3121-44. Chandos had been made a banneret in 1360, when he received the estate of Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte, but was now displaying his banner for the first time in battle. That this was no new honour conferred upon him is borne out by the fact that he is said to have brought his banner to the Prince, who merely unfurled it; not, as a later historian has said, cut off its tail,1 which would have signified the conversion of a pennon into a banner. Chandos could not have brought his banner to the Prince if he were still only a simple knight.
3161-71. Walter of Peterborough puts similar words into the Prince’s mouth, as to the lack of food and the necessity of taking it from the enemy’s camp, but earlier in the narrative, before the arrival at Navarete.2
3172-95. For all these events — the Prince’s prayer and words to Pedro, &c. — the Herald appears to be the original authority.
3200-5. Froissart also states that these warriors were knighted by Chandos, but he mentions the ceremony as taking place earlier, when the Prince and the Duke of Lancaster were making new knights before Vitoria.3
3201. In Froissart we find Courson in one version; Courton in another.
Prior, Thomas (see Index).
Eliton, called by Froissart Cliton.
3202. William de Ferinton in Froissart.
3224. John of Ypres was a Fleming in the service of Edward, present at Nájera, and evidently an important personage.4
3225 sq. The Herald treats the history of the battle with great vigour and detail; he is better informed than Cuvelier, clearer than the Latin Poem, fuller than Ayala and this is the source of Froissart’s description; his account is evidently of first-rate importance. The positions occupied by the different combatants are impossible to verify for certain; every one has distributed them somewhat differently, even Froissart not actually reproducing the same divisions, though the names mentioned can all be found in one or other of the narratives of the battle. The principal events and nature of the combat can, however, be traced out with sufficient precision in the 214 Poem; and from what we are able to verify of this description the accuracy of the rest can be inferred; an accuracy, that is, as great as can be expected from the account of one who was himself in the thick of the conflict.
3310. Martin de La Carra, as Navarre’s representative, bore his banner.5
3321. Ayala says that Tello’s flight was caused by the advance of Armagnac and Albret with the Gascons; and that this force, on the departure of their adversaries, turned their arms against the vanguard of infantry which was already engaged.6
3329. Thee were two Percies living at this time: Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, who fought in France in 1370, and his younger brother Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester, who was in the Black Prince’s Council at Bordeaux in 1369. The latter, therefore, seems the more probable of the two.7
3329. Olivier de Clisson before mentioned.
3330. This must be a mistake, since he had just been made prisoner at Ariñez. He was exchanged finally, but not, I think, until after the battle.
3331. Walter Hewet is mentioned by Cuvelier.8
3335. Ayala says that the English left wing also attacked the Spanish infantry, so that they were surrounded by enemies.9
3348. Guy de Sévérac, one of the principal Seigneurs of Rouergue.10
3370. In Ayala also we find that Henry led his cavalry three times to the attack, but was at last forced to fly. Cuvelier likewise testifies to the courage of the Bastard, whom he describes as being led by force from the field by du Guesclin.11
3401. The biographers of du Guesclin describe him as surrendering to the Black Prince himself.12 This may only be added for the purpose of extolling his prowess; it is mentioned neither by Ayala nor by the Herald, who would probably have gladly recounted an event of such interest had it really occurred.
In studying this battle Ayala furnishes by afar the most valuable commentary on Chandos. Walter of Peterborough’s Poem,13 although the work of an eyewitness, is confused, and differs so much from Ayala and Chandos that any comparison seems hopeless. We read there that Lancaster led the way, followed by the King of Majorca and Armagnac; as to numbers, that not quite 2,000 destroyed fully 40,000; that the Duke tried to get at the brothers, who avoided the conflict; and some lines later, that Henry and Tello fled (as though together). The principal aim of the poet is to sing the praises of the Duke of Lancaster, and he seems to have sacrificed any accurate account of proceedings to this object. Cuvelier seems to have little genuine knowledge; according to his account the Captal began the battle by attacking Henry, who was rescued by Guesclin; while the prose Life says that the Count of Denia put Lancaster to flight, but that the Captal de Buch, coming up, restored the battle and slew Denia.
3401-10. Ayala mentions all these prisoners, except Jean Neufville, whose name I have only found in this connexion in Froissart, which is not much testimony; Ayala, however, is not at pains to make a long list of the French who were captured, but gives more Spanish names; he was himself amongst the number.
3412. Adam de Villiers dit le Bègue, Seigneur de Villiers-le-Bel. Froissart mentions him as slain, and also adds a few more names.14
3421. Called by Froissart Raoul, which seems to connect him with the Ralph Ferrers 215 who was Captain of Calais in 1360. There was certainly a Ralph Ferrers still alive after Nájera, who was Admiral of the fleet in 1370,15 but he may have been a son. This Christian name, however, which is only found in some editions of Froissart, may possibly be a mistake, in which case this Ferrers could be identified with the John Ferrers of Charteleye, who was certainly with the army in 1366,16 and is not mentioned later.
3425-33. The battle was fought between Nájera and Navarete, and is therefore called sometimes by one, sometimes by the other name. The Herald spells it as Naddres, Nazarz, or, as here, Nazareth; the differences being probably due to the French and Spanish pronunciations combined with the exigencies of verse. In Froissart it is always Nazres or Nazares.
3434. The river was the Nájerilla. The great losses of the Spaniards, especially on the bridge and in the river, are mentioned in various accounts. The numbers who thus perished must have rendered any calculations practically impossible. The Herald is doubtless repeating rough guesses when he speaks of 7,700 reported to have perished.
3453. i.e. the town of Nájera.
3456. Pero Moñiz de Godoy, Grand Master of the Order of Calatrava.17
3457. Gomez Perez, Prior of San Juan and Master of the Order of Santiago in Castile.18 Cascales, in enumerating some of the warriors from different parts, speaks of the Prior of San Juan amongst those who came from Castile.19
3459. Master of the Order of Santiago in Galicia, probably Gonzalo Mexia. Garcia Alvarez de Toledo had filled the place under Pedro and still disputed the title with Gonzalo Mexia.20
In one edition Froissart gives only two names in this connexion: ‘li grans prieus de St. Jame et li grans mestres de Caltraue’.21 In the Amiens MS., however, he seems to have copied Chandos almost exactly and gives the three.
In Walter of Peterborough, where all the names are very curiously spelt, we find: Baro Caletrag sive custos militiae Christi’; and ‘Magni praelati Iacobique Iohannis amati’.22
3475. This date is exact. All the authorities agree on this point, and it is also mentioned in a letter written by Pedro himself from Burgos on the 15th of the same month.23
3520-33. Ayala says that Pedro promised to spare the prisoners who submitted, and we learn the Prince’s part in this by the fact that a quarrel arose later between them at Burgos, because the King had broken his word to Edward.24
3540. We learn from Ayala that not only Gomez Carillo de Quintana was killed on the Sunday, but also Sancho Sanchez de Moscoso and Garcia Jufre Tenorio. Besides these three, Pedro himself had slain Inigo Lopez de Orozco immediately after the battle.25
Gomez Carillo, however, appears to have been a specially marked enemy of Pedro. He was excepted from the amnesty arranged with Aragon in 1361, and was evidently in high favour with Henry, being his Chamberlain. He came also of a family of rebels: his uncle had been an adherent of Don Juan Nuñez, claimant to the throne in 1350; and his cousin, accused of treating with Trastamare, had been murdered by command of the King.26
3565. Donna Juana, wife of Henry of Trastamare. Her flight from Burgos to Saragossa is also described by Ayala. The King of Aragon apparently received her very badly.
3598-9. Pedro set out for Burgos on Monday, 5th April, parting from the Prince at Briviesca; the King was evidently hurrying on with a small force, while Edward travelled with his army.
2163603-4. Ayala says the Prince arrived in Burgos two days after Don Pedro.27 They both celebrated Easter there.
3631. Chandos is extraordinarily inconsistent as to the Prince’s stay at Burgos. Before this he says he sojourned at Burgos a month (3607), and later he talks of his moving to Valladolid, and waiting there six months for Pedro’s return (3645).
Froissart, who has no longer slavishly followed the Poem, is nearer the truth in his chronology. He gives a similar description of the numbers who flocked to Burgos to make their submission to Pedro, and then says that after three weeks the Prince demanded money from the King.
3632-8. Ayala gives the details of the discussions on the point of money payments.28 which ended in a renewal of the old promises, in a treaty dated Burgos, May 2, 1367.329
3641. Froissart agrees that the prince went to Valladolid, but Ayala gives his quarters at Amusco,30 a town midway between Burgos and Valladolid. Probably he was not definitely fixed at one place or the other; Chandos says he was in the town and its neighbourhood, and his troops must have been more or less scattered over the country, owing to the difficulty of procuring provisions.
3645. This is certainly wrong, since only about five months passed between the battle of Nájera and the Prince’s return to France. Froissart says he stayed till the feast of St. John in the summer (24th June), so that possibly six weeks should be read instead of six months.
3664. This is possibly Amusco, since Ayala speaks of the Prince’s residence there. F. Michel has translated it Almazan, but a note states that this is purely conjectural, whereas the other explanation has some support.
3665. Medina del Campo.
3677-92. For this letter of Pedro we find no details in Ayala. Froissart gives some which differ slightly from those of the Herald. According to him, the Prince, becoming impatient after St. John the Baptist in the summer, despatched three knights to Pedro, who sent back an answer similar in substance to that given by Chandos, though couched in rather more respectful terms, and holding out hopes of a full payment in a year. The English Council, summoned to consider the matter, strongly advised return on account of the climate.31 All agree as to the fatal effects of the Spanish summer on the army and on the Prince himself: Walsingham is only expressing a very general belief at the time when he speaks of Edward as having been poisoned in Spain.32
3708. Henry, after Nájera, had established himself in the Castle of Roquemaine, not far from Toulouse, whence he made incursions into Aquitaine. Finally he invaded Bigorre and seized Bagnères.33
3714. This is the first mention made of Madrigal, but it is only slightly to the south of Valladolid, and close to Medina del Campo, one of the towns to which the army had resorted in search of provisions.
3716-17. The month’s delay in Soria must have been to give time for the mission of Chandos to Aragon and Navarre to negotiate for passage of the troops.
3718-19. Ayala in his account substitutes the name of Calverley for that of Chandos as negotiator.34 Froissart, who in his first edition speaks of ‘les plus especiaulx de son conseil’ being sent,35 adopts the Herald’s version in the Amiens edition: ‘Endementroes eut grans conssaux entre monsigneur Jehan Camdos et le consseil dou roy d’Arragon.’36 He adds that 217 the King promised to allow the passage on condition that everything was paid for and no violence done.
3726-7. The King of Navarre, says Froissart, offered passage for the Prince, the Duke of Lancaster and several knights; but hoped that the Companies would not pass through Navarre.
3737. Froissart says that he was accompanied by the King and La Carra as far as Roncevaux.37
3753. According to the Grandes Chroniques, which, as we have seen, are as a rule exceedingly precise in the matter of dates, the Prince’s return took place in August, 1367;38 and Luce speaks of his arrival at Bordeaux early in September.39 This would allow the month of July to have been spent in the valley of Soria, while arrangements were made, if the long period of waiting at Valladolid is renounced as impossible. The Companies were certainly arriving at Montpellier on the 15th and 16th of September.40
1 Barnes, 707.
2 Wright’s Political Songs, i. 111.
3 Froissart, vii. 19.
4 Kervyn de Lettenhove (Index), xxiii, 306.
5 Mérimée, 467.
6 Ayala, 455.
7 Beltz, 154, 221.
8 Cuvelier, 400.
9 Ayala, 455.
10 Froissart, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, vii. 203; xx. 145; Froissart, vii, p. xxxviii, note 3.
11 Cuvelier, 419.
12 Cuvelier, 424: Chronique anonyme, 49.
13 Wright’s Political Songs, 113-21.
14 Froissart, vii. 43.
15 Devon, Issue Rolls of the Exchequer, 47 Edw. III.
16 Gascon Rolls, 40 Edw. III, mm. 2 and 3.
17 Cascales, Discursos históricos, fol. 116, dorso.
18 Catalina Garcia, 354 (see note on line 3103).
19 Cascales, fol. 116, dorso.
20 Ayala, 411..
21 Froissart, vii. 45.
22 Wright’s Political Songs, i. 121.
23 Ayala, 461.
24 Ayala, 461, 171.
25 Ayala, 458, 471.
26 Mérimée, 302.
27 Ayala, 473.
28 Ayala, 479-83.
29 Rymer, iii, pt. ii, p. 133.
30 Ayala, 495.
31 Froissart, vii. 57, 58.
32 Walsingham, Ypodigma Neustria, 313.
33 Froissart, vii, p. xxii, note 1.
34 Ayala, 465.
35 Froissart, vii. 60.
36 Ibid. 300.
37 Froissart, vii. 61.
38 Grandes Chroniques, vi. 248.
39 Froissart, vii, p. xxiv, note 1.
40 Chronique du petit Thalamus de Montpellier, 1840, p. 381.