2611, 2612. Hugh, Philip and Peter Courtenay were all sons of the Earl of Devon.1
2613. John Trivet.2 Nicholas Bond had letters of protection.3
2615. Ralph Camois. Possibly the same as Camies?4
2617. Walter Ursewick. In a grant for services at Nájera his knighting on that day is mentioned.5
2618. Possibly this may be a Thomas Daventrie who travelled to Aquitaine with Ursewick.6 Froissart calls him Thomas de Daimeri, and Kervyn de Lettenhove suggests Damory de Bradley.7210
2619. John de Grendon is mentioned together with Ursewick in Lancaster’s retinue 1369.8
2652. Don Tello, Lord of Biscay, second brother of Henry of Trastamare.
2667. Don Sancho, Lord of Albuquerque, youngest brother of Henry.
2669. Marshal Audrehem, we have already seen, had joined Henry’s forces with B. du Guesclin: Froissart in his earlier version says he did not go,9 but in the Amiens MS. that he did;10 Ayala specially mentions him.
2673-6. Froissart says elsewhere that Bertrand had been sent first to Aragon, then to the Duke of Anjou at Montpellier, and finally to France to seek for help; though Luce questions the latter part of this statement.11
Certainly Ayala distinctly says that Henry’s position at Zaldieran had been adopted on the advice of du Guesclin:12 there is no reason why he should have accompanied this party of reconnoitrers even if he were present at the time.
2727. Sir Thomas Felton and his company had already marched two leagues from the English army at Vitoria (2647-50).; They were at Ariñez in Alava, a little village on the way from Vitoria to Burgos and Madrid.13
2729. Froissart calls him ‘Monsigneur d’Agorisses’. F. Michel suggests De Grey; Luce thinks possible Gregori Seys, Sieur de Gencey.14
Ralph de Hastings. Froissart calls him Hugh, who has already been mentioned; but there was a Ralph who accompanied Lancaster to Spain.15
2731. Froissart calls him Gaillard Vighier, really the same name. Found in Gascon Rolls in Richard II’s reign.16
2735-58. This important incident has been recorded in every chronicle, but with perplexing variations. All agree that a skirmish took place between a Spanish and English force, and the death of Felton has been commemorated by the name of the Englishman’s Mound, which is still pointed out near Ariñez (environs of Vitoria)17. The poem of Lancaster’s secretary speaks of the Bastard rushing down like a whirlwind into the camp, in which sudden attack Felton was killed and Hugh Hastings captured, after which Lancaster drove the enemy back into the mountains; and, although another party renewed the attack next day, it was repulsed with loss.18 (The general confusion in this account is proved by the fact that reference is made to the capture of Navarre, as though occurring on the same occasion, a note adding that he was taken by Lord Oliverum!) The prose Life of du Guesclin says that Bertrand and Denia fell upon William Felton, who had been sent out to forage, and that he fell in the skirmish; Cuvelier, with a very similar story, adds that he was killed by du Guesclin himself.19 Even Ayala is not very explicit as to the origin of the struggle. He says that an English company in Alava were seeking provisions when Henry sent against them Denia, Tello, Audrehem and others: this force defeated them at Ariñez in Alava, and William Felton, the English commander, was slain, the rest being taken.20 These varying accounts have evidently been caused by a confusion between three separate skirmishes which took place about this time: (1) Thomas Felton’s exploit before reaching Vitoria (2546-60); (2) the surprise attack made by Don Tello on the outskirts of the English camp (2686-2724); (3) the defeat of an English detachment again under Sir Thomas Felton, and the death of William in the fight 211 (2725-58). The Herald gives by far the clearest and most comprehensible description of these events.
2780. Audrehem was presumably with Don Tello all the time; therefore this must mean not that a fresh force arrived, but that the enemy, whose superior numbers would enable them easily to divide, had sent a party of their men to create a diversion in the rear.
2781. Evidently Jean Neufville, nephew of Audrehem, who had accompanied his uncle into Spain, together with du Guesclin and the Companies.
2805. That is, the two brothers of Sir Thomas as well as himself. There as a John de Felton in the English army in 1367, who was probably one brother:21 there was an elder brother named Hamo, who may very likely been present. The latter was accompanying the Earl of Cambridge to France in 1369, so that he was evidently a warrior.22
2807. Possibly Thomas de Mytton (see Index).
2811-19. Froissart explains the Prince’s inactivity by saying that he knew nothing of the whole affair. Either solution is probable. He may have missed Felton’s party without knowing the cause of their absence, and he would not have ventured to send out another force in search of them.
2841-60. Ayala is less detailed on this part of the story and does not describe Bertrand’s advice: but he does say that the Black Prince could not get to Castile because the Passes were held, so that he left Alava and returned to Logroño.23
2861-2. Froissart speaks of the English army going and camping outside Vitoria, after the loss of Felton’s detachment, and staying there in great distress for six days.24
2885. It is a great pity that Chandos has not dated his Itinerary; it seems impossible to fit in the different accounts. A note to Ayala, quoting from Cascales’ Discursos históricos, gives the date of this retreat as the 1st of April,25 but this must be too late. The Black Prince is apparently writing a letter from Navarete on April 1st.26
The Latin poem speaks of the skirmish between English and Spaniards as taking place on the 30th day in spring-time, the Feast of the Annunciation.27 There is an inconsistency here, for the Annunciation of the Virgin falls on the 25th March, which would be a more probable date; and this would fit in with Froissart’s six days before Vitoria, and Cascales’ date for the march on April 1st. But it would not allow time for the two days spent on the way at Viana according to Froissart, nor for the letter which he dates from Logroño, 30th March, nor for the day of the week named by Chandos. Chronology was, however, never a strong point amongst the chroniclers, and particularly not so in the case of the Herald.
2889. Pass of La Guardia, on left bank of Ebro.
2903-5. Ayala says that Henry’s army moved from Zaldieran towards Nájera, and placed its camp near the town, on the river Najerilla.28 He does not mention St. Vincent, but its position would render it a likely halting-place en route.
2907-50. Chandos does not date the Prince’s letter, but puts it immediately after his arrival at Logroño, and makes his advance to Navarete occur on the Friday (which was the 2nd April, the day before the battle: but in the Poem it appears to be the day after the letter was written).
Froissart has practically reproduced the same letter, allowing for the differences between prose and verse, and dates it from Logroño, March 30th.
Ayala, on the other hand, says that Pedro and the Prince came to Navarete and 212 thence sent a letter to Henry.29 As this agrees with the document in Rymer dated Navarete, April 1st,30 his information appears to be more correct; and he gives a copy of Henry’s reply written at Nájera on April 2nd, which is omitted in the poem. As for the substance of the first letter, the essential part — the offer of mediation — is the same in all, but Chandos has not given by any means an exact summary of the actual document, whereas Ayala has reproduced it, which is another reason for attaching particular value to his testimony. Cascales has published a letter from Don Pedro dated from Logroño on April 1st:31 but, as this is only about six miles from Navarete, that does not render this date any more unlikely. The Poem of Walter of Peterborough becomes more detailed towards this point, and expatiates on the hardships endured on the march, but is not very explicit. The author tells us, however, in a note, that it was on April 1st that the Prince crossed the river and encamped in the fields of Navarete: another first-hand witness to this date.32 (The Duke’s secretary does not seem well Informed as to events going on around him, or else he is fond of drawing on his own imagination, as, although he alludes to the second letter from Prince Henry, he gives it as containing a request for two knights from each side to choose the place of battle; a proposal absolutely foreign to the contents of the document, which was a recapitulation of the charges against Don Pedro, and a defence of his own claims by national right of election.)33 On the whole it seems possible to accept the following Itinerary — Monday, 29th March, departure from the camp before Vitoria; that and the following nights spent at Viana; 31st, at Logroño; 1st April, departure to Navarete, and the letter sent from the Black Prince to the enemy’s camp; 2nd April, Friday, reply of Prince Henry and preparations for battle.
2984-3004. The numbers of the Spanish army are given differently by every writer, ranging from 40,000 (Cuvelier) to 90,000 (Henry’s speech according to Froissart). The numbers which Chandos puts into the mouth of Henry, added together, come to 66,000, so that he may be considered to have struck a very fair average, allowing for a little of the usual exaggeration on the part of an enemy: Ayala does not give a full estimate, but only reckons 4,500 lances.34
3060-2. The Herald omits to mention a fact upon which Ayala lays stress, and which might have detracted somewhat from the glory of the victory; namely that Henry had left the favourable position in which he was at first encamped, and had crossed the river on to the plain facing Navarete, so that no one might accuse him of taking any unfair advantage.35 This is doubtless what is meant by the chroniclers of du Guesclin, who lament that the battles was lost because Henry would not take the advice of the great captain.36 Certainly nothing could be more opposed to the military experience of Bertrand than this chivalrous but mistaken action.
3063-77. Ayala also places Bertrand, Audrehem, Sancho and the Bègue de Villaines in the vanguard; Jean Neufville would naturally accompany his uncle: but the Comte de Denia, according to the Spanish historian, commanded the cavalry on the right wing.37 This I cannot in any way decide from the details of the battle, as there seems to have been considerable confusion between the different divisions.
3067. Alfonso, Comte de Denia and Marquis of Villena, was son of the Infant Pedro of Aragon.
3069. Pierre de Villaines dit le Bègue had gone out with the Companies.38
3078, 3079. Ayala agrees as to Don Tello being on the left wing, and then adds that the right was under Denia.213
3078-99. Ayala also describes this force as composed of cavalry and infantry, without mentioning any names. The idea we gather from Ayala of the arrangement of the army, with a vanguard on foot, wings of horsemen and a large mixed force in the rear, is more practical than the description of Chandos, which seems to imply a very large force of cavalry consisting of infantry, but with a smaller body of horse on one side. The discrepancy probably arises from the fact that, while Ayala gives the actual disposition of the troops before the battle, Chandos is making a rough plan gathered from the subsequent course of the contest.
3102. Gomez Carillo de Quintano, Chamberlain of Henry.
3103. Gomez Perez de Porres was prior of the Order of San Juan in 1367.39
3107. There was an Order of Santiago or Saint-Jacques both in Castile and Galicia. Of the former apparently Gomez Perez just mentioned was Master.40 Here the reference is more probably to the latter, of which the Grand Master was Gonzalo Mejia at this time. He had succeeded Garcia Alvarez de Toledo, who had deserted Pedro for Henry, but resigned his office before 1367.41
3109. Pero Moñiz de Godoy, of whom Froissart speaks in the battle.42 He had succeeded Diego Garcia de Padilla, who had been Grand Master of the Order of Calatrava under Pedro.43
1 Kervyn de Lettenhove (Index), xxi.
2 Gascon Rolls, 40 Ed. III, m. 15.
3 Gascon Rolls, 41 Ed. III, m. 3.
4 Ayala, 553.
5 Rymer, iii, pt. ii, p. 132.
6 Chandos, ed. F. Michel, 363; GasconRolls, 40 Ed. III, m. 4.
7 Kervyn de Lettenhove (Index), xxi.
8 Gascon Rolls, 43 Ed. III, m. 15; Rymer, iii. 871.
9 Froissart, vii. 21.
10 Froissart, MS. d’Amiens, vii. 271.
11 Froissasrt, vi, p. xc, note 3; vi. 213.
12 Ayala, 444.
13 Ayala, 445. Froissart, vii, p. ix, note 3.
14 Froissart, viii, p. lx, note.
15 Gascon Rolls, 40 Edw. III, m. 4; Dugdale, i. 579.
16 Gascon Rolls, 5 Rich. II; Chandos, ed. F. Michel, 364.
17 Froissart, vii, p. ix, note 4.
18 Wright’s Political Songs, i. 110.
19 Cuvelier, 389, 393.
20 Ayala, 445.
21 Gascon Rolls, 41 Ed. III, m. 3.
22 Bury and West Suffolk Arch. Institute, 1874, Playford and the Feltons. Gascon Rolls, Edw. III, m. 7.
23 Ayala, 447.
24 Froissart, vii. 28.
25 Ayala, 447.
26 Rymer, iii, pt. ii, p. 131.
27 Wright’s Political Songs, i. 111.
28 Ayala, 448.
29 Ayala, 449.
30 Rymer, iii, pt. ii, p. 132.
31 Cascales Discursos históricos, fol. 116, dorso.
32 Wright’s Political Songs, i. 113.
33 Rymer, iii, pt. ii, p. 132.
34 Cuvelier, 410; Froissart, vii. 30; Ayala, 453.
35 Ayala, 453.
36 Cuvelier, 410.
37 Froissart, vi. 188.
38 Ayala, 456.
39 Catalina Garcia, Castilla y Leon. Madrid, 1891, 354.
41 Mérimée, 424; Froissart, vi, p. lxxxvi, note 3; Catalina Garcia, 340, 346.
42 Froissart, vii, p. xvii, note 4.
43 Froissart, vi, p. lxxxvi, note 2.