[Back] [Blueprint] [Next]

~~~~~~~~~~~

ಌ Click on the footnote number and you will jump to it, then click that footnote number and you will jump back to where you were in the text [That line will be at the top of the screen].

~~~~~~~~~~~



[192]

721-3. The Prince had already passed through Berry on his way to Romorantin, and now only continued on the right bank of the Cher in the direction of Tours. Unable to cross the Loire, he stayed four days opposite the town,1 and then, crossing the Cher and the Indre, reached Montbazon on Sept. 11.2

735. Froissart also describes the gathering of the French army at Chartres.3 King John was at Breteuil at the beginning of August,4 but at Chartres from August 28 till early in September.5

739-42. On the 8th of September King John was at Meung-sur-Loire; 13th, at Loches; 14th, La Haye Creuse; 15th, Chauvigny; 18th, near Poitiers.6 Jean le Bel says that he spent a night at Tours on his way;7 Froissart implies that only the Dauphin did this;8 but in any case the army must have passed very near, if not through, the town.

749-56. The skirmish with a detachment of the French on Saturday, 17th, is a generally recorded fact; it took place at La Chaboterie, close to Chauvigny, sometimes being called after the one place, sometimes after the other. There is some difference of opinion as to the names of the French commanders captured on that occasion. Bartholomew de Burghersh,9 Avesbury,10 and Froissart (in one version11) agree with Chandos as to Joigny and Auxerre; the Grandes Chroniques say it was Sancerre and not Auxerre who was captured,12 and the Black Prince speaks of the Count of ‘Soussoire’13, which seems to support this view; but the Poem (1031) includes Sancerre in the King’s division before the battle. Both Auxerre and Sancerre were captured at this time — either on the 17th or in the actual battle of Poitiers on the 19th — as they are included in official lists and were released at the Peace of Brétigny.14

Froissart gives an account of another affair on the Saturday: a fight between the Prince’s scouts (d’Aubréchichourt, Pommiers, Burghersh and the Captal) and the rearguard of the French army.15 These two events (if Froissart is correct in thinking that there were two)16 seem to be occasionally confused and reckoned as one by modern historians; Chandos must, however, be referring to the former incident. The French detachment, according to Froissart, had stayed behind for their own comfort, and where the Poem speaks of valiant fighting ‘a lour logement’ it probably refers to their night quarters.

762-6. The Prince says that he marched as near to the French army as possible, a league from Poitiers.17 The river at which they watered their horses must have been the Miausson, 193 a stream running near the battle-field. The place was then called Maupertuis, now La Cardinerie.18

768. Talleyrand de Périgord, Cardinal. He had already come to the English camp at Montbazon to treat of peace.19 Villani,20 Walsingham21 and the Continuator of Nangis,22 all speak as though two cardinals were present; this may merely be because the Pope had sent both Nicholas of Urgel and Talleyrand to treat for peace, and they do not go into the circumstantial details of Chandos and Froissart, who only speak of Cardinal Talleyrand as taking active part in these negotiations. The Herald’s authority should be very good for all these details, which he gives so fully, since Sir John Chandos, one of the deputation to the French camp, may have been his informant.

821-56. There is great difference amongst chronicles as to the attitude of the Prince at this time. Froissart represents King John as only with great difficulty persuaded by the Cardinal to put off the battle for a day, whereas the Prince said he was quite ready to treat if his honour could be saved, and actually offered to give up conquests made in that expedition, to yield his prisoners and not to fight against France for seven years. Even these terms, however, failed to satisfy King John, who insisted that the Prince with 100 knights should surrender themselves prisoners; it was repugnance to these conditions which caused the failure of the negotiations.23

This view has been followed by most of the chroniclers.24 Modern writers, on the other hand, as a rule agree with Chandos as to the readiness of the Prince for the battle.25 This latter opinion is on the whole the more probable. The Prince had, to all appearances, been making all preparations for battle; he could have retreated, had he wished, from Châtellerault, since the French army had passed him; instead of which he followed and took up a strong position in view of attack. The substance of the reply put into his mouth by Chandos agrees with what he reports himself to have said to the Cardinal at Montbazon, viz. that he had no power to make peace without the King his father, and this attitude is more in accordance with what we know of his character.

847. The Prince goes on to say, in the same letter,26 that he agreed to send men to arbitrate, but refused to purchase a truce.

867. Probably Jean II de Melun, Comte de Tancarville, son of the Sire de Tancarville, captured at Caen.27

869. Guillaume, brother of the Comte de Tancarville, was Archbishop of Sens 1347-76.28

870. Jean de Talaru, afterwards Archbishop of Lyons.29

871. Bouciquaut must be wrong. He had been taken at Romorantin, and was not freed till July 1357.30

Jean de Clermont, Comte de Chantilly, Marshal of France.31

873-84. This Council is also mentioned in the Eulogium,32 which says that there were eleven of each nation, but does not enter any details. The names given here, with the exception of Bouciquaut are most probable.

890-914. Only found in this narrative.

194

939-44. Jean de Clermont, Comte de Chantilly, Marshal; Arnoul, Sire d’Audrehem, Marshal; and Gautier, Duc d’Athènes, Constable of France. All agree as to this advanced guard of the marshals, Jean le Bel and Froissart (in at least one version) associating the Duke of Athens with them,33 though some chroniclers place him with the King.34

949-54. Froissart only says that they chose out 300 knights and squires; Baker talks of 500 mounted men; Chandos must be mistaken in giving so large a number of followers.

By far the clearest and most useful account of all this battle of Poitiers is that given by Baker of Swynebroke, which Thompson says must certainly have come from an eyewitness; the editor’s excellent notes and map which accompany them are invaluable for an understanding of the engagement 35 and this description is well worth comparing with that given by Chandos.

955-8. Chandos repeatedly represents King John as commanding that no English should be spared except the Prince (973, 1005). Knighton supports this statement36; Froissart does not, since he describes two captures made by Frenchmen in the battle; but certainly the oriflamme was carried at Poitiers,37 which signified that no quarter was to be given.

959-64. Baker also places Normandy (Charles the Dauphin) immediately after the marshals. Jean le Bel and Froissart give the same divisions of the French army, but place the Duke of Orleans in command of this second ‘battle’:38 the other arrangement, however, agrees better with the subsequent events of the fight, since Froissart says that the horsemen were driven back on the ‘battle’ of the Duke of Normandy.39

965. Pierre, Duc de Bourbon, Comte de Clermont et de la Marche.40

ಌಌಌ



FOOTNOTES



1  Black Prince‘s Letter, in Chronicle of London, 204.

2  Eulogium, 215, and Denifle.

3   Froissart, v. 2.

4  Arch. Nat., JJ 84, No. 638, ‘Donné en nos tentes devant Breteuil’, Aug. 12, 1356.

5  Arch. Nat., JJ 84. No. 672, Datum Camoti die penultimi Augusti. Ibid., JJ 89, No. 316. Cf. Froissart, v, p. 11, note 1.

6  Denifle, ii. 125; Froissart, v, pp. iv-vi.

7  Jean le Bel, ii. 197.

8  Froissart, v, p. iv, note 1.

9  Chandos, ed. F. Michel, 336.

10  Avesbury, 255.

11  Froissart, v. 247, MS. A. Ibid., 17. We find: ‘Il fu pris li contes de Joni et li viscontes de Bruese, Sires de Chauvegni.’

12  Grandes Chroniques, vi. 31.

13  Letter of Black Prince, Oct. 22, in Chronicle of London, 205.

14  Arch. Nat., J 638 B, no. 9 bis; Bibl. Nat., Fonds Fr. 23593, fol. 10; French Rolls, 1360.

15  Froissart, v. 17.

16  Luce, B. du Guesclin, Paris, 1876, i. 172.

17  Prince’s letter, Oct. 22, Chronicle of London, 205.

18  Froissart, v, p. vi, note 1. Babinet Critique du Récit de la Bataille de Poitiers (Bulletin des Antiquaires de l’Ouest, 1805).

19  Prince’s Letter, Chronicle of London, 205.

20  Villani, 411. Cardinal of Bologna and Cardinal of Périgord in French King’s company.

21  Walsingham, Ypodigma, 299.

22  Chronique de Guillaume de Nangis et de ses continuateurs, ii. 240.

23  Froissasrt, v. 25-7.

24  Cochon, Chronique Normande, 88; Chronique des quatre premiers Valois, 45; Villani, 411, c. 11; Jean le Bel, ii. 198. Baker of Swynebroke takes much the same view.

25  Denifle and Babinet.

26  Chronicle of London, 205.

27  Kervyn de Lettenhove, Index to Froissart.

28   Gallia Christiana.

29  Gallia Christiana.

30  Archives Historiques du Poitou, xvii, Introduction.

31  Archives Historiques du Poitou, xvii, p. 192, note.

32  Eulogium, iii. 223.

33  Jean le Bel, ii. 197; Froissart, v. 253; Continuation of Lescot, 102.

34  Quatre premiers Valois, 45.

35  Babinet (Bulletin des Antiquaires de l’Ouest, 1895) makes some criticisms on Swynebroke’s narrative; he considers the description of the field rather exaggerated.

36  Henrici Knighton Chronicon, 89.

37  Froissart, v. 23.

38  Baker of Swynebroke, 310, map; Jean le Bel, ii. 197; Froissart, v. 20.

39  Froissart, v. 37.

40  Arch. Nat., JJ 85, No. 112. Confirmed as Lieutenant in Gascony, 1356.




~~~~~~~~~~~

[Back] [Blueprint] [Next]
Valid CSS!