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

Line 995:

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.

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 -- which means he did not want to take 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 de La Trémoïlle was leveraging, much less what was the actual situation being leveraged.

Line 1,111:

The French ministers, instead, made it altogether too easy for the Duke, seducing him with "greater offers of reparation<ref>i.e., for the murder of John the Fearless</ref> than the royal majesty actually possessed,"<ref>https://archive.org/details/joanofarcherstor00pern/page/74/mode/1up?q=220&view=theaterd p. 74</ref> including to yield the town of Compèigne, which a year later continued to hold out against the Burgundians, although at the expense of Joan's capture and her ransom to the English.

During a lull in the lulls, and at Joan's insistence, the Duke of Alençon was finally allowed to organize an attack on Paris, coming on September 8, the Feast of the Nativity of the Mother of God. Joan was at the front. After an all-day assault that induced both panic and expectant enthusiasm within the city, as sundown fell and by the walls, Joan was struck in the thigh by a crossbow bolt. She called for a continued assault, but the nightfall and shock at her injury dissuaded her troops, who carried her out of a ditch back to the French camp.<ref>There is much to be said for Divine protection of Joan in her injuries, here at Paris and at Orléans. While missing vital organs, Joan's wounds were serious and susceptible to infection, etc. She recovered from them all. </ref> ~~The~~ next day the King halted the attacks, and on the 13th ordered a retreat back to the Loire, which meant back to Orléans.

During a lull in the lulls, and at Joan's insistence, and indicative of the authority she yet held, the Duke of Alençon was finally allowed to organize an attack on Paris, coming on September 8, the Feast of the Nativity of the Mother of God. Joan was at the front. After an all-day assault that induced both panic and expectant enthusiasm within the city, as sundown fell and after she "reached the walls of Paris," as her page testified at the Rehabilitation Trial, which is suspiciously quiet on the assault on Paris, likely in deference to the King, who was less than noble about the assault. The biographer Murray writes,<ref>Murray, Introduction, p. xix, fn 1</ref><blockquote>There existed a bitter feeling of jealousy towards Jeanne in consequence of her great successes in the field. This was notably shown during her attack upon Paris, where she was thwarted in every direction, and all possibility of victory was taken from her by the conduct of the King.</blockquote>by the walls, Joan was struck in the thigh by a crossbow bolt.<ref>Testimony of Louis de Contes, Murray p. 259. Historians like to point to witnesses that Joan was in a ditch when she was shot, unable to get over a ditch or a moat. For example, see Barker writes of a description of the event, "The citizen of Paris, who was probably a priest, gave a graphic description in his journal of this ‘creature in the form of a woman, whom they called the Maid – what it was, God only knows’ standing on the edge of the moat with her standard. ‘Surrender to us quickly, in Jesus’ name!’ she shouted to the Parisians: ‘if you don’t surrender before nightfall we shall come in by force whether you like it or not and you will all be killed.’ ‘Shall we, you bloody tart?’ a crossbowman responded and shot her through the leg. Another crossbowman shot her standard-bearer through the foot and, when he lifted his visor so that he could see to take the bolt out, he was shot between the eyes and killed. (Barker, Juliet. Conquest, Kindle Edition)</ref> She called for a continued assault, but the nightfall and shock at her injury dissuaded her troops, who carried her out of a ditch back to the French camp.<ref>There is much to be said for Divine protection of Joan in her injuries, here at Paris and at Orléans. While missing vital organs, Joan's wounds were serious and susceptible to infection, etc. She recovered from them all. </ref> Must have seemed like another Orlėans or Jargeau -- ''the Maid is down! the Maid returns to the attack!'' It was in Joan's mind: she

but the next day the King halted the attacks, and on the 13th ordered a retreat back to the Loire, which meant back to Orléans.

Before leaving St. Denis, where Charles VII had resided during the campaign that, thanks to his indecision, hesitation and indirection, truly lacked luster, Joan presented her complete set of white armor and a seized sword to the altar at the church of Saint Denis, a traditional act of thanks giving by a wounded soldier.<ref>See [https://ia800200.us.archive.org/6/items/joanofarc00moon/joanofarc00moon.pdf Joan of Arc] p. 49</ref> After the King left Saint Denis to the English, they took Joan's armor and likely destroyed it. From there, the usual story is the the King abandoned Joan, while allowing her limited, unsupported military campaigns, which is true. For her part, Joan "feared nothing but treason."<ref>See Joan: Her Story p. 78</ref>

Line 1,117:

Line 1,119:

Charles VII was not entirely deceived. But he was duplicitous with Joan. He feted her, brought her from castle to castle, but ignored her pleas to carry on the war. Her opportunity came when the need arose to put down continued Burgundian resistance<ref>Either lands of or invaded by a Burgundian mercenary named Perrinet Gressard.</ref> within the Loire region itself, at a town called Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier. Sent officially by the Court, Joan took the fortified town, protected by a moat, on Nov 4, 1429, but only after insisting upon a second assault and standing at foot of the walls inspiring her troops forward.<ref>Afterwards, Charles ennobled here and her family, both men and women.</ref>

The French Court ordered her to attack another town in the region, La Charité, which was also fortified, but she was denied additional artillery or funds. Joan was forced to raise her own army for the attack, which was unsuccessful, her first defeat after Paris. ~~The defeat~~ gave the Court further excuse to ignore her and to adhere to the supposed truce with the Duke of Burgundy. Joan's next action was to move north to defend areas that Burgundy had attacked, despite the truce. That Joan knew it was going on means the Court knew it, but the Court deliberately ignored it under the guise of the truce. Whether or not Joan acted with the Court's authority, over which historians have argued uselessly, doesn't matter: they knew, she knew, they all knew the Duke of Burgundy was in violation of the truce. That Joan acted on her own authority or the Kings doesn't matter. What matters is that she went to defend Compiègne, which was under Burgundian and English attack, with few resources and a small force. There Joan was captured, but, as always, standing fast amidst battle, only this time there was no rallying the troops, as they had gone into the city and the gate was closed on her as the Burgundians surrounded her and pulled her from her horse.

The French Court ordered her to attack another town in the region, La Charité, which was also fortified, but she was denied additional artillery or funds. Joan was forced to raise her own army for the attack, which was unsuccessful, her first defeat after Paris. It gave the Court further excuse to ignore her and to adhere to the supposed truce with the Duke of Burgundy. Joan's next action was to move north to defend areas that Burgundy had attacked, despite the truce. That Joan knew it was going on means the Court knew it, but the Court deliberately ignored it under the guise of the truce. Whether or not Joan acted with the Court's authority, over which historians have argued uselessly, doesn't matter: they knew, she knew, they all knew the Duke of Burgundy was in violation of the truce. That Joan acted on her own authority or the Kings doesn't matter. What matters is that she went to defend Compiègne, which was under Burgundian and English attack, with few resources and a small force. There Joan was captured, but, as always, standing fast amidst battle, only this time there was no rallying the troops, as they had gone into the city and the gate was closed on her as the Burgundians surrounded her and pulled her from her horse.

La Charité became a matter of great attention at the Rouen trial. Questions on it included, <blockquote>Did you never speak with the said Catherine<ref>As discussed earlier, the examiners were most keen to associate Joan with Catherine de la Rochelle and her visions of a "lady in white." (see Murray, p. 52)</ref> on the project of going to La Charité-sur-Loire?<ref>March 3 (Murray, p. 53)</ref></blockquote><blockquote>What did you do in the trenches of La Charité?<ref>ibid</ref></blockquote><blockquote>Why did you not enter La Charité, if you had command from God to do so?<ref>March 3 (Murray, p. 54)</ref></blockquote><blockquote>Had you any revelation to attack La Charité?<ref>March 13 (Murray, p. 69)</ref></blockquote><blockquote>Did you do well or ill to advance on La Charité?<ref>March 27 (Murray, p. 352)</ref> </blockquote>

@@ Line 995: / Line 995: @@
 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.
+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 -- which means he did not want to take 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 de La Trémoïlle was leveraging, much less what was the actual situation being leveraged.
@@ Line 1,111: / Line 1,111: @@
 The French ministers, instead, made it altogether too easy for the Duke, seducing him with "greater offers of reparation<ref>i.e., for the murder of John the Fearless</ref> than the royal majesty actually possessed,"<ref>https://archive.org/details/joanofarcherstor00pern/page/74/mode/1up?q=220&view=theaterd p. 74</ref> including to yield the town of Compèigne, which a year later continued to hold out against the Burgundians, although at the expense of Joan's capture and her ransom to the English.
-During a lull in the lulls, and at Joan's insistence, the Duke of Alençon was finally allowed to organize an attack on Paris, coming on September 8, the Feast of the Nativity of the Mother of God. Joan was at the front. After an all-day assault that induced both panic and expectant enthusiasm within the city, as sundown fell and by the walls, Joan was struck in the thigh by a crossbow bolt. She called for a continued assault, but the nightfall and shock at her injury dissuaded her troops, who carried her out of a ditch back to the French camp.<ref>There is much to be said for Divine protection of Joan in her injuries, here at Paris and at Orléans. While missing vital organs, Joan's wounds were serious and susceptible to infection, etc. She recovered from them all. </ref> The next day the King halted the attacks, and on the 13th ordered a retreat back to the Loire, which meant back to Orléans.
+During a lull in the lulls, and at Joan's insistence, and indicative of the authority she yet held, the Duke of Alençon was finally allowed to organize an attack on Paris, coming on September 8, the Feast of the Nativity of the Mother of God. Joan was at the front. After an all-day assault that induced both panic and expectant enthusiasm within the city, as sundown fell and after she "reached the walls of Paris," as her page testified at the Rehabilitation Trial, which is suspiciously quiet on the assault on Paris, likely in deference to the King, who was less than noble about the assault. The biographer Murray writes,<ref>Murray, Introduction, p. xix, fn 1</ref><blockquote>There existed a bitter feeling of jealousy towards Jeanne in consequence of her great successes in the field. This was notably shown during her attack upon Paris, where she was thwarted in every direction, and all possibility of victory was taken from her by the conduct of the King.</blockquote>by the walls, Joan was struck in the thigh by a crossbow bolt.<ref>Testimony of Louis de Contes, Murray p. 259.  Historians like to point to witnesses that Joan was in a ditch when she was shot, unable to get over a ditch or a moat. For example, see Barker writes of a description of the event, "The citizen of Paris, who was probably a priest, gave a graphic description in his journal of this ‘creature in the form of a woman, whom they called the Maid – what it was, God only knows’ standing on the edge of the moat with her standard. ‘Surrender to us quickly, in Jesus’ name!’ she shouted to the Parisians: ‘if you don’t surrender before nightfall we shall come in by force whether you like it or not and you will all be killed.’ ‘Shall we, you bloody tart?’ a crossbowman responded and shot her through the leg. Another crossbowman shot her standard-bearer through the foot and, when he lifted his visor so that he could see to take the bolt out, he was shot between the eyes and killed. (Barker, Juliet. Conquest, Kindle Edition)</ref> She called for a continued assault, but the nightfall and shock at her injury dissuaded her troops, who carried her out of a ditch back to the French camp.<ref>There is much to be said for Divine protection of Joan in her injuries, here at Paris and at Orléans. While missing vital organs, Joan's wounds were serious and susceptible to infection, etc. She recovered from them all. </ref> Must have seemed like another Orlėans or Jargeau -- ''the Maid is down! the Maid returns to the attack!'' It was in Joan's mind: she
+but the next day the King halted the attacks, and on the 13th ordered a retreat back to the Loire, which meant back to Orléans.
 Before leaving St. Denis, where Charles VII had resided during the campaign that, thanks to his indecision, hesitation and indirection, truly lacked luster, Joan presented her complete set of white armor and a seized sword to the altar at the church of Saint Denis, a traditional act of thanks giving by a wounded soldier.<ref>See [https://ia800200.us.archive.org/6/items/joanofarc00moon/joanofarc00moon.pdf Joan of Arc] p. 49</ref> After the King left Saint Denis to the English, they took Joan's armor and likely destroyed it. From there, the usual story is the the King abandoned Joan, while allowing her limited, unsupported military campaigns, which is true. For her part, Joan "feared nothing but treason."<ref>See Joan: Her Story p. 78</ref>
@@ Line 1,117: / Line 1,119: @@
 Charles VII was not entirely deceived. But he was duplicitous with Joan. He feted her, brought her from castle to castle, but ignored her pleas to carry on the war. Her opportunity came when the need arose to put down continued Burgundian resistance<ref>Either lands of or invaded by a  Burgundian mercenary named Perrinet Gressard.</ref> within the Loire region itself, at a town called Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier. Sent officially by the Court, Joan took the fortified town, protected by a moat, on Nov 4, 1429, but only after insisting upon a second assault and standing at foot of the walls inspiring her troops forward.<ref>Afterwards, Charles ennobled here and her family, both men and women.</ref>
-The French Court ordered her to attack another town in the region, La Charité, which was also fortified, but she was denied additional artillery or funds. Joan was forced to raise her own army for the attack, which was unsuccessful, her first defeat after Paris. The defeat gave the Court further excuse to ignore her and to adhere to the supposed truce with the Duke of Burgundy. Joan's next action was to move north to defend areas that Burgundy had attacked, despite the truce. That Joan knew it was going on means the Court knew it, but the Court deliberately ignored it under the guise of the truce.  Whether or not Joan acted with the Court's authority, over which historians have argued uselessly, doesn't matter: they knew, she knew, they all knew the Duke of Burgundy was in violation of the truce. That Joan acted on her own authority or the Kings doesn't matter. What matters is that she went to defend Compiègne, which was under Burgundian and English attack, with few resources and a small force. There Joan was captured, but, as always, standing fast amidst battle, only this time there was no rallying the troops, as they had gone into the city and the gate was closed on her as the Burgundians surrounded her and pulled her from her horse.
+The French Court ordered her to attack another town in the region, La Charité, which was also fortified, but she was denied additional artillery or funds. Joan was forced to raise her own army for the attack, which was unsuccessful, her first defeat after Paris. It gave the Court further excuse to ignore her and to adhere to the supposed truce with the Duke of Burgundy. Joan's next action was to move north to defend areas that Burgundy had attacked, despite the truce. That Joan knew it was going on means the Court knew it, but the Court deliberately ignored it under the guise of the truce. Whether or not Joan acted with the Court's authority, over which historians have argued uselessly, doesn't matter: they knew, she knew, they all knew the Duke of Burgundy was in violation of the truce. That Joan acted on her own authority or the Kings doesn't matter. What matters is that she went to defend Compiègne, which was under Burgundian and English attack, with few resources and a small force. There Joan was captured, but, as always, standing fast amidst battle, only this time there was no rallying the troops, as they had gone into the city and the gate was closed on her as the Burgundians surrounded her and pulled her from her horse.
 La Charité became a matter of great attention at the Rouen trial. Questions on it included,  <blockquote>Did you never speak with the said Catherine<ref>As discussed earlier, the examiners were most keen to associate Joan with Catherine de la Rochelle and her visions of a "lady in white." (see Murray, p. 52)</ref> on the project of going to La Charité-sur-Loire?<ref>March 3 (Murray, p. 53)</ref></blockquote><blockquote>What did you do in the trenches of La Charité?<ref>ibid</ref></blockquote><blockquote>Why did you not enter La Charité, if you had command from God to do so?<ref>March 3 (Murray, p. 54)</ref></blockquote><blockquote>Had you any revelation to attack La Charité?<ref>March 13 (Murray, p. 69)</ref></blockquote><blockquote>Did you do well or ill to advance on La Charité?<ref>March 27 (Murray, p. 352)</ref> </blockquote>