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

[Xanikk999]

Disclaimer: Sorry for using the anglicized form of her name. I am an American and this is how I grew up spelling her name so bear with me.

Something that still strikes me as one of the many oddities in western history is the life of Joan of Arc in France during the Hundred Years War.

How is it that during a time of such rigid societal and gender restrictions that a woman of peasent origins was allowed some degree of reign on french military affairs during the seige of Orleans by the British?

Nevermind the fact that she is a woman living in Fuedal France and that she is a peasent. I am incredibly suprised she wasnt burned at the stake sooner then she was for claiming divine inspiration, and not be the English but by her own people instead.

I know the situation in France was very desperate leading up the Siege of Orleans but the fact she overcame gender resctrictions, class restrictions, superstition and prejudice to be allowed to do what she did is beyond remarkable for the time period.

You wouldn't see a woman do what she did in any of todays armies by comparison. I would like to hear some other posters opinions of her and her triumphs.

Was her involvement in the war out of the ordinary given the circumstances of the time or not? Why do you think she was allowed to do what she did and endorsed by the dauphin of France?

 

[Ataxerxes]

She did make a lot of her contemporaries uncomfortable and I think might even have become a problem for the Dauphin later on. Her involvement was absolutely out of the ordinary, it's true.

However, claiming divine communication did allow several women in the middle ages to do things that were ordinarily denied to them. Some of the mystics who wrote of their experiences were held in high regard.

If enough people believed she was sent by God, they would dismiss many of the usual restrictions. Religious belief was one of the major influences at that time, if not THE major influence. Her being executed was more of a political execution than a religious one. The English were going to find her guilty, period, to get rid of her.

 

[LightSpectra]

I'm sure you'll find plenty of people to ascribe it to just desperation and luck, but I myself would say that it was divine providence.

 

[vogtmurr]

She was by all accounts, well spoken, guileless and absolutely convincing. Her interviews with the dauphin went well, but it was only after a committee of clergy and political advisors grilled her repeatedly and completed an exhaustive background check that she was invested with any authority. They reserved judgement on the divine nature of her message - that was to be proven in action. Contrary to all the stereotypes about the middle ages, they did not 'jump' to every divinely inspired fanatic, male or female, and had reason to be skeptical on the issue of mental health. Charles the Mad had just signed away the inheritance of France at the Treaty of Troyes.

 

[LightSpectra]

She was by all accounts, well spoken, guileless and absolutely convincing. Her interviews with the dauphin went well, but it was only after a committee of clergy and political advisors grilled her repeatedly and completed an exhaustive background check that she was invested with any authority. They reserved judgement on the divine nature of her message - that was to be proven in action. Contrary to all the stereotypes about the middle ages, they did not 'jump' to every divinely inspired fanatic, male or female, and had reason to be skeptical on the issue of mental health. Charles the Mad had just signed away the inheritance of France at the Treaty of Troyes.

Yes, this is completely true. Often the Middle Ages are portrayed as being full of unscientific dolts ready to accept any claim to miraculousness at the drop of a hat, which is absurd. The fact that she wasn't turned away as being a lunatic is on the verge of impossibility; Jeanne d'Arc is one-of-a-kind in history, and even more amazing than that, is that she vindicated herself.

 

[Traitorfish]

Interestingly, after she was executed as a heretic, her mother went on a one-woman crusade to get the church to posthumously retry her, resulting in the original verdict being overturned. Another illiterate, unknown peasant woman from out of nowhere, doing something which, by all rights, should have been impossible. So, honestly, I'm inclined say genetics, because badass clearly ran in the family.

 

[civ_king]

Disclaimer: Sorry for using the anglicized form of her name. I am an American and this is how I grew up spelling her name so bear with me.

Something that still strikes me as one of the many oddities in western history is the life of Joan of Arc in France during the Hundred Years War.

How is it that during a time of such rigid societal and gender restrictions that a woman of peasent origins was allowed some degree of reign on french military affairs during the seige of Orleans by the British?

Nevermind the fact that she is a woman living in Feudal France and that she is a peasent. I am incredibly suprised she wasn't burned at the stake sooner then she was for claiming divine inspiration, and not be the English but by her own people instead.

I know the situation in France was very desperate leading up the Siege of Orleans but the fact she overcame gender restrictions, class restrictions, superstition and prejudice to be allowed to do what she did is beyond remarkable for the time period.

You wouldn't see a woman do what she did in any of todays armies by comparison. I would like to hear some other posters opinions of her and her triumphs.

Was her involvement in the war out of the ordinary given the circumstances of the time or not? Why do you think she was allowed to do what she did and endorsed by the dauphin of France?

Divine Providence allowed her to bypass the societal and gender restrictions. After being interrogated they concluded she was actually sent to aid them. It should be clear enough that when one has been confirmed to be sent by God that it would break many prejudices against her. Do you really think that the military would fight the will of God especially when He wants them to win?

Like I said, she was welcomed after being interrogated. Also she was able to recognize the king even incognito along with being able to give a sign of Providence to the king.

 

[Traitorfish]

Do you really think that the military would fight the will of God...

According to the English, they did just that!

Really, let's not get caught up in all this "divine providence" silliness. Everyone always claimed that He was on there side, and none of them really had all that much better a case than anyone else. If there is a God, I honestly think He had better things to do than make half-hearted interventions in the dynastic squabbles of third-world despotisms.

 

[civ_king]

According to the English, they did just that!

Really, let's not get caught up in all this "divine providence" silliness. Everyone always claimed that He was on there side, and none of them really had all that much better a case than anyone else. If there is a God, I honestly think He had better things to do than make half-hearted interventions in the dynastic squabbles of third-world despotisms.

France was not despotic

 

[Traitorfish]

France was not despotic

That's the part of my post you take issue with? Telling, I think.

 

[LightSpectra]

Really, let's not get caught up in all this "divine providence" silliness. Everyone always claimed that He was on there side, and none of them really had all that much better a case than anyone else. If there is a God, I honestly think He had better things to do than make half-hearted interventions in the dynastic squabbles of third-world despotisms.

An interesting development in the history of metaphysics, that was most pronounced in the works of Boethius, is whether amazing coincidences should be ascribed to divine providence (even if why God would care about things that would be trivial in His eyes is indiscernible) or to randomness, otherwise called fortune. I would recommend you read Consolation of Philosophy sometime if you get the chance.

 

[civ_king]

That's the part of my post you take issue with? Telling, I think.

I didn't really understand the rest of your post

 

[Traitorfish]

I didn't really understand the rest of your post

Ok, I'll re-iterate: Why should we take the entirely routine declaration of divine favour on the part of Valois France any more seriously than on the part of its contemporaries? What was so very special about the House of Valois that made a celestial overlord take a personal interest in its claim to the throne of a minor feudal domain on the fringes of Eurasian civilisation, and why did He then choose to act in such a limited and underwhelming fashion?

 

[Lone Wolf]

What was so very special about the House of Valois that made a celestial overlord take a personal interest in its claim to the throne of a minor feudal domain on the fringes of Eurasian civilisation, and why did He then choose to act in such a limited and underwhelming fashion?

Mysterious ways.

 

[LightSpectra]

Ok, I'll re-iterate: Why should we take the entirely routine declaration of divine favour on the part of Valois France any more seriously than on the part of its contemporaries? What was so very special about the House of Valois that made a celestial overlord take a personal interest in its claim to the throne of a minor feudal domain on the fringes of Eurasian civilisation, and why did He then choose to act in such a limited and underwhelming fashion?

The larger question here is really why God does anything at all, and it's unanswerable. The first problem is whether I could understand the final cause of the acts of God beyond vague metaphysical concepts (though I could gladly talk about that if you would like, since that is actually my academic specialty), and the second problem is whether -- supposing we got past the first problem -- I could adequately explain it. It's the equivalent of trying to teach bears why humans do things, but on a much grander scale.

Or, if you would prefer the question to be posed in comic format...

 

[Karalysia]

I would say the primary reason would be the whole religious angle. You can convince anyone of anything if you tell them "god did it" especially a bunch of peasants in the Middle Ages. Or today for that matter. Heh.

 

[LightSpectra]

I'd find that hilarious on so many levels if I didn't already know you were trolling.

 

[Karalysia]

Yeah not buying that "god did it!" as an explanation for a historical event is trolling. Sure.

 

[civ_king]

Yeah not buying that "god did it!" as an explanation for a historical event is trolling. Sure.

See this post

 

[Karalysia]

Brah, there is really nothing you can say that will ever convince me that something that doesn't exist was responsible for a historical event.