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

Line 68:

* I am using the French spelling for proper nouns, except as found in sources, such as Murray's which uses the English "Rheims" over the French Reims.

* ~~where~~ a name includes a ''de'' I will generally but not always use the English "of the", and where it is a ''d''' I will use the original French (saying ''Duc d'Orléans'' is far cooler than "Duke of Orleans")

* Where a name includes a ''de'' I will generally but not always use the English "of the", and where it is a ''d''' I will use the original French (saying ''Duc d'Orléans'' is far cooler than "Duke of Orleans")

* I'm tempted to use the French ''Bourguignons'' and ''duc de Bourgogne'' instead of the anglicized Burgundy, but the French nasal consonant "gn" is simply unworkable for the English tongue.

Notes on archaic word use:

* "~~gentle~~ knight" is translated from the French ''gentil'', which means not "delicate," but "honorable" or "noble"<ref name=":13">See for example, Joan saying, "Le <mark>gentil</mark> rojr ara au jour duj la plus grant a victoire quHleutpièça. Et m* a dit mon conseil qu* ils a sont tous nostres" ([https://archive.org/details/procsdecondamna02frangoog/page/99/mode/2up?q=gentil Quicherat Vol III, p. 99])</ref>

* "Gentle knight" is translated from the French ''gentil'', which means not "delicate," but "honorable" or "noble"<ref name=":13">See for example, Joan saying, "Le <mark>gentil</mark> rojr ara au jour duj la plus grant a victoire quHleutpièça. Et m* a dit mon conseil qu* ils a sont tous nostres" ([https://archive.org/details/procsdecondamna02frangoog/page/99/mode/2up?q=gentil Quicherat Vol III, p. 99])</ref>

* "~~fair~~ Lord" is translated from the French ''juste'', which means "just" not "good looking"<ref>citation to add</ref></div></div>

* "Fair Lord" is translated from the French ''juste'', which means "just" not "good looking"<ref>citation to add</ref></div></div>

== Crazy, witch or Saint? ==

Line 334:

Line 335:

Self-defeating, crossed ambition created the twisted scenario the young Joan was sent to fix in 1429, a crisis and cause hardly unique in history. Joan made it unique. She elevated the Hundred Years War to a higher purpose for the French, settling the issue of French royal succession. Doing so, she resolved the Armagnac-Burgundian civil war by staking it upon the larger war with the English and forcing the Burgundian hand: you're either French or not. By upholding "France" as a concept and not just a territory or deigned monarch, Joan diluted the Burgundian claim on both France and the Low Countries.<ref>The Burgundian state ended in 1482 when the Duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold, was killed at the battle of Nancy while at war with the Swiss Confederation and the Duke of Lorraine. Charles' daughter oversaw the incorporation of the Burgundian Netherlands into the Holy Roman Empire. (If you ever wondered how the Spanish got hold of the Dutch, there you have it.) France assumed control of the Burgundian lands that lay within the Kingdom of France. </ref>

Like so many rulers of young political entities, the Valois Burgundians<ref>Recalling that Philip the Bold was son of the Valois French King, John II, who granted the Duchy to him. </ref> sought expansion and autonomy, attempting to create an independent power to rival England and France. However, the Burgundian dukes, who were themselves French, having beholden themselves to England starting with the 1419 assassination of John the Fearless, depended on their hold on Paris to make themselves useful to the English.<ref>Barker observes, "Paris was a Burgundian city and the English had held it only because the duke was their ally and allowed them to do so. Though the kingdom’s administration was based in the city, most of its employees were French and few native Englishmen had actually taken up residence there." (Conquest p. 240)</ref> However, when French appeasement of the Burgundians ended with the 1432 arrest of the scheming minister Georges de La Trémoille by Joan of Arc's compatriot from the crucial Battle of Patay, Arthur de Richemont.<ref>Richemont, the Duke of Brittany, was one of the most notorious warlords in France, and was hated by the French for having jumped sides previously. Joan, however, welcomed the Duke and his 2,000 troops over the objections of the French military leadership.</ref>

Like so many rulers of young political entities, the Valois Burgundians<ref>Recalling that Philip the Bold was son of the Valois French King, John II, who granted the Duchy to him. </ref> sought expansion and autonomy, attempting to create an independent power to rival England and France. However, the Burgundian dukes, who were themselves French, having beholden themselves to England starting with the 1419 assassination of John the Fearless, depended on their hold on Paris to make themselves useful to the English.<ref>Barker observes, "Paris was a Burgundian city and the English had held it only because the duke was their ally and allowed them to do so. Though the kingdom’s administration was based in the city, most of its employees were French and few native Englishmen had actually taken up residence there." (Conquest p. 240)</ref> However, when French appeasement of the Burgundians ended with the 1432 arrest of the scheming minister Georges de La Trémoille by Joan of Arc's compatriot from the crucial Battle of Patay, Arthur III de Richemont.<ref>Richemont, the Duke of Brittany, was one of the most notorious warlords in France, and was hated by the French for having jumped sides previously. Joan, however, welcomed the Duke and his 2,000 troops over the objections of the French military leadership.</ref>

While Trémoille had tried vainly to negotiate with the Duke of Burgundy to join the French cause, the Duke tried to turned it around and get Richemont, who had done so before, to jump sides ~~to the English~~. But in 1435, after unleashing Joan's former commanders, La Hire and the Bastard of Orleans, Jean Dunois, to roam Normandy, Richemont instead got the Duke of Burgundy himself to switch to the French.<ref>Barker notes, "The military resurgence of the Armagnacs, and the increasingly brutal tactics they employed, were part and parcel of a campaign of terrorism which was planned to coincide with the renewal of peace talks.: Conquest, p. 220 </ref> The English cause was now lost. In a year Paris was recovered by France, along with it the University of Paris, whose clerics had so hated Joan of Arc for having interfered with their English gravy train.<ref>One might say that the Armagnac prelates had similarly tied their fates to the Dauphin. </ref> And so too began the decline of the Burgundian project, which, like the English-hold on small parts of France, was eventually worn down, succumbing entirely to a more cohesive and national France that arose around its renewed center, Paris.

While Trémoille had tried vainly to negotiate with the Duke of Burgundy to join the French cause, the Duke tried to turned it around and get Richemont, who had done so before, to jump sides. But in 1435, after unleashing Joan's former commanders, La Hire and the Bastard of Orleans, Jean Dunois, to roam Normandy, Richemont instead got the Duke of Burgundy himself to switch to the French.<ref>Barker notes, "The military resurgence of the Armagnacs, and the increasingly brutal tactics they employed, were part and parcel of a campaign of terrorism which was planned to coincide with the renewal of peace talks.: Conquest, p. 220 </ref> The English cause was now lost. In a year Paris was recovered by France, along with it the University of Paris, whose clerics had so hated Joan of Arc for having interfered with their English gravy train.<ref>One might say that the Armagnac prelates had similarly tied their fates to the Dauphin. </ref> And so too began the decline of the Burgundian project, which, like the English-hold on small parts of France, was eventually worn down, succumbing entirely to a more cohesive and national France that arose around its renewed center, Paris.

Back in 1429, had the English managed to push south of Orléans, an Armagnac stronghold and seat of the normal heir to the French throne, the Duke of Orléans (who was imprisoned in England at the time), they would have very likely taken all of France and enforced the Treaty of Troyes, which gave French succession to the English. Defending Orléans was the Duke's half brother, John the Bastard<ref>More elegantly In French, ''le'' ''bâtard d'Orléans.'' Fighting for the Armagnacs in 1418, he was captured by the Burgundians and released in 1420. He remained loyal to the Dauphin and was one of Joan's most reliable and loyal generals. Charles VII made him Count of Dunois in 1439 after he played an important role in the defeat of the English in the north of France, including Normandy.</ref>, who arrived to the city in October of 1428. He huddled the people inside the city walls, abandoning buildings and churches outside the boundaries. A deal was proposed, not by the Bastard, but by terrified citizens of Orléans, to the Duke of Burgundy that would yield the city to him while upholding its neutrality. Ordered by the English, the Duke refused it. Meanwhile within Orléans, desperation set in, especially following the French humiliation at the Battle of the Herrings on February 12, the outcome of which, it was said, Joan had predicted to Captain Baudricourt at Vaucouleurs.

Line 992:

Line 993:

== Road to Rouen ==

[[File:Karte_Haus_Burgund_4_EN.png|thumb|<small>Burgundian possessions under the rule of Duke Charles the Bold, 1465–1477 (Wikipedia). Go [[commons:File:Duchy_of_Burgundy_(918-1477).gif#/media/File:Duchy_of_Burgundy_(918-1477).gif|here for an animated map]] showing the growth of the Burgundian state. Note the dotted-line that marks the border between France and the Holy Roman Empire, which the Duchy strides. The death of Philip the Good at the 1477 Battle of Nancy against the Swiss Federation allowed the French King Louis XI (son of Charles VIII) to absorb the French portion of the Duchy, thus ending the "Valois House of Burgundy" started in 1363 by Philip the Bold, the brother of the French King Charles V (grandfather of Charles VII).</small> ]]

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>

Even as Joan led the French army and its King towards Reims for the sacramental coronation of Charles VII, the French minister Georges de 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 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 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.

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 de 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 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.

At best, de 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 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 de 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.<ref>The French Wikipedia entry on [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Ier_de_La_Tr%C3%A9moille Georges Ier de La Trémoille — Wikipédia], notes that the blame on de Chartres and de la Trémoille started during the 1440s, and was popularized in a 1789 history of France by Henry Martin, who included Charles VII in the plot against Joan. Just know that 1789 marks a rather anti-monarchical moment in French history. While the Revolution didn't like Joan's Catholicism or support of the monarchy, for the revolutionaries she was an archetype of the French common people rising up against tyranny.</ref> 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, Arthur 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. Making it even more complicated, after his father died his mother married Henry IV of England, becoming Queen Dowager at Henry V's court. And, de Richemont was married to ~~a daughter~~ of ~~John~~ the ~~Feearless~~, Duke of Burgundy. Both inspired by Joan's miracle at Orléans, and recognizing the opportunity, 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.

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, Arthur 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. Making it even more complicated, after his father died his mother married Henry IV of England, becoming Queen Dowager at Henry V's court. And, de Richemont was married to the sister of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy. Both inspired by Joan's miracle at Orléans, and recognizing the opportunity, 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>

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.

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. De 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.

Joan and her military victories tore into all these cross-ambitions. Her insistence upon taking the English and Burgundians on the field was entirely at odds with court machinations that sought negotiated settlements. For Joan, as long as the Burgundians were allied with the English they were equally the enemy. She told the Rouen court,<ref>Murray, p. 19</ref> <blockquote>

Line 1,012:

Line 1,013:

As soon as I knew that my Voices were for the King of France, I loved the Burgundians no more. The Burgundians will have war unless they do what they ought; I know it by my Voice. </blockquote>

Having welcomed de Richemont to the fight, Joan struck at the heart of La Trémoïlle's -- and Charles VII's -- feudal designs. De Richemont's entry meant war, not compromise. Joan knew it so. She was sent to save "France" and not "feudal France," and so rejected a diplomatic settlement with the Burgundians, which we see in her recollection of a conversation with ~~the reputed mystic Catherine de la Rochelle,~~ who wanted to meet the Duke of Burgundy to "make peace":<ref>~~From the Trial of Rehabilitation,~~ Murray, p. 53</ref> <blockquote>I told her it seemed to me that peace would be found only at the end of the lance. </blockquote>~~While undermined by the French court in her continued war against the English~~ and the ~~Burgundians~~, ~~Joan~~ was ~~right. After her death in 1431~~, ~~her compatriot warriors~~, ~~the Duc d'Alençon~~, ~~La Hire~~<ref>~~He was captured by~~ the ~~Burgundians in 1430 but escaped or was ransomed soon after~~.</ref>~~, Jean Dunois and, of course, Artur~~ de Richemont,<~~ref~~>~~His efforts were complicated by alliances of his brother~~, the ~~Duke of Brittany~~, ~~that~~ at ~~one point~~ in the ~~1430s required de Richemont to fight briefly alongside~~ the ~~English.~~</ref> ~~carried on~~ the ~~fight~~, ~~raiding northern France~~, ~~liberating towns~~, ~~raising alarms~~, ~~and menacing English and Burgundian holds~~. ~~The raids challenged~~ the ~~alliance and opened~~ the ~~opportunity for~~ the ~~Congress~~ of ~~Arras that realigned~~ the ~~Burgundians~~ to ~~the French~~, ~~and which was engineered by de Richemont himself. Absent the pressure~~ of ~~warfare~~ that Joan ~~brought on, there was no need for the English~~ and ~~the Burgundians~~ to ~~enter into~~ the ~~Congress of Arras in the first place~~.

Having welcomed de Richemont to the fight, Joan struck at the heart of de La Trémoïlle's -- and Charles VII's -- feudal designs. De Richemont's entry meant war, not compromise. Joan knew it so. She was sent to save "France" and not "feudal France," and so rejected a diplomatic settlement with the Burgundians, which we see in her recollection of a conversation with a woman who wanted to meet the Duke of Burgundy to "make peace":<ref>The reputed mystic Catherine de la Rochelle (Murray, p. 53)</ref> <blockquote>I told her it seemed to me that peace would be found only at the end of the lance. </blockquote>De La Trémoïlle and Charles refused to allow de Richemont's presence at the 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. She also wanted the Burgundian Philip the Good himself at the coronation, reminding the Duke in her letter sent the day of the coronation,<ref>Letter of Joan of Arc to the Duke of Burgundy, July 17, 1431 (translation from Pernoud, Her Story, p. 68)</ref> <blockquote>And it is <mark>three weeks</mark> since I wrote that you should be at the anointing of the king, which today, Sunday the seventeenth day of this month of July, is taking place in the city of Reims: to which I have had no reply, nor have I ever heard any news of that herald. </blockquote>Joan didn't care about palace back stories and generational resentments. She just wanted to win the war.

~~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~~.

While undermined by the French court in her continued war against the English and the Burgundians, Joan was right. After her death in 1431, her compatriot warriors, the Duc d'Alençon, La Hire<ref>He was captured by the Burgundians in 1430 but escaped or was ransomed soon after.</ref>, Jean Dunois and, of course, Artur de Richemont,<ref>His efforts were complicated by alliances of his brother, the Duke of Brittany, that at one point in the 1430s required de Richemont to fight briefly alongside the English.</ref> carried on the fight, raiding northern France, liberating towns, raising alarms, and menacing English and Burgundian holds. The raids challenged the alliance and opened the opportunity for the Congress of Arras that realigned the Burgundians to the French, and which was engineered by de Richemont himself. Absent the pressure of warfare that Joan brought on, there was no need for the English and the Burgundians to enter into the Congress of Arras in the first place.

{| class="wikitable" style="font-size:small; float:right; max-width:40%; margin-left:15px">

Historians have recognized this aspect of Joan's influence upon events, especially in the re-militarization of France under de Richemont after he expelled de 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.

{| class="wikitable" style="font-size:small; float:right; max-width:40%; margin-left:15px" >

|+

!Date

Line 1,031:

Line 1,034:

|-

|1420

|convinces brother, Duke of Brittany to join English side in Treaty of Troyes that recognized the English king as heir to France

|convinces brother, Duke of Brittany to join English side in Treaty of Troyes that recognized the English king as heir to France; Dukes of Brittany and Burgundy set informal understanding of mutual support

|-

|1422

Line 1,040:

Line 1,043:

|-

|1425

|~~brother, the~~ Duke of Brittany ~~sign~~ Treaty of Saumur with Charles VII

|Duke of Brittany signs Treaty of Saumur with Charles VII

|-

|1427

Line 1,046:

Line 1,049:

|-

|

|kicked out of French court by La Trémoïlle

|kicked out of French court by de La Trémoïlle

|-

|1429

Line 1,072:

Line 1,075:

| dies

|}

La Trémoïlle and de Richemont's mutual history and animosities were large. Both fought at Agincourt and were captured ~~there~~ by the English. La Trémoïlle was released right away, while de Richemont, who was injured in the battle, was held for five years, after which he joined the English cause, indicating either a conversion or, more likely, a deal. He convinced his brother, the Duke of Brittany, to join the Burgundians in support of the English at the 1420 Treaty of Troyes. The English rewarded de Richemont, but with a title and not a high command, so, frustrated at the sidelining, he returned to the French court, where he brought his brother back into the Armagnac fold in a treaty with Charles VII. ~~De Richemont was married to a daughter of John the Fearless.~~

De La Trémoïlle and de Richemont's mutual history and animosities were large. Interestingly, both had deep ties to the Burgundians: De La Trémoïlle was raised in the Burgundian court alongside the future John the Fearless, and de Richemont was married to one of his daughters. Both joined the Armagnac cause during the height of the armed conflicts with the Burgundians of the early 1410s. Both fought for France at Agincourt and were captured by the English. De La Trémoïlle was released right away, while de Richemont, who was injured in the battle, was held for five years, after which he joined the English cause, indicating either a conversion or, more likely, a deal. He convinced his brother, the Duke of Brittany, to join the Burgundians in support of the English at the 1420 Treaty of Troyes. The English rewarded de Richemont, but with a title and not a high command, so, frustrated at the sidelining, he returned to the French court, where he brought his brother back into the Armagnac fold in a treaty with Charles VII.

At the French court, de Richemont worked with La 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 animosity against them. In 1433, de Richemont took revenge upon La Trémoïlle, and had him kidnapped and ransomed for money and a pledge to stay out of the French Court. 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 after Joan's death, the Duke offered de Richemont lands that belonged to La Trémoïlle , in exchange for his loyalty,

~~>>here~~

At the French court, de Richemont, who was recruited by de La Trémoïlle, helped de La Trémoïlle to oust and replace 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 for de Richemont in 1427 when de La Trémoïlle turned on him, in part because of his volatile personality, and mostly because de Richemont's brother had been forced by battle into signing a truce with the English. The alignment switch was seen by the French as a unforgiveable betrayal, and thus the the severe animosity against them. After his return to the French cause alongside Joan of Arc, de Richemont maneuvered himself back into the good graces of Charles VII, and took revenge upon de La Trémoïlle, kidnapping and ransoming him for money and a pledge to stay out of the French Court. Amidst the oscillating alliances and defections stood Phlip the Good, Duke of Burgundy. Burgundy knew these characters well, and so after Joan's death, the Duke offered de Richemont lands that belonged to de La Trémoïlle in exchange for his loyalty,

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.~~

Or, perhaps the turn against Joan

Or, perhaps La Trémoïlle and the Archbishop Regnaud de Chartres were merely practicing standard statecraft. Negotiation was as much a part of Medieval warfare as swords and crossbows. For example, after the English victory at the "Battle of Herrings" during the siege of Orléans, the city's leadership appealed to the Duke of Burgundy to submit itself to him in order to secure the city's neutrality in exchange for relief from the English. Understanding that the Duke of Orléans was being held in England, that Orléans was the center of Armagnac resistance to the Burgundians. The Armagnac movement was named for the the Count of Armagnac, the father-in-law of Louis I, the Duke of Orléans whom John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, murdered in 1407. Any questions as to the desperation felt in Orléans (which has been questioned by historians) should be replaced by wonder at the desperation of the city in offering to surrender to the son of the Duke of Burgundy who had murdered the father of the current Duke of Orléans. Burgundy, of course, was all for it, but the idea was vetoed by the larger Duke, the Englishman Bedford, who smelled victory over France, and who crowed,<ref>Pernoud, Her Story, p. 13</ref> <blockquote>I would be mighty angry to cut down the bushes so that someone else could get the little birds from the branches! </blockquote>Then the Maid got in the way of it all, which makes the French diplomatic maneuvering leading up to and after the Coronation of Charles so glaringly odd: Bedford was absolutely right: Orléans gone, France gone, so Orléans saved, France saved, and even more importantly, Charles crowned at Reims, France truly saved. Something else was going on, and all I can see is that a personal spat got between God's plan for France and what its leadership chose to do.

Line 1,087:

Line 1,085:

A final possibility, which brings us into the ever dubious realm of "psychohistory"<ref>It was actually a thing in the 1970s, and, per its Wikipedia page, persists. (Find it yourself.)</ref>, which tries to understand the past by putting it on the sofa and asking about its darkest thoughts. At first it seems reasonable that much of the capitulation to the Burgundians that Charles VII had authorized was due to his deep sense of guilt over the "murder on the bridge" of John the Fearless. The King held, the theory goes, lingering baggage from the assassination of the Duke. <ref>Recalling that it was retribution for the 1407 assassination of Charles' uncle, the Duke of Orléans (and brother of Charles VI and whose heir was captured by the English in 1415 at Agincourt).</ref> The assassination launched the Armagnanc-Burgundian civil war<ref>The "war" may be understood to have started with the 1407 assassination of the Duke of Orléans. Following John the Fearless' murder, it turned into open warfare.</ref> and opened the door for the English, who were already on the move in northern France, to sign the Treaty of Troyes<ref>Making Henry V of England heir to the French throne.</ref> with Charles's weak and troubled father, Charles VI. So the history weighed upon the new King, we are told. If so, we must imagine a newly crowned and victorious King waking up the next day thinking himself unworthy of it all. It's not just doubtful, its nonsensical, much less unprovable. We know only from Joan what the "sign" was that she showed Charles back at Chinon, that it was a golden crown brought by angels. I'm thinking survivor guilt gets washed away pretty quickly by God's agents delivering an entire country to you.

We do know that La Trémoïlle, and, thus, with Charles' approval at some level, aimed for Burgundian neutrality, and that the Duke of Burgundy had no such intention and instead took advantage of the French self-deception in order to reinforce his position with the English -- who took advantage of the reaffirmed alliance with the Burgundians to reinforce Paris with 1,000 troops.<ref>See Pernoud, Her Story, p. 73</ref>

We do know that de La Trémoïlle, and, thus, with Charles' approval at some level, aimed for Burgundian neutrality, and that the Duke of Burgundy had no such intention and instead took advantage of the French self-deception in order to reinforce his position with the English -- who took advantage of the reaffirmed alliance with the Burgundians to reinforce Paris with 1,000 troops.<ref>See Pernoud, Her Story, p. 73</ref>

Joan, meanwhile, the day of the Coronation, affirmed the King's peace overtures to Burgundy, only with capitulation of any French lands he held, and with the advice that he'd do better to wage war against the "Saracens," which at that time would mean the Ottomans, than against the French:

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 * I am using the French spelling for proper nouns, except as found in sources, such as Murray's which uses the English "Rheims" over the French Reims.
-* where a name includes a ''de'' I will generally but not always use the English "of the", and where it is a ''d''' I will use the original French (saying ''Duc d'Orléans'' is far cooler than "Duke of Orleans")
+* Where a name includes a ''de'' I will generally but not always use the English "of the", and where it is a ''d''' I will use the original French (saying ''Duc d'Orléans'' is far cooler than "Duke of Orleans")
+* I'm tempted to use the French ''Bourguignons'' and ''duc de Bourgogne'' instead of the anglicized Burgundy, but the French nasal consonant "gn" is simply unworkable for the English tongue.
 Notes on archaic word use:
-* "gentle knight" is translated from the French ''gentil'', which means not "delicate," but "honorable" or "noble"<ref name=":13">See for example, Joan saying, "Le <mark>gentil</mark> rojr ara au jour duj la plus grant a victoire quHleutpièça. Et m* a dit mon conseil qu* ils a sont tous nostres" ([https://archive.org/details/procsdecondamna02frangoog/page/99/mode/2up?q=gentil Quicherat Vol III, p. 99])</ref>
+* "Gentle knight" is translated from the French ''gentil'', which means not "delicate," but "honorable" or "noble"<ref name=":13">See for example, Joan saying, "Le <mark>gentil</mark> rojr ara au jour duj la plus grant a victoire quHleutpièça. Et m* a dit mon conseil qu* ils a sont tous nostres" ([https://archive.org/details/procsdecondamna02frangoog/page/99/mode/2up?q=gentil Quicherat Vol III, p. 99])</ref>
-* "fair Lord" is translated from the French ''juste'', which means "just" not "good looking"<ref>citation to add</ref></div></div>
+* "Fair Lord" is translated from the French ''juste'', which means "just" not "good looking"<ref>citation to add</ref></div></div>
 == Crazy, witch or Saint? ==
@@ Line 334: / Line 335: @@
 Self-defeating, crossed ambition created the twisted scenario the young Joan was sent to fix in 1429, a crisis and cause hardly unique in history. Joan made it unique. She elevated the Hundred Years War to a higher purpose for the French, settling the issue of French royal succession. Doing so, she resolved the Armagnac-Burgundian civil war by staking it upon the larger war with the English and forcing the Burgundian hand: you're either French or not. By upholding "France" as a concept and not just a territory or deigned monarch, Joan diluted the Burgundian claim on both France and the Low Countries.<ref>The Burgundian state ended in 1482 when the Duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold, was killed at the battle of Nancy while at war with the Swiss Confederation and the Duke of Lorraine. Charles' daughter oversaw the incorporation of the Burgundian Netherlands into the Holy Roman Empire. (If you ever wondered how the Spanish got hold of the Dutch, there you have it.) France assumed control of the Burgundian lands that lay within the Kingdom of France. </ref>
-Like so many rulers of young political entities, the Valois Burgundians<ref>Recalling that Philip the Bold was son of the Valois French King, John II, who granted the Duchy to him. </ref> sought expansion and autonomy, attempting to create an independent power to rival England and France. However, the Burgundian dukes, who were themselves French, having beholden themselves to England starting with the 1419 assassination of John the Fearless, depended on their hold on Paris to make themselves useful to the English.<ref>Barker observes, "Paris was a Burgundian city and the English had held it only because the duke was their ally and allowed them to do so. Though the kingdom’s administration was based in the city, most of its employees were French and few native Englishmen had actually taken up residence there." (Conquest p. 240)</ref> However, when French appeasement of the Burgundians ended with the 1432 arrest of the scheming minister Georges de La Trémoille by Joan of Arc's compatriot from the crucial Battle of Patay, Arthur de Richemont.<ref>Richemont, the Duke of Brittany, was one of the most notorious warlords in France, and was hated by the French for having jumped sides previously. Joan, however, welcomed the Duke and his 2,000 troops over the objections of the French military leadership.</ref>
+Like so many rulers of young political entities, the Valois Burgundians<ref>Recalling that Philip the Bold was son of the Valois French King, John II, who granted the Duchy to him. </ref> sought expansion and autonomy, attempting to create an independent power to rival England and France. However, the Burgundian dukes, who were themselves French, having beholden themselves to England starting with the 1419 assassination of John the Fearless, depended on their hold on Paris to make themselves useful to the English.<ref>Barker observes, "Paris was a Burgundian city and the English had held it only because the duke was their ally and allowed them to do so. Though the kingdom’s administration was based in the city, most of its employees were French and few native Englishmen had actually taken up residence there." (Conquest p. 240)</ref> However, when French appeasement of the Burgundians ended with the 1432 arrest of the scheming minister Georges de La Trémoille by Joan of Arc's compatriot from the crucial Battle of Patay, Arthur III de Richemont.<ref>Richemont, the Duke of Brittany, was one of the most notorious warlords in France, and was hated by the French for having jumped sides previously. Joan, however, welcomed the Duke and his 2,000 troops over the objections of the French military leadership.</ref>
-While Trémoille had tried vainly to negotiate with the Duke of Burgundy to join the French cause, the Duke tried to turned it around and get Richemont, who had done so before, to jump sides to the English. But in 1435, after unleashing Joan's former commanders, La Hire and the Bastard of Orleans, Jean Dunois, to roam Normandy, Richemont instead got the Duke of Burgundy himself to switch to the French.<ref>Barker notes, "The military resurgence of the Armagnacs, and the increasingly brutal tactics they employed, were part and parcel of a campaign of terrorism which was planned to coincide with the renewal of peace talks.: Conquest, p. 220 </ref> The English cause was now lost. In a year Paris was recovered by France, along with it the University of Paris, whose clerics had so hated Joan of Arc for having interfered with their English gravy train.<ref>One might say that the Armagnac prelates had similarly tied their fates to the Dauphin. </ref> And so too began the decline of the Burgundian project, which, like the English-hold on small parts of France, was eventually worn down, succumbing entirely to a more cohesive and national France that arose around its renewed center, Paris.
+While Trémoille had tried vainly to negotiate with the Duke of Burgundy to join the French cause, the Duke tried to turned it around and get Richemont, who had done so before, to jump sides. But in 1435, after unleashing Joan's former commanders, La Hire and the Bastard of Orleans, Jean Dunois, to roam Normandy, Richemont instead got the Duke of Burgundy himself to switch to the French.<ref>Barker notes, "The military resurgence of the Armagnacs, and the increasingly brutal tactics they employed, were part and parcel of a campaign of terrorism which was planned to coincide with the renewal of peace talks.: Conquest, p. 220 </ref> The English cause was now lost. In a year Paris was recovered by France, along with it the University of Paris, whose clerics had so hated Joan of Arc for having interfered with their English gravy train.<ref>One might say that the Armagnac prelates had similarly tied their fates to the Dauphin. </ref> And so too began the decline of the Burgundian project, which, like the English-hold on small parts of France, was eventually worn down, succumbing entirely to a more cohesive and national France that arose around its renewed center, Paris.
 Back in 1429, had the English managed to push south of Orléans, an Armagnac stronghold and seat of the normal heir to the French throne, the Duke of Orléans (who was imprisoned in England at the time), they would have very likely taken all of France and enforced the Treaty of Troyes, which gave French succession to the English. Defending Orléans was the Duke's half brother, John the Bastard<ref>More elegantly In French, ''le'' ''bâtard d'Orléans.'' Fighting for the Armagnacs in 1418, he was captured by the Burgundians and released in 1420. He remained loyal to the Dauphin and was one of Joan's most reliable and loyal generals. Charles VII made him Count of Dunois in 1439 after he played an important role in the defeat of the English in the north of France, including Normandy.</ref>, who arrived to the city in October of 1428. He huddled the people inside the city walls, abandoning buildings and churches outside the boundaries. A deal was proposed, not by the Bastard, but by terrified citizens of Orléans, to the Duke of Burgundy that would yield the city to him while upholding its neutrality. Ordered by the English, the Duke refused it. Meanwhile within Orléans, desperation set in, especially following the French humiliation at the Battle of the Herrings on February 12, the outcome of which, it was said, Joan had predicted to Captain Baudricourt at Vaucouleurs.
@@ Line 992: / Line 993: @@
 == Road to Rouen ==
 [[File:Karte_Haus_Burgund_4_EN.png|thumb|<small>Burgundian possessions under the rule of Duke Charles the Bold, 1465–1477 (Wikipedia). Go [[commons:File:Duchy_of_Burgundy_(918-1477).gif#/media/File:Duchy_of_Burgundy_(918-1477).gif|here for an animated map]] showing the growth of the Burgundian state. Note the dotted-line that marks the border between France and the Holy Roman Empire, which the Duchy strides. The death of Philip the Good at the 1477 Battle of Nancy against the Swiss Federation allowed the French King Louis XI (son of Charles VIII) to absorb the French portion of the Duchy, thus ending the "Valois House of Burgundy" started in 1363 by Philip the Bold, the brother of the French King Charles V (grandfather of Charles VII).</small> ]]
-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>
+Even as Joan led the French army and its King towards Reims for the sacramental coronation of Charles VII, the French minister Georges de 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 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 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.
+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 de 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 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.
+At best, de 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 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 de 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.<ref>The French Wikipedia entry on [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Ier_de_La_Tr%C3%A9moille Georges Ier de La Trémoille — Wikipédia], notes that the blame on de Chartres and de la Trémoille started during the 1440s, and was popularized in a 1789 history of France by Henry Martin, who included Charles VII in the plot against Joan. Just know that 1789 marks a rather anti-monarchical moment in French history. While the Revolution didn't like Joan's Catholicism or support of the monarchy, for the revolutionaries she was an archetype of the French common people rising up against tyranny.</ref> 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, Arthur 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. Making it even more complicated, after his father died his mother married Henry IV of England, becoming Queen Dowager at Henry V's court. And, de Richemont was married to a daughter of John the Feearless, Duke of Burgundy.  Both inspired by Joan's miracle at Orléans, and recognizing the opportunity, 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.
+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, Arthur 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. Making it even more complicated, after his father died his mother married Henry IV of England, becoming Queen Dowager at Henry V's court. And, de Richemont was married to the sister of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy. Both inspired by Joan's miracle at Orléans, and recognizing the opportunity, 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>
-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.
+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. De 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.
 Joan and her military victories tore into all these cross-ambitions. Her insistence upon taking the English and Burgundians on the field was entirely at odds with court machinations that sought negotiated settlements. For Joan, as long as the Burgundians were allied with the English they were equally the enemy. She told the Rouen court,<ref>Murray, p. 19</ref>    <blockquote>
@@ Line 1,012: / Line 1,013: @@
 As soon as I knew that my Voices were for the King of France, I loved the Burgundians no more. The Burgundians will have war unless they do what they ought; I know it by my Voice.    </blockquote>
-Having welcomed de Richemont to the fight, Joan struck at the heart of La Trémoïlle's -- and Charles VII's -- feudal designs. De Richemont's entry meant war, not compromise. Joan knew it so. She was sent to save "France" and not "feudal France," and so rejected a diplomatic settlement with the Burgundians, which we see in her recollection of a conversation with the reputed mystic Catherine de la Rochelle, who wanted to meet the Duke of Burgundy to "make peace":<ref>From the Trial of Rehabilitation, Murray, p. 53</ref>    <blockquote>I told her it seemed to me that peace would be found only at the end of the lance.   </blockquote>While undermined by the French court in her continued war against the English and the Burgundians, Joan was right. After her death in 1431, her compatriot warriors, the Duc d'Alençon, La Hire<ref>He was captured by the Burgundians in 1430 but escaped or was ransomed soon after.</ref>, Jean Dunois and, of course, Artur de Richemont,<ref>His efforts were complicated by alliances of his brother, the Duke of Brittany, that at one point in the 1430s required de Richemont to fight briefly alongside the English.</ref> carried on the fight, raiding northern France, liberating towns, raising alarms, and menacing English and Burgundian holds. The raids challenged the alliance and opened the opportunity for the Congress of Arras that realigned the Burgundians to the French, and which was engineered by de Richemont himself. Absent the pressure of warfare that Joan brought on, there was no need for the English and the Burgundians to enter into the Congress of Arras in the first place.
+Having welcomed de Richemont to the fight, Joan struck at the heart of de La Trémoïlle's -- and Charles VII's -- feudal designs. De Richemont's entry meant war, not compromise. Joan knew it so. She was sent to save "France" and not "feudal France," and so rejected a diplomatic settlement with the Burgundians, which we see in her recollection of a conversation with a woman who wanted to meet the Duke of Burgundy to "make peace":<ref>The reputed mystic Catherine de la Rochelle (Murray, p. 53)</ref>    <blockquote>I told her it seemed to me that peace would be found only at the end of the lance.   </blockquote>De La Trémoïlle and Charles refused to allow de Richemont's presence at the 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. She also wanted the Burgundian Philip the Good himself at the coronation, reminding the Duke in her letter sent the day of the coronation,<ref>Letter of Joan of Arc to the Duke of Burgundy, July 17, 1431 (translation from Pernoud, Her Story, p. 68)</ref>  <blockquote>And it is <mark>three weeks</mark> since I wrote that you should be at the anointing of the king, which today, Sunday the seventeenth day of this month of July, is taking place in the city of Reims: to which I have had no reply, nor have I ever heard any news of that herald.  </blockquote>Joan didn't care about palace back stories and generational resentments. She just wanted to win the war.
-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.
+While undermined by the French court in her continued war against the English and the Burgundians, Joan was right. After her death in 1431, her compatriot warriors, the Duc d'Alençon, La Hire<ref>He was captured by the Burgundians in 1430 but escaped or was ransomed soon after.</ref>, Jean Dunois and, of course, Artur de Richemont,<ref>His efforts were complicated by alliances of his brother, the Duke of Brittany, that at one point in the 1430s required de Richemont to fight briefly alongside the English.</ref> carried on the fight, raiding northern France, liberating towns, raising alarms, and menacing English and Burgundian holds. The raids challenged the alliance and opened the opportunity for the Congress of Arras that realigned the Burgundians to the French, and which was engineered by de Richemont himself. Absent the pressure of warfare that Joan brought on, there was no need for the English and the Burgundians to enter into the Congress of Arras in the first place.
-{| class="wikitable" style="font-size:small; float:right; max-width:40%; margin-left:15px">
+Historians have recognized this aspect of Joan's influence upon events, especially in the re-militarization of France under de Richemont after he expelled de 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.
+{| class="wikitable" style="font-size:small; float:right; max-width:40%; margin-left:15px" >
 |+
 !Date
@@ Line 1,031: / Line 1,034: @@
 |-
 |1420
-|convinces brother, Duke of Brittany to join English side in Treaty of Troyes that recognized the English king as heir to France
+|convinces brother, Duke of Brittany to join English side in Treaty of Troyes that recognized the English king as heir to France; Dukes of Brittany and Burgundy set informal understanding of mutual support
 |-
 |1422
@@ Line 1,040: / Line 1,043: @@
 |-
 |1425
-|brother, the Duke of Brittany sign Treaty of Saumur with Charles VII
+|Duke of Brittany signs Treaty of Saumur with Charles VII
 |-
 |1427
@@ Line 1,046: / Line 1,049: @@
 |-
 |
-|kicked out of French court by La Trémoïlle
+|kicked out of French court by de La Trémoïlle
 |-
 |1429
@@ Line 1,072: / Line 1,075: @@
 | dies
 |}
-La Trémoïlle and de Richemont's mutual history and animosities were large. Both fought at Agincourt and were captured there by the English. La Trémoïlle was released right away, while de Richemont, who was injured in the battle, was held for five years, after which he joined the English cause, indicating either a conversion or, more likely, a deal. He convinced his brother, the Duke of Brittany, to join the Burgundians in support of the English at the 1420 Treaty of Troyes. The English rewarded de Richemont, but with a title and not a high command, so, frustrated at the sidelining, he returned to the French court, where he brought his brother back into the Armagnac fold in a treaty with Charles VII. De Richemont was married to a daughter of John the Fearless.
+De La Trémoïlle and de Richemont's mutual history and animosities were large. Interestingly, both had deep ties to the Burgundians: De La Trémoïlle was raised in the Burgundian court alongside the future John the Fearless, and de Richemont was married to one of his daughters. Both joined the Armagnac cause during the height of the armed conflicts with the Burgundians of the early 1410s. Both fought for France at Agincourt and were captured by the English. De La Trémoïlle was released right away, while de Richemont, who was injured in the battle, was held for five years, after which he joined the English cause, indicating either a conversion or, more likely, a deal. He convinced his brother, the Duke of Brittany, to join the Burgundians in support of the English at the 1420 Treaty of Troyes. The English rewarded de Richemont, but with a title and not a high command, so, frustrated at the sidelining, he returned to the French court, where he brought his brother back into the Armagnac fold in a treaty with Charles VII.
-At the French court, de Richemont worked with La 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 animosity against them. In 1433, de Richemont took revenge upon La Trémoïlle, and had him kidnapped and ransomed for money and a pledge to stay out of the French Court. 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 after Joan's death, the Duke offered de Richemont lands that belonged to La Trémoïlle , in exchange for his loyalty,
->>here
+At the French court, de Richemont, who was recruited by de La Trémoïlle, helped de La Trémoïlle to oust and replace 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 for de Richemont in 1427 when de La Trémoïlle turned on him, in part because of his volatile personality, and mostly because de Richemont's brother had been forced by battle into signing a truce with the English. The alignment switch was seen by the French as a unforgiveable betrayal, and thus the the severe animosity against them. After his return to the French cause alongside Joan of Arc, de Richemont maneuvered himself back into the good graces of Charles VII, and took revenge upon de La Trémoïlle, kidnapping and ransoming him for money and a pledge to stay out of the French Court. Amidst the oscillating alliances and defections stood Phlip the Good, Duke of Burgundy. Burgundy knew these characters well, and so after Joan's death, the Duke offered de Richemont lands that belonged to de La Trémoïlle in exchange for his loyalty,
-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.
+Or, perhaps the turn against Joan
 Or, perhaps La Trémoïlle and the Archbishop Regnaud de Chartres were merely practicing standard statecraft. Negotiation was as much a part of Medieval warfare as swords and crossbows. For example, after the English victory at the "Battle of Herrings" during the siege of Orléans, the city's leadership appealed to the Duke of Burgundy to submit itself to him in order to secure the city's neutrality in exchange for relief from the English. Understanding that the Duke of Orléans was being held in England, that Orléans was the center of Armagnac resistance to the Burgundians. The Armagnac movement was named for the the Count of Armagnac, the father-in-law of Louis I, the Duke of Orléans whom John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, murdered in 1407. Any questions as to the desperation felt in Orléans (which has been questioned by historians) should be replaced by wonder at the desperation of the city in offering to surrender to the son of the Duke of Burgundy who had murdered the father of the current Duke of Orléans. Burgundy, of course, was all for it, but the idea was vetoed by the larger Duke, the Englishman Bedford, who smelled victory over France, and who crowed,<ref>Pernoud, Her Story, p. 13</ref>  <blockquote>I would be mighty angry to cut down the bushes so that someone else could get the little birds from the branches! </blockquote>Then the Maid got in the way of it all, which makes the French diplomatic maneuvering leading up to and after the Coronation of Charles so glaringly odd: Bedford was absolutely right: Orléans gone, France gone, so Orléans saved, France saved, and even more importantly, Charles crowned at Reims, France truly saved. Something else was going on, and all I can see is that a personal spat got between God's plan for France and what its leadership chose to do.
@@ Line 1,087: / Line 1,085: @@
 A final possibility, which brings us into the ever dubious realm of "psychohistory"<ref>It was actually a thing in the 1970s, and, per its Wikipedia page, persists. (Find it yourself.)</ref>, which tries to understand the past by putting it on the sofa and asking about its darkest thoughts. At first it seems reasonable that much of the capitulation to the Burgundians that Charles VII had authorized was due to his deep sense of guilt over the "murder on the bridge" of John the Fearless. The King held, the theory goes, lingering baggage from the assassination of the Duke. <ref>Recalling that it was retribution for the 1407 assassination of Charles' uncle, the Duke of Orléans (and brother of Charles VI and whose heir was captured by the English in 1415 at Agincourt).</ref> The assassination launched the Armagnanc-Burgundian civil war<ref>The "war" may be understood to have started with the 1407 assassination of the Duke of Orléans. Following John the Fearless' murder, it turned into open warfare.</ref> and opened the door for the English, who were already on the move in northern France, to sign the Treaty of Troyes<ref>Making Henry V of England heir to the French throne.</ref> with Charles's weak and troubled father, Charles VI. So the history weighed upon the new King, we are told. If so, we must imagine a newly crowned and victorious King waking up the next day thinking himself unworthy of it all. It's not just doubtful, its nonsensical, much less unprovable. We know only from Joan what the "sign" was that she showed Charles back at Chinon, that it was a golden crown brought by angels. I'm thinking survivor guilt gets washed away pretty quickly by God's agents delivering an entire country to you.
-We do know that La Trémoïlle, and, thus, with Charles' approval at some level, aimed for Burgundian neutrality, and that the Duke of Burgundy had no such intention and instead took advantage of the French self-deception in order to reinforce his position with the English -- who took advantage of the reaffirmed alliance with the Burgundians to reinforce Paris with 1,000 troops.<ref>See Pernoud, Her Story, p. 73</ref>
+We do know that de La Trémoïlle, and, thus, with Charles' approval at some level, aimed for Burgundian neutrality, and that the Duke of Burgundy had no such intention and instead took advantage of the French self-deception in order to reinforce his position with the English -- who took advantage of the reaffirmed alliance with the Burgundians to reinforce Paris with 1,000 troops.<ref>See Pernoud, Her Story, p. 73</ref>
 Joan, meanwhile, the day of the Coronation, affirmed the King's peace overtures to Burgundy, only with capitulation of any French lands he held, and with the advice that he'd do better to wage war against the "Saracens," which at that time would mean the Ottomans, than against the French: