169-174. The advance of the English army is here treated too briefly to be of much use, and the order of the march has been altered to suit the exigencies of the verse. The real order should be: 12th July, landing at Saint-Vaast; a halt of five days there, during which time Barfleur was burnt (14th July); 20th July, occupation of Carentan; 22nd, crossing of the river Vire and taking of St. Lô. After this Edward marched directly towards Caen, which was taken on the 26th, Bayeux not submitting until the following day.1
175-84. For the taking of Caen the accounts are all more or less agreed,2 both as to the hard fighting by the bridge and the capture of d’Eu (Raoul de Brienne, Comte d’Eu et de Guines, Constable) and Tancarville (Jean, Sire de Tancarville, Vicomte de Melun — not Comte until 4th February, 1352,3 — Chamberlain).4
Northburgh adds that the Castle was held by the Bishop of Bayeux;5 and by the Continuator of Nangis we are told that it was only the town that was taken; ‘they did not take the Castle, because they could not.’6
The allusion made to the Black Prince — ‘la auoit luy noble Prince pris’ — is probably only part of the author’s general desire to enhance his hero’s glory, since no particular mention is made of his prowess by the other writers. In one sense he certainly had success, since Tancarville, being captured by one of his knights, was considered to be his prisoner.7 The 182 fact of the Marshal riding off to take news of the disaster to the King, though not found elsewhere, is likely enough, Bertrand having been specially sent to the relief of Caen, as we saw earlier.
195-200. John, King of Bohemia, his son Charles, King of the Romans (Emperor 5th April, 1355), and John of Hainault, lord of Beaumont. It is well known that these three came to the aid of the French, together with others, such as the Duke of Lorraine, the Count of Flanders, &c. Froissart places Philip’s message a little earlier, after the fall of Carentan, but in all probability there is no special desire here to indicate any exact chronological sequence.
209-24. This account taken alone is bald if not actually misleading. We learn nothing of the meeting with the Papal envoys at Lisieux (23rd Aug.)8; of the long march up the Seine, every bridge being broken or guarded, while the French army, some say under Philip himself, advanced simultaneously on the opposite bank of the river9 ; of the three days’ halt at Poissy (13th-15th Aug.)10 during which time the Marshals burnt the surrounding villages and consternation reigned in Paris;11 of the attempt made by the French to prevent the rebuilding of the bridge and of the skirmish which took place with a detachment from Amiens.12
Both Edward and Wynkeley, writing at the time, agree in their accounts of the events at Poissy, and of the discomfiture of the French force. The chief difficulty arises as to the movements of King Philip. Chandos seems to take for granted that he was at Paris all the time. Marshal Bertrand, he says, rode there to report the fall of Caen, and now he speaks of the King collecting his army in the capital (line 225). There is no doubt that Philip was in or near Paris at the time when Edward was crossing the Seine, all authorities agree on this point,13 and we have a letter from him challenging Edward to battle, which was dated at St. Denis on Aug. 14;14 but he may have retreated thither while the enemy was advancing which is implied by most of the French chroniclers.15 An army of some sort had certainly been facing the English on the opposite side of the river (cf. note 13, and the Continuator of Nangis, who has the reputation of being an eyewitness, distinctly speaks of Philip himself as being present.16 There is certainly some discrepancy on this point. The French allies were summoned to meet in Paris; Froissart writes as though the King sent instructions to his army in Normandy,17 and there is little evidence of his actual presence; but at the same time the authority of the Continuator is not one to be lightly put aside: and when Edward speaks in his letter of ‘notre adversaire’ having come to Rouen it rather implies the presence of his chief enemy.
240-276. The passage of the Somme took place on Aug. 24. The account given here by Chandos differs somewhat from the usual descriptions of this event, which has been narrated by most modern historians according to the graphic story told by Froissart; a story which, following in essentials that of Jean le Bel, contains some details not given by the earlier writer18 183 and differs somewhat from that of the Herald. From Froissart we learn that Edward lodged on the way at Grandvilliers, Poix, and Airaines, from which latter place he sent Harcourt and Warwick with a force of 3,000 men to search for a passage, which they failed to discover. Godemar de Fay is also named, as having been deputed by Philip for the same purpose; he was accompanied not only by a large body of countrymen, but also by an armed force of 6,000 men.19
The name of the ford, Blanche-Tache, is added,20 the place having been shown to Edward by a prisoner, Gobin Agace.21 No word is said of the Prince, nor of his 100 picked men, but the Marshals are mentioned as leading the way. An important fact left unnoticed by Chandos is the close pursuit of Philip, who was quartered at Airaines on the day that the English crossed the river.22 Both Jean le Bel and Froissart speak of the hard fighting before the English could get over, the latter, in his Amiens manuscript, adding the Godemar was wounded while defending the passage.
It is difficult to gauge the exact truth, owing to the brevity of the records left by eye-witnesses. Edward himself gives no names, but affirms that a large number of armed men and commons opposed the English army, which crossed in spite of them without losing a single man. Wynkeley gives a very similar account, but he adds a statement which it is interesting to compare with the Chandos record, namely that Northampton and Cobham with 100 armed men and some archers went first and broke the force of the resistance. These may be the picked warriors of whom Chandos speaks, but it scarcely seems probably that the Black Prince should have taken so commanding a position thus early, before having proved his merit at the Battle of Crécy. We are left in ignorance also of the manner in which the English discovered the ford; Froissart alone being responsible for the name of Gobin Agace. The words of our poem are so little explicit that they might mean anything, but at the same time it is interesting to compare them with a curious and unique statement made in the Annals of Melsa,23 namely, that the ford was betrayed by an English resident, who had lived near the place for sixteen years; if then ‘compaignoun’ may be taken to imply compatriot, we have one record which seems to prove the existence of, at least, a rumour to that effect. It is, however, more frequently used simply in the sense of a ‘fellow’ or a ‘rustic’.
285, 286. James II, King of Majorca; John, King of Bohemia; Charles, his son. For John’s share in the battle and the bravery of his son see ‘Poème Tchèque sur la bataille de Crécy’ in Journal des Savants 1902.
290. Philip, having crossed at Abbeville, advanced some way towards Noyelles, along what is still called ‘chemin de Valois’, but changed his route towards Crécy on hearing that Edward was lodged in the forest.24
297. Edward in his letter speaks of the French army as approaching quite near. Northburgh says that spies discovered the advance of the French in four great ‘battles’. Jean le Bel, who claims to have his information on the battle direct from John of Hainault and other knights who were present, states that Philip wished to halt half a league from his adversary’s army.25
310-12. The confusion in the French army is described by Jean le Bel, who says that, 184 when Philip wished to halt, the nobles in advance refused to return, while those behind tried to press forward, so that the whole force marched upon the English in the greatest confusion.26 Froissart explains that this was caused by a quarrel between the forces of the two Marshals; all were so eager to be first and to surpass the others, that they obeyed no commands, but advanced on the enemy ‘sans array et sans ordonnance.’27
This confusion was augmented by the mismanagement of the Genoese bowmen. They were sent on in so close an array that they shot one another, while the mounted nobles behind trampled them down, partly by accident, partly suspecting treachery, because their strings were wet and their bows of little use in consequence.
321. The infantry was the main strength of the English army; but there is also a special statement to this effect in Holinshed, and Villani says that the horses were put together in a place fortified by the carts and baggage.28
325. Jean le Bel, and Baker of Swynebroke, also a very good authority, since he evidently got his information from an eyewitness, place the Prince in the vanguard. There were three ‘battles’, commanded respectively by Prince Edward, the Earl of Northampton and the King.29
326. For the prowess of the Black Prince on this occasion our chief authority is Froissart,30 since Jean le Bel, who gives strictly the French version of the battle, scarcely mentions him.
333. The death of the King of Bohemia is given in all accounts.
335. Raoul, Duke of Lorraine.
337. Louis, Count of Flanders.
339. Charles, Count of Perche and Alençon.
341. John IV, Count of Harcourt; brother of Godfrey, the ally of the English.
These names are given in all the lists of those slain at Crécy; but no one mentions a name in the least resembling, ‘Joii’, presumably Joigny or Jouy. Coxe, in his notes on The Chandos Poem, suggests that Blois should be the reading for this. Louis de Châtillon, Count of Blois was slain at Crécy, and both Edward and Northburgh place the name in juxtaposition with that of Harcourt, but the difference in spelling is too great to allow us to adopt this explanation.
343. The one King was of course John of Bohemia. Edward and Wynkeley both add the King of Majorca, but Chandos is right, for James II reigned 1324-49.31
344. Seven counts certainly fell, possibly more. Besides the three mentioned correctly above, there is evidence as to the death of the Counts of Blois, Auxerre, Sancerre, Salm;32 and to these Luce adds the names of Vaudemont and Roucy.33
345. There is no certainty as to the number of bannerets, Froissart admist this.
For fuller accounts of the battle of Crécy, besides the ordinary chroncles, see Babinet, in Antiquaires de l’Ouest, 1896, who supports the statement made by Villain and the Grandes Chroniques as to the use of cannon at Crécy, Oman's Art of War on same question, Louandre, Bataille de Crécy, in Revue Anglo-Française, tome iii; Seymour de Constant and Caron, already mentioned, p. 183, note 6.
357. Philip, according to Edward’s letter, retreated to Amiens; and Jean le Bel, who ought to know, says he fled that night with John of Hainault to La Broye, and so on to Amiens.34 Here apparently he stopped to hear news of his army, and returned to Paris after that.35
185363. Edward says they stayed all night on the field without eating or drinking, and then next day pursuit was made and many were slain.36
365. Reginald Cobham was sent with a herald and other lords to search out the slain.37
367-71. According to Froissart the King of Bohemia was buried at Montenay;38 but Villani says that Edward caused the body to be given to Charles of Bohemia, and that he conveyed it to Luxemburg.39 The latter appears to be true, the heart, however, being placed in the church of the Dominicans at Montargis.40
381. This date is quite wrong. The vigil of St. Bartholomew would make it the 23rd August, the day before Edward crossed the Somme; whereas there is no doubt that the battle of Crécy was fought on Saturday, August 26th. Chandos is probably quoting from memory: there is no explanation of this wrong date in any of the Chronicles which he might have seen.
389. Another chronological error; there is absolutely no foundation for the statement that the siege lasted 18 months. The generally accepted dates for this siege are from Sept. 3, 1346, to Aug. 3, 1347; but it is a point on which much varying evidence exists. Jean le Bel speaks of the siege beginning ‘à l’issue d’aoust’,41 and Froissart in one version dates Edward’s arrival before the town as early as Aug. 31st,42 while Knighton puts it as late as Sept. 7th.43 Thompson, in the careful itinerary which he has drawn up from Baker of Swynebroke, the Kitchen Registers and Cotton MSS., gives Sept. 4th as the date of the arrival before Calais, the 2nd and 3rd being spent at Wissant;44 which is borne out by a letter from Northburgh dated from Calais, Sept. 4th, where he writes: ‘from what I have heard his purpose is to besiege the town of Calais.’45 Edward’s letter, however, is dated Sept. 3rd before Calais,46 though nothing is said in it on the subject of the siege. Probably the whole army was not assembled there before the 4th, and certainly the actual siege did not commence before that date and may possibly have been later. Brequigny, who has considered the subject with great care, inclines to Knighton’s date of the 7th as the commencement of the actual siege: in 1346 this fell on a Thursday, and he suggests this as an explanation for Froissart’s mistake of the 31st, which would also be a Thursday.47 In any case eleven months was the extreme limit, and Chandos’ statement is either a slip or has been incorrectly inscribed.
1 Northburgh’s letter in Robert of Avesbury and Froissart, i. 219, note. Wynkeley’s Letter in Murimuth, 215. Edward’s Letter, Delpit, Collection de Documents. Cf. also Jean le Bel, ii. 70 sq., Le Héraut Chandos, ed. F. Michel, 310, note. Continuation of Richard Lescot’s Chronicle (Chronique de Richard Lescot, ed. J. Lemoine, Paris, 1896. Soc. de l’Hist. de France). Itineraries of this campaign have been made by E. Maunde Thompson in the Preface to Adam Murimuth, and the notes to Baker of Swynebroke, 255, compiled from his account, the Kitchen Registers, and Cotton MSS.
2 Edward’s Letter, Northburgh’s Letter, Bartholomew de Burghersh’s Letter; Jean le Bel, ii. 71 sq.; Chronographia, 224; Grandes Chroniques de France, ed. P. Paris, Paris, 1837, v. 453; Froissart, iii. 141 sq. Froissart, copying from Jean le Bel, speaks of the cowardice of the burghers, and their flight at the approach of the English. There is nothing, however, in the record of those present to justify this statement, which may have been a mere bit of nobles’ jealousy.
3 Froissart, vol. iii, p. xxxvii, note, quoting from Arch. Nat., JJ 81, p. 85, fol. 101.
4 On imprisonment of Comte d’Eu, cf. Arch. Nat., JJ 76, fol. 122 vo., which speaks of him as still in the power of the English, Dec., 1347; JJ 77, No. 216, Aug., 1347, refers to an appeal made to King Philip by the Sire de Tancarville for help in raising his ransom.
5 Guillaume Bertrand, brother of the Marshal. Also added in Chronographia, 224; Grandes Chroniques, v. 453, and Continuation of Lescot, 72.
6 Croniques de Guillaume de Nangis et de ses continuateurs, ed. Géraud (Soc. de l’Hist. de France), ii. 197. The Grandes Chroniques also say that the English left the Citadel because they did not want to lose more men.
7 Letter of Bartholomew de Burghersh (Murimuth, 203). He says that the Constable surrendered to Sir. Thos. Holland, and Tancarville to a bachelor of the Black Prince, so that he was his prisoner. Jean le Bel, ii. 72, speaks as though both were taken by Holland.
8 Wynkeley’s Letter, Murimuth, 215; Froissart, iii. p. xxxix, note 3.
9 Froissart, Panthéon Littéraire, i. 226; Wynkeley’s Letter; Chronographia, 227; Corpus Christi MS., Moisant, Appendix.
10 Baker of Swynebroke, 255, notes.
11 Edward’s Letter, Delpit; Jean le Bel.
12 Northburgh’s Letter, Edward’s Letter, Wynkeley’s Letter, Robert of Avesbury, 136, 137; cf. Froissart, iii, p. xl, note 4.
13 Jean le Bel, iii. 76, 79; Villani, Istorie Fiorentine; Muratori, Scriptores rerum Italie, xiv. 27; Edward’s Letter, Delpit.
14 Froissart, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, iv. 496, 497.
15 Continuation of Lescot, p. 72, speaks of King Philip at Rouen just after the taking of Caen, and says that he sent to offer Edward single combat. Chronographia, 225, also says that the King was at Rouen with a great army. Cochon, Chronique Normande, ed. Beaurepaire, Rouen, 1870, p. 68.
16 Chronique de Guillaume de Nangis et de ses continuateurs, ii. 199.
17 Froissart, iii, p. xxxix, note 4. Ibid., p. 148. He speaks of troops in Rouen, but merely says that the Counts of Harcourt and of Dreux were captains there.
18 Froissart, iii. 159, 160.
19 All this follows Jean le Bel, ii. 83, and agrees with account of Northburgh, Avesbury, 369; cf. also Chronographia, 228, 9. Godemar de Fay evidently made quite a fair defence. He was still in the royal favour in 1347, being captain of frontiers of Flanders and Hainault. Arch. Nat., JJ 76, No. 378.
20 For exact position of this ford cf. Louander, Bataille de Crécy, in Revue Anglo-Française, tome iii.
21 Jean le Bel, ii. 82, only calls him a ‘varlet’.
22 Philip could not cross at the same place, as it would be impossible for two armies to make the passage before the tide was high again. The French king must have returned to Abbeville and crossed by the bridge of Talance; otherwise, Edward would have been obliged to guard the passage; cf. Seymour de Constant, Bataille de Crécy, Abbeville, 1846.
23 Chronica Monasterii de Melsa, 1154-1406, ed. Bond (Rolls Series), 3 vols., 1866-8, iii. 57.
24 Seymour de Constant, Bataille de Crécy; Caron, Itinéraire au champ de bataille de Crécy, Versailles, 1836.
25 Jean le Bel, ii. 87.
26 Jean le Bel, ii. 87, 88.
27 Froissart, iii. 174.
28 Holinshed, English Chronicle, London, 1587, fol., 372. He does not give his authority for the statement. Villani, Istorie Fiorentine, 28. Quoted also by Barnes, History of Edward III, together with that of the Black Prince, Cambridge, 1688, fol., 354.
29 Jean le Bel, ii. 90; Baker of Swynebroke, 82.
30 Froissart, iii. 174-87. (The Amiens version is more exclusively based on Jean le Bel, and not nearly so favourable to the English. Cf. p. li, note 3.)
31 L’art de vérifier les dates, i. 753.
32 Jean le Bel, Edward, Wynkeley, Northburgh, Froissart.
33 Froissart, iii, p. lxi, note 2.
34 Jean le Bel, ii. 89.
35 Froissart, iii. 193.
36 Chandos, ed. F. Michel, 311, notes.
37 Jean le Bel, ii. 94.
38 Froissart, iii. 191.
39 Quoted by Barnes, 356.
40 Froissart, iii, p. lxi, note 3.
41 Jean le Bel, iii. 139.
42 Froissart (Panthéon Littéraire), i. 244.
43 Henrici Knighton Chronicon (Rolls Series), i. 52.
44 Baker of Swynebroke, 225.
45 Avesbury, 371.
46 Chandos, ed. F. Michel, 311, notes.
47 Brequigny, Siége de Calais. Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1808.