History questions not worth their own thread III

[Lord Baal]

The Unione Corse (French Mafia) was the only criminal organisation during the war to give the Allies a large amount of aid, up to and including military assistance. In Corsica and Marseilles, the Unione wasn't just involved with the resistance as spies and saboteurs - as the Cosa Nostra often was - it was the resistance. They openly declared for Charles De Gaulle early on after he fled Vichy, and quite openly assisted the Allies in Southern France. They reiterated their support for De Gaulle during the OAS-Gaullist civil war, fighting a bloody underground war with the OAS for control of the illegal weapons trade.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

If there was Joan of Arc and Henry didn't die in such an inoppertune manner, would the French actually accept the Treaty of Troyes and allow their throne to pass tot he King of England? Not asking about consequences; Just whether or not it would actually happen.

I'm assuming that you meant no Joan of Arc. For starters I don't think she had that much influence on political events in France. As a symbol, yes she was very important, especially on the battlefield and perhaps to religious lay people who saw her as a reason for Charles VII's legitimacy. However, the noble supporters of Charles VII were actively looking for a reason to crown him, which they got after the Battle of Patay (1429), which Joan took no active part.

As to the second part of your question, I do think that the English cause would have been improved significantly if the English had gotten 10-15 more years out of Henry V as well as the French getting at least another 3-5 years out of Charles VI. However , I also think that its important to remember that even though though the Dual monarchy was lead by a regency council, they were actually in a very good position in the early 1420's. Not only did the English control a but ton of France, they gained even more strength with the Treaty of Amiens in 1423 where Brittany and Burgundy recognized Henry VI as king of both realms. Also, in 1421 (I believe) a Paris court ruled that Charles VII had to vacate all of his titles.

What undermined the English position was the marriage of Charles VII to Marie d'Anjou (early 1420's), which gave him a strong power base and lots of supporters and the French victories in the Loire valley in 1429 which gave him the standing that he needed to really assert his kingship.

Long story short, with the stability and political unity on a continued reign of Henry V after 1422 would probably helped out a lot in the long run, making it plausible for a continuation of the Dual Monarchy, but Henry would still have to solve the war debt plaguing parliament in London as well as try to mitigate the aftermath of the Battle of Bauge in 1422 which decimated the English leadership in France right before his death.

Hope that helps.

 

[Terrance888]

Thanks. Covered it way better than my AP Euro teacher.

 

[LightSpectra]

I'm assuming that you meant no Joan of Arc. For starters I don't think she had that much influence on political events in France. As a symbol, yes she was very important, especially on the battlefield and perhaps to religious lay people who saw her as a reason for Charles VII's legitimacy. However, the noble supporters of Charles VII were actively looking for a reason to crown him, which they got after the Battle of Patay (1429), which Joan took no active part.

Patay wouldn't have been possible if it weren't for the multiple victories Jeanne won prior to that. Also, it was Jeanne's plan in the first place to bypass Paris in order to march on Reims for Charles' coronation.

As to the second part of your question, I do think that the English cause would have been improved significantly if the English had gotten 10-15 more years out of Henry V as well as the French getting at least another 3-5 years out of Charles VI.

Not only that, but the War of 1422 only happened because Henry V was unexpectedly outlived by Charles VI. If it weren't for the former's untimely death, he would've legitimately inherited the throne of France by uniting both branches of the Plantagenet dynasty.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Patay wouldn't have been possible if it weren't for the multiple victories Jeanne won prior to that. Also, it was Jeanne's plan in the first place to bypass Paris in order to march on Reims for Charles' coronation.

Yea, I guess I should have reinforced that Patay was the climax of the Loire campaign of 1429. But the point still remains that Charles VII had claimed the title King of France since the death of Charles VI. However, while the march on Reims was a huge political coup for Charles VII's posse, Reims also sat right smack in the middle of Burgundo-English territory. Taking Reims completely unhinged the link between the English and Burgundian territories, and this actually prompted the Burgundians to switch to Charlie VII's side, as well as placing the English hold on Paris and Normandy in a dangerous position. Yes Joan was given co-command of the army, but I honestly doubt she made any real tactical decisions.

 

[LightSpectra]

Most chroniclers said she did.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Most chroniclers said she did.

Yes, nationalistic French chroniclers, because they never lie right. There is little I know of that is really contemporary that speaks of her. The Wikipedia article as well as most internet articles take their info right out of Kelly DeVries work, and he was so in love with Joan he OFTEN takes tradition at face value.

 

[LightSpectra]

Yes, nationalistic French chroniclers, because they never lie right. There is little I know of that is really contemporary that speaks of her. The Wikipedia article as well as most internet articles take their info right out of Kelly DeVries work, and he was so in love with Joan he OFTEN takes tradition at face value.

So that's where you're getting your history? Wikipedia and assorted "internet articles"? There are much better sources than that.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

So that's where you're getting your history? Wikipedia and assorted "internet articles"? There are much better sources than that.

THATS NOT WHERE I GET MY HISTORY!!! If you read what I'm saying, I was remarking on how the vast majority of stuff on her is idealistic crap especially in the internet. As a History major I take offense to the notion of using Wikipedia in arguments of this nature.

p.s. I've actually read DeVries work was well as many others.

 

[LightSpectra]

I don't know why you brought them up, then. So, would you tell me what sources you do accept, considering you've just sunk... basically all of them?

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Why are we getting in a source battle? You haven't even brought up new information even though I just compared what you've been saying to a wiki article.

BTW: I don't mean to be insulting its just you have my dander up right now.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

If thou doth require some sources on the topic:
Jonathan Sumption has a but ton a GREAT work in the HYW (I'm still trying to get through the latest edition)
Deborah A. Fraioli (who I don't like all that much but she's not the worst)
Charles William Chadwick has some brand new work out that is good.

 

[LightSpectra]

I haven't read the third, but I know the first two cite French chroniclers as sources. I would presume the third does, since that's the primary collection of data on Jeanne.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

What is your point about the French chronicles? I never said that they didn't address her. I stated that I believe that they overstated her role in the war. Not to say that she was unimportant, but her actions were more of a rallying cry that help bring support and creditably to the plans that the pro Charlie VII faction already had. Plus when she tried to go against those plans, she gets captured by the ever on the fence Burgundians.

 

[LightSpectra]

The only way you can derive that information from the French chroniclers is by comparing them to more objective sources, which don't exist. Downplaying Jeanne's role is essentially arbitrary.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

How is that arbitrary? ALL of history is people interpreting events from the sources of a topic. No honest historian takes primary sources solely on face value. A "contemporary" source says that during the Siege of Orleans that she literally just walks up to the English commander of Les Tourelles and has a conversation with him (while scouting his lines)! Another states that she survived a direct hit from a cannon ball TO THE HEAD while on a siege ladder! The same chroniclers that claim that she rose the French leadership out of their cautious stances spent the majority of time describing the period before her arrival at Orleans as full of French offensive victories. After the coronation of Charlie VII, she spends the months before she's captured raiding and capturing non-relevant towns just like every other French leader during the time before that to help raise her status.

Me, as well as many historians, stating that her role is over stated is just the same as historians for a bajillion years stating that Herodotus overstated his facts.

 

[LightSpectra]

But that's not the same thing. When it appears that chroniclers have exaggerated out of the wazoo, it's fair enough to challenge the claims within reason, but everything we know about Jeanne d'Arc suggests she actually did give military orders. The story isn't logically consistent if she's just a figurehead.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

That theory in its own self is arbitrary. You can't just pick and choose when when you think an author is exaggerating, if a source makes you take his work with a grain of salt with one thing you have to do it with all their work. And of course she issued orders, her mere presence as a holy woman would bring an entire medieval army to her side (which she did). But if you actually read the chronicles you keep talking about all the "contemporary" ones say that the vast majority of her orders were charging attacks on fortifications, hardly a new concept, arguing with the other commanders about strategic plans (without ever really saying who won them), and writing nationalistic letters to the English commander along the way. Nothing she is claimed to have done was actually that revolutionary or different than what the French were already trying to do in the late 1420's early 1430's.

 

[sydhe]

Patay wouldn't have been possible if it weren't for the multiple victories Jeanne won prior to that. Also, it was Jeanne's plan in the first place to bypass Paris in order to march on Reims for Charles' coronation.



Not only that, but the War of 1422 only happened because Henry V was unexpectedly outlived by Charles VI. If it weren't for the former's untimely death, he would've legitimately inherited the throne of France by uniting both branches of the Plantagenet dynasty.

How would uniting the Yorkists and Lancastrians allow him to inherit the throne of France?

 

[Arakhor]

Edward III and Philip Augustus were both descendants of Geoffrey of Anjou and the Empress Mathilda. The French kings were Angevins in the female line (through Geoffrey's daughter Eleanor) at this point.