Why was Joan of Arc allowed to do what she did?

[Traitorfish]

Of course it was a dynastic struggle towards which king had rightful ownership of France but it would be wrong to assume there was no sense of a national conflict as well. Nearing the end of the Hundred Years War the seeds of nationalism were sprouted in England and France. Joan of Arc was a banner for the french people and to my knowledge she inspired France as a whole and her death just served to fuel the spark that ignited France as a national entity.

You're imposing later national mythologies onto a period in which they really don't make much sense; while it's true that the Hundred Years Wars did contribute something to the development of an early French national identity, that was a product of the conflict, rather than a particularly active factor. The country was still heavily regionalised (in fact, "early French national identity" and "Northern French regional identity" are almost interchangeable concepts until the 19th century), and their was no particularly neat overlap between ethnic boundaries and political ones, so appealing to as vague and poorly-defined a concept as "France" would not have been particularly productive. Aristocrats fought because of feudal loyalties, and commoners fought because they were paid too; nationalism really didn't enter into it.

If their ethnicity was politically unimportant in the dynastic struggle than why would the French be unwilling to serve under an English King? I cant think of any reasons other then wanting to not serve fealty to an English King.

Did they actually display any such unwillingness? The peasantry remained largely passive in the conflict, as they did in almost every dynastic conflict, the proto-middle classes displayed their usual tendency to balance tradition and opportunity, while the aristocracy divided primarily on their feudal loyalties. There wasn't really a popular movement against the Plantagenets, beyond the simple fact that a greater number of aristocrats owed their loyalties to the House of Valois and its allies.

 

[vogtmurr]

Now that you mention it, there have been plenty of deluded french woman (and men) claiming divine visions and trying to change history. A lot of those popped up as late as the tome of the "dragonnades". And got killed by the french monarchy. For some reason they didn't got any "national hero" status...

yup. what are the dragonnades ?
I don't believe a God dictates our events. Some claimed inspiration rightly or wrongly, and weren't always successful. Jeanne was.

No it wasn't and no it didn't. Even as late as the 1830's (if I recall my numbers correctly) there was up to 30% of French peasantry which had little to no consciousness of France as a political entity. Notions of the nation-state and then nationalism are a very late development despite whatever pseduo-unity may be claimed by Chinese, Egyptians or French.

I don't know about these political abstractions, but I think the people of France knew who they were in relation to the invaders over the last century, and the names of towns that had fallen. They weren't a new state and had a long history of their own, even if it wasn't uppermost in the average peasant mind, it was in many others who shaped society.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't know about these political abstractions, but I think the people of France knew who they were in relation to the invaders over the last century, and the names of towns that had fallen. They weren't a new state and had a long history of their own, even if it wasn't uppermost in the average peasant mind, it was in many others who shaped society.

What invaders? The Plantagenets? They were French. They drew a substantial body of their troops from England, granted, but the French also drew troops from across Western Europe. The average Norman had no more in common with a Gascon, Breton or Savoyard than he did with an Englishman. That a significant body of English-speaking Scots (around 12,000) not only fought for the French around this time, but contributed a number of their best warriors to serve as the royal bodyguard should make the disinterest in now-stark differences in nationality clear.

 

[vogtmurr]

Is it important that the Plantagenet dynasty came from France ? It has little to do with people whose living memory consists of the depredations of a foreign invader. I know there were fiefs in France that had been predominantly under the English crown, but the cultural and geographic separation was there, hence they couldn't hang on to it. If you are saying the war and Jeanne's appearance meant nothing to the average Frenchperson - then actual events indicates it isn't the case.
And Scotland most certainly had a national identity by then as well, which was also at war with England, making them natural allies for centuries. So unless it was a nationalistic pledge by every peasant it doesn't count as nationhood ?

 

[ParkCungHee]

It has little to do with people whose living memory consists of the depredations of a foreign invader.

Putting things in bold doesn't make them more true.

 

[vogtmurr]

or less. It was already bolded for me so I just added some clarification

 

[Karalysia]

What made the invader foreign?

 

[Traitorfish]

Is it important that the Plantagenet dynasty came from France ? It has little to do with people whose living memory consists of the depredations of a foreign invader. I know there were fiefs in France that had been predominantly under the English crown, but the cultural and geographic separation was there, hence they couldn't hang on to it. If you are saying the war and Jeanne's appearance meant nothing to the average Frenchperson - then actual events indicates it isn't the case.

What cultural and geographic separation? The Plantagenets were not merely of French descent, they were themselves French; the culture of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy was a French one, England, for that class, acting as a province of a greater entity than as an independent unit- and, indeed, that was how both the Plantagenet and Valois saw the Kingdom: a French vassal-state. While their hosts may have drawn on a variety of nationalities- and, by Joan's time, there was certainly a greater proportion of non-French than French (although far from all of them were English- the Bretons, Flanders and Welsh all provided troops in great numbers), this wasn't of that much relevance to a peasant, who experienced the host as nothing more than a (hopefully distant) band of marching men.

Nor should geography be of much relevance. London is closer to Paris than London to York or Paris to Marseilles.

And Scotland most certainly had a national identity by then as well, which was also at war with England, making them natural allies for centuries. So unless it was a nationalistic pledge by every peasant it doesn't count as nationhood ?

Actually, that's really rather debatable. Scotland's wars with England certainly forged some notion of it as a sovereign entity, but that was a political unity, not a cultural one. The Highlands/Lowlands divide- that is to say, the divide between the English(/Old Scots)-speaking Lowlanders and the Gaelic-speaking Highlanders and Islanders- was very powerful, and continued to be a major divide in Scotland until the 18th century. Many contemporary Lowlanders even considered themselves "Inglis", rather than "Scottis" (a term also applied to the Irish and Manx), the ethno-linguistic divide often trumping their mutual loyalty to the Scottish crown in defining identity. Scotland as a single national identity didn't fully emerge until after the Clearances.

 

[vogtmurr]

I won't try to define 'foreign invader', I just think it was obvious to the people that there was an aggressor state plundering their territory. I think it is an exaggeration that over a hundred years this was still just a squabble of competing dunasties, with no sentiments among the peasants and townspeople. Even Normandy, the origin of the Plantagenets, usually supported the French crown against England. Henry V had to conquer it all over again in 1415.

 

[Freemanuncg]

Yea splitting hair over wether the invader was foreign misses the point. There was a war and they accepted her because they needed somone to believe in at the time.

 

[Traitorfish]

I won't try to define 'foreign invader', I just think it was obvious to the people that there was an aggressor state plundering their territory.

You're imposing 19th century conceptions of state and nation onto the 15th century, which simply does not work. There were no nations to bestow the large-scale abstract collectivism upon territory that you suggest, so there's no reason to assume that characteristically modern sentiments would be found among a pre-modern populace. "Our land" is a concept that would only be found in communes and in clans, and both of those were intensely local identities (and the latter irrelevant to France).

I think it is an exaggeration that over a hundred years this was still just a squabble of competing dunasties, with no sentiments among the peasants and townspeople.

The townspeople, perhaps, but not the peasants; those were, at the time, too hugely disparate demographics. Furthermore, that the middle classes may have leant support one way or the other- as indeed they did- does not suggest that this support was necessarily nationalistic. Rather, it was based on a mixture of tradition and pragmatism, and often coming down to what was most advantageous for the local economy. (One town or region might favour the Plantagenets, for example, because a nearby economic rival had the favour of the Valois.)

Even Normandy, the origin of the Plantagenets, usually supported the French crown against England. Henry V had to conquer it all over again in 1415.

In what sense does that suggest popular support one way or the other? It was a war, not an election. Regime change was easier in feudal Europe than it was under almost any other system: all you needed to do was remove a previous lord and walk into his place, and life continued for the vast majority much as it had always done. This wasn't like the Norman conquest of England, in which an entire ruling class, social structure and body of law were being violently torn out, it was simply the institution of individuals for individuals.

And, again, there was no "French crown" and "English crown", there were rival claimants to the French crown. Both the Plantagenets and Valois laid claim to the French crown, the Plantagenets additionally claiming the English, while the Valois saw the English king as a vassal of the French.

Yea splitting hair over wether the invader was foreign misses the point. There was a war and they accepted her because they needed somone to believe in at the time.

But the very notion of "they", as in "the French people", assumes a national struggle, which is exactly what I am arguing was absent.

 

[Dachs]

Regime change was easier in feudal Europe than it was under almost any other system: all you needed to do was remove a previous lord and walk into his place, and life continued for the vast majority much as it had always done.

Funny how that didn't really happen more often than in other periods.

 

[Traitorfish]

Funny how that didn't really happen more often than in other periods.

Sure it did. The entire West and North of France went back and forth between the Plantagenets and Capetians for a couple of centuries.

 

[Dachs]

That's really more of a dramatic series of territorial shifts than the eighteenth century and the Napoleonic wars?

 

[Traitorfish]

That's really more of a dramatic series of territorial shifts than the eighteenth century and the Napoleonic wars?

My point wasn't that territory shifted more easily, but that the leadership was more easily change. It took more effort for Napoleon to overthrow an established government and install his own puppets than it did for the Plantagenets to turf out a Valois lord and install their own, particularly given that, in this case, they essentially comprised factions of a single aristocracy.

 

[Dachs]

According to you, wouldn't Napoleon and the Habsburgs comprise factions of a single aristocracy, too?

 

[ParkCungHee]

According to you, wouldn't Napoleon and the Habsburgs comprise factions of a single aristocracy, too?

In before class conflict.

 

[Yeekim]

You're imposing 19th century conceptions of state and nation onto the 15th century, which simply does not work. There were no nations to bestow the large-scale abstract collectivism upon territory that you suggest, so there's no reason to assume that characteristically modern sentiments would be found among a pre-modern populace. "Our land" is a concept that would only be found in communes and in clans, and both of those were intensely local identities (and the latter irrelevant to France).

So you are claiming that the concept of "foreign aggresssor" did not exist before 19th century nationalism?

The fact that the parties probably did not probably identify themselves as "French" or "English" does not mean they couldn't see the struggle as one of "us" vs "them".

 

[ParkCungHee]

So you are claiming that the concept of "foreign aggresssor" did not exist before 19th century nationalism?

Oh it certainly did. If the mongols showed up one day to pillage France, they'd be seen as foreign agressors. But we still have no evidence here of this being seen as anything but an interdynastic feud.

The fact that the parties probably did not probably identify themselves as "French" or "English" does not mean they couldn't see the struggle as one of "us" vs "them".

Nor does the conflict amounting to "us" vs. "them" mean the conflict was one against "foreign agressors". There are loads of other divisions that can be seen beyond the national ones.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nor does the conflict amounting to "us" vs. "them" mean the conflict was one against "foreign agressors". There are loads of other divisions that can be seen beyond the national ones.

In fact, if the the common people did have any sense of "us" vs "them" at Joan's time, it was probably that the Plantagenets supported the Roman Pope and the Valois the Avignonese, and that was something that cut across proto-national boundaries.

According to you, wouldn't Napoleon and the Habsburgs comprise factions of a single aristocracy, too?

I meant that the pro-Plantagenets and pro-Valois aristocrats were both members of the same political institution, and differed only in who they supported as the head of that institution. They didn't represent separate states any more than the Democrats and Republicans do.

In before class conflict.

Smartass.