Saint Joan of Arc (Jeanne la Pucelle): Difference between revisions
| Line 1,002: | Line 1,002: | ||
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 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 rather complicated figure, Artur III de Richemont, of Brittany, who had fought for the French at Agincourt, | 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<ref>De Richemont, Artur III, was from Brittany, which had an identity distinct from England and France, although it was geographically and thereby more largely tied to France. The name "Richemont" was a francophone version of the English "Richmond," so even in the name we can see the crossed identities.</ref>, who had fought for the French at Agincourt, subsequently switched to the English side, and then got kicked out from the French court; | ||
. 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 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> | 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> | ||
| Line 1,016: | Line 1,018: | ||
Historians have recognized this aspect of Joan's influence upon events, especially in the re-militarization of France under de Richemont after he expelled La Trémoïlle from the French court. Arriving with his soldiers to Jargeau was his first ploy to regain power as Constable of France. By welcoming him, and forcing the general, d'Alençons, to accept his presence, it was Joan who put into place the dynamics that would lead to the reconciliation of Burgundy with France four years after her death. Yet long before the final defeat of the English, it was a key turning point, if not as important as Orléans and the crowning of Charles at Reims, the contingent events that allowed all the rest to happen. | Historians have recognized this aspect of Joan's influence upon events, especially in the re-militarization of France under de Richemont after he expelled La Trémoïlle from the French court. Arriving with his soldiers to Jargeau was his first ploy to regain power as Constable of France. By welcoming him, and forcing the general, d'Alençons, to accept his presence, it was Joan who put into place the dynamics that would lead to the reconciliation of Burgundy with France four years after her death. Yet long before the final defeat of the English, it was a key turning point, if not as important as Orléans and the crowning of Charles at Reims, the contingent events that allowed all the rest to happen. | ||
La Trémoïlle's and de Richemont's mutual history and animosities were large. Both | La Trémoïlle's and de Richemont's mutual history and animosities were large. Both were a piece of work. As each were captured at Agincourt, who knows what went on there. La Trémoïlle was released right away, while de Richemont, who was injured in the battle, was not, and had to wait five years for his ransom, after which he supported the English cause in the Treaty of Troyes. Given a title but not a command, de Richemont returned to the French court, where he helped bring his brother, the Duke of Brittany, to sign a treaty with Charles VII. At the French court, de Richemont worked with Trémoïlle to oust the top court minister, Pierre de Giac,<ref>See [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Georges-de-La-Tremoille?utm_source=chatgpt.com Georges de La Trémoille | Military Commander, Courtier, Diplomat | Britannica] which states that after kidnapping and drowning Giac, La Trémoïlle married the guy's widow.</ref> but things fell apart in 1427 when La Trémoïlle, having taken over from Giac, turned on de Richemont, in part because of his volatile personality, and part because de Richemont's brother had been forced into signing a truce with the English, which was seen as a betrayal by the French, and thus the the severe animosities between them. In 1433, de Richemont took revenge upon La Trémoïlle, and had him kidnapped and ransomed with the pledge to stay out of the French Court. But there's more: turns out that La Trémoïlle had previously spent a couple years serving the Burgundians before rejoining the Armagnacs and Dauphin Charles in 1413, and de Richemont was married to a daughter of John the Fearless. Amidst the oscillating alliances and defections stood John the Fearless, the Duke of Burgundy, who had an informal understanding of mutual support with de Richemont's brother, the Duke of Brittany. Burgundy knew these characters well, and so when de Richemont | ||
, in exchange for his loyalty, lands that belonged to La Trémoïlle. | |||
La Trémoïlle held sway with Charles VII, who refused to allow de Richemont's presence at his coronation, which was by custom de Richemont's due, saying, according to a Chronicler, that<ref>Pernoud, Her Story, p. 67, quoting from the Chronicle of Guillaume Gruel.</ref> <blockquote>he would rather never be crowned than have my lord [de Richemont] in attendance. </blockquote>Joan, the chronicler reported, was angry at de Richemont's exclusion. But Joan didn't care about palace back stories. She just wanted to win the war. | La Trémoïlle held sway with Charles VII, who refused to allow de Richemont's presence at his coronation, which was by custom de Richemont's due, saying, according to a Chronicler, that<ref>Pernoud, Her Story, p. 67, quoting from the Chronicle of Guillaume Gruel.</ref> <blockquote>he would rather never be crowned than have my lord [de Richemont] in attendance. </blockquote>Joan, the chronicler reported, was angry at de Richemont's exclusion. But Joan didn't care about palace back stories. She just wanted to win the war. | ||