France in 1154 At the Accession of Henry II. (Anjou)
Showing how he Acquired his fiefs in France.
Acquired By Henry From Matilda.
Acquired By Henry From His Father Goeffrey Of Anjou.
Acquired By Henry From His Wife Eleanor Of Aquitaine
French Crown Lands
Other Vassal Lands.
------------------
France in 1180
At The Accession Of Philip Augustus
Showing The Lands Acquired By The Crown During His Reign.
Crown Lands At Accession Of Philip
Acquired During His Reign Form Angevins
Acquired During His Reign From Other Vassals
Angevin Lands (1223)
Other Vassal Lands
------------------
France at the death of Philip IV (The Fair) 1314
------------------
France at the Peace of Bretigny
-------End: Maps of France----------------
{1169}
"From the moment of Charles IV.'s death [A. D. 1328], Edward
III. of England buoyed himself up with a notion of his title
to the crown of France, in right of his mother Isabel, sister
to the three last kings. We can have no hesitation in
condemning the injustice of this pretension. Whether the Salic
law were or were not valid, no advantage could be gained by
Edward. Even if he could forget the express or tacit decision
of all France, there stood in his way Jane, the daughter of
Louis X., three [daughters] of Philip the Long, and one of
Charles the Fair. Aware of this, Edward set up a distinction,
that, although females were excluded from succession, the same
rule did not apply to their male issue; and thus, though his
mother Isabel could not herself become queen of France, she
might transmit a title to him. But this was contrary to the
commonest rules of inheritance; and if it could have been
regarded at all, Jane had a son, afterwards the famous king of
Navarre [Charles the Bad], who stood one degree nearer to the
crown than Edward. It is asserted in some French authorities
that Edward preferred a claim to the regency immediately after
the decease of Charles the Fair, and that the States-General,
or at least the peers of France, adjudged that dignity to
Philip de Valois. Whether this be true or not, it is clear
that he entertained projects of recovering his right as early,
though his youth and the embarrassed circumstances of his
government threw insuperable obstacles in the way of their
execution. He did liege homage, therefore, to Philip for
Guienne, and for several years, while the affairs of Scotland
engrossed his attention, gave no signs of meditating a more
magnificent enterprise. As he advanced in manhood, and felt
the consciousness of his strength, his early designs grew
mature, and produced a series of the most important and
interesting revolutions in the fortunes of France."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part l.
See, also, SALIC LAW: APPLICATION TO THE
REGAL SUCCESSION IN FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.
The beginning of the "Hundred Years War."
It was not until 1337 that Edward III. felt prepared to assert
formally his claim to the French crown and to assume the title
of King of France. In July of the following year he began
undertakings to enforce his pretended right, by crossing with
a considerable force to the continent. He wintered at Antwerp,
concerting measures with the Flemings, who had espoused his
cause, and arranging an alliance with the emperor-king of
Germany, whose name bore more weight than his arms. In 1339 a
formal declaration of hostilities was made and the long
war--the Hundred Years War, as it has been called--of English
kings for the sovereignty of France, began. "This great war
may well be divided into five periods. The first ends with the
Peace of Bretigny in 1360 (A. D. 1337-1360), and includes the
great days of Crécy [1346] and Poitiers [1356], as well as the
taking of Calais: the second runs to the death of Charles the
Wise in 1380; these are the days of Du Guesclin and the
English reverses: the third begins with the renewal of the war
under Henry V. of England, and ends with the Regency of the
Duke of Bedford at Paris, including the field of Azincourt
[1415] and the Treaty of Troyes (A. D. 1415-1422): the fourth
is the epoch of Jeanne Darc and ends with the second
establishment of the English at Paris (A. D. 1428-1431): and
the fifth and last runs on to the final expulsion of the
English after the Battle of Castillon in 1453. Thus, though it
is not uncommonly called the Hundred Years War, the struggle
really extended over a period of a hundred and sixteen years."
G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
book 4, chapters 1-7.
"No war had broken out in Europe, since the fall of the Roman
Empire, so memorable as that of Edward III. and his successors
against France, whether we consider its duration, its object,
or the magnitude and variety of its events. It was a struggle
of one hundred and twenty years, interrupted but once by a
regular pacification, where the most ancient and extensive
dominion in the civilised world was the prize, twice lost and
twice recovered in the conflict. ... There is, indeed, ample
room for national exultation at the names of Crecy, Poitiers
and Azincourt. So great was the disparity of numbers upon
those famous days, that we cannot, with the French historians,
attribute the discomfiture of their hosts merely to mistaken
tactics and too impetuous valour. ... These victories, and the
qualities that secured them, must chiefly be ascribed to the
freedom of our constitution, and to the superior condition of
the people. Not the nobility of England, not the feudal
tenants, won the battles of Crecy and Poitiers; for these were
fully matched in the ranks of France; but the yeomen who drew
the bow with strong and steady arms, accustomed to use it in
their native fields, and rendered fearless by personal
competence and civil freedom. ... Yet the glorious termination
to which Edward was enabled, at least for a time, to bring the
contest, was rather the work of fortune than of valour and
prudence. Until the battle of Poitiers [A. D. 1356] he had
made no progress towards the conquest of France. That country
was too vast, and his army too small, for such a revolution.
The victory of Crecy gave him nothing but Calais. ... But at
Poitiers he obtained the greatest of prizes, by taking
prisoner the king of France. Not only the love of freedom
tempted that prince to ransom himself by the utmost
sacrifices, but his captivity left France defenceless and
seemed to annihilate the monarchy itself. ... There is no
affliction which did not fall upon France during this
miserable period. ... Subdued by these misfortunes, though
Edward had made but slight progress towards the conquest of
the country, the regent of France, afterwards Charles V.,
submitted to the peace of Bretigni [A. D. 1360]. By this
treaty, not to mention less important articles, all Guienne,
Gascony, Poitou, Saintonge, the Limousin, and the Angoumois,
as well as Calais, and the county of Ponthieu, were ceded in
full sovereignty to Edward; a price abundantly compensating
his renunciation of the title of France, which was the sole
concession stipulated in return."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 2.
ALSO IN:
J. Froissart,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
book 1, chapters 1-212.
W. Longman, History of Edward III.,
volume 1, chapters 6-22.
F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France,
chapter 20.
D. F. Jamison,
Life and Times of Bertrand du Guesclin,
volume 1, chapters 4-10.
See, also, POITIERS, BATTLE OF.
{1170}
FRANCE: A. D. 1347-1348.
The Black Plague.
"Epochs of moral depression are those, too, of great motality.
... In the last years of Philippe de Valois' reign, the
depopulation was rapid. The misery and physical suffering
which prevailed were insufficient to account for it; for they
had not reached the extreme at which they subsequently
arrived. Yet, to adduce but one instance, the population of a
single town, Narbonne, fell off in the space of four or five
years from the year 1399, by 500 families. Upon this too tardy
diminution of the human race followed extermination,--the great
black plague, or pestilence, which at once heaped up mountains
of dead throughout Christendom. It began in Provence, in the
year 1347, on All Saints' Day, continued sixteen months, and
carried off two-thirds of the inhabitants. The same wholesale
destruction befell Languedoc. At Montpellier, out of twelve
consuls, ten died. At Narbonne, 30,000 persons perished. In
several places, there remained only a tithe of the
inhabitants. All that the careless Froissart says of this
fearful visitation, and that only incidentally, is--'For at
this time there prevailed throughout the world generally a
disease called epidemy, which destroyed a third of its
inhabitants.' This pestilence did not break out in the north
of the kingdom until August, 1348, where it first showed
itself at Paris and St. Denys. So fearful were its ravages at
Paris, that, according to some, 800, according to others, 500,
daily sank under it. ... As there was neither famine at the time
nor want of food, but, on the contrary great abundance, this
plague was said to proceed from infection of the air and of
the springs. The Jews were again charged with this, and the
people cruelly fell upon them."
J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 6, chapter 1.
See BLACK DEATH.
FRANCE: A. D. 1350.
Accession of King John II.
FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.
The States-General and Etienne Marcel.
"The disaster of Poitiers [1356] excited in the minds of the
people a sentiment of national grief, mixed with indignation
and scorn at the nobility who had fled before an army so
inferior in number. Those nobles who passed through the cities
and towns on their return from the battle were pursued with
imprecations and outrages. The Parisian bourgeoisie, animated
with enthusiasm and courage, took upon itself at all risks the
charge of its own defense; whilst, the eldest son of the king,
a youth of only nineteen, who had been one of the first to
fly, assumed the government as lieutenant of his father. It
was at the summons of this prince that the states assembled
again at Paris before the time which they had appointed. The
same deputies returned to the number of 800, of whom 400 were
of the bourgeoisie; and the work of reform, rudely sketched in
the preceding session, was resumed under the same influence,
with an enthusiasm which partook of the character of
revolutionary impulse. The assembly commenced by concentrating
its action in a committee of twenty-four members,
deliberating, as far as appears, without distinction of
orders; it then intimated its resolutions under the form of
petitions, which were as follow: The authority of the states
declared supreme in all affairs of administration and finance,
the impeachment of all the counsellors of the king, the
dismissal in a body of the officers of justice, and the
creation of a council of reformers taken from the three
orders; lastly, the prohibition to conclude any truce without
the assent of the three states, and the right on their part to
re-assemble at their own will without a royal summons. The
lieutenant of the king, Charles Duke of Normandy, exerted in
vain the resources of a precocious ability to escape these
imperious demands: he was compelled to yield everything. The
States governed in his name; but dissension, springing from
the mutual jealousy of the different orders, was soon
introduced into their body. The preponderating influence of
the bourgeois appeared intolerable to the nobles, who, in
consequence, deserted the assembly and retired home. The
deputies of the clergy remained longer at their posts, but
they also withdrew at last; and, under the name of the
States-General, none remained but the representatives of the
cities, alone charged with all the responsibilities of the
reform and the affairs of the kingdom. Bowing to a necessity
of central action, they submitted of their own accord to the
deputation of Paris; and soon, by the tendency of
circumstances, and in consequence of the hostile attitude of
the Regent, the question of supremacy of the states became a
Parisian question, subject to the chances of a popular émeute
and the guardianship of the municipal power. At this point
appears a man whose character has grown into historical
importance in our days from our greater facilities of
understanding it, Etienne [Stephen] Marcel, 'prévôt des
marchands'--that is to say, mayor of the municipality of
Paris. This échevin of the 14th century, by a remarkable
anticipation, designed and attempted things which seem to
belong only to recent revolutions. Social unity, and
administrative uniformity; political rights, co-extensive and
equal with civil rights; the principle of public authority
transferred from the crown to the nation; the States-General
changed, under the influence of the third order, into a
national representation; the will of the people admitted as
sovereign in the presence of the depositary of the royal
power; the influence of Paris over the provinces, as the head
of opinion and centre of the general movement; the democratic
dictatorship, and the influence of terror exercised in the
name of the common weal; new colours assumed and carried as a
sign of patriotic union and symbol of reform; the transference
of royalty itself from one branch of the family to the other,
with a view to the cause of reform and the interest of the
people--such were the circumstances and the scenes which have
given to our own as well as the preceding century their
political character. It is strange to find the whole of it
comprised in the three years over which the name of the Prévôt
Marcel predominates. His short and stormy career was, as it
were, a premature attempt at the grand designs of Providence,
and the mirror of the bloody changes of fortune through which
those designs were destined to advance to their accomplishment
under the impulse of human passions. Marcel lived and died for
an idea--that of hastening on, by the force of the masses, the
work of gradual equalisation commenced by the kings
themselves; but it was his misfortune and his crime to be
unrelenting in carrying out his convictions. To the
impetuosity of a tribune who did not shrink even from murder
he added the talent of organization; he left in the grand
city, which he had ruled with a stern and absolute sway,
powerful institutions, noble works, and a name which two
centuries afterwards his descendants bore with pride as a
title of nobility."
A. Thierry,
Formation and Progress of the Tiers Etat,
volume 1, chapter 2.
See, also,
STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE IN THE 14th CENTURY.
{1171}
FRANCE: A. D. 1358.
The insurrection of the Jacquerie.
"The miseries of France weighed more and more heavily on the
peasantry; and none regarded them. They stood apart from the
cities, knowing little of them; the nobles despised them and
robbed them of their substance or their labour. ... At last
the peasantry (May, 1358), weary of their woes, rose up to
work their own revenge and ruin. They began in the Beauvais
country and there fell on the nobles, attacking and destroying
castles, and slaying their inmates: it was the old unvarying
story. They made themselves a kind of king, a man of Clermont
in the Beauvoisin, named William Callet. Froissart imagines
that the name 'Jacques Bonhomme' meant a particular person, a
leader in these risings. Froissart however had no accurate
knowledge of the peasant and his ways. Jacques Bonhomme was
the common nickname, the 'Giles' or 'Hodge' of France, the
name of the peasant generally; and from it such risings as
this of 1358 came to be called the 'Jacquerie,' or the
disturbances of the 'Jacques.' The nobles were soon out
against them, and the whole land was full of anarchy. Princes
and nobles, angry peasants with their 'iron shod sticks and
knives,' free-lances, English bands of pillagers, all made up
a scene of utter confusion: 'cultivation ceased, commerce
ceased, security was at an end.' The burghers of Paris and
Meaux sent a force to help the peasants, who were besieging
the fortress at Meaux, held by the nobles; these were suddenly
attacked and routed by the Captal de Buch and the Count de Foix,
'then on their return from Prussia.' The King of Navarre also
fell on them, took by stratagem their leader Callet, tortured
and hanged him. In six weeks the fire was quenched in blood."
G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
chapter 2, section 3.
"Froissard relates the horrible details of the Jacquerie with
the same placid interest which characterises his descriptions
of battles, tournaments, and the pageantry of chivalry. The
charm and brilliancy of his narrative have long popularised
his injustice and his errors, which are self-apparent when
compared with the authors and chroniclers of his time. ... The
chronicles contemporary of the Jacquerie confine themselves to
a few words on the subject, although, with the exception of
the Continuator of Nangis, they were all hostile to the cause
of the peasants. The private and local documents on the
subject say very little more. The Continuator of Nangis has
drawn his information from various sources. He takes care to
state that he has witnessed almost all he relates. After
describing the sufferings of the peasants, he adds that the
laws of justice authorised them to rise in revolt against the
nobles of France. His respected testimony reduces the
insurrection to comparatively small proportions. The hundred
thousand Jacques of Froissard are reduced to something like
five or six thousand men, a number much more probable when it
is considered that the insurrection remained a purely local
one, and that, in consequence of the ravages we have
mentioned, the whole open country had lost about two-thirds of
its inhabitants. He states very clearly that the peasants
killed indiscriminately, and without pity, men and children,
but he does not say anything of those details of atrocity
related by Froissard. He only alludes once to a report of some
outrages offered to some noble ladies; he speaks of it as a
vague rumour. He describes the insurgents, after the first
explosion of their vindictive fury, as pausing--amazed at
their own boldness, and terrified at their own crimes, and the
nobles, recovering from their terror, taking immediate
advantage of this sudden torpor and paralysis--assembling and
slaughtering all, innocent and guilty, burning houses and
villages. If we turn to other writers contemporary with the
Jacquerie, we find that Louvet, author of the 'History of the
District of Beauvais,' does not say much on the subject, and
evinces also a sympathy for the peasants: the paucity of his
remarks on a subject represented by Froissard as a gigantic,
bloody tragedy, raises legitimate doubts as to the veracity of
the latter. There is another authority on the events of that
period, which may be considered as more weighty, in
consequence of its ecclesiastical character; it is the
'cartulaire,' or journal of the Abbot of Beauvais. ... There
is no trace in it of the horror and indescribable terror ...
[the rising] must have inspired if the peasants had committed
the atrocities attributed to them by the feudal historian,
Froissard. On the contrary, the vengeance of the peasants
falls into the shade, as it were, in contrast with the
merciless reaction of the nobles, along with the sanguinary
oppression of the English. The writer of the 'Abbey of
Beauvais,' and the anonymous monk, 'Continuator of Nangis,'
concur with each other in their account of the Jacquerie.
Their judgments are similar, and they manifest the same
moderation. Their opinions, moreover, are confirmed by a
higher authority, a testimony that must be considered as
indisputable, namely, the letters of amnesty of the Regent of
France, which are all preserved; they bear the date of 10th
August 1358, and refer to all the acts committed on the
occasion of the Jacquerie. In these he proves himself more
severe upon the reaction of the nobles than on the revolt of
the peasants. ... There is not the slightest allusion to the
monstrosities related by Froissard, which the Regent could not
have failed to stigmatise, as he is well known for having
entertained an unscrupulous hatred to any popular movement, or
any claims of the people. The manner, on the contrary, in
which the Jacquerie are represented in this official document,
is full of signification; it represents the men of the open
country assembling spontaneously in various localities, in
order to deliberate on the means of resisting the English, and
suddenly, as with a mutual agreement, turning fiercely on the
nobles, who were the real cause of their misery, and of the
disgrace of France, on the days of Crecy and Poitiers. ... It
has also been forgotten that many citizens took an active part
in the Jacquerie. The great chronicles of France state that
the majority were peasants, labouring people, but that there
were also among them citizens, and even gentlemen, who, no
doubt, were impelled by personal hatred and vengeance. Many
rich men joined the peasants, and became their leaders. The
bourgeoisie, in its struggles with royalty, could not refuse
to take advantage of such a diversion; and Beauvais, Senlis,
Amiens, Paris, and Meaux accepted the Jacquerie. Moreover,
almost all the poorer classes of the cities sympathised with
the revolted peasants.
{1172}
The Jacquerie broke out on the 21st of May 1358, and not in
November 1357, as erroneously stated by Froissard, in the
districts around Beauvais and Clermont-sur-Oise. The peasants,
merely armed with pikes, sticks, fragments of their ploughs,
rushed on their masters, murdered their families, and burned
down their castles. The country comprised between Beauvais and
Melun was the principal scene of this war of extermination.
... The Jacquerie had commenced on the 21st of May. On the 9th
of June ... it was already terminated. It was, therefore, in
reality, an insurrection of less than three weeks' duration.
The reprisals of the nobles had already commenced on the 9th
of June, and continued through the whole of July, and the
greater part of August. Froissard states that the Jacquerie
lasted over six weeks, thus comprising in his reckoning three
weeks of the ferocious vengeance of the nobles, and casting on
Jacques Bonhomme the responsibility of the massacres of which
he had been the victim, as well as those he had committed in
his furious despair."
Prof. De Vericour,
The Jacquerie
(Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 1).
ALSO IN:
Sir J. Froissart,
Chronicles
(Johnes' translation),
book 1, chapter 181.
FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.
English conquests recovered.
The Peace of Bretigny brought little peace to France or little
diminution of the troubles of the kingdom. In some respects
there was a change for the worse introduced. The armies which
had ravaged the country dissolved into plundering bands which
afflicted it even more. Great numbers of mercenaries from both
sides were set free, who gathered into Free Companies, as they
were called, under leaders of fit recklessness and valor, and
swarmed over the land, warring on all prosperity and all the
peaceful industries of the time, seeking booty wherever it
might be found.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
Civil war, too, was kept alive by the intrigues and
conspiracies of the Navarrese king, Charles the Bad; and war
in Brittany, over a disputed succession to the dukedom, was
actually stipulated for, by French and English, in their
treaty of general peace. But when the chivalric but hapless
King John died, in 1364, the new king, Charles V., who had
been regent during his captivity, developed an unexpected
capacity for government. He brought to the front the famous
Breton warrior Du Guesclin-rough, ignorant, unchivalric--but a
fighter of the first order in his hard-fighting day. He
contrived with adroitness to rid France, mostly, of the Free
Companies, by sending them, with Du Guesclin at their head,
into Spain, where they drove Peter the Cruel from the throne
of Castile, and fought the English, who undertook, wickedly
and foolishly, to sustain him. The Black Prince won a great
battle, at Najara or Navarette (A. D. 1367), took Du Guesclin
prisoner and restored the cruel Pedro to his throne. But it
was a victory fatal to English interests in France. Half the
army of the English prince perished of a pestilent fever
before he led it back to Aquitaine, and he himself was marked
for early death by the same malady. He had been made duke of
Aquitaine, or Guienne, and held the government of the country.
The war in Spain proved expensive; he taxed his Gascon and
Aquitanian subjects heavily. He was ill, irritable, and
treated them harshly. Discontent became widely spread, and the
king of France subtly stirred it up until he felt prepared to
make use of it in actual war. At last, in 1368, he challenged
a rupture of the Peace of Bretigny by summoning King Edward,
as his vassal, to answer complaints from Aquitaine. In April
of the next year he formally declared war and opened
hostilities the same day. His cunning policy was not to fight,
but to waste and wear the enemy out. Its wisdom was well-proved
by the result. Day by day the English lost ground; the footing
they had gained in France was found to be everywhere insecure.
The dying Black Prince achieved one hideous triumph at
Limoges, where he fouled his brilliant fame by a monstrous
massacre; and thence he was carried home to end his days in
England. In 1376 he died, and one year later his father, King
Edward, followed him to the grave, and a child of eleven
(Richard II.) came to the English throne. But the same
calamity befell France in 1380, when Charles the Wise died,
leaving an heir to the throne only twelve years of age. In
both kingdoms the minority of the sovereign gave rise to
factious intrigues and distracting feuds. The war went on at
intervals, with frequent truces and armistices, and with
little result beyond the animosities which it kept alive. But
the English possessions, by this time, had been reduced to
Calais and Guines, with some small parts of Aquitaine
adjoining the cities of Bordeaux and Bayonne. And thus, it may
be said, the situation was prolonged through a generation,
until Henry V. of England resumed afresh the undertaking of
Edward III.
F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 22.
ALSO IN:
J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 6, chapter 4.
T. Wright,
History of France,
book 2, chapter 6.
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 9.
D. F. Jamison,
Life and Times of Du Guesclin.
Froissart, Chronicles
(Johnes' translation),
book 1.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369.
FRANCE: A. D. 1364.
Accession of King Charles V.
FRANCE: A. D. 1378.
Acquisitions in the Rhone valley legal conferred by the
Emperor.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.
FRANCE: A. D. 1380.
Accession of King Charles VI.
FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.
The reign of the Dukes.
The civil war of Armagnacs and Burgundians.
"Charles VI. had arrived at the age of eleven years and some
months when his father died [A. D. 1380]. His three paternal
uncles, the Dukes of Anjou, Berry, and Burgundy, and his
maternal uncle, the Duke of Bourbon, disputed among themselves
concerning his guardianship and the regency. They agreed to
emancipate the young King immediately after his coronation,
which was to take place during the year, and the regency was
to remain until that period in the hands of the eldest, the
Duke of Anjou." But the Duke of Anjou was soon afterwards
lured into Italy by the fatal gift of a claim to the crown of
Naples [see ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.], and perished in striving
to realize it. The surviving uncles misgoverned the country
between them until 1389, when the young king was persuaded to
throw off their yoke. The nation rejoiced for three years in
the experience and the prospect of administrative reforms; but
suddenly, in July, 1392, the young king became demented, and
"then commenced the third and fatal epoch of that disastrous
reign. The faction of the dukes again seized power," but only
to waste and afflict the kingdom by dissensions among
themselves.
{1173}
The number of the rival dukes was now increased by the
addition of the Duke of Orleans, brother of the king, who
showed himself as ruthless and rapacious as any. "Charles was
still considered to be reigning; each one sought in turn to
get possession of him, and each one watched his lucid moments
in order to stand well in power. His flashes of reason were
still more melancholy than his fits of delirium. Incapable of
attending to his affairs, or of having a will of his own,
always subservient to the dominant party, he appeared to
employ his few glimmerings of reason only in sanctioning the
most tyrannical acts and the most odious abuses. It was in
this manner that the kingdom of France was governed during
twenty-eight years." In 1404, the Duke of Burgundy, Philip
the Bold, having died, the Duke of Orleans acquired supreme
authority and exercised it most oppressively. But the new Duke
of Burgundy, John the Fearless, made his appearance on the
scene ere long, arriving from his county of Flanders with an
army and threatening civil war. Terms of peace, however, were
arranged between the two dukes and an apparent reconciliation
took place. On the very next day the Duke of Orleans was
assassinated (A. D. 1407), and the Duke of Burgundy openly
proclaimed his instigation of the deed. Out of that
treacherous murder sprang a war of factions so deadly that
France was delivered by it to foreign conquest, and destroyed,
we may say, for the time being, as a nation. The elder of the
young princes of Orleans, sons of the murdered duke, had
married a daughter of Count Bernard of Armagnac, and Count
Bernard became the leader of the party which supported them
and sought to avenge them, as against the Duke of Burgundy and
his party. Hence the former acquired the name of Armagnacs;
the latter were called Burgundians. Armagnac led an army of
Gascons [A. D. 1410] and threatened Paris, "where John the
Fearless caressed the vilest populace. Burgundy relied on the
name of the king, whom he held in his power, and armed in the
capital a corps of one hundred young butchers or
horse-knackers, who, from John Caboche, their chief, took the
name of Cabochiens. A frightful war, interrupted by truces
violated on both sides, commenced between the party of
Armagnac and that of Burgundy. Both sides appealed to the
English, and sold France to them. The Armagnacs pillaged and
ravaged the environs of Paris with unheard of cruelties, while
the Cabochiens caused the capital they defended to tremble.
The States-General, convoked for the first time for thirty
years, were dumb--without courage and without strength. The
Parliament was silent, the university made itself the organ of
the populace, and the butchers made the laws. They pillaged,
imprisoned and slaughtered with impunity, according to their
savage fury, and found judges to condemn their victims. ...
The reaction broke out at last. Tired of so many atrocities,
the bourgeoisie took up arms, and shook off the yoke of the
horse-knackers. The Dauphin was delivered by them. He mounted
on horseback, and, at the head of the militia, went to the
Hôtel de Ville, from which place he drove out Caboche and his
brigands. The counter revolution was established. Burgundy
departed, and the power passed to the Armagnacs. The princes
re-entered Paris, and King Charles took up the oriflamme (the
royal standard of France), to make war against John the
Fearless, whose instrument he had been a short time before.
His army was victorious. Burgundy submitted, and the treaty of
Arras [A. D. 1415] suspended the war, but not the executions and
the ravages. Henry V., King of England, judged this a
propitious moment to descend upon France, which had not a
vessel to oppose the invaders."
E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 1, pages 266-279.
ALSO IN:
E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
volume 1, book 1, chapters 1-140.
T. Wright,
History of France,
book 2, chapters 8-9.
FRANCE: A. D. 1383.
Pope Urban's Crusade against the Schismatics.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.
FRANCE: A. D. 1396.
The sovereignty of Genoa surrendered to the king.
See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.
FRANCE: A. D. 1415.
The Hundred Years War renewed by Henry V. of England.
"When Henry V. resolved to recover what he claimed as the
inheritance of his predecessors, he had to begin, it may be
said, the work of conquest over again. Allies, however, he
had, whose assistance he was to find very useful. The dynasty
of De Montfort had been established in possession of the
dukedom of Britanny in a great measure by English help, and
though the relations between the two countries had not been
invariably friendly since that time, the sense of this
obligation, and, still more powerfully, a jealous fear of the
French king, inclined Britanny to the English alliance. The
Dukes of Burgundy, though they had no such motives of
gratitude towards England, felt a far stronger hostility
towards France. The feud between the rival factions which went
by the names of Burgundians and Armagnacs had now been raging
for several years; and though the attitude of the Burgundians
varied--at the great struggle of Agincourt they were allies,
though lukewarm and even doubtful allies, of the French--they
ultimately ranked themselves decidedly on Henry's side. In
1414, then, Henry formally demanded, as the heir of Isabella,
mother of his great-grandfather Edward, the crown of France.
This claim the French princes wholly refused to consider.
Henry then moderated his demands so far, at least, as to allow
Charles to remain in nominal possession of his kingdom; but
... France was to cede to England, no longer as a feudal
superior making a grant to a vassal, but in full sovereignty,
the provinces of Normandy, Maine, and Anjou, together with all
that was comprised in the ancient duchy of Aquitaine. Half,
too, of Provence was claimed, and the arrears of the ransom of
King John, amounting to 1,200,000 crowns, were also to be
paid. Finally, the French king was to give his youngest
daughter, Katharine, in marriage to Henry, with a portion of
2,000,000 crowns. The French ministers offered, in answer, to
yield the duchy of Aquitaine, comprising the provinces of
Anjou, Gascony, Guienne, Poitou, and to give the hand of the
princess Katharine with a dowry of 600,000 crowns.
"Negotiations went on through several months, with small
chance of success, while Henry prepared for war. His
preparations were completed in the summer of 1415, and on the
11th of August in that year he set sail from Southampton, with
an army of 6,000 men-at-arms and 24,000 archers, very
completely equipped, and accompanied with cannon and other
engines of war.
{1174}
Landing in the estuary of the Seine, the invaders first
captured the important Norman seaport of Harfleur, after a
siege of a month, and expelled the inhabitants from the town.
It was an important acquisition; but it had cost the English
heavily. They were ill-supplied with food; they had suffered
from much rain; 2,000 had died of an epidemic of dysentery.
The army was in no condition for a forward movement. "The
safest course would now have been to return at once; and this
seems to have been pressed upon the king by the majority of
his counsellors. But this prudent advice did not approve
itself to Henry's adventurous temper. ... He determined ... to
make what may be called a military parade to Calais. This
involved a march of not less than 150 miles through a hostile
country, a dangerous, and, but that one who cherishes such
designs as Henry's must make a reputation for daring, a
useless operation; but the king's determined will overcame all
opposition." Leaving a strong garrison at Harfleur, Henry set
out upon his march. Arrived at the Somme, his further progress
was disputed, and he was forced to make a long detour before
he could effect a crossing of the river. On the 24th of
October, he encountered the French army, strongly posted at
the village of Azincour or Agincourt, barring the road to
Calais; and there, on the morning of the 25th, after a night
of drenching rain, the great battle, which shines with so
dazzling a glory in English history, was fought. There seems
to be no doubt that the English were greatly outnumbered by
the French--according to Monstrelet they were but one to six;
but the masses on the French side were unskilfully handled and
no advantage was got from them. The deadly shafts of the
terrible English archers built such a rampart of corpses in
their front that it actually sheltered them from the charge of
the French cavalry. "Everywhere the French were routed, slain,
or taken. The victory of the English was complete. ... The
French loss was enormous. Monstrelet gives a long list of the
chief princes and nobles who fell on that fatal field. ... We
are disposed to trust his estimate, which, including princes,
knights and men-at-arms of every degree, he puts at 10,000.
... Only 1,600 are said to have been 'of low degree.' ... The
number of knights and gentlemen taken prisoners was 1,500.
Among them were Charles, Duke of Orleans, and the Duke of
Bourbon, both princes of the blood-royal. ... Brilliant as was
the victory which Henry had won at Agincourt, it had, it may
be said, no immediate results. ... The army resumed its
interrupted march to Calais, which was about forty miles
distant. At Calais a council of war was held, and the
resolution to return to England unanimously taken. A few days
were allowed for refreshment, and about the middle of November
the army embarked."
A. J. Church,
Henry the Fifth,
chapters 6-10.
ALSO IN:
E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
volume 1, book 1, chapters 140-149.
J. E. Tyler,
Henry of Monmouth,
chapters 19-23.
G M. Towle,
History of Henry V.,
chapters 7-8.
Lord Brougham,
History of England and France
under the House of Lancaster.
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History:
second series, chapters 24-26.
FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.
Massacre of Armagnacs.
The murder of the Duke of Burgundy.
"The captivity of so many princes of the blood as had been
taken prisoner at Agincourt might have seemed likely at least
to remove some of the elements of discord; but it so happened
that the captives were the most moderate and least ambitious
men. The gentle, poetical Duke of Orleans, the good Duke of
Bourbon, and the patriotic and gallant Arthur de Richemont,
had been taken, while the savage Duke of Burgundy and the
violent Gascon Count of Armagnac, Constable of France,
remained at the head of their hostile factions. ... The Count
d'Armagnac now reigned supreme; no prince of the blood came to
the councils, and the king and dauphin were absolutely in his
hands. ... The Duke of Burgundy was, however, advancing with
his forces, and the Parisians were always far more inclined to
him than to the other party. ... For a whole day's ride round
the environs of the city, every farmhouse had been sacked or
burnt. Indeed, it was said in Paris a man had only to be
called a Burgundian, or anywhere else in the Isle of France an
Armagnac, to be instantly put to death. All the soldiers who
had been posted to guard Normandy and Picardy against the
English were recalled to defend Paris against the Duke of
Burgundy; and Henry V. could have found no more favourable
moment for a second expedition." The English king took
advantage of his opportunity and landed in Normandy August 1,
1417, finding nobody to oppose him in the field. The factions
were employed too busily in cutting each other's throats,--
especially after the Burgundians had regained possession of
Paris, which they did in the following spring. Thereupon the
Parisian mob rose and ferociously massacred all the partisans
of Armagnac, while the Burgundians looked and approved. "The
prison was forced; Armagnac himself was dragged out and slain
in the court. ... The court of each prison became a
slaughter-house; the prisoners were called down one by one,
and there murdered, till the assassins were up to their ankles
in blood. The women were as savage as the men, and dragged the
corpses about the streets in derision. The prison slaughter
had but given a passion for further carnage; and the murderers
broke open the houses in search of Armagnacs, killing not only
men, but women, children, and even new-born babes, to whom in
their diabolical frenzy they refused baptism, as being little
Armagnacs. The massacre lasted from four o'clock on Sunday
morning to ten o'clock on Monday. Some say that 3,000
perished, others 1,600, and the Duke of Burgundy's servants
reported the numbers as only 400." Meantime Henry V. was
besieging Rouen, and starving Paris by cutting off the
supplies for which it depended on the Seine. In August there
was another rising of the Parisian mob and another massacre.
In January, 1419, Rouen surrendered, and attempts at peace
followed, both parties making a truce with the English
invader. The imperious demands of King Henry finally impelled
the two French factions to draw together and to make a common
cause of the deliverance of the kingdom. At least that was the
profession with which the Dauphin and the Duke of Burgundy
met, in July, and went through the forms of a reconciliation.
Perhaps there were treacherous intentions on both sides. On
one side the treachery was consummated a month later
(September 10, 1419), when, a second meeting between Duke John
the Fearless and the Dauphin taking place at the Bridge of
Montereau, the Duke was basely assassinated in the Dauphin's
presence.
{1175}
This murder, by which the Armagnacs, who controlled the young
Dauphin, hoped to break their rivals down, only kindled afresh
the passions which were destroying France and delivering it an
easy prey to foreign conquest.
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
second series, chapters 28-29.
ALSO IN:
E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
volume 1, book 1, chapters 150-211.
J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 9, chapter 2.
FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.
Burgundy's revenge.
Henry the Fifth's triumph.
Two kings in Paris.
The Treaty of Troyes.
Death of Henry.
"Whilst civil war was ... penetrating to the very core of the
kingship, foreign war was making its way again into the
kingdom. Henry V., after the battle of Agincourt, had returned
to London, and had left his army to repose and reorganize
after its sufferings and its losses. It was not until eighteen
months afterwards, on the 1st of August, 1417, that he landed
at Touques, not far from Honfleur, with fresh troops, and
resumed his campaign in France. Between 1417 and 1419 he
successively laid siege to nearly all the towns of importance
in Normandy, to Caen, Bayeux, Falaise, Evreux, Coutances,
Laigle, St. Lô, Cherbourg, &c., &c. Some he occupied after a
short resistance, others were sold to him by their governors;
but when, in the month of July, 1418, he undertook the siege
of Rouen, he encountered there a long and serious struggle.
Rouen had at that time, it is said, a population of 150,000
souls, which was animated by ardent patriotism. The Rouennese,
on the approach of the English, had repaired their gates,
their ramparts, and their moats; had demanded reinforcements
from the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy; and had
ordered every person incapable of bearing arms or procuring
provisions for ten months to leave the city. Twelve thousand
old men, women and children were thus expelled, and died
either round the place or whilst roving in misery over the
neighbouring country. ... Fifteen thousand men of
city-militia, 4,000 regular soldiers, 300 spearmen and as many
archers from Paris, and it is not quite known how many
men-at-arms sent by the Duke of Burgundy, defended Rouen for
more than five months amidst all the usual sufferings of
strictly-besieged cities." On the 13th of January, 1419, the
town was surrendered. "It was 215 years since Philip Augustus
had won Rouen by conquest from John Lackland, King of
England." After this great success there were truces brought
about between all parties, and much negotiation, which came to
nothing--except the treacherous murder of the Duke of
Burgundy, as related above. Then the situation changed. The
son and successor of the murdered duke, afterwards known as
Philip the Good, took sides, at once, with the English king
and committed himself to a war of revenge, indifferent to the
fate of France. "On the 17th of October [1419] was opened at
Arras a congress between the plenipotentiaries of England and
those of Burgundy. On the 20th of November a special truce was
granted to the Parisians, whilst Henry V., in concert with
Duke Philip of Burgundy, was prosecuting the war against the
dauphin. On the 2d of December the bases were laid of an
agreement between the English and the Burgundians. The
preliminaries of the treaty, which was drawn up in accordance
with these bases, were signed on the 9th of April, 1420, by
King Charles VI. [now controlled by the Burgundians], and on
the 20th communicated at Paris by the chancellor of France to
the parliament." On the 20th of May following, the treaty,
definitive and complete, was signed by Henry V. and
promulgated at Troyes. By this treaty of Troyes, Princess
Catherine, daughter of the King of France, was given in
marriage to King Henry; Charles VI. was guaranteed his
possession of the French crown while he lived; on his death,
"the crown and kingdom of France, with all their rights and
appurtenances," were solemnly conveyed to Henry V. of England
and his heirs, forever. "The revulsion against the treaty of
Troyes was real and serious, even in the very heart of the
party attached to the Duke of Burgundy. He was obliged to lay
upon several of his servants formal injunctions to swear to
this peace, which seemed to them treason. ... In the duchy of
Burgundy the majority of the towns refused to take the oath to
the King of England. The most decisive and the most helpful
proof of this awakening of national feeling was the ease
experienced by the dauphin, who was one day to be Charles
VII., in maintaining the war which, after the treaty of
Troyes, was, in his father's and his mother's name, made upon
him by the King of England and the Duke of Burgundy. This war
lasted more than three years. Several towns, amongst others,
Melun, Crotoy, Meaux, and St. Riquier, offered an obstinate
resistance to the attacks of the English and Burgundians. ...
It was in Perche, Anjou, Maine, on the banks of the Loire, and
in Southern France, that the dauphin found most of his
enterprising and devoted partisans. The sojourn made by Henry
V. at Paris, in December, 1420, with his wife, Queen
Catherine, King Charles VI., Queen Isabel, and the Duke of
Burgundy, was not, in spite of galas and acclamations, a
substantial and durable success for him. ... Towards the end
of August, 1422, Henry V. fell ill; and, too stout-hearted to
delude himself as to his condition, he ... had himself removed
to Vincennes, called his councillors about him, and gave them
his last royal instructions. ... He expired on the 31st of
August, 1422, at the age of thirty-four."
F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 23.
At Paris, "the two sovereigns [Henry V. and Charles VI.] kept
distinct courts. That of Henry was by far the most splendidly
equipped and numerously attended of the two. He was the rising
sun, and all men looked to him. All offices of trust and
profit were at his disposal, and the nobles and gentlemen of
France flocked into his ante-chambers."
A. J. Church,
Henry the Fifth,
chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
volume 1, book 1, chapters 171-264.
J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 9, chapters 2-3.
FRANCE: A. D. 1422.
Accession of King Charles VII.
{1176}
FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.
The Mission of the Maid.
"France divided--two kings, two regencies, two armies, two
governments, two nations, two nobilities, two systems of
justice--met face to face: father, son, mother, uncles,
nephews, citizens, and strangers, fought for the right, the
soil, the throne, the cities, the spoil and the blood of the
nation. The King of England died at Vincennes [August 31,
1422], and was shortly followed [October 22] by Charles VI.,
father of the twelve children of Isabel, leaving the kingdom
to the stranger and to ruin. The Duke of Bedford insolently
took possession of the Regency in the name of England, pursued
the handful of nobles who wished to remain French with the
dauphin, defeated them at the battle of Verneuil [August
17,1424], and exiled the queen, who had become a burden to the
government after having been an instrument of usurpation. He
then concentrated the armies of England, France and Burgundy
round Orleans, which was defended by some thousands of the
partisans of the dauphin, and which comprised almost all that
remained of the kingdom of France. The land was everywhere
ravaged by the passing and repassing of these bands--sometimes
friends, sometimes enemies--driving each other on, wave after
wave, like the billows of the Atlantic; ravaging crops,
burning towns, dispersing, robbing, and ill-treating the
population. In this disorganization of the country, the young
dauphin, sometimes awakened by the complaints of his people,
at others absorbed in the pleasures natural to his age, was
making love to Agnes Sorel in the castle of Loches. ... Such
was the state of the nation when Providence showed it a savior
in a child." The child was Jeanne D'Arc, or Joan of Arc,
better known in history as the Maid of Orleans,--daughter of a
peasant who tilled his own few acres at the village of
Domrémy, in Upper Lorraine. Of the visions of the pious young
maiden--of the voices she heard--of the conviction which came
upon her that she was called by God to deliver her
country--and of the enthusiasm of faith with which she went
about her mission until all people bent to her as the
messenger and minister of God--the story is a familiar one to
all. In April, 1429, Joan was sent by the king, from Blois,
with 10,000 or 12,000 men, to the succour of Orleans, where
Dunois, the Bastard of Orleans, was in command. She reformed
the army, purged it of all vile followers, and raised its
confidence to that frenzied pitch which nothing can resist. On
the 8th of May the English abandoned the siege and Orleans was
saved. "Joan wasted no time in vain triumphs. She brought back
the victorious army to the dauphin, to assist him in
reconquering city after city of his kingdom. The dauphin and
the queens received her as the messenger of God, who had found
and recovered the lost keys of the kingdom. 'I have only
another year,' she remarked, with a sad presentiment, which
seemed to indicate that her victory led to the scaffold; 'I
must therefore set to work at once.' She begged the dauphin to
go and be crowned at Rheims, although that city and the
intermediate provinces were still in the power of the
Burgundians, Flemings, and English." Counsellors and generals
opposed; but the sublime faith of the Maid overcame all
opposition and all difficulties. The king's route to Rheims
was rapidly cleared of his enemies. At Patay (June 18, 1429)
the English suffered a heavy defeat and their famous soldier,
Lord Talbot, was taken prisoner. Troyes, Chalons and Rheims
opened their gates. "The Duke of Bedford, the regent, remained
trembling in Paris. 'All our misfortunes,' he wrote to the
Cardinal of Winchester, 'are owing to a young witch, who, by
her sorcery, has restored the courage of the French.' ... The
king was crowned [July 17, 1429], and Joan's mission was
accomplished. 'Noble king,' said she, embracing his knees in
the Cathedral after the coronation, 'now is accomplished the
will of God, which commanded me to bring you to this city of
Rheims to receive your holy unction--now that you at last are
king, and that the kingdom of France is yours.' ... From that
moment a great depression, and a fatal hesitation seem to have
come over her. The king, the people, and the army, to whom she
had given victory, wished her to remain always their
prophetess, their guide, and their enduring miracle. But she
was now only a weak woman, lost amid courts and camps, and she
felt her weakness beneath her armor. Her heart alone remained
courageous, but had ceased to be inspired." She urged an
attack on Paris (Sept. 8, 1429) and experienced her first
failure, being grievously wounded in the assault. The
following spring, Compiègne being besieged, she entered the
town to take part in the defence. The same evening (May 24,
1430) she led a sortie which was repulsed, and she was taken
prisoner in the retreat. Some think she was betrayed by the
commandant of the town, who ordered the raising of the
drawbridge just as her horse was being spurred upon it. Once
in the hands of her enemies, the doom of the unfortunate Maid
was sealed. Sir Lionel de Ligny, her captor, gave his prisoner