967. Robert, Sire de Saint-Venant.1
969. Jean, Sire de Magnelais dit Tristan.2 Froissart also mentions Saint-Venant as one of the guardians of the Duke of Normandy, the other two being Landas and Vaudenay;3 but it is certain that he would have several persons of importance to assist him in the command.
1000. Philip, Duke of Orleans, son of Philip VI.
1017. All accounts agree as to King John’s position in the battle.
1019. John’s youngest son Philip was certainly with him. Froissart places the other two Princes, Louis and Jean, with the Duke of Normandy,4 and since they all three fled together it looks as though this might be correct.5
1021. Louis should be Comte d’Anjou; he was not Duke till 1360. Jean should be Comte de Poitiers; he was created ’Duc de Berri et d’Auvergne’ in 1360.
It is interesting to note that the Continuator of Nangis6 and the Chronicle of the First Four Valois7 support each other in saying that the Princes only fled quite late in the fight when King John was taken; but no other authorities seem to imply this.
1025. Jacques de Bourbon, Sire de Leuze.8
1026. Jean d’Artois, Comte d’Eu.
1027. Charles d’Artois, Comte de Longueville.
1031. Jean III, Comte de Sancerre.
1033. Charles de Trie, Comte de Dammartin.
195All these are found in the list of the King’s followers given in the Chronicle of the First Four Valois,9 and were captured together with the King an his son Philip.10
1038. This may mean the advanced guard of 300 mentioned by Froissart and Swynebroke, who say that all but the advanced guard fought on foot, and that it was Ribemont who advised this plan.11
All the three leaders now named were certainly present in the battle.
1041. Guichard d’Angle, Sire de Pleumartin; afterwards an ally of the English and Earl of Huntingdon.12
1043. Jean, Sire d’Aubigny. One of the prisoners released in 1360.13
1045. Eustace de Ribemont, who had fought with the King at Calais.
1070-91. The disposition of the English army is the same here as in the narrative of Baker, who adds that Oxford was with Warwick in the vanguard, Suffolk with Salisbury in the rear.
1077-81. Froissart mentions the Seigneur de Pommiers and Messires Hélie and Aymon de Pommiers as all present in the battle, and there seems to have been even a fourth brother, Jean.
1083. This seems to be a command to cross the river Miausson, as we read later that the advance guard was on the other side of the river and had to repass to get at the enemy (line 1212).14
1084. Babinet thinks that the indispensable carriages were with Warwick, while the right wing was fortified with the pillage waggons.15
1106. Sir Eustace d’Aubréchicourt, a knight from Hainault.16
Froissart also relates the capture of d’Aubréchicourt, but with slightly different details; he does not mention Curton, nor say that they were sent to reconnoitre, but merely that Sir Eustace was eager to engage, and was caught and kept prisoner by the Germans.17
1121-32. This is explained by reference to Baker, who says that the Prince led an army across the marshy valley on the right, and took up a position on a hill covered with vines and brambles, this movement causing the French to think that he was retreating.18
1135-56. Baker also relates the quarrel between the two marshals, and how Clermont asserted that the English were not flying; but that he was forced, nevertheless, out of rivalry with his colleague, to hurry on to the attack.19
The Chronicle of the First Four Valois alludes to the same event, but dates it earlier, and as taking place before the King.20
1163-1179. This description of the rearguard being the first to engage, though given by no French chronicler, is clearly justified by Baker’s account.21 The third division had been places on the high ground on the left rear, close to a gap in the hedge, with a road leading up to it. Clermont must have made for this gap by the road, which explains Froissart’s statement that the marshals advanced between two thick hedges.22 Salisbury’s ‘battle’, being moved forward, was therefore the first to engage.
1189-92. The effectiveness of the English archers is attested by all. From baker we learn that they had been posted all along the hedge.23
1961193-1202. The special mention of these four knights seems to be peculiar to Chandos.
1205-13. All this still agrees with Baker’s narrative, as does also the defeat of the Duke of Normandy (1235-8) and the battle between the forces of King John and the Prince (1239-48).
1260-73. The Prince’s prayer may have been reported to the Herald by Sir John Chandos, who fought by his master’s side throughout the battle.
1283-92. The request of Audeley is given rather differently by Froissart, who places it much earlier in the day. According to him, Audeley had sworn to be the first to engage in the battle, and therefore obtained the Prince’s leave to ride against the first attack of the Marshals.24
1311. John, Lord Mohun of Dunster.
1313. Very probably means Reginald, who was certainly present.
1320-1. The Captal de Buch and the Gascons did particularly good work in the battle. Baker says that the Captal was sent round to attack the French in the rear, and that this, combined with the Prince’s charge, finally settled the day.25
1323-6. Almost all the names given here are mentioned by Froissart as those of Gascons in the Prince’s army.26
1323. Bernard Ezi, Sire d’Albret; Cénébrun IV, Sire de Lesparre; and Amanieu d’Albret, Sire de Langoiran.
1325. Auger Montaut, Sire de Mussidan, and Raymond Guillaume, Sire de Caupene.
1353. King John, according to Froissart, surrendered to Denys de St. Omer, Sire de Morbecque;27 and this was confirmed by letters patent in 1357.28 In 1361 a Gascon gentleman, Bernard de Troy, asserted that it ws really he who had effected the capture.29
1361. Jean de Noyers, Comte de Joigny, had been captured on the Saturday before at La Chaboterie.
1363. The Black Prince names as prisoner a Comte de Salesberg,30 who is called Salebrugge in the French Rolls.31 The real name was Jean, Comte de Sarrebruck.32
1365. Jean III, Comte de Sancerre.
1366. Bernard, Comte de Ventadour.
This list of prisoners seems to be quite correct so far as it goes. It agrees with the list given by the Black Prince himself and with the French Rolls of 1360.33
1373. The Prince gives the number of prisoners, besides those specially named, as 1,933 men-at-arms.34 Jean le Bel says 2,000 prisoners.35 B. de Burghersh gives the highest reckoning, viz. 2,500.36
1375-87. The list of slain appears to be equally without error (though of course far from complete). They are all mentioned by the Black Prince, with the exception of Matas, and also by Burghersh, Froissart and Avesbury.
1380. In Avesbury’s list we find le Sire de Matas, and in the letter of Burghersh ’Monsieur Geffrey Matas’ with no other indications. There was a Robert Matas about this time,37 son of Fouques de Matas and Yolande de Pons;38 but Thompson, in notes to Baker of Swynebroke, suggests an interesting solution of the problem.39 In his account of the Calais plot 197 Baker speaks of ‘Geoffrey de Chargny, Lord of Matas‘.40 The editor therefore thinks it possible that Chandos is here referring to the famous Standard-Bearer, and that the fact that the two names are given in juxtaposition both by Avesbury and Burghersh renders it possible that two men have been made out of one; and instead of ‘Geoffrey de Chargny, le Sire de Matas’ we should read ‘Geoffrey de Chargny, sire de Matas.’ No one but Baker seems to connect Charny in any way with the name Matas, but certainly he would be rather a serious person to omit even in so short a list, whereas Robert de Matas must have been fairly unimportant.
1380. Jean de Mortagne, Sire de Landas.
1381. Renaud de Pons, Sire de Blaye et de Ribérac.
1387. The Black Prince puts it at 2,425 men-at-arms besides the nineteen knights he has mentioned by name; Burghersh says 2,800, of whom 2,000 were men-at-arms.
1 Rymer, iii, pt. ii, 4, 26, 39, 77. Hostage for King John, 1360; cf. Cosneau, Traités de la Guerre de Cent Ans, Paris, 1889.
2 Anselme, viii. 540.
3 Froissart, v. 23.
4 Froissart, v. 20.
5 Froissart, v. 41.
6 Guillaume de Nangis, ii. 240.
7 Chronique des quatre premiers Valois, 51.
8 Archives Historiques du Poitou, xiii, 340, note.
9 Chronique des quatre premiers Valois, 45.
10 Froissart, v, p. xiii, note 3.
11 Froissart, v. 22.
12 Froissart, v. 44.
13 Bibl. Nat. Fonds Fr. 23593.
14 On this see also Luce, Bertrand du Guesclin, i. 173, and Froissart. v, p. x note.
15 Antiquaires de l’Ouest, 1895.
16 Beltz, Memorials of the Garter, 90.
17 Froissart, v. 34, 35.
18 Baker of Swynebroke, 147.
19 Ibid.
20 Chronique des quatre premiers Valois, 51.
21 On this see Luce, B. du Guesclin, i. 175.
22 Frossart, v. 36.
23 Baker of Swynebroke, 147, 306.
24 Froissart, v. 33.
25 Baker of Swynebroke, 151. On this see also Babinet.
26 Froissart, v. 32.
27 Froissart, v. 54.
28 Cotton MSS, Caligula D iii, fol. 74.
29 Froissart, v, p. xvii, note 3; Rymer (1836 ed.)
30 Letter of Black Prince, Oct. 20. Archaeologia, i.
31 Carte’s Catalogue, Rolls of Treaty of Peace, 1360.
32 For spelling of some of these names see Champollion-Figeac, Lettres des Rois, ii. 128.
33 For complete list see Froissart, v, p. xiii, note 3.
34 Archaeologia, i.
35 Jean le Bel, ii. 199.
36 Chandos, ed. f. Michel, 336.
37 Arch. Nat., JJ 84, No. 16. Possessions confirmed to him, March, 1355.
38 Archives du Poitou, xvii, No. 38.
39 Baker of Swynebroke, 276.
40 Baker of Swynebroke, 103.