The situation of Joan Darc in the beginning of her imprisonment. The fact of the capture of Joan on May 23, 1430 did not appear as anything terrible and irreversible. Practically all French captains and many of the English were sometimes taken captive, some of them more than once, but returned home in good health. In many cases, captives were in danger on the battlefield - let us recall how Henry V treated French prisoners during the battle of Agincourt (Chapter 1) - but not later, when those were transported to the place of their imprisonment. This was the case because each prisoner meant a ransom. The higher the rank of the captive, the more valuable ransom was to be expected. Who would throw away the money?
Joan Darc was an extremely remarkable and precious prisoner. Formally, she held a title of an earl whose coat of arms included royal lilies; hence she was the noblest among French earls. In addition to that, she was a military captain. Her incredible popularity immensely increased her value. If our hypothesis about the sexual interest of Charles VII towards Joan is right and if that interest was known to the Burgundians, which made Joan a yet more precious prisoner. As a result, the Burgundians were very careful with Joan. Their hopes were confirmed later, and the ransom they eventually received for the girl was enormous. Let us talk about that later.
However, though there was apparently no immediate danger for Joan at that time, her perspectives still looked very gloomy. While her family was one of the richest in Domremy, they certainly could not pay the ransom. Any hope for help by his majesty the king was baseless, knowing the circumstances of her departure from Charles VII and his behavior prior to her departure. Maybe her compatriots or citizens of Orleans would help her? Unfortunately, also such hopes were feeble. We noted already how tight-fisted and harsh were the authorities with Joan when she was still free (Chapter 6); any hope that they would spend enormous amounts of money for her release was too naОve. For the French captains and for the other noble Armagnacs Joan was nothing but an obstacle, because she deprived them of the laurels of victories over the English. The fact that she had saved the French one year earlier was certainly forgotten.
In principle, Joan might have a chance. In the cases when a prisoner was unable to persuade his family and friends to pay the ransom for him, he might be delivered under a word of honor, promising to pay the ransom soon after the release. That was a common practice, and Joan certainly might count on it - under one condition: if that was appropriate for the Burgundians. Although, these would accept such an option only on a condition that nobody suggested a sufficient ransom for the girl. However, the English suggested the rich ransom for Joan Darc almost immediately after her capture . Laying their hands on Joan meant for them an opportunity to initialize the long-awaited trial of accusation by the Church, that might, as they expected, discredit Charles VII and subsequently cancel his crowning. For Joan such option meant only one thing: a painful execution on a stake, by the sentence of the inquisition.
At that time, the chiefs of the Church were simply against Joan Darc. While during the Loire campaign many of French theologists suggested that Joan had accomplished the wish of Heavens (see Chapter 5), to May 1430 the situation changed very seriously. The main reason for that was the appearance of the cult of Saint Maid of Orleans. The delight of her exploit, love and thanks to her transformed to a religious admiration that was very typical of XV century. Joan was respected as a saint. In her honor, people built altars and chapels, performed masses and processions. Sculptors and painters attributed to saints the features of the face of the girl of Domremy. In South France, there were sermons about "great miracles accomplished in France due to The Maid sent by God" /1/. After Joan was captured, there were gossips that she succeeded to escape /1/.
Such sermons caused absurd legends about Joan Darc. They also did not improve the opinion of the chiefs of the Church about her.
In Abbeville, one of towns of Picardy occupied by the Burgundians, the municipality imprisoned two citizens because they spoke offence about Joan Darc. The contemporaries perceived unanimously the sentiments of simple people to Joan; a Burgundian chronic wrote: "Everyone believes this woman saint" /1/. As we noted in Chapter 5, the estimations of English chronics did not differ much.
The news about the capture of Joan reached Paris on May 24, and Paris University sent to the duke of Burgundy a letter, in which they were asking to forward the girl to the Church (May 26): "She should be judged by the inquisition, since she is suspected in numerous crimes related to heresy" /1/.
On June 22, men of Paris University sent another letter to duke Philip of Burgundy, asking him to forward Joan Darc to their judgment. This time, the University was presented by bishop Pierre Cauchon /1, 2/.
Thus, Parisian theologists and philosophers claimed Joan heretic long before they were allowed to organize the Trial of Condemnation in Rouen. Further events showed they expedited the events and overestimated their opportunities. However, they had no reason to fear, as nobody stood against them. On the contrary: soon after Joan was captured, the archbishop of Reims published a message to his parishioners, forbidding them to help the girl. It was written that Joan herself was responsible for the disaster that came upon her, because "she did not do the will of the Lord, but always behaved as she wanted" /1/. Maybe that meant the refuse of Joan to sign the letter against Hussites (see Chapter 6). Of course, such formulation was specific enough: the archbishop did not blame Joan in sorcery, but opened the way to accuse her in heresy. It was very important that the event coincided in time with a mysterious disappearance of the protocols of the Trial in Poitiers (Chapter 3), on which Joan based her principal decisions. Pro-English churchmen were allowed now to make another step towards a new accusation, in a silent agreement with their French colleagues.
Who betrayed Joan? The traditional opinion of most historians is well known: Joan Darc was betrayed by the flabby king Charles VII that yielded to suggestions of his advisors, partisans of Burgundy.
Is that suggestion right?
Let us look at how duke Philip of Burgundy behaved after Joan had been taken prisoner:
"One day after the capture of Joan, Philip wrote from his camp near Compiegne a letter to the duke of Savoie and asked him to inquire whether or not Charles VII was interested in peace negotiations. In the end of his letter he wrote about the capture of the lady the Armagnacs called The Maid. Though the letter was sent to the duke of Savoie, it was meant for Charles VII. The date and the content of this letter showed that duke Philip of Burgundy considered the further destiny of Joan in relation to the replies of Charles VII. The duke believed that he could use Joan in his political game with the king of France." /1/.
Let us assume that Charles VII, following the advices of his pro-Burgundian environment, betrayed Joan to the Burgundians. In such case, why did Philip of Burgundy consider her as a matter of negotiations? Was he so naОve to believe that the king of France would pay him anything for the prisoner betrayed for free? For Philip of Burgundy it would be much more logical to offer Joan as soon as possible to the English, because these were absolutely interested to get her. Nevertheless, he did not do that. On the contrary, Philip of Burgundy held Joan even after all his allusions about her that he addressed to Charles VII had received no reply. Maybe he believed that the king was bluffing in a hope to reduce the random for Joan, while other reasons mentioned below are possible too.
Thus, the version of evil pro-Burgundian advices that whispered to flabby Charles VII scurrilous things about Joan fails completely. One must seek for other candidates responsible for the betrayal.
First of all: who said that Charles VII was flabby? The events of the Paris campaign, when he sabotaged the assault, showed his rigid character, against which Joan, duke of AlenГon and other captains could do nothing. When he betrayed Joan Darc to the enemy, he did it without advices from anyone, and he did it because he wanted to do it. On the other hand, he preferred to appear flabby, at least for the responsibility for his affairs to be attributed to other men - and this succeeded.
Thus, Charles VII did not need any pro-Burgundian advices to betray Joan Darc to imprisonment and death. However, that does not mean that he was alone in his betrayal. If not pro-Burgundian advises, who might participate in the conspiracy against Joan?
One candidate is obvious: Regnault de Chartres, Archbishop of Reims. In principle, he is often considered as a pro-Burgundian. But why? Which of his affairs contradicted the interests of Charles VII? Nothing. The archbishop is much more similar to a high-rank servant of the king-felon than an enemy spy.
One other participant is obvious too: Guillaume of Flavy, commandant of Compiegne, the direct executor of the betrayal at the Compiegne gate. However, he does not seem pro-Burgundian at all. He resisted very bravely to the English and the Burgundians, and that might have even appeared as a rebellion to Charles VI - had the latter not authorize himself the actions of Guillaume of Flavy. In other words, Guillaume of Flavy behaved like a very good Armagnac...
By the way, why none of the captains-Armagnacs was in Compiegne at May 23? Was also this a coincidence? Why did none of the captains-Armagnacs demand an explanation from Guillaume of Flavy after his betrayal of Joan Darc? And, after all, how Guillaume of Flavy might know that none of the captains-Armagnacs would demand his explanations?
After all, why do we believe that the Armagnacs were not interested in the death of Joan? Her death left to them all the credit due for her victories over the English and the Burgundians. Of course, that was not a high-moral thing for the Armagnacs, but would "morals" stop them from acting in their own interest?
The initial period of the imprisonment of Joan Darc. Now, let us talk about the first period of the imprisonment of Joan.
The sources are in a contradiction. According to /3/, immediately after the capture of Joan and other French taken at the gates of Compiegne - her brother Pierre, steward Jean of Aulon and his brother Poton - were placed in the fort of Clairoix. On May 26, Joan, Pierre and of Aulon were transported to Beaulieu, about 10 kilometers from Noyon /3/. However, according to /1/, Joan was transported first to Noyon, then to Beaulieu where she remained until August 1430. The first version seems more probable.
The Burgundians treated her in a more or less reasonable manner; even Jean of Aulon was allowed to remain with her. He was allowed some freedom and received for Joan news about events from outside /1/.
Fig. 7.1. The dungeon in Beaulieu, where Joan was detained
On June 6, duke Philip of Burgundy and his wife Isabel of Portugal came to Noyon, intending to see Joan. The girl was probably introduced to the couple in bishop's palace not far from the cathedral. Isabel of Portugal was being pregnant; she possibly felt a compassion to Joan. Maybe this factor influenced her husband not to hurry with forwarding the girl to a sure death in the hands of the English. He also did not reply to the letters of Paris University of May 26 and June 22. Moreover: he did not authorize soon enough the forwarding Joan to the English, and after this had been authorized, he did not make Jean of Luxembourg hurry. He also did not request the girl to be sent to him /1/.
One must note that the ambivalent police of Philip of Burgundy was against not only France but also England. In principle, when the duke began the campaign on Oise, he just intended to take by force what Charles VII promised him. While the English were ready to work hard at Compiegne for him, Philip of Burgundy, of course, was not ready to a conflict with them. However, the siege should end sooner or later. If the end of it was not good for Burgundy, the duke would return to the negotiations with Charles VII, otherwise a new siege would become necessary, and in that case he would have to ask for help from the English.
About the beginning of June, 1430 Joan tried to escape from Beaulieu. The details of this attempt are not clear. Joan somehow succeeded to deceive the guard that surveyed her, and got the keys. Maybe she also tried to release the other prisoners. Although, she was very soon noticed and caught. Soon after that she was transported to Beaurevoir, another castle of Jean of Luxembourg, located at a greater distance from the zone of fighting.
Fig. 7.2. The interior of Beaurevoir
In Beaurevoir, Joan had a company of some neighbors, women also named Joan, including the wife of Jean of Luxembourg and Joan of Luxembourg, also known as Mademoiselle of Ligny. The ladies were very kind towards Joan and tried to ease the conditions of her detainment. During the Trial of Condemnation in Rouen, Joan told that the ladies gave her a female dress or a fabric to sew a dress (the vagueness about that was probably caused by distortions of replies of Joan in the protocols of the Trial - Author). Joan also told that the wife of Jean of Luxembourg asked him not to forward her (Joan Darc) to the English /3/.
Mademoiselle of Ligny had a great influence on Jean of Luxembourg, and made him delay the act of forwarding Joan to the English. The elderly Mademoiselle of Ligny went as far as using her will as means to achieve a delay with transferring Joan, using financial levers in order to put pressure on Jean of Luxembourg.
While Joan was detained in Beaurevoir, Mademoiselle of Ligny received inherited properties from Philip of Brabant that deceased at August 4, 1430. Counties Saint-Paul and Ligny became hers. Promising to Jean of Luxembourg the inheritance of this property, she made him to delay the act of forwarding Joan Darc to the English /3/.
As follows from /1/, the value of the heritance of Mademoiselle of Ligny was close to the share of the ransom Jean of Luxembourg should receive for Joan Darc. That was below 50% of the total ransom - 10 000 golden livres (pounds). Thus, the total ransom was equivalent to the price of 4-5 counties. This money was sufficient to recruit an army. Had the value of the property been higher, Mademoiselle of Ligny might be able to try ransom Joan Darc out of captivity.
In July or later, Pierre Cauchon visited Beaurevoir. Joan possibly saw him and tried again to escape. This second attempt of escape has been very mysterious. Its main version suggested by most of historians follows: Joan had been informed about the plans to sell her to the English, moreover, she had known that Compiegne had been close to the capitulation, and that enraged her so much that she threw herself from the window of the tower she was detained in. She fell and was severely wounded, though without fractures. She lost conscience for some hours. When next morning the Burgundians found her, all in blood, she said that she preferred to die rather than to be taken by the English /1-3/. There is, however, another version, considered mostly as a legend: Joan cut the bed-clothes on which she slept, made a rope ladder and used it to descend from the window, but the ladder broke /1/.
With all respect to historians, their main version is not convincing at all.
First of all, Joan certainly understood that a jump from window was too dangerous and that the jump was more likely to kill her rather than to release. A desperate captive may try any absurd way to escape, but probably not such one, in which his chances to perish are so high (while chances to escape - so low) as in the case of a jump from that height. On the other hand, it is a normal thing to make a rope ladder when possible.
Second: it is very strange that Joan had no fractures but only wounds and loss of conscience. Falling from a height very probably has the contrary results. The only rational explanation found in the literature follows: Joan fell into a ditch, onto a loose earth, and slipped down a slope. This explains what happened to Joan. However, the source that gives this explanation supports the legendary version of Joan's attempt to escape.
Third: the legendary image is much more logical. Joan certainly had bed-clothes, could cut it into strips by some means, tie them together, fix one end somewhere in the room, throwing the other out of the window, then try to climb down. She had enough experience from assaults in moving up and down walls of towers. On the contrary, it was illogical to take a higher risk of jumping while ignoring an opportunity to make a rope ladder. As we know from the previous chapters, Joan was a logical person.
Fourth: a jump from such height would look too much like a suicide attempt, a fact that judges in the Trial of Condemnation would certainly use against the girl. Such a jump alone would be sufficient to accuse her in heresy and to sentence her to death. No additional accusation would be needed. The judges in Rouen really mentioned the attempt of escape from Beaurevoir in Twelve Articles (the accusation material), but the keyword "suicide" was replaced with an ambivalent "did throw herself down from a very high tower" that may be interpreted also as an unfortunate attempt to escape using a rope ladder. This argument, so useful for the judges, appeared only as eighth article of accusation, and not as the first argument. Taking into account how some other statements made by Joan were distorted by the judges (see above the mentioning of the item the ladies of Beaurevoir had given to Joan), it seems very possible that same was the case with this event. Joan very possibly might tell that she "got out of the window".
Let us note that during the Trial of Condemnation the judges had serious problems in the preparation of the accusation material. If they knew (from men of Beaurevoir) that Joan made a suicidal jump from the tower, they would not need to seek too long for the accusation.
Thus, the legendary version of the Joan's attempt of escape seems much more probable than the traditional historical one.
Let us note the following aspect of this attempt of escape. Independently of the technique (a jump or using rope ladder), the attempt was very dangerous. Why did Joan do it if she totally trusted The Voices? Of course, she was afraid of being taken by the English; however, let us compare that to her claim that the Voices had promised her a capture before The Jean Day (Chapter 6). Then The Voices did not say who would capture Joan - the Burgundians or the English. Why did Joan calmly accept the risk of being captured by the English, while the danger to be sold to them caused such strong and active reaction? We consider this fact as an additional argument for the version that Joan invented The Voices and attributed to them the promise of the capture before The Jean Day. While the promise of the capture was made by The Voices and therefore easily might be invented by Joan, the news about her expected selling to the English arrived from either concrete men, observed facts and their analysis.
As we know from above, the forwarding of Joan to the English was delayed because of the resistance of Mademoiselle of Ligny. Although, this "line of defense" fell soon. In the beginning of September 1430, she felt tired and understood the necessity to write a will. According to /3/, she deceased on September 18; on the other hand, another source /1/ dates her death by November 13. The exact date is not so important. Since her death, the forwarding of Joan Darc to the English became just a technical question.
Was the death of Mademoiselle of Ligny natural? Or was she helped to decease? The second is very probable. Of course, her nephew wished as soon as possible to get both the heritance and the ransom for Joan, which was impossible as long as his aunty lived. Her death was certainly desired by the English and their collaborationists, especially by Cauchon, the main responsible for the destruction of Joan. Moreover, in October 1430 some events made duke of Burgundy to desire the rich ransom for Joan Darc as soon as possible.
The siege of Compiegne after the capture of Joan. The failure of Joan's sally of May 23 allowed the English and the Burgundians to build siege fortifications around Compiegne. Their general scheme was similar to the siege of Orleans (see Figs in Chapters 4 and 6). Approximately on May 27, 1430 the English and the Burgundians began very active building, first of all in front of the exterior wall near the bridge. Moreover, the town was permanently bombarded not only by the Burgundian artillery but also their missile machines "Trebuchet". The bombardments destroyed some constructions inside the town, harmed the fortifications of The Bridge Gate and even killed Louis of Flavy, commandant's brother. In spite of all above, the garrison and the citizens withstood the siege with dignity /2/.
Also the English and the Burgundians had a loss of men. Their attempt of explosion of The Bridge Gate failed, among the people they lost were both the English and the Burgundians. In June or July, citizens of LiХge ruined the property of Burgundy near Namur, and the Burgundians sent soldiers there /2/. That weakened the forces at the siege, but very soon a reinforcement of some additional 2000 English soldiers joined the siege.
One night, probably in the end of July 1430, the Burgundians surprised the guards of the fort at The Bridge Gate and took it, reconstructed it and placed there a strong garrison /2/.
Since August 15, the duke of Burgundy received news about the death of the duke of Brabant and went there to take it as inheritance. Jean of Luxembourg became the leader of the Burgundian forces around Compiegne. The forces of the siege counted then from 3 to 4 thousands of soldiers /2/.
In order to tighten the siege, the English and the Burgundians built a number of new forts, aiming to block supplies of food into the town /2/.
At that time, the French army led by Marshal of Boussac, Poton of Xaintrailles and other captains approached Compiegne. Probably on October 23, the French army counting about 4000 soldiers, mostly cavalry, came near the town. The Burgundians and 600-700 English archers met them near the abbey. While the Burgundians waited for the French attack, the French string of carts convoyed by 100 men marched around the enemy fortifications and entered to Compiegne by The Chapel Gate where the enemy had no fort. The detachment of Poton of Xaintrailles (200-300 soldiers) stayed in the forest, covering the convoy /2/. Let us recall that a similar operation allowed the French in April 1429 to supply food to Orleans. The French learned much from the Orleans campaign, while their enemies did not.
The armies staying in front of one other near the abbey did not start any battle. Meanwhile, the citizens were informed about the help coming. They were enjoyed and attacked one of enemy forts. After a serious fight, the French took the fort. Jean of Luxembourg was informed about the fight for the fort but was not ready to send soldiers there, because of the French army in front of him /2/.
As soon as Marshal of Boussac received news about the success of the assault of the mentioned fort, he commanded his forces to march to Compiegne, without attacking the Burgundians. Jean of Luxembourg was enraged but did not risk to attack the strong enemy cavalry by his infantry. That time, the French attacked a Burgundian fort near Clairoix /2/.
Late in the evening, the French attacked also the fort at The Bridge Gate. The series of French attacks impressed the enemy and convinced them that they could be attacked at any moment, anywhere.
On that night, many of the Burgundian soldiers deserted. The next day, the French took the abbey, found there the food and ransacked it. After that, a detachment of French knights came to the bridge of La Venette and destroyed it without any fight. Then the French restarted the bombardment of the fort at The Bridge Gate /2/.
The wave of deserting Burgundian soldiers became more massive. After a council, the English and the Burgundian captains decided to leave Compiegne. They burned the fort of The Bridge Gate and marched away, leaving all the artillery /2/.
The French easily took many fortresses, bridges and towns around Compiegne. That was the end of the siege.
Comparison of Orleans and Compiegne campaigns. Let us compare the two campaigns: Orleans-1429 and Compiegne-1430.
The principal difference of these campaigns was that the siege of Compiegne had no chance to succeed. The Burgundians were never close to a victory. Their failure at Compiegne was in the start of the strategic offensive, therefore the defeat influenced them very negatively, in both the military and the psychological aspect.
The scale of both campaigns was comparable: the siege of Orleans counted about 4000 soldiers, that of Compiegne from 3 to 4 thousands. The French had much less soldiers at Compiegne than they had at Orleans, but won in both cases. It was very important that at Compiegne the French army included many experienced soldiers, whereas their enemy mostly consisted of novices.
In the strategic aspect, the Orleans campaign was decisive for the whole France, while that of Compiegne - for Paris. Together with the Loire campaign, the campaign of Orleans disabled the main forces of the English, while the Compiegne disabled the Burgundian army.
In the tactical aspect, both sides used at Compiegne the same methods as at Orleans, but for the French these were the tactic of victory, while their enemies met their defeat. The inability of the enemies of France to learn lessons from their previous defeats exhibited the crisis of the English military machine. Let us note that at Compiegne the French successfully used the tactic of serial attacks Joan Darc taught them in Orleans.
At Orleans, the English lost at least 1000 soldiers killed. The loss of men by the English and the Burgundian armies at Compiegne was much less, their defeats were not as painful as at Orleans. However, the English at Orleans fought to the end and retreated in a well organized way, while Compiegne exposed the corruption of the Burgundian army, which dissipated instantly after first troubles came. As a result, also the English did not wish to risk themselves for the Burgundian loser.
Orleans nearly became a tragedy, while Compiegne provided a farce. To say exactly - it would be a farce if the Burgundians did not succeed to capture Joan Darc. That was their main success during all the campaign. That was the mortal peril for the heroine. At Orleans her star rose, while at Compiegne it fell.
Selling of Joan Darc to the English. The failure of the English-Burgundian siege at Compiegne forced duke Philip of Burgundy to recruit a new army. For that he needed more money, and immediately. This factor became decisive for the fate of Joan Darc.
The negotiations about selling Joan to the English started in July 1430 and continued during a month and a half, but even after the agreement was obtained, the Burgundians did not forward their prisoner to the English but used various pretexts for a delay.
Bishop Pierre Cauchon represented the interests of the English. He suggested to pay the Burgundians 10 000 golden livres to be distributed between "owners" of Joan, including duke Philip and Jean of Luxembourg. That was price of a prince of royal bloods. Only ransom for a king might be higher. The agreement of the English to pay such money for Joan practically meant the recognition of her very high rank /1/. Let us compare this situation to another case: La Hire, when captured, was asked to pay ransom which was only a fraction (30%) of that.
Let us note that there is a misunderstanding in the literature, whereas some historians write that Joan was sold for 10000 livres, without emphasizing whether they were in gold or silver. Both gold and silver livres were in use, but first one had, of course, much more buying capacity. If not specified, "livre" usually means silver livre.
The ransom paid for Joan was enormous. Bedford hoped initially that the French on the occupied territories, and not the English, would pay it. In addition to the money, Bedford expected that the additional tax would cause anger of the French against Joan. That succeeded to some extent.
Collaborationist authorities were ready to fulfill the orders from Bedford. In September 1430, the pro-English chiefs of Normandy authorized an additional tax, mostly for paying ransom for Joan Darc, "sorceress and leader of the Dauphin's army" /1/. However, Bedford did not have time to wait for the money coming in from this new tax, therefore he took it from the English treasury.
In autumn 1430, the English and the Burgundians agreed on the terms of ransom. In the end of October or in November 1430 Joan was transferred to the English.
Why Rouen? After the problem of delivering Joan Darc to the English had been solved, Bedford needed to find an appropriate location for the trial that was supposed to condemn Joan. First pretender was Paris, but this option did not satisfy the English. There were too many French fortresses around Paris, and the detachments of the Armagnacs were very much at home in the region of Paris, whereas the Burgundians exposed themselves as cowards during the Compiegne campaign. Many of citizens of Paris supported Joan: in September 1430 the inquisition trial of Paris condemned two women for speaking in favor of Joan Darc. One of these women was condemned to stake, while the other was subjected to a lengthy imprisonment /1/. Moreover: Bedford very possibly lost his trust in duke Philip of Burgundy whose contacts with Charles VII were obvious for the English.
Thus, Paris did not seem good for the trial of condemnation of Joan Darc. But why Rouen? This seemed not much better for the English than Paris. Many of Rouen citizens remembered the resistance to the siege of their city by Henry V. Numerous partisan detachments operated around Rouen, which made the English to keep there thousands of soldiers. Bedford probably expected that the entire trial, including the preceding procedure, would take 2-3 weeks until the execution of Joan, but in reality it took almost half a year. All that time thousands of English soldiers remained in Rouen, and their captains could not send them against the French.
England was in a very difficult situation after numerous defeats. Detachments of La Hire, Gilles of Rais, Poton of Xaintrailles operated in Normandy. English soldiers received their fees and consumed food and equipment. That time the English army did nothing other than guarding Joan Darc. It is possible that the total expenses of the trial, including payments to soldiers and judges, were even higher than the ransom paid for Joan. Detained in a tower, unprotected, menaced, shackled girl immobilized the enemy army for months.
The usual explanation suggested by historians for the choice of Rouen by the English is as follows: Bedford needed the trial to happen in sight of the French, otherwise the sentence would not convince anyone /1-3/. However, the beginning of the trial was unfavorable for the English, and they needed to stop public questioning. The trail was private anyway, but did not take place in London, or even in Aquitaine, but was held in Rouen, near thousands of French partisans.
The author believes that the main reason for Bedford not to send Joan Darc to London was that he did not agree to share the "honor" of her destruction with Gloster that was a regent in England (See Chapter 1). On the other hand, it is possible that Bedford feared the influence of the prisoner girl on the English public. Many of the English did not believe the stories they were told about the sorcery of Joan. Few of the English supported inquisitors. However, all English would like to see the girl that crowned Charles VII. What would be the reaction of the English public if they saw the weak patriotic girl in chains? Many of them very possibly might demand for her mercy, even freedom. Such claims of the French could be easily silenced; those of the English could not.
Nevertheless, Bedford had an alternative variant for the location of the trial of Joan Darc: Aquitaine. There were no French partisans, and the population would not rebel against the English. However, Bedford probably wanted to perform the trial in his capital - Rouen. In such way he intended to increase his own prestige and make French patriots fear at the sight of the cruel execution of the girl.
Raitses suggested another explanation as for why the English had chosen Rouen: since the responsible for the destruction of Joan Darc was Pierre Cauchon, the trial should be performed in the region of his authority. In Rouen, the position of the local church chief was vacant, and Cauchon needed only to regulate some procedural questions with churchmen there. On December 28, 1430 the Rouen churchmen authorized Cauchon to be a temporary head there /1/.
Such explanation does not convince. To give a position to Cauchon, Bedford would not perform such great military operation as that which took place in December 1430 - May 1431. It was much easier for him to perform some displacements in the Aquitaine church spheres.
Anyway, one must conclude that since some moment the desire to destroy Joan Darc as painfully as possible became the irrational goal for Bedford and his environment. The only alternative explanation - they did not know how to count money and forecast the obvious sequences of their own decisions.
Could the French rescue Joan Darc? Based on the information about the conditions of the detainment of Joan in Burgundy and her further transportation to Normandy, the answer is affirmative. First of all, the Armagnacs might pay the ransom for her, as the English did, but none of the French did it. Second: just after the raise of the siege of Compiegne, when the Burgundian army practically did not exist, the French could attack Beaurevoir. Third: during the transportation of Joan to Arras, the French could attack her convoy. Nothing like that was done. There is no information even about any attempts of such kind. The Armagnacs simply abandoned Joan Darc, and let her die. This fact casts doubts over the widespread opinion that Poton of Xaintrailles and Gilles of Rais tried to save Joan when she was imprisoned in Rouen. Where were they when such thing was much easier to do?
The way to Rouen. Joan Darc left Beaurevoir probably in November 1430, between 10 and 15 (according to some information, already in the end of October 1430). Her transportation to Rouen became a serious military operation, and was performed mostly by the English. During the whole "journey" the girl was first tied, then shackled at arm and leg. The carriage with Joan was permanently convoyed by a strong detachment, mostly riders, initially Burgundian, then English. Since she left Le Crotoy, her escort counted at least 50 men. Among the English, there was probably also Pierre Cauchon.
While there is not enough certainty about the route of the transportation of Joan, the scheme given on Fig. 7.3 seems very probable.
Fig. 7.3. The last "journey" of Joan Darc /4/.
First of all, Joan was moved from Beaurevoir to Arras. There the girl was finally delivered to the English and shackled. In Arras she was probably detained in one of the small castles. Joan probably was transported from Arras about November 15, 1430 /1/. Then the convoy followed by the route of Lucheux, Drugy and Le Crotoy. The route turned North, avoiding regions of high activity of French partisans. Each time, before returning to the road, the English carefully reconnoitered the route. Maybe they also used false corteges to distract the partisans' attention, though there is no information that the French tried anywhere to trap the convoy.
In the fortress Le Crotoy (see Fig. 7.4) Joan was held for a number of weeks.
Fig. 7.4. The scheme of the fortress Le Crotoy.
Maybe that was done for reasons of security, but it is also possible that Rouen was not ready to accept Joan at that time.
In Le Crotoy the English probably paid the ransom for Joan Darc - the whole amount, or possibly the remainder of ransom /1/.
From Le Crotoy, Joan and a part of her convoy were transported by boats to St Valery-On-Somme, while the riders followed by the bridge of Abbeville. Some part of the journey might follow the old Roman road through Arques and Bosc-le-Hard, then Rouen /1, 4/.
The cortege arrived at Rouen to Christmas, 1430. As soon as she arrived, Joan was delivered to Richard of Beauchamp, earl of Warwick. Let us note that this earl was one of those that received lands in France (concretely, Beauchamp). He commanded to place Joan in the castle of Bouvreuil that was not only a fortress but also a royal residence and a prison for very important felons. There Joan was detained, during first weeks of her imprisonment (until the end of February, 1431), in a little cage, where she could not stand up. Her neck, arms and legs were attached by short chains to the bars. Of course, in such conditions she was even hardly able to sleep.
Revisionists write that Joan Darc was not tortured in Rouen. That is wrong. While the English did not break her arms and legs, while once that was very close, the detainment in the little cage was a very cruel torture. Only deprivation of sleeping for days can make a man lose sanity. The fact that Joan was not broken by this nightmare proves her very stable psyche. Regarding this fact, let us reconsider her attempt of escape from Beaurevoir (see above). It is difficult to believe that a girl able to keep her mind though two months in a cage would jump from height because of bad news.
Why were the English so cruel with Joan? First of all, of course, they wanted to torment the girl they considered as their main enemy. However, the second possible goal might be even more important: the English prepared Joan to the trial, tried to break her psyche and mind. If that succeeded, at the first examination of the trial Joan would become completely broken and obedient, ready to sign any confession just to get some hours of sleeping before the execution. On the other hand, Warwick could not go too far with the tortures. Since the examinations were planned to be public, Joan should not appear there as a victim of cruel torments, otherwise the English would obtain an effect contrary to one they needed (after all, that really happened).
The torture by the cage did not provide to the English the effect they expected. When Warwick accompanied by Jean of Luxembourg and earl of Stafford visited her, still detained in the cage, the Burgundian, mocking of the imprisoned girl, asked her whether she was ready to accept the freedom under the condition of her refusal to fight against England. Joan replied that she did not trust in such option and added that the English could not conquer France even if they had a hundred thousands of soldiers. Stafford became angry and tried to kill the chained girl, but Warwick stopped him. Let us note that the prediction of Joan realized, while that was not surprising at all after Orleans, Loire and Compiegne campaigns. The firmness of Joan possibly persuaded Warwick in the uselessness of her further torture. A while later she was released from the cage and placed in more appropriate conditions.
Joan was not a single political prisoner at Bouvreuil. Some tens of arrested French patriots waited there permanently for the judgment. This was always fast and merciless. From time to time, groups of condemned people arrived at the Market Place for executions /1/.
In other chambers of Bouvreuil stayed the English royal court. King Henry VI resided there from spring 1430 to autumn 1431 until his depart to Paris for crowning. Maybe he saw Joan. His secretary maybe felt compassion to the girl. Thus, the leaders of England practically witnessed the entire treatment of Joan Darc /1/.
The fact that Joan was detained in Bouvreuil casts doubt on the suggestion that anyone of the English leaders considered her as witch. Would it be possible to place a witch near the regent and the young king? Also Warwick probably would not like to suffer of wasting disease. If the English really considered Joan as a witch, they would rather place her in one of monasteries.
The role of The Voices in the martyrdom of Joan Darc. Now let us leave for a while the historical aspect of the biography of Joan Darc and consider its philosophical, mystic aspect. We mentioned already two wonderful facts that are not explained by gossips or imagination: finding of the mystery sword in the chapel of St. Catherine-de-Fierbois (Chapter 3) and "the revival" of an infant in Lagny (Chapter 6). Of course, both facts may have happened not due to Joan but by some coincidences. However, they allow us to suggest that Joan had some para-normal abilities. On the other hand, the ability to convince, that many of historians attribute to Joan, is definitely overestimated. Joan Darc possibly did have some para-normal abilities, but they exhibited themselves spontaneously, as in the two cases mentioned above. In Chapter 8 we will mention another para-normal fact related to the death of Joan Darc and confirmed by documents. Anyway, the girl did not gain in any way visible from her para-normal abilities (if these existed).
Let us return to the mystery of The Voices mentioned in Chapters 2 and 6. Whatever was their origin, while Joan found herself in the cage in Bouvreuil, she must have reflected on the way they advised her to follow. We noted already some situations where once could see a possibility of distrust of Joan to The Voices.
First, when they initially visited Joan in Domremy, The Voices did not predict her imprisonment and suffering. Her mission included then "only" crowning of Dauphin Charles. Later, however, they added to her mission the raise of the siege from Orleans and the Loire campaign. Nevertheless, at the hour when Charles VII was crowned, there was not much left anymore still to be accomplished from the original mission of Joan. At that moment, The Voices should probably inform her how to return home, against the refusal of the king to let her go. No such information is found in the literature. Instead that The Voices invented new jobs for Joan. Of course, Joan as a good Christian was not ready to analyze and critically estimate the behavior of The Voices that appeared so similar to the saints from Heaven. However, we can do it.
Let us recall the Greek mythology, more concretely - the sacrifice of Andromeda. What is the difference between Joan Darc, chained in Bouvreuil and waiting for the stake, and Andromeda, chained to a rock and waiting for the beast of sea? First of all, Joan, on the contrary to Andromeda, has the exceptional merit, hence, as a victim she is much more precious. Second, though the sacrifice to a beast is terrible, the execution on stake is much more painful, hence, also the sacrifice is greater. Third, the most important difference: Perseo saved Andromeda, whereas Joan was not saved by anyone.
Thus, the two situations are very similar, and we may consider the martyrdom of Joan Darc as a sacrifice. Regarding the factors of the difference, we note that they make the sacrifice of Joan much greater than that of Andromeda.
In the case of Andromeda, residents of her town performed the sacrifice. In the case of Joan, that was done by the French.
The sacrifice of Andromeda aimed to save her town from the beast. The sacrifice of Joan Darc aimed to save France from the foreign invasion and the French - from the horrors of the war.
However: these were the gods of Olympia that decided on the sacrifice of Andromeda. Who decided on the sacrifice of Joan Darc?
If God sent The Voices, the decision about her sacrifice was His. No comment.
If The Voices were The Teachers, men of queen Isabel of Bavaria, the pain on Joan Darc was on their responsibility. However, in such case, it is very strange that Joan, despite all that she suffered in Bouvreuil, continued to obey The Teachers, did not disclose them to the English. The Teachers were just men, not upper forces. Why would Joan suffer for the men that betrayed her? The cage was the sufficient pain.
If Joan had invented The Voices and believed in their existence and their heavenly origin, since a certain moment the effect of materialization of fantasy began to work. We may not consider this effect in this book, that was done in /5/. Let us only note that, according to /5/, not only can material factors influence fantasies, but there is also a possibility of a reverse process. Hence, when Joan invented The Voices, she created them as a factor of the objective reality. The Voices she created helped her to accomplish the mission of saving France she charged herself with, but then required Joan to pay for their service with her martyrdom. The price was as enormous as the exploit of Joan itself.
REFERENCES
1. V.I.Raitses. The trial of Joan of Arc. (Russian: В.И.Райцес. Процесс Жанны д'Арк. М.-Л., 1964.)
![[]](/img/r/romm_f_a/chap7/fig._7.1.jpg)
![[]](/img/r/romm_f_a/chap7/fig._7.2.jpg)
![[]](/img/r/romm_f_a/chap7/fig._7.3.jpg)
![[]](/img/r/romm_f_a/chap7/fig._7.4.jpg)