after the document

was presented, the king, accepting that hisbrother had plotted against him, pardonedBurgundy. Although the family and sup-porters of Orleans issued their own equallyvituperative manifesto against Burgundy in

September 1408, it received little attention.By the end of 1409, Burgundy controlledParis, the court, and the government. By1410, Berry and the other princes, stungmore by their exclusion from power than bythe murder of Orleans, precipitated civil warby rallying around CHARLES, eldest son ofthe late duke. See also ARMAGNACS; BURGUN-

DIANS.Further Reading: Perroy, Edouard. The Hun-


Capricorn Books, 1965; Vaughan, Richard. John

the Fearless. London: Longman, 1979.

187

JUSTIFICATION OF THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY



K KENT, EARL OF. See HOLLAND, THOMAS,EARL OF KENT

KNIGHTS OF THE STAR. See STAR, Orderof the

KNOLLES, SIR ROBERT (c. 1325–1407)A renowned leader of ROUTIERS who com-manded armies for both EDWARD III and

JOHN IV, duke of BRITTANY, Sir RobertKnolles (or Knollys) won land, wealth, andfame through his long service in the HUN-

DRED YEARS WAR.Born into a Cheshire yeoman family,

Knolles began his military career in 1346 at

the Battle of LA ROCHE-DERRIEN in Brittany,where he served as an ARCHER under SirHugh CALVELEY. Although Knolles is oftendescribed as either the nephew or halfbrother of Calveley, with whom he wasfrequently associated during the war, nofamily relationship between the two mencan be proven. In 1351, Knolles and Calveleyparticipated in the famous COMBAT OF THE

THIRTY, which led to both being taken cap-tive. Shortly after his release, Knolles, who

was beginning to acquire considerable landin Brittany, fought with Sir Walter BENTLEY

at the Battle of MAURON in August 1352. In1356–57, Knolles cemented his reputation asa warrior, serving with HENRY OF GROSMONT,duke of Lancaster, on a long CHEVAUCHE E

into NORMANDY and leading a daring attackon Honfleur that culminated in the de-struction of a French army under Robert ofClermont, marshal of France.

In 1358–59, Knolles led a destructive raidinto the Loire region, where the path of hisarmy was marked by charred ruins known

as ‘‘Knolles’s mitres.’’ In January 1359, afterburning the suburbs of Orleans, Knollestook Auxerre, which paid him a huge RAN-

SOM to withdraw in April. By the autumn,Knolles was back in Brittany, where he

captured Bertrand du GUESCLIN at Pasd’Evran. When the Treaty of BRETIGNY for-mally ended the war in 1360, Knolles re-turned to England, where he was confirmedin possession of his French estates andpardoned for any crimes committed duringhis campaigns. In 1363, he entered the ser-vice of Duke John of Brittany, who grantedKnolles the Breton lordships of Derval andRouge. He fought under Sir John CHANDOS

at AURAY in 1364, and, after a period of re-tirement following the signing of the Treatyof GUERANDE and the end of the BRETON

CIVIL WAR, Knolles joined EDWARD, THE

BLACK PRINCE, for the Spanish campaignthat ended with the Battle of NA JERA inApril 1367.

In 1370, the English government offeredKnolles command of a major expedition.When captains of higher rank refused toserve under the lowborn Knolles, he was

forced to share command with three otherknights, an arrangement that led to dis-agreements and divided leadership. Al-though the English raided in a wide arcacross northern France, the French, using theFabian tactics adopted by CHARLES V, re-fused to give battle, and in the autumn thequarrelling commanders split up. Knollesreached the safety of his fortresses in Brit-tany, but the force under Sir Thomas

Grandison was decisively defeated by duGuesclin at Pontvallain near Le Mans on 4December. Blamed for the failure of the

188



campaign, Knolles fell out of favor at theEnglish court and spent the next few yearsfighting in Brittany, Normandy, and AQUI-

TAINE. He was pardoned for the 1370 cam-paign in 1374 and in about 1378 was

retained by JOHN OF GAUNT, duke of Lan-caster. In 1379, Knolles was appointed to de-fend the Kentish coasts and in 1380 he joinedTHOMAS OF WOODSTOCK, earl of Buckingham,in a chevauche e that largely retraced the routeof the 1370 expedition. In 1381, Knolleswas back in England, where he helped sup-press the PEASANTS’ REVOLT. Now an English

landowner with increasing mercantile inter-ests, Knolles was sufficiently wealthy to makeloans of over £6,000 to RICHARD II. Knollesdied in retirement at his Norfolk manor ofSculthorpe on 15 August 1407.

Further Reading: Fowler, Kenneth. The King’sLieutenant: Henry of Grosmont, First Duke of Lan-

caster, 1310–1361. London: Elek, 1969; Goodman,

Anthony. John of Gaunt: The Exercise of Princely

Power in Fourteenth-Century Europe. London:

Longman, 1992; Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred

Years War . Vol. 2, Trial by Fire. Philadelphia:


KNOLLES, SIR ROBERT

189



L LA HIRE. See VIGNOLLES, ETIENNE DE

LANCASTER, DUKE OF. See HENRY OF

GROSMONT, DUKE OF LANCASTER; JOHN OF

GAUNT, DUKE OF LANCASTER

LANCASTER, HOUSE OF

The House of Lancaster, a branch of theEnglish royal House of PLANTAGENET, wasthe ruling dynasty of England from 1399 to1461, and then again briefly in 1470–71. Thefamily came to power when Henry, duke ofLancaster, deposed and supplanted hiscousin RICHARD II. Although the dynasty’sright to the English throne was thus ques-

tionable, HENRY V, the second Lancastrianking, was convinced that he was also right-ful king of France. This conviction underlaythe fifteenth-century resumption of theHUNDRED YEARS WAR, a phase of the strugglesometimes referred to as the Lancastrianwar.

The family of Lancaster descended from JOHN OF GAUNT, duke of Lancaster, the thirdson of EDWARD III. At Gaunt’s death in 1399,his son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had

opposed the court in the 1380s, was intemporary exile, having been banished forten years by Richard II. When the king madehis cousin’s exile permanent and confiscatedthe extensive Lancastrian patrimony, hisarbitrary actions alienated the English no-bility. In July, while Richard was in Ireland,Bolingbroke returned to England and as-sumed leadership of a growing oppositionmovement. By September, the king was in

custody. Because Richard had no children,and his heir presumptive, Edmund Morti-mer, earl of March, great-grandson of

Gaunt’s elder brother, Lionel, duke of Clar-ence, was only eight, Bolingbroke was theobvious choice to replace Richard. Beyondhis maturity, experience, and Plantagenetblood, Bolingbroke was already master of

the kingdom. Although his usurpation wasduly recognized by PARLIAMENT, Boling-broke, now HENRY IV, sought to justify hisactions. He countenanced rumors that themarriage of EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, Ri-chard’s father, was irregular, thus throwingdoubt on the ex-king’s legitimacy. He alsopublicly declared himself the legitimateking by right of descent from Edmund ofLancaster (known as ‘‘Crouchback’’), the

younger brother of EDWARD I. This procla-mation took as true the popular belief thatEdmund was actually the elder brother, andhad been prevented from ascending thethrone because of physical deformity.

By thus repudiating descent from EdwardIII, these specious attempts to legitimize thefamily’s seizure of the English throne es-sentially destroyed any claim it had to theFrench throne. However, Henry ignored thisand, like his predecessors, proclaimed him-

self king of France. Although internal re-bellion and illness prevented Henry IV fromresuming the war, Henry V, who succeededhis father in 1413, rallied the country behindthe dynasty by invading France in 1415. In-terested in controlling the entire kingdom,not merely individual provinces, Henry wona major victory at AGINCOURT in 1415, andthen, taking advantage of internal divisionscaused by the FRENCH CIVIL WAR, conquered

NORMANDY by 1420. In the subsequentTreaty of TROYES, CHARLES VI disinheritedhis son and recognized Henry as his heir.

190



Thus, the treaty, which also arranged Hen-ry’s marriage to Charles’s daughter, CATHE-

RINE OF VALOIS, became the legal basis of theLancastrian claim to the French Crown.When Henry and Charles both died in 1422,

the Crown of France passed under the treatyto Henry V’s ten-month-old son.

HENRY VI, who may have inheritedCharles VI’s mental instability, was weak-minded and politically inept. Lacking strongleadership, the English were expelled fromFrance in 1453. Henry, shortly after hearingnews of the final defeat at CASTILLON, fellinto a prolonged stupor that rendered himunaware of his surroundings and unable tocommunicate. His inability to function as

king split the nobility into rival factions andrevived the long dormant Mortimer claim,thereby precipitating the English civil con-flict known as the Wars of the Roses. In 1460,RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK, laid claim to thethrone as the rightful heir, through hisMortimer mother, of Richard II. In 1461,three months after York’s death in battle, hisson seized the throne as Edward IV, firstking of the House of York. Henry VI was

restored in October 1470, but then deposedagain in April 1471. He was slain at theTower of London on 21 May, shortly afterhis only son died in battle. The Lancastrianclaim to the English Crown thereupon passedto Henry’s distant kinsman, Henry Tudor,earl of Richmond, who in 1485 became thefirst king of the House of Tudor. See alsoHUNDRED YEARS WAR, PHASES OF; MARGARET

OF ANJOU.Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher, Henry

V. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992;Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reign of King Henry VI.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981;

Kirby, John Lavan, Henry IV of England. London:

Constable, 1970; Wolffe, Bertram, Henry VI.


LA ROCHE-DERRIEN, BATTLE OF (1347)The Battle of La Roche-Derrien was fought

on 20 June 1347 outside the north Bretontown of the same name. Resulting in thecapture of CHARLES OF BLOIS, the French-

backed claimant to the duchy of BRITTANY,the battle crippled the Bloisian cause and leftthe English firmly entrenched in the duchy.La Roche-Derrien also forced PHILIP VI, thenseeking to break EDWARD III’s siege of CA-

LAIS, to divert men and resources to re-trieving the French position in the BRETON

CIVIL WAR.In late May 1347, Charles of Blois laid siege

to La Roche-Derrien, which was held by agarrison commanded by Richard Totesham.Because of its ruthless imposition of PA TIS ,especially the demand for labor to build andmaintain fortifications, the garrison washated by the peasants of the surroundingcountryside, who flocked to Blois’s army

brandishing homemade weapons. Becausehis army numbered over three thousand men,a much larger force than was required to takethe town, it is likely that Blois’s real intent wasto compel Sir Thomas DAGWORTH, the Englishgovernor in Brittany, to give battle.

Dagworth took three weeks to raise aforce of no more than a thousand men,which he marched to a position near LaRoche-Derrien on 19 June. When re-

connaissance indicated that Blois’s forcewas split into four parts, each covering onesection of the wall and each divided fromthe others by woods and marsh, Dagworthplanned a predawn attack on the largestgroup, which was camped east of town andunder Blois’s direct command. However,when a diversion against the western campfailed, the eastern assault was quickly re-pulsed, with Dagworth and some of hismen taken captive. The tide turned when

the growing light revealed the situation toTotesham; he led his garrison and severalhundred hatchet-wielding townsmen in asurprise attack on the rear of the Frenchposition, which speedily collapsed, allowingthe rescue of Dagworth and his fellows.

Blois, fighting fiercely and covered withwounds, was eventually cornered and forcedto surrender, which he did to a Breton knightrather than to the lowborn Dagworth. Each of

the remaining French contingents was thenattacked and defeated in turn. The darknessmade it difficult to take prisoners, so French

LA ROCHE-DERRIEN, BATTLE OF

191



CASUALTIES were high, with over six hundreddead, including most of Blois’s leading noblesupporters. Upon receiving news of the bat-tle, Philip VI assumed direct charge of Brit-

tany, to which he dispatched a force of sevenhundred men under Amaury de Craon inearly July. In 1348, when he was finally able totravel, Blois, whose RANSOM Dagworth hadsold to Edward III, was transported to En-gland, where he joined DAVID II of SCOTLAND

and the prisoners of CRECY in the Tower ofLondon.



1999; Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred Years War .Vol. 1, Trial by Battle. Philadelphia: University of


LA ROCHELLE, BATTLE OF (1372)The Battle of La Rochelle was anAnglo-Castilian naval engagementfought in the waters off the Frenchport of La Rochelle on 23 June 1372.

The battle, which resulted in de-struction of the English fleet, ac-celerated the collapse of English au-thority in AQUITAINE and facilitatedthe eventual French capture of LaRochelle.

When CHARLES V, through his ac-ceptance of the APPEAL OF THE GAS-

CON LORDS, reignited the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR in 1369, the Aquitiniannobility, carefully cultivated by

Charles and deeply discontentedwith the rule of EDWARD, THE BLACK

PRINCE, began defecting to the VA-

LOIS. By 1372, Poitou, Perigord,Quercy, Rouergue, and Agenais werelargely lost to the English, and evenBORDEAUX was under threat from thearmies of LOUIS, DUKE OF ANJOU. Ad-vised by Guichard d’Angle, themarshal of Aquitaine, that many

Poitevans would readily resumetheir English allegiance if supportedby sufficient arms and money, theEnglish government, with much tra-vail, gathered a fleet of ships totransport reinforcements to La Ro-chelle. To further reinvigorate theEnglish cause in Poitou, the expedi-

tion also carried £20,000, collected with evenmore difficulty, for disbursement among thelocal nobility. The expedition was com-

manded by d’Angle and by John Hastings,the 26-year-old earl of Pembroke, who wasalso appointed governor of Aquitaine.

As the English ships approached La Ro-chelle, they found their path blocked by awaiting Castilian fleet, summoned by CharlesV under terms of the Franco-Castilian accordby which the French had helped Henry ofTrastamare win the Castilian throne in 1369(see WAR OF CASTILIAN SUCCESSION). The 200-

ton Castilian galleons were more maneuver-able than the square-rigged English ships,which were mainly transport vessels, not

This illustration from the Chronicles of Jean Froissart

depicts the defeat of an English Fleet by a Castilian fleet

allied with France in the naval Battle of La Rochelle, 1372.

Erich Lessing/Art Resource, New York.

LA ROCHELLE, BATTLE OF

192



fighting ships. Commanded by professionalsailors who were experienced in naval war-fare, the Castilian fleet also had an advan-tage in leadership over the English fleet,whose commanders were more accustomed

to fighting on land. Carrying 180 oarsmenapiece, the Castilian galleons rammed theEnglish vessels, while Castilian sailors ondeck set fire to the enemy rigging and peltedthe English ARCHERS with stones and othermissiles. The English fleet was quickly over-come, with many vessels sunk and manyothers captured, including the ship carryingthe £20,000. Pembroke, d’Angle, and manyEnglish knights were captured and takenback to Castile, where they were imprisoned

for more than a year. Weakened by his con-finement, Pembroke, whose RANSOM hadbeen sold to Bertrand du GUESCLIN, died onhis way home. In September 1372, du Gue-sclin, with the help of the mayor, forced thecapitulation of the unreinforced garrison atLa Rochelle, and by the start of 1374, the en-larged Aquitaine created by the Treaty ofBRETIGNY had ceased to exist. English au-thority in southwestern France was thereafter

confined to Bordeaux and coastal GASCONY.Further Reading: Packe, Michael. King Edward

III . Ed. L. C. B. Seaman. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul, 1983; Seward, Desmond. The Hun-

dred Years War . New York: Penguin, 1999.

LA TREMOILLE, GEORGES DE. SeeCHARLES VII

LAUNAC, BATTLE OF. See ALBRET, AR-

NAUD-AMANIEU, LORD OF

LES-ESPAGNOLS-SUR-MER, BATTLEOF. See WINCHELSEA, BATTLE OF

‘‘LETTER TO THE ENGLISH.’’ See JOAN OF

ARC

LEULINGHEN, TRUCE OF (1389)Concluded on 18 June 1389 at Leulinghen on

the border of English-held CALAIS, the Truceof Leulinghen, while not a final settlement ofoutstanding issues, stopped the fighting and

effectively ended the second phase of theHUNDRED YEARS WAR. Although frequentlyextended, the truce collapsed before itsofficial expiration because the depositionof the English king and the intensification of

the FRENCH CIVIL WAR destroyed support forpeace in both countries.

In late 1387, a group of English barons ledby RICHARD II’s uncle, THOMAS OF WOOD-

STOCK, duke of Gloucester, seized control ofthe royal government. Tired of rule by royalfavorites and anxious to resume the war, thebaronial regime soon found itself too poorand insecure to implement the war policythat had brought it to power. In August1388, the baronial council, with the reluctant

acquiescence of Gloucester, agreed to ne-gotiate, and talks opened in the parishchurch at Leulinghen in November. In thatsame month, a coup led by LOUIS, DUKE OF

ORLEANS, brother of CHARLES VI, and backedby the MARMOUSETS, overthrew the govern-ment of the royal uncles in France. True tothe policy of CHARLES V, the Marmousetswelcomed the English peace initiative andthe two governments soon agreed to a three-

year cessation of hostilities and the initiationof talks for a permanent settlement.In May 1389, Richard, following Charles’s

example, declared himself of full age anddismissed his baronial keepers. Thereafter,the intermittent Anglo-French negotiations,and the various extensions of the truce thataccompanied them, were largely driven byRichard’s desire for peace. Abandoning thepolicy of EDWARD III, Richard agreed to holdAQUITAINE as a vassal of the French king, so

long as the terms of his obligation wereclearly defined as requiring no more thansimple homage. The French rejected thisproposal, insisting on liege homage, whichplaced the vassal under personal obligationto his overlord. The English also demandedthat Aquitaine be reconstituted as it hadexisted at the time of EDWARD, THE BLACK

PRINCE. Such a restoration would have re-quired surrender of most of the gains

achieved under Charles V. Surprisingly, theFrench were willing to partially meet thisdemand and to pay the remaining balance of

LEULINGHEN, TRUCE OF

193



JOHN II’s RANSOM, so long as the Englishwithdrew from Calais, a requirement thatRichard could not accept.

With the talks at a standstill and the truceset to lapse, a personal tragedy allowed Ri-

chard to continue his peace policy. The deathof Queen Anne of Bohemia in 1394, althoughpersonally devastating to the king, allowedRichard to seek a marriage alliance with theVALOIS. On 9 March 1396, Richard, who wasthen twenty-nine, was married by proxy toIsabella, the eight-year-old daughter ofCharles VI (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND

[1388–1409]). Although no final agreementcould be reached, the Truce of Leulinghenwas extended for almost thirty years, prom-

ising peace for the next generation.However, in England, the peace policy

was unpopular and its continuance restedlargely on the king’s ability to impose it onthe nobility. In September 1399, Henry ofBolingbroke, the son of JOHN OF GAUNT, lateduke of Lancaster, overthrew his cousin andtook the throne as HENRY IV. Although pro-longed resistance to his usurpation pre-vented him from actively implementing it,

Henry won the throne in part by promisingto pursue a war policy. In France, the grow-ing rivalry between Orleans, who advocatedrenewal of the war against an insecureHenry IV, and JOHN THE FEARLESS, duke ofBURGUNDY, who supported maintenance ofthe truce, split the French nobility and shift-ed their attention from the English threat tothe pursuit of their own quarrels. Thus, by1413, the outbreak of civil war in France andthe accession of the young and ambitious

HENRY V to the English throne rendered theTruce of Leulinghen inoperative and pavedthe way for the renewal of war with the 1415English invasion of France.

Further Reading: Neillands, Robin. The Hun-

dred Years War . London: Routledge, 1991; Perroy,



LIBELLUS FAMOSUS. See CRISIS OF 1340– 1341; STRATFORD, JOHN, ARCHBISHOP OF CAN-

TERBURY

LIBOURNE, TREATY OF. See EDWARD, THE

BLACK PRINCE

LIMOGES, SACK OF (1370)

Occurring in September 1370, the sack ofLimoges, a city on the Vienne River aboutone hundred miles northeast of BORDEAUX,was the last major military operation con-ducted by EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE. Al-though long characterized as a horrificmassacre of noncombatants perpetrated byan ill and angry prince, the sack is todayconsidered to have been less destructive ofcivilian life than is portrayed in the chiefsource for the period, the Chronicles of Jean

FROISSART.On 21 August 1370, an army led by JOHN,

DUKE OF BERRY, younger brother of CHARLES

V, arrived outside Limoges. The town hadtwo parts. The first, dominated by the castle,was held by a strong English garrison; thesecond, the cite , or administrative centerdominated by the cathedral and governedby the bishop, had no English troops. By the1259 Treaty of PARIS, the fortress and its

surrounding town had been ceded to theking-duke of AQUITAINE, but the episcopalcite had continued under French control. In1360, the whole of Limoges had become partof the English-held duchy of Aquitaineunder the Treaty of BRETIGNY. Ignoring theEnglish garrison in the castle, Berry laidsiege to the cite , which Bishop Jean de Crossurrendered without a fight on 24 August.Berry then installed a small French garrisonand withdrew. News of this defection en-

raged the Black Prince. The bishop wasgodfather to the prince’s eldest son, andEdward had considered de Cros a trustedfriend.

Accompanied by his brothers, JOHN OF

GAUNT, duke of Lancaster, and EDMUND OF

LANGLEY, the prince, who was forced by ill-ness to travel by litter, left Angouleme on 7September with an army of over threethousand men. Reaching Limoges on 14

September, the prince ordered that the wallsof the cite be mined. Because Berry’s armywas still in the area, and another French

LIBELLUS FAMOSUS

194



force under Constable Bertrand du GUESCLIN

was also nearby, the English were anxious toretake the town quickly. The mine was firedearly on 19 September and a section of thewall collapsed, allowing the English to pour

into the town, overwhelm the garrison, andcapture its leaders. Also taken captive, thebishop was threatened with execution, buteventually released, while the French com-manders were held to RANSOM.

According to Froissart, the Englishslaughtered the inhabitants of the town,with more than ‘‘three thousand persons,men, women, and children . . . dragged outto have their throats cut’’ (Froissart, 178),and the prince angrily rejecting all entreaties

to restrain his men. However, other con-temporary accounts put the number of deadat three hundred and make no mention ofthe massacre of civilians. While some non-combatants may have died in the assault,and most of the men under arms wereprobably slain, Froissart’s wholesale de-struction of civilians is unlikely to have oc-curred. What made the fall of Limogesmemorable was the virtual razing of the cite

after it had been thoroughly pillaged. Meantas a warning to other towns thinking aboutabandoning their English allegiance, thesack of Limoges did little to deter defectionsand served only to highlight the prince’sinability to effectively reassert his authority.Increasingly ill, and disheartened by the re-cent death of his son and the deterioration ofEnglish authority in Aquitaine, the princereturned to England in January 1371.


Prince of Wales and Aquitaine. New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1978; Froissart, Jean. Chronicles.

Trans. Geoffrey Brereton. New York: Penguin

1978.

LINCOLN, BISHOP OF. See BURGHERSH,HENRY, BISHOP OF LINCOLN

LOIRE CAMPAIGN (1429)Led by JOAN OF ARC, the French Loire

Campaign of June 1429 followed up the re-lief of ORLEANS by freeing the Loire Valley ofEnglish garrisons and clearing a path to

Rheims, where the dauphin could becrowned as King CHARLES VII.

The French broke the English siege of Or-leans on 8 May 1429. However, English gar-risons installed in the previous autumn by

Thomas MONTAGU, earl of Salisbury, con-tinued to control the nearby Loire towns of

Jargeau, Beaugency, and Meung-sur-Loire.Although many possible objectives wereconsidered for a new campaign, Joan insistedthat priority be given to completion of thesecond part of her mission, the crowning ofthe dauphin at Rheims. The first step towardthis goal was the reduction of English garri-sons along the Loire, to which the dauphinagreed in early June. Thus, on 10 June, after a

month spent reinforcing and resupplying thearmy, which had been seriously worn downat Orleans, the French, now about six thou-sand strong, began to move against Jargeau.Although Joan was again accompanied by allthe captains of Orleans, including John, theBastard of Orleans (see JOHN, COUNT OF DU-

NOIS AND LONGUEVILLE); Etienne de VIGNOLLES

(La Hire); and Poton de XAINTRAILLES, overallcommand of the army was given to JOHN,

DUKE OF ALENCON, the dauphin’s friend andkinsman.The attack on Jargeau, which lay east of

Orleans, began on 11 June, when the Frenchbeat back an English sortie and capturedmost of the suburbs. On 12 June, French AR-

TILLERY began battering the walls. The En-glish commander, William de la POLE, earl ofSuffolk, tried to arrange surrender talks withLa Hire, but the French leadership rejectedthe overture. At Joan’s urging, Alencon fol-

lowed the bombardment with an assault onthe town. The attack finally succeeded whenthe Maid, who had been in the thick of thebattle encouraging the men, was knockeddown by a stone thrown from the walls.Upon seeing her rise and urge them forward,the French renewed the assault and carriedthe town; Suffolk was taken prisoner, andmost of his men were killed or captured.

On 15 June, the French marched west of

Orleans to assault the fortified bridge atMeung, which they captured and garri-soned. With John TALBOT and his men thus

LOIRE CAMPAIGN

195



trapped in Meung, the French continuedwest to Beaugency, where on about 16 Junethe army was joined by a thousand menunder Arthur de Richemont, constable ofFrance (see ARTHUR III). Although Richemont

was currently out of favor with the dauphinand thus should not have been received,

Joan welcomed him and his men when anEnglish relief force under Sir John FASTOLF

arrived outside Beaugency on 17 June. Whilecontinuing the assault on the town, theFrench formed line of battle, inviting Fastolfto attack. Perhaps aware of the presence ofRichemont and his men, Fastolf refused andwithdrew to Meung. The French then re-turned to Beaugency, which the English

commanders, Matthew Gough and RichardGuestin, surrendered that evening.

Next day, 18 June, Fastolf attacked thebridge at Meung, but his assault failed. Aselements of the French army arrived fromBeaugency, Fastolf decided to abandonMeung and retreat northward with hisarmy and Talbot’s garrison. With Joan againdemanding speed, the French pursuedtheir foes and that afternoon caught and

defeated them at PATAY, thus clearing theLoire Valley of English and opening theroad to Rheims.





LONDONBy far the largest city in the realm, Londonwas the center of English trade and com-

merce and thus a major source of Crownrevenue. The royal government, head-quartered in Westminster two miles west ofthe city, relied heavily on loans and taxesraised from the merchants and residents ofLondon to pay for the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.As a result, London’s wartime relations withthe English Crown were generally morevolatile than PARIS’s relations with theFrench Crown. Strong and militarily suc-

cessful kings, such as EDWARD III and HENRYV, had little trouble tapping the city’swealth, while weak or less martial mon-

archs, such as RICHARD II and HENRY VI,found themselves or their governments fre-quently at odds with Londoners.

London was a magnet for both knightlyand peasant immigrants from the country-

side; its population in the late fourteenthcentury is estimated at almost ninety thou-sand, even though the BLACK DEATH hadreduced it by one-third in the late 1340s.Dominated by the great craft guilds, whosemembers were freemen of the city and thusentitled to vote and hold office, London bythe 1330s had enjoyed a century of self-government. The chief municipal officer wasthe mayor, who, with two sheriffs and acouncil of aldermen, governed the city and

presided over its courts. A legislative body,the Court of Common Council, was estab-lished in the fourteenth century. Royal at-tempts to withdraw or limit the city’s rightsand liberties along with royal demands formoney were the most frequent causes ofconflict between London and the Crown.Such hostility had been common in thecentury before Edward III’s accession in1327. Henry III, EDWARD I, and EDWARD II

had each imposed direct royal rule on thecity at some point during their reigns.Strong, popular, and victorious, Edward IIIwas able to extract the war funding heneeded from the city without doing so, eventhough he followed policies that oftenharmed London’s economy. Edward’s ma-nipulation of the wool trade in the late 1330s(see DORDRECHT BONDS) and his selling ofspecial trade licenses to foreign merchants inthe 1360s were particularly resented.

In the 1370s, the new vulnerability ofEnglish overseas trade, as illustrated by thenaval disaster at LA ROCHELLE, and a sharpdecline in the aging king’s personal author-ity caused London’s relations with the Crownto deteriorate. In 1376, the so-called GoodPARLIAMENT impeached various corrupt andincompetent government officials, includingthree royalist members of the Court of Al-dermen. The city was particularly hostile to

JOHN OF GAUNT, duke of Lancaster, whodominated the royal government in the lastyears of Edward III and the first of Richard

LONDON

196



II. Already unpopular because of an un-successful war and his failure to protectEnglish vessels from French attacks on thehigh seas, Lancaster further angered Lon-doners by granting extensive trading rights

to Italian merchants, thereby seriouslythreatening the city’s commercial su-premacy. The result was city support, atleast in its early stages, for the PEASANTS’

REVOLT OF 1381, during which Lancaster’smagnificent London residence, the Savoy,was destroyed by rebellious Londoners.

Under Richard II, London’s relations withthe Crown worsened. Alienated by theking’s extravagant court, Londoners stronglysupported THOMAS OF WOODSTOCK, duke of

Gloucester, and the other Appellants when,as part of their attempt to curb Richard’sauthority, they tried and executed the city’sroyalist mayor, Nicholas Brembre, in 1388.In 1392, Richard, now back in power, pun-ished the city’s refusal to loan him money byrevoking London’s privileges and liberties,seizing control of its revenues, and imposingan enormous fine of £100,000. Although theking eventually reduced the fine and re-

stored some of the privileges, Londonwarmly welcomed HENRY IV when he de-posed Richard in 1399.

Relations with the Crown improvedunder the House of LANCASTER. The citymade frequent loans to the impecuniousHenry IV, with three-time mayor RichardWhittington loaning the king almost £25,000by 1413. Although plague, foreign competi-tion, and French depredations depressedtrade and population in the early fifteenth

century, the popular Henry V had littletrouble obtaining loans and TAXATION fromLondon. In the city, Henry’s revival of thewar was popular, promising a restoration ofnational glory, safe sea lanes, and profitsfrom plunder and RANSOMS. The king’s cle-ver PROPAGANDA efforts, including muchtriumphant pageantry surrounding celebra-tions of his victory at AGINCOURT, his con-clusion of the Treaty of TROYES, and his

marriage to CATHERINE OF VALOIS, ensuredcivic support for his campaigns. In 1416,Londoners enthusiastically responded to the

king’s call for supplies to relieve besiegedHARFLEUR, and, in 1418, when Henry, thenbesieging ROUEN, requested food and drink‘‘for the refreshing of us and our said host’’(Inwood, 82), they readily dispatched con-

veyances with the needed supplies.All this changed after Henry’s death in

1422. For economic and patriotic reasons,Londoners strongly supported the main-tenance of Lancastrian France, and the cityinvested heavily in the war during its lasttwo decades. Between the late 1420s andthe Battle of CASTILLON in 1453, Londonloaned the Crown an average of £6,000 peryear. However, by the 1440s, defeat inFrance and economic depression at home

generated much anger in the city againstthe royal government, which was seen asdominated by corrupt and incompetentcourtiers, such as William de la POLE, dukeof Suffolk. In 1450, Londoners were initiallysympathetic to JACK CADE’S REBELLION, butwhen the rebels looted the city, opinion inLondon turned against them, and on thenight of 5 July the citizens joined the Towergarrison in expelling the insurgents. By the

end of the war, dissatisfaction with HenryVI was already turning into support for hisrival, RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK, whose fac-tion retained the allegiance of Londonthroughout most of the subsequent civilwar. See also TOWNS AND THE HUNDRED

YEARS WAR.Further Reading: Baker, Timothy. Medieval

London. New York: Praeger, 1970; Inwood, Ste-

phen. A History of London. New York: Carroll and

Graf Publishers, 1998; Sheppard, Francis. London:

A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998;Williams, Gwyn A. Medieval London from Com-

mune to Capital. London: Athlone, 1970.

LONDON, FIRST TREATY OF (1358)Concluded on 8 May 1358 in a formal cere-mony held in the hall of Windsor Castle, theFirst Treaty of London (also known as theTreaty of Windsor) was the initial Anglo-French accord negotiated after the English

capture of JOHN II at POITIERS in 1356. Morean agreement as to John’s RANSOM termsthan a settlement of outstanding issues, the

LONDON, FIRST TREATY OF

197



treaty failed because its financial termscould not be met by a French governmentweakened by internal disorder.

Negotiations between John II and EDWARD

III began in LONDON in September 1357. Little

progress was made until November, whennews arrived of the escape from prison ofCHARLES THE BAD, king of Navarre, an eventthat greatly increased the likelihood of civilwar in France and further weakened theVALOIS hold on the French throne. With Johnanxious to return to France, and Edwardanxious to take advantage of his captive’sdesperation, a provisional treaty was con-cluded by the end of the year. The agreementset John’s ransom at 4 million ecus (£667,000).

The sum of 600,000 ecus (£100,000) was to bepaid by 1 November 1358 to secure John’srelease, with the rest of the ransom to comein regular installments over a period ofyears. Edward was also to receive, in fullsovereignty, most of southwestern France,about a quarter of the kingdom. In the north,

John surrendered CALAIS and its pale, thecounty of Ponthieu, the town of Montreuil,and the Norman lands left to Edward by

Godfrey of HARCOURT. Other clauses calledfor the restoration of Navarre’s brother,Philip, to all his French lands and for aneventual resolution of the BRETON CIVIL WAR.The treaty demanded no concessions of Ed-ward and required John to secure perfor-mance of his undertakings with the surren-der of numerous hostages, including most ofthe chief nobles of France and two prominentcitizens from each of the 20 largest towns.

While humiliating to John, the terms of the

treaty were actually less harsh than those ofthe abortive Treaty of GUINES of 1354,Edward having dropped his claims to NOR-

MANDY and the western Loire Valley. None-theless, in France, the agreement was widelyopposed, especially in PARIS. In February1358, the Estates-General rejected the treatyand sought to limit John’s power to conductnegotiations while a prisoner. Although thedauphin (see CHARLES V) gradually strength-

ened his position as head of the French state,revolution in Paris, the J ACQUERIE uprisings,the brigandage of Anglo-Gascon ROUTIERS,

and the intrigues of Navarre left his govern-ment weak and distracted and made collec-tion of the first ransom payment impossible.When no money arrived on 1 November, anda French embassy asked Edward for more

time, complaining that the depredations ofhis own subjects were preventing fulfillmentof the agreement, Edward angrily declaredthat the routiers were not his responsibilityand demanded strict compliance with everytreaty provision. With this clearly impossible,Edward informed the dauphin on 20 No-vember that he was no longer bound by thetreaty and would resume the war on ex-piration of the truce. The First Treaty ofLondon was thus dead by late 1358, although

Edward and John soon began new talks thatled to conclusion of the Second Treaty ofLondon in March 1359. See also BRETIGNY,

TREATY OF; ESTATES, GENERAL AND PROVINCIAL;

LONDON, SECOND TREATY OF.Further Reading: Curry, Anne. The Hundred


grave Macmillan, 2003; Sumption, Jonathan. The



LONDON, SECOND TREATY OF (1359)Negotiated in little more than a month be-tween a captive king and his captor, theSecond Treaty of London was sealed by themonarchs of England and France in LONDON

on 24 March 1359. Desperate to return toFrance where internal disorder and the re-bellion of CHARLES THE BAD, king of Navarre,threatened the continuance of the VALOIS

dynasty, JOHN II was willing to make almost

any concession to win his release. Eventhough he had little knowledge of condi-tions in France, where the political positionof his son, the dauphin (see CHARLES V), hadrecently improved, John rapidly concludedan agreement that represented an almostcomplete surrender to EDWARD III.

When failure to pay the initial installmentof John’s RANSOM led Edward to abandon theFirst Treaty of London (see LONDON, FIRST

TREATY OF) in November 1358, the Frenchking and his advisors, all captives in Lon-don, concluded that further territorial

LONDON, SECOND TREATY OF

198



concessions were required to end the warand convince Edward to join with John incrushing Navarre’s uprising. Thus, whilethe ransom terms of the new agreementwere similar to those of the first treaty—a

total of 4 million ecus (£667,000), a first in-stallment of 600,000 ecus (£100,000) due by 1August 1359, and the surrender of hostagesto guarantee the rest—the territorial con-cessions were far more extensive. Besidesthe surrender of southwestern France calledfor in the first treaty, the second agreementalso gave Edward NORMANDY, BRITTANY,Maine, Anjou, and Touraine, all in full so-vereignty. In effect, the treaty recreated thetwelfth-century Angevin Empire of Henry

II. Along with CALAIS and an enlarged palethat included the Boulonnais, Edwardwould dispossess the Valois of almost halftheir kingdom and control all the FrenchAtlantic provinces except FLANDERS and Pi-cardy. For his part, Edward agreed to re-nounce his claim to the French throne, torelease John upon delivery of the initialransom payment, and to join the French kingin making war on Navarre should he fail to

accept the treaty by 24 June.Because the agreement was so favorable toEdward, some chroniclers speculated thatthe English king had never expected it tobe ratified by the French, but had insteadimposed its impossible terms merely as ameans of justifying another invasion ofFrance once the treaty was rejected. Al-though possible, such a ploy seems unlikely,for both kings sincerely tried to convincetheir subjects to accept the agreement. In

France, despite John’s support, the treatymet great resistance. PARIS and other townswere appalled by the prospect of Englandcontrolling the mouths of most major Frenchrivers, while taxpayers in the remainingValois territories, seeing some of the richestprovinces handed to the PLANTAGENETS, re-fused to be saddled with the entire burdenof John’s ransom. When the Estates-Generalmet in Paris on 19 May 1359, the deputies,

after long deliberations, pronounced thetreaty unacceptable and urged the dauphinto reject it and prepare for war. When Ed-

ward learned of this decision, he abandonedthe treaty and announced his intention ofinvading France before the end of the year.Recruitment for a campaign aimed at thecapture of Rheims, the traditional corona-

tion site of French kings, began in June.Thus, the RHEIMS CAMPAIGN, launchedin October 1359, had as its objective thecrowning of Edward as king of France. Seealso BRETIGNY, TREATY OF; ESTATES, GENERAL

AND PROVINCIAL.Further Reading: Curry, Anne. The Hundred


grave Macmillan, 2003; Sumption, Jonathan. The



LONGBOW. See ARCHERS

LONGUEVILLE, COUNT OF. See JOHN,COUNT OF DUNOIS AND LONGUEVILLE

LORDS APPELLANT. See RICHARD II;THOMAS OF WOODSTOCK, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER

LOUIS, DUKE OF ANJOU (1339–1384)

Louis, duke of Anjou, was the second sonof JOHN II and the brother of CHARLES V.Embittered by his experience as an Englishhostage, Anjou opposed the Treaty ofBRETIGNY and sought the conquest ofAQUITAINE. As his brother’s lieutenant inLanguedoc after 1364, he strove to under-mine the English position in southwesternFrance.

In 1354, when Anjou was only fifteen, John II gave his son as a hostage to CHARLES

THE BAD, king of Navarre, who required asafe-conduct before traveling to PARIS to re-ceive pardon for murder. Although presentat the Battle of POITIERS in September 1356,Anjou did not witness his father’s capture,having left the field when his uncle, Philip,duke of Orleans, mistakenly withdrew hismen after the initial French attack.

In 1360, Anjou, acting under compulsion,surrendered himself to the English as a hos-

tage for his father’s RANSOM. Having recentlymarried for love, Anjou was particularlyfrustrated by the slow pace of negotiations

LOUIS, DUKE OF ANJOU

199



and the failure of the French government tomake sufficient payment to secure his re-lease. He was therefore one of the signatoriesto the 1362 Treaty of the HOSTAGES, a privateagreement negotiated by the captives with

EDWARD III. The treaty won the hostages’ re-moval to CALAIS, but otherwise became adead letter when Anjou broke parole by re-fusing to return to English custody after athree-day visit to his wife. The English pro-claimed his flight shameful and dishonor-able, and his father demanded his return, butAnjou refused, and John’s voluntary returnto captivity was motivated in part by a desireto restore his family’s honor.

An intelligent man and an astute politi-

cian, Anjou, unlike his brothers, was alsoa competent soldier. However, his manygifts, as one contemporary writer declared,‘‘were tarnished by his unbounded greed’’(Sumption, 527) and his lust for power. Theduke harbored designs on the kingdoms ofMajorca and Naples, and, as lieutenant ofLanguedoc, conducted a semi-independentforeign policy that generally supported hisbrother’s goals but always furthered his own

ambitions.Anjou led opposition to the Bretigny set-tlement and, from his position in Langue-doc, worked secretly to obstruct the Englishadministration in Aquitaine. He orchestratedFrench intervention in the CASTILIAN WAR OF

SUCCESSION in 1365 and again two years laterafter the initial effort collapsed in defeat atNA JERA in 1367. While the king soughtmainly to draw ROUTIERS out of France andto distract EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, Anjou

always saw the Castilian venture as a pre-lude to the conquest of Aquitaine. By 1373,the duke’s efforts resulted in a friendly re-gime in Castile and in a series of campaigns,some of which he led, that recaptured manyof the territories surrendered to the Englishin 1360.

On the accession of twelve-year-oldCHARLES VI in 1380, Anjou, as eldest uncle,claimed the regency. He eventually agreed

to forego the title of regent, but dominatedthe government until 1382, when he with-drew to Provence to launch a campaign for

the conquest of Naples. Having persuadedthe French government to give him an army,Anjou invaded Italy but was defeated by hisrival, Charles of Durazzo. The duke died inItaly in 1384.

Further Reading: Perroy, Edouard. The Hun-dred Years War . Trans. W. B. Wells. New York:




LOUIS, DUKE OF GUIENNE (1397–1415)Although only in his teens, Louis, duke ofGuienne and dauphin of France, was amajor figure in the FRENCH CIVIL WAR, havingbeen forced by his father’s mental illness to

take an active role in government. Frustrat-ing both ARMAGNAC and BURGUNDIAN at-tempts to dominate him, the dauphin triedunsuccessfully to reconcile the factions bycreating his own moderate royalist party.

The eighth child of CHARLES VI and ISA-

BEAU OF BAVARIA, Louis became dauphin atthe death of his brother Charles in 1401. HisAPPANAGE, the duchy of Guienne, comprisedthose parts of AQUITAINE not held by the

English and constituted a future incentive tooverthrow English power throughout thesouthwest. Entrusted to his mother’s guar-dianship, Guienne quickly became a pawnin the escalating feud between JOHN THE

FEARLESS, duke of BURGUNDY, and the dau-phin’s uncle, CHARLES, DUKE OF ORLEANS. Toprevent him from falling into Burgundy’shands, the queen and Orleans spirited himout of PARIS in August 1405, although theBurgundians quickly overtook the dau-

phin’s party and brought him back to thecapital. In December 1409, two years afterOrleans’s murder by Burgundian assassins,Burgundy assumed guardianship of thetwelve-year-old dauphin. Although Gui-enne was empowered to summon and pre-side over the council in his parents’ absence,real power rested with Burgundy.

By 1412, the dauphin began to assert hisindependence, overseeing, against Burgun-

dy’s advice, the drafting of the Treaty ofAuxerre with the Armagnac princes and ar-ranging a public ceremony of reconciliation

LOUIS, DUKE OF GUIENNE

200



between his warring relatives. In early 1413,the dauphin, whose entourage inclined to-ward the Armagnacs, decided to moveagainst Burgundy, but was forestalled by theduke, who fomented the CABOCHIEN in-

surrection in Paris to overawe the courtand secure his control of the government.However, by summer, moderates in Paris,alarmed by the excesses of the Cabochiens,rallied around Guienne, who negotiated thepeace of Pontoise with the Armagnac lead-ers in late July. On 4 August, the dauphinmade a triumphal entry into Paris, which,with the continuing Cabochien violence,turned the capital against Burgundy, whofled on 23 August.

In 1414, seeking to avoid domination bythe new Armagnac regime, Guienne greatlyincreased his suite of household retainers inan effort to create a moderate party under hisown leadership. After an unsuccessful mili-tary campaign against Burgundy, Guiennenegotiated the peace of Arras, which wasratified in February 1415. The agreementannulled the decree of banishment againstBurgundy, but excluded him from power

and led the duke to withdraw to his owndomains in sullen neutrality. In 1414–15,the dauphin participated in negotiationswith HENRY V, whose escalating demandsmade renewal of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR

inevitable. In preparation, the king ap-pointed Guienne captain-general of thefrontiers in April 1415. Unable to prevent theEnglish capture of HARFLEUR in September,Guienne was not allowed to be present at thedisastrous Battle of AGINCOURT in October.

When the dauphin died childless in the fol-lowing December, his passing ended effortsat Armagnac-Burgundian reconciliation andled to an intensification of the civil war.

Further Reading: Famiglietti, Richard C. Royal


1420. New York: AMS Press, 1986; Perroy,



LOUIS, DUKE OF ORLE´

ANS (1372–1407)Louis, duke of Orleans, was the second sur-viving son of CHARLES V and the younger

brother of CHARLES VI. A clever and de-termined man, Louis sought to rule for hisweak and mentally unstable brother, an am-bition that brought him into conflict with hisuncle and cousin of BURGUNDY. This rivalry

split the French royal family and led even-tually to the outbreak of the FRENCH CIVIL

WAR, which allowed the English to invadeFrance and reopen the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Made count of Valois by his father in 1375,Louis received the Duchy of Touraine fromhis brother in 1386. Touraine married Val-entina Visconti, daughter of the duke ofMilan in 1387. Besides the county of Asti, thebride’s dowry, the match gave Touraineambitions in Italy. In the early 1390s, the

Avignon pope, Clement VII, proposed aneventually unsuccessful plan to make Tour-aine ruler of the papal states of central Italy.The duke convinced the French royal coun-cil, which he then dominated, to providemilitary support for his Italian adventuresand to ally with Milan, a commitment thatbenefited Touraine more than the kingdom.However, a council no longer controlled bythe duke terminated the alliance in 1395, and

Touraine’s Italian ambitions came to naught,being eventually consumed by his quest forpower in France itself.

Touraine entered French politics in No-vember 1388, when, with the assistance ofthe MARMOUSETS, he engineered a coup thatended his uncles’ control of the royal gov-ernment. The king, who had been largelyunder his uncles’ tutelage since his accessionin 1380, was declared of full age and inpersonal control of the government, a move

that permitted dismissal of the royal unclesfrom the council and of their supportersfrom the government. Touraine now filledthe royal administration with his followersand controlled both council and court,where he encouraged the weak-minded kingand his more politically adept wife, QueenISABEAU, in their constant balls and revels. In

June 1392, the duke exchanged Touraine forthe wealthier duchy of Orleans.

The onset of the king’s madness in August1392 ended the duke’s political dominanceand allowed the royal uncles, particularly

LOUIS, DUKE OF ORLEANS

201



PHILIP THE BOLD, duke of Burgundy, to re-assert their influence, and thereafter Orleansand Burgundy, supported by growing andincreasingly hostile factions, struggled withone another to control the government. After

Burgundy’s death in April 1404, the rivalrywith Orleans was intensified by the lateduke’s son, JOHN THE FEARLESS, who, al-though less influential than his father, wasequally ambitious. Each cousin workedcontinually against the interests of the otherand the council became the scene of violentdisputes between the two. Having morepersonal charm and political experiencethan his rival, Orleans proved generallymore successful, winning the support of the

queen, who was accused by the BURGUN-

DIANS of being Orleans’s lover. In 1405, whenBurgundy threatened to impose his will byforce, Orleans and the queen spirited thedauphin, LOUIS, DUKE OF GUIENNE, out ofPARIS, and civil war was only narrowlyaverted.

Although the war with England had beensuspended by the Truce of LEULINGHEN,Orleans believed that the deposition of RI-

CHARD II in 1399 and the continuing internalrebellion that plagued his supplanter, HENRY

IV, offered France a golden opportunity toexpel the English from GASCONY and CALAIS.In 1404, despite Burgundy’s opposition,Orleans persuaded the royal council to ap-prove campaigns against both. However,Orleans, more a courtier than a soldier,failed in his 1406 invasion of Gascony, andBurgundy’s half-hearted investment of Ca-lais was also unsuccessful. By 1407, the two

dukes were more interested in fighting eachother than fighting the English.

On 23 November 1407, Orleans, who hadspent the evening with the queen, was luredinto an ambush in a dark Paris street andmurdered by assassins hired by Burgundy.Claiming that he had acted ‘‘through the in-tervention of the devil’’ (Perroy, 227), Bur-gundy confessed his crime and fled thecapital. Orleans’s death therefore became

the initiating event of a long struggle be-tween the Burgundians and the ARMAGNACS

(as Orleans’s faction was eventually called).

And unlike the French failure to take ad-vantage of Henry IV’s troubles, HENRY Vmade the most of the opportunity providedby this civil war. Orleans was succeeded asduke by his thirteen-year-old son Charles

(see CHARLES, DUKE OF ORLEANS). See also Justification of the Duke of Burgundy.


Intrigue: Crisis at the Court of Charles VI, 1392–1420.

New York: AMS Press, 1986; Perroy, Edouard. The

Hundred Years War . Trans. W. B. Wells. New York:


LOUIS X, KING OF FRANCE (1289–1316)Known as le Hutin, ‘‘the Quarrelsome’’Louis X was the eldest son of PHILIP IV and

Jeanne of Navarre. Louis’s death withoutmale heirs initiated the first succession crisisin the history of the royal House of CAPET

and led to acceptance of the notion thatwomen could not inherit the throne ofFrance. This principle proved of prime im-portance twelve years later when one of theclaimants to the French Crown was EDWARD

III, king of England.At the death of his mother on 2 April 1305,

Louis inherited her lands, becoming count ofChampagne and king of Navarre. Fivemonths later, on 23 September, Louis mar-ried Marguerite of BURGUNDY, who in 1312bore him a daughter, Jeanne. In 1314, PhilipIV, possibly on information provided by hisdaughter, Isabella, the wife of EDWARD II ofEngland (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND [c.1292–1358]), publicly accused Louis’s wife,and the wife of Louis’s younger brother,Charles of La Marche (see CHARLES IV), of

adultery. Although the details of the affairare uncertain, Philip was convinced of thecharges and had the women imprisoned andtheir alleged lovers executed. Louis, there-fore, spent the last months of his father’sreign attempting to secure a papal annul-ment of his marriage.

Louis succeeded his father in November1314, but was not crowned until 3 August1315. He inherited a monarchy tarnished by

the adultery scandal, which threw doubt onthe legitimacy of Philip IV’s grandchildren,and weakened by widespread discontent

LOUIS X, KING OF FRANCE

202



over the late king’s financial policies andfrequent disregard of traditional rights. Toplacate the leagues of disaffected subjectsthat had formed in the last months ofPhilip’s reign, Louis undertook a series of

reforms and, influenced by his uncle,Charles, count of Valois, executed his fa-ther’s most unpopular minister, Enguerrande Marigny.

The death of the imprisoned Margueritein April 1315 allowed Louis to marryClemence of Hungary on the following 31

July. Clemence was pregnant when Louisdied on 5 June 1316, after a reign of less thantwo years. On his deathbed, the king de-clared Jeanne, his daughter by Marguerite,

legitimate, apparently intending her to suc-ceed should Clemence miscarry or have agirl. Born on 13 November, Clemence’s son,

John I, died five days after his birth, leavingthe succession in dispute between Louis’sfour-year-old daughter Jeanne and his 26-year-old brother Philip, count of Poitiers,who had acted as regent since Louis’s death.Despite much opposition, the count wascrowned as PHILIP V in January 1317, and an

assembly of notables, faced with an anointedmonarch, proclaimed, as a rule of law, that awoman could not succeed to the throne.

Jeanne was eventually allowed to inherit theCrown of Navarre, which at her death in1349 passed to her son, CHARLES THE BAD. Seealso SALIC LAW OF SUCCESSION.

Further Reading: Brown, Elizabeth A.R.

‘‘Kings Like Semi-Gods: The Case of Louis X of

France.’’ Majestas 1 (1993): 5–37; Brown, Elizabeth

A. R. The Monarchy of Capetian France and Royal

Ceremonial. London: Variorum, 1991; Strayer, Joseph R. The Reign of Philip the Fair. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980.

LOUIS DE MALE, COUNT OFFLANDERS (1330–1384)Louis de Male, count of FLANDERS, preservedhis authority for most his rule by balancingformal allegiance to VALOIS France and in-formal alliance with PLANTAGENET England.

Louis succeeded his father, LOUIS DENEVERS, upon the latter’s death at CRECY inAugust 1346. Intent on overthrowing the

English-backed regime of Ghent burghersthat had ruled Flanders since driving his fa-ther into exile in 1339, Louis, assisted byFrench troops, led a band of Flemish exilesinto the county in August 1348 to support an

uprising against the Ghent government inthe town of Alost. On 29 August, he prom-ised amnesty to Bruges, where loyalty to theHouse of Dampierre was strong. Althoughboth Ghent and Bruges sent armies againstthe count, Louis divided the former withpromises of pardon and full restoration ofmunicipal privileges. When the army ofBruges mutinied and declared for the count,the army of Ghent dissolved and Louismarched triumphantly across Flanders, ar-

riving at Bruges on 17 September. When thecity opened its gates to him, Louis promptlyblockaded both Ghent and Ypres, forcingthem to appeal to EDWARD III for aid.

Realizing that he had to placate themilitantly pro-English elements within hiscounty, which, in any event, was still eco-nomically dependent on English wool, Louisopened negotiations with Edward. In De-cember 1348, these talks resulted in the

treaties of Dunkirk, whereby the Englishking accepted restoration of the count’s au-thority and his formal allegiance to PHILIP VIin return for a promise of friendship andLouis’s willingness to allow his subjects tocontinue recognizing Edward as king ofFrance. A second agreement, which wasnever put into effect, bound Louis to re-nounce his French allegiance if Philip didnot restore Artois and other territories takenfrom Flanders. Although the former had to

be taken by storm, both Ghent and Ypreswere under the count’s control by mid-Jan-uary 1349.

Forced to consult with the larger townsbefore levying taxation, Louis neverthelessstrengthened and professionalized the cen-tral administration and won the support ofsmaller towns by confirming their right toproduce certain types of cloth. In 1360, hewas a signatory to the Treaty of BRETIGNY,

thereby officially making peace with En-gland, and, in 1363, Edward III establishedthe wool staple at Calais, thereby stabilizing

LOUIS DE MALE, COUNT OF FLANDERS

203



the flow of English wool into Flanders. In1368, Louis was the only French vassal torefuse to publish CHARLES V’s proclamationannouncing his acceptance of the APPEAL OF

THE GASCON LORDS, an action that renewed

the HUNDRED YEARS WAR. In 1375, the countmediated the Anglo-French talks at theBRUGES PEACE CONFERENCE.

In 1363, Louis negotiated the marriage ofMARGUERITE, his daughter and heir, to ED-

MUND OF LANGLEY, son of Edward III. Be-cause the match created the possibility of anorthern English APPANAGE based on Flan-ders, Charles V persuaded the French pope,Urban V, to forbid the marriage because theparties were within the prohibited degree of

kinship. Charles then proposed that Mar-guerite marry his brother, PHILIP THE BOLD,duke of BURGUNDY, for whom the popereadily supplied the dispensation deniedLangley. Louis, angry over the failure of theEnglish match, did not approve the mar-riage until 1369, when the French agreed toreturn various territories taken from Flan-ders by PHILIP IV.

Louis excluded his son-in-law from the

government until 1380, when the count’sfavoring of Bruges caused a new uprising inGhent and forced him to seek assistancefrom Burgundy. In November 1382, a Frencharmy led by the duke crushed the Ghentmilitia at Roosebeke, killing the rebel leaderPhilip van ARTEVELDE. Burgundy was thuseffective ruler of Flanders when Louis diedon 30 January 1384.

Further Reading: Nicholas, David. Town and

Countryside: Social, Economic, and Political Tensions

in Fourteenth-Century Flanders. Bruges: De Tem-pel, 1971.

LOUIS DE NEVERS, COUNT OFFLANDERS (c. 1304–1346)Although he spent much of his rule in exileor at war with his people, Louis de Nevers,count of FLANDERS, was a loyal vassal of theFrench Crown. His firm adherence to theVALOIS complicated efforts by EDWARD III to

build a strong ANTI-FRENCH COALITION in theLow Countries during the first decades ofthe HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

By order of PHILIP IV, Louis had been re-moved from his family as a child and raisedat the French court. When he succeeded hisgrandfather, Robert de Bethune, in 1322, hewas French in language and tastes and had

little knowledge or experience of his county.In 1323, in a clumsy attempt to limit the priv-ileges of the town of Bruges, Louis ignited arebellion that eventually engulfed almost theentire county. Unable to subdue his re-bellious subjects, Louis appealed to PHILIP VI,who, being anxious to secure the count’ssupport, crushed the Flemish rebels at Casselon 23 August 1328, thereby restoring Louis topower. Feeling himself beholden to Philipand unwilling to risk further French inter-

ference in his county, Louis now pursued aconsistently pro-French policy.

In the 1330s, Louis’s continued meddlingin municipal affairs again increased politicaltensions, causing even Ghent, which had notsupported the earlier uprising, to opposehim. With the advent of the Hundred YearsWar, Flanders found itself caught betweenLouis’s Valois allegiance and the greattowns’ need for English wool, the cloth in-

dustry being the basis of the Flemish econ-omy. In August 1336, after Louis rejected aproposed ANGLO-FLEMISH ALLIANCE, the En-glish government forbade wool exports, anaction that devastated the Flemish economy.In October, when Philip forbade his vassalsto trade with the English, Louis dutifullyenforced the ban, thereby completely sever-ing relations with England.

In January 1338, economic unrest result-ing from the English embargo erupted into

open rebellion. Under the leadership of James van ARTEVELDE, captain of Ghent, theFlemings forged an alliance with Edward III.When attacks on Ghent and Bruges failed,Louis fled to PARIS in February 1339. Heaccompanied the French army during thecampaigns of 1339–40 (see THIERACHE CAM-

PAIGN; TOURNAI, SIEGE OF), and was a memberof the French embassy that negotiated theTruce of ESPLECHIN in September 1340. By

1342, the count’s intrigues against the in-creasingly high-handed van Artevelde re-gime slowly gained support, especially in

LOUIS DE NEVERS, COUNT OF FLANDERS

204



the French-speaking areas of the county. InMay 1345, the town of Dendermonde de-clared for the count and in July van Arte-velde was assassinated in Ghent. However,the three great towns—Ghent, Bruges, and

Ypres—refused to accept Louis unless herecognized Edward as king of France. Whenthe count refused, the towns concludednew agreements with the English king andLouis returned to the French court. On 26

August 1346, the count was slain fighting forthe Valois at the Battle of CRECY. He wassucceeded as count by his son, LOUIS DE

MALE.Further Reading: Lucas, Henry Stephen. The

Low Countries and the Hundred Years’ War, 1326– 1347. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,

1929; Nicholas, David. Town and Countryside:

Social, Economic, and Political Tensions in Four-

teenth-Century Flanders. Bruges: De Tempel, 1971.

LOUIS DE NEVERS, COUNT OF FLANDERS

205



M MAINE, SURRENDER OF (1448)The evacuation of Maine, a county in west-central France held for over two decades bythe English, occurred in 1448, two and a halfyears after HENRY VI secretly agreed to sur-

render the province as a means of facilitat-ing an Anglo-French peace. By discreditingthe English government at home and de-moralizing the English military in France,the abandonment of Maine was instru-mental in ending the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Buffering English NORMANDY to the northand threatening French Anjou to the south,Maine was a vital part of Lancastrian France.Maine had been English since 1425, when

JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD, had seized its capital,Le Mans. In 1444, CHARLES VII demandedMaine in return for accepting the Truce ofTOURS. Although William de la POLE, earl ofSuffolk, who negotiated the truce for theEnglish, was accused of secretly agreeing tothe surrender, it is uncertain whether he ac-tually did so. The peace policy that compre-hended the surrender of Maine was theking’s policy; in the summer of 1445, Henrypersonally promised a French ambassador

that he would restore the county by October.Nothing came of this promise, mainly be-cause no royal councilor wanted to be asso-ciated with such an unpopular action.Nonetheless, on 22 December 1445, Henry,assured by Charles that the surrender ofMaine would ensure a final peace, and re-peatedly urged to relinquish the province byhis new wife, MARGARET OF ANJOU, whosefather would thereby make good his claims

to the county, secretly conveyed to Charles’srepresentatives a letter formally promising tosurrender Maine by 30 April 1446.

Although Henry had committed himselfand his government, the surrender had nosupport within the Norman administrationor the Maine garrisons, both of which had tocooperate if the evacuation was to occur. As

a result, several surrender dates passedwithout any action being taken. Armed withHenry’s letter, Charles made extension ofthe truce conditional on implementation ofthe surrender. In England, rumors of thesurrender generated much anger againstSuffolk, who, in May 1447, solemnly de-clared in the king’s presence that he hadnever been party to any proposals to relin-quish Maine. In July 1447, Henry, in return

for an extension of the truce to 1 May 1448,gave the French another written promise tosurrender Maine. To implement this under-taking, Edmund BEAUFORT, earl of Somerset,whom Henry had created count of Maine,replaced RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK, a royalopponent, as king’s lieutenant in Nor-mandy. In July 1447, Somerset, acting ascount of Maine, was ordered to convey thecounty to the English commanders in LeMans, Mathew Gough and Fulk Eyton, who

were, in turn, to surrender Maine to theFrench.

Expecting to oversee the surrender, Char-les’s representatives arrived in Le Mans inOctober. However, Gough and Eyton, sup-ported by such other English military leadersas Sir John FASTOLF, frustrated the handoverwith a series of delaying tactics. In February1448, Charles ignored the truce and laid siegeto Le Mans. Unable to resist the new stand-

ing army Charles had constructed duringthe truce, Gough and Eyton surrenderedLe Mans on 15 March. By June, the English

206



garrisons of Maine had fallen back on Nor-mandy, which now lay exposed to Frenchattack from the south. Henry had under-mined his ministers and demoralized hiscommanders by voluntarily surrendering a

key portion of Lancastrian France for nothingmore than Charles’s vague agreement to lookfavorably on the conclusion of peace. Thesurrender of Maine and the subsequent lossof Normandy had serious political con-sequences in England, overthrowing Suffolk,tarnishing Somerset, and contributing to theinternal strife that led eventually to the Warsof the Roses. See also CHARLES VII, MILITARY

REFORMS OF.Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A. The Reign


nia Press, 1981; Wolffe, Bertram. Henry VI.


MALESTROIT, TRUCE OF (1343)Concluded on 19 January 1343 and intendedto run until 29 September 1346, the Truce ofMalestroit was the first step in a papal effortto mediate a permanent settlement of theHUNDRED YEARS WAR. Although financial

exhaustion and military stalemate were themain reasons PHILIP VI and EDWARD III ac-cepted the truce, the stated purpose of theagreement was to permit both monarchs tosend representatives to Avignon to treat forpeace under the auspices of Pope CLEMENT

VI. In fact, the truce served mainly as a re-spite that allowed both sides, but particu-larly the English, to renew their will andability to continue the war.

In October 1342, Edward intervened per-

sonally in the BRETON CIVIL WAR to revive thefailing cause of John de MONTFORT, then aprisoner in PARIS. Landing in BRITTANY on 26October with an army of five thousand,Edward joined the Montfortists in a plan torecapture the town of Vannes. When an as-sault failed on 29 November, Edward wasforced to lay siege. With the west of theduchy safely Montfortist, Edward launcheda CHEVAUCHE E into eastern Brittany, where

CHARLES OF BLOIS, the French-backed ducalclaimant, was in control. The rapid capitu-lation of Redon, Malestroit, and Ploermel

convinced the French to intervene and aroyal army led by John, duke of NORMANDY

(see JOHN II) entered the duchy in late De-cember. Normandy quickly recaptured allthe recent English conquests and by mid-

January brought his army, which wassignificantly larger than the Anglo-Bretonforce, to within twenty miles of Vannes.

Unwilling to risk battle or reveal theweakness of his army, Edward allowed twocardinals, who had sought to arrange a trucesince the previous summer, to begin nego-tiations for a cessation of hostilities, althoughhe would not allow them to view the size orcondition of his army. On 19 January, rep-resentatives of the two kings signed a truce

in the Church of St. Mary Magdalene inMalestroit. Although the agreement gaveVannes to the pope, who was to hold it forPhilip until expiration of the truce, its termswere generally favorable to Edward. Bothkings retained their current holdings inBrittany, FLANDERS, AQUITAINE, a n d SCOT-

LAND, and Philip agreed to release de Mont-fort. This meant the English were free toconsolidate their position in western Brit-

tany, to maintain their alliance with the re-gime of James van ARTEVELDE in Flanders,and to strengthen their garrisons in GAS-

CONY. Only in Scotland, where DAVID II hadrecently driven the English from Roxburghand Sterling, did Edward sustain lossesunder the truce.

In 1344, negotiations mediated by thepope opened in Avignon. Because Edwardbelieved Clement was pro-French and Philipbelieved he had the stronger hand, neither

king seriously pursued peace. Each madedemands the other could not accept. TheFrench refused to discuss either Edward’sclaim to the French throne or the granting offull sovereignty to the PLANTAGENETs inAquitaine. Meanwhile, both sides violatedthe truce in Brittany and Aquitaine, whilethe Scots continued raiding England andPhilip refused to release de Montfort. Whenthe AVIGNON PEACE CONFERENCE collapsed in

February 1345, both parties were alreadypreparing to renew the war. In the following June, more than a year before the truce’s

MALESTROIT, TRUCE OF

207



intended expiration, Edward formally re-nounced the Malestroit agreement.


Hundred Years War . Vol. 1, Trial by Battle.


1999.

MANTES, TREATY OF. See CHARLES THE

BAD, KING OF NAVARRE

MARCEL, ETIENNE (1310–1358)Etienne Marcel was a prosperous PARIS

draper, who, as the city’s provost of themerchants, led a rebellion against the FrenchCrown in 1357–58. By giving leadership andfocus to Parisians who were angered by the

high taxes and military defeats of the HUN-

DRED YEARS WAR, Marcel became virtualruler of Paris, driving the Dauphin Charles(see CHARLES V) from the capital and nego-tiating with CHARLES THE BAD, king ofNavarre, and with other towns to form ananti-VALOIS alliance.

Born into a cadet branch of a prominentfamily of Parisian merchants, Marcel, inabout 1345, married the daughter of a

wealthy banker, and used her dowry andher father’s connections to launch a suc-cessful career as a cloth merchant. By thelate 1340s, he was a supplier of the royalcourt and a respected and influential busi-nessman. In 1354, he was elected provost ofthe merchants, an important municipal ma-gistracy that gave him responsibility for therecruitment of the city’s military forces andthe maintenance of its defenses. As pro-vost, he was also spokesman for the

representatives of the towns in the Estates-General, an office he performed when theassembly met in Paris in December 1355.Marcel helped negotiate an agreementwhereby JOHN II undertook to cease his de-basement of the coinage, dismiss certain ofhis ministers, and accept a series of gov-ernmental reforms in return for a large grantof TAXATION to finance new campaignsagainst the English.

In May 1356, the king, dissatisfied withthe tax so far collected, resumed his ma-nipulation of the currency and recalled his

dismissed advisors, actions that causedMarcel to break with the Crown and refuseto recruit Parisian contingents for the com-ing campaign. After the king’s defeat andcapture at POITIERS in September, Marcel

threw his support behind the partisans ofthe recently imprisoned Charles of Navarre,who controlled the session of the Estates-General that began in October. Before votingfurther supply, the Estates demanded thatthe dauphin dismiss and try a number ofroyal officials, govern only with the adviceof a permanent commission appointed bythe Estates, and release Charles of Navarre.In December, a month after dismissing theEstates and fleeing Paris, the dauphin or-

dered a new manipulation of the currency.Marcel organized a boycott of the newcoinage and led a mob to the Louvre, wherethe dauphin’s brother, LOUIS, DUKE OF

ANJOU, was compelled to suspend the coin-age ordinance. Fearing that widespread ac-ceptance of the new issue would allow thedauphin to dispense with the Estates, Mar-cel continued to incite demonstrations of hissupporters to dominate the city and over-

awe the court.In January 1357, the dauphin returned toParis, withdrew the new coinage, and re-called the Estates. In March, the Estates,dominated by friends of Navarre and Mar-cel’s increasingly radical supporters, forcedthe dauphin to accept a sweeping reformordinance. By the end of the year, the pro-vost and his supporters, who had adopteddistinctive hoods of crimson and blue astheir insignia, controlled the city. On 22

February 1358, Marcel, learning that thedauphin planned to bring troops into Paristo overthrow the revolutionary regime, led amob to the Louvre, where the Parisiansmurdered two royal marshals in the dau-phin’s presence. In March, having appointedMarcel to his council, the dauphin left Parisand began rallying support against the rev-olutionaries, whose excesses generatedsympathy for the dauphin in the provinces.

In May, the provost gave support to the J ACQUERIE, which alienated most nobles fromhis cause. By July, Marcel’s support was

MANTES, TREATY OF

208



ebbing in Paris. Continuing disorder andfear of the English mercenaries whom Na-varre, now Marcel’s close ally, had deployedaround the city, led a group of influentialParisians to conspire with the dauphin

against the regime. On 31 July, a royalistmob murdered Marcel, thereby ending theParis revolution and allowing the dauphinto enter the capital on 2 August. See alsoESTATES, GENERAL AND PROVINCIAL.




MARGARET OF ANJOU, QUEEN OFENGLAND (1430–1482)

Margaret of Anjou was the wife of HENRY VI.Queen by virtue of the peace policy pursuedby her husband in the 1440s, Margaret was,through her influence on Henry and herintervention in court politics, a key figure inthe formulation of English policy during thelast decade of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.During the subsequent Wars of the Roses,Margaret became effective leader of theHouse of LANCASTER.

Margaret was the daughter of Rene, dukeof Anjou, a descendant of JOHN II, and theniece of CHARLES VII, who was married toAnjou’s sister. In the early 1440s, CardinalHenry BEAUFORT, bishop of Winchester, andWilliam de la POLE, earl of Suffolk, leaders ofthe English peace party, sought to furthertheir goals by arranging a French marriagefor Henry. Being unwilling to offer his owndaughter and thus forge yet another En-glish connection with the House of VALOIS,

Charles suggested a match with Margaret.Although Henry’s uncle, HUMPHREY, DUKE

OF GLOUCESTER, and his cousin, RICHARD,DUKE OF YORK, leaders of the court factionfavoring more vigorous prosecution of thewar, bitterly opposed a French match, Suf-folk sailed to France in February 1444 withinstructions to conclude both a peace and amarriage. When negotiations for a perma-nent peace bogged down over the French

refusal to make significant concessions,Suffolk accepted a truce running until 1April 1446 and agreed to the marriage of

Henry and Margaret. On 24 May, with Suf-folk acting as proxy, fifteen-year-old Mar-garet was formally betrothed to the Englishking; four days later, the two governmentssigned the Truce of TOURS.

Married to Henry on 23 April 1445, Mar-garet was crowned on 30 May. Intelligent,energetic, and strong-willed, the youngqueen was almost immediately unpopular.French, possessed of no dowry, and closelyassociated with Suffolk and the peace party,she was to many the symbol of a feeblepolicy that meant defeat and dishonor inFrance. Easily dominating her weak, va-cillating husband, Margaret soon involvedherself in politics, becoming a strong ad-

vocate for the peace policy that had madeher queen. Already derided as a queen whowas ‘‘not worth ten marks a year’’ (Seward,245), Margaret urged Henry to keep his rashpromise to surrender Maine to the French,thereby earning even more popular hostility(see MAINE, SURRENDER OF). In 1447, Suffolk,who was rumored to be the queen’s lover,engineered the arrest of Gloucester, whodied while in custody. Public opinion as-

cribed the mysterious death to murder, anddeclared Margaret Suffolk’s accomplice.In 1450, the loss of NORMANDY swept

Suffolk from power. Embarrassed by fi-nancial weakness and shackled by a kingwho was unfit to rule, Suffolk’s governmentcollapsed amid charges of treason leveled bysuch opponents as York, who, thanks toMargaret’s failure to conceive, was Henry’sprobable heir. As an increasingly bitter ri-valry developed between York and Suffolk’s

successor, Edmund BEAUFORT, duke ofSomerset, the queen, who viewed York as athreat to the throne, closely identified herselfwith Somerset. In August 1453, Henry suf-fered a mental collapse that rendered himincapable of ruling; in October, Margaret,amidst rumors that the child was not Hen-ry’s, gave birth to a son, Edward, who dis-placed York as heir. To safeguard the rightsof her child, Margaret sought the regency,

but her claim was rejected in favor of York,who was named protector by PARLIAMENT inMarch 1454. Henry’s recovery the following

MARGARET OF ANJOU, QUEEN OF ENGLAND

209



Christmas ended York’s regime, but thecontinuing efforts of Margaret and Somersetto destroy York and his allies led to theeventual outbreak of civil war.

Over the next four years, Henry remained

too weak-minded to govern effectively andMargaret assumed leadership of the anti-York faction. Following Henry’s overthrowin March 1461, Margaret spent most of thenext decade in exile in SCOTLAND and France.She helped engineer Henry’s brief restora-tion in 1470–71, but was captured and im-prisoned in the Tower of London in May1471 after her son’s death in battle and herhusband’s murder. Ransomed and returnedto France by Louis XI in 1475, Margaret died

on 25 August 1482. See also NORMAN CAM-

PAIGN (1449–50).Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A. The Reign


nia Press, 1981; Maurer, Helen E. Margaret of

Anjou: Queenship and Power in Late Medieval

England. London: Boydell Press, 2003; Seward,

Desmond. The Hundred Years War . New York:

Penguin, 1999.

MARGARET OF FRANCE, QUEEN OFENGLAND (1279–1318)The daughter of Philip III and half-sister ofPHILIP IV, Margaret of France became thesecond wife of EDWARD I as part of the peaceprocess that ended the ANGLO-FRENCH WAR

OF 1294–1303. Like her niece, Isabella (seeISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND [c. 1292–1358]),who was married to EDWARD II as part of thesame peace process, and such later Frenchprincesses as Isabella, the second wife of

RICHARD II (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND

[1388–1409]), and CATHERINE OF VALOIS, thewife of HENRY V, Margaret was part of aseries of attempts to use marriage to createamity between the English royal Houses ofPLANTAGENET and LANCASTER and the Frenchroyal Houses of CAPET and VALOIS.

The possibility of a marriage betweenEdward, who had been a widower since thedeath of Queen Eleanor of Castile in 1290,

and Margaret was first raised in 1293–94,although actual discussions regarding thematch did not begin until 1298 as part of the

Anglo-French peace negotiations conductedby Pope Boniface VIII. The couple was wedat Canterbury on 10 September 1299, almostfour years before the signing of a finalpeace agreement. Their first child, Thomas

of Brotherton, earl of Norfolk, was born in June 1300, with his younger brother, Ed-mund of Woodstock, earl of Kent, arrivingin August 1301, and his sister, Eleanor, inMay 1306. Forty years younger than herhusband, Margaret exercised little politicalinfluence, but frequently interceded with theking on behalf of subjects needing pardonsor favors. Her most important effort in thisregard was on behalf of Prince Edward,whom she reconciled with his father in 1305.

The queen persuaded the king to allowLONDON merchants to resume lendingmoney to the prince and was largely re-sponsible for preventing the break-up of theprince’s household.

Margaret may have undertaken such in-tercessions in part to counter bad feelingaroused by her French birth and her asso-ciation with an unpopular peace treaty. Al-though a later story that she passed

important political and military informationto her brother is highly implausible, it mayindicate the existence of suspicion and hos-tility regarding the French queen. In 1299,for instance, a chronicler criticized Marga-ret’s visit to St. Albans as too long andcostly, although at her death most Englishwriters praised her as kind, beautiful, andpure. Margaret enjoyed good relations withPrince Edward and his surviving sisters,and was treated with affection and tender-

ness by her husband, who several timesrescued her from the consequences of heroverspending. In 1302, he gave her £4,000out of the royal revenues from marriagesand wardships to meet her debts, and, in1305, he increased her landed endowmentby £500 per year. After Edward’s death in

July 1307, Margaret remained on good termswith Edward II, although little is known ofher life after 1308. She died on 14 February

1318 and was buried in London.Further Reading: Prestwich, Michael. Edward I.


MARGARET OF FRANCE, QUEEN OF ENGLAND

210



MARGATE, BATTLE OF. See CADZAND,BATTLE OF

MARGUERITE DE FLANDERS,

DUCHESS OF BURGUNDY (c. 1349–1405)Marguerite was the daughter and heir ofLOUIS DE MALE, count of FLANDERS. Throughher marriage to PHILIP THE BOLD, duke ofBURGUNDY and brother of CHARLES V, andthrough the marriages she and her husbandarranged for their children, she helped cre-ate the state of Burgundy, which in the fif-teenth century played a central role in theHUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Married briefly to Philip de Rouvre, the

last Capetian duke of Burgundy (see CAPET,HOUSE OF), who died in November 1361,Marguerite thereafter became one of themost coveted heiresses in Europe. Herdowry included not only her father’s pro-vinces of Flanders and Rethel, but her pa-ternal grandmother’s counties of Artois andBurgundy, and a claim through her motherto the duchy of Brabant. Marriage to Mar-guerite thus promised a potential husband

substantial holdings in the Low Countriesand western Germany. Seeking to create agreat English APPANAGE on the northernborders of France, EDWARD III, in the early1360s, proposed a marriage between Mar-guerite and his son EDMUND OF LANGLEY, earlof Cambridge. By combining Flanders andMarguerite’s other inheritances with CALAIS,Ponthieu, and the PLANTAGENET holdings innorthern France, Cambridge would be themost powerful prince in northwestern Eu-

rope and a significant threat to VALOIS France,which would then be bracketed by Plantag-enet Flanders in the north and PlantagenetAQUITAINE in the south. Although Margue-rite’s father was agreeable to the match,Charles V derailed the marriage in 1364 byprevailing upon the French pope, Urban V,to forbid it on grounds of consanguinity.Like the members of most noble families, thecouple was related within the degrees of

affinity prohibited by the Church; theirmarriage could not proceed without a papaldispensation.

Although the pope justified his prohibi-tion by calling the proposed match withCambridge ‘‘a danger to [the couple’s] souls,a pernicious example to others and a scan-dal to many’’ (Sumption, 577), in 1367, he

readily granted a dispensation for Mar-guerite to marry Burgundy, to whom shewas even more closely related. Angered byFrench interference in his affairs, Flandersdrove a hard bargain for his daughter’shand, which Charles won for his brotheronly by agreeing to return to Flanders thetowns and castellancies of Lille, Douai, andOrchies, which had been seized by PHILIP IVin 1305. Marguerite finally wed Burgundy atGhent on 19 June 1369, and eventually bore

him at least eleven children, seven of whomlived to adulthood.

Marguerite succeeded to her grand-mother’s lands in 1382, and her father’s in1384. In 1385, Marguerite and Philip ar-ranged advantageous marriages for two oftheir children with members of the Wittels-bach family, thereby ensuring the even-tual incorporation of Holland, Zeeland, andHainault into the Burgundian state. In 1390,

Marguerite’s maternal aunt Jeanne namedher niece and husband co-heirs to Brabant.Although Philip ruled all his wife’s lands,Marguerite frequently acted as regent in hisabsence. Like her husband, she was a greatpatron of the arts and a collector of books.Marguerite willed her lands to her husbandin 1391, but only died a year after Philip, on21 March 1405. She was succeeded in herterritories by her eldest son, JOHN THE FEAR-

LESS, the second Valois duke of Burgundy.


phia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001;

Vaughan, Richard. Philip the Bold: The Formation

of the Burgundian State. Woodbridge, England:

Boydell Press, 2002.

MARGUERITE DE MALE. See MARGUERITE

DE FLANDERS

MARMOUSETSThe term ‘‘Marmousets’’ denotes a French po-litical faction composed of former financial

MARMOUSETS

211



and military servants of CHARLES V whotried to reimpose his ideals of efficient,economical government on the administra-tion of CHARLES VI. Although the Marmou-sets dominated the royal government for

less than four years, many of their ideas re-mained influential within the ARMAGNAC/dauphinist party during the FRENCH CIVIL

WAR and were put into practice during thelast years of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

‘‘Marmouset,’’ meaning ‘‘small boy,’’ andimplying a person of no status or con-sequence, was a term of derision applied tothe faction by their political opponents, thesupporters of Charles VI’s uncles, JOHN,DUKE OF BERRY, and PHILIP THE BOLD, duke

of BURGUNDY. On the death of Charles V in1380, the minority government of his twelve-year-old son fell under the control of theboy’s uncles. By 1384, when the eldest uncle,LOUIS, DUKE OF ANJOU, died, most of CharlesV’s ministers had been dismissed or rel-egated to minor offices, their places taken bypartisans of Berry and Burgundy, whoexploited their control of king and councilfor the financial and political advantage of

themselves and their masters.On 3 November 1388, Pierre Aycelin,cardinal of Laon and a royal councilor, an-nounced the king’s intention to assumepersonal control of the government. Charlesdismissed his uncles and filled his counciland administration with his father’s oldministers, who soon became known asMarmousets. Although the king was nearlytwenty, he was still immature and easily led;the driving force behind the change in gov-

ernment was the king’s brother, LOUIS, DUKE

OF ORLEANS, who, in likely alliance withQueen ISABEAU, sought the power and profitdenied him by his uncles. Besides Aycelin,the leading Marmousets included Olivier deCLISSON, constable of France; Bureau de LaRiviere; John le Mercier; John de Montaigu;William Melun, count of Tancarville; andNicolas de Bosc, bishop of Bayeux.

Although favoring the interests of Orleans,

the Marmouset regime sought no revolu-tionary change, but worked instead for a re-turn of the administrative arrangements that

had characterized the reign of Charles V.While Orleans distracted his brother withcostly entertainments, the Marmousets ranthe kingdom. The council was reduced to amore manageable size and its members were

bound by oath to each other and to the wel-fare of the realm. To avoid the favoritism ofthe previous regime, appointments to im-portant offices were made by the council, andthe financial and judicial departments werereformed and reorganized, with all servantsof the royal uncles dismissed or demoted. Inlate 1389, the Marmousets took the king toLanguedoc, where Berry’s lieutenancy hadimpoverished the province. Charles dis-missed his uncle and replaced or arrested his

supporters in the provincial administration.Although generally more rational and

economical, the new government proved nomore popular than the uncles’ regime. Thisunpopularity stemmed largely from theMarmousets’ unwillingness to countenancetrue reform and their insistence on main-taining the high war TAXATION of the pre-vious reign, which, with the conclusion ofthe Truce of LEULINGHEN in 1389, seemed to

fund only court extravagance. Marmousetdominance abruptly ended in August 1392when the king fell into a fit of violent mad-ness, the first episode in a lifetime of inter-mittent insanity. The royal uncles quicklyresumed control, removing the leadingMarmousets from office. La Riviere and LeMercier were imprisoned; John of Montaigufled to Avignon; and Clisson was fined,banished, and dismissed as constable. Al-though some Marmousets eventually re-

turned to office in minor posts, they ceasedto exist as a coherent faction; however, manyof their ideas and policies were later put intoeffect by CHARLES VII, the eventual heir ofthe Marmouset-Armagnac tradition.




MARSHAL OF FRANCE. See ARMIES,

COMMAND OF; AUDREHEM, ARNOUL D’, MAR-SHAL OF FRANCE; APPENDIX 6: ‘‘CONSTABLES

AND MARSHALS OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND’’

MARSHAL OF FRANCE

212



MARTIN V. See PAPACY AND THE HUNDRED

YEARS WAR

MAUNY, WALTER, LORD MAUNY

(d. 1372)Walter Mauny (or Manny), one of the ablestEnglish captains of the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR, earned a European reputation forvalor and CHIVALRY.

The son of a noble Hainaulter family,Mauny came to England in 1327 in the en-tourage of his countrywoman, Queen PHI-

LIPPA, wife of EDWARD III. Knighted in 1331,Mauny fought in SCOTLAND in the early1330s and was appointed admiral of the

north in 1337. In the first of many gallantexploits recorded by his fellow Hainaulter,

Jean FROISSART, Mauny descended on Cad-sand, an island at the mouth of the Scheldtfrom which French privateers attackedEnglish shipping. During the raid, Maunysingle-handedly rescued HENRY OF GROS-

MONT, earl of Derby, when he was in dangerof capture; Mauny also took several prison-ers, including the bastard brother of LOUIS

DE NEVERS, count of FLANDERS. In 1340, theking, who had already granted Mauny nu-merous lands and offices, gave him £8,000for the RANSOM of his Cadsand prisoners.

In 1339, at the start of the THIERACHE

CAMPAIGN, Mauny, according to Froissart,vowed to be the first to enter France and seizea stronghold, which he did by crossing theHainault frontier with forty companions andsurprising the castle of Thun l’Eveque. In June 1340, Mauny fought at the Battle of

SLUYS and was present later in the year at thesiege of TOURNAI. In 1342, Mauny landed inBRITTANY, where, among other adventures, hebroke the siege of Hennebon, thereby liber-ating the wife of John de MONTFORT, theEnglish client in the BRETON CIVIL WAR. In1345–46, Mauny distinguished himself dur-ing Derby’s first two campaigns in GASCONY.In the latter year, while John, duke of NOR-

MANDY, was besieging the Gascon town of

AIGUILLON, Mauny released a Norman knightin his custody without ransom in return for asafe-conduct from the duke to travel through

France to join Edward for the developingCRECY campaign. Despite this safe-conduct,Mauny was attacked and most of his menwere captured, although he escaped, therebyadding to his growing reputation.

In 1347, Mauny served at the siege ofCALAIS and was one of the English rep-resentatives who negotiated the Truce ofCalais after the city’s fall (see CALAIS, TRUCE

OF). On 31 December 1349, he played a keypart in foiling a French attempt to retakeCalais by treachery. Leading a small party ofknights that included the king and EDWARD,THE BLACK PRINCE, traveling incognito,Mauny ambushed the French as they en-tered Calais Castle. Uttering the war cry

‘‘Mauny to the rescue’’ to preserve his an-onymity, the king led Mauny and his com-rades in a nightlong fight that saved thetown. During the 1350s, Mauny undertookvarious military and diplomatic assign-ments; he fought at the naval Battle ofWINCHELSEA in 1350, broke the Scottish siegeof Berwick Castle in 1355, and negotiated anextension of the Anglo-French truce in 1359.He accompanied the king during the RHEIMS

CAMPAIGN of 1359–60, was one of the Englishguarantors of the Treaty of BRETIGNY in 1360,and was one of JOHN II’s guardians when thecaptive French king was transferred to Ca-lais. In the 1360s, Mauny served briefly inIreland and participated in negotiations for amarriage between the king’s son, EDMUND

OF LANGLEY, and MARGUERITE, daughter ofLOUIS DE MALE, count of Flanders.

Mauny’s service in the war made himboth wealthy and famous. Summoned to

PARLIAMENT as Lord Mauny in 1347, he be-came a knight of the GARTER in 1359 andreceived extensive grants of land in Englandand AQUITAINE. Although likely exaggeratedby Froissart, Mauny’s chivalric exploits werewell known on both sides of the Channel. In1349, he acquired land near Smithfield out-side LONDON where fifty thousand victims ofthe BLACK DEATH were supposedly buried.Mauny later founded a house of Carthusian

monks, the London Charterhouse, on thesite and was buried in the monastery on hisdeath in January 1372.

MAUNY, WALTER, LORD MAUNY

213



Further Reading: Packe, Michael. King Edward

III . Ed. L. C. B. Seaman. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul, 1983; Sumption, Jonathan. The



1999.

MAURON, BATTLE OF (1352)The Battle of Mauron occurred on 14 August1352 near the village of Mauron in centralBRITTANY. Although the English forces inBrittany were seriously depleted by thiscostly victory, the French army was shat-tered, forcing the French Crown to largelyabandon its direct involvement in the BRE-

TON CIVIL WAR for the next decade.

Upon his return from England in July1352, Walter BENTLEY, Thomas DAGWORTH’ssuccessor as English governor in Brittany,found that Guy de Nesle, the French com-mander in the duchy, had reestablished thesieges of English garrisons at Ploermel andFougeray. Gathering a force that probablynumbered fewer than a thousand men,Bentley broke both sieges before the Frenchcommander could stop him. Leaving his

camps near Rennes on 11 August, de Nesleencountered Bentley a half mile east ofMauron in the late afternoon of 14 August.

The English deployed on high ground inthe traditional formation, with bodies ofARCHERS on the wings to cover the dis-mounted men-at-arms in the center. How-ever, the English line stood on open ground,unprotected by woods or field works andbacked by a hedgerow that could hinderretreat. When Bentley refused his invitation

to surrender, de Nesle launched his attack,sending his cavalry to disperse the archerson the English right, and his men-at-arms tosimultaneously attack on foot in the Englishfashion. The French cavalry charge wassuccessful; most of the archers fled the fieldthereby exposing the men-at arms to theirleft, who were quickly pushed back tothe hedgerow. With Bentley wounded, theEnglish were in serious trouble.

However, on the English left, the secondbody of archers, facing no cavalry charge,quickly broke up the French assault in their

front, driving their foes back down the hill.On the English right, the hedgerow an-chored the struggling English line and alsodisrupted any cavalry pursuit of the fleeingarchers. As the French right wing collapsed,

the English men-at-arms fell on the exposedflank and the entire French line was even-tually driven downhill in confusion. On thevalley floor and on the steep slopes of thehill opposite the battle site, the English ar-chers did great execution, shooting downhundreds of exhausted French knights whowere rendered practically immobile by theheat and the weight of their own ARMOR.

French casualties were horrendous. Overfive hundred men-at-arms lay dead on the

field, and 160 prisoners were taken forRANSOM. Guy de Nesle was killed, alongwith many prominent Breton noblemen whosupported the cause of CHARLES OF BLOIS, theFrench-backed claimant in Brittany. Alsoslain were eighty-nine knights of JOHN II’sOrder of the STAR, which had only recentlybeen formed to rival EDWARD III’s Order ofthe GARTER. English losses were also heavy,and became even larger after the battle when

Bentley had thirty archers beheaded forleaving the field. So desperate was theEnglish manpower shortage at Mauron thatBentley had to send immediately to Englandfor reinforcements. Nonetheless, Englishdominance in the duchy remained largelyunchallenged until the 1360s.






MEAUX, SIEGE OF (1421–1422)Lasting from October 1421 to May 1422, theEnglish investment of Meaux, a town on theRiver Marne about thirty miles east of PARIS,was HENRY V’s longest siege and last majorcampaign. The fall of the city clearednorthern France of dauphinist strongholds,secured English communications with

BURGUNDY and FLANDERS, and ended all im-mediate threats to Anglo-Burgundian con-trol of Paris. However, the long and difficult

MAURON, BATTLE OF

214



winter operation accelerated English warweariness and may have undermined thehealth of the king, who died three monthslater.

Meaux was situated in a horseshoe bend

of the Marne, which divided the town fromthe Marche, a heavily fortified market. Thesiege began on 6 October 1421, with Henrydividing his twenty-five hundred men intofour divisions, which communicated withone another via a bridge of boats across theMarne. The king commanded the northernsector, while Richard BEAUCHAMP, earl ofWarwick; Thomas BEAUFORT, duke of Exeter;and Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, ledthe other divisions. Many ARTILLERY pieces,

both gunpowder cannon and traditionalwooden siege engines, were deployed aboutthe walls. Because of dauphinist raiders,supplies had to be brought from Paris, ne-cessitating the detailing of troops to protectEnglish convoys. Inside the town, the garri-son was led by the Bastard of Vaurus, anexperienced soldier with a reputation forbrutality, and contained a large number ofScots and some English and Irish deserters,

all of whom understood that they wouldreceive no mercy if the town fell.English attempts to bombard Meaux into

surrendering failed, and, in December,heavy rains caused the Marne to overflow itsbanks and flood the English siege lines.When the bridge of boats was swept away,Warwick’s southern division was for a timedangerously isolated from the rest of thearmy, while the garrison, plentifully sup-plied with boats, made frequent sorties

outside the walls. Dysentery appeared in thecold, wet English camps, which were noweven more difficult to supply, the king beingobliged to send away most of his horses forlack of forage. As the siege dragged on, de-moralization and doubt began to afflict theEnglish soldiery. Upon seeing his son killedby a cannonball, Sir John Cornwall suppos-edly cried out that he had come to France toconquer NORMANDY, not to deprive the

dauphin (see CHARLES VII) of his rightfulCrown. Even the king became disheartenedby the inactivity of his ally PHILIP THE GOOD,

duke of Burgundy, and by the seeming de-cline of enthusiasm for the war in England,where recruitment was becoming increas-ingly difficult. Only news of the birth inearly December of Henry’s son, the future

HENRY VI, gave cause for cheer.In March, the garrison withdrew to the

Marche, which was protected by the riverand by a canal that effectively turned thepeninsula on which the market lay into anisland. With much travail, the Englishbrought up their artillery and repaired theconnecting bridge, which had been de-stroyed by the garrison during its retreat.Realizing that they could expect no helpfrom the dauphin, the garrison decided to

negotiate. Henry’s terms were harsh. TheBastard of Vaurus; all English deserters;anyone implicated in the murder of JOHN

THE FEARLESS, duke of Burgundy; and any-one who had sworn to uphold the Treaty ofTROYES were to be surrendered to the king toawait his pleasure. Henry even demandedthat the man who ‘‘blewe and sounded anHorn during the siege’’ (Burne, 175) behanded over. With no alternative, the garri-

son accepted these terms on 2 May 1422. TheBastard of Vaurus was hanged and fourother men, including the unfortunate hornblower, were also executed. The other pris-oners were carried to Paris and then toconfinement in England. Northern Francewas now free of dauphinist garrisons, but, in

June, the king, perhaps affected by his ex-ertions at Meaux, fell ill. His condition de-teriorated steadily over the following weeksuntil he died at Vincennes on 31 August.

Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher. HenryV . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997;



MELUN, SIEGE OF (1420)Extending from July to November 1420, theEnglish siege of Melun, a town on the Seinesome thirty miles southeast of PARIS, removedan important dauphinist garrison from the

environs of the capital, which thereaftersubmitted to the Anglo-Burgundian regimecreated by the Treaty of TROYES. Because of

MELUN, SIEGE OF

215



its length and difficulty, the siege angeredHENRY V, who revealed his implacable re-solve to be obeyed as rightful heir and re-gent by treating the prisoners of Melun withexceptional severity.

Following conclusion of the Troyesagreement in May, and his marriage to CATH-

ERINE OF VALOIS in early June, Henry, ac-companied by his new ally, PHILIP THE GOOD,duke of BURGUNDY; his new father-in-law,CHARLES VI; and his brothers, THOMAS, DUKE

OF CLARENCE, and JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD,left Troyes and marched west with anAnglo-Burgundian force of twenty thou-sand. Before entering Paris, Henry movedagainst a string of dauphinist garrisons

holding key towns on the Yonne and Seinesoutheast of the capital. Sens surrenderedwithout a fight on 10 June, but Montereau,site of the recent murder of JOHN THE FEAR-

LESS (see MONTEREAU CONFERENCE), held outuntil 1 July, not capitulating until Henry hadeighteen prisoners hanged in full view of thegarrison. On 9 July, the king invested Melun,which, according to the Chronicle of London,was ‘‘one of the worst [places] that ever he

laid siege to’’ (Allmand, 152). The city wasstrongly defended, with its center and cita-del located on a small island in the Seine thatwas connected to the rest of the city on eachbank by heavily fortified bridges. The ex-perienced 700-man garrison was ably led byArnaud Guillaume, lord of Barbazan, andenthusiastically assisted by armed towns-men. Although Henry had Charles call uponhis subjects to surrender, they refused.When the Scots soldiers in the garrison re-

fused a similar call from their king, JamesI (see SCOTLAND), who was a prisoner inthe English camp, Henry began siegeoperations, with the English encamped onthe west bank and the BURGUNDIANS on theeast.

Although English ARTILLERY began an al-most constant bombardment, the guns hadlittle effect, causing Henry to begin tunnel-ing under the walls in an effort to under-

mine them. Because they were close tothe river, the miners had to work in knee-deep water and mud. Barbazan, meanwhile,

began a series of counter-tunnels, which al-lowed his men to attack the English in aseries of desperate underground strugglesfought by torchlight in stale air and at closequarters. In one such encounter, the king

was fiercely engaged by Barbazon, whowithdrew when he realized whom he wasfighting. As the siege dragged on into theautumn, Henry’s position deteriorated.Dysentery struck the English camp, whilelarge numbers of Burgundians deserted andrumors abounded that a dauphinist reliefforce was coming. However, conditionswere even worse inside the city, where thegarrison was eating horseflesh by October.Finally, on 18 November, Barbarzan, whose

men had eaten nothing for almost a week,negotiated the town’s surrender with Ri-chard BEAUCHAMP, earl of Warwick.

Henry spared the lives of most of thegarrison and townsmen, although somewere summarily executed, such as Bertrandde Chaumont, who, as an English subjectfrom GASCONY, was, despite the pleas ofClarence, beheaded as a traitor. Barbazanand five hundred of his men were taken

prisoner, as was anyone in the town con-nected to the murder of Burgundy’s father.Although most of the soldiers were held forRANSOM, Barbazan was imprisoned in a cagein Paris and Chateau Gaillard for sevenyears. On 1 December, Henry, Charles, andPhilip entered Paris, where English troopsquickly secured all strongpoints, and thecity authorities, realizing from Melun thatHenry ‘‘would put to death without mercy’’(Seward, 151) all who opposed him, quickly

submitted.Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher. Henry



New York: Viking, 1988.

MEN-AT-ARMS. See ARMIES, COMPOSITION OF

MERCENARIES. See ROUTIERS

MERCILESS PARLIAMENT. See PARLIA-

MENT

MEN-AT-ARMS

216



MONTAGU, THOMAS, EARL OFSALISBURY (1388–1428)Commander of the besieging army at OR-

LEANS, Thomas Montagu (or Montague),fourth earl of Salisbury, was a friend and

companion of HENRY V and among the mostcapable and effective English leaders of theHUNDRED YEARS WAR.

The son of John Montagu, third earl ofSalisbury, who was posthumously attainedfor treason against HENRY IV in 1401, Tho-mas, through loyal service to the Houseof LANCASTER, was officially recognized asfourth earl of Salisbury in 1409 and fullyrestored to his father’s estates by 1421.His military career began in 1412, when

he served with THOMAS, DUKE OF CLARENCE,in the French expedition necessitated by theAnglo-ARMAGNAC Treaty of BOURGES. Ad-mitted to the Order of the GARTER in 1414,the earl fought with Henry V at AGINCOURT

in 1415 and with JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD, inthe naval Battle of the SEINE, which relievedHARFLEUR in 1416. In 1417, Salisbury ac-companied the king to NORMANDY, where heserved at the sieges of Caen, Falaise, and

ROUEN. In April 1419, the king named Sal-isbury lieutenant-general in Normandy,with responsibility for defense of the Englishmarches south of the Seine. As further evi-dence of royal confidence, Salisbury wasgiven military command in Anjou in No-vember 1420 and made governor of Alenconand other English-held fortresses in the fol-lowing month. For these services, the earlwas rewarded with numerous French landgrants and creation as count of Perche in

1419.In March 1421, Salisbury retrieved Clar-

ence’s body from the battlefield of BAUGE,after the duke had rushed into combatwithout waiting for the earl to arrive withthe rear guard. In June 1423, Bedford, nowregent for HENRY VI, appointed Salisburygovernor of Champagne. In the following

July, the earl fought at CRAVANT, and, inAugust 1424, he distinguished himself at the

Battle of VERNEUIL. In late 1424, Salisburyand William de la POLE, earl of Suffolk,attempted to clear Champagne of dauphi-

nist garrisons. In 1425, Salisbury con-solidated the English hold on Anjou andMaine by leading a successful campaign thatculminated with the capture Le Mans (seeMAINE, SURRENDER OF). When Bedford re-

turned to England in 1425, conduct of thewar was entrusted to Salisbury, Suffolk, andRichard BEAUCHAMP, earl of Warwick, withSalisbury’s special charge being Normandy,Anjou, and Maine.

In February 1426, Salisbury resigned hiscommands to go on pilgrimage to Jerusalemin fulfillment of a vow made in combat.However, the pope released him from thevow and the earl returned to royal service bythe end of the year. In 1427, Salisbury, now a

member of the royal council, sailed to En-gland, where he attended PARLIAMENT andraised reinforcements. In 1428, the earllaunched a campaign against Orleans, whichhe invested on 12 October after seizing theneighboring Loire towns of Jargeau, Meung,and Beaugency. Because the Orleans cam-paign was opposed by England’s ally, PHILIP

THE GOOD, duke of BURGUNDY, there has beenmuch debate over why it was undertaken

and on whose decision. The plan is some-times ascribed to Salisbury, who was said tohold a grudge against Burgundy for sexualadvances made by the duke toward thecountess of Salisbury in 1424; however, thisis uncertain, and the earl certainly actedwith the approval of Bedford, with whom hehad also clashed over the extent of his ju-risdiction in various of his commands. Onabout 24 October 1428, the earl, while ob-serving Orleans from the newly captured

fortification of Les Tourelles, was severelywounded in the face by a cannon shot fromthe city. He died on 3 November. See alsoMONTAGU, WILLIAM, EARL OF SALISBURY;NORMAN CAMPAIGN (1417–1419).




New York: Viking, 1988; Warner, M. W. ‘‘Chivalry

in Action: Thomas Montague and the War in

France, 1417–1428.’’ Nottingham Medieval Studies42 (1998): 146–73; Williams, E. Carleton. My Lord of

Bedford, 1389–1435. London: Longmans, 1963.

MONTAGU, THOMAS, EARL OF SALISBURY

217



MONTAGU, WILLIAM, EARL OFSALISBURY (1301–1344)William Montagu (or Montague), first earl ofSalisbury, was a close friend and advisor ofEDWARD III and a leading figure in the dip-

lomatic and military initiatives of the 1330sand early 1340s.

The eldest son of William Montagu, LordMontagu, the younger William succeeded tohis father’s title in 1319. In September 1325,Montagu, who was knighted by EDWARD IIprior to embarking, accompanied PrinceEdward to France. After his father’s de-position in 1327, the prince, now Edward III,grew increasingly frustrated with the tightcontrol exercised over him and his govern-

ment by his mother, Queen Isabella (seeISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND [c. 1292–1358]),and her lover, Roger Mortimer, earl ofMarch. Taking Montagu and a few othertrusted household knights into his con-fidence, the king plotted to free himself. InSeptember 1329, Edward sent Montaguto Avignon, where, in secret audience, hegave the pope a password (‘‘Pater Sancte’’),whereby he could know which letters from

England reflected the king’s true mind. InOctober 1330, after being interrogated by thecouncil on suspicion of intriguing with theking, Montagu led a band of armed men intoNottingham Castle and arrested March.

Immediately awarded with lands worth£1,000 a year, Montagu thereafter maintaineda special influence with Edward. Over thenext decade, his attendance at court wasconstant and he accompanied the king on allmajor military and diplomatic expeditions.

His advice was sought on all matters ofimportance, his seal was used to validateroyal letters, and he even occasionally con-ducted official business on his own author-ity. He was allowed to adopt the eagle crest,a royal symbol, as his own emblem, and hestood godfather to Edward’s second son,Lionel of Antwerp.

Montagu accompanied the king to Francein April 1331, when Edward traveled in

disguise to pay homage to PHILIP VI forAQUITAINE. In 1333, Montagu campaignedwith the king in SCOTLAND and was present

at the Battle of HALIDON HILL. In 1334, hewas part of the English commission thatfailed to negotiate a settlement of the Aqui-taine question. In 1336, he conducted anunsuccessful siege of Dunbar Castle in

Scotland. Created earl of Salisbury in 1337and endowed with extensive lands in WALES

and the West Country, Montagu was in thesame year appointed lord admiral andcommander of a projected expedition toGASCONY. In 1338, Salisbury became earlmarshal of England and campaigned againin Scotland. During the winter of 1338–39,the earl again participated in negotiationswith the French and was a member of Ed-ward’s inner council of advisors at his court

in the Low Countries. Although Salisburyopposed the policy of paying continen-tal allies, finding the subsidies demandedshockingly high, he loyally supported effortsto conclude the ANGLO-FLEMISH ALLIANCE andtwice stood hostage with the king’s creditorsto allow Edward to return to England andarrange payment.

In April 1340, Salisbury was capturedwhile leading a reconnaissance of the town of

Lille; coming too close to the walls, his partywas cut off by a sortie from the town. Sent toPARIS, Salisbury and his comrades weresaved from execution by the intervention of

John of Bohemia. In October, Salisbury wasexchanged for the Scottish earl of Moray aspart of the Truce of ESPLECHIN, the earlagreeing to never again take arms againstPhilip. Salisbury stood with Edward duringthe CRISIS OF 1340–1341, arresting varioustreasury officials for incompetence and ser-

ving on the commission that investigated thecharges against Archbishop John STRATFORD.In 1343, Salisbury campaigned in BRITTANY

with ROBERT OF ARTOIS before undertaking adiplomatic mission to Castile. The earl diedon 30 January 1344 from wounds receivedin a tournament held at Windsor. His de-scendant, Thomas MONTAGU, fourth earl ofSalisbury, was the leading English captain inFrance in the 1420s.

Further Reading: Packe, Michael. King EdwardIII . Ed. L. C. B. Seaman. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul, 1983; Sumption, Jonathan. The

MONTAGU, WILLIAM, EARL OF SALISBURY

218





1999.

MONTARGIS, SIEGE OF (1427)

Running from July to September 1427, theEnglish siege of Montargis, a town sixtymiles southeast of PARIS, resulted in one ofthe few victories won by dauphinist forcesbefore the appearance of JOAN OF ARC.

Intending to launch an offensive intodauphinist France, JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD,in early July 1427, ordered Richard BEAU-

CHAMP, earl of Warwick, to capture the for-tress town of Montargis, a key point in theregion between the rivers Seine and Loire.

With a force of about three thousand, War-wick commenced his siege on 15 July.Standing on high ground and encircled bythe rivers Loing and Vernisson, Montargiswas a formidable stronghold defended by alarge, well-supplied garrison. The town wasalso intersected by various canals, whichlikewise divided the besieging force. Englishprogress was therefore slow; by early Sep-tember, despite a vigorous and continuous

ARTILLERY bombardment, little headway hadbeen made against the town’s defenses.To reinforce and resupply the garrison,

the dauphin (see CHARLES VII) dispatched aforce of sixteen hundred commanded by

John, Bastard of Orleans (see JOHN, COUNT OF

DUNOIS AND LONGUEVILLE), and by Etiennede VIGNOLLES, an able soldier better knownas ‘‘La Hire.’’ The Bastard sent a message toMontargis telling the garrison of his im-pending arrival and laying out a co-

ordinated plan of action. On 5 September,his men appeared suddenly on the roadsouth of town. As the English moved for-ward to attack, crossing a small woodenbridge over the Loing, the garrison openedthe town’s sluice-gates, thereby initiating aflood that split the English army in twoby sweeping away the bridge and the menon it. Meanwhile, the garrison attackedthe English from behind while the Bastard

simultaneously pressed his assault acrossthe river. In the ensuing rout, Warwick losta third of his force, with the survivors

abandoning their artillery as they fled inpanic.

Besides establishing the military reputa-tion of the Bastard, the victory greatlyheartened the dauphin and his supporters

and severely disrupted Bedford’s plans; theEnglish could ill afford the loss of men,guns, and supplies suffered at Montagis.Nonetheless, Bedford moved to quickly re-establish the siege, even offering a sub-stantial reward to anyone who could takethe town. By late 1428, as the English com-menced the assault on dauphinist Francewith the siege of ORLEANS, Montagis was inEnglish hands.

Further Reading: Seward, Desmond. The Hun-

dred Years War . New York: Penguin, 1999;

Williams, E. Carleton. My Lord of Bedford, 1389–

1435. London: Longmans, 1963.

MONTEREAU CONFERENCE (1419)Held on 10 September 1419 in a speciallyprepared enclosure on the Yonne Riverbridge at Montereau, the conference be-tween the dauphin and JOHN THE FEARLESS,duke of BURGUNDY, leaders, respectively, of

the ARMAGNAC and BURGUNDIAN factions,was called ostensibly to reconcile the partiesand thus end the FRENCH CIVIL WAR. How-ever, rather than unite the French against theEnglish invader, the conference, which re-sulted in the murder of Burgundy, drove theduke’s son into formal alliance with HENRY

V, thereby prolonging the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR and jeopardizing VALOIS rule.When the English completed their con-

quest of NORMANDY by capturing ROUEN in

January 1419, Burgundy, who had custodyof PARIS and of the king, CHARLES VI, and thedauphin, who controlled the southern thirdof France, the so-called ‘‘Kingdom of Bour-ges,’’ sought to make peace as a prelude to

joint action against the English. The twoleaders met at Corbeil in July and drafted apreliminary agreement, but the dauphinistspushed for another meeting to finalizeterms, and, after obtaining Burgundy’s re-

luctant consent, arranged the conference atMontereau. The dauphinists also constructedthe palisaded enclosure on Montereau Bridge

MONTEREAU CONFERENCE

219





also required to send a councilor to makehumble apology on his knees before Philipon the king’s behalf. So momentous were theevents at Montereau to future generations,that a monk conducting Francis I through

the burial vault of the dukes of Burgundy inthe early sixteenth century picked up theshattered skull of Duke John and said, ‘‘Thisis the hole through which the English en-tered France’’ (Seward, 180).


dred Years War . New York: Penguin, 1999; Vale,

M. G. A. Charles VII . Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1974; Vaughan, Richard. John the

Fearless. London: Longman, 1979.

MONTFORT, JOHN DE (d. 1345) John, count of Montfort, was the English-backed claimant to the duchy of BRITTANY atthe start of the BRETON CIVIL WAR.

The half brother of Duke John III, Mont-fort, whose lands were concentrated mainlyin northern France, was little known insidethe duchy when the duke died in April 1341.In early May, Montfort took possession ofNantes, the ducal capital. After securing the

ducal treasury, the count summoned theBreton nobility to Nantes to pay him ho-mage as duke. However, most Breton no-blemen stayed away because they expectedPHILIP VI to give the duchy to his nephew,CHARLES OF BLOIS, the husband of Montfort’sniece and rival, Jeanne de Penthievre. Toimprove his position, Montfort tried to se-cure control of eastern Brittany, the mostpro-French region of the duchy. In June and

July, he marched through the eastern dis-

tricts accepting the submission of the mostimportant towns. By mid-August, the bulkof the duchy was in Montfort’s possession.

Anxious to avoid civil war in Brittany,Philip might have left Montfort undisturbedhad the king not heard rumors that thecount planned to ally himself with EDWARD

III. To forestall this, Philip summonedMontfort to PARIS, where he was ordered toremain until the PARLEMENT rendered its

decision on the Breton succession. Eventhough Montfort talked to English agents, hehad made no commitments and therefore

denied any collusion with Edward. How-ever, since it was clear that Philip intendedto detain him while Blois secured the duchy,Montfort secretly returned to Brittany inearly September to put his garrisons on a

war footing. On 7 September, the Parlementdeclared in favor of Blois.

Montfort now sent representatives toEngland, where, in early October, Edwardagreed to provide military assistance in re-turn for Montfort’s recognition of PLANTAG-

ENET overlordship. However, plans to sendan English expedition to Brittany wereabandoned when word arrived that Mont-fort had surrendered Nantes on 2 Novemberto a French army commanded by Blois and

John, duke of NORMANDY (see JOHN II). InDecember, Montfort traveled to Paris undera safe-conduct; however, Philip cancelledthe safe-conduct and imprisoned the countwhen he refused to surrender his claim tothe duchy in return for a pension and agrant of land in France. While Montfortlanguished in the Louvre, Brittany fell intocivil war. The strong-willed countess ofMontfort, Jeanne de FLANDERS, kept her

husband’s cause alive until it was rescuedby English military intervention in 1342.Under the terms of the Anglo-French

Truce of MALESTROIT concluded in January1343, Philip released Montfort on 1 Sep-tember, but extracted from him a promisenot to return to Brittany. With his wife, whohad fallen into madness, and his youngchildren in England, Montfort adhered tothis agreement until 1345, when Philip, in aneffort to complete the destruction of the

Montfortist party, again placed the count indetention. On 25 March, Montfort escapedto England. In July, he returned to Brittanywith William de BOHUN, earl of North-ampton, who allowed the count to takecharge of the siege of Quimper in an effort torevive support for his cause. However,Montfort proved to be a poor general and anuninspiring leader. He was surprised atQuimper by Blois’s army and forced to

withdraw in disorder. Trapped in a nearbyfortress, Montfort escaped only by bribing asentry. His party in disarray, the count

MONTFORT, JOHN DE

221



withdrew to Hennebont, where he fell illand died on 26 September. The Montfortistcause was thereafter maintained by EdwardIII, who assumed guardianship of Mont-fort’s son. In 1364, the younger Montfort

slew Blois at AURAY and thus won recogni-tion as JOHN IV, duke of Brittany.

Further Reading: Jones, Michael. Between

France and England: Politics, Power and Society in

Late Medieval Brittany. Burlington, VT: Ashgate

Publishing Company, 2003; Jones, Michael. The

Creation of Brittany: A Late Medieval State. London:

Hambledon Press, 1988; Sumption, Jonathan. The



1999.

MONTIEL, BATTLE OF. See CASTILIAN

WAR OF SUCCESSION

MONTREUIL, PROCESS OF. See PROCESS

MORLAIX, BATTLE OF (1342)The Battle of Morlaix, an encounter betweenan Anglo-Breton army and the forces of

CHARLES OF BLOIS, the French-backed clai-mant to the duchy, was fought on 30 Sep-tember 1342 near Morlaix in northwesternBRITTANY. The first pitched battle of theBRETON CIVIL WAR, Morlaix was also the firstmajor land battle of the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR, and as such was the first demonstrationof the English battle tactics—dismountedmen-at-arms flanked by ARCHERS in a strongdefensive line—that were to win such laterfourteenth-century battles as CRECY and

POITIERS.The death of childless Duke John III of

Brittany in April 1341 initiated a war ofsuccession between his two heirs—his niece

Jeanne de Penthievre, who was Blois’s wife,and his half brother John de MONTFORT.Claiming the duchy in right of his wife,Blois, who was declared duke by his unclePHILIP VI, invaded Brittany and capturedMontfort. However, Jeanne de FLANDERS,

Montfort’s wife, appealed for aid to EDWARDIII, who had promised to support her hus-band in exchange for his recognition of Ed-

ward as king of France. Edward dispatcheda small relief force under Sir Walter MAUNY,which landed in May 1342. Although cred-ited by chroniclers with many daring ex-ploits during this period, Mauny was too

weak to attack Blois, who ignored the En-glish and laid siege to Monfortist strong-holds in southern Brittany. By August,Countess Jeanne was besieged by land andsea at Brest and the future of the Monfortistcause looked bleak. However, on 18 August,an English fleet carrying an army of threethousand under William de BOHUN, earl ofNorthampton, dispersed the French shipsand landed the earl and his men at Brest,forcing Blois to lift the siege.

Reinforced by eight hundred men underROBERT OF ARTOIS and by contingents ofBreton Montfortists, Northampton marchedto Morlaix, which he placed under siege inearly September. Learning that Blois wasapproaching with a relieving force severaltimes larger than his own army, North-ampton withdrew most of his army from thesiege lines and marched toward the enemy.On the morning of 30 September, he de-

ployed his men in a strong defensive posi-tion on the slope of a hill that was backed bya thick wood, which gave protection fromcavalry attack and served as a baggage park.Northampton’s line consisted of dismountedmen-at-arms at its center and bodies of ar-chers on the flanks. Remembering the tacticsof the Scots at Bannockburn, the Englishdug a trench in their front and covered itwith branches as an unwelcome surprise forenemy horsemen.

Finding the English in his front, Blois di-vided his force into three divisions and or-dered the first, which consisted of dis-mounted Bretons, to launch a frontal assault.A hail of arrows broke up the attack beforeBlois’s men had even reached the hiddentrench. Thus, when the mounted secondcolumn attacked, Blois’s unsuspecting ca-valry plunged into the trench, where theEnglish archers did terrible execution among

the downed and tangled men. Although ap-palled by his losses, Blois ordered his thirddivision to attack the still outnumbered

MONTIEL, BATTLE OF

222



English. Because his archers were low onammunition and the trench, battered andfilled with corpses, was no longer a barrier,Northampton retreated into the woods at hisrear, where his men stood siege for several

days until Blois, unable to effectively reachhis enemy, withdrew. Having fought a muchlarger force to a standstill, Northampton re-turned to the siege of Morlaix. Because the

English had now won a foothold in Brittany,the civil war, which had seemed so near itsend, would last for another two decades.



1999.

MORTIMER, ROGER, EARL OF MARCH.See ISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND (1292–1358)

MORTIMER, ROGER, EARL OF MARCH

223



NNA JERA, BATTLE OF (1367)The Battle of Na jera (or Navarrete) wasfought in northeastern Castile near the townof Na jera on 3 April 1367 between an Anglo-Gascon army commanded by EDWARD, THE

BLACK PRINCE, and a Franco-Castilian forcecommanded by Bertrand du GUESCLIN, con-stable of France, and Henry of Trastamare,the pretender to the Castilian throne. Amajor victory for the Black Prince, Na jerawas the result of Anglo-French interventionin the CASTILIAN WAR OF SUCCESSION, a con-flict that offered both sides in the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR an opportunity to employ theROUTIERS who were ravaging their lands and

a chance to strike at each other’s interestswithout openly jeopardizing the BRETIGNY

peace settlement. Although a military suc-cess, the battle and its aftermath were polit-ical disasters for the prince, who in his effortto obtain funds to meet his campaign ex-penses initiated events that led eventually toresumption of the Hundred Years War.

Suspected of poisoning his French wifeand known as ‘‘the Cruel’’ for his harsh rule,Pedro I of Castile was overthrown by his

half brother, Henry of Trastamare, in March1366. Assisted by a routier army commandedby du Guesclin and including numerousEnglish captains such as Hugh CALVELEY,Trastamare was crowned king of Castile on29 March, one day after Pedro fled Burgos,the Castilian capital. By backing Trastamare,CHARLES V and his brother, LOUIS, DUKE OF

ANJOU, the royal lieutenant in Languedoc,had emptied southern France of routiers and

placed a strong French ally on the southernborders of PLANTAGENET Aquitaine. In late July, Pedro landed in AQUITAINE, where, in

an effort to win support for his cause, heopened talks with the prince and CHARLES

THE BAD, king of Navarre. On 23 September,these three principals signed the Treaty ofLibourne, whereby Pedro promised money

and land to his allies in return for their as-sistance in restoring him to the Castilianthrone. Although many in the prince’s en-tourage disliked and distrusted Pedro, ED-

WARD III and his ministers were alarmed bythe threat posed by a pro-French Castile,while the prince, besides being eager formilitary action, was, like the French, anxiousto free his domains of routiers. Relying onPedro to keep his promise to pay for the

campaign, the prince gathered an army often thousand men and in February 1367 ledthem through the Pyrenean passes, whichhad been opened to the invaders by the kingof Navarre, who sent troops but declined toparticipate himself.

Advised by the French king to avoid battleand wait for hunger and exhaustion to forcethe prince to withdraw, Trastamare recalleddu Guesclin and many of the French cap-tains who had served him in the previous

year. With their forces largely deployed inAragon, the French brought only about athousand men to augment Trastamare’sCastilian troops. As the Anglo-Gascon armyadvanced, shadowed from a distance byTrastamare, the towns and garrisons in itspath quickly declared for Pedro. On 1 April,Trastamare, fearing the imminent collapse ofhis political support, abandoned the defen-sive strategy urged by Charles V and de-

ployed his forces on open ground astride themain road from Logron ˜ o near the town ofNa jera, a spot the prince later called ‘‘a good

224



place to wait for us’’ (Sumption, 552). On 2April, the prince left Logron ˜ o, advancing tothe village of Navarrete, where he formedhis army into line of battle. The front linecomprised the English ARCHERS and men-at-

arms, who were nominally led by JOHN OFGAUNT, duke of Lancaster, the prince’sbrother, but in fact commanded by the moreexperienced Sir John CHANDOS. The mainbody of the army consisted largely of Gas-cons, who were commanded on the right byArnaud-Amanieu, lord of ALBRET, and John,count of Armagnac, and on the left by Jeande GRAILLY, the captal de Buch. In the center,the prince commanded various bands ofroutiers and Castilian exiles. Once in forma-

tion, the army left the road and advancedupon the enemy overland from the north, aline of march that put them on Trastamare’sleft flank by dawn on 3 April.

Surprised by the speed and direction ofthe enemy advance, du Guesclin was forcedto quickly wheel his eastward facing army tothe north. Amidst the panic and confusioncaused by this maneuver, much of the Cas-tilian infantry and cavalry defected to the

enemy. Fearing the breakup of his force, duGuesclin ordered his dismounted Frenchand Castilian men-at-arms to attack. Theyfell upon the division led by Lancaster andChandos, which was also dismounted. TheEnglish held the French attack, allowing theGascon wings of the prince’s army to beginan enveloping movement against du Gues-clin’s men. Led by Trastamare and hisbrother, the Castilian heavy cavalry, refus-ing to demean themselves by fighting on

foot, charged the enemy, but were deci-mated by English arrows, just as the Frenchhad been at CRECY. The prince now attackedall along the line, with his own commandassailing the Castilians along their frontwhile Lancaster and Chandos struck theirflank. As Trastamare’s army disintegrated,more than half of it was destroyed trying toflee.

While the prince’s army suffered few ca-

sualties, Trastamare lost more than fivethousand men. The pretender himself es-caped the field, but du Guesclin, the French

marshal Arnoul d’AUDREHEM, and most ofTrastamare’s leading captains were cap-tured, indicating that Na jera, like POITIERS,had degenerated at the end into a scramblefor prisoners and RANSOMS. Although many

of his men made a fortune in ransoms, theprince was soon at odds with the newly re-stored Pedro, who declared himself unableto pay his debt to the prince and unwillingto cede him territory as security. In lateAugust, when Pedro reneged on his promiseto pay a first installment on what he owed,the prince, ill with the disease the eventuallykilled him and unable to maintain his menin the field any longer, withdrew to Aqui-taine empty-handed. Forced to raise taxes

in Aquitaine to pay for the campaign, theprince thereby alienated such powerfulGascon noblemen as Armagnac and Albret,whose subsequent petition against theprince’s actions (see APPEAL OF THE GASCON

LORDS) gave Charles V the pretext he re-quired to resume the Hundred Years War in1369.



Scribner’s Sons, 1978; Sumption, Jonathan. TheHundred Years War . Vol. 2, Trial by Fire. Philadel-


NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS,GROWTH OFThrough its length and intensity, the HUN-

DRED YEARS WAR gradually broke down re-gional loyalties and local identities, therebyfostering a growing sense of nationalismwithin both societies. If the development of

national consciousness was more dramatic inFrance than in England, this was largely be-cause the former, as the kingdom under at-tack, was in greater need of unity to defenditself, while the latter, being smaller and lesspopulous, already possessed an adminis-trative unity based on highly developed andwidely accepted royal institutions.

Since the late twelfth century, the expan-sion of royal power and prestige under the

kings of the House of CAPET had done muchto foster French unity. By the early four-teenth century, the personal piety of Louis

NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS, GROWTH OF

225



IX (St. Louis) and the centralizing policies ofhis grandson, PHILIP IV, had extended royalauthority and prestige well beyond theconfines of the royal domain. One of thelong-term causes of the Hundred Years War,

the ongoing jurisdictional dispute betweenthe kings of France and the PLANTAGENET

king-dukes of AQUITAINE, was just the mostfamous example of what was occurring inall French fiefs—royal authority was slowlyundermining the government of local lords.The idea was growing that ‘‘France’’ en-compassed more than just the lands ruleddirectly by the king; it included all lands thathad a feudal connection to the Crown, andall the people of these lands belonged to one

country under one king, who, through hisofficials, acted for the common good. After1337, the long Anglo-French war acceleratedthis process by increasing the need for acoordinated national defense against theEnglish, and thus became the most im-portant factor in the promotion of Frenchnationhood.

Besides involving the Crown in local af-fairs, the war stimulated the development of

national institutions, such as the army andthe fiscal system that supported it. Thegrowth of a national army as the royal in-strument for defending all the people beganin the last years of JOHN II and was com-pleted by the reforms of CHARLES V. Dis-carded during the FRENCH CIVIL WAR, thereforms that had created a professionalarmy paid by the Crown and led by the kingor his officers were reinstituted in expandedform by CHARLES VII in the 1440s. In 1448,

the creation of the franc-archers, raised byhaving each community provide one manfor military service in return for tax ex-emptions, signaled the transformation of theking’s army into a French national armycomprising representatives from each com-munity and locality in the realm. Along withdevelopment of the army came developmentof a national system of TAXATION. The nationcould not be defended if the army could not

be maintained, and the army could not bemaintained if it could not be paid for. Theneed to collect John II’s enormous RANSOM,

the imposition of new types of taxes late in John’s reign, and the publication of the or-dinance of 1383 whereby CHARLES VI estab-lished the principle that all people, whetherthey lived in Crown lands or the territories

of Crown vassals, were to pay aides, led to asystem of royal taxation that was accepted, ifgrudgingly, because it was required to suc-cessfully resist the English. By the end of thefourteenth century, even the nobility and theclergy were paying royal taxes and thusbeing tied more closely to the wider nationalcommunity.

In England, the war promoted nationalfeeling in two ways. The long conflict de-fined the French as the great national enemy,

who were derided as weak, effeminate, anddeceitful. Through their many battlefieldvictories, the English developed a senseof superiority and a greater confidence inthemselves and their military prowess. Thepopes might be French, but triumphs likethose at CRECY, POITIERS, a n d AGINCOURT

clearly indicated that God favored the En-glish. Thus, for the English, hatred of theirenemy inspired pride in themselves, their

country, and their king. The war acceleratedthis process by encouraging the replacementof French with English as the official lan-guage of government and DIPLOMACY. In1362, PARLIAMENT opened for the first timewith a speech in English, and the Statute ofPleading, passed in the same parliamen-tary session, allowed English law courtsto conduct business in English. The war alsopromoted the use of English among the no-bility, whose members, prior to the war, had

displayed their French heritage by speakingFrench. However, by the 1390s, GeoffreyChaucer was writing in English, and, by theearly fifteenth century, English diplomatswere objecting to the use of French at Anglo-French conferences and negotiations. Thus,language, in conjunction with widespreadanti-French feeling, blended the varioussegments of English society into one com-munity of common interests. See also ARMIES,

COMMAND OF; CHARLES VII, MILITARY RE-FORMS OF; PAPACY AND THE HUNDRED YEARS

WAR; PROPAGANDA AND WAR PUBLICITY.

NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS, GROWTH OF

226





maintain them were prohibitively expensive.Thus, war fleets were raised as needed byimpressing private vessels. Officers workingunder the admirals were sent to ports to re-quisition ships for the king’s use. In England,

the Cinque Ports, a confederation of south-eastern towns, had a special responsibility toprovide the Crown with ships and sailors;however, the large fleets required to trans-port Edward III’s army to France for theRHEIMS CAMPAIGN in 1359 or Henry V’s forthe AGINCOURT campaign in 1415 deprivedmany merchants and fishermen of their ves-sels during the height of the trading andfishing seasons. Because ship owners re-ceived no payment for the use of their ves-

sels, no compensation for lost business, andno reimbursement for vessels destroyed,damaged, or captured in royal service,such impressments were highly unpopular.What’s more, requisitioned ships often had tobe substantially modified for war service.Ships carrying horses needed special accom-modations below decks, while merchantvessels destined for naval combat had to befitted with high castles fore and aft.

The English need for vessels with carryingcapacity meant that high-sided merchantcogs were best suited to royal service, andimpressments of such ships continued to bethe best way to raise a fleet. In France, wherethe need was for smaller, faster ships thatcould engage the enemy at sea and raid hiscoasts, the ideal vessel was the galley, a flat-bottomed ship powered by oars or sails thatcould come in close to shore. By the 1360s,the French Crown was building its own gal-

leys at the Clos de Galees, a shipyard inROUEN. In the fifteenth century, Henry Vrealized that he needed a permanent fleet topatrol the Channel and regularly ferry menand supplies to France. By the 1420s, theking, through purchase, capture, and con-struction, had built a royal fleet of thirty-fivevessels and given oversight of naval mattersto a clerk of the king’s ships headquartered inSouthampton. However, after Henry’s death

in 1422, the fleet was gradually disbanded tosave money, with ships being sold or allowedto rot. By the 1440s, when the government of

HENRY VI was too poor to rebuild his father’sfleet, the English war effort was severelyhampered by lack of a navy.


Hundred Years War . Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1988; Rodger, N. A. M. TheSafeguard of the Sea: A Naval History of Britain, 660–

1649. London: HarperCollins, 1997; Sherborne,

J. W. ‘‘The Hundred Year’s War: The English

Navy: Shipping and Manpower.’’ Past and Present

37 (1967): 163–75.

NAVARRE. See CHARLES THE BAD, KING OF

NAVARRE

NAVARRETE, BATTLE OF. See NA JERA,

BATTLE OF

NEVILLE’S CROSS, BATTLE OF (1346)Although an Anglo-Scottish battle foughtnear Durham in northern England, Neville’sCross was an important engagement of theHUNDRED YEARS WAR, being the culminationof a Scottish invasion of England undertakenby DAVID II to relieve English pressure onhis ally, PHILIP VI of France. Occurring on 17

October 1346, less than two months after theBattle of CRECY, Neville’s Cross allowed thevictorious English to capture the Scottishking and to neutralize the ‘‘Auld Alliance’’as a threat to English action in France.

When EDWARD III landed in NORMANDY in July 1346, David II, whom the English haddrivenintoFrenchexileinthe1330s,launcheda series of raids into northern England.Upon receiving news of the French defeat atCrecy on 26 August, David assembled the

largest Scottish invasion force of the century,which he led into England on 7 October inan effort to disrupt the English siege of CA-

LAIS. After besieging Liddell Castle andsacking the wealthy priory of Hexham, theScots arrived before the walls of Durham on16 October. Although the town agreed topay RANSOM, elements of an English armycommanded by William la Zouch, arch-bishop of York, and the wardens of the

Scottish border, Henry Percy, Lord Percy,and Ralph Neville, Lord Neville of Raby,arrived at Durham next day and quickly

NAVARRE

228



deployed for battle on a hill known as Ne-ville’s Cross. The armies remained immobilefor some hours until David’s schiltrons, thetraditional Scottish formations of massedspearmen, advanced on the English posi-

tion. Although the Scots fought bravely, theywere decimated by the English ARCHERS andrepulsed by the English infantry. Hit twiceby arrows and having lost one-third of hismen, King David was compelled to surren-der when his army at last began to disin-tegrate.

Almost fifty Scottish nobles, including John Randolph, earl of Moray, lay dead onthe field. Although Robert Stewart, David’snephew and heir apparent, fled to safety

while the battle was still in progress, he wasappointed guardian of the realm duringDavid’s captivity, which lasted until October1357. In return for David’s release, Edwardtried to force the Scots to pay an exorbitantransom and to accept an English prince asheir to the Scottish throne. The Scots rejectedthese proposals, although David, increas-ingly desperate to regain his freedom, wasmore willing to compromise than were his

subjects. When the English capture of JOHNII in 1356 ended all hope of French assis-tance, the Scots agreed to a ransom of100,000 marks and swore to take no armsagainst England until it was paid in full.Because this sum was a heavy burden forSCOTLAND, the final result of Neville’s Crosswas an indefinite truce that ended theAnglo-Scottish war and largely nullifiedthe FRANCO-SCOTTISH ALLIANCE for the rest ofthe fourteenth century.

Further Reading: Grant, Alexander. Indepen-dence and Nationhood: Scotland, 1306–1469. Lon-

don: E. Arnold, 1984; Neillands, Robin. The

Hundred Years War . London: Routledge, 1991;

Nicholson, Ranald. Scotland: The Later Middle

Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1974.

NEWSLETTERS. See PROPAGANDA AND WAR

PUBLICITY

NOGENT-SUR-SEINE, BATTLE OF (1359)The Battle of Nogent-sur-Seine, a clash be-tween a royal army and a force of ROUTIERS

captained by Eustache d’Aubricourt, wasfought near the town of Nogent in Cham-pagne on 23 June 1359. The battle was a keyvictory in the first successful campaign toexpel brigand companies from a French

province.The first routier bands entered the great,

open plain of Champagne, a prosperous re-gion east of PARIS, in late 1358. Many of thesecompanies had been in the pay of CHARLES

THE BAD, king of Navarre, who in the pre-vious year had employed them to suppressthe J ACQUERIE in districts around the capital.Comprising men of many states, but pri-marily English, French, and Hainaulters, thecompanies found easy pickings in Cham-

pagne, a province that heretofore had seenlittle fighting or brigandage. Besides Au-bricourt, a Hainaulter who had fought forthe English in GASCONY and whose elderbrother was a founding member of theOrder of the GARTER, the chief routier cap-tains were two Englishmen who had longserved Navarre, a mysterious figure knownto the French as Rabigot Drury and an ad-venturer named Robert Scot. Aubricourt

also joined forces with two other routier leaders, a German known as Albrecht andan Englishman named Peter Audley, thebrother of Sir James AUDLEY, one of EDWARD,THE BLACK PRINCE’s lieutenants at POITIERS.The three created a routier army of morethan a thousand men. By March 1359, theseand other captains, acting together or sepa-rately, had seized castles and strongholdsacross Champagne, from which they salliedforth to commit further acts of rape, pillage,

and murder.Aubricourt’s men captured the town of

Nogent on the Seine, which they used as abase to strike northward, plundering vil-lages and castles in the Marne Valley andthe vicinity of Rheims. By late April, Au-bricourt controlled a string of towns andstrongholds in the area between Nogent andRheims, with Drury, Scot, and other cap-tains exercising similar dominance over

western Champagne. While forming largebands allowed the routiers to assault siz-able towns and fight pitched battles, the

NOGENT-SUR-SEINE, BATTLE OF

229



companies found their numbers to be adetriment when they tried to base them-selves on a small castle, for too manymouths quickly depleted the locally avail-able supplies, especially should the fortress

come under siege. This problem dictated thestrategy of seizing a chain of nearby castles,thus easing the supply problem but per-mitting the companies to combine quickly toraise a siege or meet an enemy in battle.

To counter the routier threat, the roy-al lieutenants of Champagne—John ofChalon, lord of Arlay, and Henry, count ofVaudemont—gathered an army in the SeineValley south of Nogent near Troyes. Draw-ing infantry from the towns and hiring ca-

valry from the local nobility, the lieutenantsassembled a force of about twenty-fivehundred by mid-June, when they marchedon Nogent. Unwilling to stand siege, Au-bricourt, leading a force of about sevenhundred men, retreated about fifteen milesdown the Seine to a strong defensive posi-tion near Bray. Adopting English tactics,Aubricourt deployed his men on foot alonghigh ground in a vineyard, where the vines

would disrupt cavalry charges. AlthoughAubricourt was confident of victory, theroyal lieutenants, unlike PHILIP VI at CRECY,did not engage in headlong cavalry assaults,but divided their force into three divisions toattack the routiers from several directions atonce, thereby maximizing their advantage innumbers. Aubricourt’s men were quicklyoverwhelmed; most were killed, with theleaders, such as Aubricourt himself, takenprisoner and held to RANSOM. After the vic-

tory at Nogent, royalist forces attacked theother companies in turn, thereby clearingChampagne of routier garrisons by latesummer. Although the king’s lieutenantsallowed some bands to withdraw from theprovince under safe-conducts, local peasantsand townsmen were not so generous, fallingupon the retreating routiers and killingmany.


Hundred Years War . Vol. 2, Trial by Fire.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,

2001.

NORMAN CAMPAIGN (1417–1419)Launched in August 1417, HENRY V’s Nor-man campaign, unlike the fourteenth-century CHEVAUCHE ES of EDWARD III, aimed atconquest and occupation of territory rather

than destruction of enemy morale and re-sources. Henry was interested not in dis-membering France, but in possessing itsCrown, which he fervently believed was hisby right. To achieve that ultimate end,Henry needed to establish effective politicaland economic control over NORMANDY bysystematically seizing all important townsand fortresses. Thus, the Norman campaignwas a slow process characterized by care-fully prepared sieges, and by treatment of

the Norman people as rebellious subjectswho received mercy when they submitted totheir rightful lord and punishment whenthey did not.

On 1 August 1417, Henry landed an armyof about ten thousand men on the Normancoast near the castle of Touques, whichpromptly surrendered. The English thenmarched southwest, investing Caen on theRiver Orne. The town surrendered on 4

September after a two-week siege that washighlighted by the capture intact of themonastery of St. Etienne, the burial site ofWilliam the Conqueror. As he had done atHARFLEUR two years earlier, Henry expelledthat part of the town’s population that re-fused to accept his lordship, their places toeventually be taken by settlers from En-gland. To cut off western Normandy, Henrymoved south, taking all strongholds be-tween Caen and Alencon, which fell in mid-

October. The English then turned east,taking Mortagne and Belleme, before settlingdown in late December to the siege of Fa-laise, the Conqueror’s birthplace. The townand its formidable castle withstood a pro-longed ARTILLERY bombardment before sur-rendering in mid-February 1418. In March, anew expedition led by Thomas BEAUFORT,duke of Exeter, left LONDON with suppliesand two thousand men, who, like the troops

already in France, had indented (see IN-DENTURES) to serve for a year. By August,almost the whole of the duchy west of the

NORMAN CAMPAIGN

230



Seine had fallen to Henry, with only the portof Cherbourg, which capitulated to HUM-

PHREY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER, in September,causing any difficulty.

Thanks to the ongoing FRENCH CIVIL WAR,

the English, prior to May 1418, had littlereason to fear an attempt to relieve theNorman garrisons. The ARMAGNAC govern-ment in PARIS was hard pressed by JOHN THE

FEARLESS, duke of BURGUNDY, who was moreconcerned with blockading the capital thanwith resisting the English. In May, an up-rising in Paris overthrew the Armagnac re-gime and handed the city to Burgundy, whoonce again had custody of CHARLES VI andwas thus de facto ruler of France. Although

now theoretically committed to the defenseof Normandy, Burgundy was in no positionto do so effectively. All thought of Burgun-dian opposition to the English advanceended on 20 July, when the English, after athree-week siege, crossed the Seine andcaptured Pont-de-l’Arche, thus cutting thelink between ROUEN and Paris. The rivercrossing was achieved with the use of pon-toons, with which, thanks to Henry’s careful

planning, the army was well supplied.Using a pontoon bridge to cross by night toan island in the middle of the stream, Sir

John Cornwall led a small force that rowedto the north bank under cover of ARCHERS

firing from the island. Cornwall was able tosurprise the BURGUNDIANS and thus secureand hold a bridgehead. When another En-glish force crossed via two pontoon bridgeslaid above and below the town, Pont-de-l’Arche was cut off and surrendered, forcing

the Burgundians to abandon the line of theSeine.

On 29 July, Henry opened the siege ofRouen, the Norman capital, which held outuntil 19 January 1419, thus necessitatinganother winter investment. When the citi-zens of Rouen appealed to Burgundy for aid,the duke advised the city to look to its owndefense. The capture of Rouen led to thecapitulation of most of the remaining French

strongholds in northern and eastern Nor-mandy. Lillbourne surrendered on 31 Jan-uary, Mantes on 5 February, and Dieppe and

Eu on 8 and 15 February, respectively. By thebeginning of March, only five major castlesheld out, including Chateau Gaillard, Gisors,and Mont St. Michel, all of which (save forthe latter), fell shortly thereafter. For the first

time in over two hundred years, Normandywas a possession of the English Crown. Seealso NORMAN CAMPAIGN (1449–1450).





NORMAN CAMPAIGN (1449–1450)In little more than a year, the French cam-paign launched against NORMANDY in July

1449 extinguished English rule in the duchyand, with the exception of CALAIS, strippedthe House of LANCASTER of its holdings innorthern France. Marked by one pitchedbattle and a series of successful sieges, theNorman Campaign illustrated the effective-ness of the reorganized French army andespecially of the new French ARTILLERY train.

On 24 March 1449, an English force underthe ROUTIER captain Francois de Surienne

seized the Breton town of FOUGE`

RES. Un-dertaken in retaliation for recent Frenchoperations in Maine, the ill-advised Englishattack made an open enemy of Francis I,duke of BRITTANY, and convinced CHARLES

VII to abandon the Truce of TOURS. A t acouncil held at Chinon on 17 July 1449, theking ended talks with the English lieutenant,Edmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, andannounced formal resumption of the HUN-

DRED YEARS WAR. Within a month, the

French opened a three-pronged attack onLancastrian Normandy, with overall com-mand given to the veteran soldier, JOHN,COUNT OF DUNOIS, JOAN OF ARC’s companionat the siege of ORLEANS. By the end of theyear, the counts of Eu and Saint-Pol hadoverrun much of eastern Normandy; Du-nois, supported by another of the Maid’scaptains, JOHN, DUKE OF ALENCON, had cap-tured VERNEUIL and most of central Nor-

mandy; and Francis of Brittany, supportedby his uncle, Arthur de Richemont, theFrench constable (see ARTHUR III), had

NORMAN CAMPAIGN

231



retaken most of the west, including Fougeres,which fell on 5 November. Everywhere, butespecially in the countryside, the Frenchwere greeted as liberators. The English, eventhough they controlled many strongpoints,

were thoroughly demoralized by the speedand effectiveness of the French campaign,and many towns and fortresses offered littleor no resistance.

On 9 October, an army commanded by theking himself encamped around ROUEN.When the city authorities opened the gates,Beaufort and his men withdrew into thecastle, which the duke surrendered on 29October, thereby allowing Charles to make atriumphal entry into the Norman capital

on 20 November. Although winter slowedFrench operations, and John TALBOT, earl ofShrewsbury, made a futile attempt to dis-rupt enemy movements with his small force,English strongpoints continued to fall, in-cluding HARFLEUR, which capitulated inDecember.

In England, the increasingly unpopularregime of William de la POLE, duke of Suf-folk, collected, with much difficulty, a re-

lieving force of about five thousand men,which was dispatched under Sir ThomasKyriel in March 1450. Landing at Cher-bourg, Kyriel retook several fortresses be-fore his army was destroyed by Richemontand John, count of Clermont, at FORMIGNY on15 April. In this battle, as well as in all thecampaign’s important sieges, the artillery ofthe French master of ordinance, Jean BU-

REAU, played an important role, giving theFrench the tactical advantage that the long-

bow (see ARCHERS) had once given the En-glish at such battles as CRECY and AGIN-

COURT. With no English army in the field, thecampaign became simply a matter of redu-cing the remaining English fortresses, the suc-cessful conclusion of which was made almostinevitable by Bureau’s guns. While the Bre-tons cleared the western districts, the royalarmy forced the capitulation of Caen on 1

July, which Somerset surrendered after a

cannonball smashed into a room occupiedby his family. Falaise fell on 21 July andDomfront on 2 August, with Cherbourg, the

last English stronghold in the duchy, sur-rendering on 12 August, a year to the dayafter the commencement of French opera-tions.

The ease of his victory persuaded Charles

to attack GASCONY in 1451, a campaign thatculminated with the final conquest of thatduchy in 1453. In England, the rapid col-lapse of Lancastrian Normandy overthrewSuffolk, was a factor in the outbreak of JACK

CADE’S REBELLION, and aggravated the aris-tocratic feuds that later helped launch theWars of the Roses. See also CHARLES VII,MILITARY REFORMS OF; MAINE, SURRENDER OF;NORMAN CAMPAIGN (1417–1419).



Ltd., 1999; Perroy, Edouard. The Hundred Years

War . Trans. W. B. Wells. New York: Capricorn

Books, 1965.

NORMANDYLocated across the Channel from England innorthwestern France, the duchy of Nor-mandy, a former PLANTAGENET possessionheld by the French Crown since 1204, be-

came the center of Lancastrian France in thefifteenth century.In the fourteenth century, English activity

in France focused mainly on AQUITAINE,BRITTANY, and FLANDERS, and interest or in-volvement in Normandy was brief andsporadic. The first English intervention inthe duchy began on 12 July 1346, when ED-

WARD III, encouraged by Norman dissidentsled by Godfrey of HARCOURT, opened theCRECY campaign by landing at Saint-Vaaste-

la-Hogue. Although the culminating battlewas fought in Ponthieu, most of the cam-paign occurred in Normandy, as the Englishmarched eastward through the duchy burn-ing and looting. However, the campaigndemonstrated that pro-English sentimentin Normandy was weak and that Edwardlacked the manpower to effectively garrisonthe duchy. In the late 1350s, Edward as-sumed the title duke of Normandy and in-

cluded the duchy among the territories to begranted him in full sovereignty in the abor-tive Second Treaty of LONDON, but the final

NORMANDY

232



settlement achieved by the Treaty of BRE-

TIGNY in 1360 left Normandy to the VALOIS.In 1378, the English acquired the Normanport of Cherbourg from CHARLES THE BAD,KING OF NAVARRE, who had made Normandy

a center of revolt against the government ofDauphin Charles (see CHARLES V) in the early1360s (see COCHEREL, BATTLE OF). The Englishused the town as a base for naval raids until1393, when RICHARD II surrendered it inpursuit of the peace policy he followed afterthe Truce of LEULINGHEN.

In the fifteenth century, Normandy be-came vital to the English war effort. HENRY Vproclaimed himself duke of Normandy andstressed his Norman ancestry by way of

proving his right to hold the duchy in fullsovereignty. In 1415, the king opened theAGINCOURT campaign by seizing the Nor-man port of HARFLEUR at the mouth of theSeine. Beginning in 1417, Henry undertook asystematic conquest of the duchy, whichwas completed with the fall of ROUEN in

January 1419. Each of the main towns andfortresses received an English garrison andEnglish subjects were encouraged to settle in

the duchy to eventually make Normandy aself-sustaining English province capable ofpaying for its own defense. In 1420, theTreaty of TROYES provided for an English-controlled Normandy that was to remainseparate from France until Henry or hisheirs inherited the French Crown fromCHARLES VI.

After his brother’s death in 1422, JOHN,DUKE OF BEDFORD, tried to foster Lancastrianrule in the duchy by carefully observing

local laws and customs and by frequentlyconsulting the Norman Estates on de-fense and taxation. Following the Battle ofVERNEUIL in 1424, which pushed the war

southward toward the Loire, English rule inNormandy was secure; the duchy was gen-erally peaceful and the English garrisonswere reduced. In 1429, English defeats atORLEANS and PATAY opened eastern Nor-

mandy to French attack. Insecurity increasedboth taxes and brigandage, making theEnglish administration highly unpopularand leading to a serious revolt in westernNormandy in 1435–36. Although the upris-ing was eventually suppressed, Harfleurwas lost until 1441 and Lancastrian rule inthe duchy was permanently weakened.

After 1436, when CHARLES VII recoveredPARIS, Rouen became the administrativecenter of Lancastrian France, but the English

were now seen as an occupying force andNorman support for the Lancastrian regimedeclined throughout the 1440s, when Anglo-French hostilities were halted by the Truceof TOURS. In 1449, the French resumed thewar with a campaign that retook the duchywithin a year. The last English army inNormandy was decisively defeated at FOR-

MIGNY in April 1450 and English rule—andthe HUNDRED YEARS WAR —ended in Nor-

mandy with the fall of Cherbourg on thefollowing 12 August. See also NORMAN

CAMPAIGN (1417–1419); NORMAN CAMPAIGN

(1449–1450); PONTOISE, SIEGE OF.Further Reading: Allmand, C. T. Lancastrian

Normandy, 1415–1450: The History of a Medieval

Occupation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983; Curry,

Anne. The Hundred Years War . 2nd ed. Hound-

mills, England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

NORTHAMPTON, EARL OF. See BOHUN,

WILLIAM DE, EARL OF NORTHAMPTON

NORTHAMPTON, PEACE OF. See SCOT-

LAND

NORTHAMPTON, PEACE OF

233



OORDER OF THE GARTER. See GARTER,ORDER OF THE

ORDER OF THE STAR. See STAR, ORDER

OF THE

ORDONNANCE CABOCHIENNE. See CA-

BOCHIENS

ORIFLAMMEThe Oriflamme, a long forked banner ofscarlet embroidered with golden flames andcarried from a gilded lance, was the militarystandard of the VALOIS kings of France dur-ing the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

The origins of the banner are uncertain,although it was believed to be the emblem ofCharlemagne, and to represent a sacredflaming lance with which the emperor coulddefeat the enemies of Christendom. Insome of the earliest traditions, the banner ismerely ornamentation for the lance onwhich it hangs, which is the true symbol ofimportance. In the tenth century, Hugh, thefirst king of the House of CAPET, entrustedthe Oriflamme to the Abbey of Saint-Denis,

the monastery near PARIS that became theburial place of French kings. A twelfth-century story also linked the banner to thecounts of Vexin and their traditional role asprotectors of Saint-Denis, a special relation-ship that passed with the county to the kingsof France in 1077.

Descriptions of the standard’s appearancevary, perhaps as a result of worn or dam-aged banners being occasionally replaced. In

general, the Oriflamme was said to be ofblood-red silk with green fringe, goldenlines or circles of flame, and two or three

forked indentations on the free end. Thebanner was attached either vertically to thelance or to a bar suspended from the lancetip. In later battles, the Oriflamme was car-ried in association with the French royal

standard of golden fleur-de-lis on a bluebackground, a more familiar emblem tomodern eyes.

The banner was first carried into battle inthe 1120s, when Louis VI, disregarding thetradition that it only be used against ene-mies of Christianity, unfurled it againstvarious Christian rulers, including Henry Iof England. In the thirteenth century, LouisIX (St. Louis) retrieved the banner from

Saint-Denis to carry it on his crusade againstthe Muslims. In the fourteenth century,French kings raised the Oriflamme when-ever the military situation was deemed ser-ious enough to require display of such apotent symbol of royal authority and power.Almost destroyed during the French victoryover Flemish militia at Mons-en-Pevele in1304, the banner also appeared on the bat-tlefields of Cassel (1328) and Roosebeke(1382), which were victories over Flemish

rebels, and at CRECY (1346), POITIERS (1356),and AGINCOURT (1415), all major defeats atthe hands of the English. Perhaps because ofits association with so many military di-sasters, the Oriflamme was raised less fre-quently after 1420. It appeared on thebattlefield for the last time in the late fif-teenth century, and thereafter remained atSaint-Denis until it was destroyed duringthe French Revolution.

Further Reading: Hallam, Elizabeth M. Cape-tian France, 987–1328. London: Longman, 1980;

Keen, Maurice. The Laws of War in the Late Middle

234



Ages. Toronto: University of Toronto

Press, 1965; Lewis, P. S. Later Medie-

val France: The Polity. London: Mac-

millan, 1980.

ORLEANS, DUKE OF. SeeCHARLES, DUKE OF ORLEANS;

LOUIS, DUKE OF ORLEANS

ORLEANS, SIEGE OF

(1428–1429)Perhaps the most studied andwritten-about military operationof the HUNDRED YEARS WAR,the English siege of Orleans, thechief dauphinist town on the

Loire, ran from 12 October 1428to 8 May 1429. Inspired by themost unorthodox of militaryleaders, JOAN OF ARC, a teenagegirl who wore ARMOR andclaimed to be sent by heaven tosave France, the French relief ofthe city turned the tide of thewar. Although it would take an-other twenty-four years to drive

the English from France, Joan’svictory at Orleans restored theprestige of the VALOIS monarchyand imbued its cause with theaura of divine approval, therebydemoralizing the English, whoafter Orleans found themselveslargely on the defensive.

On 1 July 1428, Thomas MON-

TAGU, earl of Salisbury, landed inFrance with a force of about three

thousand. The earl marched toPARIS, where, in consultation with

JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD, and other Englishleaders, the decision was made to captureOrleans, thereby securing the Loire andthreatening the heartland of dauphinistFrance. Although it was a breach of CHIVALRY

to attack the possessions of a captive— CHARLES, DUKE OF ORLEANS, had been anEnglish prisoner since AGINCOURT in 1415—

the operation was approved because tak-ing the city might at last convince the Frenchthat the Valois cause was lost. In August,

Salisbury isolated Orleans by systematicallycapturing other Loire towns, includingMeung, Jargeau, and Beaugency. On 12 Oc-tober, the earl, commanding a force of per-haps five thousand, including men hiredfrom PHILIP THE GOOD, duke of BURGUNDY,encamped around Orleans. Although helacked sufficient troops to completely encircle

the city, which was large, high-walled, well-supplied, and defended by seventy-one gunsand fifty-four hundred men commanded by

A modern view of Orleans showing the bridge across the Loire

that was the scene of much fighting during the English siege of

the town in 1428–29. Erich Lessing/Art Resource, New York.

ORLEANS, SIEGE OF

235



John, the Bastard of Orleans, brother of thecaptive duke (see JOHN, COUNT OF DUNOIS AND

LONGUEVILLE [1402–1468]), Salisbury beganan immediate bombardment. Within days,the English seized the Tourelles, a stone for-

tress that protected the far end of the bridgeconnecting the city to the south bank of theLoire. On about 24 October, Salisbury, whilereconnoitering the city from an upper win-dow of the Tourelles, was struck by metalfragments blasted from the fortress wallsby French ARTILLERY. With much of his jawand lower face gone, the earl died on 3 No-vember.

The death of Salisbury stalled the Englishassault, for William de la POLE, earl of Suf-

folk, who now assumed command, was amore cautious leader. He moved most of thearmy into winter quarters in nearby towns,leaving only a token force before Orleansand thus enabling the French to bring moretroops and supplies into the city. In De-cember, John TALBOT and Thomas SCALES,Lord Scales, arrived at Orleans to assume

joint command with Suffolk, while Sir Wil-liam Glasdale took charge of the Tourelles.

On 12 February, the failure of a French at-tempt to intercept an English supply convoyat the Battle of the HERRINGS severely dam-aged the city’s morale. The besiegers alsoconstructed a number of boulevards—lowearthwork defenses—around the city, in-cluding a particularly strong one, known asthe boulevard of the Augustins, before theTourelles. These defenses seemed to indicatean English willingness to starve the city intosurrender and a belief, shared by many in

the increasingly demoralized town, that norelief attempt would be made by the dau-phin. However, in early March, Joan of Arccame to the dauphin at Chinon, where shetold him that God had sent her to relieveOrleans and see him crowned. Encouragedby the Maid, the dauphin began assemblinga large relief force at Blois.

On 29 April, Joan entered Orleans fromthe east, bypassing the English Saint Loup

boulevard without incident, an achievementlater ascribed to a miracle worked by Joan,

although a diversionary attack on the bou-levard by the garrison probably ensured herentry. Over the next four days, Joan vehe-mently urged an immediate attack on theEnglish, while the Bastard, believing himself

unready for such an assault, refused to doso; on 1 May, he left for Blois to gather moretroops. Joan, meanwhile, in an apparent at-tempt to provoke the enemy into attacking,spoke to the English across the lines, de-manding that they withdraw in obedience toGod’s will and receiving in return manyinsults. Upon the Bastard’s return on 4 May,the French attacked and captured the SaintLoup boulevard. On 5 May, the French oc-cupied the recently abandoned boulevard of

Saint Jean le Blanc, and on 6 May, theFrench, in a furious assault led by Joan,captured the boulevard of the Augustins,thus pinning the English in the Tourellesbetween the city and the relieving force. On7 May, despite the Bastard’s desire to resthis men, the French assaulted the Tourellesat Joan’s insistence. When Joan refused toleave the field after being wounded in theshoulder by an arrow, the French, who had

been making little headway, were inspiredby her courage and eventually carried thefortification. Glasdale, who had personallymocked Joan as a ‘‘whore of the ARMA-

GNACS’’ (DeVries, 75), was slain with most ofhis men.

Next day, 8 May, the English abandonedtheir remaining boulevards and orderedthemselves for battle. The French salliedforth to meet them, but Joan, unwilling tofight on Sunday, urged them not to attack,

but only to defend themselves from enemyassaults. Despite rumors that Sir John FAS-

TOLF was approaching with reinforcements,the English had apparently lost faith in theirboulevard defenses. When the French didnot attack, they marched away, with Suffolkwithdrawing to Jargeau and Talbot andScales to Meung. News of the Maid’s victoryoverjoyed the dauphinists and profoundlyshocked the English. In June, Joan accom-

panied another French army that during aweeklong campaign culminating at PATAY,

ORLEANS, SIEGE OF

236



cleared the Loire of English garrisons (seeLOIRE CAMPAIGN) and allowed the dauphinto march to Rheims and be crowned asCHARLES VII on 17 July.





ORLEANS, SIEGE OF

237



PPAPACY AND THE HUNDRED

YEARS WAR

Although a supranational institution of wideinfluence, the papacy was hampered in itsefforts to prevent or end the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR by its perceived lack of impartiality.From 1305 to 1378, the papacy was viewedas being subservient to the French Crown,and from 1378 to 1417 effective papal me-diation was rendered impossible by the‘‘Great Schism,’’ a disputed papal succes-sion that resulted in several lines of popescompeting with one another for the supportof national rulers and thereby aggravatingrather than healing the political divisions of

the Hundred Years War. While most popesof the war period took seriously their dutyto bring peace to Europe, and most of thepeace conferences and truce talks of thefourteenth century had some papal in-volvement, no settlement was ever achievedlargely because the English and FrenchCrowns did not want one and because thepapacy lacked sufficient influence to imposeone.

The so-called ‘‘Babylonian Captivity’’ of

the papacy began in 1305 with the election ofBertrand de Got, archbishop of BORDEAUX, aGascon, who, as a subject of the FrenchCrown and a vassal of the PLANTAGENET

king-dukes of AQUITAINE, seemed a goodchoice to heal the rifts created by the bitterquarrel between PHILIP IV and the late pope,Boniface VIII (r. 1294–1303). Choosing thename Clement V (r. 1305–14), the new popewas persuaded by the French king to avoid

the political turmoil of Rome and base hispapacy in Avignon, a town in the Rhonevalley that was then just outside the borders

of France. For the next seventy-three years, astring of French-born popes, supported by alargely French cardinalate, presided over theChurch from Avignon.

Jacques Fournier, who as Benedict XII

(r. 1334–42) was pope at the start of the warin the 1330s, undertook strenuous but un-availing efforts to prevent the outbreak ofhostilities. Although it suited English pur-poses to denounce the French-born pope asbiased, Benedict failed not because he waspro-French, but because EDWARD III andPHILIP VI were fundamentally unwilling toreach a settlement. Pierre Roger, who waselected pope in 1342 as CLEMENT VI (r. 1342–

52), brokered the Truce of MALESTROIT in1343 and sponsored the AVIGNON PEACE

CONFERENCE of 1344, by which he sought tobring the warring parties to terms. Again thetalks failed largely because neither monarchtruly wanted peace and because Clement’sformer position as chancellor of France al-lowed Edward to plausibly dismiss him as aVALOIS puppet. Although Clement genu-inely sought peace, he, like Benedict, took aconservative rather than a pro-French view

of the dispute over Aquitaine; that is,Edward III was seen as a feudal vassalchallenging the authority of his legitimateoverlord, who was a solemnly anointed king.In this context, it was hard for the Avignonpopes to give serious consideration to Ed-ward’s claim to the French throne, whichnone of them ever recognized. Thus, allAnglo-French negotiations sponsored by theAvignon popes ended in failure, including

the 1352–54 talksarranged by E´

tienne Aubert,who was pope as Innocent VI (r. 1352–62),and the 1375–77 BRUGES PEACE CONFERENCE

238



sponsored by Pierre Roger de Beaufort, thenephew of Clement VI and pope as GregoryXI (r. 1370–78).

Papal influence declined steadily as thewar progressed. In England, Edward III

confiscated the property of French monastichouses on grounds of national security andPARLIAMENT enacted the statutes of Praemu-nire (1353, 1393) and Provisors (1351, 1390)to elicit more papal cooperation with theCrown, especially on ecclesiastical appoint-ments. Blatant pro-French actions, such as therefusal of Guillaume de Grimoard, pope asUrban V (r. 1362–70), to permit a marriagebetween Edward’s son, EDMUND OF LANGLEY,duke of York, and MARGUERITE, the daughter

of LOUIS DE MALE, count of Flanders, while atthe same time encouraging her marriage toCHARLES V’s brother, PHILIP THE BOLD, dukeof BURGUNDY, further eroded English respectfor papal authority. In both kingdoms, mon-archs taxed the clergy without papal sanctionand exercised significant influence over thefunctioning of national churches.

In 1376, despite the protests of Charles V,Gregory XI returned the papacy to Rome.

On his death two years later, the Romanmob forced the election of an Italian, Barto-lomeo Prignano, who took the name UrbanVI (r. 1378–89). Convinced by French cardi-nals that Urban’s election was invalid,Charles V backed their election of one oftheir own, Robert of Geneva, as PopeClement VII (r. 1378–94), an action that ledto the creation of two competing lines ofpopes—one backed by the French andScottish Crowns and headquartered in

Avignon, and one backed by the EnglishCrown and most of Europe and head-quartered in Rome. This division, whichended any hope of papal war mediation,became even worse in 1409, when theCouncil of Pisa deposed the current Romanand Avignon popes and elected as theirsuccessor Pietro Philarghi as Pope Alex-ander V (r. 1409–10). Although France andEngland, for once in agreement, accepted

Alexander, the deposed popes each retainedthe loyalty of other states, thus leaving theChurch with three popes.

In 1416, Holy Roman Emperor Sigismundconvened the Council of Constance in aneffort to end the schism; however, all effortsin this direction were bedeviled by the on-going Anglo-French hostility and by the

intensifying FRENCH CIVIL WAR, as Englishdelegates quarreled with French, and AR-

MAGNAC delegates argued with BURGUN-

DIANS. To end the papal divisions, Sig-ismund tried to secure the cooperation of theHouses of Valois and LANCASTER. He re-ceived a cold reception in PARIS, which hevisited only six months after the Battle ofAGINCOURT, but he was warmly welcomed toLONDON by HENRY V, who eventually per-suaded him to sign the anti-French Treaty of

CANTERBURY.In 1417, the Council of Constance effec-

tively ended the schism by securing theresignation or deposition of the various anti-popes and electing Oddo Colonna as PopeMartin V (r. 1417–31). Headquartered inRome, the new pope won the allegiance ofmost of Europe, including both England andFrance. However, his efforts to restore papalauthority took precedence over war media-

tion, in which he was in any case tainted inEnglish eyes by his refusal to accept theTreaty of TROYES in 1420. In 1434, his suc-cessor, Gabriele Condulmaro, who took thename Eugenius IV (r. 1431–47), officiallyrecognized CHARLES VII as rightful king ofFrance, thus limiting his effectiveness as amediator at the Congress of ARRAS in 1435,where was made the last significant papalattempt to broker a settlement of the Hun-dred Years War.

Further Reading: Curry, Anne. The HundredYears War . 2nd ed. Houndmills, England: Pal-

grave Macmillan, 2003; Mollat, G. The Popes at

Avignon, 1305–1378: The ‘‘Babylonian Captivity’’ of

the Medieval Church. New York: Harper and Row,

1965; Renouard, Yves. The Avignon Papacy: The

Popes in Exile, 1305–1403. New York: Barnes and

Noble, 1994.

PARIS

Paris during the HUNDRED YEARS WAR wasthe largest and wealthiest city in France, aswell as the center of royal government.

PARIS

239





V. In the aftermath of John II’s capture atPOITIERS, Marcel led a revolutionary move-ment that drove the dauphin from the city.Demanding governmental reform, Marcelsplit his party by supporting the J ACQUERIE in

1358, an action that allowed the dauphin toregain support in the city and led to Marcel’smurder by a Paris mob. Another Parisianuprising, the Maillotins, erupted in 1382,when the city resisted the imposition of newroyal taxes that bore heavily on urban pop-ulations. The government of Charles VI re-sponded by crushing the rebellion andabolishing the office of pre vo t des marchands.

During the FRENCH CIVIL WAR, the citysupported JOHN THE FEARLESS, duke of BUR-

GUNDY, who won over the bourgeoisie andthe university by posing as a reformer. InApril 1413, Burgundy, in an effort to main-tain his dominance, incited the butchers ofParis to rise in favor of reform. Known as theCABOCHIENS, for their leader, Simon Ca-boche, the rebels plunged the city into athree-month reign of terror and forced thedecree of a massive reform ordinance. TheARMAGNACS crushed the uprising when they

entered Paris in September following Bur-gundy’s flight. For the next five years, the city,suffering intermittent Burgundian sieges,was controlled by an Armagnac regime in-creasingly dominated by BERNARD, COUNT OF

ARMAGNAC, who maintained order throughhis ruthless Gascon bands. After retaking thecity in May 1418, the Burgundians slaugh-tered their rivals, killing the count and for-cing the dauphin to flee. In 1420, conclusionof the Treaty of TROYES, which recognized

HENRY V as heir to the French throne, broughtthe city under Anglo-Burgundian control,and for the next sixteen years Paris was thecapital of the Lancastrian domains, whiledauphinist southern France was adminis-tered from the dauphin’s strongholds be-low the Loire. Although dissolution of theANGLO-BURGUNDIAN ALLIANCE at the Con-gress of ARRAS in 1435 allowed Charles VIIto regain Paris in 1436, it took until the

end of the war in the 1450s for the city toregain its former political and economicdominance.

Further Reading: Butler, Raymond R. Is Paris

Lost? The English Occupation, 1422–1436. Staple-

hurst, England: Spellmount, 2003; Couperie,

Pierre. Paris through the Ages. New York: Braziller,

1968; Jones, Colin. Paris: Biography of a City.

London: Allen Lane, 2004; Velay, Philippe. FromLutetia to Paris: The Island and the Two Banks. Paris:

CNRS, 1992.

PARIS, TREATY OF (1259)Concluded on 13 October 1259, the Treaty ofParis was a personal agreement betweenLouis IX (St. Louis) of France and Henry IIIof England regarding the feudal status of allFrench territories claimed by the Englishking. By making the king of England a vas-

sal of the king of France, the treaty createdan ultimately untenable relationship be-tween two sovereign monarchs and theirkingdoms. In the 1330s, the increasingly se-vere political and legal strains arising fromthis relationship became a root cause of theHUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Under Henry II and his sons, England hadcontrolled a vast continental domain en-compassing most of western France. In 1202,

Philip II (Augustus), acting in his capacity asKing John’s feudal overlord, summoned John to the French court to answer an appeallaunched against him by certain of his vas-sals in Poitou. When John failed to appear,Philip declared John’s lands forfeit and by1204 had seized NORMANDY, Maine, Anjou,and Touraine, leaving John with only Poitou(until 1224) and AQUITAINE. Thereafter, thetwo kings and their successors remainedtechnically at war, with the kings of England

still claiming the lost northern provinces andthe kings of France still upholding the con-fiscation of Aquitaine.

By the 1250s, both monarchs had goodreasons for wanting to stabilize their re-lationship. Henry III, embroiled with hisbarons and entangled in a scheme to makehis brother ruler of Sicily, needed thefriendship and military assistance of theFrench king. Although Louis was sincerely

desirous of peace between the two kingdomsand their royal families, he also wanted toformalize a relationship that recognized him

PARIS, TREATY OF

241



as the feudal overlord of the king of England.Negotiations between the two parties beganin 1257 and a treaty was completed in May1258, although settlement of various detailsdelayed ratification until October 1259.

The main clauses of the treaty called forHenry to surrender his claims to Normandy,Maine, Anjou, Touraine, and Poitou, and forLouis to confirm PLANTAGENET possession ofAquitaine, which was to be restored to its1204 extent by the surrender of various ter-ritories held by Louis or members of hisfamily. Because of the complexity of land-holding in the ceded areas, the clausesgoverning the transfer were complicatedand soon became the cause of endless con-

troversy. Henry was also to become a peer ofFrance and to perform liege homage toLouis for all his holdings in France, includ-ing GASCONY, which, the English later ar-gued, was an allod (i.e., a territory held inabsolute ownership) and never held of theFrench king. Because liege homage implieda personal subordination to one’s lord, per-formance of this rite, which was due onevery change of duke or monarch, caused

much friction. However, because he waseager for the five hundred knights Louisagreed to fund, Henry performed such hom-age in the garden of the royal palace in PARIS

on 4 December 1259.Although the treaty brought peace for

several generations, it contained within itthe seeds of the Hundred Years War. As avassal of the king of France, the king-duke ofAquitaine suffered constant interference inthe administration of his duchy. Any vassal

who was unhappy with the king-duke’slordship could appeal to the PARLEMENT inParis. If the king of France summoned theduke of Aquitaine to support him in a for-eign war, as was his feudal right, the dukemight find himself compelled to fight a rulerwith whom he had an alliance as king ofEngland, a circumstance that threatened hisfreedom of action in English foreign policy.Thus, EDWARD III eventually went to war

with France to end his feudal subservienceto a fellow monarch and to win full sover-eignty in his French lands.



grave Macmillan, 2003; Vale, Malcolm. The

Origins of the Hundred Years War . Oxford: Clar-

endon Press, 2000.

PARLEMENT OF PARISHeadquartered in PARIS, the Parlement wasthe central law court of the French mon-archy. The Parlement received and triedappeals from lower royal courts and fromseigniorial courts in the great fiefs and AP-

PANAGE territories. Devoted to the interestsof the French Crown and to the extension ofroyal authority throughout the realm, thepersonnel of the Parlement often used their

authority to interfere with local administra-tion, a practice that was particularly re-sented in the duchy of AQUITAINE, where

jurisdictional conflict between the FrenchCrown and the English king-dukes was animportant factor in the coming and con-tinuance of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

As the royal domain grew in the twelfthand thirteenth centuries, the great noblesand clerics, as well as towns and members of

the lesser nobility, began to resort to theking’s courts for more timely and impartial justice. By 1250, the court ceased to travelwith the king and was permanently locatedin the royal palace on the Ile-de-la-Cite inParis, where it gradually developed a pro-fessional staff of clerical and lay officerstrained in the law. The Parlement’s centralrole in the dispensation of royal justice wascemented by Louis IX’s decision to permitthe court to hear appeals from the bailiwicks

(bailliages) and seneschalcies (se ne chausse es),the main administrative districts of the royaldomain. By the fourteenth century, most ofthe court’s work involved appeals ratherthan cases of original jurisdiction. Philip IIIissued the court’s first rules of operation in1278, and its basic organization and proce-dures were solidified in the half centuryprior to the Hundred Years War.

The Parlement eventually comprised

three departments. The original Parlementwas the Grand’Chambre or Chamber ofPleas, which heard great cases of state and

PARLEMENT OF PARIS

242



cases involving the death penalty or cor-poral punishment. It oversaw the otherdepartments and issued the arre t, or finaldecree that settled all cases. The Chambredes Requetes heard petitions from anyone

wishing to initiate a suit in the Parlement. Ifa petition was accepted, a commission wassent to the locality from which the suit ori-ginated to gather evidence. If, upon re-viewing this material, the masters of theGrand’Chambre decided the investigationhad been properly conducted, the case wentto the Chambre des Enquetes, where thewritten evidence was analyzed and conclu-sions drawn. The litigants never appearedbefore the Chamber. Final decision in the

case was rendered by the masters of theGrand’Chambre, who issued the arre t set-tling the matter.

The appeals that led to the variousconfiscations of PLANTAGENET Aquitaine, in-cluding the actions initiating the ANGLO-

FRENCH WAR OF 1294–1303, the War of SAINT-

SARDOS, and the Hundred Years War, alloriginated with and were decided by theParlement. The APPEAL OF THE GASCON LORDS,

which overturned the Treaty of BRE´

TIGNY,was secretly lodged with the Parlement inMay 1368. When EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE,refused a summons to appear before thecourt to answer the appeal, the Parlementpronounced him contumacious on 2 May1369 and the formal confiscation of Aqui-taine, which restarted the war, was decreedin the following November. After 1380, andespecially after the onset of the FRENCH CIVIL

WAR in the 1410s, the Parlement underwent

frequent purges, as each new regime, whe-ther MARMOUSET, BURGUNDIAN, o r ARMA-

GNAC, sought to fill the court with itssupporters. In 1420, the Parlement, nowunder Anglo-Burgundian control, formallyregistered, or approved, the Treaty of TROYES

making HENRY V heir to CHARLES VI. In January 1421, the Parlement formally de-clared the dauphin, who had refused asummons to appear, incapable of succession

and banished from the realm. The dauphin,in consequence, established his own Parle-ment in Bourges to supervise the adminis-

tration of justice in the dauphinist portions ofthe kingdom, while the Paris Parlement con-tinued to function for the Anglo-Burgundianrealm. In 1435, when the Paris Parlementdeclared its 1421 decision banishing the

dauphin illegal, PHILIP THE GOOD, duke ofBURGUNDY, used the reversal as a pretext forabandoning the ANGLO-BURGUNDIAN ALLI-

ANCE at the Congress of ARRAS. After re-gaining the capital in 1436, CHARLES VIImerged the two bodies, abolishing theBourges Parlement and gradually purgingthe Paris Parlement of its most pro-Bur-gundian and pro-English personnel.





grave Macmillan, 2003; Shennan, J. H. The

Parlement of Paris. Stroud, England: Sutton Pub-

lishing, 1998.

PARLIAMENTParliament was the supreme legislative and

judicial assembly of medieval England.During the course of the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR, Parliament, largely through the in-creasing royal need for money to fund thewar, gradually acquired a variety of im-portant rights and functions, including theapproval of TAXATION, the right of petitionand redress, and the power to impeach royalministers.

The principle that the king could onlyobtain new taxes through the consent of hispeople in Parliament evolved in the 1290sout of EDWARD I’s unprecedented need for

taxation to conduct his wars in SCOTLAND

and France (see ANGLO-FRENCH WAR OF 1294– 1303). After 1337, the even greater financialneeds of EDWARD III led to further parlia-mentary attempts to control royal finances.In early 1340, Parliament granted new tax-ation only on condition that royal tax-collectors be made responsible to it and thatall taxes granted be spent only on the war. Inthe following spring, during the CRISIS OF

1340–1341, Parliament intervened in thedispute between the king and his chiefminister, John STRATFORD, archbishop of

PARLIAMENT

243



Canterbury, to protest attempts by Edward’ssupporters to prevent the archbishop fromattending the assembly’s sessions. Despe-rately in need of funds, Edward reluctantlyassented to a series of parliamentary peti-

tions that declared no peer could be arrested,tried, or imprisoned except in full Parlia-ment; a public audit should be conducted ofroyal finances; and all high officers of stateshould be appointed in Parliament. Al-though Edward later annulled these mea-sures, important precedents, such as notaxation without redress of grievances, hadbeen set.

Despite this dispute, Edward’s relationswith Parliament were usually good. During

the reign, the Lords, which comprised 21bishops, 25 great abbots, and about 40–50temporal peers, and the Commons, whichcomprised 2 knights from each of the 37shires and about 180 burgesses from townsauthorized to elect them, ceased to meet to-gether. In the 1340s, the lower clergy ceasedto sit with the Commons and instead sentrepresentatives to Convocation, the legisla-tive assembly of the English Church. These

changes caused the knights of the shire tobegin identifying more closely with thetownsmen than with the nobility. Knights ofthe shire were selected in the county courtsunder the supervision of the sheriff, whileburgesses were elected according to proce-dures laid down in each town’s charter,which often restricted voting to small groups(see TOWNS AND THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR). Bythe 1370s, service in Parliament was seen asan honor and many gentlemen sought re-

election to county positions or stood forelection as town representatives. In 1406,Parliament enacted the first legislation reg-ulating parliamentary elections and in 1430 itrestricted the vote to freeholders with landworth at least 40 shillings per year. In 1445,election as shire MP (i.e., member of Parlia-ment) was restricted to gentry with sufficientwealth to support the rank of knight. Al-though Parliament met, on average, once a

year, some years, such as 1332 with fourmeetings, saw multiple sessions. Called anddismissed by the king, who generally gave

sheriffs three to eight weeks’ notice of a ses-sion, Parliament sat usually for five or sixweeks at time, although some sessions lastedonly one week while others ran for overtwenty weeks. Most wartime Parliaments

met at the palace of Westminster, just outsideLONDON, although the king could have Par-liament meet anywhere in the kingdom, andsessions in York, Carlisle, and other northerntowns were common during campaigns inScotland.

Reacting to military defeat and govern-ment weakness, the so-called Good Par-liament of 1376 evolved the proceduresof impeachment, whereby the Commonsbrought charges against corrupt and in-

competent ministers who were then tried bythe Lords. Among those impeached were theroyal chamberlain, William Latimer, andthe king’s rapacious mistress, Alice Perrers.The impeachment movement was led by SirPeter de la Mare, who became the firstspeaker of the Commons. Although de laMare led the opposition in 1376, the office ofspeaker was later usually held by agents ofthe Crown who supervised debate and the

passage of legislation in the government’sinterest.RICHARD II had generally poor relations

with his Parliaments, particularly the Mer-ciless Parliament of 1388, which was domi-nated by the Appellants led by THOMAS OF

WOODSTOCK, duke of Gloucester, who im-peached, exiled, and executed many of theking’s favorites. In 1399, acting upon theprecedent set during the removal of EDWARD

II in 1327, Parliament increased its influence

by sanctioning Richard’s deposition in favorof his cousin, HENRY IV. Except for the reignof HENRY V, when the king’s deft manage-ment of Parliament procured the increasedtaxation needed to fund renewed war, thepolitical position of the House of LANCASTER

under Henry IV, who was a usurper, andHENRY VI, who was mentally unstable, wasweak, and Parliament gained definite con-trol over the granting of taxation in the fif-

teenth century. In 1407, for instance, HenryIV recognized the principle that all moneybills had to originate in the Commons, and,

PARLIAMENT

244





strengthened the ANGLO-BURGUNDIAN ALLI-

ANCE by compelling Duke PHILIP THE GOOD tohelp reinforce PARIS against possible attack,the French successes in the Loire Valley al-lowed the dauphin, accompanied by Joan, to

march to Rheims and there be crowned kingas CHARLES VII.

Further Reading: Burne,AlfredH. The Agincourt


1999; DeVries, Kelly. Joan of Arc: A Military Leader .

Stroud, England: Sutton Publishing, 2003.

PA TIS

Pa tis, or ‘ ‘RANSOMS of the country,’’ wereregular payments in cash or kind demandedby garrison commanders of the people in

their district. An English innovation thatarose in BRITTANY during the 1340s, pa tisreplaced the disorganized thievery by whichsmall English garrisons had initially sus-tained themselves with a more systematicprotection scheme by which local com-munities paid their garrisons to leave themalone or to defend them from outside raid-ers. By the 1350s, the system was extendedbeyond Brittany to other English-controlled

areas of France and in the 1360s was takenup on a less formal basis by the ROUTIERS thatravaged wide areas of the country.

Every garrison carefully staked out itsransom territory, demanding that all villageswithin marching distance pay a stated as-sessment in cash, food, wine, building sup-plies, or labor. Late or refused paymentswere extracted by force, and resistance oftenmeant arbitrary executions and burned orplundered property. Assessment had to be

carefully calculated so that the garrisoncould get maximum payment without pre-cipitating an uprising or causing the peas-ants to flee their villages. Travelers throughthe district were also forced to pay for safe-conducts or to pass through tollgates androadblocks. Profits from pa tis were pooledfor the use of the whole garrison, althoughcuts were taken by the garrison commanderand, theoretically, by the king. In many

areas, however, the main benefit to theCrown was not in cash paid but in relieffrom the burden of supporting garrisons.

By the 1350s, payments became moresystematic and more onerous as local garri-sons and commanders became more inter-ested in enriching themselves than inconducting the war. By engendering great

hatred of the garrison, the practice oftendestroyed local support for the Englishcause and created serious political problemsfor EDWARD III. When CHARLES OF BLOIS, theFrench-backed claimant in the BRETON CIVIL

WAR, besieged LA ROCHE-DERRIEN in 1347,enraged local peasants joined him, eager toattack the English garrison with sticks andstones.

The collecting of pa tis also had a moreinsidious effect. It tended to free comman-

ders of small or isolated castles from thecontrol of royal officers. Although looselyacknowledging the authority of the EnglishCrown, these garrison commanders, whohad often captured their fortresses on theirown initiative, considered themselves localconquerors who were entitled to collect pa tisas their rightful spoils of war. As a result,the conduct of the war in Brittany andelsewhere often passed beyond the effective

control of the king and his chief lieutenants.Nonetheless, pa tis continued to be collectedand in 1361, as the mutual cession of terri-tory called for by the Treaty of BRETIGNY

began, Edward III demanded that Englishgarrison commanders be paid all arrears of

pa tis due to them before relinquishing theirstrongholds.


dred Years War . New York: Penguin, 1999; Sump-

tion, Jonathan. The Hundred Years War . Vol. 2,

Trial by Fire. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-vania Press, 2001.

PEASANTS’ REVOLT OF 1381A consequence of the profound socio-economic changes fostered by war andplague, the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 was themost dangerous English rebellion of thefourteenth century. Although its immediatecause was the imposition by PARLIAMENT of

burdensome taxes designed to finance re-newal of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR, its long-term cause was a social policy designed to

PA TIS

246



protect the economic position oflandlords by restricting the eco-nomic opportunities of peasants.While the rebellion itself was afailure, especially in terms of its

most idealistic goal, the abolitionof class distinctions, it markedthe start of a gradual processwhereby serfdom disappearedfrom English society.

By significantly reducing thenumber of agricultural laborers,the first visitation of the BLACK

DEATH in the late 1340s sig-nificantly increased the demandfor agricultural labor. With

landlords now competing forscarce workers, wages rose andpeasant mobility increased.Seeking to regain their economicadvantage, noble and gentlelandholders used their control ofParliament to pursue a restrictivelabor policy. In 1349, EDWARD IIIpromulgated a royal ordinancethat froze wages and prices at

preplague levels and fined serfswho left their lord’s manor. In 1351, the firstpostplague Parliament fortified the king’sdecree with the Statute of Laborers, whichincreased fines and established special com-missions in each county to enforce the newlabor restrictions. Through these measures,labor regulation became a national ratherthan a local concern. Although there wasscattered resistance to enforcement of theseacts in the 1350s, the kind of class-driven

violence that France had experienced in 1358with the J ACQUERIE did not appear in Englanduntil 1381, when new TAXATION aggravatedpeasant anger over labor restrictions. InFebruary 1377, Parliament passed a new polltax to be levied at the rate of one shilling perhead. A second tax, enacted in April 1379 tohelp fund a proposed CHEVAUCHE E by THOMAS

OF WOODSTOCK, duke of Gloucester, was as-sessed at a graduated rate, but the poll tax of

November 1380, which ignited the Peasants’Revolt, used a flat rate of 3 shillings a head,triple the 1377 assessment.

Evasion of the third tax was immediateand widespread. The 1370s had witnessedthe loss of much of AQUITAINE, costly andfruitless campaigns, and French raids onEnglish coasts. Tired of a war that cost themmuch and promised them little, peasantsalready frustrated with wage restrictionswere unwilling to silently suffer the gov-ernment’s imposition of further economichardship. On 30 May 1381, irate peasants in

Essex drove out royal commissioners sent toinvestigate instances of tax evasion. Between1 and 4 June, antitax disturbances eruptedacross Essex and Kent. By 10 June, the dis-orders turned violent, with rebels attackingtax collectors and destroying the property oflocal tax officials. In Essex, for instance, therebels fell upon the Hospital of the Knightsof St. John, the master of which was RobertHales, who, as treasurer, was closely asso-

ciated with the tax. The speed with whichbands of local rebels coalesced into largergroups suggests a certain degree of

In the climactic moment of the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, William

Walworth, the lord mayor of London, slays rebel leader Wat

Tyler in the presence of Richard II. Art Resource, New York.

PEASANTS’ REVOLT OF 1381

247



organization and cooperation. Choosing astheir leader Wat Tyler, an obscure figure whomay once have fought in France, the rebelsadvanced on LONDON on 11 June, the dayRICHARD II arrived in the capital from

Windsor. On 12 June, as the king took shelterin the Tower of London, rebels sacked Lam-beth Palace, the home of Archbishop SimonSudbury, the chancellor of England, and thenmet with representatives of the city of Lon-don at Blackheath. Harangued by the radicalpreacher John Ball, who is best known for therhyming couplet, ‘‘When Adam delved andEve span / Who was then a gentleman?’’ therebels crossed London Bridge and enteredthe city on 13 June. After breaking open Fleet

and Newgate Prisons, destroying legal re-cords at the Temple, and burning SavoyPalace, the London residence of Richard’sunpopular uncle, JOHN OF GAUNT, duke ofLancaster, the rebels met the king at Green-wich, where the talks, which Richard con-ducted from his barge, came to naught.

On 14 June, after a night of riotous dis-order in the city, the fourteen-year-old kingmet with the Essex rebels at Mile End, where

he agreed to their demand for the abolitionof serfdom. After receiving charters of free-dom hastily drafted by royal clerks, many ofthe Essex men returned home. However,while the Mile End meeting was occurring,Tyler and some of the Kentish rebelsstormed the Tower, where they seized andbeheaded Sudbury, Hales, and John Legge,another royal official considered responsiblefor the poll tax. On 15 June, Richard metTyler and the Kentish insurgents at Smith-

field. Greeting the king with inappropriatefamiliarity, Tyler made a series of radicaldemands that included confiscation andredistribution of Church property and abo-lition of most bishoprics and secular lord-ships. In essence, Tyler wished to erase allsocial and ecclesiastical distinctions belowthe king. When Richard responded by ask-ing why the rebels did not go home, Tylergrew angry and drew his dagger. The ac-

counts of what happened next are confusedand contradictory, but at some point themayor of London, Sir William Walworth,

who was attending the king, struck Tyler,who was then stabbed repeatedly by one ofthe king’s squires. With great presence ofmind, Richard rode toward the rebels,among whom were many ARCHERS, and

urged them to meet him at Clerkenwell, thusdrawing them away from London and giv-ing Walworth and Sir Robert KNOLLES timeto gather loyal troops, including Londonersalienated by rebel looting. By evening, Tylerhad been beheaded and order had been re-stored to the city.

Although smaller insurrections eruptedelsewhere throughout the summer, the deathof Tyler was the effective end of the uprising.On 2 July, while royal troops hunted down

rebel leaders, Richard cancelled all chartersof manumission issued on 14 June. On 15

July, John Ball was executed in St. Albans.Arrests and executions continued until Au-gust, when the king ordered their end. InNovember, Parliament granted a generalpardon to all offenders. Despite the gravethreat they had posed to the establishedorder in June, by the end of the year, mostrebels had again been reduced to serfdom.

Further Reading: Dobson, R.B., ed. The Pea-sants’ Revolt of 1381. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan,

1983; Dunn, Alastair. The Great Rising of 1381.

Charleston: Tempus Publishing, 2002; Hilton,

R. H. Bond Men Made Free: Medieval Peasant

Movements and the English Rising of 1381. New

York: Viking, 1973; Hilton, R. H., and T. H.

Ashton, eds. The English Rising of 1381. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984; Oman,

Charles. The Great Revolt of 1381. Reprint, New

York: Greenwood, 1969.

PERIGUEUX, PROCESS OF. See PROCESS

PHILIP IV, KING OF FRANCE (1268–1314)Known as le Bel, ‘‘the Fair,’’ Philip IV wasthe son of Philip III and the grandson ofLouis IX (St. Louis). During his reign, Philipexpanded the authority of the House ofCAPET within France and influenced thecourse of ecclesiastical and secular affairs

throughout Western Europe. By vigorouslyexercising his overlordship in AQUITAINE,Philip initiated the ANGLO-FRENCH WAR OF

PERIGUEUX, PROCESS OF

248



1294–1303, the first conflict between the twokingdoms since the Treaty of PARIS and aprecursor of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Philip married Jeanne of Champagne andNavarre in 1284, and succeeded his father

as king in October 1285, having become heirto the throne on the death of his olderbrother in 1276. Devoted to the memory ofhis grandfather, whose achievements hesought to emulate, Philip persuaded thepope to canonize Louis in 1297. Committedto protecting the legitimate rights of theCapetian Crown, Philip, in May 1294, con-fiscated the duchy of Aquitaine after itsduke, EDWARD I of England, refused asummons to appear at the French court.

Although the summons was precipitated bya number of clashes between French andGascon sailors (see GASCONY), the incidentswere part of a long series of jurisdictionaldisputes arising out of the king-duke’sfeudal subordination to the French Crown.Believing that Edward sought to evadeFrench overlordship, and perhaps desirousof extinguishing English rule in Aquitaine,Philip ordered his brother, Charles of Va-

lois, to invade the duchy. Settled in 1303,the war resulted in no change in the statusof Aquitaine, but had momentous con-sequences for Philip and France. It plungedFrance into war with FLANDERS, a recent allyof Edward I; embroiled Philip in a bitterquarrel with Pope Boniface VIII; and re-sulted, as part of its settlement, in a mar-riage between Philip’s daughter Isabella (seeISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND [c. 1292–1358])and Prince Edward (see EDWARD II), which

gave Philip’s PLANTAGENET grandson, ED-

WARD III, a claim to the French Crown.Although eventually settled in Philip’s

favor, the Flemish war produced a humil-iating French defeat at Courtrai in 1302. Thequarrel with Boniface began with the pope’srefusal to sanction royal TAXATION of theclergy to fund the Anglo-French war andthen evolved into a dispute regarding thenature and limits of papal jurisdiction over

secular affairs. A man of uncompromis-ing orthodoxy and rigid morality, Philipcharged the pope with heresy and im-

morality and ordered his minister, Guil-laume de Nogaret, to bring Boniface to trialbefore a Church council. After Boniface diedas a result of the violence offered him byNogaret’s men, Philip established French

dominance of the papacy by persuadingClement V, a Gascon elected pope in 1305, toabandon Rome and establish the papal courtat Avignon, thereby initiating the seventy-year period of papal history known asthe ‘‘Babylonian captivity.’’ Again allegingheresy and immorality, Philip also de-stroyed the Knights Templar, seizing theirassets in 1307 and ruthlessly suppressingthat order of crusaders in 1311.

In 1314, in another example of the king’s

stern morality, Philip threw doubt on thelegitimacy of his own grandchildren bypublicly charging two of his daughters-in-law with adultery. The scandal resultedin the imprisonment of the women andthe execution of their alleged lovers. Philip’slast years also saw formation of numerousleagues of discontented subjects protestingroyal manipulation of the coinage and thesuppression of local rights and customs.

Philip died in November 1314 in the midstof these protests, and was succeeded by theeldest of his three sons, LOUIS X. When Louisdied in 1316, his daughters were passed overin favor of his brother PHILIP V, whose owndaughters were set aside at his death in 1322in favor of his brother CHARLES IV. Charles’sdeath without male heirs in 1328 broughtthe Crown to the first VALOIS king, PHILIP VI.

Further Reading: Brown, Elizabeth A. R. The

Monarchy of Capetian France and Royal Ceremonial.

London: Variorum, 1991; Brown, Elizabeth A. R.Politics and Institutions in Capetian France. London:

Variorum, 1991; Strayer, Joseph R. The Reign of

Philip the Fair . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press, 1980.

PHILIP V, KING OF FRANCE(c. 1290–1322)Known as le Long, ‘‘the Tall,’’ Philip V wasthe second son of PHILIP IV and Jeanne of

Navarre. By ignoring the rights of his niece,the only surviving child of his elder brotherLOUIS X, Philip forced establishment of the

PHILIP V, KING OF FRANCE

249



precedent, later accepted as a rule of law,that women could not succeed to the throneof France. In 1328, this principle was ex-tended to bar males, such as EDWARD III ofEngland, from inheriting the Crown through

a woman.Philip became count of BURGUNDY in Jan-

uary 1307 upon his marriage to Jeanne,daughter of the previous count. Made countof Poitiers in 1311, Philip had his APPANAGE

enlarged by his brother in 1315. When Louisdied in June 1316, he left a four-year-olddaughter, Jeanne, whose legitimacy had beencalled into question by the alleged adultery ofher late mother, and a pregnant second wife.On 16 July, Philip secured the regency by

outmaneuvering the other candidates—hisuncle, Charles of Valois, and Jeanne’s uncle,Eudes of Burgundy. Although the queengave birth to a son, John I, on 13 November,the child died five days later.

By unknown means, Philip then induced Jeanne’s most vocal champions—Valois andPhilip’s younger brother, Charles of LaMarche—to support his accession, eventhough most of the nobility refused to attend

his coronation at Rheims on 9 January 1317.To secure his shaky hold on the throne,Philip asked an assembly of notables, sum-moned to PARIS on 2 February, to confirm hisaccession. Unable to oppose an anointedking, the assembly legitimized Philip’susurpation and swept aside Jeanne’s claimby declaring that women could not inheritthe Crown of France.

Philip proved to be a strong and popularking. He instituted a series of reforms in

national and local administration, pacifiedthe leagues of discontented subjects that haddisrupted the reign of Louis X, attempted toreform the coinage, and ended the ongoinghostilities in FLANDERS. EDWARD II of En-gland, who was married to Philip’s sisterIsabella (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND [c.1292–1358]), had avoided paying homagefor AQUITAINE to Louis X and continued todelay the ceremony after Philip’s accession.

In June 1319, Edward sent a deputation toswear homage on his behalf, but Philip

found this insufficient and threatened toretain the county of Ponthieu, an Englishpossession seized by Louis in an Anglo-French trade dispute, if Edward did notpersonally render homage. This Edward fi-

nally did at Amiens in June 1320.Philip died on 2 January 1322. Ironically,

the declaration barring women from thethrone that had confirmed Philip’s accessiondenied the Crown to his four daughters—hisonly son having died in February 1317.Philip’s younger brother, Charles of LaMarche (see CHARLES IV), succeeded to thethrone without opposition. See also SALIC

LAW OF SUCCESSION.Further Reading: Brown, Elizabeth A. R. The

Monarchy of Capetian France and Royal Ceremonial.

London: Variorum, 1991; Brown, Elizabeth A. R.

Politics and Institutions in Capetian France. London:

Variorum, 1991; Strayer, Joseph R. Reign of Philip

the Fair . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,

1980.

PHILIP VI, KING OF FRANCE (1293–1350)The son of Charles, count of Valois, and thenephew and cousin of the last four Capetian

kings of France, Philip VI was the firstFrench ruler of the House of VALOIS. In the1330s, Philip’s growing dispute with ED-

WARD III over sovereignty in the PLANTAG-

ENET fief of AQUITAINE and his attempts tothwart English ambitions in SCOTLAND led tothe outbreak of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

As a youth, Philip of Valois had little ex-pectation of ascending the throne; his uncle,PHILIP IV, had several sons and the House ofCAPET had not failed of heirs since attaining

the throne in the tenth century. However,Philip’s eldest cousin, LOUIS X, and Louis’sposthumous son, John I, both died in 1316.Louis’s brother set aside his nieces to be-come king as PHILIP V, but then died himselfin 1322, leaving his own daughters to bedisplaced by Philip IV’s last son, CHARLES

IV. On the death of his father in 1325, Philipof Valois, besides inheriting a substantialAPPANAGE comprising the counties of Valois,

Maine, and Anjou, became heir presumptiveto his childless cousin. Upon the death of

PHILIP VI, KING OF FRANCE

250



Charles IV on 1 February 1328, the Frenchnobility, ignoring a claim to the throne putforward by fifteen-year-old Edward III ofEngland, a grandson of Philip IV throughhis mother Isabella (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF

ENGLAND [c. 1292–1358]), named Philip re-gent with the understanding that he wouldbecome king if Charles’s pregnant queengave birth to a daughter, which she did on 1April. Crowned on 29 May, Philip VI, wholater proved to be a poor military leader,started his reign with a major military vic-tory, crushing, at the behest of his vassal,LOUIS DE NEVERS, count of FLANDERS, an armyof Flemish rebels at Cassel on 23 August.

Not trained for kingship, Philip had little

direct experience of government and tendedto distrust courtiers and bureaucrats, pre-ferring to govern secretively through familymembers and favored advisors. Although aserious man who worked hard at governing,Philip lacked political judgment and, as thechronicler Jean FROISSART declared, ‘‘was al-ways ready to accept advice from fools’’(Sumption, 108). The circumstances of hisaccession also left him with a more limited

authority than that exercised by his pre-decessors, who did not owe their throne tothe acquiescence of the nobility. The presenceof possible rival candidates to the throne,such as Edward III, and another descendantof Philip IV through the female line, CHARLES

THE BAD, king of Navarre, gave any dis-gruntled nobleman attractive alternatives toPhilip. Later in the reign, many members ofthe nobility of NORMANDY and northwesternFrance intrigued with Navarre, while Phil-

ip’s failure to rule in their favor on successiondisputes in Artois and BRITTANY, led ROBERT

OF ARTOIS and John de MONTFORT to allythemselves with Edward III.

Although Edward did homage to Philipfor Aquitaine on 6 June 1329, ongoing jur-isdictional disputes in the duchy strainedAnglo-French relations in the 1330s. WhilePhilip strengthened ties with Edward’s op-ponents in Scotland, the English king con-

structed an ANTI-FRENCH COALITION amongthe princes of the Low Countries and Ger-

many. On 24 May 1337, Philip, having ear-lier proclaimed the ARRIERE-BAN throughoutFrance, ordered the confiscation of Aqui-taine, thereby officially initiating the Hun-dred Years War. During the early campaigns

of the war, such as at Buirenfosse during theTHIERACHE CAMPAIGN in 1339 and at thesiege of TOURNAI in 1340, Philip frustratedhis opponent and many of his own nobles byrefusing battle. However, a new rebellion inFlanders in 1339 allowed Edward to con-struct an ANGLO-FLEMISH ALLIANCE thatprompted him to lay formal claim to theCrown of France on 6 February 1340. In

June, the English won a major naval victoryat SLUYS, and in 1341 the commencement of

the BRETON CIVIL WAR, initiated in part byPhilip’s decision to recognize his nephew,CHARLES OF BLOIS, as duke of Brittany, gaveEdward a new front against France. Despitehis acceptance of the papal-mediated Truceof MALESTROIT in 1343, Philip, like Edward,was uninterested in a negotiated settlementof the Aquitinian dispute; in 1345, theAVIGNON PEACE CONFERENCE hosted by PopeCLEMENT VI collapsed and war resumed.

During the last years of the reign, as theking grew tired and obese, the French mili-tary position deteriorated rapidly. In 1345,English victories at AUBEROCHE and BER-

GERAC cemented Plantagenet gains in Aqui-taine, and, in August 1346, a large Frencharmy personally commanded by Philip suf-fered a disastrous defeat at CRECY. In June1347, the English gained the upper hand inBrittany by capturing Blois at the Battle ofLA ROCHE-DERRIEN, and in August, a year-

long siege that Philip was powerless tobreak ended with the fall of CALAIS. By thetime the BLACK DEATH descended on Francein 1348, temporarily ending the war andclaiming the life of Philip’s queen, Jeanne ofBURGUNDY, the French war effort was indisarray. Stung by defeat at Crecy, theFrench nobility were angry and divided,while the Estates-General, convening inPARIS in late 1347, demanded significant

governmental reforms before voting newwar TAXATION. Discredited and heavily in

PHILIP VI, KING OF FRANCE

251



debt, Philip died on 22 August 1350; he wassucceeded by his son, JOHN II. See also CALAIS,SIEGE OF; ESTATES, GENERAL AND PROVINCIAL.



Capricorn Books, 1965; Sumption, Jonathan. TheHundred Years War. Vol. 1, Trial by Battle.


1999.

PHILIPPA OF HAINAULT, QUEEN OFENGLAND (c. 1314–1369)Philippa, one of four daughters of William,count of Holland and Hainault, was the wifeof EDWARD III. Although she took little directpart in English politics, her marriage to Ed-

ward significantly influenced the course ofthe HUNDRED YEARS WAR by making possiblea series of important political and personalconnections between England and the LowCountries.

Philippa met Edward, then Prince ofWales, in 1326, when he came to Hainaultwith his mother, Queen Isabella (see ISA-

BELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND [c. 1292–1358]),who was seeking allies against her estranged

husband, EDWARD II. The betrothal of Ed-ward and Philippa, which was negotiatedduring the visit, suited both the prince andhis mother—the former finding himself at-tracted to Philippa over her sisters, and thelatter obtaining, as the bride’s dowry, themen and money she needed to invade En-gland and depose her husband. The youngcouple—he was fifteen and she about thir-teen—was married in York on 30 January1328, although Philippa’s coronation did not

occur until 4 March 1330, only three monthsbefore the birth of her first child, EDWARD,the future Black Prince. Philippa eventuallybore her husband seven sons and fivedaughters, thus magnificently fulfilling thefirst duty of a medieval queen and sig-nificantly enhancing the possibilities of Ed-ward’s marriage DIPLOMACY.

Besides vital assistance in bringing abouthis early accession—Philippa’s uncle, John

of Hainault, was coleader of Isabella’s in-vasion force—the alliance with Hainaultprovided Edward III with a secure base on

France’s northeastern frontier in the 1330s.Philippa’s family connections also gave Ed-ward important continental allies, such asthe German emperor Ludwig of Bavaria andthe marquis of Juliers, both of whom joined

Edward’s ANTI-FRENCH COALITION in the late1330s. Edward was also able to make ex-tensive territorial claims on Philippa’s be-half, including to Zeeland on her brother’sdeath in 1345 and to Holland on her neph-ew’s death in the 1360s. Beyond high poli-tics, Philippa’s marriage brought many ableknights from Hainault into the Englishcamp, most notably Walter MAUNY. Philippaalso drew important nonmilitary men toEngland; both JEAN LE BEL and Jean FROIS-

SART, two of the most important chroniclersof the war in the fourteenth century, werefrom Hainault. The former came to Englandwith his patron, John of Hainault, and thelatter enjoyed the patronage of the queenherself. The unknown herald of Sir JohnCHANDOS who wrote a life of the BlackPrince was also a Hainaulter.

Philippa accompanied the king on manymilitary campaigns. She was with him in

SCOTLAND in the 1330s; in the Low Countriesfrom 1338 to 1342, when she was for a time ahostage to Edward’s debtors; at the siege ofCALAIS in 1347, when her intercession savedthe town’s leaders from execution; and atthe naval battle of WINCHELSEA in 1350,which she witnessed from the shore. Shealso shared Edward’s taste for CHIVALRY,presiding over tournaments and severaltimes attending ceremonies of the Order ofthe GARTER. A pious and compassionate

woman, Philippa also had an interest ineducation, being, for instance, patron andnamesake of Queen’s College, Oxford. Al-though her influence with the king wanedwhen her attendant, Alice Perrers, becameEdward’s mistress in the 1360s, Philippa,who was apparently not beautiful and ratherplump in later years, held her husband’saffection until her death on 15 August 1369.

Further Reading: Hardy, B. C. Philippa of

Hainault and Her Times. London, 1910; Packe,Michael. King Edward III . Ed. L. C. B. Seaman.

London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983.

PHILIPPA OF HAINAULT, QUEEN OF ENGLAND

252



PHILIP THE BOLD, DUKE OFBURGUNDY (1342–1404)By combining the French APPANAGE of BUR-

GUNDY with control of FLANDERS and variousother provinces in the Low Countries and

northern France, Philip the Bold, first VALOISduke of Burgundy, laid the foundations ofthe Burgundian state that so powerfullyshaped the course of the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR in the fifteenth century. The fourth sonof JOHN II and youngest brother of CHARLES

V, Burgundy dominated the minority gov-ernment of his nephew CHARLES VI and thuswas instrumental in initiating the politicalfeud that led eventually to the FRENCH CIVIL

WAR.

In 1356, Philip, then only fourteen, foughtbeside his father at the Battle of POITIERS,where both were captured by the English.Released with the king after the conclusionof the Treaty of BRETIGNY in 1360, Philip wascreated duke of Touraine, a title that hesurrendered in 1363 when his father madehim duke of Burgundy and premier peer ofthe realm. Charles V confirmed his brother’stitles in 1364 when he made Burgundy the

key figure in his plan to forestall the creationof a powerful English appanage in Flandersand the Low Countries. Charles persuadedthe pope to forbid a proposed marriagebetween EDMUND OF LANGLEY, earl of Cam-bridge and son of EDWARD III, and MAR-

GUERITE, daughter and heir of LOUIS DE MALE,count of Flanders. In York’s stead, Charlesoffered Burgundy, who, after two years ofAnglo-Flemish negotiations, married Mar-guerite in 1369. Although Burgundy signed

a secret undertaking to return, upon his as-sumption of power in Flanders, the terri-tories demanded of the Crown by Louis deMale in the marriage treaty, Burgundy alsopromised his father-in-law that he wouldnever do so, and thus retained all uponLouis’s death.

In the 1380s, Burgundy significantly ex-panded his territorial holdings in the LowCountries and northeastern France. In 1382,

on the death of his wife’s grandmother—adaughter of PHILIP V—Burgundy gainedcontrol of Artois and Franche-Comte; in

1384, upon the death of his father-in-law, hebecame count of Flanders; and in 1390, heand his wife became coheirs to the duchy ofBrabant. In 1385, he made possible theeventual incorporation of Holland, Zeeland,

and Hainault into the Burgundian state bymarrying two of his children into the Wit-telsbach family.

Upon the accession of eleven-year-oldCharles VI in 1380, Burgundy led the op-position to establishment of a regency underhis eldest surviving brother, LOUIS, DUKE OF

ANJOU, and thus came himself to dominatethe royal government, which he did nothesitate to employ in his own interests. In1382, he used his control of the council to

authorize French intervention in Flanders,which had been in rebellion against Bur-gundy’s father-in-law since 1379. A royalarmy defeated the rebels and killed theirpro-English leader, Philip van ARTEVELDE, atRoosebeke in November. In 1388, Burgundysecured the services of another royal armyto aid him in his quarrel with the duke ofGuelders, and both Burgundy and hisbrother, JOHN, DUKE OF BERRY, drew liberally

upon the royal revenues to support variousof their personal projects.In 1388, the MARMOUSETS, a group of for-

mer servants of Charles V who sought toend the uncles’ exploitation of the Crown’sresources, convinced the king to dismissBurgundy and Berry. Supported by the king’sbrother, LOUIS, DUKE OF ORLEANS, who re-sented his exclusion from power under theuncles, the Marmousets governed until Au-gust 1392, when the onset of Charles’s

mental illness allowed Burgundy to resumecontrol of the royal administration. Althoughincreasingly challenged at court by Orleans,who became a formidable rival after 1400,Burgundy continued to exercise significantinfluence until his death on 27 April 1404,when his title, lands, and political standingwere inherited by his eldest son, JOHN THE

FEARLESS, count of Nevers.Further Reading: Palmer, J. J. N. England,

France, and Christendom, 1377–99. Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina Press, 1972;

Vaughan, Richard. Philip the Bold: The Formation

PHILIP THE BOLD, DUKE OF BURGUNDY

253



of the Burgundian State. Woodbridge, England:

Boydell Press, 2002.

PHILIP THE GOOD, DUKE OFBURGUNDY (1396–1467)

As the greatest nobleman of France and thedominant prince of the Low Countries, Philipthe Good, the third VALOIS duke of BUR-

GUNDY, played a major role in the Lancastrianphase of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR. DuringPhilip’s 47-year reign, the principality ofBurgundy achieved effective autonomy andreached the height of its power, prestige,and prosperity. During the last decades ofthe Anglo-French war, Philip exploited theFrench Crown’s weakness and the En-

glish Crown’s need for military supportto strengthen and enlarge the Burgundianstate.

The son of JOHN THE FEARLESS, the leaderof the BURGUNDIAN faction during theFRENCH CIVIL WAR, Philip succeeded his fa-ther as duke of Burgundy and count ofFLANDERS in September 1419, when John wasmurdered by ARMAGNAC partisans of thedauphin at the MONTEREAU CONFERENCE.

Convinced of the dauphin’s complicity inthe murder, Philip abandoned all attemptsto make peace and instead allied himselfwith HENRY V through the 1420 Treaty ofTROYES. Although the treaty made Henryheir to CHARLES VI and regent of France, theANGLO-BURGUNDIAN ALLIANCE it created al-lowed Philip to consolidate his holdings inFrance and expand his territories in the LowCountries. In April 1423, Burgundy signedthe Treaty of AMIENS, a tripartite alliance

with JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD, who was nowregent in France for his infant nephewHENRY VI, and JOHN V, duke of BRITTANY.Sealed by Bedford’s marriage to Burgundy’ssister ANNE, the treaty confirmed the signa-tories’ acceptance of Henry’s right to theFrench throne. However, the tenuous natureof Burgundy’s commitment to the House ofLANCASTER was demonstrated by the secretagreement he immediately signed with

Brittany whereby the dukes agreed to re-main allies should either one choose to rec-oncile with the dauphin.

In the 1420s, Burgundy provided onlyminimal military assistance to the Lancas-trian war effort, preferring to focus his ef-forts on transforming Burgundy from aFrench APPANAGE to an independent state.

By the early 1440s, Burgundy, who was askilled diplomat and clever politician, haddoubled his holdings, acquiring, throughconquest or marriage, the provinces ofNamur, Brabant, Luxembourg, Holland,Zeeland, and Hainault. In 1424–25, Bur-gundy’s interest in the latter three provinceswas challenged by HUMPHREY, DUKE OF

GLOUCESTER, younger uncle of Henry VI.Gloucester’s marriage to Jacqueline, coun-tess of Holland, Zeeland, and Hainault, who

had fled to England to escape the husbandBurgundy had chosen for her, led thecouple to invade Hainault, where clasheswith Burgundian forces nearly wrecked theAnglo-Burgundian connection. Only Bed-ford’s intervention and Gloucester’s sub-sequent abandonment of his wife’s causesaved the alliance. In May 1430, shortly afterhis forces captured her at Compiegne, Bur-gundy visited JOAN OF ARC in the tent where

she was being held. Several months later, theduke handed her over to the English, whoexecuted her in 1431.

When Anne, duchess of Bedford, died in1432, the loss of her personal mediationcaused relations between Philip and Bedfordto deteriorate. By 1435, Burgundy had cometo believe that he could exercise more in-fluence over the weak and indolent dau-phin, now king as CHARLES VII, than hecould over the strong-willed Bedford. Al-

though the duke despised Charles, growingdissatisfaction in PARIS with the Anglo-Bur-gundian regime threatened to weaken theduke’s popularity there, and led him to ex-plore the possibility of a reconciliation. InSeptember, at the Congress of ARRAS, Bur-gundy made peace with Charles, whoagreed to exempt the duke from payinghomage for his French fiefs for his lifetime,to confirm all territorial concessions made to

Burgundy by the English, and to send a rep-resentative to make humble apology on theking’s behalf for the murder at Montereau.

PHILIP THE GOOD, DUKE OF BURGUNDY

254



Although the agreement humiliated Charles,it allowed him to retake Paris, reform hisarmy and administration, and eventuallyexpel the English (see CHARLES VII, MILITARY

REFORMS OF).

Burgundy played no role in the last cam-paigns of the Hundred Years War, andinstead tried unsuccessfully to convinceEmperor Frederick III to recognize him asking of an independent Burgundian state.By 1453, Burgundy faced a revived Valoismonarchy no longer menaced by the En-glish. In 1456, Burgundy gave asylum toCharles’s rebellious son, the dauphin, Louis,but the duke’s influence in Paris wanedand his principality remained essentially a

Franco-Imperial appanage that lacked thecohesion to long survive the growing powerof France. The model of late medieval CHI-

VALRY, Burgundy instituted the Order of theGolden Fleece in 1430 and established anelaborate court ceremonial that was even-tually copied by many European rulers, in-cluding Edward IV of England. Philip diedon 15 June 1467 and was succeeded by hisson Charles the Bold, whose death in battle

without male heirs in 1477 saw much ofFrench Burgundy eventually reabsorbed bythe Valois monarchy.

Further Reading: Cartellieri, Otto. The Court of

Burgundy: Studies in the History of Civilization.

New York: Askell House, 1970; Vaughan, Ri-

chard. Philip the Good: The Apogee of Burgundy.

Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press, 2002.

PLANTAGENET, HOUSE OFThe name ‘‘Plantagenet’’ has been used by

historians since the seventeenth century torefer to the English royal family that des-cended from Henry II (r. 1154–89), and thatruled England from 1154 to 1485. The Plan-tagenets were a French dynasty descendedfrom the counts of Anjou and the dukes ofNORMANDY. During the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR, five Plantagenet kings—EDWARD III,RICHARD II, HENRY IV, HENRY V, and HENRY

VI, the last three from the Lancastrian

branch of the family—contended with theHouse of VALOIS for control of westernFrance and possession of the French Crown.

The word ‘‘Plantagenet’’ originated as anickname for Henry II’s father, Geoffrey,Count of Anjou (d. 1151). Although the exactmeaning of the name is unknown, it wassuggested in the nineteenth century that it

derived from Geoffrey’s habit of wearing asprig of broom (Planta genista) in his helm orcap. Other less widely accepted explanationsclaim that Geoffrey had a fondness forhunting among the broom or that Geoffreyplanted broom as cover to improve hishunting. The name Plantagenet was neverused by Henry II or his successors or appliedto them by contemporaries; it was firstadopted as a surname in the late 1440s byRICHARD, DUKE OF YORK, head of the Yorkist

branch of the family, who probably assumedit to emphasize his direct descent from HenryII and so illustrate the superiority of his claimto the Crown over that of his political rivals.

In the mid-twelfth century, Henry II wonthe English Crown and inherited or other-wise acquired most of western France.Through his mother, the daughter of Henry Iand granddaughter of William the Con-queror, he became king of England in 1154.

Through his father, he received Normandyas a grant in 1150 and Anjou as an inheritancein 1151; through his marriage to Eleanor ofAQUITAINE, he acquired that duchy in 1152;and through his son’s marriage to thedaughter of the deposed duke of BRITTANY,he acquired control of that duchy in 1166.Although technically a vassal of the Houseof CAPET, Henry in practice exercised a lar-gely independent authority throughout hisFrench domains. In 1204, Henry’s son John

lost most of these territories to Philip II Au-gustus of France. By the 1220s, only a portionof Aquitaine, the coastal region of GASCONY

around BORDEAUX, remained under Plantag-enet control. In 1259, John’s son, Henry III,concluded the Treaty of PARIS with Philip’sgrandson, Louis IX (St. Louis), agreeing torenounce his claims to the lost provinces inreturn for formal recognition as duke of anenlarged Aquitaine. By making the king of

England a vassal of the king of France, afeudal relationship that later Plantagenetkings found incompatible with their status as

PLANTAGENET, HOUSE OF

255



a sovereign monarch, the treaty initiated thelong dispute over Aquitaine that in large partled to the Hundred Years War.

Henry III’s son, EDWARD I, fought a warwith France over the issue in the 1290s (see

ANGLO-FRENCH WAR OF 1293–1303) and Ed-ward’s son, EDWARD II, fought another in the1320s (see SAINT-SARDOS, WAR OF). Edward III,a grandson of PHILIP IV through his motherIsabella (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND [c.1292–1358]), added a new dimension to thedispute by claiming the French Crown, anaction that promised an end to the quarrelover Aquitaine by making Edward his ownoverlord. He was unable to remove the Va-lois from the throne; however, in 1360, thanks

to victories at CRECY and POITIERS, Edwardwon full sovereignty over an enlargedAquitaine through the Treaty of BRETIGNY.The Valois regained most of this territoryunder CHARLES V, but then nearly lost thewhole kingdom to Edward’s great-grandson,Henry V, who in 1420 won recognition as heirto the French throne through the Treaty ofTROYES. Henry’s premature death and amilitary resurgence under CHARLES VII per-

mitted the Valois to finally expel the Plantag-enets from France in 1453.In the later 1450s, the dynasty was torn

apart by a succession dispute between theLancastrian and Yorkist branches of the fam-ily. Henry VI, third king of the House ofLANCASTER, held the throne in the 1450s be-cause his grandfather, Henry IV, had de-posed his cousin Richard II in 1399, therebybreaking the natural line of succession. Theresulting civil war, known as the Wars of the

Roses, ended in 1485, when the last Plantag-enet king, Richard III, was defeated andkilled by Henry VII, first king of the Houseof Tudor.

Further Reading: Fowler, Kenneth. The Age of

Plantagenet and Valois: The Struggle for Supremacy,

1328–1498. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1967;

Harvey, John. The Plantagenets. 3rd ed. London:

Severn House, 1976.

POITIERS, BATTLE OF (1356)Fought on 19 September 1356 near Poitiers,the capital of the southwestern county of

Poitou, the Battle of Poitiers, like the battlesof CRECY and AGINCOURT, was an unexpectedEnglish victory that had devastating con-sequences for France. By concluding with thecapture of JOHN II, the battle thrust France

into a period of severe political and socialupheaval that threatened the continuance ofVALOIS rule and led eventually to the Treatyof BRETIGNY and French acceptance of PLAN-

TAGENET sovereignty in AQUITAINE.To follow up his successful CHEVAUCHE E

OF 1355, which had severely damaged theeconomy of southern France, EDWARD, THE

BLACK PRINCE, prepared in early 1356 foranother raid in force from GASCONY, this timenorthward toward the Loire Valley. In June,

HENRY OF GROSMONT, duke of Lancaster,landed in NORMANDY, where he led a CHE-

VAUCHE E designed to draw French attentionaway from the prince’s campaign, and torelieve pressure on the partisans of CHARLES

THE BAD, king of Navarre, a potential Englishally recently imprisoned by John. AlthoughLancaster avoided battle, his activities held

John in the north, while the prince, afterleaving BERGERAC on 4 August, marched

northeast through central France. Leading anAnglo-Gascon force of about six thousand,the prince reached Tours on 7 September. On11 September, after an unsuccessful assaulton the town, the prince learned that John hadcrossed the Loire at the head of a large armyand was now only ten miles from the En-glish. Fearful of being caught between theroyal army and the recently strengthenedgarrison of Tours, the prince withdrew im-mediately toward BORDEAUX.

By 17 September, the French army, whichcontained about eleven thousand men, hadpassed west of the English line of march andwas in position to block any retreat intoGascony. On 18 September, the prince tookup a strong defensive position on a hillabout five miles southeast of Poitiers nearthe village of Nouaille. That night, papalagents, whom the prince suspected of beingpro-French, attempted to negotiate a truce.

Exhausted, outnumbered, and short of sup-plies, the English were not eager to fight, butthe French king, sensing his enemy’s weak-

POITIERS, BATTLE OF

256



ness, was unwilling to make anyconcessions that the prince couldaccept, and talks collapsed nextmorning.

The prince deployed his men in

one line, with Thomas BEAUCHAMP,earl of Warwick, holding the left;William Montagu, earl of Salis-bury; the right; and the princehimself in command of the center.About four hundred of the prince’stwo thousand ARCHERS acted as areserve. Protected by hills, vines,and hedges, the English were dif-ficult to reach, and Jean de Cler-mont, one of the French marshals,

proposed that the French not attackuntil hunger and thirst forced theprince to abandon his preparedposition, although this suggestionwas derided as cowardice. How-ever, because of the difficult ter-rain, the French, perhaps at thesuggestion of William Douglas,Lord Douglas, leader of a sizableScottish contingent, decided to

abandon their centuries-old tradi-tion of fighting from horseback. Asa result, the entire army dis-mounted except for a force of aboutfive hundred heavily armoredknights, who were placed in frontof the three parallel battle lines intowhich John divided his army. Thefirst line was commanded by thedauphin (see CHARLES V) and Doug-las; the second by the king’s brother, Philip,

duke of Orleans; and the third, consisting oftwo thousand picked men, by the kinghimself.

Realizing the seriousness of their situa-tion, the prince and his commanders decid-ed to begin a retreat while maintaining lineof battle. When Clermont and Arnould’AUDREHEM, the French marshals in com-mand of the cavalry, noticed movement onthe English left, they launched immediate

assaults on the archers holding each wing ofthe enemy force. Although English arrowsproved relatively ineffective against the

heavily armored horses, both attacks failed

because the difficult ground caused thehorsemen to bunch up, thus blunting theforce of their charge and exposing theirmore vulnerable flanks to the archers. Thefirst French battle line followed the cavalry,suffering casualties from archer fire when itpushed through gaps in the hedgerow butotherwise reaching the English line in goodorder. After two hours of desperate hand-to-hand combat, the French retreated. Likely

acting on the king’s orders, the dauphin’sknights escorted him from the field.Upon seeing his nephew withdraw, Orleans,

John II surrenders to the English to end the Battle of Poitiers,

1356. Giraudon/Art Resource, New York.

POITIERS, BATTLE OF

257



perhaps thinking a general retreat hadbegun, also withdrew, taking the secondFrench division with him. Left alone to facean English army that now outnumberedhim, John attacked with the third division.

Because of the unusual length of the battleand the prince’s strict orders against break-ing formation, the English archers were nowalmost out of arrows, allowing John’s men toreach the English line with few casualties.

Although the French were fresh, whiletheir opponents had been fighting for threehours, English morale was high. As the ar-chers abandoned their longbows to fall uponthe enemy with swords and knives, Jean deGRAILLY, the captal de Buch, led a mounted

force of sixty men-at-arms and a hundredarchers around the French army. Raising thestandard of St. George as a signal, the captalattacked the French rear, thereby causingsufficient confusion to allow the prince toremount some of his knights and send asecond cavalry charge led by Sir JamesAUDLEY crashing into the French front. Thedismounted French line broke into smallgroups, with many men being shot down by

English archers as they tried to flee the field.As John fought bravely on, the battle de-generated into an unseemly scramble forprisoners and RANSOMs. Some men werecaptured several times when their originalcaptors, upon claiming a token of surrender,ran off to find other prisoners. When Johnand his son, PHILIP THE BOLD, eventuallysubmitted, they were roughly handled by acrowd of men eager for a share of the royalransom. The king was eventually rescued by

Warwick, who conveyed him to the prince.Because his men were more experienced

at fighting on foot and his commandersbetter able to control the movements of theirmen, the prince had won a brilliant triumph.The English took about three thousandprisoners, including, besides the king andhis son, Audrehem; Jean, count of Eu; thearchbishop of Sens, and most of John’s po-litical and military advisors. The eventual

ransoms were enormous. Not including John’s ransom, the prisoners taken at Poi-tiers are estimated to have enriched their

captors by almost £300,000, over three timeswhat the English had spent on the previousyear’s campaign. Most of the importantprisoners were bought by the prince andEDWARD III, with the captal de Buch receiving

almost £5,000 for one of his captives. Amongthe twenty-five hundred French dead wereClermont; Pierre, duke of Bourbon; andGeoffrey de Charny, who had borne the OR-

IFLAMME. In England, the sheer magnitude ofthe victory seemed a clear sign that God fa-vored the Plantagenet cause, while in France,the shock of defeat bred social anarchy andpolitical revolution, and made an eventualsettlement on terms favorable to the Englishseem almost inevitable.



Scribner’s Sons, 1978; Burne, Alfred H. The Cre cy


1999; Hewitt, Herbert J. The Black Prince’s Expedi-

tions of 1355–1357 . Manchester: Manchester Uni-

versity Press, 1958; Sumption, Jonathan. The



POLE, MICHAEL DE LA, EARL OFSUFFOLK. See RICHARD II

POLE, SIR WILLIAM DE LA (d. 1366)William de la Pole, a Yorkshire merchantand moneylender, rose to prominence byfinancing the military campaigns of EDWARD

III. Pole’s financial activities during theHUNDRED YEARS WAR led to perpetuation ofa royal tax on wool exports and to the dis-placement of free trade in wool by large

merchant monopolies.Between 1327 and 1330, William and his

brother Richard (d. 1345), wine merchants inthe Yorkshire port of Kingston upon Hull,loaned the king over £13,000. The brothersfinanced these loans by borrowing fromother merchants who were unwilling to lendto the king directly, but who trusted thePoles. During the early 1330s, while servingas mayor of Kingston upon Hull, William

used the profits of his highly successfulwool trade to provide loans and buy armsfor Edward’s campaigns in SCOTLAND. In

POLE, MICHAEL DE LA, EARL OF SUFFOLK

258



1337, Pole devised a scheme for funding theFrench war with wool exports. With LONDON

merchant Reginald Conduit, Pole headed asyndicate that was given a monopoly onEnglish wool exports and the power to re-

quire wool growers to sell on credit. Thesyndicate planned to ship thirty thousandsacks of wool each year to Dordrecht in theLow Countries and to advance the Crown£200,000 on the sale of the wool. When someof Pole’s associates abused their power ofcompulsory purchase and smuggled someof the wool on their own account, royal of-ficials, in dire need of funds to pay the king’sallies, collapsed the scheme by confiscatingthe wool already collected in Dordrecht. The

Crown issued the so-called DORDRECHT

BONDS to the syndicate, which then agreedthat the government should dispose of thewool as it saw fit, but the failure of the planleft the Crown impoverished and severelyhampered the English war effort.

In 1338 and 1339, Pole, acting alone, loanedthe king over £100,000, and was rewardedwith reluctant sales of royal estates and ele-vation to the rank of banneret. Angered by

the failure of the wool syndicate and byPole’s success at obtaining repayment, Ed-ward ordered Pole’s arrest on 30 November1340. Charged with smuggling wool andpunished with confiscation of his property— particularly the former royal estates—Polewas released in May 1342 when the kingagain had need of his services. In 1343, Poleorganized a new company that was givencontrol of the royal customs, which it used assecurity to raise new loans for the Crown.

Pole withdrew from the company in 1345,but his successors financed the CRECY cam-paign and the siege of CALAIS before goingbankrupt in the economic downturn thatfollowed the BLACK DEATH in 1348–49.

Although Pole avoided any responsibilityfor the company’s debts, the extended per-iod of truce in the early 1350s (see CALAIS,TRUCE OF) improved the king’s finances andallowed him to renew the charge of smug-

gling against Pole, who only escaped com-plete ruin by forgiving all outstanding royaldebts and renouncing all claims to lands

purchased from the Crown. Pole was thusstill a wealthy man when he died on 21 June1366. Thanks to Pole’s financial services tothe Crown, his family entered the Englishpeerage, his son Michael de la Pole becom-

ing earl of Suffolk in 1385, his great-grand-son William de la POLE, duke of Suffolk,serving as Henry VI’s chief minister in the1440s, and his great-great-great-grandson

John de la Pole, earl of Lincoln, being rec-ognized as heir to the throne in 1485. See alsoCRISIS OF 1340–41.

Further Reading: Fryde, E. B. William de la Pole,

Merchant and King’s Banker . London: Hambledon

and London, 2003; Horrox, Rosemary. The de la

Poles of Hull. Beverley, England: East Yorkshire

Local History Society, 1983.

POLE, WILLIAM DE LA, DUKE OFSUFFOLK (1396–1450)William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk, was oneof the English commanders at the siege ofORLEANS in 1429 and chief minister of HENRY

VI in the 1440s. In the latter capacity, Suffolkwas responsible for implementing the king’sunpopular peace policy and, through the

rapacity of his faction, for the royal financialdifficulties that made peace with Francenecessary.

William was the great-grandson of Wil-liam de la POLE, the Hull merchant who fi-nanced EDWARD III’s early campaigns. Hisfather, Michael de la Pole, the second earl ofSuffolk, died at the siege of HARFLEUR inSeptember 1415, and his elder brother, Mi-chael, the third earl, was killed some weekslater at AGINCOURT, making William the

fourth earl of Suffolk. The earl went toFrance in 1417, serving with HUMPHREY,DUKE OF GLOUCESTER, in NORMANDY and withHENRY V at the siege of ROUEN. In May 1419,Suffolk was appointed admiral of Nor-mandy, his first significant command, and in1420 he joined the king at the siege ofMELUN. The earl became a member of theOrder of the GARTER in 1421. After the king’sdeath in 1422, Suffolk became one of the

chief noble lieutenants of the regent, JOHN,DUKE OF BEDFORD, and compiled a compe-tent, if not distinguished record, serving

POLE, WILLIAM DE LA, DUKE OF SUFFOLK

259



frequently under such veteran commandersas Thomas, MONTAGU, earl of Salisbury, andRichard BEAUCHAMP, earl of Warwick.

In October 1428, upon the death of Salis-bury, Suffolk assumed leadership of the

English forces besieging Orleans; however,in December, overall command of the siegewent to John TALBOT. When the French under

JOAN OF ARC and John, the Bastard of Orleans(see JOHN, COUNT OF DUNOIS AND LONG-

UEVILLE), lifted the siege in May 1429, Suffolkwithdrew to Jargeau with part of the Englisharmy. On 12 June, during the French LOIRE

CAMPAIGN, Suffolk surrendered Jargeau andwas taken prisoner; forced to sell land tomeet his RANSOM, the earl was released in the

spring of 1430. In the following autumn, hemarried Alice Chaucer, the widowed coun-tess of Salisbury, who was a kinswoman ofCardinal Henry BEAUFORT, a leading memberof the regency council, and the grand-daughter of the poet Geoffrey Chaucer.

In about 1433, Suffolk left France to pursuea political career in England. As a protege ofBeaufort, he supported the conclusion ofpeace with France, a policy that put him at

odds with Gloucester, who led the warparty. By the early 1440s, Suffolk had es-tablished himself as leader of a group ofyounger courtiers who exercised increasinginfluence over Henry VI. In 1444, Suffolknegotiated the Truce of TOURS with CHARLES

VII and arranged Henry’s marriage to theFrench king’s kinswoman, MARGARET OF

ANJOU, who became the earl’s politicalally after her coronation in 1445. The deathsof Gloucester and Beaufort in 1447 left

Suffolk in control of the royal governmentand brought him a series of important of-fices and promotions, including appoint-ments as lord admiral (1447) and governorof CALAIS (1448) and elevation to a dukedom(1448).

Although Suffolk and his supportersmade enemies by using their influence withthe king to enrich themselves and excludeothers from power, it was military defeat

that toppled the duke’s administration. In1448, the government ceded Maine to the

French; although the highly unpopular sur-render was the king’s idea, it was Suffolk, aschief minister, who was blamed (see MAINE,SURRENDER OF). In 1449, the ill-consideredEnglish seizure of FOUGERES in BRITTANY

provoked a French attack on Normandy,which, after a weak defense by Suffolk’sprotege, Edmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somer-set, fell in 1450 (see NORMAN CAMPAIGN [1449– 1450]). The loss of Normandy created apublic outcry against Suffolk, who was im-peached by PARLIAMENT in February 1450.The Commons charged the duke with cor-ruption, extortion, and treason, alleging thathe had used diplomatic missions to France asopportunities to plot Henry’s overthrow. On

17 March, the king intervened, dismissingthe treason charge but declaring Suffolk’sguilt on the others and ordering him ban-ished for five years. Suffolk took ship for theLow Countries on 30 April, but was inter-cepted by an English privateer, the Nicholas of the Tower , which was probably acting on or-ders of his political enemies, particularly RI-

CHARD, DUKE OF YORK, who blamed Suffolkfor their exclusion from office. Suffolk was

beheaded by his captors on 2 May, and hisbody was thrown ashore at Dover.Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A. The Reign


nia Press, 1981; Harriss, G. L. Cardinal Beaufort: A

Study of Lancastrian Ascendancy and Decline.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988; Watts, John.

Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1996; Wolffe, Ber-

tram. Henry VI. London: Eyre Methuen, 1981.

PONTOISE, PEACE OF. See FRENCH CIVIL

WAR

PONTOISE, SIEGE OF (1441)Situated on the Oise about twenty milesnorthwest of PARIS along the main road fromROUEN, the town and bridge of Pontoise of-fered the nearest river crossing and mostdirect northern approach to the capital. Theultimate success of the French siege of Pon-

toise, which ran intermittently from June toSeptember 1441, freed Paris from the threat

PONTOISE, PEACE OF

260



of English assault, opened NORMANDY to thethreat of French assault, and demonstratedthe growing importance of ARTILLERY in SIEGE

WARFARE.Following the termination of the ANGLO-

BURGUNDIAN ALLIANCE at the Congress ofARRAS in 1435, Pontoise reverted to its VA-

LOIS allegiance, forcing John TALBOT to re-capture the town by stealth on 13 February1437. A group of Talbot’s soldiers enteredPontoise from the south disguised as pea-sants, while a scaling party, dressed in whiteto blend into the snowy landscape, ap-proached the walls from the north. At theappointed time, the former opened the gatesto Talbot, while the latter swarmed over the

walls, thus capturing the town before thegarrison could strike a blow.

CHARLES VII’s recapture of Pontoise in1441 was a much longer and more difficultundertaking, with a French historian laterdescribing the campaign as ‘‘a veritablesiege of Troy’’ (Burne, 293). The French in-vested the city on 6 June with a force ofabout five thousand commanded by Con-stable Arthur de Richemont (see ARTHUR III)

and including such leading French captainsas Etienne de VIGNOLLES (‘‘LA HIRE’’) andPoton de XAINTRAILLES. Unable to approachthe city until the English had been clearedfrom the bridge, the French brought up theirartillery, which, under the skillful directionof Jean BUREAU, weakened the barbican sothat it could be carried by storm. Bureau’sguns were then transported across the river,where they began bombarding the town. Onabout 16 June, as Talbot approached with a

small relief force, the constable, acting onorders from the king, who was travelingwith the army, reluctantly withdrew be-hind his defenses, thus allowing Talbot toresupply the garrison before drawing off. Ashort time later, Talbot reappeared with anew supply train, which he again carriedinto Pontoise without hindrance from theFrench.

Heartened by the French king’s unwill-

ingness to give battle, an English army ofperhaps three thousand, this time com-

manded by RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK, theLancastrian lieutenant in France, approachedPontoise in mid-July. After a complicatedtwo-week campaign during which theFrench crossed and recrossed various rivers

to escape York, the siege was broken andCharles, having narrowly avoided capture,was back in Paris. Although he had relievedPontoise, York was desperately short ofsupplies and could not remain in the field; bymid-August, he was back in Rouen. Charles,perhaps stung by whispered charges ofcowardice arising from his tortuous effortsto avoid battle, ordered the reinvestment ofPontoise, which was again under bombard-ment by 16 August, when Talbot tried again

to resupply the garrison. This time, the con-stable advanced against him, forcing Talbotto wheel around the northern flank andpunch through the French siege lines wherethey had earlier been weakened to meet theEnglish advance. Although Talbot resuppliedthe garrison again on 6 September, Bureau’sguns continued battering the walls. By 16September, the French had taken most of thesuburbs, and, on 19 September, a simulta-

neous assault at various points along theweakened wall forced the capitulation of thegarrison. About five hundred English sol-diers were slain in the fighting, while John,Lord Clinton, the garrison commander, wasput to RANSOM with most of his officers.



Ltd., 1999.

PONTVALLAIN, BATTLE OF. See GUE-

SCLIN, BERTRAND DU; KNOLLES, SIR ROBERT

PRAGUERIE. See CHARLES VII

PROCESS‘‘Process’’ is the term used for a series ofAnglo-French commissions that met in theearly fourteenth century to discuss and set-tle the many disputes arising between thetwo Crowns over the duchy of AQUITAINE.

By failing to resolve the fundamental issueof sovereignty in Aquitaine, these processes

PROCESS

261



contributed to the coming of the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR.In 1259, the Treaty of PARIS created a

feudal relationship between the kings ofFrance and England, making the latter vas-

sals of the former by recognizing the Englishmonarch’s possession of Aquitaine. There-after, successive English rulers, accustomedto exercising unfettered authority in theirown kingdom, grew increasingly unwillingto accept their feudal subordination to theking of France in their continental posses-sions, especially since French monarchsmade frequent use of their overlordship tointerfere in their vassal’s administration ofhis own duchy. Both sides had cause for

complaint. French royal officials often ig-nored the king-duke’s jurisdiction, usurpedthe authority of his officers, and encouragedhis Gascon subjects to appeal against hispolicies to PARIS. English administratorsoften hindered French officials in the per-formance of their legitimate duties and for-cibly prevented Gascons from appealing theking-duke’s decisions.

In June 1303, the ANGLO-FRENCH WAR OF

1294–1303, which had proved financiallyruinous for both Crowns, was officiallyended with the restoration of Aquitaine toPLANTAGENET control. Three years later, inan effort to avoid another war, PHILIP IV andEDWARD II finally put into practice a princi-ple first enunciated in a 1285 statute of theWestminster PARLIAMENT, which called forcreation of ad hoc Anglo-French commis-sions empowered to adjudicate disputesarising over local rights and duties not for-

mally falling under the appellate jurisdictionof the French Crown. The first such com-mission, the Process of Montreuil, met from1306 to 1311; the second, the Process ofPerigueux, from 1311 to 1316. Both bodieshad a sizable Gascon membership, and bothmainly discussed compensation issues aris-ing from property confiscated or other lossessuffered during the late war. Neither con-ference led to a settlement largely because

the French viewed the process as a lawsuitbetween unequals. With the French Crownacting as both accuser and judge, the English

came to believe that the real French policywas not amicable settlement, but the ulti-mate extinction of the king-duke’s authorityin Aquitaine through a slow but incessantprocess of administrative encroachment.

Further war was avoided until 1323 be-cause Philip IV and his two elder sons, LOUIS

X and PHILIP V, were too distracted by dis-content in France and turmoil in FLANDERS tocontemplate a new conflict with Edward II.However, CHARLES IV took a harder line to-ward Aquitaine, and the so-called War ofSAINT-SARDOS (1323–25) resulted in anotherconfiscation of the duchy, which lasted until1329, when both thrones had new occu-pants—PHILIP VI in France and EDWARD III

in England. To settle compensation issuesarising from the new war, the kings createdthe Process of Agen, which sat from 1331 to1334 and was no more successful than itspredecessors. Three years after this thirdprocess collapsed in mutual recrimination,Philip again confiscated Aquitaine, thus in-itiating the Hundred Years War. See alsoGASCONY.

Further Reading: Cuttino, G. C. ‘‘The Process

of Agen.’’ Speculum 19 (1944): 161–78; Vale,Malcolm. The Origins of the Hundred Years War .

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000.

PROPAGANDA AND WAR PUBLICITYBecause of its length, cost, and consequencesto civilian populations, the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR required that royal governments man-age the expectations and secure the supportof their people. Although the term ‘‘propa-ganda’’ did not come into use until the

nineteenth century, it aptly describes thevariety of activities in which the VALOIS andPLANTAGENET monarchies engaged to pro-mote the involvement of their subjects in theongoing war.

At the highest level, kings in both coun-tries called upon scholars and legal expertsto marshal evidence and devise argumentsupholding the positions of each royal house.Although the resulting tracts and treatises

were legalistic and pedantic works of Latinscholarship meant only for a learned andlimited audience, they provided broad un-

PROPAGANDA AND WAR PUBLICITY

262



derpinnings for the royal claims upon whichthe war was being fought. Based on appealsto history, or at least to a particular view ofhistory, these documents justified the waron legal and moral grounds. In England,

such works carefully laid out the Plantag-enet and Lancastrian claims to the FrenchCrown, and, in France, they refuted English(and later Burgundian) claims by attemptingto prove that the Valois were the true des-cendants of the Frankish kings.

Simpler messages were used to appeal tothe uneducated and unsophisticated, whoneeded to be made aware of war events,particularly military successes. In 1346,Londoners organized processions celebrat-

ing EDWARD III’s victory at CRECY andwitnessed DAVID I I of SCOTLAND, recentlycaptured at NEVILLE’S CROSS, being paradedthrough the streets to the Tower. In May1357, even grander celebrations welcomedEDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, as he entered thecapital accompanied by his royal prisoner,

JOHN II. In October 1416, on the first anni-versary of AGINCOURT, HENRY V orderedpublic commemorations of that battle, and,

in 1450, CHARLES VII ordered the issuance ofa medal to similarly commemorate the re-cent English expulsion from NORMANDY.

Victories could also be profitably em-ployed by the Church, which was frequentlycalled upon to support the war effort by as-suring subjects that God was on their side.Nothing conferred God’s endorsement of acause like victory on the battlefield, as En-glish bishops and priests repeatedly empha-sized in sermons preached after victories like

Crecy and POITIERS. And if God fought forEngland, as seemed the case in the mid-fourteenth century, was it not then right forEnglishmen to do the same? Of course, Godcould use war to punish as well as to honor,and throughout the conflict people in bothcountries were frequently exhorted to prayfor good fortune in battle. In the Englishdiocese of Lincoln, the government requestedspecial prayers for war-related intentions on

more than fifty occasions during the war. Inan age that believed strongly in the efficacy ofprayer and in divine intervention in human

affairs, praying for the success of the nationalcause was a powerful weapon.

Beyond boosting morale and commit-ment, the Church also kept people informedof war events. In the 1420s, the English

nailed verses and illustrated genealogiestracing HENRY VI’s claim to the Frenchthrone to the doors of Norman churches,which thus served as community bulletinboards for educating illiterate parishionersabout the legitimacy of the House of LAN-

CASTER. Priests were also active agents in thedissemination of war news, reading fromthe pulpit letters and reports sent from thebattlefield by kings and commanders. News-letters from the front, such as those dis-

patched by Edward III after Crecy and theBlack Prince after NA JERA, are so plentifulfor the fourteenth century that they havebeen described as a ‘‘rudimentary publicitysystem . . . used for spreading militarynews’’ (Prince, 417), and the Church was theprimary network through which this systemoperated.

War news and information was also dis-tributed by literary writers—chroniclers,

poets, and political commentators—wholauded national heroes and denigrated theenemy. In the fourteenth century, the bal-lads of Eustache Deschamps expressed thesense of French NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS

that was growing out of the war, while, in thefifteenth century, the unknown composer ofthe ‘‘Agincourt Carol’’ captured Englishpride in Henry V. As the war progressed,the literary conventions of CHIVALRY, whichcalled for one to honor and respect a worthy

opponent, gave way to abuse, slander, andridicule of the national enemy. French wri-ters proclaimed that the English had tails,were arrogant and overbearing, and (parti-cularly after the deposition of RICHARD II)delighted in killing their kings. In the fif-teenth century, the French referred to theEnglish as ‘‘godons,’’ from ‘‘God-damn,’’ aphase in wide use among English soldiers.English writers characterized the French as

stubborn, effeminate, deceitful, and unableto see that God was against them. By thuscondemning and stereotyping the enemy,


263



propaganda literature played an importantrole in developing a sense of national con-sciousness in both countries during thecourse of the war.


Hundred Years War . Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1988; Curry, Anne. The Hundred

Years War . 2nd ed. Houndmills, England:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2003; Maddicott, J. R. ‘‘The

County Community and the Making of Public

Opinion in Fourteenth-Century England.’’ Trans-

actions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 28

(1978): 34–35, 38; Prince, A. E. ‘‘A Letter of

Edward, the Black Prince, Describing the Battle ofNajera in 1367.’’ English Historical Review 41

(1926): 415–18.


264



R RANSOM

Medieval military convention recognizedmen taken in battle as the private property oftheir captors, not as prisoners of the state.Anyone who captured another man on the

battlefield was entitled to detain his prisoneras long as he wished, to contract with him toreceive an agreed-upon ransom for his re-lease, or to mortgage or sell his ransom to theCrown or anyone else willing to pay a goodprice. During the HUNDRED YEARS WAR,prisoners were thus valuable and sought-after prizes of war, and the personal pursuitof high-ranking and wealthy captives wassometimes undertaken with greater energy

and enthusiasm than the pursuit of militaryobjectives.Although custom dictated that ransoms

should be reasonable, the actual practiceduring the Hundred Years War was to de-mand the highest possible ransom that theprisoner, when aided by friends, family, andtenants, could afford. In some instances,meeting one’s ransom required the sale ofland, which, particularly in the later stagesof the war or the most ravaged regions of the

country, did not always sell well or quickly.A noble family might thus be ruined by theneed to pay ransom, as happened to theBurgundian lord William de Chateauvillain,who turned to his landed relatives to guar-antee payment of the 20,000 saluts owedto his French captors in 1430. Sometimesprisoners had to call upon their king forassistance in paying ransom. HENRY VIcontributed 1,500 livres for the ransom of Sir

John Handford in 1444 and PHILIP VI as-sisted knights, who, having paid their ran-soms, could not afford to remount or rearm

themselves. However, kings were often sohard pressed to fund the ongoing war thatthey were unable to help men burdenedwith high ransoms. Many of the Frenchknights taken by the English in 1345 at

BERGERAC and AUBEROCHE, two early battlesthat clearly demonstrated the financial ben-efits of ransoming captives, found them-selves shunned by royal officials to whomthey applied for assistance. Other captives ofAuberoche, such as John de Galard, lord ofLimeuil, took service with the EnglishCrown in lieu of a ransom he could not pay.As the war gradually strengthened nationalfeelings in both realms, such men often

found themselves accused of treason bytheir former comrades.A few men made great fortunes out of

ransoms. HENRY OF GROSMONT, duke ofLancaster, realized almost £70,000 from theransoms of Bergerac and Auberoche, suffi-cient for him to magnificently rebuild SavoyPalace outside LONDON. Sir Walter MAUNY

grew rich on the ransoms received from aseries of noble prisoners taken in FLANDERS

and BRITTANY in the 1330s and 1340s. As the

war continued, a substantial market in ran-soms developed, driven in part by the royalpractice of buying the ransoms of high-ranking prisoners, and by the actions of menwho speculated in the purchase of ransoms.Among the latter was Sir John Cornwall,who in 1423 purchased the ransoms of thelords of Gaucourt and Estouteville and of

John, duke of Bourbon, all of whom hadbeen captives since 1415. Another such

dealer in ransoms was Sir Walter Hunger-ford, who rebuilt his castle in Somerset withthe ransoms of eight prisoners brought back

265



from AGINCOURT. As to royal purchase ofransoms, EDWARD III paid Sir Thomas DAG-

WORTH £3,500 for the ransom of CHARLES OF

BLOIS, the French-backed claimant to theduchy of Brittany, who was captured at LA

ROCHE-DERRIEN in 1347, and HENRY V paidSir John Cornwall a high price for the countof Vendome, who was taken at Agincourt.Kings also rewarded their favorite lieuten-ants by purchasing their prisoners for sig-nificant sums, such as the 1,000 marks Ed-ward III gave Mauny for John Crabbe, amilitary engineer seized in SCOTLAND. In thefifteenth century, CHARLES VII did some-thing similar in France, granting estatesin Poitou to his favorite, George de la

Tremoılle, to compensate him for an un-collectible ransom.

The most famous ransoms of the war werethose Edward III demanded for the releaseof DAVID II of Scotland, taken at NEVILLE’S

CROSS in 1346, and JOHN II of France, cap-tured at POITIERS in 1356. The circumstancesof John’s capture illustrate how highlyprized ransoms had become. Surrounded byenemies, John was called upon to surrender,

but only did so when assured that his captorwas a knight. Immediately upon handingover his gauntlet as a token of surrender, theking was seized by a band of Gascons,whose members struggled with one anotherto grab hold of John and thereby stake theirclaim to a portion of his ransom. Morealarmed by this situation than by combat,

John was rescued by the intervention ofThomas BEAUCHAMP, earl of Warwick, whorespectfully led the king to EDWARD, THE

BLACK PRINCE. The ransoms of both kings— 100,000 marks for David and 3 million ecusfor John—severely strained the resourcesand political stability of their countries.However, in both cases, the process of col-lecting ransom, being conducted in com-munities throughout each realm, promotedthe development of stronger national iden-tities. See also NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS,GROWTH OF; PROPAGANDA AND WAR PUB-

LICITY.Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher. The


versity Press, 1988; Sumption, Jonathan. The



1999.

RHEIMS CAMPAIGN (1359–1360)The last campaign commanded by EDWARD

III and one of the largest English expeditionsof the HUNDRED YEARS WAR, the RheimsCampaign, which lasted from October 1359to April 1360, was an attempt to force theFrench to conclude peace on English terms.Although JOHN II was a captive in LONDON,and the government of Dauphin Charles (seeCHARLES V) was hampered by internal un-rest and financial weakness, the English

campaign failed to achieve its original pur-pose, largely due to the dauphin’s strategyof refusing battle. This tactic turned the ex-pedition into a series of fruitless sieges andfrustrating marches by an army strugglingto keep itself fed and supplied.

With the failure of the Second Treaty ofLONDON in March 1359, Edward recruitedhis largest army to date, a force numberingalmost twelve thousand. The expedition’s

objective was the city of Rheims, the tra-ditional coronation site of French kings,where Edward planned to have himselfsolemnly crowned king of France. As ananointed French monarch, Edward hopedto overthrow the VALOIS regime or, failingthat, to increase pressure on the dauphin tomake significant territorial concessions toend the war and regain his father’s free-dom. Joined by troops raised in Hainaultby Walter MAUNY, the English fleet of elev-

en hundred ships landed at CALAIS on 28October 1359. On 4 November, the Englishmarched out of Calais in three columns; theking commanded the main force, whichmarched north through Artois, while ED-

WARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, led the southernwing through the Somme Valley andHENRY OF GROSMONT, duke of Lancaster,followed a middle route. Due to the size ofthe force and the lateness of the year,

supply was a problem from the start andlargely dictated the line of march, witheach column proceeding on a broad front

RHEIMS CAMPAIGN

266



so as to draw provisions from the widestpossible area.

The French withdrew into walled townsand made no attempt to hinder the Englishcolumns as they marched by. The weather

proved a more dangerous enemy; a cold andrainy November made roads impassableand rivers unfordable, and the English col-umns briefly lost contact as food and foddergrew scarce. Edward reached Rheims on4 December, and his army quickly sur-rounded the town, whose garrison was wellsupplied behind its high walls. When anattempt to storm the walls failed, the Englishbegan a winter siege; however, the supplysituation soon grew critical, forcing Edward

to withdraw on 11 January 1360.With no settled plan except to keep his

army in being, Edward moved toward BUR-

GUNDY, where, on 10 March, the Burgundi-ans agreed to the Treaty of Guillon, wherebythey paid Edward 200,000 florins to sparethe duchy. Meanwhile, bands of Frenchpartisans harassed the English columns,killing or capturing the unwary, includingthe writer Geoffrey Chaucer, who was put to

RANSOM. In late March, with the weather fi-nally improving, Edward made for PARIS.Although he probably did not expect to takethe capital—even his army was insufficientfor that—Edward did hope to force thedauphin to come to terms. Negotiationscommenced, but, time being on their side,the French rejected Edward’s territorial de-mands, which still reflected the Treaty ofLondon. Unable to feed his army, Edwardwithdrew from Paris on 12 April. The next

day, Monday 13 April, disaster struck theEnglish. The weather, which had been un-seasonably mild, turned suddenly cold, withsleet and rain followed by a hard freeze; somany sick and hungry men and horses diedof exposure that the day became knownamong the English as ‘‘Black Monday.’’

The tragedy convinced Edward to mod-erate his demands and obtain the best set-tlement possible. He therefore sent messages

to Paris signaling his willingness to treat onFrench terms. On 1 May, a peace conferenceopened at Bretigny, a village near Chartres.

By 3 May, the main provisions of the Treatyof BRETIGNY were agreed. Upon hearing thatthe dauphin had assented to the treaty on 10May, the English marched quickly north,with Edward embarking from Honfleur on

19 May and the rest of the army proceedingto Calais, where the men took ship shortlythereafter.






RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK (1411–1460)Richard, third duke of York, succeeded

JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD, as HENRY VI’s lieu-tenant in France, thereby assuming respon-sibility for conduct of the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR. In 1460, York, after years in opposi-tion, laid claim to the Crown, thus initiatingthe Wars of the Roses and precipitating hisdeath in battle. With his son’s subsequentseizure of the throne, the duke became theimmediate ancestor of the royal House ofYork, which ruled England until 1485.

Richard was the only son of Richard, earlof Cambridge, who was executed for treasonby HENRY V in 1415, and Anne Mortimer,who died shortly after her son’s birth. Hewas descended from EDWARD III throughboth his parents. Cambridge was the son ofEdward’s fourth son, EDMUND OF LANGLEY,duke of York, and Anne was a great-granddaughter of Edward’s second son,Lionel, duke of Clarence. Thus, through hismother, Richard had a claim to the PLANTAG-

ENET throne that was technically superior tothat of the House of LANCASTER, which de-rived from Edward’s third son, JOHN OF

GAUNT, duke of Lancaster. Richard was onlyfour when the death of his paternal uncle atthe Battle of AGINCOURT made him duke ofYork, and only fourteen when the death ofhis maternal uncle made him earl of Marchand heir to the Mortimer claim to thethrone, which had lain dormant since HENRY

IV deposed RICHARD II in 1399. To en-sure York’s loyalty to the Lancastrian re-gime, the government arranged his early

RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK

267



marriage—he was perhaps fifteen—to CecilyNeville, the daughter of Ralph Neville, earlof Westmorland, a staunch Lancastrian.Knighted in 1426, York resided at court from1428 and in 1430 attended Henry VI’s cor-

onation in PARIS. By 1434, the duke was infull possession of his patrimony and thusthe wealthiest peer of the realm.

Elected to the Order of the GARTER in 1433,York received his first military command inMay 1436, when the king, anxious to see‘‘some great prince of our blood’’ (Johnson,226) in command in France, named York tothe French lieutenancy. Other than theking’s surviving paternal uncle, HUMPHREY,DUKE OF GLOUCESTER, there was no one else

who fit this description. By the time Yorkreached HARFLEUR in early June, Paris hadfallen to CHARLES VII, but the duke, workingwith John TALBOT, Lord Talbot, who hadactual command of the armies, stemmedthe French advance and ensured the safetyof NORMANDY. In 1437, York, frustrated withthe government’s inadequate funding ofhis troops, asked leave to return home. Thegovernment, perhaps equally frustrated

with York’s lackluster performance as lieu-tenant, replaced the duke with RichardBEAUCHAMP, earl of Warwick. However, theearl’s death in April 1439 precipitated acompetition for the office between the warfaction led by Gloucester, who offered him-self as lieutenant, and the peace faction ledby Cardinal Henry BEAUFORT, bishop ofWinchester, who suggested his nephew,

John BEAUFORT, earl of Somerset. Since hewas not closely attached to either faction,

York again emerged as the best candidatefor the office.

Reappointed in July 1440, York demandedand received greater authority—he wasgiven all Bedford’s former powers—andbetter funding—he was promised £20,000per year for his men. Arriving in Normandyin June 1441, York temporarily lifted thesiege of PONTOISE, but otherwise undertookno further military effort. This inactivity al-

lowed Cardinal Beaufort to win a majorcommand for Somerset, whose ultimatelyunsuccessful 1443 campaign stripped York

of men, money, and authority. Althoughthe government mollified the duke by pay-ing the arrears of his wages and grantinghim an APPANAGE in southern Normandy, itdid not reappoint him. The French lieuten-

ancy went to Edmund BEAUFORT, the newearl of Somerset, in 1446. York was insteadnamed lieutenant of Ireland, where he ar-rived in June 1449. While the Irish lieuten-ancy is often portrayed as political banish-ment arranged by Henry’s chief ministerWilliam de la POLE, duke of Suffolk, whoviewed York as an opponent of the govern-ment’s peace policy, there is no indicationthat York openly opposed either the Truce ofTOURS or even the English surrender of

Maine.Nonetheless, in 1450, following suppres-

sion of JACK CADE’S REBELLION and the mur-der of Suffolk, York returned from Ireland adetermined opponent of the Suffolk-Somer-set faction, whose members he denouncedas traitors responsible for the loss of Nor-mandy and the bankruptcy of the Crown.Fearing Beaufort ambitions, he tried un-successfully to have his position as heir ap-

parent confirmed. In 1452, he led an abortiveuprising aimed at removing Somerset fromoffice. After 1453, York and his noble allieswere increasingly at odds with QueenMARGARET OF ANJOU, who feared that Yorkintended to displace her infant son as Hen-ry’s heir. With the onset of the king’s mentalillness in 1453, York twice served as pro-tector, his second protectorate in 1455 beingoccasioned by victory over a royalist army atSt. Albans, where the duke’s chief rivals,

including Somerset, were slain. In 1460,York laid claim to the Crown, but PARLIA-

MENT, being unwilling to depose Henry,imposed a settlement naming York Henry’sheir. This arrangement precipitated civilwar, and on 30 December 1460, York wasslain at the Battle of Wakefield. However, inMarch 1461, York’s eldest son seized thethrone as Edward IV. See also MAINE, SUR-

RENDER OF.

Further Reading: Johnson, P. A. Duke Richardof York, 1411–1460. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1988.

RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK

268



RICHARD II, KING OF ENGLAND(1367–1400)The eighth king of the House OF PLANTAG-

ENET, Richard II was the grandson and suc-cessor of EDWARD III. Like the reign of his

deposed great-grandfather, EDWARD II, Ri-chard’s reign, which also ended in deposition,was characterized by ongoing conflict withthe nobility. This strife arose in part from Ri-chard’s absolutist tendencies and in part fromhis determined pursuit of peace with France.Although eventually successful in concludinga truce with the VALOIS, Richard’s efforts toend the HUNDRED YEARS WAR foundered onthe opposition of his magnates and the un-willingness of the French to sign any agree-

ment leaving French territory in Englishhands.

Born in BORDEAUX, the second son of ED-

WARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, Richard became hisfather’s heir upon the death of his elderbrother, Edward of Angouleme, in 1371. Hebecame heir to the English throne on hisfather’s death in June 1376 and king ofEngland at the age of ten in June 1377. Ri-chard’s minority government was directed

by a council of nobles dominated by theking’s eldest living uncle, JOHN OF GAUNT,duke of Lancaster, who was himself not amember of that body. Although the Frenchunder CHARLES V had largely erased theterritorial gains achieved by Edward III, thecouncil continued the war, imposing,through PARLIAMENT, a series of unpopularpoll taxes designed to fund new campaigns.This high war TAXATION caused the mostserious English rebellion of the fourteenth

century, the PEASANTS’ REVOLT OF 1381. Al-though only fourteen, Richard distinguishedhimself by courageously meeting the rebelson several occasions. From 1381 to 1386,Richard ruled through a group of favoritesthat included his tutor, Simon Burley; hischancellor, Michael de la Pole, earl of Suf-folk; and his chamberlain, Robert de Vere,earl of Oxford. Richard’s lack of enthusiasmfor war, the growing influence of his favor-

ites, and the extravagance of his court,caused the formation of a baronial opposi-tion that initially included Lancaster. When

a plot to kill the duke was uncovered in1385, Lancaster came armed to court toconfront Richard, but was soon reconciled tohis nephew by the intervention of the king’smother, Joan of Kent.

In 1386, Lancaster left for Spain, leavingbehind a political vacuum that was filled byhis younger brother, THOMAS OF WOODSTOCK,duke of Gloucester. In the so-called Won-derful Parliament of 1386, Gloucester andhis allies—Richard Fitzalan, earl of Arundel,and Thomas Beauchamp, earl of Warwick— forced the king to dismiss his councilors andaccept the tutelage of a council of nobles. In1387, Richard attempted to have the origi-nators of the noble council declared traitors,

an act that forced Gloucester and his col-leagues, who now included Thomas Mow-bray, earl of Nottingham, and Lancaster’sson, Henry, earl of Derby, to take arms andappeal (i.e., accuse) the king’s supporters oftreason. After defeating Oxford at RadcotBridge on 20 December, the oppositionlords, now known as the Lords Appellant,forced Richard to summon the MercilessParliament, which was so named because

it decreed the banishment or death ofRichard’s closest advisors. Dominated byGloucester, the Appellant government con-tinued the war. Although Arundel had wona naval victory at CADZAND in March 1387,lack of funds forced the Appellants to openpeace talks that eventually resulted in theTruce of LEULINGHEN. In May 1389, onemonth before the truce was concluded, Ri-chard, now twenty-two, used the imminentreturn of Lancaster to declare himself of full

age and resume control of the government.His Spanish ambitions satisfied, Lan-

caster, whom Richard made duke of AQUI-

TAINE in 1390, now supported the king’speace policy. Sent to France in 1392 as theking’s peace envoy, the duke failed to securea permanent settlement, but did achievesuccessive extensions of the truce. Followingthe death of his queen, Anne of Bohemia, in1394, Richard extended his peace effort by

negotiating a match for himself with eight-year-old Isabella, the eldest daughter ofCHARLES VI (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND

RICHARD II, KING OF ENGLAND

269



[1388–1409]). Concluded in 1396, the mar-riage was accompanied by a 28-year trucethat promised to end the war for a genera-tion. The political stability of the years after1390 ended in 1397 when the king struck

down his old opponents. After arrestingGloucester, Arundel, and Warwick, Richardhad all three condemned for treason inParliament. Gloucester died mysteriouslywhile in captivity in CALAIS, while Arundelwas executed and Warwick imprisonedfor life. Contemporary English chronicles,mostly written after Richard’s deposition,ascribed the king’s action to a thirst forvengeance, while more sympathetic Frenchchronicles claimed that Gloucester and his

companions, angered by the restoration ofBrest to Duke JOHN IV of BRITTANY, werehatching a new plot against the king.Whatever the truth, Richard used the ces-sation of hostilities with France to con-solidate his position in England, where heacted in an increasingly high-handed man-ner. Making frequent use of forced loansand other highly questionable means ofraising revenue, Richard persuaded Parlia-

ment to rescind the acts of the MercilessParliament and to compel all future peers toswear to uphold the acts of the current ses-sion.

In September 1398, a quarrel erupted be-tween the two junior appellants, Notting-ham (now duke of Norfolk) and Derby (nowduke of Hereford). Norfolk, fearing that Ri-chard would move against them, toldHereford so, but then denied it when Here-ford told the king. Richard settled the matter

by banishing both men. Upon Lancaster’sdeath in February 1399, Richard confiscatedthe Lancastrian estates and made Hereford’sbanishment permanent. When Herefordlanded in July, while the king was on cam-paign in Ireland, the nobility rallied aroundthe duke. Captured in August, the childlessking was brought to the Tower of London,where, on 29 September, he resigned theCrown, probably under compulsion, to his

cousin. Hereford now took the throne asHENRY IV, first king of the House of LAN-

CASTER. Richard was imprisoned in Ponte-

fract Castle, where he died around 14 Feb-ruary 1400. Precipitated by a plot hatched byRichard’s supporters, the ex-king’s death,whether the result of violence or starvation,was likely ordered by his supplanter.

Further Reading: Goodman, Anthony. TheLoyal Conspiracy: The Lords Appellant under Richard


Palmer, J. J. N. England, France, and Christendom,


olina Press, 1972; Saul, Nigel. Richard II . New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997; Tuck,



ROBERT OF ARTOIS (1287–1342)

A kinsman of PHILIP VI, Robert of Artois,through a longstanding dispute over theCounty of Artois, fell into disfavor and wasbanished from France. Coming eventually toEngland, Robert became a confidant of ED-

WARD III and thereby influenced the courseof events during the early years of theHUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Robert was a descendant of Louis VIII ofFrance and the grandson of Robert II, count

of Artois. Although his father was dead,Robert did not succeed his grandfather ascount upon the latter’s death in 1302. Theinheritance customs of the county vested thesuccession in Robert’s aunt, Mahaut, whomaintained her control of Artois despite twolegal challenges and endless intrigues ini-tiated by her nephew. In 1330, after thedeaths of his aunt and her daughter, Robertagain laid formal claim to the county. As aclose friend and advisor of his brother-in-

law, Philip VI, Robert had good hopes ofsuccess. However, because his chief rival,Mahaut’s granddaughter Jeanne, was mar-ried to Eudes, duke of BURGUNDY, a power-ful magnate who was also the queen’sbrother, a formidable court faction devel-oped in opposition to Robert. In December1330, when the documents Robert had sub-mitted in behalf of his claims were dis-covered to be forgeries, the king withdrew

his favor and allowed a criminal prosecutionto proceed. Unwilling to stand trial, Robertfled the court. In April 1332, when suspicions

ROBERT OF ARTOIS

270



were raised concerning his involvement inMahaut’s death, Robert was formally ban-ished from the realm and deprived of all hispossessions. Obsessed with the succession to

Artois, Robert plotted rebellion and threat-ened to destroy the royal family by sorcery,thereby transforming Philip into an impla-cable enemy who detained Robert’s familyand sought by all means to secure his capture.

After various wanderings, Robert arrivedin disguise in England in 1334. Edwardgranted Robert’s request for asylum, butotherwise gave him no assistance in hisquarrel with Philip. However, by 1336, Ro-

bert, who was a skilled courtier with amartial flair, was in high favor at the Englishcourt. He accompanied the king on

campaign in SCOTLAND and receivednumerous gifts of money and land.Although he seems to have genu-inely liked Robert, Edward saw theexile primarily as a useful instru-

ment for harassing Philip. Robert’sclaims of connections and influencein France and the Low Countrieswere exaggerated, but his growinginfluence in England infuriated Phi-lip, who formally demanded Ro-bert’s extradition in December 1336.When Edward did not comply, Phi-lip, in April 1337, used Edward’ssheltering of his ‘‘mortal enemy’’(Sumption, 184) as a principal reason

for confiscating the Duchy of AQUI-

TAINE, the act usually taken as thestart of the Hundred Years War.

In the fourteenth century, Robertwas also widely credited with con-vincing Edward to declare himselfking of France. Although Robert’sactual involvement in this decisionwas probably slight, a poem entitledThe Vow of the Heron, which was

written within months of Edward’sannouncement in 1340, claimed thatRobert shamed the king into claim-ing the French Crown by servinghim a roast heron, ‘‘the most timid ofbirds for the most cowardly ofkings’’ (Sumption, 292), who had al-

lowed another to usurp his rightful in-heritance. With the start of war, Robertparticipated in the early English campaignsin the Low Countries, where Edward’s ef-

forts to seize Artois on Robert’s behalffoundered on the objections of England’sallies and a total lack of support from withinthe county. A poor general, Robert led anAnglo-Flemish army to defeat at the battle ofSAINT-OMER in July 1340 and was slain whileleading the English fleet in an unsuccessfulattack on the Breton town of Vannes inNovember 1342. Despised in his own coun-try, Robert of Artois was buried in LONDON.

Further Reading: Sumption, Jonathan. TheHundred Years War. Vol. 1, Trial by Battle.


Robert of Artois (far left) addresses an enthroned Edward III

in this illustration from Jean Froissart’s Chronicles. Erich

Lessing/Art Resource, New York.

ROBERT OF ARTOIS

271



1999; Wood, Charles T. The French Apanages and

the Capetian Monarchy, 1224–1328. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 1966.

ROBERT OF BAUDRICOURT. See JOAN

OF ARC

ROOSEBEKE, BATTLE OF. See FLANDERS;LOUIS DE MALE, COUNT OF FLANDERS

ROUEN, SIEGE OF (1418–1419)The successful siege of Rouen, the capital ofNORMANDY, cemented HENRY V’s conquest ofthe duchy and brought the English withinstriking distance of PARIS. Distracted by theongoing civil war between the BURGUNDIANS

and ARMAGNACS, the French failed to relievethe city, thereby strengthening both Henry’sdetermination to win the French Crown andthe French willingness to negotiate a settle-ment.

On the night of 29 July 1418, Henry, hav-ing severed the river link between Rouenand Paris, arrived outside the Norman cap-ital. The city was large and strong, beingencircled by five miles of walls boasting

sixty towers with plentiful ARTILLERY and sixstout barbicans (i.e., fortified gateways).Flanked on the southwest by the Seine, thetown was elsewhere protected by a wideand unusually deep ditch well laid withwolf-traps. Expecting a siege, the citizenshad destroyed all structures outside thewalls to deny cover to the enemy and hadcarried all available food and supplies insidethe city, thus forcing Henry to provision hismen from England via the Seine. A bank of

earth had been piled up inside the walls tostrengthen them against artillery bombard-ment and a garrison of four thousand mencommanded by the experienced Guy leBouteiller and ably assisted by citizens armedwith crossbows defended the walls.

But time was on Henry’s side. The city wassoon cut off from any hope of reinforcementor supply by four fortified camps occupiedby an army numbering nearly twice the gar-

rison and soon reinforced by forty-five hun-dred additional troops, including fifteenhundred Irish kern, led by the king’s brother,

HUMPHREY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER. With Rouensheltering thousands of refugees who hadfled the fighting in Lower Normandy, Henrywaited for starvation to win him the city.Despite rumors that a relieving army was

near, JOHN THE FEARLESS, duke of BURGUNDY,who had just driven the Armagnacs fromParis, was in no position to help Rouen; hetherefore advised the citizens to look to theirown defenses.

By October, the defenders were eatinghorseflesh and by December rats, mice, anddogs. With too many mouths to feed, thegarrison drove out the poor and the infirm,leaving almost twelve thousand people tospend winter in the surrounding ditch be-

cause Henry refused them passage throughthe English lines. Thousands died of coldand starvation both inside and outside thecity, and on New Year’s Eve, Bouteillerasked for talks. After ten days of negotia-tion, the defenders agreed to surrender thecity at noon on 19 January 1419 if help didnot arrive by then. In return for agreeing totake no arms against the English for a year,the garrison was allowed to march out

without its weapons. The citizens were as-sured of their homes and property if theypaid an indemnity of 300,000 gold crownsand took an oath of allegiance to Henry.When no relief arrived, the city surrenderedas agreed and, on 20 January, Henry en-tered Rouen, where he remained for twomonths, repairing the city’s defenses andorganizing the administration of Nor-mandy. Rouen now became the main En-glish base in northern France, from which

Henry could threaten Paris and launch newcampaigns to the south. See also FRENCH

CIVIL WAR.Further Reading: Perroy, Edouard. The Hun-


Capricorn Books, 1965; Seward, Desmond. The

Hundred Years War . New York: Penguin, 1999.

ROUTIERS

Routiers were unemployed soldiers who or-

ganized themselves into ‘‘free companies,’’ orroutes, for the purpose of supporting them-selves by theft, pillage, and extortion.

ROBERT OF BAUDRICOURT

272



Composed of and led by men of many dif-ferent nationalities, routier bands appearedin France during the intervals of peace thatpunctuatedtheHUNDREDYEARSWAR,butwerea particularly serious problem throughout

the period 1357–69, following the Battle ofPOITIERS and conclusion of the Treaty of BRE-

TIGNY, and in the years 1436–44, followingcollapse of the ANGLO-BURGUNDIAN ALLIANCE

at the Congress of ARRAS. In both instances,the establishment of a regular, salariedFrench army to employ the best of the routiersand destroy the rest, along with acceptance ofregular peacetime TAXATION to support thatarmy, led to the eventual elimination of theroutier menace.

The end of formal hostilities after conclu-sion of a truce or treaty left many veteransoldiers without employment. Unwilling toreturn to lives of poverty or serfdom, manyof these men banded together and used theirmilitary training to live off the countryside,robbing, looting, killing, and torturing toobtain supplies and valuables. Routier com-panies could be formidable military organi-zations, with formal command structures

and a regular staff of secretaries and bu-tiniers, the officers who collected and dis-tributed shares of booty. Some companies,such as the infamous bande blanche (whitecompany) of Arnaud de CERVOLE, a famousroutier leader known as ‘‘the Archpriest,’’had their own distinctive uniforms. Many ofthe routiers of the 1360s had served underEDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, but the compa-nies comprised men of all armies and manycountries, including Bretons, Spaniards,

Germans, Frenchmen, and Englishmen.However, the majority were Gascons andthus subjects of the PLANTAGENET king-dukeof AQUITAINE, and many famous routier captains were Englishmen, such as Sir JohnHAWKWOOD, Sir Hugh CALVELEY, Sir RobertKNOLLES, and Sir John Cresswell, facts thathelp explain why the French referred to allroutiers, of whatever nationality, as Anglais,‘‘English.’’

In the 1360s, the GREAT COMPANY, a con-stantly reforming army of routier bands,devastated southern France and Provence,

seizing towns and castles to serve as basesfrom which to systematically pillage a par-ticular area until it had been bled white.Another routier army, the so-called Tard-Venus (Latecomers), pillaged the region

around Lyons, while a force led by the in-famous Gascon captain, Seguin de BADEFOL,invaded BURGUNDY in eastern France. Em-ploying such English innovations as theCHEVAUCHE E and the PA TIS , these routier ar-mies extracted RANSOMs from towns andprovinces, which, like the pope in Avignon,paid them to go away. In 1362, the GreatCompany even defeated a French royalarmy at the Battle of BRIGNAIS.

While local governments bribed routiers to

go elsewhere, rulers such as CHARLES V andthe Black Prince attempted to solve theproblem by finding the companies otheremployment. The French constable, Ber-trand du GUESCLIN, himself a former routier leader, attempted to gather companies forservice against the Turks in Hungary. Whenthis failed, he took a routier army to Castilein 1365 to help Henry of Trastamare over-throw Pedro I. In 1367, the Black Prince in-

tervened with his own largely routier force torestore Pedro at the Battle of NA JERA. How-ever, when the CASTILIAN WAR OF SUCCESSION

ended with Pedro’s death in 1369, largenumbers of routiers flowed back into Aqui-taine and Languedoc. The first successfulanti-routier effort occurred in Champagne in1359, when local nobles and royal officersdefeated a routier force at NOGENT-SUR-SEINE.The taxes levied in the last years of JOHN II’sreign and the military reorganization that

these funds allowed under Charles V cre-ated the professional French army that in the1370s defeated both the English and theroutiers.

In the 1410s, the outbreak of the FRENCH

CIVIL WAR and HENRY V’s renewal of theHundred Years War initiated a new wave ofbrigandage. Known now as e corcheurs (flay-ers), routiers under such leaders as Rodrigode Villandrando, a Castilian who had taken

service under both PHILIP THE GOOD, dukeof Burgundy, and CHARLES VII, and Etiennede VIGNOLLES, a dauphinist captain and

ROUTIERS

273



companion of JOAN OF ARC, wasted northernand eastern France, particularly after theFranco-Burgundian peace of 1435. Althoughan attempt to interest the companies in anexpedition against the Swiss in 1444 was

only partly successful, the military reformsinitiated by Charles VII during the Truce ofTOURS in the 1440s created a regularly paidprofessional army that again defeated boththe English and the routiers. See also CHARLES

VII, MILITARY REFORMS OF.


dred Years War . New York: Penguin, 1999; Sump-

tion, Jonathan. The Hundred Years War. Vol. 2,

Trial by Fire. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-

vania Press, 2001; Wright, Nicholas A. R.

‘‘‘Pillagers’ and ‘Brigands’ in the HundredYears War.’’ Journal of Medieval History 9 (1983):

15–25.

ROUVRAY, BATTLE OF. See HERRINGS,BATTLE OF THE

ROUVRAY, BATTLE OF

274



SSAINTES, BATTLE OF (1351)Fought on 1 April 1351 near the town ofSaintes in the province of Saintonge, theBattle of Saintes resulted from an Englishattempt to provision the besieged garrison at

Saint-Jean-d’Angely. Although an Englishvictory, the battle, which is notable for theFrench commander’s adoption of the En-glish tactic of fighting on foot, failed to re-supply the garrison and did not significantlyalter the military situation in southwesternFrance.

Upon his accession in August 1350, JOHN

II, ignoring his father’s recent agreement toextend the Truce of CALAIS, prepared to

launch a campaign against the English gar-risons in Saintonge. By February 1351, sev-eral thousand men led by Guy de Nesle andhis deputy Arnoul d’AUDREHEM arrived be-fore the town of Saint-Jean-d’Angely, whichwas held by one of the largest English gar-risons in France, a force of almost six hun-dred men. However, the garrison’s winterstores were nearly exhausted and the town’swalls were old and in disrepair. The Frenchquickly surrounded the town and by late

March had cut and fortified the main roadsleading south into English GASCONY. On 31March, the French commanders learned ofthe approach of a relieving force of severalhundred men led by Sir John Cheverston,the seneschal of Gascony and Arnaud-Amanieu, son of the lord of ALBRET.Although too weak to break the siege, Che-verston and Albret planned to punchthrough the French lines and bring their

large supply train to the relief of the garri-son.

Leaving troops to maintain the siege, Guyde Nesle marched through the night to in-tercept the English, which he did nextmorning about three miles outside Saintes.The English dismounted and formed their

usual line of battle, the horses being led tothe rear; Guy de Nesle, abandoning theFrench proclivity for cavalry charges, whichhad proven so unsuccessful at CRECY andelsewhere, ordered most of his men to dis-mount as well. Except for small bodies ofcavalry on each wing, the French then de-ployed on foot along a stretch of highground. Although the details are uncertain,the ensuing battle was a short, sharp en-

counter that resulted in complete victory forthe English. At some point, either just beforeor after the French attacked the English line,a force of several hundred men derivedfrom the nearby English garrisons of Taille-bourg and Tonnay-Charente assailed theFrench from the rear, thereby ensuring theirdefeat.

Over six hundred French knights werekilled or captured, the latter including bothcommanders. Although a glorious triumph

rich in RANSOMS, Saintes left Cheverstonunable to break through to Saint-Jean-d’Angely, which was partially resupplied afew days later by a small force led by thecommander of the Taillebourg garrison.Cheverston withdrew to BORDEAUX and JohnII quickly ransomed Guy de Nesle and re-inforced the army around Saint-Jean-d’An-gely, which fell to the French on 31 August.


War . Ware, England: Wordsworth Editions Ltd.,1999; Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred Years War.

275





in debt, Edward reluctantly lifted the siegeof Tournai and negotiated the Truce of ES-

PLECHIN in September.Further Reading: Lucas, Henry Stephen. The

Low Countries and the Hundred Years’ War, 1326–

1347. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,1929; Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred Years War .

Vol. 1, Trial by Battle. Philadelphia: University of


SAINT-SARDOS, WAR OF (1323–1325)Lasting from October 1323 to September1325, the War of Saint-Sardos was the lastAnglo-French conflict before the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR. Ignited by a local dispute inAQUITAINE, the War of Saint-Sardos, like the

ANGLO-FRENCH WAR OF 1294–1303, arose fromtensions inherent in the feudal relationshipcreated by the Treaty of PARIS between theking of France and the English king-duke ofAquitaine. The continued holding of Frenchterritory by the English king was as intol-erable to the French Crown as continuedFrench interference in the government ofAquitaine was to the English Crown. In itscourse and causes, the War of Saint-Sardos

foreshadowed the Hundred Years War, andin its outcome and aftermath, it set the stagefor the subsequent conflict.

Saint-Sardos was a village in the Agenais,a province belonging to PLANTAGENET Aqui-taine. Because the local Benedictine priorywas a daughter-house of the Abbey of Sarlat,which was outside the duke’s authority, theabbot petitioned the PARLEMENT in PARIS todeclare Saint-Sardos exempt from ducal

jurisdiction. The question had been dis-

cussed at the PROCESS of Perigueux in 1311,but no action was taken until December1322, when the Parlement declared for theabbot. This decision allowed the FrenchCrown to authorize construction of a newroyal BASTIDE in Saint-Sardos, an action thatlocal landowners believed would draw set-tlers from their estates and local townsmenfeared would harm their trade. On the nightof 15 October 1323, just after a French ser-

geant arrived in Saint-Sardos to take pos-session of the site for the Crown, a locallandowner, Raymond-Bernard, lord of the

castle of Montpezat, burned the village andhanged the sergeant.

Although EDWARD II’s protestation that heknew nothing about the attack was ac-cepted, CHARLES IV summoned Ralph Bas-

set, the English seneschal of GASCONY;Raymond-Bernard; and other ducal officialsto appear before him. When Edward recalledBasset and none of the others appeared,Charles ordered that Montpezat be seized,an intrusion upon ducal jurisdiction thatEdward met by ordering Raymond-Bernardto defend the castle. Unprepared for war anddistracted by domestic concerns, Edwarddispatched his brother, Edmund, earl ofKent, to negotiate with Charles. At the

French court, anti-English feeling was run-ning high, and Charles gave every indicationof intending to expel the Plantagenetsfrom Gascony. He demanded that Kent im-mediately agree to surrender both Mont-pezat and the contumacious officials, whichthe earl did on 10 June 1324. Kent also prom-ised that Edward would come to France andpay homage for Aquitaine on 1 July. Onabout 24 June, when it became clear that

Edward would not come, Charles authorizedconfiscation of the duchy.In August, the king’s uncle, Charles of

VALOIS, invaded Aquitaine. When Kent sur-rendered La Reole on 22 September, afterconcluding a six-month truce, only BOR-

DEAUX, Bayonne, and a few other strong-holds held out for Edward. Although theFrench continued to make preparations forthe final conquest of the duchy, Charlessignaled his willingness to negotiate by

suggesting that his sister Isabella, Edward’swife (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND [c.1292–1358]), act as mediator. Arriving inFrance in March 1325, Isabella won anextension of the truce, but could obtainno softening of the French terms, whichdemanded that Edward surrender the terri-tories conquered by Valois until all out-standing disputes were settled, and that hetemporarily surrender the rest of the duchy

until such time as he had performed homagefor it. Forced to accept the first demand,Edward modified the second by granting

SAINT-SARDOS, WAR OF

277



Aquitaine to his son, Prince Edward, whoofficially ended the war by personally pay-ing homage to Charles on 24 September.

Although the agreement ended the war, ithumiliated Edward and discredited his al-

ready unpopular government, which Isa-bella, in possession of the prince and backedby English dissidents at the French court,overthrew in 1326. The deposition of Ed-ward II in 1327 and the death of Charles IVwithout male heirs in 1328 then transformedthe situation by placing Aquitaine in thepossession of EDWARD III, an English kingwith a legitimate claim to the French throne.

Further Reading: Chaplais, Pierre. The War of

Saint-Sardos (1323–1325): Gascon Correspondence

and Diplomatic Documents. London: Royal Histor-

ical Society, 1954; Sumption, Jonathan. The Hun-

dred Years War . Vol. 1, Trial by Battle. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991; Vale,

Malcolm. The Origins of the Hundred Years War .

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000.

SALIC LAW OF SUCCESSIONThe Salic Law of Succession is a purportedprovision of the Lex Salica, a body of laws

promulgated for the Salian Franks by theFrankish kings of the sixth and seventh cen-turies. The succession law supposedly barswomen from inheriting property and thusfrom succeeding to the throne or transmittinga claim to the throne to their male descen-dants. The Salic Law of Succession is oftendescribed as the justification given for reject-ing EDWARD III’s claim to the French throne in1328; however, no such law was mentioned atthe time. In fact, the Salic Law of Succession,

or rather the principle it represents, was notfully developed until the mid-fifteenth cen-tury when it became a means of defending theVALOIS throne against both English and Bur-gundian claims.

Beginning in 1316, the French royal houseof CAPET, after more than three hundredyears of unbroken father-to-son succession,experienced three succession crises within atwelve-year period. The death of LOUIS X,

and five months later of his infant son John I,raised the possibility of a woman succeeding

to the throne. Louis left a seven-year-olddaughter, Jeanne, as well as two adultbrothers, the elder of whom, Philip, count ofPoitiers, had acted as regent in the monthsfollowing Louis’s death. Because the prob-

lem had never arisen before, there existed nooutright ban on female succession. What’smore, women had long inherited noble fiefsin France and had succeeded to thrones inother kingdoms, such as Navarre, whichwas ruled by a cadet branch of the Capetiandynasty. The question was settled not byreference to Salic law, but by the politicalsupport Philip commanded, by Jeanne’syouth, and by widespread acceptance of thenotion that women were unfit to rule a

kingdom. The regent was crowned as PHILIP

V in January 1317.To further justify his rule, Philip con-

vened an assembly of notables that declaredwomen unable to succeed to the throne ofFrance. With this precedent established,there was no controversy when Philip diedin 1322 and was succeeded by his brotherCHARLES IV rather than by one of his fivedaughters. However, when Charles died

without sons in 1328, the question was notthe position of his daughters, but of his neph-ew, Edward III of England, who was the sonof Charles’s sister, Isabella (see ISABELLA,QUEEN OF ENGLAND [c. 1292–1358]). Edwardwas nearer in blood to the last Capetiankings than was his main rival, Philip, countof Valois, who was Charles’s cousin. How-ever, Philip’s descent from the Capetiankings came through an unbroken male line,while Edward’s depended on his mother.

The question then was this: If a womancould not inherit the throne, could shetransmit a claim to it to her male heirs?Again, the issue was settled by practicalconsiderations rather than by appeal to Saliclaw. Philip was thirty-five, descended in themale line, and thoroughly French; he hadalso acted as regent while the kingdomwaited to see if Charles’s pregnant queenhad a son (a daughter was born in April). To

the French nobility, Edward, despite hisFrench blood and peerage, was a foreign

SALIC LAW OF SUCCESSION

278





Acting in the Suffolk interest, Scales be-came an important figure in East Anglianpolitics in the 1450s. By the outbreak of theWars of the Roses in 1459, Scales was closelyassociated with Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU

and the anti-Yorkist court party. In June1460, he attempted to hold LONDON againstthe Yorkists, but was forced to withdrawto the Tower when the city authoritiesopened the gates to York’s ally, RichardNeville, earl of Warwick. With RobertHungerford, Lord Hungerford, Scales stoodsiege in the Tower until the Yorkists’ captureof the king at Northampton on 10 July madehis position untenable. On 19 July, he slippedout of the Tower, but was captured and

killed by London boatman in retaliation forhis destructive bombardment of the cityduring the Tower siege. His body lay nakedon the Southwark shore until his godson,now earl of March, gave it honorable burial.

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A. The Reign

of King Henry VI . Berkeley: University of Califor-

nia Press, 1981; Pollard, A. J. John Talbot and the

War in France, 1427–1453. London: Royal Histor-

ical Society, 1983; Watts, John. Henry VI and the

Politics of Kingship. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1996.

SCOTLANDThe status of the kingdom of Scotland con-stituted a key issue throughout the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR. While seeking to overturn VA-

LOIS overlordship in AQUITAINE, the PLANTAG-

ENET kings of England sought also to securetheir own overlordship in Scotland. Thepossibility that PHILIP VI would help the

Scots resist English ambitions toward theirkingdom was an important immediate causeof the war. The effective use that both Franceand Scotland made of one another in threat-ening England allowed the FRANCO-SCOTTISH

ALLIANCE of the 1290s to persist through-out the war, and, on occasion, turned Scot-land into a major theater of Anglo-Frenchconflict.

Anglo-Scottish relations were largely

peaceful until the 1290s, when a Scottishsuccession dispute allowed EDWARD I to

pursue his ambition of ruling all Britain.Having recently brought Wales under hisauthority, he sought to do the same inScotland. At the request of the Scots, Ed-ward presided over the court that decided

the succession question in favor of JohnBalliol. However, the new king’s authoritywas immediately undermined by Edward,who demanded that Balliol and his noblesperform military service in Aquitaine (seeANGLO-FRENCH WAR OF 1294–1303), and bythe Bruces, Balliol’s chief rivals, who con-tinued to contest the court’s decision. Balliolsoon found himself at war with both Edwardand the Bruces. In October 1295, a council ofnobles acting in Balliol’s stead concluded an

alliance with France, a compact that, throughrepeated renewals, lasted into the sixteenthcentury and became known in Scotland asthe ‘‘Auld Alliance.’’ Unable to defeat hisenemies, Balliol surrendered the kingdom toEdward in 1296, when many Scottish noblesrenounced the French alliance and sworehomage to the English king. However, aScottish independence movement quicklyemerged under William Wallace and others,

who paved the way for Robert Bruce to becrowned king as Robert I in March 1306. Thedeath of Edward I in 1307 and the militaryincompetence of EDWARD II allowed Robert togradually expel the English from most ofScotland, especially following a decisivevictory at Bannockburn in 1314. Although thepope placed Scotland under interdict at Ed-ward’s request, the Scots in 1320 issued theDeclaration of Arbroath, declaring their in-tention to continue resisting English dom-

ination. In 1326, Robert renewed the Frenchalliance.

In 1328, the government of Queen Isabellaand her lover, Roger Mortimer, earl ofMarch, was forced to accept Scottish in-dependence in the unpopular Treaty ofNorthampton (see Isabella, Queen of En-gland [c. 1292–1358]). However, the death ofRobert I in 1329 and EDWARD III’s overthrowof his mother’s regime in the following year

revived the Anglo-Scottish wars. With hisvictory at HALIDON HILL in 1333, Edward

SCOTLAND

280



forced DAVID II, Robert’s nine-year-old suc-cessor, to flee to France. The arrival of hisScottish ally persuaded Philip VI to de-mand that any Anglo-French settlement inAquitaine also include the Scots. This re-

quirement scuttled a proposed agreementand outraged Edward, who consideredScotland a purely English matter. When theAnglo-French conflict erupted in 1337, Ed-ward declared French intervention in Scot-land a major justification for his decision togo to war. Aided by the English preoc-cupation with France, the Scots, who provedthemselves well able to maintain their in-dependence without either a resident kingor French troops, gradually drove out the

English, allowing David to return in 1341. In1346, David, upon hearing news of CRECY,invaded England in support of his ally. De-feated and captured at NEVILLE’S CROSS inOctober, David remained a prisoner until1357, when he was released upon agreeingto a RANSOM of 100,000 marks. Having alsoagreed to cease fighting the English until thehuge sum was paid in full, David in effectaccepted an indefinite truce that limited ac-

tive Scottish participation in the Anglo-French war for the rest of the century.Upon his accession in 1371, Robert II, first

king of the House of Stewart, renewed theFrench alliance, as did his son, Robert III,shortly after his accession in 1390. Anglo-Scottish hostilities continued in the form ofconstant cross-border raids and contrary al-legiances in the matter of the great papalschism, with Scotland recognizing ClementVII and England Urban VI (see PAPACY AND

THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR). In 1406, internaldisorder forced Robert III to send his youngson and heir, James, to France, although theboy was captured by the English whilecrossing the Channel. Upon Robert’s deathshortly thereafter, his brother, Robert, dukeof Albany, assumed the regency on behalf ofhis imprisoned nephew. After HENRY V in-vaded France in 1415, the Albany regimeallowed more frequent border raiding to

increase pressure on England in Henry’sabsence. In 1419, the Scots responded to a

plea from the dauphin for military assis-tance, and a large army was dispatchedunder John STEWART, earl of Buchan, whowon a major victory at BAUGE in 1421. Re-warded with appointment as constable of

France, Buchan persuaded other Scots to joinFrench service, including Archibald DOUG-

LAS, earl of Douglas, who landed with anarmy of sixty-five hundred in 1424. Al-though Buchan, Douglas, and most of theirmen were slain at VERNEUIL in August 1424,many individual Scottish knights continuedto serve CHARLES VII. Released in 1424 for apayment of 60,000 marks, James I renewedthe French alliance in 1428 and agreed todispatch a new army to the Continent in

return for the county of Saintonge and themarriage of his daughter to Charles VII’sson. James’s murder in 1437 and internaldisorder during the minority of his son,

James II, prevented the Scots from playing amajor role in the final campaigns of theHundred Years War, although the Scots re-newed the French alliance in 1448.



grave Macmillan, 2003; Laidlaw, James, ed. The Auld Alliance: France and Scotland Over 700 Years.

Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1999; Ni-

cholson, Ranald. Scotland: The Later Middle Ages.

New York: Barnes and Noble, 1974; Wood,

Stephen. The Auld Alliance, Scotland and France:

The Military Connection. Edinburgh: Mainstream,

1989.

SEINE, BATTLE OF THE (1416)Fought on 15 August 1416 in the mouth of

the Seine Estuary near HARFLEUR, the Battleof the Seine was one of the largest navalencounters of the war. The English victorybroke the French blockade of Harfleur andhelped HENRY V achieve mastery of the seas,a necessary prelude to the conquest ofNORMANDY.

Although Henry sought to make Harfleuras secure a base as CALAIS, the cross-Channeldistance to the former was four times that

of the latter and maintaining local control ofthe seas proved beyond the abilities of

SEINE, BATTLE OF THE

281



English naval power. Despite his victories inthe battles of VALMONT in March, ThomasBEAUFORT, earl of Dorset and commander ofthe Harfleur garrison, was in a desperateposition by late spring. Blockaded by land

and sea, Dorset wrote pleading letters toEngland describing the privations of hismen. Deeply engaged in the discussions thatled to conclusion of the Treaty of CANTER-

BURY with Sigismund, the Holy Roman em-peror, Henry deputed the relief of Harfleurto his brother, JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD.

Bedford spent the early summer collectingships and seamen at Southampton andWinchelsea and by early August had a fleetof perhaps a hundred vessels. After over-

coming logistical delays and foul winds thatallowed the enemy to harry the Englishcoast, Bedford set sail on 14 August with afair wind that put him in the Seine Estuaryby nightfall. Dawn revealed a French fleet ofperhaps 150 ships commanded by Guil-laume de Montenay anchored in mid-stream before Harfleur. Besides numbers,the French had the advantage of possessingeight Genoese carracks, which were larger,

higher, and more powerful than anything inthe English fleet. The Genoese were the bestsailors in Europe, and from the higher decksof their warships could rain missiles of allkinds down upon the English. However,with the French in an irregular massed for-mation, Bedford bore down on them at fullsail, and the sandbars and close quarters ofthe estuary allowed the maneuverability ofthe smaller English vessels to outweigh themass and height of the Genoese ships. With

the element of luck also playing a part, theEnglish prevailed after a long fight—thesources say seven hours—capturing threeGenoese carracks and driving anotheraground. CASUALTIES were heavy in bothfleets, with the English losing some twentyships and their crews.

With the enemy fleet dispersed, half theremaining English ships made for Harfleurand the relief of the starving garrison, while

the rest conveyed Bedford, who was wound-ed during the fight, back to England. Uponhearing of the victory, Henry, having that

day concluded his treaty with Sigismund,rode with his new ally to Canterbury Ca-thedral to hear Te Deum sung. See also NAVAL

WARFARE.Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher. Henry

V . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997;Burne, Alfred H. The Agincourt War . Ware,


SHAKESPEARE AND THE HUNDREDYEARS WARThe Elizabethan playwright William Shake-speare used the HUNDRED YEARS WAR as thebackdrop for several of his English historyplays, particularly Henry V and 1 Henry VI .Although these plays depict historical

scenes and figures, Shakespeare compresseschronologies, distorts personalities, and fic-tionalizes events for dramatic effect, makingthe plays inaccurate history but realistic il-lustrations of sixteenth-century perceptionsof the Anglo-French conflict.

Shakespeare deals only with the finalphase of the war, from HENRY V’s invasionof France in 1415 to the loss of Henry’s gainsduring the reign of his son, HENRY VI, in the

1430s and 1440s. Henry V is the last play ofthe ‘‘major’’ tetralogy (i.e., four-play series),which also includes Richard II and 1 and 2Henry IV . With the ‘‘minor’’ tetralogy, com-prising 1, 2, and 3 Henry VI and Richard III ,these plays constitute Shakespeare’s dra-matic rendering of fifteenth-century Englishdynastic history from the deposition of RI-

CHARD II in 1399 to the destruction of Ri-chard III in 1485. The plays examine thenature of power and the devastating con-

sequences of ambition for power, using thesuffering of both the Hundred Years Warand the Wars of the Roses as the manifes-tation of those consequences.

Written in 1599, Henry V contains in itstitle character one of the most dominatingfigures in the Shakespearean canon. Theplay has traditionally been read as a pa-triotic tribute to England’s greatest hero-king, who crushed the ancient national

enemy and brought England to unprece-dented heights of international power andrespect. As such, the play was well-suited to

SHAKESPEARE AND THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR

282





York: Scribner, 1999; Saccio, Peter. Shakespeare’s

English Kings. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2000.

SHEPHERD, BATTLE OF THE. See XAIN-

TRAILLES, POTON DE

SHREWSBURY, EARL OF. See TALBOT, JOHN, EARL OF SHREWSBURY

SIEGE WARFARE

A siege is a military blockade or investment

of a fortified castle or town undertaken tocompel its surrender. Some of the most im-portant engagements of the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR, such as those at CALAIS in 1346– 47, ROUEN in 1418–19, ORLEANS in1429, and PONTOISE in 1441, weresieges, as were the main encountersof such major expeditions as the

RHEIMS CAMPAIGN of 1359–60, theEnglish NORMAN CAMPAIGN OF 1417– 1419, and the French NORMAN CAM-

PAIGN OF 1449–1450. Sieges occurredmore frequently than major battles,especially in GASCONY between 1340and 1380 and in BRITTANY during theBRETON CIVIL WAR. Sieges often hadmore momentous results than pitchedbattles; for instance, EDWARD III de-rived more lasting gains from the

successful siege of Calais than fromthe Battle of CRECY, while HENRY Vwon NORMANDY through successfulsiege warfare rather than at the Battleof AGINCOURT.

Since the Welsh and the Irish hadfew large castles, and Robert I ofSCOTLAND destroyed castles takenfrom the enemy, thus reducing theimportance of sieges in the Anglo-

Scottish wars, the English, at thestart of the war in the 1330s, had noparticular advantage over the Frenchin siege warfare. This explains inpart the early English reliance onCHEVAUCHE ES, since such campaignsbypassed castles and towns to focuson destruction of the countryside.The widespread devastation caused

by Edward III’s THIERACHE CAMPAIGN in1339 or EDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE’s C HE-

VAUCHE E OF 1355 would have been impossiblefor an army encumbered with heavy siegeequipment. An army meant for siege op-erations had different requirements fromone intended to raid or fight battles. Ca-valry, the elite wing of any army, was oflittle use in sieges, which is one reason thatthe focus of military preparation wasusually on battles, not siege warfare. Weightof numbers also had less importance, since a

relatively small but well-supplied garrisonbehind strong walls might hold off a muchlarger force indefinitely. As to ARCHERS,

This depiction of the French siege of the castle of Jean de

Derval shows Bertrand du Guesclin on a white horse to the

right and Louis, duke of Anjou, Charles V’s lieutenant in

Languedoc, standing before his tent to the left. Erich Lessing/


SHEPHERD, BATTLE OF THE

284



fortifications negated the great advantage ofthe longbow—its rate of fire. For attacking ordefending a castle, the crossbow, with itsaccuracy and power, was the superiorweapon. Sieges also required much special-

ized expertise—such as mining walls, solv-ing problems of sanitation, establishing andmaintaining food supplies, building andemploying siege weapons, or siting and fir-ing ARTILLERY.

Although kings employed military en-gineers to conduct siege operations, such asBrother Robert of Ulm, who built siege en-gines in Scotland for EDWARD I, the status ofsuch men, who were technical experts, notmilitary professionals, was far lower than

that of knights. The engineers built andemployed the equipment required to breechtown or castle walls. The largest were thegreat siege towers known as belfries, whichhad been used since Roman times. Somewere stationary structures that allowed be-siegers to overlook walls, while others couldbe wheeled up to walls to allow besiegers tolaunch an assault. Many kinds of siege en-gines were used to fling stones or incendiary

material into besieged castles. Known undervarious names, such as mangonels and pet-raria, these devices were of various types,such as leather slings or wooden torsionmachines. In the thirteenth century, em-ployment of massive counterweights led todevelopment of the trebuchet, which couldlaunch far larger projectiles with greateraccuracy than could manually operatedmachines. Springalds were essentially largecrossbows on wheels that fired huge quar-

rels. Battering rams broke down doors andgates and ‘‘cats’’ or ‘‘sows’’ were movablestructures that shielded attackers or menundermining walls. Besides these large de-vices, a besieging army also required scalingladders, ropes, picks, shields, and tools ofvarious kinds.

The development of artillery graduallytransferred the advantage in sieges fromdefenders to attackers. After 1417, cam-

paigns involved more sieges than pitchedbattles, and the increasingly effective em-ployment of more and larger guns, such as

those directed from the 1430s by CHARLES

VII’s master gunner, Jean BUREAU, led to thesuccessful conclusion of most siege opera-tions. A full-scale siege was a complex op-eration, involving the encirclement and

blockade of a town or fortress. The aim wasto starve the garrison into surrendering, al-though efforts were usually made to achievea quicker conclusion by using siege enginesto batter down walls or set a castle alight, orby tunneling under walls. In 1370 at LI-

MOGES, the Black Prince’s miners shored uptheir tunnel with wooden braces that werethen set on fire, causing the walls above tocollapse and allowing the attackers to over-run the town. Attempts were also made

to take castles by stealth. During the Thier-ache Campaign, Thomas BEAUCHAMP, earlof Warwick, bribed the commander of theFrench garrison at Baupaume to surrenderhis fortress, but, before it could be im-plemented, the plan was discovered andWarwick arrived to find the commander’smutilated body hanging from the walls. In1349, the French promised an enormousbribe to an Italian mercenary in Calais, who

agreed to open a gate to a French party onNew Year’s Eve; however, Edward IIIlearned of the plot and went himself with aparty that included Sir Walter MAUNY andthe Black Prince to surprise the French andfoil their plan.

Because sieges could be extended affairs,they developed a set of recognized conven-tions for their proper conduct. The siege for-mally began upon the firing of the first shotfrom a siege engine or gun. A siege conducted

by the king himself was more serious thanone directed by a subordinate, a distinctionrecognized by INDENTURE pay rates. In-denturescould also lay out the terms by whicha commander could negotiate a surrender ofhis master’s fortress. Rules as to pillage of acaptured town depended on whether thesurrender was by negotiated agreement orassault. Often a garrison agreed to surrenderif not relieved by a certain date, as occurred at

Rouen in 1419 when JOHN THE FEARLESS, dukeof BURGUNDY, failed to come to the town’sassistance. The fate of the garrison of a

SIEGE WARFARE

285



captured fortress also depended on the termsarranged. The defenders of some castlesmarched away under safe-conducts arrangedwith their besiegers, but the leading citizensof Calais appeared before Edward III with

halters about their necks, their lives andgoods forfeit because of their protracted re-sistance, while the defenders of MEAUX wereexecuted or imprisoned by an angry Henry V.

Sieges could be horrific experiences, withhunger and unsanitary conditions affectingbesiegers as well as besieged. At HARFLEUR

in 1415, dysentery killed more people bothwithin and without the town than did theactual fighting. In 1419, the people of Rouenwere reduced to eating dogs and rats. When

the poor of Rouen were expelled to savefood, Henry V refused them passagethrough his lines; most died of starvation orexposure in a ditch outside the walls. AtMeaux in 1422, conditions were as bad in theEnglish siege lines as they were within thetown, and the long winter operation is be-lieved to have undermined the health ofHenry V, who succumbed to dysentery threemonths later. See also BATTLE, NATURE OF;

TOWNS AND THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR.Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher. The


versity Press, 1988; Curry, Anne, and Michael

Hughes, eds. Arms, Armies and Fortifications in the

Hundred Years War . Woodbridge, England: Boy-

dell Press, 1994; Prestwich, Michael. Armies and

Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience.


SIGISMUND, HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR.

See CANTERBURY, TREATY OF

SLUYS, BATTLE OF (1340)The Battle of Sluys was the largest navalencounter and first major battle of theHUNDRED YEARS WAR. Fought on 24 June1340 at the mouth of the River Zwin near theFlemish port of Sluys, the battle dispelledthe threat of French landings in England andinaugurated a period of English initiative in

FLANDERS and northern France.In the late 1330s, French fleets controlledthe Channel and Bay of Biscay, raiding

English ports, threatening invasions ofEngland or SCOTLAND, and disrupting com-munications with GASCONY. Although En-glish counter-raids destroyed eighteenFrench galleys at Boulogne in January 1340,

PHILIP VI soon managed to assemble a fleetof almost two hundred ships at Sluys, whereit lay poised to intercept any English force.Commanded by Nicholas Behuchet andHugh Quieret, the French fleet also con-tained Castilian and Genoese squadrons;the Castilians were French allies and theGenoese were paid mercenaries led by anexperienced naval captain named Barba-nera.

With considerable difficulty, EDWARD III

assembled a fleet of about a hundred shipsat the Suffolk port of Orwell, from which heset sail on 22 June. On route, he was met byfifty vessels of the northern fleet under SirRobert Morley, who joined William deBOHUN, earl of Northampton, and Sir WalterMAUNY as the king’s chief lieutenants. Con-sisting mainly of cogs, small shallow-draftmerchant vessels best suited for transport-ing troops and supplies, the fleet carried an

army that Jean FROISSART likely over-estimated at four thousand men-at-arms andtwelve thousand archers. After puttingashore spies who reported that the numberof masts at Sluys was ‘‘like a great wood’’(Seward, 43), Edward divided his fleet intothree squadrons, with every group of threeships consisting of two filled with ARCHERS

flanking one filled with men-at-arms. Afourth squadron carrying only archers actedas the reserve.

With the tide and wind in their favor andthe sun at their backs, the English sailed intothe tightly clustered French fleet at aboutnoon on 24 June. What ensued was essen-tially a land battle fought across the decks ofships. After grappling an enemy vessel, theEnglish longbowmen raked it with arrowsbefore men-at-arms boarded to engage itscrew in hand-to-hand combat. The Englishquickly recaptured the Christopher and the

Edward, two royal vessels recently taken bythe French, but also suffered the loss,through ARTILLERY fire, of a cog carrying

SIGISMUND, HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR

286





PARLIAMENT in November 1336 as LordStafford.

Stafford accompanied the king to Francein 1338 and fought at the naval Battle ofSLUYS in 1340. He was among the most

prominent of the king’s supporters duringthe political CRISIS OF 1340–41 and was twicesent to Archbishop John STRATFORD to pressthat cleric to submit to the Crown. In April1341, Stafford led a group of king’s men whounsuccessfully attempted to prevent Strat-ford from attending Parliament. In 1342,Stafford sailed to BRITTANY as a lieutenantunder William de BOHUN, earl of North-ampton. Stafford fought at MORLAIX on 30September, but later in the autumn was

captured at the siege of Vannes. Freed aspart of a prisoner exchange, Stafford helpednegotiate the Truce of MALESTROIT in January1343 and in May was a member of theEnglish embassy sent to defend Edward’sclaim to the French Crown before PopeCLEMENT VI.

In 1345, Stafford was appointed seneschalof GASCONY, where, as one of the chief lieu-tenants of HENRY OF GROSMONT, duke of

Lancaster, he fought at BERGERAC and AU-BEROCHE. In 1346, he captured AIGUILLON,where he was later besieged by John, dukeof Normandy (see JOHN II). However, Staf-ford apparently escaped from Aiguillon be-fore the duke raised the siege on 20 August,for the English captain fought with theking’s army at CRECY in northern France on26 August. Although reappointed seneschalof Gascony in October, Stafford did not re-turn to the duchy, but took part in the siege

of CALAIS, which ended in August 1347.After participating in negotiations that led tothe Truce of CALAIS, Stafford returned toEngland where, among other rewards andfavors, he became a founding member of theOrder of the GARTER. In September 1348,Stafford entered into an INDENTURE with theking whereby he agreed to serve Edward forlife with a retinue of sixty men-at-arms inreturn for an annuity of £600. In 1350, he

fought with the king and EDWARD, THEBLACK PRINCE, at the naval battle of WIN-

CHELSEA.

On 5 March 1351, Edward elevated Staf-ford to an earldom, awarded him an annuityof 1,000 marks to support that dignity, andappointed him lieutenant of Aquitaine. Theearl fought a successful campaign in 1353,

which brought him a number of rich RAN-SOMS, but thereafter made little headwayagainst the French commander, John, countof Armagnac, and was replaced as lieuten-ant by the prince in 1355. Stafford accom-panied the king on the RHEIMS CAMPAIGN in1359 and participated in talks that culmi-nated in the Treaty of BRETIGNY in May 1360.In 1361, Stafford accompanied the king’sson, Lionel, earl of Ulster, to Ireland in anattempt to revive the PLANTAGENET lordship

in that island. Although Jean FROISSART

wrote that Stafford returned to France whenwar resumed in 1369, his age and ill healthmake that unlikely. He died at TonbridgeCastle in Kent on 31 August 1372.

Further Reading: Rawcliffe, Carole. The Staf-

fords: Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham,

1394–1521. Cambridge: Cambridge University


Years War. Vol. 2, Trial by Fire. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001; Vale,Malcolm. English Gascony, 1399–1453. London:

Oxford University Press, 1970.

STAR, ORDER OF THEFounded by JOHN II of France in November1351, the Order of the Star was a chivalriccompany of French knights designed to rivalEDWARD III’s Order of the GARTER. Morelavish and political in conception than the

English order, the Order of the Star was aroyal attempt to reinvigorate noble moraleafter the disastrous Battle of CRECY and torekindle support for the VALOIS Crown andenthusiasm for the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Formally titled the Company of Knights ofNotre-Dame de la Noble-Maison, the Orderof the Star was officially inaugurated at amagnificent ceremony held on 6 January 1352at the royal manor of Saint-Ouen near PARIS.

The charter endowing the order harked backto the reign of Louis IX, the supposed goldenage of French CHIVALRY, when French knights

STAR, ORDER OF THE

288



were famous throughout Europe for theircourage, strength, and honor, and for theirdedication to royal service. The charter la-mented the degeneration of this ideal bycharacterizing contemporary French knights

as leading lives of idleness and selfish excess.To remedy this situation, John ordainedcreation of an elite order of five hundredknights sworn to serve him alone, to advisehim to the best of their ability, and to fight forhim until killed or captured. Failure to fulfillthis last requirement, which was a direct re-sponse to the recriminations that followedCrecy, meant disgrace and expulsion fromthe order. Exemplary performance on thebattlefield meant special recognition at the

next annual chapter banquet to be held eachAugust on the Feast of the Assumption.

The inaugural ceremony appears to havebeen rather sparsely attended, a lack of en-thusiasm that may have stemmed fromanger over the king’s recent execution ofRaoul, count of Eu and constable of France,or from dissatisfaction with the cost of theevent, especially in light of the financialburdens recently placed on the nobility by

an unsuccessful war and the BLACK DEATH.At the ceremony, members ate off gold plateand wore fur-trimmed robes of red andwhite as they processed though a chapterhouse decorated with specially made tapes-tries. Beyond this, the prestige of the ordersuffered an immediate blow. On the day ofthe ceremony, while the captain of the castlewas attending the festivities, John Dancaster,an English soldier of fortune, ignored theTruce of CALAIS and surprised the fortress of

Guines, one of the chief French strongholdson the march of Calais. This event, coupledwith noble indifference and the members’strict adherence to the vow of no retreat— eighty-nine knights of the Star died atMAURON the following August—doomed theorder. In October 1352, the king acknowl-edged this failure by issuing an ordinancethat transformed the order from a political-chivalric institution to a confraternity for

common worship.Further Reading: Keen, Maurice. Chivalry.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984;

Painter, Sidney. French Chivalry: Chivalric Ideas

and Practices. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University


Years War. Vol. 2, Trial by Fire. Philadelphia:


STEWART, JOHN, EARL OF BUCHAN(c. 1380–1424)One of the most famous and successfulScottish warriors to fight for the dauphin (seeCHARLES VII) in the fifteenth century, JohnStewart, tenth earl of Buchan, was constableof France and victor of the Battle of BAUGE.

Stewart was the second son of RobertStewart, duke of Albany, the brother of Ro-bert III. Inheriting the earldom of Buchan

from his younger brother in 1405, Albanygranted it to his son John, who, owing to alack of land to support the title, was notcalled earl until May 1412. Even though hisearldom was technically one of the mostimportant in northern SCOTLAND, Buchannever exercised much influence in the regionnor held all the lands attached to the title. Inhis early years, Buchan was largely a pawnto his father’s ambition to rule Scotland

in place of his brother, who was an invalidgiven to bouts of depression. In 1402, theEnglish captured Murdoch, earl of Fife, Bu-chan’s elder half brother, at Homildon Hill,thus forcing Albany to groom Buchan as hispolitical heir. Buchan began appearing reg-ularly at court after 1406, when he also re-ceived appointment as chamberlain, an of-fice long held by his father. In about 1410,Albany married his son to Elizabeth, thedaughter of Archibald DOUGLAS, fourth earl

of Douglas, a match that transformed Bu-chan’s career, removing him from Scottishpolitics and involving him in the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR.In 1419, Buchan, thanks to his connection

with Douglas and his father’s exercise of theScottish regency, was appointed joint com-mander, with Douglas’s son, of a Scottisharmy sent to France to assist the dauphinists.Except for occasional diplomatic and re-

cruiting missions to Scotland, Buchan was tospend the rest of his life in France servingthe dauphin. On 22 March 1421, Buchan led

STEWART, JOHN, EARL OF BUCHAN

289



the Franco-Scottish force that defeated andslew HENRY V’s brother, THOMAS, DUKE OF

CLARENCE, at Bauge. The earl was well re-warded for his victory, receiving the Frenchconstableship, the lands of the lordship of

Chatillon-sur-Indre, and the services of apersonal astrologer. Now a major dauphi-nist commander, Buchan scored a series ofsmall successes in 1421–22, but his campaignin northern France in early 1423 failed due toa growing unwillingness among the Frenchto follow a foreign constable.

Returning to Scotland, where his brotherwas now duke of Albany and regent for thecaptive James I, Buchan induced Douglas toenter French service. With HENRY VI’s gov-

ernment threatening to release James, whowas believed to be pro-English, the earl alsoconcluded an agreement with his brotherwhereby the duke likely agreed to safeguardBuchan’s lands in return for the earl’s will-ingness to use the Scottish army in France tointervene in Scotland on Albany’s behalf.This agreement was never implemented, forBuchan and Douglas were slain at VERNEUIL

in August 1424. Although a disaster for the

Albany interest in Scotland and a cause oflamentation at the dauphin’s court, Bu-chan’s death caused little mourning else-where in France, where the Scots were muchdisliked.

Further Reading: Bonner, E. ‘‘Scotland’s ‘Auld

Alliance’ with France, 1295–1560.’’ History 84

(1999): 5–30; Laidlaw, James, ed. The Auld

Alliance: France and Scotland over 700 Years.

Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1999;

Wood, Stephen. The Auld Alliance, Scotland and

France: The Military Connection. Edinburgh, Main-stream, 1989.

STRATEGY AND TACTICSStrategy is the overall plan or policy em-ployed by a military command to effectivelydefeat the enemy, while tactics involve thedisposition and maneuvering of militaryforces in combat. Because of its length andthe varying political, economic, and military

conditions that applied during its severalphases, the HUNDRED YEARS WAR witnessed

important shifts in military strategy, whileits course and outcome were affected byimportant tactical innovations.

The initial English strategy was the CHE-

VAUCHE E , a swift destructive raid in force

designed to cripple both morale and theability to make war, thereby forcing theFrench to give battle or make peace on En-glish terms. Fire was the main Englishweapon during the THIERACHE CAMPAIGN of1339, when EDWARD III’s men so devastatedthe Cambresis that a year later papal officialsdistributing a special grant to relieve suffer-ing reported that over 174 parishes had beenvirtually annihilated. The English estimatedthat during the campaign they burned or

destroyed 2,118 villages and castles. Duringthe C HEVAUCHE E OF 1355, EDWARD, THE BLACK

PRINCE, reportedly destroyed eleven largecities and thirty-seven hundred villagesacross southern France. Various other che-vauche es in NORMANDY, BRITTANY, and GAS-

CONY ravaged the countryside, where crops,except for vineyards and orchards, mightrecover quickly, but the loss of livestock,windmills, and other buildings was more

devastating, leaving a local community with-out the resources either to rebuild or to con-tribute to the French war effort. By 1360, thescale of destruction and depopulation inrural France was horrific, with the depreda-tions of ROUTIERS and the J ACQUERIE rebelsonly adding to the damage done by theEnglish.

Early in the war, the French strategyunder PHILIP VI had been to avoid battle.Without a victory, maintaining both a field

army and his grand ANTI-FRENCH COALITION

proved beyond the resources of Edward III,whose campaigns in 1339 and 1340 were,despite the damage they caused, costly fail-ures. Over the next two decades, Philip andhis son JOHN II reversed this strategy, a de-cision that resulted in crushing defeats atCRECY in 1346 and POITIERS in 1356. How-ever, in 1359, the future CHARLES V resumedthe policy of avoiding battle, and thereby

helped ensure the failure of Edward III’sRHEIMS CAMPAIGN, a grand chevauche e de-

STRATEGY AND TACTICS

290



signed to capture Rheims and have Edwardcrowned king of France. Believing that theEnglish could not economically sustain suchcampaigns, Charles was less willing than hisfather to conclude the BRETIGNY agreement.

With the renewal of war in 1369, the Englishcontinued the strategy of raiding and pillag-ing, but found it to be less effective. TheFrench refused to fight, the English could nolonger live off a countryside they had dev-astated, French towns and castles were betterwalled and fortified, the English them-selves had to defend CALAIS and Brittany,and the campaigns became more expensiveand less rewarding. Following the failure ofthe great C HEVAUCHE E OF 1373 led by JOHN OF

GAUNT, duke of Lancaster, the English lar-gely abandoned the strategy of raid andpillage.

With the renewal of the war under HENRY

V, English strategy changed. Henry’s aimwas to conquer castles and towns by meansof SIEGE WARFARE, thus the AGINCOURT cam-paign of 1415 began with the siege of HAR-

FLEUR, while the NORMAN CAMPAIGN of 1417– 19 was a series of sieges culminating in the

capture of ROUEN. Although several majorbattles were fought in the 1420s, such asCRAVANT in 1423 and VERNEUIL in 1424, mostmajor campaigns of the fifteenth centuryinvolved sieges, such as MELUN in 1420,MEAUX in 1422, ORLEANS in 1429, and PON-

TOISE in 1441. The NORMAN CAMPAIGN of1449–50, which reconquered Normandy forCHARLES VII, comprised a series of siegesmarked by Jean BUREAU’s skillful handlingof the French ARTILLERY. Even the last battle

of the war in 1453 resulted from an un-successful attempt by John TALBOT, earl ofShrewsbury, to break the French siege ofCASTILLON.

The great tactical innovation of the warwas the English defensive formation thatused dismounted cavalry in combinationwith ARCHERS. Although the exact disposi-tion of English troops in this formation,especially at major battles like Crecy, is

much debated by historians, this tacticaldeployment was largely responsible for nu-

merous English victories, including, besidesCrecy, MORLAIX, Poitiers, and Agincourt.The French made various attempts to coun-ter this formation, including a flank attackon ROBERT OF ARTOIS’s Flemish infantry

at SAINT-OMER in 1340, a mounted charge onthe archers by a large cavalry reserve atMAURON in 1352, and dismounted cavalryat Poitiers in 1356. Although these tacticshad varying degrees of success, the Frenchlearned that chivalrous mounted charges,like those thrown repeatedly at the Englishlines at Crecy, spelled disaster against thenew English formations. This lesson wasmomentarily forgotten at Agincourt in 1415,but the war of sieges that developed in the

fifteenth century reduced the effectivenessof English archers and revealed the power ofFrench artillery, which, by the 1440s, gavethe French the tactical advantage thelongbow had earlier given the English. Seealso CHIVALRY; HUNDRED YEARS WAR,PHASES OF.

Further Reading: Bennett, Matthew. ‘‘The

Development of Battle Tactics in the Hundred

Years War.’’ In Arms, Armies and Fortifications in

the Hundred Years War , ed. Anne Curry andMichael Hughes, 1–20. Woodbridge, England:

Boydell Press, 1994; Prestwich, Michael. Armies

and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English

Experience. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press, 1996.

STRATFORD, JOHN, ARCHBISHOP OFCANTERBURY (c. 1275–1348)

John Stratford, archbishop of Canterbury,

was a senior royal councilor who served asboth chancellor of England and president ofthe royal council. During the CRISIS OF 1340– 1341, the most serious political upheaval ofEDWARD III’s reign, Stratford became thefocus of the king’s anger at what he believedwas the failure of his ministers to faithfullysupport his foreign and military policies.Stratford’s vigorous and reasoned defenseof himself and his actions led to reaffir-

mation of the right of peers to be triedonly in PARLIAMENT and to eventual royal

STRATFORD, JOHN, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

291



acceptance of Parliament’s right to consentto all TAXATION.

Born probably in Stratford upon Avon,Stratford studied at Oxford, where heearned a doctorate of civil law in 1312. By

the early 1320s, he was dean of the Court ofArches and held various benefices in Lich-field, Lincoln, and York. In 1320, Stratfordaccompanied EDWARD II to Amiens, wherethe king rendered homage to PHILIP V forAQUITAINE. From 1321 to 1323, Stratfordserved mainly as English representative atthe papal court in Avignon, where, in June1323, Pope John XXII, acting contrary to theroyal will, named him bishop of Winchester.After a period of disfavor, Stratford was

again employed on diplomatic missions. In1324, he negotiated with CHARLES IV overAquitaine and in 1325, after accompanyingPrince Edward to France, he tried un-successfully to persuade Queen Isabella toreturn to England (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF

ENGLAND [c. 1292–1358]).When the queen landed in England in

September 1326 to depose her husband,Stratford joined her. In January 1327, he was

a member of the delegation sent to convinceEdward II to abdicate and on 1 February heassisted at the coronation of Edward III. Al-though dispatched on other diplomatic mis-sions, Stratford’s increasing association withHenry, earl of Lancaster, cost him the favor ofthe queen and her lover, Roger Mortimer,earl of March. On 28 November 1330, amonth after Edward III overthrew his motherand March, the king appointed Stratfordchancellor; in November 1333, Edward also

named him archbishop of Canterbury.Stratford retained the chancellorship until1334, but later served twice more in that of-fice, from June 1335 to March 1337 and againfrom December 1339 to April 1340. In1338, Stratford traveled to the Continent,where he conducted talks with the French,oversaw intelligence efforts in the LowCountries, and acted as guarantor to theking’s creditors.

On 30 November 1340, Edward, angrythat lack of resources had thwarted his re-cent campaigns and forced him to concludethe Truce of ESPLECHIN, demanded thatStratford, then president of the council,

appear before him to account for his ac-tions. Stratford refused, insisting that hewould submit himself only to the judgmentof Parliament. When other ministers werearrested, and the archbishop’s brother, Ro-bert, was dismissed as chancellor, Stratford,fearing for his life, went to Canterbury Ca-thedral, where, on 29 December, the feast ofthe murdered archbishop Thomas Becket,he excommunicated several royal officersfor publicly denouncing him as a traitor. In

February 1341, the king published his at-tack on Stratford’s administration, a wide-ranging and angry indictment that thearchbishop derided as a libellus famosus(infamous libel). In March, the archbishopissued his Excusaciones, a detailed and dis-passionate rebuttal of the king’s charges.

Unwilling to go to extremes with anarchbishop who appeared willing to courtmartyrdom, Edward soon realized the in-

effectiveness of his methods. On 3 May 1341,following an intercession on Stratford’s be-half by a delegation of lords and bishops, theking readmitted the archbishop to his favor,although he never again appointed Stratfordto office. The archbishop died on 23 August1348.

Further Reading: Haines, Roy M. Archbishop

John Stratford, Political Revolutionary and Champion

of the Liberties of the English Church, c. 1275/80–

1348. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval

Studies, 1986; Ormrod, W. M. The Reign of EdwardIII: Crown and Political Society in England, 1327–

1377 . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,

1990; Waugh, Scott L. England in the Reign of

Edward III . Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1991.

SUFFOLK, DUKE OF. See POLE, WILLIAM DE

LA, DUKE OF SUFFOLK

SUFFOLK, DUKE OF

292



TTACTICS. See STRATEGY AND TACTICS

TALBOT, JOHN, EARL OFSHREWSBURY (c. 1384–1453)

John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, was the

most feared and famous English comman-der in France during the last two decades ofthe HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Born into a prominent Shropshire family,Talbot fought in HENRY IV’s campaigns inWALES, being present at the sieges of Aber-ystwyth and Harlech between 1407 and1409. Under HENRY V, he served as lieuten-ant of Ireland from 1414 to 1416 and again in1418–19. His first service in France was

during the NORMAN CAMPAIGN of 1417–19.He fought intermittently on the Continentduring the 1420s, participating in the siegesof MELUN and MEAUX but also returning toWales in 1422 to suppress disorders in themarches. He became Lord Furnivall by rightof his wife in 1409 and Lord Talbot on thedeath of his elder brother in 1421. A quar-relsome man who willingly resorted to vio-lence to defend his rights or honor, Talbotwas briefly imprisoned in 1413, possibly as a

result of his role in a bitter dispute withThomas Fitzalan, earl of Arundel. He alsomaintained a long-running feud with theOrmond family in Ireland and involvedhimself, on his second wife’s behalf, in theongoing Berkeley-Lisle feud.

The best-known phase of his military ca-reer began in 1428, when Talbot succeededThomas MONTAGU, earl of Salisbury, ascommander of the English forces at the siege

of ORLE´

ANS. Inspired by JOAN OF ARC, theFrench broke the siege in May 1429 andTalbot was subsequently defeated and cap-

tured at the Battle of PATAY in June. Afterpayment of a heavy RANSOM, Talbot was re-leased in 1433. He fought briefly underPHILIP THE GOOD, duke of BURGUNDY, andthen served as chief military commander for

a succession of English lords lieutenant inFrance. Brave and daring, he excelled atsurprise attacks and won such a fearsomereputation among the French that mothersfrightened their children into obedience bytelling then Talbot would take them if theymisbehaved. Credited with many bold ex-ploits in the increasingly futile defense ofNormandy, Talbot received numerous re-wards and honors; he was made count of

Clermont in 1434, marshal of France in 1436,constable of France in 1442, and constable ofIreland in 1446. A Knight of the GARTER

since 1425, Talbot was created earl ofShrewsbury by HENRY VI in 1442.

After the fall of GASCONY in 1451, Shrews-bury, although almost seventy, was the ob-vious choice to command the expeditionaryforce sent to retake the province in 1452. Al-though Shrewsbury’s initial success in re-capturing BORDEAUX enhanced his reputation,

CHARLES VII dispatched three armies to theprovince, and the subsequent campaign re-vealed how out of step the earl was withcurrent military tactics and technology. In

July 1453, Shrewsbury led his army to ruinwith a suicidal charge against massed FrenchARTILLERY at the Battle of CASTILLON. With theearl and his son John dead on the field, thebattle marked the end of English Gasconyand of the Hundred Years War. To com-

memorate Shrewsbury’s death, the Frenchraised the Church of Notre-Dame-de-Talbotnear the spot where he fell.

293



Further Reading: Pollard, A. J. John Talbot and

the War in France, 1427–1453. London: Royal

Historical Society, 1983.

TARD-VENUS. See ROUTIERS

TAX REVOLT OF 1382. See TAXATION AND

WAR FINANCE

TAXATION AND WAR FINANCEThe length and scope of the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR caused military expenditure to risedramatically in both kingdoms. By the fif-teenth century, the war accounted for be-tween one-half and two-thirds of the fundscollected and disbursed by the Crowns of

France and England. The need to find andtap new sources of revenue also caused asignificant expansion in the size and activ-ities of both royal governments.

As a feudal overlord, the king of Francecould collect payments known as aides fromhis vassals on specific occasions, such as theknighting of the king’s eldest son, and in lieuof military service. During the thirteenthcentury, the term aide was also used for oc-

casional levies imposed, usually for militarypurposes, on subjects who were not royalvassals. With the ANGLO-FRENCH WAR OF

1294–1303, the Crown’s need for greaterrevenue led PHILIP IV to demand new aideswith controversial frequency. After the 1330s,aides became virtually synonymous with warsubsidies and commonly took the form ofindirect taxes levied irregularly on the sale ofvarious commodities. In March 1341, PHILIP

VI regularized collection of an indirect tax on

salt known as the gabelle. The king orderedthat salt henceforth be stored in royal ware-houses and then sold for the Crown’s profitby officials known as gabelliers. Hostility tothe tax caused Philip to cancel it in 1347 inreturn for grants of war subsidies. In De-cember 1355, the Estates-General, reacting to

JOHN II’s highly unpopular attempts to raisewar funds by manipulating the currency,reauthorized the gabelle as one of several new

indirect taxes, but resistance again caused itscancellation. However, in 1358–59, the gabellereappeared in PARIS and Languedoc.

In December 1360, John II, in need ofsubstantial sums to pay his RANSOM, re-established three regular indirect taxes, in-cluding the gabelle and impositions on wineand various other commodities. These levies

were in effect feudal aides imposed upon theentire kingdom. Until 1367, the gabelle was a20 percent ad valorem tax, but then waschanged to a surcharge of 24 francs permuid of salt. The tax on wine grew duringthe war from 8 percent of retail sales to 25percent; and the third levy was a generalvalue-added tax on the specified items. Un-accustomed to indirect taxes, Languedocnegotiated in 1362 for permission to paythese levies in a lump sum, the collection of

which was apportioned among communitiesin the region. Known in the 1360s as aides

pour la de livrance, and as ‘‘aids for the war’’after resumption of the conflict in 1369, thesetaxes were collected until the middle ofthe FRENCH CIVIL WAR in 1417, when theywere cancelled by the unpopular ARMAGNAC

regime. Thereafter, the dauphinist govern-ment obtained irregular grants of new aidesfrom the Estates-General until 1436, when

that assembly restored the aides and gabelleas regular and permanent features of royaltaxation.

In December 1363, John II secured ahearth tax, known as a fouage, from the Es-tates of Languedoil. Assessed on the basis ofhouseholds, the fouage was usually paid bytowns in an agreed-upon lump sum thatwas raised in any manner the locality choseto employ. When imposed as a direct tax, itwas usually an assessment on the value of

real property within the district, exclusive ofecclesiastical lands. The average paymentwas 3 francs per household, but the fouagehad a graduated rate of 1 to 9 francs ac-cording to wealth. Although the fouage fund-ed the reformed army that reconqueredAQUITAINE after 1369, CHARLES V cancelledthe tax on his deathbed in September 1380,an action that caused resistance to the pay-ment of all royal taxes to increase sharply. In

March 1381, the minority government ofCHARLES VI secured a new fouage to run forone year from the Estates of Languedoil, but

TARD-VENUS

294



only on condition that the assembly con-trolled its collection and use. When furtherpromises of reform produced no new taxes,nor lessened taxpayer resistance to the col-lection of existing levies, tax revolts erupted

in Paris (the Maillotins), NORMANDY (theHe relle), and elsewhere in northern France.These revolts were eventually suppressedand the government thereafter began im-posing irregular direct taxes that weresimilar to the fouage, but known as tailles.Intermittent imposition of these levies endedin 1439, when CHARLES VII secured a per-manent annual taille from the Estates-General, which also authorized the Crownto annually adjust the amount of the tax.

In the fourteenth century, claims by thenobility to exemption from taxation werelargely denied. However, when the nobility,in the persons of the royal uncles, JOHN,DUKE OF BERRY, and PHILIP THE BOLD, duke ofBURGUNDY, controlled the government dur-ing Charles VI’s minority, the Crown issuedordinances exempting the nobility, uponcertain conditions, from payment of the taille(1388) and aides (1393). By the mid-fifteenth

century, the conditions of exemption wereso broad as to effectively free most noblesfrom taxation. Taxation of the clergy was acontentious issue from the reign of Philip IV,when the king violently opposed Pope Bo-niface VIII’s refusal to permit kings to taxtheir clergy without papal consent. Boni-face eventually allowed the French Crowndiscretionary power to tax the clergy for de-fense of the realm, a right that the French-dominated Avignon popes interpreted

broadly. The Crown also extracted othersums from the Church by leaving beneficesvacant and appropriating their incomes.

In England, the wars of EDWARD I hadestablished the right of PARLIAMENT to con-sent to the imposition of taxation. In 1336,EDWARD III convinced Parliament to granthim a subsidy on wool in addition to thecustoms duties that the Crown had collectedon the import and export of various com-

modities since the 1270s. Although osten-sibly a war tax, this subsidy was regularlyvoted by Parliament after 1355, including

during the years of peace that followedconclusion of the Treaty of BRETIGNY in 1360.Another indirect tax created by war needswas tunnage and poundage, a duty firstimposed in 1345 on each barrel (tun) of wine

and each pound of various other goods. In1398, Parliament voted RICHARD II the rightto collect customs duties for life, and thenmade the same grant to HENRY V in 1415 andHENRY VI in 1453.

The most common form of direct taxationin England was a levy on movable property.By the fourteenth century, the normal as-sessment was a fifteenth of the value of suchproperty in rural areas and a tenth in townsand on royal lands. In 1334, tenths and fif-

teenths began to be levied on communitiesrather than individuals, and by the end ofthe century the assessments had becomefixed sums rather than accurate current val-uations of movable property, a situation thegovernment tolerated because of the ease ofcollecting such sums and the difficulties ofundertaking a new valuation. In 1371, thegovernment imposed a flat levy on eachEnglish parish, but the results were dis-

appointing, and in 1377 Parliament granteda poll tax assessed at a flat rate on everyoneover the age of fourteen, save for beggars. Asecond poll tax assessed at a variable rateaccording to wealth was passed in 1379 anda third using a flat rate that promised ahigher return than tenths and fifteenths wasimposed in 1380. The last poll tax waswidely evaded and became a direct cause ofthe PEASANTS’ REVOLT OF 1381. In the fifteenthcentury, Parliament returned to the standard

subsidies, sometimes granting several at atime, as in 1404 when HENRY IV receivedtwo tenths and fifteenths. In Henry VI’sreign, Parliament tried various land taxes,and in 1435 and 1449 war emergencies led toanother innovation, a graduated income tax.

Early in his reign, Edward III, needinghuge sums to pay the subsidies promised tomembers of his ANTI-FRENCH COALITION, bor-rowed heavily both from LONDON merchants

and Italian bankers. The English merchantWilliam de la POLE was instrumental in ar-ranging loans for the Crown, and was the

TAXATION AND WAR FINANCE

295



initiator of a scheme to manipulate the wooltrade, which ultimately failed and resultedin the Crown’s issuance of the DORDRECHT

BONDS. The government also continued tocollect various feudal aids and assessments

and to impose taxes on the clergy, whichwas routine practice in England by the startof the war. After the 1340s, the clergy metregularly in Convocation, which body even-tually won the right to assent to clericaltaxes in the same way Parliament spoke forthe king’s temporal subjects. The clergy alsopaid subsidies based on the tenth and fif-teenth and were subject to such other leviesas poll taxes. See also ESTATES, GENERAL AND

PROVINCIAL; PAPACY AND THE HUNDRED YEARS

WAR; TOWNS AND THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR.Further Reading: Harriss, G. L. King, Parliament

and Public Finance in Medieval England to 1369.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975; Henneman, John

Bell. Royal Taxation in Fourteenth-Century France:

The Captivity and Ransom of John II . Philadelphia:

Royal Philosophical Society, 1976; Henneman,

John Bell. Royal Taxation in Fourteenth-Century

France: The Development of War Financing, 1322–

1356. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,

1971; Prestwich, Michael. The Three Edwards: War and State in England, 1272–1377 . 2nd ed. London:

Routledge, 2003.

THIERACHE CAMPAIGN (1339)Conducted in or near the Thierache regionalong France’s northeastern frontier, thecampaign of September–October 1339 wasthe first major campaign of the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR and the first significant Englishincursion into the VALOIS realm. The cam-

paign saw little fighting, as PHILIP VI, awarethat EDWARD III lacked the resources tomaintain an army in the field for long, re-fused battle. The campaign was thus char-acterized not by combat, but by Edward’sinability to effectively exploit the ANTI-

FRENCH COALITION he had so painfully con-structed, and by the unprecedented sufferingvisited on French peasants by Edward’sscorched earth policy.

The campaign began on 20 September1339, when Edward, accompanied by mostof his allies from Germany and the Low

Countries, marched south from Va-lenciennes in Hainault toward the town ofCambrai, where the bishop, although anImperial vassal, refused Edward passageinto France. The allied army invested the

town, while parties led by Walter MAUNY;HENRY OF GROSMONT, earl of Derby; andother English captains stormed local castlesand ravaged the entire Cambresis, which,according to Edward, his men ‘‘burned . . .

for the whole of the following week so thatthe whole territory was laid waste and quitestripped of corn, cattle, and everything else’’(Sumption, 281). While the surroundingcountryside went up in flames, Cambrai,defended by a strong French garrison, held

out. By the end of September, Edward wasin a difficult position; he could not captureCambrai and he could not provoke theFrench to battle. Since his allies were clam-oring for payment of their subsidies, andEdward had no money to pay them, heneeded to win a battle before his army dis-integrated. Except to avoid the perception oftimidity, Philip had no need to fight; dis-sention among Edward’s allies and hunger

among his troops would soon force him towithdraw.In early October, Edward’s brother-in-

law, William, count of Hainault, abandonedthe anti-French alliance, leaving to joinPhilip at Compiegne, where the French hadamassed an army of over twenty thousandmen. Although the count’s uncle and mostof the nobility of Hainault stayed with Ed-ward, the defection increased the other al-lies’ reluctance to invade France. However,

on 9 October, with Cambrai untaken, theallied army crossed the French frontier. Ed-ward’s force numbered over ten thousandmen, but less than half were English, so itwas imperative that Edward engage anddefeat the enemy before further defectionsweakened his army. Moving in a wide arc soas to maximize damage, the army movedunopposed through the countryside, burn-ing everything in its path. The English were

so thorough in their destruction that a yearlater the region was still devastated, withmost villages abandoned and most fields

THIERACHE CAMPAIGN

296



uncultivated. Strongpoints were attackedand taken wherever possible, but the armyneeded to keep moving to supply itself andEdward had no siege equipment, so manywere simply bypassed (see SIEGE WARFARE).

Sweeping into Picardy, the army, on 14 Oc-tober, passed within a mile of the newFrench position at Peronne. Although hisspies told him the French were preparing tofight, Edward, fearing that French garrisonsin his rear might intercept his line of retreat,withdrew to the east.

Hearing of the English withdrawal, Philip,angry that the English had learned his plans,issued a formal challenge for the two armiesto meet in battle on about 21 October ‘‘at a

place uncramped by rivers, walls, or earth-works’’ (Sumption, 285). Edward accepted,but, seeking more favorable ground, movednorth into the Thierache, stopping on 21October in the open fields between La Ca-pelle and La Flamengrie. The French haltednext day near the village of Buirenfosse,about four miles to the southwest. Con-vinced that the French meant to attack on 23October, Edward dismounted his men and

placed them in three lines behind a deepditch, with ARCHERS arrayed on each flank.Although completely new to his allies, thisdeployment had defeated the Scots at HALI-

DON HILL and seven years later was to dev-astate the French at CRECY. However, nextmorning, the French, who had stood allnight in line of battle, retreated and began toentrench, Philip having decided not to as-sault the strong English position. Bywidening the rift between Edward and his

allies, delay might defeat the English aseffectively as battle. Since there was noquestion of attacking a superior force in anentrenched position, Edward’s allies de-clared the campaign a moral victory andquickly decamped. However, Edward, whowithdrew to Brabant, knew that the Thier-ache Campaign had failed.



Capricorn Books, 1965; Sumption, Jonathan. TheHundred Years War. Vol. 1, Trial by Battle. Phila-

delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.

THIRTY, COMBAT OF THE. See COMBAT

OF THE THIRTY

THOMAS, DUKE OF CLARENCE(1389–1421)

Thomas, duke of Clarence, was the secondson of HENRY IV and the brother and heir ofHENRY V. Although an experienced soldier,Clarence was also a reckless commander,whose rash disregard of his captains’ adviceled to his death and to the temporary dis-comfiture of the English cause.

Born on 29 September 1389, Thomas wasknighted and became steward of England inOctober 1399, shortly after his father de-posed RICHARD II. In July 1401, the king ap-

pointed Thomas lord lieutenant of Ireland, apost he held until 1413, although he spentbarely a third of that period in Dublin.Thomas also acquired military experiencein WALES, where he served in Glamorgan in1405, and at CALAIS, where he was captain ofthe fortress of Guines. In June 1410, Thomasand his younger brother JOHN, future dukeof Bedford, were involved in serious dis-orders in LONDON, riots that may have

formed the basis for stories of youthfulmisbehavior later attributed by WilliamShakespeare and others to Thomas’s elderbrother, Prince Henry.

By 1411, the prince’s assumption of thegovernment during the illness of their fathercreated tension between Thomas and hisolder brother, who had opposed Thomas’smarriage to Margaret, widow of their uncle,

John Beaufort, earl of Somerset. With thegovernment controlled by the prince and his

allies, Thomas was also angered by councilcriticism of the fitful attention he paid to hisduties in Ireland. However, the real sourceof trouble between the brothers stemmedfrom the prince’s dispute with his father,who suspected his eldest son of beingovereager for power and disagreed with himover French policy. Thomas supported hisfather’s decision to conclude the Treaty ofBOURGES with the ARMAGNAC faction in the

FRENCH CIVIL WAR, while the prince favoredalliance with the BURGUNDIANS. On 9 July1412, Henry IV created Thomas duke of

THOMAS, DUKE OF CLARENCE

297



Clarence and gave him command of theexpeditionary force sent to France under thetreaty. Clarence was also made lieutenant ofAquitaine, an appointment that slighted theprince, who had been duke of Aquitaine

since 1399. Collapse of the Armagnacs dis-solved the treaty and turned Clarence’scampaign into a CHEVAUCHE E that endedwith the duke and his captains extracting alarge ransom from the French before with-drawing to BORDEAUX.

Clarence returned to England upon hisbrother’s accession in March 1413. Now heirto the throne, the duke became Henry V’sloyal servant. Although the two brotherswere never close, their former ill will faded

away. Clarence became constable of En-gland and presided over the commissionthat condemned the Southampton Plot con-spirators in 1415. In that same year, the dukesupplied 240 men-at-arms and 720 ARCHERS

for the army Henry embarked for France.Clarence served at the siege of HARFLEUR,but fell ill and missed the Battle of AGIN-

COURT. One of the chief English commandersduring the conquest of NORMANDY, he was

instrumental in the capture of Caen in 1417,of Pont-de-l’Arche in 1418, and of ROUEN

and Pontoise in 1419. He was also presentwhen Henry ratified the Treaty of TROYES in1420.

Upon his return to England in February1421, Henry named Clarence king’s lieuten-ant in France. Clarence, who was anxious toatone for his absence at Agincourt, rashlyallowed himself to be drawn into battle atBAUGE before his archers could gather. The

duke and most of his captains were slain,their bodies being retrieved only with diffi-culty by Thomas MONTAGU, earl of Salis-bury, whose skill in stabilizing the militarysituation over the following weeks pre-vented Clarence’s foolhardiness from over-throwing the entire English position inNormandy. After the duke’s burial, rumorsclaimed, most improbably, that had Clar-ence lived, Henry would have executed his

brother for failing to obey orders.Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher. Henry


Seward, Desmond. Henry V as War Lord. New

York: Penguin Books, 2002.

THOMAS OF WOODSTOCK, DUKE OFGLOUCESTER (1355–1397)

Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester,was the fifth surviving son of EDWARD IIIand PHILIPPA OF HAINAULT. Twenty-fiveyears younger than his eldest brother, ED-

WARD, THE BLACK PRINCE, Gloucester came ofage in the reign of his nephew RICHARD II,with whom he was frequently at odds overthe conduct of the HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Knighted by his father in April 1377,Thomas was created earl of Buckingham byhis nephew in the following July. To main-

tain his new estate, Buckingham was givenan income of £1,000 a year, which was de-rived from the revenues of alien priories.Because these foreign houses were only inthe possession of the Crown because of thewar, the earl had a vested interest in thecontinuation of hostilities with France.Buckingham saw his first military action in aseries of naval engagements with the Casti-lian fleet in the summer and autumn of 1377.

In 1380, Buckingham commanded the lastgreat English CHEVAUCHE E of the fourteenthcentury, leading a force of five thousand thatraided from CALAIS into BRITTANY. In 1381,he helped suppress the PEASANTS’ REVOLT

and in 1384 he was joint commander withhis brother, JOHN OF GAUNT, duke of Lan-caster, of an unsuccessful expedition intoSCOTLAND. Although created duke of Glou-cester in 1385, Thomas’s income was stillheavily dependent on royal annuities, which

were not always regularly paid. As a result,the duke, an overbearing and ambitiousman, believed himself insufficiently en-dowed in lands and offices for a king’s son,especially in light of the rewards being givento such royal favorites as Robert de Vere,earl of Oxford.

In 1386, Lancaster, who had a restraininginfluence on his brother, left England topursue his wife’s claim to the Castilian

Crown. Gloucester now assumed leadershipof those nobles who opposed Richard’s pur-suit of peace with France. In the so-called

THOMAS OF WOODSTOCK, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER

298



Wonderful PARLIAMENT of 1386, Gloucesterand his chief allies, Richard Fitzalan, earl ofArundel, and Thomas Beauchamp, earl ofWarwick, forced the dismissal of Richard’sministers and won appointment of a gov-

erning commission of which Gloucester wasa member. The commission ended Richard’speace overtures to France and prepared torenew the war. In 1387, when Richard soughtto undo the acts of the 1386 Parliament,Gloucester led an armed revolt against theking. In 1387, Gloucester, Arundel, Warwick,and others, calling themselves the LordsAppellant, met a new Parliament—known asthe Merciless Parliament—to appeal (accuse)the king’s ministers and favorites of treason.

All those appealed were either banished orexecuted.

In 1387, the Appellant regime resumed thewar, winning a naval victory at CADZAND,but failing to incite a pro-English uprising inFLANDERS and failing also to stem a Scottishinvasion. By 1388, Gloucester was more re-ceptive to a cessation of hostilities, and theregime entered into talks that led to con-clusion of the Truce of LEULINGHEN in June

1389, shortly after Richard resumed controlof the government. Through Lancaster’smediation, Gloucester was reconciled to hisnephew, and in 1393 the two dukes led theEnglish delegation to the Anglo-Frenchpeace talks at Leulinghen. Gloucester, how-ever, remained opposed to the royal peacepolicy and to the king’s marriage to Isabellaof VALOIS (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND

[1388–1409]), which sealed a 28-year exten-sion of the truce in 1396.

On 10 July 1397, the king suddenly ar-rested Gloucester, who was imprisoned atCalais, where he was likely murdered on theking’s orders. The duke’s death was an-nounced in September, when Gloucester andthe other leading Appellants were appealedof treason before Parliament. AlthoughGloucester was officially condemned for hisactions in 1387, rumors suggested that theduke, opposed to the peace, and particularly

to the clause calling for the English surrenderof Brest, was arrested for devising a new plotto depose the king and resume the war.

Further Reading: Goodman, Anthony. The

Loyal Conspiracy: The Lords Appellant under Richard


Palmer, J. J. N. England, France, and Christendom,


olina Press, 1972; Saul, Nigel. Richard II . NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997; Tuck,



TOURNAI, SIEGE OF (1340)The two-month siege of Tournai, the focus ofthe English campaign of 1340, was meantto establish a PLANTAGENET bridgehead innorthern France. However, the siege failedand resulted in an unwanted truce that dem-

onstrated the financial inability of the En-glish Crown to support a policy of payingfor allies, and led to a serious political con-frontation between EDWARD III and his sub-

jects.Having, through great diplomatic effort

and prodigious expense, crafted an ANTI-

FRENCH COALITION consisting of England andvarious states in Germany and the LowCountries, Edward sought to use the resulting

army to carry the HUNDRED YEARS WAR intothe French royal domain. Seeking to woundVALOIS honor by seizing an important townand thereby force the French to fight a pitchedbattle, Edward chose to invest Tournai, anindustrial center on the River Scheldt that wasreadily accessible to his forces gathering inFLANDERS. Edward’s naval victory at SLUYS in

June allowed him to land an English army ofabout two thousand men—mainly ARCHERS — in Flanders, where the revolutionary govern-

ment of the province, directed by James vanARTEVELDE, was hastily gathering forces tosupport the coming campaign. The alliesdecided on a two-pronged attack. ROBERT OF

ARTOIS led a force of a thousand English ar-chers and ten thousand Flemings into Artois,while the king, with the bulk of the alliedarmy, besieged Tournai. However, this planwent awry when the French defeated Robertat SAINT-OMER on 26 July, five days before

Edward began operations at Tournai.Although the allied army was large, in-cluding, besides the English and the Flem-

TOURNAI, SIEGE OF

299



ings, contingents under the count of Hai-nault, the dukes of Brabant and Guelders,and the Margrave of Juliers, the French hadalmost six thousand men in Tournai.Strongly fortified, the city was difficult to

assault, so the allies settled down around thetown in hopes that treachery or faminewould deliver it to them, or that their AR-

TILLERY could collapse a section of wall.Raiding parties devastated the surroundingcountryside trying to provoke PHILIP VI,who was approaching with a large army,into engaging the allies. However, Philiprefused to be drawn and the siege showedno signs of progress, while many allied sol-diers began to complain of Edward’s failure

to deliver their promised pay. Money ex-pected from England had not arrived andthe king was paying 20 percent interest onloans to feed his troops. With time againstthem, the allies changed tack on 26 Augustand launched an assault on the walls. Con-ducted only by the English and the Flem-ings, it failed. Angry at the inactivity of theGermans and Brabanters, van Artevelde ac-cused the duke of Brabant of cowardice.

With much difficulty, Edward persuadedthe duke to stay with the army, but theBrabanters, fighting only for pay, had noenthusiasm for the English cause. Edwardknew that his allies would abandon him ifhe did not quickly take the city or win abattle.

On 7 September, Philip reached Bouvines,ten miles west of Tournai. Deploying be-tween the city and the enemy, the allieslaunched several small attacks on the French

lines on 8 September, but these were beatenback and Philip refused a general engage-ment. Declaring themselves unwilling tofight without being paid, several Englishallies began to negotiate with Philip on theirown account. Realizing that he had no al-ternative, Edward overrode his own dis-appointment, and the protestations of vanArtevelde and Robert of Artois, and con-sented to talks, which began in the nearby

village of Esplechin on 23 September. Twodays later, the kings signed the Truce of

ESPLECHIN, which halted the war until June1341 and allowed all parties to keep what-ever they held at the moment. While theseterms worked to Edward’s advantage inSCOTLAND and AQUITAINE, they only em-

phasized his failure in northern France.Believing that he had been forced into ashameful truce by the failure of his ministersin LONDON to support him financially, anangry Edward returned to England in No-vember and precipitated the most seriouspolitical crisis of his reign (see CRISIS OF 1340– 1341). See also SIEGE WARFARE.


Hundred Years War . Vol. 1, Trial by Battle.


1991.

TOURS, TRUCE OF (1444)The Truce of Tours, a two-year cessation ofhostilities negotiated between France andEngland in May 1444, was the first diplo-matic agreement between the two realmssince the Treaty of TROYES in 1420. Althoughproviding a much needed respite for thefaltering English war effort, and forging a

marriage link between the rival monarchs,the truce also allowed the French to forestallany renewal of the ANGLO-BURGUNDIAN AL-

LIANCE and to strengthen their armies for afinal assault on GASCONY and NORMANDY.

By 1444, both parties were willing to talk.The loss of PARIS and other towns in the late1430s, and the failure of the campaign led by

John BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, in 1443,fed a growing war weariness in Englandand discredited the war party led by HENRY

VI’s uncle, HUMPHREY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER.Encouraged by the king, who was now inhis early twenties, the peace party led byCardinal Henry BEAUFORT, bishop ofWinchester, and William de la POLE, earl ofSuffolk, signaled its receptiveness to anydiplomatic overtures from France. Althoughhe had the military initiative, CHARLES VIIalso welcomed peace. Charles hoped todiplomatically isolate BURGUNDY, preventing

Duke PHILIP THE GOOD from aiding theEnglish and the English from supporting the

TOURS, TRUCE OF

300



duke. Charles also needed a respite to carryout military reforms required to strengthenhis armies for eventual showdowns withboth England and Burgundy.

Although it is unclear which side initiated

discussions, by January 1444 the Englishcouncil decided to open talks with Charles,and on 1 February dispatched Suffolk toFrance. Negotiations for a permanent peacequickly bogged down when the French re-fused any concessions. The English thereforeaccepted a truce running until 1 April 1446and agreed to a marriage between their kingand MARGARET OF ANJOU, a niece of CharlesVII, who was unwilling to marry one his owndaughters to Henry and thereby give the

Lancastrians yet another possible claim to theFrench Crown. On 24 May 1444, with Suffolkacting as proxy, fifteen-year-old Margaretwas formally betrothed to Henry at Tours.

Extended eventually until 1449, the Truceof Tours temporarily halted the fighting andopened a period of Anglo-French di-plomacy. Although the English offered torelinquish Henry’s claim to the FrenchCrown in return for full sovereignty in

Normandy, Charles rejected the proposaland pushed instead for the English surren-der of Maine. Personally inclined towardpeace and now under the influence of hisnew wife, Henry secretly agreed to this inDecember 1445. Although English officers inMaine refused to relinquish control untilMarch 1448, Henry’s apparent willingness tomake further concessions in the face of ei-ther military or diplomatic pressure con-vinced Charles to renew the war. In June

1449, after charging the English with break-ing the truce by sacking the Breton town ofFOUGERES, Charles launched a campaign inNormandy that led to French reconquest ofthe duchy in 1450. See also CHARLES VII,MILITARY REFORMS OF; MAINE, SURRENDER OF;NORMAN CAMPAIGN (1449–1450).



versity Press, 1988; Griffiths, Ralph A. The Reign of

Henry VI . Berkeley: University of California Press,1981.

TOWNS AND THE HUNDREDYEARS WARThe HUNDRED YEARS WAR created enormouseconomic problems for towns in both Franceand England. In the former, the effects were

more direct—towns could be burned, plun-dered, and depopulated by military action.In the latter, the effects were usually moreindirect—towns could be thrown into severeeconomic decline by wartime disruption oftrade and commerce.

At the start of the war, many Frenchtowns had no walls, and so were defenselessbefore the devastating English CHEVAUCHE ES,swift campaigns designed to maximize de-struction of enemy resources. In the THIER-

ACHE CAMPAIGN of 1339 and the operationssurrounding the siege of TOURNAI in 1340,the English not only burned many townsand villages, but also desolated the sur-rounding countryside that fed and sup-plied them. The scope of the destructionwas so great that Cardinal Bertrand deMontfavence fainted when an English offi-cial took him to the top of a conventtower at night and showed him the coun-

tryside red with flames for miles in all di-rections.Even towns with defensive walls were

adversely affected as frightened refugeesfrom the surrounding area crowded into thetown, many to stay for years as beggars be-cause they had no homes to return to. Dur-ing the fourteenth century, many Frenchtowns sunk a large portion of their civic re-sources into wall construction and main-tenance. ROUEN spent a quarter of its munic-

ipal budget in this fashion. However, strongwalls acted as magnets drawing both morerefugees from the war-ravaged country-side and armies intent not on raiding, buton siege and conquest. Rouen twice stoodsiege in the fifteenth century. The townsurrendered to HENRY V in January 1419after a horrendous siege of seven months,and again to CHARLES VII after a six-weeksiege in 1449. In southern France, the CHE-

VAUCHE´

E OF 1355 led by EDWARD, THE BLACKPRINCE, caused tremendous destruction

TOWNS AND THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR

301



across a wide area and included the devas-tation of eleven sizable towns.

Already more susceptible than the coun-tryside to the ravages of the BLACK DEATH,towns under siege or simply swollen with

refugees were always in danger from dis-ease, such as the outbreak of dysentery thatkilled both besiegers and besieged duringthe English investment of HARFLEUR in 1415.Even if they did not stand siege, townscould be seriously harmed by enemy actionin the countryside that supported them.PARIS, for instance, counted upon the portsof NORMANDY for fish and upon a wide re-gion around the capital for grain and otherfoodstuffs. When the forces of Charles VII

captured Chartres, some fifty miles fromParis, in 1432, bread prices in the capital rosesharply. The resulting dissatisfaction withthe Anglo-Burgundian administration wasone reason that PHILIP THE GOOD, duke ofBURGUNDY, decided to abandon the ANGLO-

BURGUNDIAN ALLIANCE three years later at theCongress of ARRAS. Desolating the regionupon which a town drew for its food wasconsidered the surest way to take the town

itself.The war’s damaging effect on tradeharmed many ports on both sides of theEnglish Channel. The trade of Caen inNormandy fell by more than half betweenthe start of the war and the early fifteenthcentury; there was some revival during theperiod of English occupation when Nor-mandy was not a battle zone, but the Frenchreconquest in 1449–50 caused anotherdownturn. The needs of war also disrupted

commerce. The huge French fleet destroyedby the English at SLUYS in 1340 was drawnfrom most of the ports of FLANDERS andnorthwestern France, and the loss of somany vessels and so much of the shippingseason seriously harmed the economy of thewhole region. In England, a few ports feltthe effects of war directly. Winchelsea inSussex never recovered from a devastatingFrench raid in 1380, and Melcombe Regis in

Dorset, once a major shipping center, was inrapid decline in the early fifteenth centuryafter twice being burned by the French

during the reigns of EDWARD III and RICHARD

II. LONDON continued to prosper during thewar, although costs rose as merchants inboth countries had to spend more for largercrews and to recoup losses to pirates and

enemy naval activity, such as the Englishcapture of a huge French wine fleet at CAD-

ZAND in 1387. Other English towns, such asBristol, had to gradually diversify theirtrade. As the war in GASCONY caused severefluctuations in the wine trade with BOR-

DEAUX, Bristol increased its trade with Spainand became more involved in fishing ex-peditions to Iceland. By the time the Gasconwine trade collapsed following the Englishdefeat at CASTILLON in 1453, Bristol had al-

ready focused its economic activity else-where. See also NAVAL WARFARE; NORMAN

CAMPAIGN (1417–1419); NORMAN CAMPAIGN

(1449–1450); SIEGE WARFARE.Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher. The




grave Macmillan, 2003.

TROYES, TREATY OF (1420)Concluded in May 1420 at Troyes, a town onthe Seine in northeastern France, the Treatyof Troyes was a historic Anglo-French ac-cord whereby HENRY V of England becameregent and heir to the throne of France. Bycreating the prospect of a dual monarchywithin the English House of PLANTAGENET,the treaty promised an end to both theHundred Years War and the FRENCH CIVIL

WAR.

In the spring of 1418, JOHN THE FEARLESS,duke of BURGUNDY, recaptured PARIS, driv-ing out Dauphin Charles (see CHARLES VII)and his Armagnac supporters and regainingcustody of CHARLES VI. Since the Englishvictory at AGINCOURT in 1415, the civil warbetween BURGUNDIANS and ARMAGNACS haddivided the French nobility and allowedHenry to conquer NORMANDY. In September1419, during a meeting at MONTEREAU to

discuss reconciliation, the dauphin’s menmurdered Duke John, thereby thrustingPHILIP THE GOOD, the new duke of Burgundy,

TROYES, TREATY OF

302



into firm alliance with England and allow-ing Henry to denounce the dauphin as unfitto inherit the Crown of France.

On 2 December, after a month of nego-tiations with the English, Philip announced

his willingness to recognize Henry asCharles’s rightful heir. Although ambivalentabout the prospect of English rule, Philipfound it preferable to acknowledging hisfather’s murderer as king. In January 1420,Henry dispatched representatives to theFrench court in Troyes and authorized themto draft a formal agreement. This documentwas ready by early May, when all partiesagreed to meet in Troyes to ratify the treaty.

Largely dictated by Henry, the terms of

the agreement called for his marriage toCharles’s daughter, CATHERINE OF VALOIS,whom Henry took without a dowry; his rec-ognition as Charles’s heir in place of thedauphin, who was thereby disinherited; andhis exercise of the French regency untilCharles’s death. The treaty envisaged aunion of Crowns, a dual monarchy, not aunion of kingdoms. France and Englandwould retain separate administrations,

laws, and institutions, but the dispute overthe French Crown and over the status ofEnglish territories in France would be re-solved—the king of England and his heirswould rule all.

On 20 May, Philip met Henry outsideTroyes and conducted him to a meeting withCharles, his wife Queen ISABEAU, and theirdaughter Catherine. Next day, Henry ar-rived at St. Peter’s Cathedral in Troyes witha party of about four hundred. Isabeau and

Philip, acting as deputies for Charles, whowas too ill to attend, led a French party of

similar size. The text of the treaty was read atthe high altar, each party giving assentthereto, and the seals of each king were af-fixed to the document, with Henry employ-ing the seal EDWARD III had used to ratify the

Treaty of BRETIGNY sixty years earlier. Led byPhilip, the nobles present swore to upholdthe treaty (i.e., to recognize Henry as heir tothe throne) and to obey Henry as regent.Peace between the two realms was thenofficially proclaimed in both French andEnglish. Next, Henry and Catherine weresolemnly betrothed, with the wedding cere-mony following on 2 June at the Church ofSt. John in Troyes.

The treaty was widely if not en-

thusiastically accepted in Paris and most ofthe English and Burgundian regions ofnorthern France, where war weariness andeconomic distress made the conclusion ofpeace, on whatever terms, a welcome pros-pect. However, in most of the realm south ofthe Loire, loyalty to the dauphin was equallywidespread, if often equally unenthusiastic,and the treaty was repudiated there as asettlement forced upon a captive king. How

well the treaty would have worked is hardto say, for, to everyone’s surprise, Henrypredeceased his father-in-law, dying at theend of August 1422. When Charles VI diedin the following October, the Treaty ofTroyes made a nine-month-old infant,HENRY VI, ruler of both kingdoms, a cir-cumstance that reinvigorated both the warand the dauphin’s cause.



Perroy, Edouard. The Hundred Years War . Trans.W. B. Wells. New York: Capricorn Books, 1965.

TROYES, TREATY OF

303



U

URBAN V. See PAPACY AND THE HUNDRED

YEARS WAR

URBAN VI. See PAPACY AND THE HUNDRED

YEARS WAR

304



V VALMONT, BATTLE OF (1416)The Battle of Valmont encompassed a seriesof encounters fought in early March 1416along the English army’s line of retreatthrough the region northeast of HARFLEUR in

NORMANDY. The battles illustrate the vitalimportance of Harfleur to HENRY V’s op-erations in Normandy and the continuingharm done to the French military effort bythe incompetence and overconfidence of itsleaders.

On 9 March, Thomas BEAUFORT, earl ofDorset, commander of the English garrisonat Harfleur, led about eleven hundred menon a three-day foraging expedition into the

countryside northeast of the town. Block-aded by land and sea, the Harfleur garrisonwas in desperate need of supplies. All wentwell until the raiders turned for home, whenthey encountered a large French army nearValmont, some twenty miles from Harfleur.Commanded by BERNARD, COUNT OF AR-

MAGNAC and constable of France, this armynumbered almost four thousand. Dorsetdismounted his men, sending the horses tothe rear, and hastily formed a long thin line

to protect his flanks. Although their chargespierced the English line in several places, theFrench knights, instead of turning to attacktheir foes in the rear, charged the groomstending the horses and fell to looting theEnglish baggage. This action gave Dorset thetime he needed to reform his men in anearby garden, which was protected byhedges and a ditch. With his enemy nowdeployed in a strong massed formation that

faced out in all directions, Armagnac brokeoff the attack and commenced negotiations.Although Dorset was eager to reach an

agreement, the constable’s terms provedunacceptable and the talks ended withoutresult.

Under cover of darkness, Dorset’s menslipped away that night, marching west and

south until they reached the shelter of awood at Les Loges, just east of Etretat. Upondiscovering that the English were gone, Ar-magnac dispatched a force under MarshalLouis de Loigny to find the enemy and barhis path to Harfleur until the constable ar-rived. After lying quiet all day, Dorset setout again at nightfall, reaching the sea nearEtretat and then marching south along thecoast, where his seaward flank was secure.

At dawn, with the Seine estuary in view,and Harfleur just beyond, the English werespotted from the cliffs by the marshal’s men,who, seeing their enemy strung out alongthe shore, charged down the slopes. Thehaste with which the charge was launchedand the steepness of the incline threw theFrench assault into complete disorder andallowed the English to form up and cut theirattackers to pieces. Dorset’s men were stilllooting the dead when Armagnac arrived.

Without hesitating, the English rearmed andcharged up the slope, so surprising Arma-gnac’s column that it broke and fled east-ward, where the Harfleur garrison, alertedby the sounds of battle, rode out to strike theflank of the fleeing army.

Although the Valmont battles boostedEnglish morale and gained Harfleur a muchneeded respite, Armagnac, currently thedominant figure in the French government,

was determined to retake the city. TheFrench therefore tightened the blockade andthe garrison was in dire straits until JOHN,

305



DUKE OF BEDFORD, relieved the city in August1416 after his victory at the Battle of theSEINE.



Ltd., 1999; Jacob, E. F. The Fifteenth Century, 1399– 1485. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

VALOGNES, TREATY OF. See CHARLES THE

BAD, KING OF NAVARRE

VALOIS, HOUSE OFA cadet branch of the House of CAPET, theHouse of VALOIS was the ruling dynasty ofFrance from 1328 to 1589. During the HUN-

DRED YEARS WAR, the first five Valois kings—

PHILIP VI, JOHN II, CHARLES V, CHARLES VI,and CHARLES VII—contended with the En-glish royal Houses of PLANTAGENET andLANCASTER for control of western France andfor possession of the French Crown itself.Despite decades of political instability andmilitary defeat, the Valois had by the mid-fifteenth century secured their Crown, ex-pelled their English rivals, and expandedthe scope of their authority and the size of

their realm.The family descended from Charles, countof Valois, the second son of Philip III (r.1270–85) and younger brother of PHILIP IV.On his death in 1314, Philip IV left threesons. The eldest, LOUIS X, died in 1316,leaving, after the death of his posthumousson, John I, only daughters, whose claim tothe throne was set aside by their paternaluncle PHILIP V. At a great council summonedby the new king in 1317, the French nobility

declared that females could not inheritthe Crown. When Philip died in 1322, thisprinciple excluded his daughters from thethrone in favor of his younger brotherCHARLES IV. When Charles died withoutmale heirs in 1328, the direct Capetian lineended, precipitating the first succession cri-sis since 987. Because Valois had died in1325, the next heir in the male line was hisson, Philip. However, Charles IV’s closest

male heir was not his Valois cousin, but hisnephew, EDWARD III of England, the son ofhis sister Isabella (see ISABELLA, QUEEN OF

ENGLAND [c. 1292–1358]). Because Edwardwas only fifteen, a foreign ruler, and domi-nated by his strong-willed mother, theFrench nobility accepted the principle that awoman could not transmit a claim to the

throne to her male heirs. Valois, a matureFrench nobleman with political and militaryexperience, was thus crowned king ofFrance as Philip VI.

Despite the decision of 1328, Edward III’sclaim to the Crown and that of another Va-lois cousin in the female line, CHARLES THE

BAD, king of Navarre, attracted the alle-giance of discontented nobles and provinces,especially after Philip’s 1337 confiscation ofPlantagenet AQUITAINE led to war between

the two kingdoms. By 1340, with ROBERT OF

ARTOIS, the frustrated claimant to thatcounty; John de MONTFORT, the unsuccessfulclaimant to the duchy of BRITTANY; and

James van ARTEVELDE, the leader of rebellionin FLANDERS, allied with him, Edward for-mally claimed the French Crown. Philip’sreign ended in 1350, four years after a dis-astrous defeat at CRECY, and that of his son,

John II, ended in 1364 with the king in cap-

tivity and his kingdom dismembered by theTreaty of BRETIGNY, which recognized Plan-tagenet sovereignty in Aquitaine.

Valois fortunes revived under Charles V,who, by his death in 1380, had strengthenedroyal authority and regained lost territory.However, under Charles VI, a victim ofchronic mental illness, the Valois Crownwas nearly destroyed by FRENCH CIVIL WAR,the rise of an independent APPANAGE inBURGUNDY, and the military success of

HENRY V, who in 1420 had himself rec-ognized as heir to the French throne in theTreaty of TROYES. Although both Henry Vand Charles VI died in 1422, leaving only theinfant HENRY VI as heir to the two thrones,Charles’s disinherited son required the in-tercession of JOAN OF ARC to finally becrowned as Charles VII in 1429, and decadesof political maturation and military andpolitical reform to expel the English for good

in 1453. It was Charles’s son and grandson,Louis XI and Charles VIII, who finally ex-tended the dynasty’s authority into Bur-

306

VALOGNES, TREATY OF



gundy and Brittany and bequeathed to theirsixteenth-century successors a state in whichValois power was unchallenged.



1420. New York: AMS Press, 1986; Fowler,Kenneth. The Age of Plantagenet and Valois: The

Struggle for Supremacy, 1328–1498. New York:

G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1967; Lewis, Peter S. Later

Medieval France: The Polity. London: Macmillan,

1968.

VERNEUIL, BATTLE OF (1424)Often known as the ‘‘second AGINCOURT,’’the Battle of Verneuil occurred on 17 August1424 outside the town of Verneuil on the

Norman-Angevin border. Fought betweenan English army led by JOHN, DUKE OF

BEDFORD, regent of France, and a largerFranco-Scottish force commanded by Jeande Harcourt, count of Aumale, Verneuil wasan overwhelming English victory that ef-fectively destroyed the dauphinist fieldarmy and virtually eliminated the Scots as asignificant military presence for the rest ofthe war.

Determined to carry the war into dau-phinist Maine and Anjou, Bedford, in theearly summer of 1424, collected a force ofmore than ten thousand by combiningtroops recently arrived from England withmen drawn from the garrisons and mobilereserves of NORMANDY and northern France.Leaving ROUEN on 11 August, the dukemarched south to Ivry, which was thenunder siege by William de la POLE, earl ofSuffolk. At almost the same time, a force of

almost fifteen thousand, comprising a con-tingent of Scots, the levies of southernFrance, and mercenaries hired in Italy,marched north from Le Mans with the in-tention of driving the English from Nor-mandy. When advance elements of thesearmies made contact near Ivry on 13 August,the leaders of the allied force, which wasunder the overall command of Aumale, helda contentious council of war in which the

senior French commanders overruled theScots and resolved to avoid battle. The armywould instead concentrate on retaking En-

glish-held towns along the Norman border.This decision led, on 14 August, to the ca-pitulation of Ivry to the English and ofVerneuil to the French.

Apprised of the situation by Suffolk, who

had been shadowing the allied force, Bed-ford marched for Verneuil on 16 August.Pressed by the Scots leaders, ArchibaldDOUGLAS, earl of Douglas, and John STEW-

ART, earl of Buchan, who, according to oneFrench source, were fanatically determinedto engage the hated English, the alliedleaders reversed their earlier decision anddeployed for battle in the plain north ofVerneuil on 17 August. Seeing the enemyarrayed for combat, with the French on the

allied left and sixty-five hundred Scots onthe right, Bedford, who commanded theEnglish right while Thomas MONTAGU, earlof Salisbury, led the left, drew up his ninethousand (garrisons having been left at Ivryand elsewhere) in the traditional Englishformation with men-at-arms in the centerand ARCHERS on the flanks. Except for smalldetachments of cavalry on the allied flanksand two thousand mounted bowmen held in

reserve in the English rear, all the men onthe field were dismounted.The two armies faced each other for some

time without any movement, a pause thatallowed Douglas to inform Bedford that theScots neither expected nor would givequarter. A about four o’clock, Bedford senthis men forward. On the English right, theFrench cavalry swept down on the archersbefore the latter could set their traditionalbarrier of sharpened stakes. Although this

action exposed it to flank attack, Bedford’sdivision drove forward and engaged theFrench men-at-arms in their front. TheFrench cavalry drove into the English rearwhere they were quickly engaged and dri-ven off by Bedford’s mobile reserve. Mean-while, the duke’s division, after almost anhour of some of the most intense combat ofthe war, broke the French line and pursuedit toward the town ditch, into which many

men, including Aumale, were driven anddrowned. On the allied right, the Italian ca-valry flanked Salisbury’s line and overran

307

VERNEUIL, BATTLE OF



the English baggage park, which they pro-ceeded to plunder until dispersed by theEnglish reserve. That force, having alreadybroken the French cavalry, was now movingto reinforce the English left where Salisbury

was hard pressed by the Scots. In a fortunateconvergence, Bedford’s men reformed aftertheirpursuitofAumale’sdivisionandpitchedinto the Scots’ rear at about the same timethe English reserve hit the Scots’ flank. Sur-rounded and fighting valiantly, the Scotswere slaughtered almost to the man.

In a letter written two days later, Bedfordput the allied dead at more than seventy-two hundred. Scottish losses were cata-strophic, including Douglas, Buchan, and

more than fifty men of rank. While the lossof nearly a thousand was costly for theEnglish, who suffered chronic manpowershortages, Verneuil rewarded the sacrificeby leaving dauphinist France open to attack.See also SCOTLAND.



Ltd., 1999; Williams, E. Carleton. My Lord of

Bedford, 1389–1435. London: Longmans, 1963.

VIGNOLLES, ETIENNE DE (c. 1390–1443)Known as ‘‘La Hire’’ (Anger) for his fiercetemper, Etienne de Vignolles was a militarycompanion of JOAN OF ARC and one of themost able French captains of the fifteenthcentury. Although a mercenary leaderwhose raids were often launched on his ownaccount, his most constant allegiance was toCHARLES VII and his daring exploits andassociation with Joan made him a French

national hero, whose likeness still survivesas the jack in a traditional French deck ofplaying cards.

Born in GASCONY, La Hire began his mili-tary career under BERNARD, COUNT OF AR-

MAGNAC, leader of the ARMAGNAC factionduring the FRENCH CIVIL WAR. In about 1418,La Hire and his frequent companion, Potonde XAINTRAILLES, entered the service of thedauphin, for whom they seized the castle of

Coucy. The two then campaigned in Lor-raine, where they fought for a time in thepay of the cardinal of Bar. La Hire fought

again for the dauphin at BAUGE in 1421 andat VERNEUIL in 1424, and then joined theremaining dauphinist garrisons in Cham-pagne, where he was captured by the En-glish when they overran the county after

Verneuil. Free by the summer of 1427, LaHire joined John, Bastard of Orleans (see

JOHN, COUNT OF DUNOIS AND LONGUEVILLE),in the successful relief of MONTARGIS. In1428, he briefly seized Le Mans, and by theend of the year had joined his band ofmercenaries with the besieged garrison ofORLEANS, from which he and the Bastard leda series of unsuccessful sorties against theEnglish. In February 1429, La Hire andXaintrailles supported the French retreat

from the Battle of the HERRINGS; in late April,La Hire rode to Blois with the Bastard to jointhe army of Joan of Arc.

According to the Journal of the Siege of Orle ans, La Hire, a rough and experiencedsoldier, became a loyal supporter of theMaid, accepting her military advice andeven refraining from swearing in her pre-sence. He played a leading role in the reliefof Orleans in May and in the subsequent

campaign to clear the Loire of English gar-risons, being leader of the dauphinist van atthe campaign’s culminating victory at PATAY

on 18 June. He took part in the Maid’sabortive attack on PARIS in September and,using Joan’s tactics of frontal assault, cap-tured Chateau-Gaillard in 1430. However,by Joan’s death in May 1431, the English hadretaken the fortress and captured La Hire.

Ransomed by Charles VII, who hadnamed him bailiff of Vermandois in 1429, La

Hire resumed his military career. In 1435, LaHire and Xantrailles led a raid into BUR-

GUNDY that temporarily disrupted the peaceconference at ARRAS. In January 1436, thetwo captains invaded NORMANDY, reachingthe gates of ROUEN, which they hoped wouldbe opened to them by sympathizers withinthe walls. When this failed to occur, theywithdrew to Ry, where they were defeatedin a sharp skirmish by John TALBOT. There-

after, La Hire participated in the capture ofPONTOISE in 1440, undertook an unsuccessfulrelief of HARFLEUR in 1441, and assisted

308

VIGNOLLES, ETIENNE DE



CHARLES, DUKE OF ORLEANS, at the siege of LaReole in 1442. La Hire died at Montauban in1443 of a fever contracted at La Reole. Seealso LOIRE CAMPAIGN; RANSOM.






THE VOW OF THE HERON. See ROBERT OF

ARTOIS

309

THE VOW OF THE HERON



W WALES, PRINCE OF. See EDWARD, THE

BLACK PRINCE; EDWARD I; EDWARD II; EDWARD

III; HENRY V

WAR OF THE TWO JOANS. See BRETON

CIVIL WAR

WARWICK, EARL OF. See BEAUCHAMP, RI-

CHARD, EARL OF WARWICK; BEAUCHAMP, THO-

MAS, EARL OF WARWICK

WEAPONRY. See ARMOR AND NONMISSILE

WEAPONRY

WHITE COMPANY. See ROUTIERS

WINCHELSEA, BATTLE OF (1350)Fought on 29 August 1350 in the EnglishChannel within sight of the English port ofWinchelsea, the naval battle of Winchelsea(also known as Les-Espagnols-sur-Mer) wasa result of EDWARD III’s attempt to clear theChannel of Castilian raiders. Although thebloody encounter was an English victory,the Castilian fleet remained in existence,and the threat to English shipping and cross-

Channel communications was not elimi-nated.

Despite being included as French alliesin the June 1350 extension of the Truce ofCALAIS, the seamen of Castile felt no obli-gation to honor an undertaking of PHILIP VIof France. Accordingly, a Castilian fleet ofabout forty vessels, operating out of Sluysand other Flemish bases and carrying a largecontingent of Flemish adventurers, launched

attacks on English shipping throughout thesummer of 1350. To end this threat to his vitallines of communication and supply, Edward

assembled a fleet of almost fifty vessels atSandwich. With the king commanding fromhis cog Thomas, the English fleet set sail on 28August. Among those commanding squad-rons were the king’s eldest son, EDWARD, THE

BLACK PRINCE; HENRY OF GROSMONT, duke ofLancaster; and Thomas BEAUCHAMP, earl ofWarwick. JOHN OF GAUNT, Edward’s ten-year-old third son, was with his father, while

John CHANDOS accompanied Prince Edward.On the evening of 29 August, the English

fleet intercepted a southbound Castiliansquadron of about twenty-four vessels offDungeness. Although the English had theadvantage of numbers, the Castilian vessels

were larger, stronger, and higher, allowingtheir crews to sweep the crowded Englishdecks with crossbow bolts and catapultmissiles. Lacking ARTILLERY, the only way toengage an enemy at sea was to grapple hisvessel with hooks and chains and sendboarding parties of men-at-arms to fight anapproximation of a land battle on the ship’sdecks. This the English did, taking heavycasualties until they were close enough toboard, when the advantage turned to them.

By nightfall, at least seventeen Castilianvessels had been taken, with most of theircrews slain and thrown into the sea—fewonboard being deemed worthy of captureand RANSOM. English losses in both shipsand men were high. With the prince’s shipsunk and the Thomas severely damaged,both the king and his son were forced totransfer their flags to captured vessels.

Although Winchelsea was an impressive

naval victory, many Castilian ships either es-caped or avoided the battle and continued,in concert with French vessels, to prey upon

310



English shipping. The Castilians might havebeen reduced in numbers, but their merepresence in the Channel disrupted tradeand, by the end of the year, forced theEnglish to organize a convoy system, which

was costly in men, money, and time, toprotect merchant fleets crossing the Chan-nel. See also NAVAL WARFARE.






WINCHESTER, BISHOP OF. See BEAUFORT,HENRY, CARDINAL-BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

WINDSOR, TREATY OF. See LONDON,FIRST TREATY OF

WONDERFUL PARLIAMENT. See RI-

CHARD II

311

WONDERFUL PARLIAMENT



X XAINTRAILLES, POTON DE (1400–1461)Like his frequent associate Etienne de VIG-

NOLLES, Poton de Xaintrailles (or Saintrailles)was a famous mercenary captain who sup-ported the dauphinist cause and fought

alongside JOAN OF ARC. Although for muchof his career a leader of the e corcheur bandsthat pillaged northern France, Xaintraillesrose eventually in royal service to becomeViscount Bruillois and marshal of France.

In 1418, Xaintrailles and Vignoles, knownas ‘‘La Hire,’’ seized the castle of Courcy forDauphin Charles (see CHARLES VII), but in1421 both men were captured by the Bur-gundians at Mons-en-Vimeau and put to

RANSOM. In 1424, Xaintrailles was in the LowCountries in the service of PHILIP THE GOOD,duke of BURGUNDY. By 1429, he was back inthe dauphinist camp, having joined La Hireand other captains at the siege of ORLEANS.He participated in the Battle of the HERRINGS

in February, in Joan of Arc’s relief of Orleansin May, and in the Maid’s LOIRE CAMPAIGN

in June, during which he and La Hire led theFrench van at the Battle of PATAY. On 11August 1431, during an unsuccessful dau-

phinist attempt to ambush JOHN, DUKE OF

BEDFORD, Richard BEAUCHAMP, earl of War-wick, captured Xaintrailles at the Battle ofthe Shepherd, which was so named becausethe English also captured there a Frenchshepherd boy who claimed to be a divinelyordained successor to Joan of Arc. Carried toROUEN, Xaintrailles received treatment verydifferent from that recently accorded theMaid; the captive took his meals with War-

wick and was even presented to HENRY VIwhen the boy-king passed through on hisway to his French coronation in PARIS.

Exchanged for John TALBOT, a Frenchcaptive since Patay, Xaintrailles, althoughreceiving a royal appointment as bailiff ofBourges, resumed his mercenary career,

joining La Hire on a raid into Burgundy that

disrupted the peace conference at ARRAS in1435 and helping suppress a peasant revoltin NORMANDY in 1436. On his raids, Xain-trailles acquired so much wealth in bootyand ransoms that the king cited him byname when he ordered the ROUTIER bands ofNormandy to cease their attacks. In 1444,Xaintrailles accompanied Dauphin Louis(the future Louis XI) on his campaignagainst the Swiss, but used the expedition as

a further opportunity to pillage on his ownaccount. However, following conclusion ofthe Truce of TOURS in 1444, Xaintrailles re-committed himself to royal service and be-came a leader of the new standing armycreated by the king during the cessation ofhostilities (see CHARLES VII, MILITARY RE-

FORMS OF). Becoming royal master of horse,Xaintrailles played an active role in the re-conquest of Normandy and was allowed tocarry the ceremonial sword Joyeuse before

the king on his triumphal entry into Rouenin November 1449. He was named governorof Falaise in 1450 and took part in the re-conquest of GASCONY in 1452–53. Appointedmarshal of France in 1454, Xaintrailles be-came governor of Guienne (the formerEnglish AQUITAINE) in 1458. Xaintrailles diedin BORDEAUX on 7 October 1461.



ing, 2003; Pernoud, Regine, and Marie-VeroniqueClin. Joan of Arc. Trans. Jeremy Duquesnay


312



YYORK, DUKE OF. See EDMUND OF LANGLEY,

DUKE OF YORK; RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK

313



Appendix 1: Genealogies 3 1 4



3 1 5



3 1 6



3 1 7



3 1 8



3 1 9



3 2 0



Appendix 2: Chronological Listing of

Major Battles, Sieges, and Campaigns

Action Date

Halidon Hill, Battle of (Scotland) 19 July 1333Thierache Campaign 20 September–24 October 1339Sluys, Battle of (naval) 24 June 1340Tournai, Siege of 18 July–25 September 1340Saint-Omer, Battle of 26 July 1340Morlaix, Battle of 30 September 1342Bergerac, Capture of late August 1345Auberoche, Battle of 21 October 1345Aiguillon, Siege of 1 April–20 August 1346

Crecy, Battle of 26 August 1346Neville’s Cross, Battle of (Scotland) 17 October 1346Calais, Siege of 4 September 1346–3 August 1347La Roche-Derrien, Battle of 20 June 1347Winchelsea, Battle of (naval)1 29 August 1350Combat (Battle) of the Thirty 26 March 1351Saintes, Battle of 1 April 1351Mauron, Battle of 14 August 1352Chevauche e of 1355 5 October–9 December 1355Poitiers, Battle of 19 September 1356Nogent-sur-Seine, Battle of 23 June 1359

Rheims Campaign 4 November 1359–10 May 1360Brignais, Battle of 6 April 1362Cocherel, Battle of 16 May 1364Auray, Battle of 29 September 1364Na jera, Battle of (Castile)2 3 April 1367Limoges, Sack of 19 September 1370La Rochelle, Battle of (naval) 23 June 1372Chevauche e of 1373 August 1373–January 1374Cadzand, Battle of (naval)3 24 March 1387Harfleur, Siege of 18 August–22 September 1415

Agincourt, Battle of 25 October 1415Valmont, Battle of March 1416Seine, Battle of the (naval) 15 August 1416

Although the various phases of the Hundred Years War encompassed innumerable battles,sieges, sacks, skirmishes, assaults, ambushes, combats, and campaigns, only the largest, mostimportant, or best known of these military actions are listed below. Naval battles and en-counters occurring outside France or a French fief are so noted.

321



Norman Campaign (English)4 1 August 1417–19 January 1419Rouen, Siege of5 29 July 1418–19 January 1419Fresnay, Battle of 3 March 1420Melun, Siege of 9 July–18 November 1420Bauge, Battle of 22 March 1421

Meaux, Siege of 6 October 1421–2 May 1422Cravant, Battle of 31 July 1423Verneuil, Battle of 17 August 1424Montargis, Siege of 15 July–5 September 1427Orleans, Siege of 12 October 1428–8 May 1429Herrings, Battle of the6 12 February 1429Loire Campaign7 10–18 June 1429Patay, Battle of8 18 June 1429Pontoise, Siege of 6 June–19 September 1441Fougeres, Sack of 24 March 1449Norman Campaign (French)9 12 August 1449–12 August 1450Formigny, Battle of 15 April 1450Castillon, Battle of 17 July 1453

1. Also known as the Battle of Les-Espagnols-sur-Mer.2. Also known as the Battle of Navarrette.3. Also known as the Battle of Margate.4. The campaign effectively ended with the fall of Rouen on 19 January 1419, although a few Norman

castles held out for several months more.5. The capitulation of Rouen effectively ended Henry V’s Norman Campaign.6. Also known as the Battle of Rouvray.

7. Concludes with the Battle of Patay on 18 June 1429.8. Battle is final action of the French Loire Campaign.9. Concludes with the fall of Cherbourg on 12 August 1450.

APPENDIX 2

322



Appendix 3: European Monarchs

and Rulers, 1250s–1450s

Below are listings of the rulers of the most important kingdoms and states of Western Europein the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, including Aragon, Burgundy, Castile, England,Flanders, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Navarre, Portugal, and Scotland.

ARAGON

H OUSE OF C ATALONIA

Jaime I (1213–76)Pedro III (1276–85)Alfonso III (1285–91)

Jaime II (1219–1327)Alfonso IV (1327–36)Pedro IV (1336–87)

Juan I (1387–95)Martin the Humane (1395–1410)

H OUSE OF T RASTA´

MAREFernando I (1412–16)Alfonso V (1416–58)

BURGUNDY

C APETIAN LINE OF DUKES

Hugues IV (1218–72)Robert II (1272–1305)Hugues V (1305–15)Eudes IV (1315–49)Philip de Rouvre (1349–61)

V ALOIS LINE OF DUKES1

Philip the Bold (1363–1404) John the Fearless (1404–19)Philip the Good (1419–67)

1. When Duke Philip de Rouvre died childless in

1361, the duchy reverted to the French Crown; JohnII established the Valois line of dukes by grantingBurgundy to his youngest son Philip in 1363.

CASTILE

H OUSE OF BURGUNDY

Alfonso X (1252–84)Sancho IV 1284–95Fernando IV (1295–1312)Alfonso XI (1312–50)Pedro the Cruel (1350–69)

H OUSE OF T RASTA MARE

Henry II (1369–79) John I (1379–90)

Henry III (1390–1406) John II (1406–54)

ENGLAND

H OUSE OF PLANTAGENET

Henry III (1216–72)Edward I (1272–1307)Edward II (1307–27)Edward III (1327–77)Richard II (1377–99)

H OUSE OF L ANCASTER

Henry IV (1399–1413)Henry V (1413–22)Henry VI (1422–61, 1470–71)1

1. During the English Wars of the Roses, HenryVI was deposed by his Yorkist cousin, Edward

IV, in 1461, briefly restored to the throne in 1470,and then deposed again (and eventually mur-dered) in 1471.

323



FLANDERSD AMPIERRE LINE OF C OUNTS

Guy de Dampierre (1278–1305)Robert III de Bethune (1305–22)Louis I de Nevers (1322–46)

Louis II de Male (1346–84)

V ALOIS LINE OF C OUNTS1

Philip the Bold (1384–1404) John the Fearless (1404–19)Philip the Good (1419–67)

1. Louis de Male was succeeded by his son-in-law, Philip the Bold, duke of Burgundy; Flanderswas thereafter ruled by the Burgundian dukes.

FRANCE

H OUSE OF C APET

Louis IX (St. Louis) (1226–70)Philip III the Bold (1270–85)Philip IV the Fair (1285–1314)Louis X the Quarrelsome (1314–16)

John I (1316)Philip V the Tall (1316–22)Charles IV the Fair (1322–28)

H OUSE OF V ALOIS

Philip VI (1328–50) John II the Good (1350–64)Charles V the Wise (1364–80)Charles VI (1380–1422)Charles VII (1422–61)

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE (GERMANY)H OUSE OF H ABSBURG

Rudolf I (1273–91)

H OUSE OF N ASSAU

Adolf (1292–98)

H OUSE OF H ABSBURG

Albert I (1298–1308)

H OUSE OF LUXEMBOURG

Henry VII (1309–13)

H OUSE OF W ITTELSBACH

Louis IV (1314–47)


Charles IV (1347–78)Wenceslaus (1378–1400)

H OUSE OF W ITTELSBACH

Ruprech III (1400–10)


Sigismund (1410–37)

H OUSE OF H ABSBURG

Albert II (1438–39)Frederick III (1440–93)

NAVARREH OUSE OF C HAMPAGNE

Thibault II (1253–70)Henry I (1270–74)

Jeanne I (1274–1305) and Philip II [Philip IVof France] (1285–1314)1

H OUSE OF C APET

Louis I [Louis X of France] (1314–16)Philip II [Philip V of France] (1316–22)Charles I [Charles IV of France] (1322–28)

Jeanne II (1328–49) and Philip III of Everux(1328–42)2

H OUSE OF EVREUX

Charles II the Bad (1349–87)Charles III (1387–1425)Blanca (1425–41) and John I of Trastamare

[John II of Aragon] (1425–79)3

1. Jeanne I, the daughter of Henry I marriedPhilip IV the Fair of France, who then ruled Na-varre in right of his wife.2. Jeanne II, daughter of Louis X of France,inherited Navarre on the death of her last Capetianuncle Charles IV in 1328; Jeanne thereafter ruledNavarre with her husband Philip of Evreux.1

PORTUGALH OUSE OF BURGUNDY

Afonso III (1248–79)Dinis (1279–1325)

Afonso IV (1325–57)Pedro (1357–67)Fernando (1367–83)

APPENDIX 3

324



H OUSE OF AVIS

Joa ˜ o I (1385–1433)Duarte (1433–38)Afonso V (1438–81)

SCOTLANDH OUSE OF DUNKELD

Alexander III (1249–86)Margaret (1286–90)

I NTERREGNUM (1290–92)

H OUSE OF BALLIOL

John (1292–96)

I NTERREGNUM (1296–1306)

H OUSE OF BRUCE

Robert I (1306–29)

David II (1329–71)

H OUSE OF STEWART (STUART )

Robert II (1371–90)Robert III (1390–1406)

James I (1406–37) James II (1437–60)

APPENDIX 3

325



Appendix 4: Popes, 1294–1455

Below is a listing of all popes and anti-popes who reigned between 1294 and 1455. An * denotesFrench pope, while a # denotes those now regarded as anti-popes.

ROMAN POPES

Boniface VIII (1294–1303)Benedict XI (1303–4)

AVIGNON POPES

*Clement V (1305–14)*John XXII (1316–34)#Nicholas V (1328–30)1

*Benedict XII (1334–42)*Clement VI (1342–52)*Innocent VI (1352–62)*Urban V (1362–70)*Gregory XI (1370–78)

GREAT SCHISM

ROMAN LINE AVIGNON LINE PISA LINE

Urban VI (1378–89) Clement VII (1378–94)Boniface IX (1389–1404) Benedict XIII (1394–1417)2 Alexander V (1409–10)Innocent VII (1404–6) Clement VIII (1423–29)3 John XXIII (1410–15)4

Gregory XII (1406–15)5

ROMAN POPES

Martin V (1417–31)Eugenius IV (1431–47)#Felix V (1439–49)6

Nicholas V (1447–55)

1. Crowned by Emperor Louis IV, who quarreled with John XXII and declared him deposed, Nicholas Vwas an Italian cleric whose authority was not recognized outside parts of Italy.

2. Deposed by the Council of Constance in 14153. Voluntarily abdicated in favor of Martin V in July 1429.4. Deposed by the Council of Pisa in 1409 and the Council of Constance in 1415 and formally submitted to

Martin V in 1419.5. Deposed by the Council of Pisa in 1409, but formally resigned to the Council of Constance in July 1415.

6. Selected as pope by the Council of Basle in an irregular election, Felix V, the former Duke AmadeusVIII of Savoy, was never recognized beyond his own duchy and a few small Italian states; he abdicatedin favor of Nicholas V in April 1449.

326



Appendix 5: Holders of SelectedEnglish, French, and Continental Titles

of Nobility during the Hundred Years War

Listed below are the individuals who held the chief titles of nobility under the English andFrench Crowns, as well as among the principalities of the Low Countries, during the HundredYears War. Although these men were the chief military and political figures in their respectiverealms, it is often difficult to know which particular member of a noble family is being dis-cussed since they are usually referred to only by their titles. Note the frequent intermarriage

between royal and noble families and the resulting consolidation of territories within families,particularly the accumulation of provinces in the Low Countries by the Valois dukes of Bur-gundy. Note also how many noblemen were slain or captured during major battles of the war.

ENGLISH NOBILITY

Bedford, Dukes of

John (1414–35), son of Henry IV; brotherof Henry V

title lapsed on duke’s death

Clarence, Dukes of Lionel (1362–68), son of Edward III; uncle

of Richard IItitle lapsed on duke’s death

Thomas (1412–21), son of Henry IV;brother of Henry V

title lapsed on duke’s death at Battleof Bauge

Exeter, Dukes of

John Holland (1397–1400)title forfeited upon duke’s execution for

treason by Henry IVThomas Beaufort (1416–26), half-brother

of Henry IVtitle lapsed on duke’s death

John Holland (1444–47)son of first Holland duke of Exeter;

restored to father’s titleHenry Holland (1447–75)

succeeded father; title lapsed on duke’sdeath

Gloucester, Dukes of

Thomas of Woodstock (1385–97), sonof Edward III; uncle of Richard II

title lapsed on duke’s death; likelymurdered by orders of Richard II

Humphrey (1414–47), son of Henry IV;brother of Henry V

title lapsed on duke’s death

Lancaster, Dukes of

Henry of Grosmont (1351–61), cousinof Edward III

title lapsed on duke’s death John of Gaunt (1362–99), son of Edward III;

uncle of Richard IIgranted father-in-law’s title

Henry of Bolingbrook (1399), son of John

of Gaunt, duke of Lancastersucceeded father; became king asHenry IV, 1399

Henry of Monmouth (1399–1413), sonof Henry IV

succeeded father; became king asHenry V and title merged with

Crown, 1413

March, Earls of

Roger Mortimer (1328–30)

title forfeited upon earl’s execution fortreason by Edward III

327



Roger Mortimer (1348–60)restored to grandfather’s title

Edmund Mortimer (1360–81)succeeded father

Roger Mortimer (1381–98)

succeeded father; named heirpresumptive to Richard II

Edmund Mortimer (1398–1425)succeeded father; briefly heir

presumptive to Richard IIRichard, duke of York (1425–60)

succeeded uncle

Northampton, Earls of

William de Bohun (1337–60)

Humphrey de Bohun (1360–73)succeeded father; title lapsed on earl’s

deathHenry of Bolingbroke (1384–99), son of John

of Gaunt, duke of Lancastergranted father-in-law’s title; became

king as Henry IV, 1399Anne (1399–1438), daughter of Thomas

of Woodstock, duke of Gloucestersucceeded as countess through her

mother, Eleanor de Bohun; titlelapsed on countess’s death

Princes of Wales

Edward (1301–7), son of Edward Ibecame king as Edward II, 1307

Edward, the Black Prince (1330–76), sonof Edward III; father of Richard II

predeceased father, 1376Richard of Bordeaux (1376–77), son of

Edward, the Black Princebecame king as Richard II, 1377

Henry of Monmouth (1399–1413), sonof Henry IV

became king as Henry V, 1413Edward of Lancaster (1453–71), son

of Henry VIpredeceased father, 1471

Salisbury, Earls of

William Montagu (1337–44)William Montagu (1344–97)succeeded father

John Montagu (1397–1400)succeeded uncle; title forfeited on earl’s

execution for treason by Henry IV,1400

Thomas Montagu (1421–28)

restored to father’s titleRichard Neville (1428–60)

granted father-in-law’s title by rightof his wife, 1428

Shrewsbury, Earls of

John Talbot (1442–53)slain at Battle of Castillon, 1453

John Talbot (1453–60)succeeded father

Somerset, Dukes/Earls of John Beaufort (1397–1409), half brother

of Henry IVcreated earl of Somerset

Henry Beaufort (1409–19)succeeded father as earl of

Somerset John Beaufort (1419–44)

succeeded brother as earl; createdduke, 1443

Edmund Beaufort (1444–55)succeeded brother as earl; createdduke, 1448

Suffolk, Dukes/Earls of

Robert de Ufford (1337–69)created earl of Suffolk

William de Ufford (1369–82)succeeded father as earl; title lapsed

on earl’s deathMichael de la Pole (1385–88)

stripped of title by Lords Appellant,1388; died in exile, 1389

Michael de la Pole (1399–1415)restored to father’s earldom by Henry IV;

died at siege of HarfleurMichael de la Pole (1415)

succeeded father as earl; slain at Battle ofAgincourt

William de la Pole (1415–50)succeeded brother as earl, 1415; created

marquis, 1444; created duke, 1448;stripped of dukedom and banished,1450

328

APPENDIX 5



Warwick, Earls of

Thomas Beauchamp (1315–69)Thomas Beauchamp (1369–1401)

succeeded father; stripped of title byRichard II, 1397–99; restored by

Henry IV, 1399Richard Beauchamp (1401–39)

succeeded fatherHenry Beauchamp (1439–45)

succeeded father; created duke, 1444;title of duke lapsed on duke’s death

York, Dukes of

Edmund of Langley (1384–1402), sonof Edward III; uncle of Richard II

Edward (1402–15)slain at Battle of Agincourt; title forfeited

through treason of duke’s brother,Richard, earl of Cambridge, 1415

Richard (1425–60), son of Richard, earlof Cambridge

restored to uncle’s title

FRENCH AND CONTINENTAL

NOBILITY

Albret, Lords of Bernard-Aiz (1324–59)Arnaud-Amanieu (1359–1401)

succeeded fatherCharles (1401–15)

succeeded father; slain at Battleof Agincourt, 1415

Charles (1415–71)succeeded father

Alencon, Dukes/Counts of Charles (1325–46), brother of Philip VI

succeeded father as count; slain at Battleof Crecy


Peter (1361–91)succeeded brother, who resigned county

to enter Church, 1361 John (1391–1415)

succeeded father as count; createdduke, 1414; slain at Battle ofAgincourt

John (1415–74)succeeded father as duke; captured at

Battle of Verneuil, 1424; fought with Joan of Arc at Orleans, 1429;

stripped of title by Charles VII,

1474

Anjou, Dukes/Counts of

John (1332–50), son of Philip VItitle lapsed at count’s accession as

John IILouis (1356–84), son of John II

created count, 1356; created duke, 1360Louis (1384–1417)

succeeded father as duke

Louis (1417–34)succeeded fatherRene (1434–80)

succeeded brother

Armagnac, Counts of

John (1319–73)launched ‘‘Appeal of the Gascon Lords,’’

1368 John (1373–84)

succeeded father John (1384–91)

succeeded fatherBernard (1391–1418)

succeeded brother; leader of Armagnacfaction during French civil war; slain by

Burgundian mob in Paris John (1418–50)

succeeded father

Artois, Counts of

Jeanne, countess of Burgundy (1330–47)succeeded mother as countess

Eudes, duke of Burgundy (1330–47)ruled county by right of wife, Jeanne

Philip de Rouvre, duke of Burgundy(1347–61)

succeeded grandmotherMargaret of France (1361–82)

succeeded sister’s grandsonLouis de Male, count of Flanders (1382–84)

succeeded motherMarguerite de Flanders (1384–1405)succeeded father

329

APPENDIX 5



Philip the Bold, duke of Burgundy(1384–1404)

ruled county by right of wife,Marguerite

John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy (1405–19)

succeeded motherPhilip the Good, duke of Burgundy (1419–67)

succeeded father

Berry, Dukes of

John (1360–1416), son of John IIMarie (1416–34)

succeeded father as duchess of Berry;appanage reverted to the Crown on

death of duchess

Bourbon, Dukes of

Louis (1327–42)created duke by Charles IV, 1327

Peter (1342–56)succeeded father; slain at Battle of Poitiers

Louis (1356–1410)succeeded father

John (1410–34)succeeded father; captured at Battle of

Agincourt, 1415, and died in captivity


Brabant, Duke of

John (1312–55) Joan (1355–1404)

succeeded father as duchessAntoine (1404–15), son of Philip the Bold,

duke of Burgundysucceeded aunt; among prisoners slain

at Battle of Agincourt John (1415–27)

succeeded fatherPhilip (1427–30)

succeeded brotherPhilip the Good, duke of Burgundy (1430–67)

succeeded cousin

Brittany, Duke of

John III (1312–41)

John de Montfort (1341)failed in bid to succeed his half brother,1341

Charles of Blois (1341–64)awarded duchy by his uncle, Philip VI;

slain at Battle of Auray John IV (1364–99), son of John de Montfort

won duchy at Battle of Auray

John V (1399–1442)succeeded father

Francis I (1442–50)succeeded father

Peter II (1450–57)succeeded brother

Arthur III (1457–58)succeeded nephew

Burgundy, Duke of

Eudes IV (1315–49)

Philip de Rouvre (1349–61)succeeded grandfather

John II (1361–63)duchy reverted to Crown

Philip the Bold (1363–1404)created duke by his father, John II

John the Fearless (1404–19)succeeded father

Philip the Good 1419–67succeeded father

Dauphins of France

Charles (future Charles V) (1349–64), sonof John II

Charles (future Charles VI) (1368–80), sonof Charles V

Charles (1389), son of Charles VICharles (1392–1401), son of Charles VILouis, duke of Guienne (1401–15), son

of Charles VI John, duke of Touraine (1415–17), son of

Charles VICharles (future Charles VII) (1417–22), son

of Charles VILouis (future Louis XI) (1423–61), son

of Charles VII

Flanders, Counts of

Robert de Bethune (1305–22)Louis de Nevers (1322–46)

succeeded grandfather; slain at Battle

of CrecyLouis de Male (1346–84)succeeded father

330

APPENDIX 5



Marguerite de Flanders (1384–1405)succeeded father as countess of

FlandersPhilip the Bold, duke of Burgundy

(1384–1404)

ruled county in wife’s right John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy

(1405–19)succeeded mother

Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy(1419–67)

succeeded father

Hainault, Counts of

William III (1304–37)married sister of Philip VI

William IV (1337–45), brother of QueenPhilippa, wife of Edward III

succeeded fatherMargaret (1345–56), sister of Queen

Philippa, wife of Edward IIIsucceeded brother as countess

William V (1356–88)succeeded mother as count

Albrecht I (1388–1404)succeeded brother

William VI (1404–17)succeeded father

John III (1418–25)

brother of William VI; disputedsuccession with niece

Jacqueline (1417–32)daughter of William VI; disputed

succession with uncle; forced to yieldcounty to duke of Burgundy, 1432

Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy(1432–67)

Orle ans, Duke of

Philip (1344–75), son of Philip VItitle lapsed upon duke’s death

Louis (1392–1407), son of Charles V; brotherof Charles VI

murdered by agents of John the Fear-less, duke of Burgundy

Charles (1407–65)succeeded father; captured at Battle of

Agincourt, 1415

331

APPENDIX 5



Appendix 6: Constables and Marshalsof France and England during the

Hundred Years War

The offices of constable and marshal were hereditary in England, but not in France, where theholders of both offices, but especially the constables, were particularly active in militarycommand during the Hundred Years War. In England, the office of Lord High Constable wasattached to the earldom of Hereford in the early twelfth century and so remained in the Bohunfamily until it passed through them to the Staffords in the late fourteenth century. In 1521, the

office passed to the Crown with the execution of Henry, duke of Buckingham, its last Staffordholder. Since then, constables have only been appointed for coronations. The office of LordMarshal of England (known as Earl Marshal after 1397) passed by inheritance to the Mowbraydukes of Norfolk in the late fourteenth century.

CONSTABLES OF ENGLAND

John de Bohun, fifth earl of Hereford(1321–35)

Humphrey de Bohun, sixth earl of Hereford(1335–61)

Humphrey de Bohun, seventh earl of

Hereford (1361–72)Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester

(1372–97)son of Edward III and son-in-law

of seventh earl of HerefordHumphrey, earl of Buckingham (1397–99)

son of duke of GloucesterEdmund Stafford, earl of Stafford (1399–1403)

son-in-law of duke of GloucesterHumphrey Stafford, duke of Buckingham

(1403–60)son of earl of Stafford

MARSHALS OF ENGLAND

Thomas of Brotherton, earl of Norfolk(1315–38)

half brother of Edward IIMargaret, duchess of Norfolk (1338–85)

daughter of earl of Norfolk; only womanever to hold the office

Thomas Mowbray, first duke of Norfolk(1385–98)grandson of duchess of Norfolk

Thomas Holland, duke of Surrey (1398–99)appointed by Richard II after Norfolk’s

banishmentRalph Neville, earl of Westmorland

(1400–1412)appointed by Henry IV after Surrey’s

rebellion John Mowbray, second duke of Norfolk

(1412–32)son of first duke of Norfolk

John Mowbray, third duke of Norfolk(1432–61)

CONSTABLES OF FRANCE

Gaucher de Chatillon (1307–29)Raoul I of Brienne, count of Eu (1329–44)

Raoul II of Brienne, count of Eu (1344–50)English prisoner, 1346–50; executed for

treason by John II, 1350Charles of Spain (1350–54)

murdered by Charles the Bad, king ofNavarre, 1354

Jacques, count of La Marche (1354–56)Walter VI of Brienne (1356)

slain at the Battle of Poitiers, 1356Robert Morean de Fiennes

(1356–70)Bertrand du Guesclin (1370–80)Olivier IV de Clisson (1380–92)

332



Philip of Artois, count of Eu(1392–97)

Louis, count of Sancerre (1397–1402)Charles d’Albret (1403–11)Valeran III of Luxembourg (1411–13)

Charles d’Albret (1413–15)slain at the Battle of Agincourt, 1415

Bernard VII, count of Armagnac(1415–18)

murdered in Paris by a Burgundianmob, 1418

Charles, duke of Lorraine (1418–25) John Stewart, earl of Buchan, (1421–24)Arthur de Richemont (1425–58)

became Arthur III, duke ofBrittany, 1457

MARSHALS OF FRANCE

Appointed by Philip VI

Anseau de Joinville (1339–43)Charles de Montmorency (1344–81)Robert de Waurin (1344–60)Guy de Nesle (1345–52)Edouard de Beaujeau (1347–51)

Appointed by John II

Arnoul d’Audrehem (1351–70)Rogues de Hangest (1352)

Jean de Clermont (1352–56)slain at the Battle of Poitiers, 1356

Jean de Boucicaut (1356–67)

Appointed by Charles V

Jean de Mauquenchy (1368–91)Louis, count of Sancerre (1369–1402)

Appointed by Charles VI

Jean II de Boucicaut (1391–1421)captured at the Battle of Agincourt,

1415 Jean de Rieux (1397–1417)Pierre de Rieux (1417–39)Claude de Beauvoir (1418–53)

Jean de Villiers de L’Isle-Adam (1418–37) Jacques de Montberon (1418–22)Gilbert Motier de la Fayette (1421–64)Antoine de Vergy (1422–39)

Jean de la Baume (1422–35)

Appointed by Charles VII

Amaury de Severac (1424–27) Jean de Brosse (1426–33)Gilles de Laval-Montmorency (1429–40)Andre de Laval-Montmorency (1439–86)

Philippe de Culant (1441–54)Poton de Xaintrailles (1454–61)

333

APPENDIX 6



Appendix 7: Counties, Duchies, and

Regions of Medieval France

Provided below are brief descriptions andhistories for some of the largest and mostimportant French counties, duchies, andregions mentioned in the entries. For Aqui-taine, Brittany, Burgundy, Flanders, Gas-

cony, and Normandy, see the individualentries for each in the main entry listing.Please also refer to the map of provinces onpage li.

AGENAIS

Located in southwestern France between therivers Dordogne and Garonne, the Agenaiswas a county of shifting and irregularboundaries centered on the town of Agen.

Controlled by the dukes of Aquitaine sincethe ninth century, the Agenais passed withthe duchy to the English Crown in thetwelfth century. Richard I granted theAgenais to the count of Toulouse in 1196,and English claims to the country thereafterlapsed until 1259, when the Treaty of Parisrestored Aquitaine to the English Crownand allowed Henry III to reassert a claim tothe Agenais. Although returned to thePlantagenets in 1279, the county remained in

dispute between the Crowns and from 1293was administered by both French and En-glish officials. The Agenais saw heavy fight-ing and suffered severe destruction duringthe first decades of the Hundred Years War.The Treaty of Bretigny restored the provinceto England in 1360, but the French regainedthe county for good in the campaign of 1370.

ANGOUMOIS

The Angoumois was a small county in west-central France bordered by Poitou on thenorth, Perigord on the south, the Limousin

to the east, and Saintonge to the west. Itsonly sizable town was Angouleme on theCharent. The county was incorporated intothe duchy of Aquitaine in the eleventh cen-tury and passed to the Plantagenets in the

1150s when Henry II of England marriedEleanor, duchess of Aquitaine. In 1200,Henry’s son John abducted and marriedIsabella, the heiress of the county, an actionthat initiated Capetian intervention and ledby the 1220s to the French conquest of theAngoumois and most of the rest of thePlantagenet holdings in France. In 1314,the Angoumois was incorporated into theFrench royal domain, but in 1360 the Treatyof Bretigny included the county in Plan-tagenet Aquitaine. In the 1370s, the countywas reconquered by the Valois.

ANJOU

Anjou was an important medieval princi-pality located in west-central France andcentered on the town of Angers, whichstood at the confluence of the rivers Loireand Mayenne. In the early twelfth century,the county of Maine was permanently at-

tached to Anjou through marriage. TheEnglish ruling House of Plantagenet des-cended from Count Geoffrey of Anjou, whomarried Matilda, the daughter of Henry I ofEngland, in 1128. On Henry’s death in 1135,Geoffrey made good his wife’s claim to theduchy of Normandy, which he conquered in1144, but England, after a long civil war,remained under the rule of Matilda’s cousin,Stephen. On Geoffrey’s death in 1151, his

son Henry became count of Anjou and dukeof Normandy, and, in 1152, upon his mar-riage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, ruler of that

334



duchy. After 1154, when Henry succeededStephen as King Henry II of England, Anjoustood at the heart of an English continentalempire that stretched across western Francefrom Normandy to the Pyrenees.

Henry’s son, King John, lost Anjou to theFrench in 1202 and John’s son, Henry III,renounced English claims to the county inthe Treaty of Paris in 1259. John II madeAnjou the appanage of his second son,Louis, duke of Anjou. In the fifteenth cen-tury, Anjou was a key Anglo-French battle-ground, the Battle of Bauge being foughtthere in 1421. Although Maine and otherparts of the duchy fell under English controlin the late 1420s, most of this territory, save

for Maine, was retaken by the Valois overthe next decade. In 1445, Margaret, thedaughter of Rene, duke of Anjou, marriedHenry VI of England. During negotiationsfor the match, the English king agreed tosurrender Maine to Charles VII, who finallyregained possession of that county in 1448.

ARMAGNAC

Armagnac, a county of southwestern France,

was part of the early medieval duchy ofGascony and as such was incorporated intothe duchy of Aquitaine in the 1050s. In thetwelfth and thirteenth centuries, the countsof Armaganc were vassals of the Plantagenetking-dukes of Aquitaine, Count Bernard-AizV being especially noted for his service toHenry III in the 1240s. In the fourteenthcentury, the counts acquired significant newfiefs under French lordship, a circumstancethat weakened their allegiance to the English

Crown. In 1368, John, count of Armagnac,unhappy with taxes imposed by his over-lord, Edward, the Black Prince, appealed tothe Parlement against the prince in defianceof the Treaty of Bretigny, under which Ar-magnac was assigned to the sovereignPlantagenet principality of Aquitaine. Thisappeal of the Gascon lords restarted theHundred Years War and ended Armagnac’sconnection with the English dynasty. During

the French civil war in the 1410s, BernardVII, count of Armagnac, became constable ofFrance and leader of the Armagnac faction.

The county finally passed to the FrenchCrown in 1589.

ARTOIS

An important cloth-producing county of

northwestern France, Artois belonged to thecounts of Flanders until 1180 when it cameto the House of Capet through marriage.Louis VIII gave the county as an appanageto his son Robert, the younger brother ofLouis IX. When Count Robert II died at theBattle of Courtrai in 1302, succession to thecounty was disputed between his daughter,Mahaut, countess of Burgundy, and hisgrandson, Robert of Artois. Philip IV decidedin favor of Mahaut, but Robert continued to

press his claim with each succeeding mon-arch, particularly Charles IV and Philip VI,with whom he was in high favor. However,because Mahaut’s descendants had marriedEudes, duke of Burgundy, and Louis deNevers, count of Flanders, those two pow-erful noblemen prevailed upon Philip VI toagain rule against Robert, who then fled toEngland where he recognized Edward III asking of France. In 1337, Philip cited Ed-

ward’s support for Robert as one of hisreasons for confiscating the duchy of Aqui-taine.

In 1382, Louis de Male, count of Flanders,inherited Artois from his mother, a grand-daughter of Mahaut. In 1384, Louis’s deathpassed the county to his daughter Mar-guerite, duchess of Burgundy. At Marguer-ite’s death in 1405, Artois was inherited byher son, John the Fearless, duke of Bur-gundy, and thus became part of the great

Burgundian principality of the fifteenthcentury.

AUVERGNE

Auvergne was a large region of centralFrance that in the late ninth century becamepart of the territory of the duke of Aquitaine.Neither the counts of Auvergne nor theirfeudal overlords, the dukes of Aquitaine,exercised a strong hold over the region,

which from the tenth through the twelfthcenturies witnessed continuous wars be-tween various local lords. In the 1150s,

335

APPENDIX 7



Auvergne, with the rest of Aquitaine, be-came part of the continental empire ruled bythe English House of Plantagenet; however,in 1189, Henry II of England recognized thesuzerainty of Philip II of France over the

region. In 1225, Louis VIII granted Auvergneas a appanage to his son Alphonse of Poi-tiers, the younger brother of Louis IX. Underthe 1360 Treaty of Bretigny, Auvergne wasassigned to John II of France, who gave it asan appanage to his son John, duke of Berry.

BERRY

The region of central France lying south ofthe Loire and west of Burgundy, Berry cameinto the possession of the royal House of

Capet in 1101. In 1137, Berry was granted toEleanor of Aquitaine as a dowry upon hermarriage to Louis VII of France. Upon theannulment of that marriage, Eleanorbrought Berry to her new husband, Henry,count of Anjou, whom she married in 1152.When the count became Henry II of Englandin 1154, Berry became part of the Plan-tagenet empire in France. In 1200, Henry’sson, King John, returned Berry to the Ca-

petians, whose control of the region grewduring the thirteenth century. In 1360, JohnII granted Berry as an appanage to his son

John, who, as duke of Berry, used duchyrevenues to finance his artistic collections. In1411–12, Berry was a battleground of theFrench civil war, the duke being one of theleaders of the Armagnac faction. With Parisunder Anglo-Burgundian control between1418 and 1436, Bourges, the capital of Berry,was the seat of the Valois government under

Charles VII, who was sometimes derisivelyknown as the ‘‘King of Bourges.’’ On thedeath of Duke John’s daughter Marie in1434, Berry was reattached to the FrenchCrown.

BLOIS

A county in north-central France lying eastof Anjou and southwest of Paris and Or-leans, Blois was for a time in the Middle

Ages dynastically linked with the countiesof Champagne and Chartres. Centered onthe Loire town of Blois, the county was po-

litically important in the early twelfth cen-tury. In 1135, Stephen, the younger brotherof Count Thibaut of Blois, succeeded hismaternal uncle, Henry I, as king of England,but was himself followed on the throne by

his cousin’s son, Henry, count of Anjou. TheEnglish dynasty founded by Henry II wasthus Angevin, not Bloisian, and Blois neverbecame part of the Plantagenet empire inFrance. During the Hundred Years War, thecounts of Blois supported the House of Va-lois. Count Guy I married a sister of PhilipVI, who made his younger nephew, Charlesof Blois, duke of Brittany in 1341. Charleswas eventually slain at Auray in 1364, thusending the Breton civil war. Charles’s elder

brother, Count Louis, died fighting for theFrench at Crecy in 1346. Count Guy II, whosubsidized part of Jean Froissart’s Chronicles,sold Blois to Charles VI’s brother, Louis,duke of Orleans, in 1391, allowing Blois tobe incorporated into the royal domain in thelate fifteenth century.

BOURBON/BOURBONNAIS

The Bourbonnais was a lordship of central

France lying southwest of Burgundy,southeast of Blois, north of Auvergne, andeast of Poitou. Known for its wines, theBourbonnais, centered on the town ofMoulins, was a fief of the French Crownfrom at least the tenth century. In 1327,Charles IV of France traded his county of LaMarche to Louis, lord of the Bourbonnais,for his county of Clermont. As part of thisarrangement, Charles also created Louisduke of Bourbon. Now peers of France, the

dukes of Bourbon frequently married theirchildren into the royal House of Valois.Duke Louis’s son married the sister of PhilipVI, while his granddaughter marriedCharles V. Duke Louis II was thus an uncleof Charles VI and a prominent member ofCharles’s minority government. The Bour-bonnais suffered severely from the depre-dations of routiers in the late fourteenthcentury, and from the weak government that

resulted from the nineteen-year imprison-ment of Duke John I following his captureat Agincourt in 1415. However, the duchy

336

APPENDIX 7



revived in the fifteenth century under John’sson and grandson and by 1500 the Bourbonterritories constituted the largest block ofnonroyal lands in France. The duchy wasfinally confiscated by the Crown in the 1520s

following the rebellion of the last duke.

BRABANTAlthough lying entirely within the HolyRoman Empire, the duchy of Brabant, aLow Country principality that is today partof Belgium, was predominantly French-speaking. The lord of Brabant took the titleof duke in 1086. Like Flanders, Brabant de-veloped important cloth-making towns,such as Antwerp and Brussels, which were

assimilated into the duchy in the early four-teenth century through a series of power-sharing arrangements with the duke. Thedukes supported King John of Englandagainst Philip II of France in the early thir-teenth century, but after John’s defeat atBouvines in 1214, Brabant maintained acareful neutrality between England andFrance. In the late 1330s, Duke John IIIbriefly reversed this policy by joining Ed-

ward III’s anti-French coalition; althoughafter the breakup of that alliance in the early1340s, he moved closer to France by marry-ing his daughter, Jeanne, into the pro-FrenchHouse of Luxembourg. In 1390, John’sdaughter designated her niece, Margueriteof Flanders, as her heir. However, when

Jeanne outlived her niece, the duchy passedto Antoine, a young son of Marguerite andher husband, Philip the Bold, duke of Bur-gundy. Brabant was incorporated into Bur-

gundy in 1430 when Antoine’s line failed.

CHAMPAGNEChampagne was a large county lying east ofParis and bounded by the rivers Aisne,Marne, and Yonne. Occupying a flat, fertileplain, Champagne became one of thewealthiest and most powerful feudal terri-tories of medieval France. In the thirteenthcentury, the counts came increasingly under

royal influence, with Count Thibaut V mar-rying a daughter of Louis IX and hisgranddaughter, Jeanne, becoming queen of

France as the wife of Philip IV. Through hergreat-grandmother, Jeanne was also queenof Navarre. Control of Champagne passed to

Jeanne’s son, Louis X, who left it to hisdaughter Jeanne. However, Louis’s brothers,

Philip V and Charles IV, dispossessed theirniece and Champagne was attached to theFrench Crown. The county was hard hit bythe Black Death in the 1340s, the Jacquerie inthe 1350s, and routier bands in the 1370s.Although the first routier incursions wererepelled following the battle of Nogent-sur-Seine in 1359, the English caused much de-struction during the Rheims Campaign andEnglish and Burgundian forces operated inthe region in the 1420s, particularly during

the sieges of Melun and Meaux. The countythus suffered a severe demographic andeconomic decline that was not reversed untilthe late fifteenth century.

DAUPHINE (VIENNOIS)The rulers of the Dauphine, a region ofsoutheastern France lying east of the Rhone,north of Provence, and west of Italy, calledthemselves counts of Vienne until the late

thirteenth century, when they took the titleof dauphin for themselves and Dauphine fortheir principality. In 1349, Humbert II soldthe Dauphine to Philip VI, who bestowed itas an appanage on his eldest grandson,the future Charles V, who thereby becamethe first royal holder of the title dauphin.Because acquisition of the Dauphine rep-resented the first extension of French sov-ereignty beyond the Rhone, the title and theappanage were thereafter reserved for the

heir to the throne.

HAINAULTHainault was a county in the Low Countrieslying southeast of Flanders and entirelywithin the Holy Roman Empire. Bound in adynastic union with the county of Hollandsince 1299, Hainault in the late 1320s began aclose association with England due to themarriage of Philippa, daughter of Count

William III, to the future Edward III. Ar-ranged by Edward’s mother, Queen Isabella,the match gave her the men she needed to

337

APPENDIX 7



overthrow her husband, Edward II, in 1326.In the 1330s, many men from Hainault, suchas the queen’s uncle, John of Hainault; SirWalter Mauny; and Jean le Bel, came toEngland to offer their services, both military

and literary, to Edward III. Philippa’sbrother, Count William IV, joined Edward’santi-French coalition in the late 1330s, but hedied in 1345 and Hainault thereafter movedoutside the English orbit, despite Edward’sattempts to push his wife’s claims to thecounty. In 1417, the last count was suc-ceeded by his daughter, Jacqueline, who in1422 left her husband, the duke of Brabant,to marry Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, thebrother of Henry V. Gloucester’s military

intervention in Hainault threatened theeventual Burgundian acquisition of thecounty and thus severely strained the Anglo-Burgundian alliance. However, Gloucesterabandoned his wife and Philip the Good,duke of Burgundy, invaded the county,which was formally annexed to the Bur-gundian domain in 1433.

LANGUEDOC

In its broad linguistic sense, the term ‘‘Lan-gue d’oc’’ referred to the southern third ofFrance, roughly the provinces south of theRiver Dordogne in which the Occitan lan-guage was spoken. Politically, Languedocreferred to the block of provinces in extremesouth-central France that in the early thir-teenth century were the heartlands ofCatharism, a heretical movement that waseradicated during the Albigensian Crusadeof the 1210s by crusaders from northern

France led by Simon de Montfort. In 1224,Montfort’s descendents ceded their rights inthe region to Louis VIII, who thus broughtLanguedoc under royal authority.

Languedoc suffered severe destructionduring the Hundred Years War. Edward,the Black Prince, devastated the regionduring the Chevauche e of 1355, and routiers

caused serious damage, particularly inQuercy, Rouergue, and the Agenais, in the

1360s and 1370s. The region suffered severefamines in 1335, 1351, and 1374–76, andeconomic collapse and high taxation pre-

cipitated a series of urban revolts across theregion between 1378 and 1382. A revolt ofthe peasantry, known as the rebellion of theTuchins, was not suppressed until 1384.Nonetheless, in the 1420s, support for the

Crown revived along with the economy, andthe region provided both men and moneyfor the armies of Charles VII. The last greatindependent fiefs in the region, the countiesof Armagnac and Foix, were incorporatedinto the Crown in 1589.

LANGUEDOIL

The term ‘‘Langue d’oıl’’ arose in the lateMiddle Ages to describe the region north ofthe linguistic frontier that divided those

areas where Old French was spoken fromthose areas where Occitan was spoken. Thefrontier was defined roughly by the Dor-dogne River and the Cevennes Mountains insouth-central France, with the Languedoilbeing the northern two-thirds of France,where people spoke Old French, and theLanguedoc being the southern one-third,where the natives spoke Occitan. During theHundred Years War, the French Crown

based many administrative and fiscal divi-sions on these regions. The most importantof these concerned the Estates-General,whose meetings occasionally comprisedonly representations from the Languedoil;historians usually refer to such assemblies asthe Estates General of Languedoil.

LIMOUSIN

Comprising the northeastern portion ofmedieval Aquitaine, the Limousin was a

large, thinly populated county in centralFrance. Bounded by Poitou to the west,Auvergne to the east, Berry and La Marcheto the north, and Quercy and Perigord tothe south, the Limousin had only one sizabletown, its capital, Limoges. From the late ninthcentury, the county was under the authorityof the counts of Poitou and then the dukes ofAquitaine. When Henry II of England mar-ried Eleanor, duchess of Aquitaine, in the

1150s, the county passed to the Plantagenets,but was conquered by the Capetians in theearly thirteenth century and incorporated

338

APPENDIX 7



into the royal domain. In 1360, the Treaty ofBretigny assigned the county to Edward III,but French encroachments into the areabegan in 1370, when Edward, the BlackPrince, sacked Limoges in retaliation for the

town’s surrender to John, duke of Berry. Thecounty came under Valois control duringthe 1370s.

LORRAINE

An Imperial duchy on the northeasternfrontier of France, Lorraine centered aroundthe bishoprics of Verdun, Metz, and Toul,and the town of Nancy. From the earlythirteenth century, the duchy developed in-creasingly close ties to France, with the duke

of Lorraine becoming a vassal of the count ofChampagne for various territories. Part ofthe middle kingdom set up between therealms of the East and West Franks by the843 Treaty of Verdun, Lorraine became aduchy in 925. Divided into Upper andLower Lorraine in about 960, the latter be-came the Duchy of Brabant while the formercame by the thirteenth century to be knownsimply as Lorraine. In the fourteenth and

fifteenth centuries, Lorraine came under in-creasing pressure from the Valois dukes ofBurgundy, who controlled large blocks ofterritory lying both north and south of theduchy. During the Lancastrian phase of theHundred Years War, Lorraine’s locationmade it a battleground between Anglo-Burgundian and dauphinist forces and theresulting turmoil gave impetus to the careerof Joan of Arc, a native of Lorraine, whotook as her mission the salvation of the

dauphinist cause. After 1431, a successiondispute allowed the dukes of Burgundy tointervene in the duchy. In 1477, Charles theBold, the last Valois duke of Burgundy, waskilled in battle at Nancy. Lorraine was fi-nally incorporated into the kingdom ofFrance in the eighteenth century.

MAINE

Centered on the town of Le Mans, Maine, a

county in west-central France, was strategi-cally located between Normandy to thenorth and Anjou to the south. Long domi-

nated by the counts of Anjou, who con-tended for paramount influence in thecounty with the dukes of Normandy, Mainebecame permanently attached to Anjou inthe early twelfth century when Count Foul-

ques V of Anjou married the heiress ofMaine. The county became part of thePlantagenet empire in 1154 when the son ofGeoffrey, the late count of Anjou, becameking of England as Henry II. Henry’s sonKing John lost Maine, Anjou, and most ofthe empire to the Capetians in the earlythirteenth century. The English retookMaine in the 1420s, making it an importantbuffer between Lancastrian Normandy andthe dauphinist lands to the south. In the

1440s, Henry VI, as part of his policy to seeka negotiated peace with France, promised tosurrender Maine to Charles VII. Althoughimplementation of this promise was delayedby resistance to it from within the Englishmilitary establishment in France, the Englishfinally evacuated Maine in 1448.

NAVARRE

A small kingdom straddling the frontiers of

northeastern Spain and southwesternFrance, Navarre came into the French orbitin 1284, when Joanna, queen of Navarre,married the future Philip IV, who tookguardianship of the kingdom upon Joanna’sdeath in 1305. The Crowns of France andNavarre remained united during the reignsof Joanna’s sons, Louis X, Philip V, andCharles IV, but separated upon Charles’sdeath in 1328 when the Navarrese declaredthemselves independent and offered the

throne to Louis X’s daughter, Joanna II, whowaived her claim to the French Crown.Ruling in conjunction with her husband,Philip, count of Evreux (d. 1343), Joannapassed the kingdom to her son Charles II(known in French history as Charles theBad) in 1349. Ambitious for power in France,Charles intrigued against his father-in-law,

John II, and engaged in full-scale civil warduring the early months of Charles V’s

reign. When his forces were defeated bya royal army at Cocherel in 1364, CharlesII withdrew to Navarre, where he was

339

APPENDIX 7



succeeded by his son Charles III in 1387.Ferdinand of Spain annexed Spanish Na-varre in 1516, while the tiny French portionof the kingdom was incorporated into theFrench Crown in 1620, two decades after the

last independent king of Navarre succeededto the French throne as Henri IV.

PERIGORD

A county of southwestern France centeredon the town of Perigueux, Perigord formedthe northeastern frontier of the duchy ofAquitaine and thus passed to the House ofPlantagenet in the 1150s when Eleanor,duchess of Aquitaine, married Henry II ofEngland. After the collapse of the Plan-

tagenet empire in the early thirteenth cen-tury, control of Perigord remained dividedbetween French and English until the Treatyof Paris assigned the province to the latter in1259, although Perigord remained much incontention between the two Crowns. Thecounty saw heavy fighting and much de-struction during the Edwardian phase of theHundred Years War. In 1360, the Treaty ofBretigny gave Perigord to Edward III, but

the area suffered much at the hands of rou-tiers and in the 1370s Perigueux became themain base for Bertrand du Guesclin’s re-conquest of Plantagenet Aquitaine.

POITOU

A large county in west-central France, Poi-tou became part of the huge duchy ofAquitaine in the tenth century. Poitiers, thePoitevin capital, became the capital of theduchy and the center of a wealthy court

known for its patronage of Occitan lovepoetry. Upon the marriage of Eleanor,duchess of Aquitaine, to the future Henry IIof England in 1152, Poitou became part ofthe Plantagenet empire. The region wasconquered by the Capetians in the earlythirteenth century, and Henry III of Englandrenounced his claim to it as part of theTreaty of Paris in 1259. In the fourteenthcentury, the region saw much fighting,

especially the Battle of Poitiers in 1356, andmuch subsequent routier activity. The 1360Treaty of Bretigny included most of Poitou

in Plantagenet Aquitaine, but the region wasretaken by the Valois in the early 1370s andwas part of the dauphinist heartland in theearly fifteenth century.

PONTHIEUThe county of Ponthieu was a small lordshipon the estuary of the Somme in north-western France. Once part of Normandy,and thus also part of the Plantagenet empirein France in the twelfth century, Ponthieucontained the towns of Abbeville, Le Crotoy,and Montreuil. The county came back intoEnglish possession in 1279 when Edward Ibecame count by right of his wife, Eleanor ofCastile, who inherited it from her mother.

The county remained in English handsthroughout the first decades of the HundredYears War, and was the site of the Battle ofCrecy in 1346. In 1360, the Treaty of Bretignyconfirmed Plantagenet possession of thecounty, but the armies of Charles V overranPonthieu in 1369 at the start of the Carolinephase of the war. In 1372, Sir Robert Knollesled an English chevauche e into the countyand burned Le Crotoy. In 1435, Charles VII

offered the county to Philip the Good, dukeof Burgundy, as part of the Franco-Burgun-dian reconciliation negotiated at the Con-gress of Arras.

PROVENCE

Although sometimes used to describe theentire southern third of France where theOccitan language was spoken, the term‘‘Provence’’ more precisely defined the re-gion of southeastern France lying between

the Alps on the east, the Mediterranean onthe south, and the Rhone River on the west.Part of the Holy Roman Empire, Provence inthe twelfth century was disputed betweenthe counts of Toulouse and Barcelona, whoeventually divided control of the region. In1246, the heiress of Provence marriedCharles of Anjou, the brother of Louis IX ofFrance. The resulting Angevin dynasty ruledProvence until 1481, when Louis XI in-

corporated the region into the French king-dom. In the 1360s, Provence was devastatedby the Great Company and by various other

340

APPENDIX 7



routier bands, and the Provencal economydid not revive until the fifteenth century.

QUERCY

Transected by the River Lot, Quercy was a

large and important county of southwesternFrance. The Haut-Quercy region lay north ofthe Lot and included the towns of Gourdon,Figeac, and Martel, and the viscounty ofTurenne. South of the Lot, the Bas-Quercy,which extended to the Garonne and the newtown of Montauan, included the chief townof the county, Cahors. Despite pressure fromthe dukes of Aquitaine, who, from thetwelfth century, were also kings of England,the counts of Toulouse held Quercy from the

ninth century until 1249, when the countypassed to Alphonse of Poitiers, brother ofLouis IX of France. The Treaty of Paris gavethe county to the Plantagenets, although theterms of the agreement were never fullyimplemented and Edward I returned Bas-Quercy to the Capetians in 1286. Despitebeing included in the Plantagenet duchy ofAquitaine created by the Treaty of Bretigy in1360, Quercy remained in dispute through-

out the war and was not finally cleared ofEnglish troops until 1443.

ROUERGUE

Lying east of Quercy, Rouergue was a largecounty of south-central France centeredupon the town of Rodez and including, onthe east, the viscounty of Millau. Originallyunder the authority of the counts of Tou-louse, the Rouergue passed to Louis IX’sbrother, Alphonse of Poitiers, in the mid-

thirteenth century. Thereafter, the countywas attached to the Crown of France untilthe Treaty of Bretigny gave it to the Plan-tagenets in 1360. English administrationended in 1368 when the count of Armagnac,the chief magnate in the county, became aparty to the Appeal of the Gascon Lords,thereby reviving the war and initiating theFrench conquest of Rouergue.

SAINTONGEA seaboard county of western France lyingnorth and west of the mouth of the Gironde,

Saintonge became attached to the duchy ofAquitaine in the early Middle Ages. Ex-tending from the Gironde on the south toPoitou on the north and the Limousin on theeast, the region included the island of

Oleron in the Bay of Biscay. Its chief townwas the port of La Rochelle in the north.Saintonge passed, with the rest of Aquitaine,under Plantagenet control in the mid-twelfthcentury, when Henry II of England marriedDuchess Eleanor. Lost to the Plantagenets inthe early thirteenth century, Saintonge wasrestored to English control by the 1360Treaty of Bretigny. In 1372, following theEnglish defeat at the naval battle of La Ro-chelle, the region fell to the Valois and was

incorporated into the French Crown.

TOULOUSE

Toulouse, an important county in southernFrance, was centered on the town of Tou-louse. Controlling the trade routes intoSpain and Italy, the counts of Toulousedominated much of Languedoc between theRivers Rhone and Garonne in the eleventhand twelfth centuries. Implicated in the

Cathar heresy, a movement that was de-stroyed by the Albigensian crusaders fromnorthern France in the early thirteenth cen-tury, the counts of Toulouse lost influenceand the county came eventually intothe possession of Alphonse of Poitiers, thebrother of Louis IX of France. From the1270s, the region was under royal control,although the town of Toulouse enjoyedconsiderable autonomy. The region was

particularly hard hit by the English Che-

vauche e of 1355, during which Edward, theBlack Prince, destroyed many towns andvillages in the county, and by the activitiesof routiers in the 1360s. In the 1420s, Tou-louse was a center of dauphinist support.

TOURAINE

A duchy of west-central France, Touraine, aland of valleys, orchards, and vineyards,

was centered around the town of Tours onthe Loire. In the twelfth century, the countsof Blois ceded the region to the counts of

341

APPENDIX 7



Anjou, who, upon becoming the Plantagenetkings of England in the 1150s, broughtTouraine into the extensive Plantagenetempire in western France. Conquered by theCapetians in the early thirteenth century,

Touraine was one of the provinces re-nounced by Henry III of England uponconclusion of the Treaty of Paris in 1259. Theregion became the southern frontier ofFrance in 1360 when the Treaty of Bretignycreated Plantagenet Aquitaine, although

most of that principality had been re-conquered by 1380. In the 1420s, Tourainewas the center of the so-called ‘‘kingdom ofBourges,’’ the center of the dauphinist do-mains. In 1424, the dauphin (the future

Charles VII) gave the duchy of Touraine asan appanage to Archibald Douglas, earl ofDouglas, leader of a large Scottish force sentto aid the French. After Douglas’s death atVerneuil in August 1424, the duchy returnedto the Crown.

342

APPENDIX 7



Appendix 8: Annotated Listingof Selected Sources for the

Hundred Years War

Because of the war’s length and scope, manyfourteenth- and fifteenth-century chroniclesand histories written in numerous lan-guages and countries bear upon some aspectof the Hundred Years War. Listed below is

only a small selection of the more well-known and readily available sources, pri-marily of English provenance, although afew of the most famous French and Bur-gundian works are also included. For thetwo best known contemporary chroniclersof the war—Jean Froissart and Jean le Bel— see the entries on each man included in themain listing. See also the entry on Christinede Pizan for her works of history, particu-larly her eulogistic biography of Charles V.Although not truly a source for the war, al-though he long was, and sometimes still is,taken for one, William Shakespeare and hisview of the war as presented in the playsHenry V and 1 Henry VI are discussed in theentry ‘‘Shakespeare and the Hundred YearsWar.’’ For more detailed discussion of im-portant English and French chronicles andhistories of the war period, see AntoniaGransden, Historical Writing in England, vol.

2, c. 1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century; JohnTaylor, English Historical Literature in theFourteenth Century; Charles L. Kingsford,English Historical Literature in the FifteenthCentury; and William W. Kibler and GroverA. Zinn, eds. Medieval France: An En-cyclopedia.

ACTA BELLICOSA

The Acta Bellicosa is an important eye-

witness account of the movements of theEnglish army in the weeks before the Battleof Crecy, which occurred on 26 August

1346. Known also as the Chronique Anonymeand the Corpus Christi Fragment (beingcontained in MS 370 at Corpus Christi Col-lege, Cambridge), this Latin diary of theCrecy campaign was written by an anon-

ymous member of Edward III’s army. It isbest known by its opening words, ‘‘ ActaBellicosa.’’ The single surviving copy of thediary is incomplete, and dates from the latefourteenth century. Although apparentlymeant to be an account of the entire cam-paign, the extant document describes theEnglish campaign from the king’s landingin Normandy on 12 July to 28 July, andthen resumes on 11 August and continuesuntil 20 August, when it breaks off in mid-sentence.

Printed VersionsLife and Campaigns of the Black Prince: From Con-

temporary Letters, Diaries and Chronicles, Includ-ing Chandos Herald’s Life of the Black Prince.Edited and translated by Richard Barber.Woodbridge, England: Boydell, 1986. Reprintsand translates the Acta Bellicosa.

Moisant, J. Le Prince Noir en Aquitaine, 1355–6,1362–70. Paris, 1894. Reprints in Latin.

ANONIMALLE CHRONICLE

Written in French prose and covering theperiod from Brutus to the Peasants’ Revolt in1381, the Anonimalle Chronicle is believed tohave been compiled by someone in the northof England, although this is uncertain. Until1333, thechronicleis based on the French Brut,but thereafter the chronicler used an un-known Latin chronicle from London, news-

letters, and some oral eyewitness accounts.The chronicle is particularly important be-cause it is the only contemporary work to

343



cover military events during the last years ofEdward III. Patriotic and chivalric in tone, thechronicle is particularly valuable for the Battleof Poitiers, the movements of Edward III afterconclusion of the Treaty of Bretigny, and the

1370 chevauche e of Sir Robert Knolles. Thechronicler is critical of the Bretigny agree-ment because it meant the surrender of somehard-won towns and of Charles V, who iscondemned for treachery in eventually re-pudiating the treaty. The chronicler alsodescribes the growing disillusionment of theEnglish military with its leadership in the1370s, particularly during the Knolles ex-pedition and the great Chevauche e of 1373 ledby John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster.

Printed VersionThe Anonimalle Chronicle, 1333–1381. Edited by

V. H. Galbraith. Manchester, 1927.

BASIN, THOMAS (1412–91). HISTOIRE

DE CHARLES VII

Born probably at Caudebec in Normandy,Thomas Basin earned his master of arts at theUniversity of Paris in 1429 and later studied

law at Louvain and Pavia. He held variousclerical positions in Lancastrian Normandybefore becoming bishop of Lisieux in 1447. InAugust 1449, the bishop and representativesof the town surrendered Lisieux to John,count of Dunois, thus ending Basin’s attach-ment to the English Crown. The bishop nextbecame a servant of Charles VII and one of theinstigators of the rehabilitation trial of Joan ofArc in the 1450s. He also later wrote a defenseof Joan, entitled Opinio et consilium super pro-

cessu et condemnatione Johanne, dicte Puelle. In1464, Basin joined the League of the PublicWeal, an uprising against Charles’s son,Louis XI, who seized the bishop’s temporal-ities and forced him to flee France. Namedarchbishop of Caesarea by the pope in 1474,Basin spent the rest of his life in exile, livingfor various lengths of time in Rome, Trier, andUtrecht, where he died in December 1491.

Written during his years of exile, and in-

fused with the bitterness of that circumstance,Basin’s Histoire de Charles VII, which wasoriginally written in Latin, is often critical of

Charles VII, especially during the king’s lateryears. Nonetheless, the work contains muchvaluable information on the Anglo-Frenchwar, especially concerning its devastatingeffect upon the French people and country-

side. Basin also provides much informationon diplomatic relations, explaining, for in-stance, that Charles VII refused to offer one ofhis own daughters as a wife for Henry VI,fearing that the union might only strengthenLancastrian claims to the French throne.

Printed VersionsBasin, Thomas. Histoire de Charles VII . Edited by

C. Samaran. 2 vols. Paris: Societe d’Edition‘‘Les Belles Lettres,’’ 1933, 1944.

———. Histoire des re gnes de Charles VII et de LouisXI . Edited by J. E. J. Quicherat. 4 vols. Paris,1855–59.

BOUVIER, JACQUES [GILLES].

CHRONIQUES DU ROI CHARLES VII . Jacques Bouvier, also known as the BerryHerald or Berry, Herault du Roy, wrote hischronicle of the reign of Charles VII in about1455, although it was not finally published

until 1661. The chronicle is an importantsource for the final French campaigns of theAnglo-French war. Berry Herald was alsothe continuator of the Grandes Chroniques forthe period 1402 to 1422.

Printed VersionBouvier, Jacques. Chroniques du roi Charles VII .

Edited by Henri Courteault and Leonce Celier.Paris, 1979.

BRUT The Brut was one of the most popular and bestknown English chronicles of the fourteenthcentury. The first version of the chronicle,running from the supposed founding of Brit-ain by the legendary Brutus to the thirteenthcentury, was written in French prose in theearly fourteenth century. In the middle of thecentury, a continuation of the chronicle, donein two versions, was undertaken. The short

version ends just before the Battle of HalidonHill in 1333, but the long version, which is themost relevant for the Hundred Years War,

344

APPENDIX 8



ends with the Battle of Halidon Hill itself.Sometime between 1350 and 1380, this secondversion was translated into English and con-tinued until the death of Edward III. The Brutis patriotic and chivalric in tone and the En-

glish translation seems meant to be read aloudto noble and gentle audiences. Like the Cro-niques de London,the Brut had a distinct bias infavor of the family of the earls of Lancaster,whose opposition to Edward II and to the re-gime of Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer,earl of March, is much lauded. Despite thecoverage of the Anglo-French war containedin the English continuation to 1377, the Brut isparticularly valuable for its account of theAnglo-Scottish warsin the reignsof Edward II

and Edward III.

Printed VersionThe Brut or Chronicles of London. Edited by F. Brie.

2 vols. London: Early English Text Society,1906–8.

CAGNY, PERCEVAL DE. CHRONIQUES

DES DUCS D’ALENCON.

Written in about 1436 by Perceval de Cagny,

an eyewitness to the 1429 Loire Campaignled by John, duke of Alencon, and Joan ofArc, the Chroniques des ducs d’Alencon is theprime source for that campaign and for themilitary activities of Joan until her capture inMay 1430.

Printed VersionCagny, Perceval de. Chroniques des ducs d’Alencon.

Edited by H. Moranville. Paris, 1902.

CANTERBURY CHRONICLEWritten by an unknown chronicler based atChrist Church in Canterbury, the CanterburyChronicle contains much unique and im-portant information on the Hundred YearsWar. Some the chronicler’s information forthe period from 1346 to 1367 appears to bebased on what he himself witnessed, such asthe welcome accorded the captive John II inLondon both on his first arrival in England in

1357 and upon his return in 1364. Otherinformation was apparently gleaned fromhigh-level sources at court with whom the

chronicler came into contact through thearchbishop and through the location and im-portance of the Becket shrine at Canterbury,which drew important figures and forgedconnections with London, Dover, and Calais.

Among the events depicted are the Frenchattempt to surprise Calais at the end of 1349and the negotiation of the First Treaty ofLondon in 1358. The Canterbury chronicleralso describes the composition of the Frencharmy at Poitiers in 1356, the casualties atAuray in 1364, the Anglo-Flemish negotia-tions for Edmund of Langley’s marriage toMarguerite of Flanders in 1364, and thebreaking of parole by Louis, duke of Anjou, in1363.

Printed Versions‘‘Chronicle of Christ Church, Canterbury, 1346–

1367.’’ In Chronica Johannis de Readinge et Anonymi Cantauriensis, 1346–1367 , ed. JamesTait, 99–186. Manchester, 1914.

CHANDOS HERALD. LA VIE DU PRINCE

NOIR [LIFE OF THE BLACK PRINCE].

The unknown herald, or messenger and of-

ficer of arms, of Sir John Chandos is theauthor of La Vie du Prince Noir , a Frenchverse biography of Edward, the BlackPrince. Possibly, like Jean Froissart, a nativeof Valenciennes in Hainault, the herald en-tered Chandos’s service in about 1360. Theherald is mentioned twice in Froissart’schronicle—in 1366 in a description ofChandos’s negotiations with the GreatCompany and in 1369 when the herald car-ried a message from Chandos to the prince.

It is unlikely that the herald knew the princepersonally, though he certainly met him inthe service of Chandos, who is himself asecondary subject of the work.

Written in the late 1380s, about a decadeafter the prince’s death, the Life is basedupon the author’s own experiences, the in-formation of other eyewitnesses, and somenewsletters and other contemporary docu-ments. The herald praises both the prince

and Chandos as models of chivalry, men ofcourage and honor who were always in theforefront of battle. Despite its eulogistic tone

345

APPENDIX 8



and the fact that it was written years after thedeath of both its subjects, the Life is an im-portant source for the prince’s career, pro-viding numerous details unavailable in otherworks. The Life is particularly valuable for

the campaign and battle of Na jera in 1367, forwhich the herald was an eyewitness.

Printed VersionsChandos Herald. La Vie du Prince Noir by Chandos

Herald. Edited by D. B. Tyson. Tubingen: M.Niemeyer, 1975.

———. The Life of the Black Prince by the Herald of Sir John Chandos. Edited by M. K. Pope andE. C. Lodge. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910.

CHARTIER, JEAN. CHRONIQUE DECHARLES VII.

Jean Chartier was the brother of AlainChartier, who was secretary to both CharlesVI and Charles VII. The Chronique is par-ticularly valuable for major events at theFrench court during the later stages of theHundred Years War.

Printed Version

Chartier, Jean. Chronique de Charles VII. Edited byAuguste Vallet de Viriville. 3 vols. Paris, 1858.

CRONIQUES DE LONDON Written perhaps by an officer of the city ofLondon, where official documents wereprepared in Norman French, this prosechronicle covers events between the years1259 and 1343. A more likely reason for theunknown author’s use of French is his re-liance on the French Brut for his account of

national events prior to 1333. Only after thatdate do the Croniques become an in-dependent source for the Hundred YearsWar. The chronicle’s independent coverageof London history begins in 1327, when thechronicler ceased to draw on two uniden-tified London chronicles for local events.

Despite its coverage of London, thechronicle after 1333 focuses mainly on theFrench wars of Edward III. Like Robert of

Avesbury, the chronicler has a strong royalistbias, praising Edward III as brave and chi-valrous and denouncing Philip VI as ‘‘a cow-

ard and a recreant knight.’’ The chronicle is animportant source for the naval battle of Sluys,the siege of Tournai, and the events sur-rounding the political crisis of 1340–41, whichis described from the king’s point of view.

Printed VersionCroniques de London. Edited by G. J. Aungier.

London: Camden Society, 1844.

ELMHAM, THOMAS (d. c. 1420). LIBER METRICUS DE HENRICOQUINTO [A BOOK IN VERSE ON

HENRY THE FIFTH].A monk at Canterbury and then chaplain toHenry V, Thomas Elmham accompanied the

king to France in 1415 and was present at theBattle of Agincourt. Although he has beensuggested as the author of the Gesta HenriciQuinti, this now seems unlikely. He was alsoidentified as the author of the Vita et GestaHenrici Quinti by the eighteenth-centuryantiquary Thomas Hearne, but this attribu-tion has now been proven incorrect and thatwork is now known as the Pseudo-Elmham.Elmham did write a Latin prose life of

Henry V, which is now lost, and the Liber , aLatin verse life of the king. Down to 1416,the Liber is based on the Gesta, which ends inthat year, and thereafter it is believed thatthe Liber largely follows Elmham’s lost prosebiography of the king. Although highlyeulogistic and concentrating heavily on re-ligious affairs, particularly Henry’s sup-pression of Lollardy, Elmham’s biography isa valuable source for the reign.

Printed VersionElmham, Thomas. ‘‘Liber Metricus de Henrico

Quinto.’’ In Memorials of Henry the Fifth, ed.C. A. Cole, 79–106. London: Rolls Series, 1858.

GEOFFREY LE BAKER (d. c. 1360),CHRONICLER

In about 1341, Geoffrey le Baker, a secularclerk from Swinbrook in Oxfordshire, beganwriting a Latin chronicle that eventually

covered the period from 1303 to the battle ofPoitiers in 1356. An important source forthe Edwardian phase of the Anglo-French

346

APPENDIX 8



war, Baker’s chronicle relies on soldiers’accounts, newsletters, casualty lists, cam-paign itineraries, and official documents.Baker had a flair for dramatic narrative, andnever missed an opportunity to tell a good

story, such as his rousing depiction of thesingle combat that occurred prior to theBattle of Halidon Hill between Robert deBenhall and a Scottish champion, whomBaker described as ‘‘a very Goliath.’’

Baker is also very much in the chivalrictradition of fourteenth-century chroniclers,providing, for instance, detailed accounts ofthe founding of the Order of the Garter andof the heroic death of Sir Thomas Dagworth.Like other English chroniclers of the period,

he patriotically depicts Edward III and Ed-ward, the Black Prince, as chivalrous lead-ers, while Philip VI (always referred to asPhilip de Valois) is called a ‘‘pseudo-king’’and denounced, like all Frenchmen, as ar-rogant and prideful. Baker’s descriptions ofbattles and campaigns contain many uniquedetails, with his itineraries for Edward III’sarmy during the Crecy campaign in 1346and the prince’s great chevauche e in 1355

being particularly valuable.

Printed VersionGeoffrey le Baker. Chronicon Galfridi le Baker de

Swynebroke. Edited by E. M. Thompson. Ox-ford, 1889.

GESTA HENRICI QUINTI [THE DEEDS

OF HENRY THE FIFTH].

This Latin prose biography of Henry V waswritten by an anonymous author between

November 1416 and July 1417, and coversHenry’s reign from his accession in March1413 to the end of 1416. Although written topromote the king’s aggressive policy in Franceand to stimulate enthusiasm in England forthe war, the Gesta is an important source forthe first year of the fifteenth-century re-sumption of the Anglo-French war.

Printed Version

Gesta Henrici Quinti. Edited with an Englishtranslation by Frank Taylor and J. S. Roskell.Oxford: Oxford Medieval Texts, 1975.

GRANDES CHRONIQUES

The Grandes Chroniques de France constitutethe official history of the realm of France ascompiled at the Monastery of Saint-Denisnear Paris from the year 1285. The chronicle

is extremely valuable for events in Franceduring the Hundred Years War, since it waswritten contemporaneously with the eventsit describes. A series of clerical continuatorstook the chronicle through the entire periodof the war and provide a French royal per-spective on important battles, campaigns,treaties, truces, and political and socialmovements. From the end of the thirteenthcentury to about 1350, the chronicle wascompiled by a series of anonymous monks

at Saint-Denis. From then until 1384, thechronicle was written by Pierre d’Orgemont,the chancellor of France. Juvenal des Ursins,the archbishop of Rheims, took the work upto 1402; the Berry Herald continued it to1422; and Jean Chartier, a monk of Saint-Denis, carried it to the death of Charles VIIin 1461.

Printed Version

Les grandes chroniques de France. Edited by JulesM. E. Viard. 10 vols. Paris: Societe de l’Histoirede France, 1920–58.

GRAY, SIR THOMAS (d. c. 1370).SCALACHRONICA.

Sir Thomas Gray of Heton was the firstEnglish lay chronicler since Anglo-Saxontimes to come from a knightly or noble fam-ily. A native of Northumberland, Gray tookup his chronicle in part to record the deeds

of his father, another Sir Thomas, in theScottish wars of Edward I and Edward II.Gray accompanied William Montagu, earl ofSalisbury, to France in 1338, and was ap-pointed sheriff and constable of Norham in1345. He fought at the Anglo-Scottish Battleof Neville’s Cross in 1346 and was capturedby the Scots and imprisoned in EdinburghCastle from 1355 to 1359, the period duringwhich he began his chronicle. Upon his re-

lease, Gray participated, as a member of theBlack Prince’s division, in Edward III’sRheims Campaign. He died a few years after

347

APPENDIX 8



being named keeper of the Scottish marchesin 1367.

The title of Gray’s work, Scalachronica,refers to a scaling ladder, which was a Grayfamily emblem. The chronicle runs from the

time of the early Britons to 1363, with muchof the fourteenth-century material comingfrom the personal experiences of Gray andhis father. Unfortunately, the annals for theHundred Years War period are incomplete,with Gray’s work for the years 1340 to 1355surviving only in abstracts made of the nowmissing leaves by the sixteenth-century an-tiquary John Leland. The Scalachronica isparticularly valuable for the hardships facedby the English (and Gray himself) during the

Rheims Campaign, but also contains de-tailed descriptions of conditions in France inthe late 1350s, including accounts of the

Jacquerie and of the activities of Englishroutiers.

Printed VersionsGray, Sir Thomas. Scalachronica. Edited by J. Ste-

venson. Edinburgh: Maitland Club, 1836. ———. The Scalachronica of Sir Thomas Gray.

Edited and translated by H. Maxwell. Glasgow,1907.

JOHN OF READING (d. c. 1369),CHRONICLERBeginning in about 1365, only a few yearsbefore his death, John of Reading, a monk ofWestminster, continued the Flores Histo-riarum chronicle from the years between1346 and 1367. Although John’s Latin is poorand he apologizes in his preface for his ‘‘lack

of education and skill,’’ this chronicle is animportant source for the Hundred YearsWar precisely because, being no scholar,

John relied on documents and conversationwith eyewitnesses, not other chronicles, tocomplete his work.

Although especially useful for events inLondon during the period, the chronicle alsopays close attention to the Anglo-Frenchwars, English success in which is patri-

otically ascribed to the wise and godly lead-ership of Edward III and Edward, the BlackPrince. Particularly valuable are John’s ac-

counts of the 1367 campaign and battle ofNa jera as well as events related to West-minster, such the 1346 and 1359 visits byEdward III, who stopped at the shrine topray for the success of the forthcoming

Crecy and Rheims Campaigns.

Printed Version John of Reading. ‘‘Chronicle of John of Reading.’’

In Chronica Johannis de Readinge et AnonymiCantauriensis, 1346–1367 , ed. James Tait, 187– 227. Manchester, 1914.

LE JOURNAL D’UN BOURGEOIS DE

PARIS

Written between 1405 and 1449 by a residentof Paris who is believed to have been acanon of Notre Dame, this diary is an im-portant source for life in the French capitalat the end of the Hundred Years War.Written in French, the Journal covers eventsin Paris relating to the French civil war, thecitizens’ reactions to Joan of Arc, and theEnglish occupation.

Printed Versions

Bourgeois of Paris. Journal d’un bourgeois de Paris,1405–49. Edited by A. Teutey. Paris, 1881.

Quicherat, Jules, ed. Proces de condamnation etde rehabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc dite la Pucelle.5 vols. Paris: Societe de l’histoire de France,1841–49. Reprints the Journal in vol. 4, pp. 461– 74.

JOURNAL DU SIEGE D’ORLE ANS

The Journal du Sie ge d’Orle ans is an importantFrench source for the military career of Joan

of Arc. Although organized in its presentform around the year 1468, the Journal isbased on a register of events that was com-piled in the city of Orleans in 1429 duringthe siege and subsequent Loire Campaign.The Journal portrays Joan as a miraculousfigure and fully accepts the divine origins ofher mission. For example, after describingthe defeat of the dauphinists at the Battle ofthe Herrings in February 1429, the Journal

explains that Joan, who was then tendingher flocks in Lorraine, came to know of theencounter through ‘‘grace divine,’’ and that

348

APPENDIX 8



she used this miraculous knowledge toconvince Robert de Baudricourt, the localdauphinist commander, to arrange for her tobe sent to the dauphin. The Journal does notstop with the relief of Orleans and the Battle

of Patay, but also describes Joan’s activitiesduring the march to Rheims, the coronationof Charles VII, and the abortive attack onParis in September 1429.

Printed VersionsCharpentier, Paul, and Cuissard, Charles, eds.

Journal du sie ge d’Orle ans, 1428–1429: augmente de plusieurs documents notamment des comptes deville, 1429–1431 Orleans: H. Herluison, 1896.

Quicherat, Jules, ed. Proces de condamnation et de

rehabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc dite la Pucelle. 5vols. Paris: Societe de l’histoire de France,1841–49. Reprints the Journal in vol. 4, pp. 95– 202.

JUVENAL DES URSINS, JEAN (1388– 1473). HISTOIRE DE CHARLES VI.

The son of Jean Jouvenal (1360–1431), acouncilor to both Charles VI and Charles VIIas well as chancellor to Louis, duke of Gui-enne, Jean Juvenal des Ursins (the familyassumed the new name around 1410) wasarchbishop of Rheims from 1449 until hisdeath. The Histoire is an important source forthe reign of Charles VI and the French civilwar, during which the author’s father was aparticipant in several important events, in-cluding the quelling of the Cabochien up-rising in 1413.

Printed Version

Juvenal des Ursins, Jean. Histoire de Charles VI.Edited by J. A. C. Buchon. Paris, 1836.

KNIGHTON, HENRY (d. c. 1396),CHRONICLERAn Augustinian canon at the Abbey of St.Mary of the Meadows in Leicester, HenryKnighton (or Knyghton) wrote a four-volume history of England that covers theperiod from 965 to 1366. When increasing

blindness forced Knighton to give up thework, a fellow canon wrote a fifth volumethat takes the history from the end of Ed-

ward III’s reign to 1395. The last two vol-umes of Knighton’s own work, which beginin 1337, are of great importance for theirdescription of the effects of the war and theBlack Death on fourteenth-century English

society.

Printed VersionsKnighton, Henry. Chronicon Henrici Knighton vel

Cnitthon Monachi Leycestrensis. Edited by J. R.Lumby. 2 vols. London: Rolls Series, 1889–95.

———. Knighton’s Chronicle, 1337–1396. Edited byG. H. Martin. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1995.

MONSTRELET, ENGUERRAND DE

(c. 1395–1453), CHRONICLERThe chronicler Enguerrand de Monstreletheld various posts in the service of Philip theGood, duke of Burgundy, and his work thusdisplays a pro-Burgundian bias and a hos-tility to Charles VII. Viewing himself as acontinuator of Jean Froissart, Monstrelettakes up his story in 1400, the year Frois-sart’s chronicle ends, and continues it untilMay 1444. Although lacking the literary

merit of Froissart, Monstrelet’s chroniclewas popular and influenced later fifteenth-century writers. Monstrelet was present atBurgundy’s interview with the newly cap-tured Joan of Arc in 1430, and he coversmilitary events from a Burgundian per-spective, although political developments inother countries and the great religiousevents of the day, such as the Councils ofPisa and Constance, are also covered. UnlikeFroissart, Monstrelet does not display a

great fondness for chivalric deeds and featsof arms.

Printed VersionMonstrelet, Enguerrand de. Chronique. Edited by

L. Douet-d’Arcq. 6 vols. Paris, 1857–62.

MURIMUTH, ADAM (c. 1274–1347),CHRONICLERBorn into an Oxfordshire family, Adam

Murimuth was a clerical diplomat whoserved Edward II in various causes at thepapal curia in Avignon. He first appeared at

349

APPENDIX 8



the papal court in 1311 as proctor for OxfordUniversity, but by 1314 was the king’s rep-resentative in a case involving a recentroyal appointment to the deanery of St.Paul’s in London. In 1321–22, Murimuth

was in Avignon seeking papal assent to aclerical aid (i.e., a royal demand for moneyfrom the English clergy) and in 1323 ex-pressed to the pope Edward’s oppositionto the Scots’ request for removal of the in-terdict imposed on their country. For hisservices, Murimuth received numerousecclesiastical preferments, including a pre-bendary (a stipendiary position on theclerical staff of a cathedral) at HerefordCathedral in 1320, prebendaries at St. Paul’s

in 1325 and 1328, and the rectory at Wrays-bury in 1337.

Murimuth’s brief Latin chronicle coversthe last years of Edward II and the firstdecades of Edward III. Fiercely antipapaland anti-French, Murimuth is primarily in-terested in diplomacy, especially Anglo-papal relations; national politics; and thecourse of the Anglo-French war, which hetraces to the English victory over the Scots at

Neville’s Cross in October 1346. He stronglyapproves of Edward III’s claim to the FrenchCrown, referring to Philip VI only as Philipde Valois, and he provides numerous de-scriptions of both large and small militaryengagements fought during the 1330s and1340s. Although generally reliable withnames and dates, Murimuth’s style is spareand factual, displaying no talent for narra-tive.

Much of Murimuth’s political information

derives from contacts among the royalclerks, while his military descriptions relyheavily on newsletters; for example, hereprints part of the letter of Michael deNorthburgh, a royal councilor, to describethe 1346 campaign. For the events of 1332– 37, he draws upon the Annales Paulini, whichwas also being written at St. Paul’s at thetime Murimuth was working there. Whilestrongly supportive of Edward III’s war

aims, Murimuth is often critical of the king’smethods, condemning his failure to mount acampaign in 1339 and his financial manip-

ulations of the wool trade in an attempt topurchase allies in the Low Countries.

Printed VersionsMurimuth, Adam. Adami Murimuthensis Chronica

Sui Temporis: Nunc Primum per Decem Annos Aucta, (M.CCC.III.–M.CCC.XLVI.) cum Eor-undem Continuatione (ad M.CCC.LXXX.) a Quo-dam Anonymo. Edited by Thomas Hog. London:English Historical Society, 1846.

Murimuth, Adam, and Robert of Avesbury. Adae Murimuth Continuatio Chronicarum. Robertus de Avesbury de Gestis Mirabilibus Regis EdwardiTertii. Edited by E. M. Thompson. London:Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1889.

PSEUDO-ELMHAM. VITA ET GESTA

HENRICI QUINTI [LIFE AND DEEDS

OF HENRY THE FIFTH].

Because it was once erroneously attributedto Thomas Elmham, this anonymous bi-ography of Henry V is today known as thePseudo-Elmham. The work exists in tworecensions. The first was written at thecommand of Walter Hungerford, LordHungerford, an important military and po-litical figure in Henry’s reign who was likely

the source for many of the details of thework, particularly those relating to the siegeof Meaux and the king’s death. The second,which was completed in about 1446, isdedicated to John Somerset, who was phy-sician to Henry VI between 1428 and 1432.Both Hungerford and Somerset had con-nections to Humphrey, duke of Gloucester,the king’s brother, and so the biography re-lies heavily, for events prior to 1420, on TitusLivius’s Vita Henrici Quinti, which was pro-duced at the duke’s request to promote theduke’s career and policies.

Printed Version[Pseudo-Elmham]. Thomae de Elmham Vita et Gesta

Henrici Quinti. Edited by Thomas Hearne. Ox-ford, 1727.

ROBERT OF AVESBURY (d. c. 1359),CHRONICLER

Little is known of the life of Robert ofAvesbury beyond what can be gleaned fromhis chronicle and his will. The former states

350

APPENDIX 8



that he was registrar of the archbishop ofCanterbury’s court at Lambeth, and the lat-ter, which was dated 27 January 1359 andentered into the court rolls three weeks later,indicates that he lived in London, was pre-

deceased by his wife Milicent, and had twosons, William and John.

Focusing on military events during thefirst three decades of Edward III’s reign, theLatin chronicle of Robert of Avesbury is animportant source for the first campaigns ofthe Hundred Years War. In his preface,Avesbury declares his purpose to be re-cording the ‘‘wonderful deeds of the mag-nificent king of England, the Lord Edwardthe third after the Conquest, and of his no-

bles.’’ Indeed, Avesbury is so biased in favorof Edward it seems likely that he wrotespecifically to curry favor with the king. Thechronicler strongly supports Edward’s rightto the Crown of France and to overlordshipin both Scotland and Brittany, and he men-tions all Edward’s victories, which are pa-triotically ascribed to the intervention ofChrist, ‘‘who is always on the side of jus-tice.’’ Avesbury depicts Edward as brave,

virtuous, and generous, the model ofknightly chivalry, while John II of France iscondemned as an incestuous lecher capableof ravishing even nuns.

Despite its bias, Avesbury’s chronicle isvaluable because it reproduces many con-temporary newsletters that are otherwiseunknown. For instance, Avesbury is the onlysource for letters by Edward, the BlackPrince, describing his great chevauche e acrosssouthern France in 1355. Avesbury also cop-

ies the libellus famosus, the accusations Ed-ward leveled at Archbishop John Stratfordduring the Crisis of 1340–41, and the news-letter of Richard de Winkley, describing theCrecy campaign of 1346. Avesbury is alsothe only or most detailed source for variousepisodes that are likely derived from lostnewsletters written by eyewitnesses. Forexample, his chronicle provides a detailedaccount of Edward’s dramatic foiling of a

French attempt to surprise Calais in late1349—an episode much in accord withAvesbury’s chivalrous depiction of the

king—and a description of an otherwiseunknown proposal for Henry of Grosmont,duke of Lancaster, to lead an expedition tothe aid of Charles the Bad, king of Navarre,in 1355.

Printed VersionMurimuth, Adam, and Robert of Avesbury. Adae

Murimuth Continuatio Chronicarum. Robertus de Avesbury de Gestis Mirabilibus Regis EdwardiTertii. Edited by E. M. Thompson. London:Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1889.

VITA HENRICI QUINTI [LIFE OF HENRY

THE FIFTH] BY TITUS LIVIUS

FRULOVISI.

Written by Titus Livius Frulovisi, a poet andliterary client of Humphrey, duke of Glou-cester, the brother of Henry V, the Vita tracesHenry’s life from his birth until his death in1422. Born in Italy, Titus Livius joined Glou-cester’s household in about 1436. Seeking tostrengthen his position in the regency gov-ernment and to promote a more vigorousprosecution of the war, Gloucester askedTitus Livius to write a biography of Henry V

mainly to describe the triumphs of hisbrother’s reign and thereby encourage hisnephew, Henry VI, to emulate his father’spolicies. The duke plays a prominent part inthe Vita, with his roles at Agincourt and at thefall of Cherbourg being particularly noted.

Printed VersionTiti Livii Foro-Juliensis Vita Henrici Quinti. Edited

by Thomas Hearne. Oxford, 1716.

WALSINGHAM, THOMAS (d. c. 1422),CHRONICLERA monk of St. Albans Abbey in Hert-fortshire, where he was in charge of thescriptorium, or writing room, Thomas Wal-singham wrote several important chroniclesthat make him the main authority for eventsin England during the reigns of Richard II,Henry IV, and Henry V. His most importantwork, the Historia Anglicana, covers the

period from 1272 to 1422, although the per-iod prior to 1377 is drawn largely fromearlier chronicles. Walsingham’s Chronicon

351

APPENDIX 8



Angliae covers the period 1328–88 andoverlaps to some degree with the Historia

Anglicana. Walsingham’s other works are theGesta Abbatun Sancti Albani, a history of theabbots of St. Albans to 1381, and the Ypo-

digma Neustriae, a history of the dukes ofNormandy that was written in about 1419 to

justify Henry V’s conquest of the duchy.Walsingham is particularly valuable for

the events of Richard’s reign, including thePeasants’ Revolt of 1381 and the king’s de-position in 1399. He is especially hostile tothe king’s uncle, John of Gaunt, duke ofLancaster, and to John Wycliffe and theLollard movement.

Printed VersionsWalsingham, Thomas. Chronicon Angliae, 1328–

1388. Edited by E. M. Thompson. London: RollsSeries, 1874.

———. Gesta Abbatun Sancti Albani.EditedbyH.T.Riley. 3 vols. London: Rolls Series, 1867–69.

———. Historia Anglicana. Edited by H. T. Riley. 2vols. London: Rolls Series, 1863–64.

———. Ypodigma Neustriae a Thoma Walsingham.Edited by H. T. Riley. London: Rolls Series,1876.

WAVRIN, JEAN DE (1395–1475).

RECUEIL DES CRONIQUES ET

ANCIENNES ISTOIRES DE LA GRANDE

BRETAIGNE, A PRESENT NOMME

ENGLETERRE [A COLLECTION OF THE

CHRONICLES AND ANCIENT HISTORIESOF GREAT BRITAIN, NOW CALLED

ENGLAND]The illegitimate son of a Burgundian noble-man, Jean de Wavrin fought for the Frenchat the Battle of Agincourt in 1415. Follow-ing creation of the Anglo-Burgundian alli-ance in 1420, he fought for the English in the1420s and remained pro-English in senti-ment even after the alliance ended in 1435.

His work traces the history of Englandthrough 1469 and is an important source forboth Anglo-Burgundian and Franco-Bur-gundian relations during the late decades ofthe war.

Printed VersionWavrin, Jean de. Recueil des croniques et anciennes

istoires de la Grande Bretaigne, a present nomme Engleterre. Edited by William Hardy. 5 vols.London: Rolls Series, 1864–91.

352

APPENDIX 8



Bibliography

This bibliography is a highly selective listingof major books and articles relevant to thestudy of the Hundred Years War. It containsmainly works in English, although it con-cludes with a section offering a number of

important French-language works.

GENERAL AND REFERENCE

Allmand, Christopher. The Hundred Years War:England and France at War, c. 1300–c. 1450.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Bak, Janos M. Medieval Narrative Sources: AChronological Guide. New York: Garland Pub-lishing, 1987.

Boyce, Charles. Shakespeare A to Z. New York:Bantam Doubleday Dell, 1990.

Curry, Anne. The Hundred Years War . 2nd ed.London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

Duby, Georges. France in the Middle Ages, 987– 1460. Translated by Jules Vale. Oxford: Black-well, 1997.

Fowler, Kenneth A. The Age of Plantagenet andValois. Macclesfield, England: Bookthrift, 1980.

———, ed. The Hundred Years War . London:Macmillan, 1971.

Fritze, Ronald H., and William B. Robison, eds.Historical Dictionary of Late Medieval England,

1272–1485. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,2002.

Gransden, Antonia. Historical Writing in England.Vol. 2, c. 1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982.

Griffiths, Ralph A., and Roger S. Thomas. The Making of the Tudor Dynasty. New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1985.

Harriss, Gerald. Shaping the Nation: England 1360– 1461. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005.

Hicks, Michael. Who’s Who in Late MedievalEngland (1272–1485). Who’s Who in BritishHistory Series. London: Shepheard-Walwyn,1991.

Hooper, Nicholas, and Matthew Bennett, eds.Cambridge Illustrated Atlas of Warfare: The Middle Ages, 768–1487 . Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1996.

Jacob, E. F. The Fifteenth Century, 1399–1485. Ox-

ford History of England. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1993.

Keen, Maurice. England in the Later Middle Ages.London: Eyre Methuen, 1977.

Kelly, J. N. D. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Kibler, William W., and Grover A. Zinn, eds. Medieval France: An Encyclopedia. New York:Garland Publishing, 1995.

Kingsford, Charles L. English Historical Literaturein the Fifteenth Century. Reprint, New York: BurtFranklin, 1962.

Lewis, Peter. Later Medieval France: The Polity.London: Macmillan, 1968.

Lloyd, Alan. The Hundred Years War . London:Hart-Davis, MacGibbon, 1977.

McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes. New York:HarperCollins, 1997.

McKisack, May. The Fourteenth Century, 1307– 1399. Oxford History of England. Oxford: Ox-ford University Press, 1991.

Neillands, Robin. The Hundred Years War . Rev. ed.London: Routledge, 2001.

Perroy, Edouard. The Hundred Years War . Trans-lated by W. B. Wells. New York: CapricornBooks, 1965.

Rubin, Miri. The Hollow Crown: A History of Britainin the Late Middle Ages. New York: PenguinBooks. 2005.

Seward, Desmond. The Hundred Years War . NewYork: Penguin, 1999.

Starks, Michael. A Traveller’s History of the Hun-dred Years War in France. New York: InterlinkBooks, 2002.

Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred Years War . Vol.1, Trial by Battle. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press, 1991.

353



———. The Hundred Years War. Vol. 2, Trial byFire. Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 2001.

Taylor, John. English Historical Literature in theFourteenth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1987.

Tuchman, Barbara W. A Distant Mirror: The Ca-lamitous 14th Century. New York: BallatineBooks, 1978.

Villalon, L. J. Andred, and Donald J. Kagay, eds.The Hundred Years War: A Wider Focus. Boston:Brill, 2005.

Wagner, John A. Encyclopedia of the Wars of theRoses. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, 2001.

SOURCES

Brie, F. W. D., ed. The Brut. 2 vols. O.s, 136.

London: Early English Text Society, 1908.Chandos Herald. Life of the Black Prince by the

Herald of Sir John Chandos. Edited and trans-lated by Mildred K. Pope and Eleanor C.Lodge. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910.

Froissart, Jean. The Chronicle of Froissart. Trans-lated by Sir John Bourchier. 6 vols. London:D. Nutt, 1901–3.

———. Chronicles. Translated by Geoffrey Brer-eton. Rev. ed. Harmondsworth, England:Penguin, 1978.

———. The Lyric Poems of Jean Froissart. Edited byRobe Roy McGregor, Jr. Chapel Hill: Universityof North Carolina Press, 1975.

Kingsford, C. L., ed. The First English Life of Henrythe Fifth. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911.

Stevenson, J., ed. Scalacronica of Sir Thomas Gray.Edinburgh: Maitland Club, 1836.

Taylor, Frank, and John S. Roskell, trans. GestaHenrici Quinti [The Deeds of Henry V]. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1975.

Thomas, A. H., and I. D. Thornley, eds. The GreatChronicle of London. Reprint, Stroud, England:Alan Sutton, 1983.

Thompson, Peter Edmund, ed. and trans. Con-temporary Chronicles of the Hundred Years War:From the Works of Jean le Bel, Jean Froissart andEnguerrand de Monstrelet. London: Folio Society,1966.

Tyson, D. B., ed. La Vie du Prince Noir by ChandosHerald. Tubingen: M. Niemeyer, 1975.

Venette, Jean de. Chronique. Edited by Richard A.Newhall. Translated by Jean Birdsall. NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1953.

Waurin, Jean. Recueil des croniques et anchiennesistories de la Grant Bretaigne, a present nommeEngleterre ( A Collection of the Chronicles and

Ancient Histories of Great Britain, Now CalledEngland). 5 vols. London: Longman, Green,Longman, Roberts, and Green, 1864–91.

BACKGROUND AND CAUSES

Brown, Elizabeth A. R. The Monarchy of CapetianFrance and Royal Ceremonial. London: Variorum,1991.

———. Politics and Institutions in Capetian France.London: Variorum, 1991.

Chaplais, Pierre. The War of Saint-Sardos (1323– 1325): Gascon Correspondence and DiplomaticDocuments. London: Royal Historical Society,1954.

Cuttino, George P. English Diplomatic Adminis-tration, 1259–1339. 2nd ed. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1971.

Dunbabin, Jean. France in the Making, 843–1180.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Fawtier, Robert. The Capetian Kings of France: Monarchy and Nation (987–1328). Translated byLionel Butler and R. J. Adam. London: Mac-millan, 1964.

Gillingham, John. The Angevin Empire. 2nd ed.London: Edward Arnold, 2001.

Hallam, Elizabeth. Capetian France, 987–1328.London: Longman, 1980.

Jordan, William Chester. The French Monarchyand the Jews from Philip Augustus to the LastCapetians. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-vania Press, 1989.

Lewis, Andrew. Royal Succession in CapetianFrance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1981.

Raban, Sandra. England under Edward I and Ed-ward II, 1259–1327 . Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.

Vale, M. G. A. The Origins of the Hundred YearsWar: The Angevin Legacy, 1250–1340. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 2000.

Wood, Charles T. The French Apanages and the

Capetian Monarchy, 1224–1328. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1966.

ARMIES, ARMOR, WEAPONRY, AND

MILITARY TECHNOLOGY

Blair, Claude. European Armor, Circa 1066 to Circa1700. London: Batsford, 1958.

Bradbury, Jim. The Medieval Archer . New York:St. Martin’s Press, 1985.

DeVries, Kelly. Medieval Military Technology. Pe-terborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 1992.

Featherstone, Donald. The Bowman of England.Barnsley, England: Pen and Sword Books,2003.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

354



Hardy, Robert. Longbow: A Social and MilitaryHistory. 3rd ed. Sparkford, England: PatrickStephens, 1992.

Martin, Paul. Arms and Armour from the 9th to the17th Century. Translated by Rene North. Rut-land, VT: Charles E. Tuttle, 1968.

Nicolle, David. French Armies of the Hundred YearsWar . Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2004

Oakeshott, R. Ewart. The Sword in the Age of Chi-valry. London: Lutterworth, 1964

Patrick, John Merton. Artillery and Warfare duringthe Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. Logan:Utah State University Press, 1961.

MILITARY OPERATIONS, BATTLES,

AND MEDIEVAL WARFARE

GENERAL W ARFARE AND DIPLOMACY

Barnie, John. War in Medieval English Society: So-cial Values and the Hundred Years War, 1337–99.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974.

Chaplais, Pierre. English Diplomatic Practice. Lon-don: Her Majesty’s Stationer’s Office, 1975–82.

———. Essays in Medieval Diplomacy and Admin-istration. London: Hambledon Press, 1981.

Contamine, Philippe. War in the Middle Ages.Translated by M. C. E. Jones. Oxford: Black-well, 1987.

Curry, Anne, and Michael Hughes, eds. Arms, Armies and Fortifications in the Hundred YearsWar . Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press,1999.

DeVries, Kelly. Infantry Warfare in the Early Four-teenth Century: Discipline, Tactics and Technology.Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press, 1996.

Dickinson, Jocelyne G. The Congress of Arras: A Study in Medieval Diplomacy. Oxford: Clar-endon Press, 1955.

Ferguson, John. English Diplomacy, 1422–1461.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Fowler, Kenneth A. Medieval Mercenaries. Vol. 1,The Great Companies. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.

Jones, Michael, and Malcolm Vale, eds. Englandand Her Neighbours, 1066–1453. London: Ham-bledon Press, 1989.

Mallett, Michael. Mercenaries and Their Master:Warfare in Renaissance Italy. Totowa, NJ: Row-man and Littlefield, 1974.

Powicke, M. R. Military Obligation in MedievalEngland. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1962.

Prestwich, Michael. Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.

———. The Three Edwards: War and State in Eng-land, 1272–1377 . 2nd ed. London: Routledge,2003.

Rodger, N. A. M. The Safeguard of the Sea: A NavalHistory of Britain, 660–1649. London: Harper-Collins, 1997.

EDWARDIAN W AR , 1330s–1360Ayton, Andrew. Knights and Warhorses: Military

Service and the English Aristocracy under EdwardIII . Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press, 1994.

Bessen. David M. Coping with Treason: The ValoisExperience, 1354–1360. Ada: Ohio NorthernUniversity, 1986.

Bothwell, J. S., ed. The Age of Edward III . Wood-bridge, England: Boydell and Brewer, 2001.

Burne, Alfred H. The Cre cy War . Ware, England:

Wordsworth Editions Ltd., 1999.Green, D. The Battle of Poitiers 1356. Stroud, En-

gland: Sutton, 2002.Hewitt, Herbert J. The Black Prince’s Expeditions of

1355–1357 . Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress, 1958.

———. The Organization of War under Edward III,1338–62. Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress, 1966.

Rogers, Clifford J. War Cruel and Sharp: EnglishStrategy Under Edward III, 1327–1360. Wood-

bridge, England: Boydell and Brewer, 2000. ———. The Wars of Edward III . Woodbridge,

England: Boydell Press, 1999.Waugh, Scott L. England in the Reign of Edward III .

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

C AROLINE W AR , 1369–89Goodman, Anthony. The Loyal Conspiracy: The

Lords Appellant under Richard II . London: Rout-ledge and Kegan Paul, 1971.

Palmer, J. J. N. England, France and Christendom,

1377–99. London: Routledge, 1972.Russell, Peter E. The English Intervention in Spain

and Portugal in the Time of Edward III and RichardII . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.

Tuck, Anthony. Richard II and the English Nobility.London: Edward Arnold, 1973.

Wylie, James H. The History of England under Henry IV . 4 vols. London: Longmans, 1884–98.

L ANCASTRIAN W AR , 1415–53Burne, Alfred H. The Agincourt War . Ware, En-

gland: Wordsworth Editions Ltd., 1999.Curry, Anne. Agincourt: A New History. Stroud,

England: Tempus Publishing Limited, 2005.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

355



———. Agincourt 1415: Henry V, Sir Thomas Er- pingham and the Triumph of the English Archers.Stroud, England: Tempus, 2000.

———. The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Inter- pretations. Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press,2000.

Famiglietti, Richard C. Royal Intrigue: Crisis at theCourt of Charles VI, 1392–1420. New York: AMSPress, 1986.

Griffiths, Ralph A. The Reign of Henry VI . Berke-ley: University of California Press, 1981.

Hibbert, Christopher. Agincourt. London: Wind-rush Press, 2003.

Jacob, E. F. Henry V and the Invasion of France.New York: Macmillan, 1950.

Newhall, R. A. The English Conquest of Nor-mandy, 1416–24. New York: Russell and

Russell, 1971. ———. Muster and Review: A Problem of English

Military Administration, 1420–1440. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press, 1940.

Thompson, G. L. Paris and Its People under EnglishRule: The Anglo-Burgundian Regime, 1420–1436.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.

Wylie, James H., and W. T. Waugh. The Reign of Henry the Fifth. 3 vols. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1914–29.

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, LEGAL, AND

RELIGIOUS HISTORYAllmand, Christopher, ed. Society at War: The

Experience of England and France during theHundred Years War . Woodbridge, England:Boydell Press, 1998.

Barber, Richard. The Reign of Chivalry. New York:St. Martin’s Press, 1980.

Bisson, Thomas. Assemblies and Representation inLanguedoc in the Thirteenth Century. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964.

Boulton, D’Arcy J. D. The Knights of the Crown: The

Monarchical Orders of Knighthood in Later Med-ieval Europe, 1325–1520. Woodbridge, England:Boydell, 1987.

Collins, Hugh E. L. The Order of the Garter,1348–1461: Chivalry and Politics in Late MedievalEngland. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000.

Crowder, C. M. D. Unity, Heresy and Reform, 1378– 1460: The Conciliar Response to the Great Schism.New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1977.

Cuttler, Simon H. The Law of Treason and TreasonTrials in Later Medieval France. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Dobson, R. B., ed. The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. 2nded. London: Macmillan, 1983.

Dunn, Alastair. The Great Rising of 1381. Char-leston: Tempus Publishing, 2002.

Fox, John. The Lyric Poetry of Charles d’Orle ans.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.

Given-Wilson, Chris. Chronicles: The Writing of History in Medieval England. London: Ham-bledon and London, 2004.

Gottfried, Robert S. The Black Death: Natural andHuman Disaster in Medieval Europe. New York:Free Press, 1985.

Harriss, G. L. King, Parliament and Public Finance inEngland to 1369. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.

Harvey, I. M. W. Jack Cade’s Rebellion of 1450.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.

Henneman, John Bell. Royal Taxation in Fourteenth

Century France: The Captivity and Ransom of JohnII, 1356–1370. Philadelphia: American Philo-sophical Society, 1976.

———. Royal Taxation in Fourteenth CenturyFrance: The Development of War Financing, 1322– 1356. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,1971.

Herlihy, David. The Black Death and the Transfor-mation of the West. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1997.

Hilton, R. H. Bond Men Made Free: Medieval Pea-sant Movements and the English Rising of 1381.

New York: Viking, 1973.Hilton, R. H., and T. H. Ashton, eds. The English

Rising of 1381. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1984.

Kaeuper, Richard W. War, Justice and Public Order:England and France in the Later Middle Ages.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.

Keen, Maurice. Chivalry. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press, 1984.

———. English Society in the Later Middle Ages,1348–1500. London: Penguin, 1990.

———. The Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965.

Lloyd, T. H. The English Wool Trade in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1977.

Major, J. Russell. Representative Government inEarly Modern France. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press, 1980.

———. Representative Institutions in RenaissanceFrance, 1421–1559. Madison: University ofWisconsin Press, 1960.

McFarlane, K. B. Lancastrian Kings and LollardKnights. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

356



McNiven, Peter. Heresy and Politics in the Reign of Henry IV: The Burning of John Badby. Wood-bridge, England: Boydell Press, 1987.

Meiss, Millard. French Painting in the Time of Jeande Berry: The Late Fourteenth Century and thePatronage of the Duke. 2 vols. London: Phaidon,

1969.Mollat, G. The Popes at Avignon, 1305–1378. New

York: Harper and Row, 1965.Mollat, Michel, and Philippe Wolff. The Popular

Revolutions of the Late Middle Ages. Translated byA. L. Lytton-Sells. London: Allen and Unwin,1973.

Norwich, John Julius. Shakespeare’s Kings. NewYork: Scribner, 1999.

Oakley, Francis. The Western Church in the Later Middle Ages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press, 1979.Oman, Charles. The Great Revolt of 1381. Reprint,

New York: Greenwood, 1969.Omrod, W. M., and P. G. Lindley, eds. The Black

Death in England. Donington, England: ShaunTyas, 2003.

Painter, Sidney. French Chivalry: Chivalric Ideasand Practices. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress, 1940.

Renouard, Yves. The Avignon Papacy, 1305–1403.Translated by Denis Bethell. Hamden, CT:Archon, 1970.

Saccio, Peter. Shakespeare’s English Kings. 2nd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Steele, Robert, and Mabel Day. The English Poemsof Charles d’Orle ans. London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1941.

Strayer, Joseph R., and Charles H. Taylor. Studiesin Early French Taxation. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard University Press, 1939.

Tuck, Anthony. Crown and Nobility: England,1272–1461. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.

Twigg, Graham. The Black Death: A Biological Re-

appraisal. London: Batsford, 1984.Tyrrell, Joseph M. A History of the Estates of Poitou.

The Hague: Mouton, 1968.Vale, Juliet. Edward III and Chivalry: Chivalric So-

ciety and Its Context, 1270–1350. Woodbridge,England: Boydell Press, 1982.

Vale, M. G. A. War and Chivalry: Warfare and Aristocratic Culture in England, France, and Bur- gundy at the End of the Middle Ages. Athens:University of Georgia Press, 1981.

Wright, Nicholas. Knights and Peasants: TheHundred Years War in the French Country-side. Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press, 2000.

Ziegler, Philip. The Black Death. New York: Har-per and Row, 1971.

COUNTRY HISTORIES AND

REGIONAL, PROVINCIAL, AND

MUNICIPAL STUDIES

Allmand, Christopher. Lancastrian Normandy: TheHistory of a Medieval Occupation, 1415–50. Ox-ford: Clarendon Press, 1986.

Baker, Timothy. Medieval London. New York:Praeger, 1970.

Bates, David, and Anne Curry, eds. England andNormandy in the Middle Ages. London: Ham-bledon, 1994.

Beresford, Maurice. New Towns of the Middle Ages:Town Plantation in England, Wales, and Gascony.New York: Praeger, 1967.

Blois, Guy. The Crisis of Feudalism: Economy andSociety in Eastern Normandy ca. 1300–1550.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Brown, Michael. The Black Douglases: War andLordship in Late Medieval Scotland, 1300–1455.East Linton, Scotland: Tuckwell Press, 1998.

———. The Wars of Scotland, 1214–1371. Edin-burgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004.

Butler, Raymond R. Is Paris Lost? The EnglishOccupation, 1422–1436. Staplehurst, England:Spellmount, 2003.

Butt, Ronald. A History of Parliament: The Middle Ages. London: Constable, 1989.

Carpenter, Christine. Locality and Polity: A Studyof Warwickshire Landed Society, 1401–1499.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Cartellieri, Otto. The Court of Burgundy: Studies inthe History of Civilization. New York: AskellHouse, 1970.

Couperie, Pierre. Paris through the Ages. NewYork: Braziller, 1968.

Galliou, Patrick, and Michael C. E. Jones. TheBretons. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.

Grant, Alexander. Independence and Nationhood:Scotland, 1306–1469. London: E. Arnold, 1984.

Harriss, G. L. King, Parliament and Public Financein Medieval England to 1369. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1975.

Hillgarth, J. N. The Spanish Kingdoms, 1250–1516. 2vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976–78.

Inwood, Stephen. A History of London. New York:Carroll and Graf Publishers, 1998.

Jones, Colin. Paris: Biography of a City. London:Allen Lane, 2004.

Jones, Michael. Between France and England: Poli-tics, Power and Society in Late Medieval Brittany.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

357



Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company,2003.

———. The Creation of Brittany: A Late MedievalState. London: Hambledon, 1988.

———. Ducal Brittany, 1364–1399: Relations withEngland and France during the Reign of John IV.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.Labarge, Margaret Wade. Gascony, England’s First

Colony, 1204–1453. London: Hamish Hamilton,1980.

Laidlaw, James, ed. The Auld Alliance: France andScotland Over 700 Years. Edinburgh: Universityof Edinburgh, 1999.

Lucas, Henry S. The Low Countries and the HundredYears War, 1326–47 . Reprint, Philadelphia:Porcupine Press, 1976.

Morgan, Philip. War and Society in Medieval Che-

shire 1277–1403. London: Palgrave Macmillan,1988.

Nicholas, David. Town and Countryside: Social,Economic, and Political Tensions in Fourteenth-Century Flanders. Bruges: De Tempel, 1971.

Nicholson, Ranald. Edward III and the Scots: TheFormative Years of a Military Career, 1327–1335.London: Oxford University Press, 1965.

———. Scotland: The Later Middle Ages. New York:Barnes and Noble, 1974.

O’Callaghan, James F. A History of MedievalSpain. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992.

Prevenier, Walter, and Willem Blockmans. TheBurgundian Netherlands. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 1985.

Richardson, H. G., and G. O. Sayles. The EnglishParliament in the Middle Ages. London: Ham-bledon Press, 1981.

Sayles, G. O. The King’s Parliament of England.New York: Norton, 1974.

Shennan, J. H. The Parlement of Paris. Stroud,England: Sutton Publishing, 1998.

Sheppard, Francis. London: A History. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1998.Vale, Malcolm. English Gascony 1399–1453: A

Study of War, Government and Politics during theLater Stages of the Hundred Years’ War. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1970.

Vaughan, Richard. Valois Burgundy. London:Archon, 1975.

Velay, Philippe. From Lutetia to Paris: The Islandand the Two Banks. Paris: CNRS, 1992.

Williams, Gwyn A. Medieval London from Com-mune to Capital. London: Athlone, 1970.

Wood, Stephen. The Auld Alliance, Scotland andFrance: The Military Connection. Edinburgh:Mainstream, 1989.

BIOGRAPHIES

Ainsworth, Peter F. Jean Froissart and the Fabric of History: Truth, Myth, and Fiction in the Chron-iques. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.

Allmand, Christopher. Henry V . Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Press, 1992.

Arn, Mary-Jo, ed. Charles d’Orle ans in England,1415–1440. Woodbridge, England: D. S. Brewer,2000.

Barber, Richard. Edward, Prince of Wales and Aquitaine: A Biography of the Black Prince. NewYork: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1978.

Barstow, Anne Llewellyn. Joan of Arc: Heretic, Mystic, Shaman. Lewiston, ME: Edwin MellenPress, 1986.

Bevan, Bryan. Edward III: Monarch of Chivalry.London: Rubicon Press, 1992.

Boardman, Stephen. The Early Stewart Kings: Ro-bert II and Robert III, 1371–1406. East Linton,Scotland: Tuckwell Press, 1997.

Buchan, Alice. Joan of Arc and the Recovery of France. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1948.

Carson, Patricia. James van Artevelde: The Man fromGhent. Ghent: Story, 1980.

Denieul-Cormier, Anne. Wise and Foolish Kings:The First House of Valois, 1328–1498. GardenCity, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1980.

DeVries, Kelly. Joan of Arc: A Military Leader .Gloucester, England: Sutton Publishing, 2003.

Doherty, Paul. Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II. New York: Carroll and Graf Pub-lishers, 2003.

Fein, David A. Charles d’Orle ans. Boston: TwaynePublishers, 1983.

Fowler, Kenneth A. The King’s Lieutenant: Henry of Grosmont, First Duke of Lancaster . London: ElekPress, 1969.

Fraioli, Deborah A. Joan of Arc and the Hundred YearsWar . Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2005.

Fryde, E. B. William de la Pole: Merchant and King’s

Banker . London: Hambledon and London,2003.

Fryde, Natalie. The Tyranny and Fall of Edward II,1321–1326. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1979.

Gies, Frances. Joan of Arc: The Legend and theReality. New York: Harper and Row, 1981.

Goodman, Anthony. John of Gaunt: The Exercise of Princely Power in Fourteenth-Century Europe.London: Longman, 1992.

Goodrich, Norma Lorre. Charles Duke of Orleans:Poet and Prince. New York: Macmillan, 1963.

Griffiths, Ralph A. The Reign of Henry VI . Berke-ley: University of California Press, 1981.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

358



Haines, Roy M. Archbishop John Stratford, PoliticalRevolutionary and Champion of the Liberties of theEnglish Church, c. 1275/80–1348. Toronto: Pon-tifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1986.

Hardy, B. C. Philippa of Hainault and Her Times.London: J. Long, 1910.

Harriss, G. L. Cardinal Beaufort: A Study of Lan-castrian Ascendency and Decline. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1988.

———, ed. Henry V: The Practice of Kingship.London: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Harvey, John. The Black Prince and His Age. Lon-don: Rowman and Littlefield, 1976.

———. The Plantagenets. 3rd ed. London: SevernHouse, 1976.

Horrox, Rosemary. The de la Poles of Hull. Bev-erley, England: East Yorkshire Local History

Society, 1983.Howard, Donald R. Chaucer: His Life, His Works,

His World. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1987.Hutchinson, Harold F. Edward II: The Pliant King.

London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1971. ———. The Hollow Crown: A Life of Richard II .

London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1961. ———. King Henry V: A Biography. New York:

Dorset Press, 1967. Johnson, P. A. Duke Richard of York, 1411–1460.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.Kay, F. George. Lady of the Sun: The Life and Times

of Alice Perrers. London: Frederick Muller, 1966.Kenny, Anthony. Wyclif . Oxford: Oxford Uni-

versity Press, 1985.Kirby, J. L. Henry IV of England. London: Con-

stable, 1970.Labarge, Margaret Wade. Henry V: The Cau-

tious Conqueror . London: Secker and Warburg,1975.

Maddicott, J. R. Thomas of Lancaster, 1307–1322: AStudy in the Reign of Edward II . London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1970.

Maurer, Helen E. Margaret of Anjou: Queenship andPower in Late Medieval England. London: Boy-dell Press, 2003.

Michelet, Jules. Joan of Arc. Translated by AlbertGuerard. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress, 1987.

Mortimer, Ian. The Greatest Traitor: The Life of Sir Roger Mortimer, Ruler of England, 1327–1330.London: Pimlico, 2004.

Nicholas, David. The van Arteveldes of Ghent: TheVarieties of Vendetta and the Hero in History.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988.

Ormrod, W. M. The Reign of Edward III . NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990.

Packe, Michael. King Edward III . Edited by L. C. B.Seaman. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,1983.

Palmer, J. J. N., ed. Froissart: Historian. Wood-bridge, England: Boydell Press, 1981.

Pearsall, Derek. The Life of Geoffrey Chaucer: A

Critical Biography. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.Penman, Michael A. David II, 1329–71. East Lin-

ton, Scotland: Tuckwell Press, 2004.Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her

Witnesses. Translated by Edward Hyams. Lon-don: Scarborough House, 1994.

Pernoud, Regine, and Marie-Veronique Clin. Joan of Arc: Her Story. Translated by Jeremy DuquesnayAdams. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.

Phillips, J. R. S. Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke,1307–1324: Baronial Politics in the Reign of Ed-

ward II . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.Pollard, A. J. John Talbot and the War in France,

1427–1453. London: Royal Historical Society,1983.

Prestwich, Michael. Edward I . Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Press, 1988.

Rawcliffe, Carole. The Staffords: Earls of Staffordand Dukes of Buckingham, 1394–1521. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

Richards, J. E. Reinterpreting Christine de Pizan.Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991.

Richey, Stephen W. Joan of Arc: The Warrior Saint.

Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.Saul, Nigel. Richard II . New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press, 1997.Sedgwick, Henry Dwight. The Black Prince. New

York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1993.Seward, Desmond. Henry V: The Scourge of God.

New York: Viking, 1988.Shears, Frederic Sidney. Froissart: Chronicler and

Poet. London: Routledge, 1930.Strayer, Joseph R. The Reign of Philip the Fair .

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980.

Talbot, Hugh. The English Achilles: An Account of the Life and Campaigns of John Talbot. London:Chatto and Windus, 1981.

Vale, M. G. A. Charles VII . Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1974.

Vaughan, Richard. Charles the Bold: The Last ValoisDuke of Burgundy. Woodbridge, England: Boy-dell Press, 2002.

———. John the Fearless: The Growth of BurgundianPower . Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press,2002.

———. Philip the Bold: The Formation of the Bur- gundian State. Woodbridge, England: BoydellPress, 2002.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

359



———. Philip the Good: The Apogee of Burgundy.Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press, 2002.

Vernier, Richard. The Flower of Chivalry: Bertranddu Guesclin and the Hundred Years War . Wood-bridge, England: Boydell Press, 2003.

Warner, Marina. Joan of Arc: The Image of Female

Heroism. New York: Vintage Books, 1982.Watts, John. Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Weir, Alison. Queen Isabella: Treachery, Adultery,

and Murder in Medieval England. New York:Ballantine Books, 2005.

Wheeler, Bonnie, and Charles T. Woods, eds.Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc. London: Garland,1996.

Willard, Charity C. Christine de Pizan: Her Life andWorks. New York: Persea, 1984.

Williams, E. Carleton. My Lord of Bedford, 1389– 1435. London: Longmans, 1963.

Wolffe, Bertram P. Henry VI . New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 2001.

Wood, Diana. Clement VI: The Pontificate and Ideasof an Avignon Pope. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1989.

ARTICLES

Alban, John R., and Christopher T. Allmand.‘‘Spies and Spying in the Fourteenth Century.’’In War, Literature and Politics in the Late Middle

Ages, ed. C. T. Allmand. Liverpool: LiverpoolUniversity Press, 1976.

Ayton, Andrew. ‘‘English Armies in the Four-teenth Century.’’ In Curry and Hughes, Arms, Armies and Fortifications, 21–38.

Bennett, H. S. ‘‘Sir John Fastolf.’’ In Six Medieval Men and Women. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1955.

Bennett, Matthew. ‘‘The Development of BattleTactics in the Hundred Years War.’’ In Curryand Hughes, Arms, Armies and Fortifications.

1–20.Bessen, David M. ‘‘The Jacquerie: Class War or

Co-opted Rebellion?’’ Journal of Medieval His-tory 11 (1985): 43–59.

Biggs, Douglas. ‘‘ ‘A Wrong Whom Conscienceand Kindred Bid Me to Right’: A Reassessmentof Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, and theUsurpation of Henry IV.’’ Albion 26, no. 2(1994): 253–72.

Bonner, E. ‘‘Scotland’s ‘Auld Alliance’ withFrance, 1295–1560.’’ History 84 (1999): 5–30.

Bridbury, A. R. ‘‘The Hundred Years War: Costsand Profits.’’ In Trade, Government and Economyin Pre-Industrial England, ed. D. C. Coleman and

A. H. John, 80–95. London: Weidenfeld andNicolson, 1976.

Brown, Elizabeth A. R. ‘‘Customary Aids andRoyal Policy under Philip VI of Valois.’’ Tra-ditio 30 (1974): 191–258.

———. ‘‘Kings Like Semi-Gods: The Case of

Louis X of France.’’ Majestas 1 (1993): 5–37. ———. ‘‘The Political Repercussions of Family

Ties in the Early Fourteenth Century: TheMarriage of Edward II of England and Isabelleof France.’’ Speculum 63 (1988): 573–95.

Chaplais, Pierre. ‘‘English Arguments Concern-ing the Feudal Status of Aquitaine in theFourteenth Century.’’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 21 (1948): 203–13.

———. ‘‘The Making of the Treaty of Paris (1259)and the Royal Style.’’ English Historical Review

67 (1952): 235–53.Curry, Anne. ‘‘English Armies in the Fifteenth

Century.’’ In Curry and Hughes, Arms, Armiesand Fortifications, 39–68.

Cuttino, George P. ‘‘Historical Revision: TheCauses of the Hundred Years War.’’ Speculum31 (1956): 463–77.

———. ‘‘The Process of Agen.’’ Speculum 19(1944): 161–78.

DeVries, Kelly. ‘‘Hunger, Flemish Participationand the Flight of Philip VI: Contemporary Ac-counts of the Siege of Calais, 1346–47.’’ Studies in

Medievaland Renaissance History12(1991):129–81.Diverres, A. ‘‘Froissart’s Travels in England and

Wales.’’ Fifteenth-Century Studies 15 (1989): 107– 22.

Emery, Richard W. ‘‘The Black Death of 1348 inPerpignan.’’ Speculum 42 (1967): 611–23.

Foley, V., G. Palmer, and W. Soedel. ‘‘The Cross-bow.’’ Scientific American 252 (1985): 104–10.

Fowler, Kenneth A. ‘‘Sir John Hawkwood and theEnglish Condottieri in Trecento, Italy.’’ Re-naissance Studies 12 (1998): 131–48.

Friel, Ian. ‘‘Winds of Change? Ships and theHundred Years War.’’ In Curry and Hughes, Arms, Armies and Fortifications, 183–94.

Hardy, Robert. ‘‘The Longbow.’’ In Curry andHughes, Arms, Armies and Fortifications, 151–60.

Henneman, John Bell. ‘‘The Black Death andRoyal Taxation in France, 1347–1351.’’ Speculum43 (1968): 405–28.

———. ‘‘The French Ransom Aids and TwoLegal Traditions.’’ Studia Gratiana 15 (1972):615–29.

———. ‘‘The Military Class and the FrenchMonarchy in the Middle Ages.’’ American His-torical Review 83 (1978): 946–65.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

360



———. ‘‘Reassessing the Career of Olivier deClisson, Constable of France.’’ In Law, Custom,and the Social Fabric in Medieval Europe, ed.Bernard Bachrach and David Nicholas, 211–33.Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 1990.

———. ‘‘Who Were the Marmousets?’’ Medieval

Prosopography 5 (1984): 19–63.Hughes, Michael. ‘‘The Fourteenth-Century

Raids on Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.’’ InCurry and Hughes, Arms, Armies and Fortifica-tions, 121–44.

Hughes, Muriel J. ‘‘The Library of Philip the Boldand Margaret of Flanders, First Valois Dukeand Duchess of Burgundy.’’ Journal of MedievalHistory 4 (1978): 145–88.

Jones, Michael. ‘‘Edward III’s Captains in Brit-tany.’’ In Between France and England: Politics,

Power and Society in Late Medieval Brittany.Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company,2003, pp. 98–118.

———. ‘‘War and Fourteenth-Century France.’’In Curry and Hughes, Arms, Armies and For-tifications, 103–20.

Jones, M. K. ‘‘Somerset, York and the Wars of theRoses.’’ English Historical Review 104 (1989).

Kenyon, John R. ‘‘Coastal Artillery Fortification inEngland in the Late Fourteenth and Early Fif-teenth Centuries.’’ In Curry and Hughes, Arms, Armies and Fortifications, 145–50.

Kicklighter, Joseph A. ‘‘French Jurisdictional Su-premacy in Gascony: One Aspect of the DucalGovernment’s Response.’’ Journal of MedievalHistory 7 (1979): 127–34.

Lachaud, Frederique. ‘‘Armour and MilitaryDress in Thirteenth- and Early Fourteenth-Century England.’’ In Armies, Chivalry andWarfare in Medieval Britain and France, ed. M.Strickland. Stamford, CT: Paul Watkins, 1998.

Le Patourel, J. ‘‘Edward III and the Kingdom ofFrance.’’ History 43 (1958): 173–89.

———. ‘‘The Origins of the War.’’ In Feudal Em- pires: Norman and Plantagenet, ed. Michael Jones, 28–50. London: Hambledon Press, 1984.

———. ‘‘The Plantagenet Dominions.’’ History 50(1965): 289–308.

———. ‘‘The Treaty of Bretigny 1360.’’ Transac-tions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 10(1960).

Maddicott, J. R. ‘‘The County Community andthe Making of Public Opinion in Fourteenth-Century England.’’ Transactions of the RoyalHistorical Society, 5th ser., 28 (1978): 34–35, 38.

Massey, R. A. ‘‘The Land Settlement in Lancas-trian Normandy.’’ In Property and Politics:

Essays in Later Medieval English History, ed. A. J.Pollard. Gloucester, England: Alan Sutton,1984.

McFarlane, K. B. ‘‘The Investment of Sir JohnFastolf’s Profits of War.’’ In England in the Fif-teenth Century. London: Hambledon, 1981.

———. ‘‘War, the Economy and Social Change:England and the Hundred Years War.’’ Pastand Present 22 (1962): 3–13.

McKisack, May. ‘‘Edward III and the Historians.’’History 45 (1960): 2.

Morgan, D. A. L. ‘‘The Political After-Life of Ed-ward III: The Apotheosis of a Warmonger.’’English Historical Review 112 (1997): 856–81.

Omrod, W. M. ‘‘The Domestic Response to theHundred Years War.’’ In Curry and Hughes, Arms, Armies and Fortifications, 83–102.

Palmer, J. J. N. ‘‘England, France, the Papacy andthe Flemish Succession.’’ Journal of MedievalHistory 2 (1976).

Phillpotts, C. J. ‘‘The Fate of the Truce of Paris,1396–1415.’’ Journal of Medieval History 24(1998).

———. ‘‘John of Gaunt and English Policy to-wards France, 1389–95.’’ Journal of MedievalHistory 16 (1990).

Postan, M. M. ‘‘The Costs of the Hundred YearsWar.’’ Past and Present 27 (1964): 34–53.

———. ‘‘Some Social Consequences of the Hun-

dred Years War.’’ Economic History Review 12(1942): 1–12.

Potter, J. ‘‘The Development and Significance ofthe Salic Law of the French.’’ English HistoricalReview 52 (1937): 235–53.

Prince, A. E. ‘‘A Letter of Edward, the BlackPrince, Describing the Battle of Najera in 1367.’’English Historical Review 41 (1926): 415–18.

Rogers, C. J. ‘‘Edward II and the Dialectics ofStrategy, 1327–1360.’’ Transactions of the RoyalHistorical Society, 6th ser., 4 (1994).

Sherborne, J. W. ‘‘The Battle of La Rochelle andthe War at Sea, 1372–75.’’ Bulletin of the Instituteof Historical Research 42 (1969).

———. ‘‘The Hundred Year’s War: The EnglishNavy: Shipping and Manpower.’’ Past andPresent 37 (1967): 163–75.

———. ‘‘Indentured Retinues and English Ex-peditions to France, 1369–89.’’ English HistoricalReview 79 (1964).

———. ‘‘John of Gaunt, Edward III’s Retinue,and the French Campaign of 1369.’’ In Kingsand Nobles in the Later Middle Ages, ed. Ralph A.Griffiths and James Sherborne, 41–61. NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 1986.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

361



Smith, A. ‘‘Litigation and Politics: Sir John Fastolf’sDefence of His English Property.’’ In Property andPolitics: Essays in Later Medieval History, ed. A. J.Pollard. New York: St. Martin’s, 1984.

Smith, Robert D. ‘‘Artillery and the HundredYears War: Myth and Interpretation.’’ In Curry

and Hughes, Arms, Armies and Fortifications,151–60.

Taylor, C. ‘‘Edward III and the Plantagenet Claimto the French Throne.’’ In Bothwell, Age of Ed-ward II .

Templeman, G. ‘‘Edward III and the Beginningsof the Hundred Years War.’’ Transactions of theRoyal Historical Society, 5th ser., 2 (1952).

Tuck, J. A. ‘‘Richard II and the Hundred YearsWar.’’ In Politics and Crisis in Fourteenth CenturyEngland, ed. J. Taylor and W. Childs. Glouce-

ster, England: Alan Sutton, 1990.Tyson, Diana B. ‘‘Jean le Bel: Portrait of a

Chronicler.’’ Journal of Medieval History 12(1986): 315–32.

Vale, M. G. A. ‘‘England, France and the Originsof the Hundred Years War.’’ In Jones and Vale,England and her Neighbours, 199–216.

———. ‘‘The War in Aquitaine.’’ In Curry andHughes, Arms, Armies and Fortifications, 69–82.

Warner, Marina. ‘‘The Anglo-French Dual Mon-archy and the House of Burgundy, 1420–1435:The Survival of an Alliance.’’ French History 11

(1997).Warner, M. W. ‘‘Chivalry in Action: Thomas

Montague and the War in France, 1417–1428.’’Nottingham Medieval Studies 42 (1998): 146–73.

Wright, Nicholas A. R. ‘‘ ‘Pillagers’ and ‘Bri-gands’ in the Hundred Years War.’’ Journal of Medieval History 9 (1983): 15–25.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE WORKS

Austrand, Francoise. Charles VI . Paris: Fayard,1986.

Avout, Jacques d’. Le meurtre d’E tienne Marcel.Paris: Gallimard, 1960.

Beaucourt, Gaston du Fresne de. Histoire deCharles VII. 4 vols. Paris: Librairie de la SocieteBibliographique, 1881–91.

Biraben, Jean-Noel. Les Hommes et la peste enFrance et dans les pays europe ens et me diterrane ens.2 vols. Paris: Moulton, 1975–76.

Bonenfant, Paul. Philippe le Bon. Brussels: La Re-naissance du Livre, 1955.

Borfonove, Georges. Jean le bon et son temps. Paris:Ramsay, 1980.

Bouard, Michel de, ed. Histoire de la Normandie.2nd ed. Toulouse: Privat, 1987.

Buttin, Francois. Du costume militaire au moyen a geet pendant la Renaissance. Barcelone: La Acade-mia, 1971.

Cazelles, Raymond. E tienne Marcel: champion del’unite francaise. Paris: Tallandier, 1984.

———. Societe politique, noblesse et couronne sous

Jean le Bon et Charles V . Geneva: Droz, 1982. ———. La socie te politique et la crise de la royaute

sous Philippe de Valois. Paris: Argences, 1958.Cheruel, Adolphe. Histoire de Rouen sous la dom-

ination anglaise. Geneva: Slatkine-Magariotis,1976.

Contamine, Philippe. Guerre, e tat et socie te a la findu moyen a ge: e tudes sur les armies des rois dr France 1337–1494. Paris: Mouton, 1972.

———. La guerre de cent ans. Paris: PUF, 1968. ———. L’oriflamme de Saint-Denis aux XIVe et Xve

siecles. Nancy: Universite de Nancy II, Institutde Recherche Regionale, 1975.

Delachenal, Roland. Histoire de Charles V . 5 vols.Paris: Picard, 1909–31.

De Lombars, Michel. Histoire de l’artillerie francais.Paris: Charles-Lavanzelle, 1984.

Delumeau, Jean, ed. Histoire de la Bretagne. Tou-louse: Privat, 1969.

Deprez, E. Les Preliminaries de le Guerre de cent ans:La Papaute , la France et l’Angleterre (1328–1342).Paris, 1902.

Descroix, Bernard. Seguin de Badefol: ‘‘ce fils d’in-

iquite ’’—qui fit trembler Anse et la France entiere.Lyon: Societe d’Archeologie du Beaujolais,1986.

Deviosse, Jean. Jean le Bon. Paris: Fayard, 1985.Dupuy, Micheline. Bertrand du Guesclin: capitaine

d’adventure, conne table de France. Paris: Perrin,1977.

Farrere, Claude. Histoire de la marine francaise.Paris: Flammarion, 1962.

Favier, Jean. La guerre de cent ans. Paris: Fayard,1980.

———. Philippe le Bel. Paris: Fayard, 1987.Froissart, Jean. Les oeuvres de Froissart—Chron-

iques. Edited by Joseph M. B. C. Kervyn deLettenhove. 25 vols. Brussels: Devaux, 1867–73(vols. 1–17); Brussels: Closson, 1874–77 (vols.18–25).

Gardelles, Jacques. Bordeaux cite me die vale. Bor-deaux: Horizon Chimerique, 1989.

Giquel. Yvonig. Olivier de Clisson, conne table deFrance ou chef du parti Breton? Paris: Picollec,1981.

Guillemain, Bernard. La cour pontificale d’Avignon(1309–1376): etude d’une socie te . 2nd ed. Paris:Borccard, 1966.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

362



Histoire de l’Aquitaine. Publiee sous la direction deCharles Higounet. Toulouse: Privat, 1971.

Jacob, Yves. Bertrand du Guesclin, connetable deFrance. Paris: Tallandier, 1992.

Jean le Bel. Chronique. Edited by Jules Viard andEugene Deprez. 2 vols. Paris: Renouard, 1904–5.

Kerherve, Jean. L’e tat Breton aux 14e et 15e siecles:les ducs, l’argent et les homes. 2 vols. Paris: Mal-oine, 1987,

Kimm, Heidrun. Isabeau de Baviere, reine de France,1370–1435. Munich: Stadtarchiv Munchen,1969.

Lehoux, Francoise. Jean de France, duc de Berri: savie, son action politique. 4 vols. Paris: Picard,1966–68.

Leon-Martin, Louis. Dunois, le ba tard d’Orle ans.Paris: Colbert, 1943.

Lot, Ferdinand, and Robert Fawtier. Histoire desinstitutions francaises au moyen age. 3 vols. Paris:Presses Universitaires de France, 1957–62.

Lucenet, Monique. Les grandes pestes en France.Paris: Aubier, 1985.

Mangis, Edouard. Histoire du Parlement de Paris. 3vols. Paris: Picard, 1913–16.

Merouville, M. Caffin de. Le beau Dunois et sontemps. Paris: Les Sept Couleurs, 1961.

Mollat, Michel. Histoire de Rouen. Toulouse: Pri-vat, 1979.

Pernoud, Regine. La liberation d’Orle ans, 8 mai1429. Paris: Gallimard, 1969.

Rey, Maurice. Le domaine du roi et les finances ex-traordinaires sous Charles VI, 1388–1413. Paris:SEVPEN, 1965.

Richard, Jean. Les ducs de Bourgogne et la formationdu duche . Paris Les Belles Lettres, 1954.

Trabut-Cussac, Jean-Paul. L’administration anglaiseen Gascogne sous Henri III et Edouard I de 1254 a

1307 . Geneva: Droz, 1972.van Werveke, Hans. Jacques van Artevelde. Brus-

sels: Renaissance du Livre, 1942.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

363





Index

Boldface page references denote full entries, or, in the case of French provinces or major historical sources for the war, a

separate description in either Appendix 7 or 8. The abbreviation (illus.) indicates a photograph, genealogy, or otherillustration.

Acta Bellicosa, 343

Agen, Process of, 262Agenais, 334Agincourt, Battle of, 1–3, 2 (illus.)

‘‘Agincourt Carol,’’ 263 Aides, 294, 295 Aides pour la de livrance, 294Aiguillon, siege of, 3, 179, 288Albret, Arnaud-Amanieu, lord of, 3–4, 5, 14,

225, 275Albret, Bernard-Aiz, lord of, 4–5, 52, 95

Albret, Charles, lord of, Constable of France, 1, 2,

5–6

Alencon, duke of. See John, duke of Alencon

Alexander III, king of Scotland, 118Alexander V, Antipope, 239

Alfonso XI, king of Castile, 78Amiens, Treaty of: 1279, 118; 1423, 6–7, 8, 183Angevin Empire, 15–16Angle, Guichard d’, 192, 193Anglo-Burgundian alliance, 6, 7–8, 68, 254, 302–3Anglo-Flemish alliance, 8–9, 121, 126, 177

Anglo-French War of 1294–1303, 9–11, 118, 210, 249Angoumois, 334Anjou, 334–35Anjou, duke of. See Louis, duke of Anjou

Anne, duchess of Brittany, 63Anne of Bohemia, queen of England, 168, 194, 269

Anne of Burgundy, duchess of Bedford, 7, 8, 11–12, 177 Anonimalle Chronicle, 343–44Anse, as routier base, 40, 140Anti-French coalition, 12–13, 66, 121Appanage, 13–14Appeal of the Gascon Lords, 3–4, 87, 14–15, 111, 117

Aquitaine, 15–16, 137–38Arbroath, Declaration of, 280Archers, 16–18, 106Archier, Jean, 41‘‘Archpriest.’’ See Cervole, Arnaud de

Armagnac, 335Armagnac, count of. See Bernard, count of Armagnac

Armagnacs, 18–19, 52–53, 57, 84, 130–33, 212

Armies: command of, 19–21; composition of, 21–23;

recruitment of, 23–24, 54, 165; size of, 24–25;supplying of, 25–27

Armor, 27–29Arras: Congress of, 8, 29–30, 133, 254; peace of, 201;

Treaty of, 8 Arriere-ban, 23, 30–31, 251Artevelde, James van, 8–9, 31–32, 126, 276

Artevelde, Philip van, 32–33, 127Arthur de Richemont. See Arthur III, duke of BrittanyArthur III, duke of Brittany, 29, 33–34, 63, 196, 261:

battle of Formigny and, 127–28; Brittany, 62–63;Charles VII and, 90, 91; Duke John V and, 182–83;

Norman Campaign and (1449–1450), 231–32; Treatyof Amiens and, 6, 7

Artillery, 34–35, 64, 65, 285Artois, 335Auberoche, Battle of, 35–36, 153, 265Aubert, Etienne, 238Aubricourt, Eustache d’, 229–30

Audley, Sir James, 36–37, 51, 117, 258Audley, Peter, 229Audrehem, Arnoul d’, Marshal of France, 20, 37–38,

225, 257–58, 275‘‘Auld Alliance.’’ See Franco-Scottish AllianceAuray, Battle of, 38, 61, 63, 83, 92

Auvergne, 335–36Auxerre, Treaty of, 19, 58, 69, 131, 200Avaugour, Guillaume d’, 89Avignon Peace Conference, 39, 60–61, 100, 110,

207, 238

Aycelin, Pierre, Cardinal of Laon, 212

‘‘Babylonian Captivity,’’ 238–39, 249Badefol, Seguin de, 40–41, 62, 140, 273Bal des Ardents, 88Ball, John, 248Balliol, Edward, 144

Balliol, John, 109, 118, 129, 280

Bamborough, Robert, 103Bannerets, 22Bannockburn, Battle of, 119, 222, 280

365



Bartholomew, Lord Badlesmere, 65Basin, Thomas, 344Basle, Council of, 29

Bastides, 41–42, 118Bataille, Guillaume, 220

Battle: Battle cries, 43; casualties during, 80;

chronological list of, 321–22; nature of, 42–43‘‘Battle of the Golden Spurs.’’ See Courtrai, battle ofBaudricourt, Robert de, 173Bauge, Battle of, 43–44, 217, 290, 298

Beauchamp, Guy de, earl of Warwick, 45Beauchamp, Richard, earl of Warwick, 44–45, 215, 219

Beauchamp, Thomas, earl of Warwick (d. 1401),269, 299

Beauchamp, Thomas, earl of Warwick (d. 1369),44, 45–46, 257

Beauchamp, William, earl of Warwick, 21

Beaufort, Edmund, duke of Somerset, 46–47, 65, 152,170, 209, 231–32

Beaufort, Henry, Cardinal Bishop of Winchester,29–30, 46, 47–48, 157, 260, 300

Beaufort, John, duke of Somerset, 44, 46, 48–49Beaufort, Margaret, 49, 81Beaufort, Pierre Roger de, 239

Beaufort, Thomas, duke of Exeter, 49–50, 215, 282, 305Beaumanoir, Jean de, 103Bedford, duchess of. See Anne of Burgundy, duchess

of BedfordBedford, duke of. See John, duke of Bedford

Behuchet, Nicholas, 286, 287Bekynton, John, 111

Benedict XII, Pope, 100, 238Benoit, Guillaume, 11Bentley, Sir Walter, 50–51, 61, 101, 214Bergerac, capture of, 51–52, 265Bernard, count of Armagnac, 18–19, 52–53, 57, 84, 305

Berry, 336Berry, duke of. See John, duke of BerryBertrand de l’Isle, 36Bertrand, Robert, lord of Bricquebec, 145Berwick, Treaty of, 109Bicetre, Peace of, 18, 84, 131Black Death, 53–54‘‘Black Monday,’’ 267

Blanche d’Evreux, queen of France, 179Blanche, duchess of Lancaster, 147Blanche of Bourbon, queen of Castile, 78Blanchetaque, ford of, 1Blois, 336Bohun, Eleanor de, 108Bohun, Humphrey de, earl of Hereford and Essex, 54Bohun, Mary de, countess of Derby, 148Bohun, William de, earl of Northampton, 54–55, 60,

108, 222, 286Boniface VIII, Pope, 10, 210, 238, 249, 295

Bonne, duchess of Orleans, 18, 52Bonne of Luxembourg, queen of France, 179

Bordeaux, 55–56, 79, 117, 137–38; Truce of, 4, 56–57Boroughbridge, battle of, 119

Bosc, Nicolas de, bishop of Bayeux, 212Boucicaut, John, marshal of France, 1, 2, 6, 20

Bourbon/Bourbonnais, 336–37Bourbon, Jean de, count of La Marche, 62Bourges, kingdom of, 90, 219Bourges, Treaty of, 6, 57–58, 69, 131, 149, 297–98

Bouteiller, Guy le, 272Bouvier, Jacques, 344Brabant, 337Brembre, Nicholas, mayor of London, 197Bretigny, Treaty of, 58–59, 122, 138, 181, 267Breton Civil War, 38, 55, 59–61, 60 (illus.), 92, 108, 191,

207, 214: Brittany, 62–63; Duke John IV and, 181–82; John de Montfort and, 221–22

Brienne, Raoul de, count of Eu, 97, 179, 289Brignais, Battle of, 82, 61–62, 140Brioude, as routier base, 40, 140Brittany, 38, 92, 62–63, 108, 128, 191, 207, 214, 246:

Breton Civil War, 59–61; Duke Arthur III and, 33–34;

Duke John IV and, 181–82; Duke John V and, 182–83; John de Montfort and, 221–22; Sir Walter Bentleyand, 50–51

Brittany, duke of. See Arthur III, duke of Brittany;Charles of Blois, duke of Brittany; John IV, duke ofBrittany; John V, duke of Brittany

Bruce, Robert. See Robert I, king of ScotlandBruges, 126, 203–5

Bruges Peace Conference, 63–64, 110, 184, 204, 238–39Brut, 344–45Buch, Captal de. See Grailly, Jean de, Captal de BuchBuchan, earl of. See Stewart, John, earl of BuchanBureau, John, 20, 35, 79, 64–65, 232, 261, 285

Burghersh, Henry, bishop of Lincoln, 12, 65–66, 112Burgundians, 66–68, 130–33, 185, 186Burgundy, 66, 67, 68–69, 185, 253, 254–55Burgundy, duchess of. See Marguerite de Flanders,

duchess of BurgundyBurgundy, duke of. See John the Fearless, duke of

Burgundy; Philip the Bold, duke of Burgundy; Philip

the Good, duke of BurgundyBurley, Simon, 269Burning Men’s Ball. See Bal des ArdentsBuzancais, Treaty of, 58, 69, 131Byker family, 35

Caboche, Simon, 19, 70–71, 132, 185, 241

Cabochiens, 19, 67, 70–71, 132, 185, 200, 241Cadzand, Battle of, 71–72, 269, 299Cagny, Perceval de, 345Calais, 72–73Calais, siege of, 72, 73–74, 121

Calais, Treaty of. See Bretigny, Treaty ofCalais, Truce of, 74–75Cale, Guillaume, 171Calveley, Sir Hugh, 38, 61, 75–76, 103, 188, 273Cambrai, siege of, 296Campaign of 1475, 163

Canterbury Chronicle, 345Canterbury, Treaty of, 76, 150

INDEX

366



Caours, Raoul de, 51, 108–9Capet, House of, 77–78Capet, Hugh, 77

Capgrave, John, 157Caroline War (1369–1389), 161–62

Cassel, Battle of, 9, 21, 126, 204, 234, 251

Castel, Etienne du, 98Castilian War of Succession, 78–79, 200, 224–25, 273Castillon, Battle of, 65, 79, 152, 293Casualties, 80–81Catherine of Valois, queen of England, 45, 46, 81–82,

132, 150, 166, 283, 303

Cauchon, Pierre, bishop of Beauvais, 174, 175Caumont, Alexander de, 3Cavalry, 21–22Cervole, Arnaud de, 82–83, 139, 273

C’est Assavoir , 59

Champagne, 337Chandos Herald, 83, 117, 252, 345–46

Chandos, Sir John, 36, 37, 38, 61, 83, 117, 225Charles, count of Valois, 9–10, 13, 118, 249, 250, 277, 306Charles, duke of Orleans, 83–85, 169, 235Charles IV (‘‘the Fair’’), king of France, 77, 85–86,

250, 306

Charles V (‘‘the Wise’’), king of France, 14–15, 56, 57,59, 86–87, 142, 180, 181

Charles VI (‘‘the Well-Beloved’’ or ‘‘the Mad’’), king ofFrance, 70, 71, 81, 87–89, 152, 166, 202, 216: FrenchCivil War and, 130–32, 200–201; peace negotiations

with Richard II, 168–69; Treaty of Troyes and, 302–3Charles VII (‘‘the Well-Served’’ or ‘‘the Victorious’’),

king of France, 89–91, 89 (illus.), 132, 206, 254, 261,303, 312: Congress of Arras and, 29–30; Joan of Arcand, 174, 175; military reforms of, 24, 91–92, 301;Montereau Conference and, 219–20; NormanCampaign (1449–1450) and, 231–32; Truce of Tours

and, 301–2Charles VIII, king of France, 63, 306Charles of Blois, duke of Brittany, 38, 59–61, 63, 92–93,

108, 191, 207, 221, 222Charles of Bourbon, count of Clermont, 154Charles of Durazzo, 200Charles of Spain, constable of France, 37, 82, 93,

143, 180

Charles the Bad, king of Navarre, 40, 56, 57, 82, 86,93–94, 143, 208: Battle of Cocherel, 102–3; Jacquerieand, 171, 172; John II and, 179–80; routiers and,138–39, 140

Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy, 69, 163, 255

Chartier, Jean, 346Chateau Gaillard, 50, 133, 216, 308Chateauvillain, William de, 265Chatel, Garciot du, 62Chatel, Tanguy du, 89, 220Chaucer, Alice, countess of Salisbury, 260

Chaucer, Geoffrey, 134, 226, 260, 267Chevauche e, 94–95, 290; of 1355, 95–96, 116; of 1373,

96–97

Cheverston, Sir John, 4, 275

Chivalry, 97–98, 136–37, 288–89Christine de Pizan, 86, 98–99Chronicle of London, 216Chronicles of France, England and the Adjoining Countries.

See Chroniques de France, d’Angleterre et des pais voisins(Froissart)

Chronique de Charles VII (Chartier), 346Chroniques de France, d’Angleterre et des pais voisins

(Froissart), 133–35

Chroniques des Ducs d’Alencon (Cagny), 345Chroniques du Roi Charles VII (Bouvier), 344Cinque Ports, 228Clarence, duke of. See Thomas, duke of ClarenceClemence of Hungary, queen of France, 203

Clement V, Pope, 238Clement VI, Pope, 39, 99–101, 207Clement VII, Antipope, 87, 201, 239Clermont, Treaty of, 37Clinton, John, Lord Clinton, 261

Clinton, William, earl of Huntingdon, 12Clisson, Olivier, III, 51, 101Clisson, Olivier, IV, constable of France, 63, 87, 101–2,

182, 212Clos de Galees, 228Cobham, Sir Reginald, 80Cocherel, Battle of, 82, 86, 94, 102–3, 139Coeur, Jacques, 90

Colonna, Oddo, 239Combat of the Thirty, 61, 103–4Companies d’Ordonnance, 91Company of St. George, 147‘‘Complaint of the Commons of Kent,’’ 170

Conan IV, duke of Brittany, 62Condulmaro, Gabriele, 239Conseil Prive , 20Constables, 19–21: England, listing of, 332; France,

listing of, 332–33Constance, Council of, 48, 76, 239Constanza, duchess of Lancaster, 183, 184

Convocation, 296Corbeil Agreement, 186, 219Cornwall, Sir John, 215, 265, 266Counter- Jacquerie, 171, 172Courtney, Richard, bishop of Norwich, 146

Courtrai, Battle of, 21, 30, 126, 249Crabbe, John, 266

Craon, Pierre, 102Cravant, battle of, 104–5Crecy, Battle of, 105–6, 105 (illus.), 116, 121, 205Cresswell, Sir John, 273Crisis of 1340–1341 (England), 106–7, 121, 123, 218,

243–44, 291–92Cromer, William, 170, 171

Croniques de London, 346Cros, Jean de, bishop of Limoges, 194Crossbow, 17

Dagworth, Sir Thomas, 61, 92, 108–9, 191Dampierre, House of, 203

INDEX

367



Dancaster, John, 289Dauphine, 337David, duke of Rothesay, 113

David II, king of Scotland, 109–10, 129–30,228–29, 266, 281

Despenser, Hugh, the Elder, 45, 167

Despenser, Hugh, the Younger, 119, 120, 167Dietrich, count of Cleves, 12Diplomacy, 58, 59, 110–12Ditie de Jehanne d’Arc (Christine de Pizan), 99

Donald, earl of Mar, 109Dordrecht Bonds, 66, 112, 259

Douglas, Archibald, earl of Douglas, 113–14, 130,281, 289–90, 307

Douglas, Sir William, 133Douglas, William, earl of Douglas, 130, 257Drury, Rabigot, 229

Dunkirk, Treaties of, 203Dunois, count of. See John, count of Dunois and

LonguevilleDupplin Muir, Battle of, 109, 287

E corcheurs, 91, 273. See also RoutiersEdmund, earl of Kent, 168, 210

Edmund, earl of Lancaster, 10, 165, 190Edward of Angouleme, 269Edmund of Langley, duke of York, 87, 115–16, 126,

204, 211, 253Edward, duke of York, 2

Edward, the Black Prince, Prince of Wales, 16,78, 87, 106, 116–17, 266, 310: Battle of Na jera and,

224–25; Battle of Poitiers and, 256–58; sack ofLimoges and, 194–95; Truce of Bordeaux and,56–57

Edwardian War (1337–1360), 161Edward I, king of England, 9–11, 117–19, 210, 280

Edward II, king of England, 9–10, 119–20, 167, 277,280–81

Edward III, king of England, 77, 112, 120–22, 144, 155,207, 221, 244, 252, 310: anti-French coalition and,12–13; Avignon Peace Conference and, 39; battle ofCrecy and, 105–6; battle of Sluys and, 286–87; BretonCivil War and, 60, 61; Crisis of 1340–1341

and, 106–7, 291–92; First and Second Treaties of

London and, 198–200; overthrow of Edward II and,167, 168; Rheims Campaign and, 266–67; siege ofCalais and, 73–74; siege of Tournai and, 299–300;Thierache Campaign and, 296–97; Treaty ofBretigny and, 58–59; Truce of Calais and, 74, 75

Edward IV, king of England, 152, 163, 255Edward, prince of Wales, 152, 209Eleanor of Aquitaine, 15, 55Eleanor of Castile, queen of England, 210Elizabeth of York, 163Elmham, Thomas, 346English Political Crisis of 1340–1341. See Crisis of

1340–1341

Ermine, Order of the, 137, 182Esplechin, Truce of, 122–23, 300

Estates, general and provincial, 57, 74, 123–24, 156,208, 294–95

Eudes, duke of Burgundy, 250Eugenius IV, Pope, 239Evesham, Battle of, 80, 118Excusaciones (Stratford), 107, 292

Exeter, duke of. See Beaufort, Thomas, duke of ExeterEymet, Battle of, 142Eyton, Fulk, 206

‘‘Fair Maid of Kent.’’ See Holland, JoanFalstaff, Sir John, 283Fastolf, Sir John, 125–26, 154, 196, 245Felton, Thomas, Seneschal of Aquitaine, 142

Fitzalan, Richard, earl of Arundel, 71, 72, 269, 299Fitzalan, Thomas, earl of Arundel, 146Flanders, 8–9, 31, 32, 33, 126–27, 203–5, 211, 276Flanders, count of. See Louis de Male, count of

Flanders; Louis de Nevers, count of Flanders

Fleurs de Lys, Treaty of. See Hostages, Treaty of theFormigny, battle of, 127–28, 232Fouage, 14, 87, 117, 294, 295Fougeres, sack of, 46, 128–29, 301Fournier, Jacques, 238Franc-Archers, 92Francis I, duke of Brittany, 49, 231Francis II, duke of Brittany, 63

Franco-Scottish alliance, 59, 129–30, 159, 228–29, 280–81Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor, 255French Civil War, 58, 84, 130–33, 166: Armagnacs and,

18–19; Bernard, count of Armagnac and, 52–53;Burgundians and, 66–67; Cabochiens and, 70–71;

Charles VI and, 87–89; Charles VII and, 89–91; HenryV and, 149–51; John the Fearless, duke of Burgundyand, 184–85; Louis, duke of Guienne and, 200–201;Montereau Conference and, 219–20

Fresnay, Battle of, 133Froissart, Jean, 103, 117, 133–35, 134 (illus.), 145, 169,

172, 195, 213, 251, 252, 286

Gabelle, 294Galard, John de, lord of Limeuil, 265Garter, Order of the, 121, 136–37, 288Gascony, 15–16, 79, 137–38

Gaston de Foix, count of Foix, 5Gaston Febus, count of Foix, 138

Gaveston, Piers, 119, 167Genealogies: Beaufort family, 318 (illus.); Brittany,

dukes of, 314 (illus.); Burgundy, dukes of, 315 (illus.);Flanders, counts of, 316 (illus.); French RoyalSuccession in the fourteenth century, 317 (illus.);

Lancaster, house of, 318 (illus.); Plantagenet, houseof, 319 (illus.); Valois, house of, 320 (illus.)

Geoffrey, count of Anjou, 255Geoffrey de Charny, 20, 258Geoffrey le Baker, 45–46, 80, 346–47Gesta Henrici Quinti, 347

Ghent, 31, 32, 33, 126, 203–5Gien, League of, 52, 84, 131

INDEX

368



Gilles of Brittany, 128, 183Glasdale, William, 236Gloucester, duke of. See Humphrey, duke of

Gloucester; Thomas of Woodstock, duke ofGloucester

Godfrey of Harcourt. See Harcourt, Godfrey of

Golden Fleece, Order of the, 137, 255Good Parliament, 117, 184, 244Got, Bertrand de, 238Gough, Sir Matthew, 128, 196, 206

Gourney, Sir Matthew, 38Grailly, Jean de, Captal de Buch, 102–3, 105–6, 117,

138–39, 172, 225, 258Grandison, Sir Thomas, 142, 188Gray, Sir Thomas, 347–48Great Company, 40, 61, 62, 82, 139–41, 147, 273‘‘Great Schism,’’ 238–39

Gregory XI, Pope, 64, 147, 239Grimoard, Guillaume de, 239

Guerande, Treaty of (1365), 61, 63, 92, 141, 181Guerande, Treaty of (1381), 182Guesclin, Bertrand du, constable of France, 38, 61, 63,

75, 87, 141–42, 224–25Guestin, Richard, 196

Guienne, duke of. See Louis, duke of GuienneGuillon, Treaty of, 267Guines, Treaty of, 75, 142–43, 180Guise, Francis de, duke of Guise, 73Guy, count of Blois, 134, 135

Guy de Dampierre, count of Flanders, 10Guzman, Leonor de, 78

Hainault, 337–38Halberd, 27Hales, Robert, 247–48Halidon Hill, Battle of, 109, 121, 144–45, 280

Halle, Sir Frank, 35, 36Handford, Sir John, 265Harcourt, Godfrey of, 145–46, 232Harfleur, Siege of, 1, 146Hastings, John, earl of Pembroke, 98, 192, 193Hastings, Lawrence, earl of Pembroke, 35Hawkwood, Sir John, 140, 146–47, 273

Henrician War (1415–1453), 162–63

Henry, count of Vaudemont, 230Henry, earl of Lancaster, 153Henry I, king of England, 234, 255Henry II, king of Castile. See Henry of TrastamareHenry II, king of England, 15, 55, 62, 77, 137, 158, 255

Henry III, king of England, 16, 77, 117, 138, 158,241–42, 255

Henry IV: king of England, 47, 50, 57, 58, 116,

147–49, 270Henry IV: Part 1 (Shakespeare), 282; Part 2

(Shakespeare), 282, 283

Henry V, king of England, 47, 48, 50, 76, 132, 148,149–51, 149 (illus.), 272: Battle of Agincourt and, 1–3;

Catherine of Valois and, 81–82; Siege of Meaux,214–15; Siege of Melun, 215–16; Norman Campaign

(1417–19) and, 230–31; Shakespeare’s plays and,282–83; Thomas, duke of Clarence and, 297–98;

Treaty of Troyes and, 302–3Henry V (Shakespeare), 149, 282–83Henry VI, king of England, 151–53, 206, 209–10, 259–60,

267–68, 300–301

Henry VI: Part 1 (Shakespeare), 282–83; Part 2(Shakespeare), 282; Part 3 (Shakespeare), 282

Henry VII, king of England, 49, 81, 191, 256

Henry of Bolingbroke. See Henry IV, king of EnglandHenry of Grosmont, earl of Lancaster, 3, 35–36, 51, 52,

153–54, 266Henry of Trastamare, 15, 37, 75, 78, 142, 192,

224–25, 273

Herrings, Battle of the, 125, 154, 175Histoire de Charles VI (Juvenal des Ursins), 349Histoire de Charles VII (Basin), 344Hobelars, 22Holland, Joan, 116–17, 136, 154–55, 184

Holland, John, earl of Huntingdon, 44, 133Holland, Robert, Lord Holland, 154Holland, Thomas, earl of Kent, 154–55Homildon Hill, Battle of, 113, 289Hostages, Treaty of the, 155–56, 200Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, 8, 11, 48, 156–57, 300Hundred Years War: causes of, 157–59; naming of,

159–60; phases of, 160–64Hungerford, Robert, Lord Hungerford, 280Hungerford, Sir Walter, 265

Indentures, 23, 165–66Infantry, 22–23

Ingham, Oliver, Seneschal of Aquitaine, 5Innocent VI, Pope, 82, 238Isabeau of Bavaria, queen of France, 81, 87, 88, 89, 99,

131–32, 166–67, 201–2, 303Isabella, queen of England (d. 1358), 77, 85, 119–20, 121,

153, 167–68, 218, 277, 280, 292Isabella, queen of England (d. 1409), 84, 148, 168–69,

168 (illus.), 194, 269–70, 299

Jack Cade’s Rebellion, 152, 170–71, 197, 232, 268, 279 Jacqueline of Hainault, 11, 156, 254 Jacquerie, 86, 171–72, 208, 229, 241

Jacquetta of Luxembourg, 8, 178 James I, king of Scotland, 113, 130, 216, 281

James II, king of Scotland, 130, 281 Jean, count of Eu, 258 Jean de Chalon, 38 Jean de Clermont, marshal of France, 20, 95, 257 Jean de Harcourt, count of Aumale, 307

Jean de Poitiers, bishop of Valence, 220 Jean le Bel, 80, 134, 145, 172–73, 252

Jeanne de Belleville, 51 Jeanne de Burgundy, queen of France, 179 Jeanne de Flanders, 60, 92, 221, 222 Jeanne de Navarre, queen of France, 202, 249

Jeanne de Penthievre, 38, 59, 60, 61, 63, 92, 141,181, 221, 222

INDEX

369



Jeanne of Evreaux, queen of France, 85 Jeanne, queen of Navarre, 93, 203 Joan of Arc, 12, 48, 90, 99, 173–75, 174 (illus.), 245, 254,

308, 312: John, count of Dunois and, 176; LoireCampaign and, 195–96; Nullification Trial of, 91;

Shakespeare’s plays and, 283; Siege of Orleans and,

235–36 Joan of Kent. See Holland, Joan Joan, queen of Scotland, 110 John, count of Angouleme, 69, 84

John, count of Armagnac, 4, 14, 143 John, count of Clermont, 127, 232

John, count of Dunois and Longueville, 65, 84, 174,

175–76, 219, 231, 236, 308 John, count of Harcourt, 145 John, duke of Alencon (d. 1415), 2, 176 John, duke of Alencon (d. 1476), 33, 174, 176–77, 195–96,

231, 245 John, duke of Bedford, 6–8, 11–12, 29–30, 156, 177–78,

282, 307 John, duke of Berry, 57–58, 155, 178–79, 194, 212 John, duke of Brabant, 12 John, duke of Normandy. See John II, king of France John, duke of Touraine, dauphin of France, 19, 88, 166

John I, king of France, 203, 250, 278, 306 John II, king of France, 3, 86, 93, 155, 179–81, 180 (illus.),

266: Battle of Poitiers and, 256–58; Truce of Bordeauxand, 56–57; Treaty of Bretigny and, 58–59; Treaty ofGuines and, 142–43; First and Second Treaties of

London and, 197–99; Order of the Star and, 288–89 John III, duke of Brittany, 59, 63, 181, 221, 222

John IV, duke of Brittany, 38, 61, 63, 101–2, 141, 181–82 John V, duke of Brittany, 6–7, 8, 33, 63, 182–83 John, king of Bohemia, 106, 218 John, king of England, 15, 63, 63, 158 John of Blois, count of Penthievre, 102, 182

John of Bourbon, constable of France, 95 John of Chalon, lord of Arlay, 230 John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, 64, 96, 183–84, 194,

269–70, 298–99 John of Hainault, 172, 252 John of Montreuil, 160 John of Reading, 348

John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy, 1, 66–68, 70–71,

88, 131, 184–86, 202, 219–20 John XXII, Pope, 100, 292 Journal du Siege d’Orleans, 348–49 Justification of the Duke of Burgundy, 67, 131, 186–87 Juvenal des Ursins, Jean, 111, 349

Kent, earl of. See Holland, Thomas, earl of KentKingston, John, 165Knight, 22Knighton, Henry, 349Knolles, Sir Robert, 38, 61, 75, 103, 147, 188–89, 248, 273

Kyriell, Sir Thomas, 127, 232

Laborers, Statute, 247‘‘La Hire.’’ See Vignolles, Etienne de

Laire, Robert de, 220Lancaster, duke of. See Henry of Grosmont, duke of

Lancaster; John of Gaunt, duke of LancasterLancaster, House of, 190–91Lancastrian War (1415–1453), 162–63Languedoc, 338

Languedoil, 338La Roche-Derrien, Battle of, 61, 92, 108, 188, 191–92La Rochelle, Battle of, 192–93, 192 (illus.)

Latimer, William, Lord Latimer, 244La Tremoılle, Georges de, 33, 90, 266Launac, Battle of, 4Laval, Beatrix de, 102

La Vie du Prince Noir (Chandos Herald), 83, 117,

345–46

Legge, John, 248Le Journal d’un Bourgeois de Paris, 348‘‘Le Margot’’ Company, 40Lescot, Richard, 279

Les-Espagnols-sur-Mer, Battle of. See Winchelsea,Battle of

Leslie, Sir Walter, 140Les vrayes chroniques (Jean le Bel), 172Letters de Retente, 23‘‘Letter to the English’’ (Joan of Arc), 173Leulinghen, Truce of, 88, 148, 193–94, 212, 269, 299Lewes, Battle of, 117

Lex Salica, 278Libellus Famosus, 107, 292Liber Metricus de Henrico Quinto (Elmham), 346Libourne, Treaty of, 117Life of the Black Prince. See La Vie du Prince Noir

(Chandos Herald)Limoges, sack of, 117, 194–95, 285Limousin, 338–39Lionel, duke of Clarence, 134, 183, 267, 288Lit de Justice, 70Livre de seyntz medicines (Henry of Grosmont), 153

Livre des fais et bonnes meurs de sage roy Charles V (Christine de Pizan), 99

Loire Campaign, 174, 176, 195–96, 245, 312Lollardy, 150London, 196–97London, First Treaty of, 122, 197–98

London, Second Treaty of, 122, 198–99, 266Longbow, 17–18

Longueville, count of. See John, count of Dunoisand Longueville

Lords Appellant, 115, 148, 244, 269, 299Lorraine, 339Louis, count of Vendome, 104

Louis, duke of Anjou, 15, 78, 155, 199–200Louis, duke of Bourbon, 155

Louis, duke of Guienne, dauphin of France, 1, 70–71,88, 131–32, 146, 166, 200–201

Louis, duke of Orleans, 84, 88, 98, 130, 185, 186, 201–2,212, 253

Louis VI, king of France, 77, 234, 240Louis VII, king of France, 15, 77

INDEX

370



Louis VIII, king of France, 270Louis IX (St. Louis), king of France, 16, 77, 158, 234, 240,

241–42, 248, 255, 288

Louis X (‘‘the Quarrelsome’’), king of France, 202–3,250, 306

Louis XI, king of France, 91, 130, 163, 176, 177, 210, 255,

306, 312Louis XII, king of France, 84Louis de Male, count of Flanders, 64, 87, 115, 126,

203–4, 211, 253

Louis de Nevers, count of Flanders, 8–9, 106, 126, 204–5Louis of Poitiers, count of Valentinois, 35, 36

Ludwig, Holy Roman Emperor, 12, 66Ludwig of Bavaria, 70, 252Lydgate, John, 157

Macon, Robert le, Chancellor of France, 200

Maes Moydog, Battle of, 21Mahaut, countess of Artois, 270–71

Maine, 339: surrender of, 46–47, 128, 206–7, 260, 301Malestroit, Truce of, 39, 60, 100, 207–8Mantes, Treaty of, 93, 180Maps: major duchies, counties, and lordships of

medieval France, li; major battles and sieges of the

Hundred Years War, lii; France in 1328, at theaccession of Philip VI, liii; France in 1360, at theconclusion of the Treaty of Bretigny, liv; France in1429, at the advent of Joan of Arc, lv

Marcel, Etienne, 56, 57, 86, 93, 171, 180, 208–9, 240–41

Mare, Sir Peter de la, 244Margaret of Anjou, queen of England, 47, 152, 206,

209–10, 260, 268, 280, 301Margaret of France, queen of England, 118, 210Margaret of Norway, queen of Scotland, 118Margate, Battle of. See Cadzand, Battle ofMarguerite de Flanders, duchess of Burgundy, 68, 87,

115, 126–27, 185, 204, 211, 253Marie, duchess of Bourbon, 179Marigny, Enguerran de, 203Marigny, Jean d’, bishop of Beauvais, 56Marmousets, 88, 102, 201–2, 211–12Marshals, 19–21: England, listing of, 332; France, listing

of, 333

Martin V, Pope, 48, 239

Mauny, Walter, Lord Mauny, 3, 51, 213–14, 222, 252,265, 286

Mauron, Battle of, 51, 61, 214, 289Meaux, Siege of, 214–15

Meliador (Froissart), 134

Melun, Jean de, count of Tancarville, 61–62Melun, Siege of, 215–16Melun, William, count of Tancarville, 212Men-at-Arms, 22Menil, Sir Hugh, 3Mercier, John le, 212

Merciless Parliament, 148, 244, 270, 299Meschin, Helie, 62

Meun, Jean de, 99 Misericord, 27

Monarchs and rulers, listing of, 323–25Mons-en-Pevele, Battle of, 234

Mons-en-Vimeau, Battle of, 312Monstrelet, Enguerrand de, 12, 349Montagu, John, earl of Salisbury, 217Montagu, Thomas, earl of Salisbury, 44, 104, 133, 217,

235–36, 307Montagu, William, earl of Salisbury, 12, 121, 218–19Montagu, William, Lord Montagu, 218

Montaigu, John de, 212Montargis, Siege of, 45, 175, 219Montenay, Guillaume de, 282Montereau Conference, 90, 132, 186, 219–21, 220 (illus.)Montfort, John de, 59, 60, 63, 92, 207, 221–22Montfort, Simon de, earl of Leicester, 80, 117Montiel, Battle of, 78Montreuil, Process of, 262Moray, Sir Andrew, 109Morlaix, Battle of, 60, 222–23

Morley, Sir Robert, 286Mortimer, Anne, countess of Cambridge, 267Mortimer, Edmund, earl of March, 150, 190, 214Mortimer, Roger, earl of March, 45, 85, 120–21, 153,

167–68, 218, 280, 292Mortimer’s Cross, Battle of, 81Mowbray, Thomas, duke of Norfolk, 148, 269–70Murdoch, earl of Fife, 113, 289

Murimuth, Adam, 349–50

Na jera, Battle of, 78, 117, 142, 224–25National consciousness, growth of, 110, 225–27Naval warfare, 71, 72, 192–93, 227–28, 282, 286–87,

310–11Navarre, 339–40Navarrete, Battle of. See Na jera, Battle ofNesle, Guy de, 51, 214, 275Neville, Cecily, duchess of York, 268Neville, Ralph, earl of Westmorland, 268Neville, Ralph, Lord Neville of Raby, 228

Neville, Richard, earl of Warwick, 280Neville’s Cross, Battle of, 109, 121, 228–29, 281Nicopolis, Battle of, 185Nogaret, Guillaume de, 249Nogent-sur-Seine, Battle of, 229–30, 273

Norman Campaign (1417–1419), 150, 230–31, 272;(1449–1450), 65, 176, 231–32

Normandy, 46, 47, 127, 150, 230–31, 232–33, 272Northampton, earl of. See Bohun, William de, earl of

NorthamptonNorthampton, Treaty of, 168

Offord, John, 39Oldcastle, Sir John, 150

Olivier, count of Penthievre, 182Ordinances of 1311, 119

Ordonnance Cabochienne, 70, 71, 132Oriflamme, 73, 75, 234–35

Orleans, duke of. See Charles, duke of Orleans;Louis, duke of Orleans

INDEX

371



Orleans, Siege of, 154, 174, 175, 217, 235–37, 235 (illus.),279, 308, 312

Oudenaarde, Siege of, 32

Panetier de roi, 26

Papacy, 238–39

Paris, 208, 239–41; Treaty of, 137, 158, 241–42, 255Parlement of Paris, 242–43Parliament, 115, 243–45: crisis of 1340–1341 and, 107;

Good parliament, 117; Merciless parliament, 148 ;Wonderful parliament, 71

Paston, John, 125

Paston Letters, 125Patay, Battle of, 174, 176, 196, 245–46, 279, 312Pa tis, 191, 246Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, 197, 246–48, 247 (illus.),

269

Pedro I (‘‘the Cruel’’), king of Castile, 15, 75, 78, 142,183, 224–25, 273

Pedro IV, king of Aragon, 75Percy, Henry (‘‘Hotspur’’), 113Percy, Henry, Lord Percy, 228Perigord, 340Perigueux, Process of, 262

Perrers, Alice, 122, 244, 252Peter II, duke of Brittany, 34Petit, Jean, 186Philarghi, Pietro, 239Philip, count of Evreux, 93

Philip de Rouvre, duke of Burgundy, 61, 211Philip, duke of Orleans, 142, 155, 257

Philip II (Augustus), king of France, 63, 77, 158, 241, 255Philip III, king of France, 118, 158, 248, 306Philip IV (‘‘the Fair’’), king of France, 9–10, 77, 118, 210,

248–49, 295, 306Philip V (‘‘the Tall’’), king of France, 203, 249–50, 306

Philip VI, king of France, 39, 60, 73–75, 100, 105–6, 121,207, 250–52, 271

Philip of Navarre, 155Philippa of Hainault, queen of England, 74, 134, 167,

252

Philip the Bold, duke of Burgundy, 64, 68, 87, 127, 211,

253–54, 257

Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, 6–8, 11, 29–30,

67–68, 132, 156, 177–78, 254–55, 302–3Picquigny, Treaty of, 163Pierre, count of Alencon, 155Pierre, duke of Bourbon, 258Plague. See Black Death

Plantagenet, house of, 255–56Poitiers, Battle of, 36, 139, 180, 256–58, 257 (illus.)Poitou, 340Pole, John de la, earl of Lincoln, 259Pole, Michael de la, earl of Suffolk (d. 1415, second

earl), 146, 259

Pole, Michael de la, earl of Suffolk (d. 1415, third earl),2, 259

Pole, Richard de la, 258Pole, Sir William de la, 112, 258–59

Pole, William, de la, duke of Suffolk, 46, 47, 206, 236,

259–60, 300–301

Pollaxe, 28–29Poll Tax, 247, 295Ponthieu, 340Pontoise, Peace of, 71, 84, 132

Pontoise, Siege of, 65, 260–61, 268Pontvallain, Battle of, 96, 142, 188Popes, listing of, 326

Praemunire, Statutes of, 239Praguerie, 90–91, 176Pre vo t des Marchands, 240–41Prignano, Bartolomeo, 239

Prise, 26

Process, 261–62: of Montreuil, 119; of Perigueux, 119Pragmatic Sanction, 90Propaganda, 262–64Provence, 340–41Provisors, Statute of, 239

Pseudo-Elmham, 350Purveyance, 26

Quercy, 341Quieret, Hugh, 286

Radcot Bridge, Battle of, 148Randolph, John, earl of Moray, 229

Ransom, 246, 265–66Raoul, Sieur de Gaucourt, 146Raymond-Bernard, lord of Montpezat, 41, 277Recueil des Croniques et Anciennes Istories de la Grande

Bretaigne, a Present Nomme Engleterre (Wavrin), 352Regnault of Chartres, achbishop of Rheims, 29Rene, duke of Anjou, 209Rheims Campaign, 122, 181, 266–67Richard, duke of York, 49, 170, 209, 255, 260,

261, 267–68Richard, earl of Cambridge, 150, 267Richard I, king of England, 15, 133, 136

Richard II, king of England, 56, 148–49, 168–69, 184,193–94, 247–48, 269–70, 298–99

Richard III, king of England, 256Richard III (Shakespeare), 282Rieux, Jean de, marshal of France, 133

Rieux, Pierre de, marshal of France, 20Riviere, Bureau de la, 212

Robert de Bethune, count of Flanders, 204Robert, duke of Albany, 113, 281, 289Robert I, king of Scotland, 109, 118, 129, 280, 284Robert II, count of Artois, 270Robert II, king of France, 77

Robert II, king of Scotland, 109, 130, 229, 281Robert III, king of Scotland, 113, 130, 281, 289

Robert le Coq, bishop of Laon, 56, 57Robert of Artois, 60, 121, 158, 222, 270–72, 271 (illus.),

276, 299Robert of Avesbury, 350–51

Robert of Geneva, 239Robert of Ulm, 285

INDEX

372



Roger-Bernard, count of Perigord, 5Roger, Pierre. See Clement VI, PopeRolin, Nicholas, chancellor of Burgundy, 8, 29

Roman de la Rose (Meun), 99Rondel, 28

Roosebeke, Battle of, 33, 234, 253

Rouen, Siege of, 231, 272, 286Rouergue, 341Routiers, 40, 61, 62, 82, 139–41, 147, 229–30, 272–74Rouvray, Battle of. See Herrings, Battle of

Sable, Treaty of, 182

St. Albans, Battle of, 268St. Cloud Plot, 86St. Crispin’s Day, 1Saint-Denis, Monastery of, 234Saintes, Battle of, 275Saint-Jean-d’Angely, 5, 36, 275Saint-Omer, Battle of, 271, 276–77, 299

Saintonge, 341Saint-Sardos, War of, 85, 120, 277–78Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte, Siege of, 34Salic Law of Succession, 278–79Salisbury, earl of. See Montagu, Thomas, earl of

Salisbury; Montagu, William, earl of SalisburySaumur, Treaty of, 183Scalachronica (Gray), 347–48Scales, Thomas, Lord Scales, 171, 236, 245, 279–80Scotland, 109, 113, 129–30, 144, 228–29, 280–81,

289–90Scot, Robert, 229

Scrope, Henry, Lord Scrope of Masham, 150Seine, Battle of the, 50, 76, 177, 281–82Shakespeare, William, Hundred Years War plays of,

149, 282–84, 297Shepherd, Battle of the, 312

Shrewsbury, Battle of, 44, 113, 149Shrewsbury, earl of. See Talbot, John, earl of

ShrewsburySiege Warfare, 284–86, 284 (illus.)Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, 48, 76, 150, 239Sluys, Battle of, 286–87, 287 (illus.)Somerset, duke of. See Beaufort, Edmund, duke of

Somerset; Beaufort, John, duke of Somerset

Southampton Plot, 150, 298Stafford, Ralph, earl of Stafford, 3, 287–88Star, Order of the, 137, 288–89Stephen, duke of Bavaria, 166Sterz, Albert, 147

Stewart, John, earl of Buchan, 43–44, 113, 130, 281,289–90, 307

Stewart, John, of Darnley, constable of Scotland,104, 154

Stewart, Margaret, 130Stewart, Robert. See Robert II, king of Scotland

Strategy, 290–91Stratford, John, archbishop of Canterbury, 107,

243, 291–92Stratford, Robert, 292

Sudbury, Simon, archbishop of Canterbury, 248Suffolk, Duke of. See Pole, William de la, duke of

SuffolkSurienne, Francois de, 128Swords, types of, 28Swynford, Katherine, duchess of Lancaster, 47, 49,

50, 184

Tactics, 290–91Tailles, 295Talbot, John, earl of Shrewsbury, 79, 236, 245, 261,

293–94

Tard-Venus, 147, 273Taxation, 54, 226, 247, 294–96Tenths and fifteenths, 295Thierache Campaign, 121, 285, 296–97Thomas, duke of Clarence, 43–44, 58,69, 146, 297–98Thomas, earl of Lancaster, 119, 153Thomas of Brotherton, earl of Norfolk, 55, 210

Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, 148, 189,193, 244, 269–70, 298–99

Titles of nobility, listing of, 327–31Toulouse, 341Touraine, 341–42Tournai, Siege of, 121, 299–300Tours, Truce of, 91, 209, 300–301Towns, 301–2Troyes, Treaty of, 81, 90, 132, 166, 239, 302–3Tudor Henry, earl of Richmond. See Henry VII,

king of EnglandTudor, Edmund, earl of Richmond, 46, 81Tudor, Jasper, earl of Pembroke, 81

Tudor, Owen, 46, 81Tudor, Tacina, 81Tunnage and poundage, 295Tyler, Wat, 248

Unigenitus, 101Urban V, Pope, 40, 211, 239

Urban VI, Pope, 239

‘‘Valley of the Clerks,’’ 80Valmont, Battle of, 50, 282, 305–6Valognes, Treaty of, 93, 180

Valois, House of, 77, 250–51, 306–7Vere, Robert de, earl of Oxford, 184, 269, 298

Verneuil, Battle of, 114, 177, 281, 290, 307–8Viennois. See DauphineVignolles, Etienne de, 175, 195, 219, 245, 261, 273,

308–9, 312Villandrando, Rodrigo de, 273

Visconti, Valentina, duchess of Orleans, 84, 201Vita et Gesta Henrici Quinti (Pseudo-Elmham), 133, 350Vita Henrici Quinti (Titus Livius), 351The Vow of the Heron, 271

Wakefield, Battle of, 268

Wales, 118, 149Wallace, William, 280

INDEX

373



Walsingham, Thomas, 351–52Walworth, Sir William, mayor of London, 248Warwick, earl of. See Beauchamp, Richard, earl of

Warwick; Beauchamp, Thomas, earl of WarwickWavrin, Jean de, 352War Finance, 54, 294–96

‘‘War of the Two Joans,’’ 60War publicity, 262–64Wars of the Roses, 47, 163, 191, 256, 280, 282, 283Weaponry, Nonmissile, 27–29Whittington, Richard, mayor of London, 197William, count of Hainault, 12, 296

William, count of Juliers, 12William I (‘‘the Conqueror’’), king of England, 157,

230, 255

William X, duke of Aquitaine, 15Willoughby, Robert, Lord Willoughby, 104Winchelsea, Battle of, 74, 310–11Wonderful Parliament, 71, 115, 269, 299Wycliffe, John, 184

Xaintrailles, Poton de, 175, 195, 245, 261, 308, 312

Yolande of Sicily, 173York, duke of. See Edmund of Langley, duke of York;

Richard, duke of YorkYork, House of, 256Ypres, 126, 203–05

Zouch, William la, archbishop of York, 228

INDEX

374



About the Author

JOHN A. WAGNER has taught British and U.S. history at Phoenix College and at ArizonaState University. He holds a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh and an M.A. andPh.D. from Arizona State University. He is the author of The Devon Gentleman: The Life of Sir Peter Carew (1998); the Historical Dictionary of the Elizabethan World (1999), which was a HistoryBook Club Selection; the Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses (2001); and Bosworth Field to Bloody

Mary: An Encyclopedia of the Early Tudors (2003). He is also a contributor to the HistoricalDictionary of Late Medieval England, 1272–1485 (2002), to Women in the Middles Ages: An En-cyclopedia (2004), and to the Encyclopedia of American Race Riots (2006).