Saint Joan of Arc (Jeanne la Pucelle): Difference between revisions

Line 994:

Even as Joan led the French army and its King towards Reims for the sacramental coronation of Charles VII, the French minister Georges La Trémoïlle commenced negotiations with the Burgundian court. The talks advanced enough so that the day after the coronation a formal, fifteen day truce was begun.<ref>See Pernoud, Her Story, p. 72</ref>

France was Charles' for the taking, especially Paris, but now, not later. Instead, the newly crowned Charles VII preferred the adulation of the people along a slow march towards but not into Paris to actually ~~retaking~~ Paris. Charles VII and his ministers had ceded authority over the war to their enemies.

France was Charles' for the taking, especially Paris, but now, not later. Instead, the newly crowned Charles VII preferred the adulation of the people along a slow march towards but not into Paris to actually taking Paris. Charles VII and his ministers had ceded authority over the war to their enemies.

How do we even make sense of this? The English were reeling from Joan's onslaught, the Burgundians were facing the logic of an English alliance that was ~~about to fall apart~~, and the French army had marched triumphantly to the sacred coronation of the French King. And the French minister proposes Burgundian neutrality? It's hard to see to what advantage La Trémoïlle was leveraging, much less what was the actual situation being leveraged.

How do we even make sense of this? The English were reeling from Joan's onslaught, the Burgundians were facing the logic of an English alliance that was losing its authority among the people, and the French army had marched triumphantly to the sacred coronation of the French King. And the French minister proposes Burgundian neutrality? It's hard to see to what advantage La Trémoïlle was leveraging, much less what was the actual situation being leveraged.

At best, La Trémoïlle's strategy would isolate the English, perhaps weakening their hold on Normandy. At worst, it would have forced the English to seize Paris, which they had otherwise left to the Burgundians to run under a small English guard. It wouldn't look good to crown Edward VI at Rouen, a city of no cultural significance. Or, just as bad, Burgundian neutrality may have ~~meant~~ access for that coronation to take place at Reims instead of Paris. Who knows, but so long as the English regent of France, the Duke of Bedford, was in charge -- and married to the sister of the Duke of the Burgundy -- the English-Burgundian alliance would hold, especially since the textile factories in Flanders were supplied by English wool.

At best, La Trémoïlle's strategy would isolate the English, perhaps weakening their hold on Normandy. At worst, it would have forced the English to seize Paris, which they had otherwise left to the Burgundians to run under a small English guard. It wouldn't look good to crown Edward VI at Rouen, a city of no cultural significance. Or, just as bad, Burgundian neutrality may have opened access for that coronation to take place at Reims instead of Paris. Who knows, but so long as the English regent of France, the Duke of Bedford, was in charge -- and married to the sister of the Duke of the Burgundy<ref>John the Fearless' daughter, Anne of Burgundy. She died at the age of 28 in Paris in 1432.</ref> -- the English-Burgundian alliance would hold, especially since the textile factories in Flanders were supplied by English wool.

The ~~usual~~ historical explanation that we encounter is that La Trémoïlle and the Archbishop of Reims, Regnault de Chartres, came to resent Joan out of jealousy, or ~~sexism~~, or something, and so worked against her, whether that be to French advantage or not. I don't see it.

The standard historical explanation that we encounter is that La Trémoïlle and the Archbishop of Reims, Regnault de Chartres, came to resent Joan out of jealousy, or sexist resentment, or something, and so worked against her, whether that be to French advantage or not. I don't see it.

The Bishop sponsored the inquiry into Joan at Poitiers that recommended to the king that she be sent with an army to Orléans. There she proved herself real, and the entire country was awed and amazed, including one Artur III de Richemont, who, inspired by Joan's miracle at Orléans (or recognizing an opportunity -- ~~same difference)~~, raised an army of a thousand ~~soldiers~~ and marched to the Loire to fight alongside her. After Joan cleared out that river valley, the King and all his ministers marched with her to Reims without hesitation or doubt.

The Bishop sponsored the inquiry into Joan at Poitiers that recommended to the king that she be sent with an army to Orléans. There she proved herself real, and the entire country was awed and amazed, including one rather complicated figure, Artur III de Richemont, of Brittany, who had fought for the French at Agincourt, supported Henry V as King of France, even so as to be rewarded with a title from him, and was married to another daughter of John the Fearless. inspired by Joan's miracle at Orléans, or recognizing an opportunity -- or both, de Richemont raised an army of a thousand and marched to the Loire to fight alongside her. After Joan cleared out that river valley, the King and all his ministers marched with her to Reims without hesitation or doubt.

We must recall that the Burgundian state was in part a fief of France and part of the Holy Roman Empire. And, Burgundian Flanders was technically a French fief but in practice was ruled outright by the Duke.<ref>We can think of Flanders as a French "fief" -- land granted to a lord, but whose "vassal," its feudal ruler, was not obligated to serve the French King. By distinction, the Duchy of Burgundy itself and its Duke were both fief and vassal. Flanders was in the 9th century originally part of West Francia (a divided portion of Charlemagne's empire), which became the Kingdom of France.</ref> As they extended their holdings, the dukes of Burgundy, though French themselves, saw themselves more and more lords of an autonomous state. Philip the Good, the Duke of Burgundy of Joan's time, had greatly expanded Burgundian Flanders, which neither the English nor the French could claim. It really didn't matter to him whether the King of France was English or French. By 1429, the assassination of the Duke's father ten years before had become as much an opportunity as a rationale for his war against the Armagnacs for which the alliance with the English proved most useful.<ref>Certainly the Duke held on to his resentment over the assassination of his father, but it served as an effective instrument of point of negotiation. Burgundy's recognition of Charles VII in the 1435 Treaty of Arras came in exchange for Charles VII's disavowal of participation in and prosecution of those who perpetrated it. More importantly, he got significant land and vassalage concessions, and had to give up very little land himself.</ref>

@@ Line 994: / Line 994: @@
 Even as Joan led the French army and its King towards Reims for the sacramental coronation of Charles VII, the French minister Georges La Trémoïlle commenced negotiations with the Burgundian court. The talks advanced enough so that the day after the coronation a formal, fifteen day truce was begun.<ref>See Pernoud, Her Story, p. 72</ref>
-France was Charles' for the taking, especially Paris, but now, not later. Instead, the newly crowned Charles VII preferred the adulation of the people along a slow march towards but not into Paris to actually retaking Paris. Charles VII and his ministers had ceded authority over the war to their enemies.
+France was Charles' for the taking, especially Paris, but now, not later. Instead, the newly crowned Charles VII preferred the adulation of the people along a slow march towards but not into Paris to actually taking Paris. Charles VII and his ministers had ceded authority over the war to their enemies.
-How do we even make sense of this? The English were reeling from Joan's onslaught, the Burgundians were facing the logic of an English alliance that was about to fall apart, and the French army had marched triumphantly to the sacred coronation of the French King. And the French minister proposes Burgundian neutrality? It's hard to see to what advantage La Trémoïlle was leveraging, much less what was the actual situation being leveraged.
+How do we even make sense of this? The English were reeling from Joan's onslaught, the Burgundians were facing the logic of an English alliance that was losing its authority among the people, and the French army had marched triumphantly to the sacred coronation of the French King. And the French minister proposes Burgundian neutrality? It's hard to see to what advantage La Trémoïlle was leveraging, much less what was the actual situation being leveraged.
-At best, La Trémoïlle's strategy would isolate the English, perhaps weakening their hold on Normandy. At worst, it would have forced the English to seize Paris, which they had otherwise left to the Burgundians to run under a small English guard. It wouldn't look good to crown Edward VI at Rouen, a city of no cultural significance. Or, just as bad, Burgundian neutrality may have meant access for that coronation to take place at Reims instead of Paris. Who knows, but so long as the English regent of France, the Duke of Bedford, was in charge -- and married to the sister of the Duke of the Burgundy -- the English-Burgundian alliance would hold, especially since the textile factories in Flanders were supplied by English wool.
+At best, La Trémoïlle's strategy would isolate the English, perhaps weakening their hold on Normandy. At worst, it would have forced the English to seize Paris, which they had otherwise left to the Burgundians to run under a small English guard. It wouldn't look good to crown Edward VI at Rouen, a city of no cultural significance. Or, just as bad, Burgundian neutrality may have opened access for that coronation to take place at Reims instead of Paris. Who knows, but so long as the English regent of France, the Duke of Bedford, was in charge -- and married to the sister of the Duke of the Burgundy<ref>John the Fearless' daughter, Anne of Burgundy. She died at the age of 28 in Paris in 1432.</ref> -- the English-Burgundian alliance would hold, especially since the textile factories in Flanders were supplied by English wool.
-The usual historical explanation that we encounter is that La Trémoïlle and the Archbishop of Reims, Regnault de Chartres, came to resent Joan out of jealousy, or sexism, or something, and so worked against her, whether that be to French advantage or not. I don't see it.
+The standard historical explanation that we encounter is that La Trémoïlle and the Archbishop of Reims, Regnault de Chartres, came to resent Joan out of jealousy, or sexist resentment, or something, and so worked against her, whether that be to French advantage or not. I don't see it.
-The Bishop sponsored the inquiry into Joan at Poitiers that recommended to the king that she be sent with an army to Orléans. There she proved herself real, and the entire country was awed and amazed, including one Artur III de Richemont, who, inspired by Joan's miracle at Orléans (or recognizing an opportunity -- same difference), raised an army of a thousand soldiers and marched to the Loire to fight alongside her. After Joan cleared out that river valley, the King and all his ministers marched with her to Reims without hesitation or doubt.
+The Bishop sponsored the inquiry into Joan at Poitiers that recommended to the king that she be sent with an army to Orléans. There she proved herself real, and the entire country was awed and amazed, including one rather complicated figure, Artur III de Richemont, of Brittany, who had fought for the French at Agincourt, supported Henry V as King of France, even so as to be rewarded with a title from him, and was married to another daughter of John the Fearless. inspired by Joan's miracle at Orléans, or recognizing an opportunity -- or both, de Richemont raised an army of a thousand and marched to the Loire to fight alongside her. After Joan cleared out that river valley, the King and all his ministers marched with her to Reims without hesitation or doubt.
 We must recall that the Burgundian state was in part a fief of France and part of the Holy Roman Empire. And, Burgundian Flanders was technically a French fief but in practice was ruled outright by the Duke.<ref>We can think of Flanders as a French "fief" -- land granted to a lord, but whose "vassal," its feudal ruler, was not obligated to serve the French King. By distinction, the Duchy of Burgundy itself and its Duke were both fief and vassal. Flanders was in the 9th century originally part of West Francia (a divided portion of Charlemagne's empire), which became the Kingdom of France.</ref> As they extended their holdings, the dukes of Burgundy, though French themselves, saw themselves more and more lords of an autonomous state. Philip the Good, the Duke of Burgundy of Joan's time, had greatly expanded Burgundian Flanders, which neither the English nor the French could claim. It really didn't matter to him whether the King of France was English or French. By 1429, the assassination of the Duke's father ten years before had become as much an opportunity as a rationale for his war against the Armagnacs for which the alliance with the English proved most useful.<ref>Certainly the Duke held on to his resentment over the assassination of his father, but it served as an effective instrument of point of negotiation. Burgundy's recognition of Charles VII in the 1435 Treaty of Arras came in exchange for Charles VII's disavowal of participation in and prosecution of those who perpetrated it. More importantly, he got significant land and vassalage concessions, and had to give up very little land himself.</ref>