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

Line 1,004:

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>

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 Philip whether the King of France was English or French; what mattered was the given advantage. 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>

Where the Armagnac-Burgundian split was originally a fight between French factions, by Joan's time the Armagnacs were "the French" and the Burgundians were "Burgundian." The French court, though, held to the view that the Duchy of Burgundy was French, and thus the factional split was an internal affair, whereas the English problem was external. Yet, the English were fully intent upon taking France. Had they seized Orlėans and so isolated France to the south, or defeated it outright, the Duchy of Burgundy would have become effectively an English and no longer French vassalage; that is, French in name only, and its Flemish and Germanic holdings would have become more and more defining of the Duchy than its French origins. La Trémoïlle and de Chartres, who together ran Charles VII's court, saw the Duchy of Burgundy as French, and its alliance with England thereby not sustainable. So it was, but it didn't happen by itself, and far from immediately, as they thought would magically follow Charles' coronation.

@@ Line 1,004: / Line 1,004: @@
 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>
+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 Philip whether the King of France was English or French; what mattered was the given advantage. 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>
 Where the Armagnac-Burgundian split was originally a fight between French factions, by Joan's time the Armagnacs were "the French" and the Burgundians were "Burgundian." The French court, though, held to the view that the Duchy of Burgundy was French, and thus the factional split was an internal affair, whereas the English problem was external. Yet, the English were fully intent upon taking France. Had they seized Orlėans and so isolated France to the south, or defeated it outright, the Duchy of Burgundy would have become effectively an English and no longer French vassalage; that is, French in name only, and its Flemish and Germanic holdings would have become more and more defining of the Duchy than its French origins. La Trémoïlle and de Chartres, who together ran Charles VII's court, saw the Duchy of Burgundy as French, and its alliance with England thereby not sustainable. So it was, but it didn't happen by itself, and far from immediately, as they thought would magically follow Charles' coronation.