But that isn't what the post was about, it does matter whether France though that God existed
Why was Joan of Arc allowed to do what she did?
- Thread starter Xanikk999
- Start date
But that isn't what the post was about, it does matter whether France though that God existed
Verbose
Deity
Depends on what you mean by existing. If belief in god exists, answering whether the Big G himself does, can be postponed. Religious doubt isn't really a novelty in history.
What it really is about is how society works, under what assumptions, i.e. culture. As has been pointed out, messengers from the divine were not theoretically impossible. They were however very, very rare. Thus the quite serious process of vetting the "Pucelle" before accepting her as legit.
There is also an aspect to it which might not immediately stick out to modern people. She was a virgin. Virgins in western society has had some special connotations, enough so that they could be termed a "third sex", neither men nor quite women, yet. Jeanne's status was dependent on her virginity which was physically probed in a rather humiliating semi-public interview by none other than the king-mum of France who then attested to the fact.
Anyhow, virgins were accorded special status. Since they were not men, but not yet "proper" women, they could get some leeway and even absorb certain male qualities, if they went for it. (Like Jeanne did; hair cropped short, wearing armour, riding like te blokes etc.) Jeanne's virginity also worked for her in the sense that she could be understood in analogy with ordinary nuns in a monastic setting. They were "brides of Christ" their virginity reserved for Him (not that he would take it), and by analogous reasoning Jeanne could be rationalised in the same way. Had she just been some ordinary peasant woman, with a husband and kids, she could probably have petitioned the Dauphin until the cows came home with no luck.
@LightSpectra: To me even the idea that God would take part in wars seems kind of contrary to the idea of Christianity.
Verbose
Deity
Well, it seems not in France. It's perhaps less God personally taking sides, but rather Divine Providence operating in the affairs of men, and the Grand Plan having a special, and positive, destiny for France. That is, it was an established trope with the French monarchy, which seems to have survived with parts of French society right up to WWII at least.
Jeanne kind of if not inaugurated at least cemented a very French idea about Providence providing a Man/or Woman of Destiny in the nation's hour of need. Sometimes apparently Pétain in WWI could be seen as the Man of Destiny for France, saving everyones' bacon. I've heard progressive French historians slamming that kind of thinking as a blight on French politics through history. It seems it might at times lead to a certain degree of fatalism. ("Is the Man of Destiny come yet? No? Oh well, we'll just wait for him to come solve things.")
Certainly de Gaulle never claimed he was Joan of Arc. It was Churchill's quip about him. However, when making it Churchill seems to have displayed a good grasp of that special kind of French historic thinking about their nation, according to which de Gaulle certainly could be seen as the Man of Destiny of the day, as Pétain in WWI, or Jeanne d'Arc was the Woman of Destiny back in her day. (The schoolboy de Gaulle does seem to have had a sense of self which included some day becoming the saviour of the nation. Of course the young Churchill had the exact same idea about himself and Britain.)
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Your post is a little vague. If you're going back to the issue of why God would care about a French dynastic issue when there's seemingly more important things for the divine, then I have already answered this. Jeanne herself was recorded to have said, "Of the love or hatred God has for the English, I know nothing, but I do know that they will all be thrown out of France, except those who die there."
If you mean that God would not intervene in a war because war is inherently immoral in Christianity, then I would recommend reading Ecclesiastes 3:1-8.
Freemanuncg
Warlord
Yea but god saying that going to war sometimes is ok isnt really the same as a diety taking sides between 2 nations-states who both follow sects of christianity (the religion it created) is it?
Well that's basically what I said didn't I? People will believe anything once you bring god into it.
This thread got derailed into debating whether there was divine providence involved which can't be proven. It takes away from examining the real world miracle that was Jeanne. I am no theologian but some of the arguments here which presuppose the nature of God, or not - seem flawed. It seems any counter argument is inevitable grounds for dismissal as a religious fanatic. I'll reserve judgement myself, but at least I won't be playing 'devil's advocate' for a change.
Because maybe this time it really mattered. Never mind the House of Valois, a future influential nation-state was at stake, which had been a victim of unjust war for over a century, even through the Black Death. People had lost faith in a lot of things, including God. To Jeanne's young mind it all boiled down to restoring a belief in justice, which if there was a God, must surely be on their side. This was not a routine declaration of divine favour.
If there is a God, I don't see how He did. The war was already on and the actions of Jeanne brought it to a close. It's kind of ironic that after she sparked the chain of events her part in it came to an end rather quickly, and tragically.
Such as what ? What would merit this presumed God getting involved in the affairs of humans ? If free will is our legacy, then it seems reasonable His interventions would be an occasional prophet or messenger acting as a guide. I know, throughout history we've had similar claims from ancient Israelites, St. Paul, Constantine, Jihadists, Crusaders, Inquisitors, other saints, philosophers, and artists, all claiming to be agents of the true God. Can you paint them all with the same brush ?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.
Why indeed, your question underlines how these minor events had an overwhelming impact on history.
Because maybe this time it really mattered. Never mind the House of Valois, a future influential nation-state was at stake, which had been a victim of unjust war for over a century, even through the Black Death. People had lost faith in a lot of things, including God. To Jeanne's young mind it all boiled down to restoring a belief in justice, which if there was a God, must surely be on their side. This was not a routine declaration of divine favour.
The only 'divine intercession' claimed by Jeanne was the visions she experienced from the age of 12. The rest was up to her and the people she could convince, which you claim was a trivial matter to a 'bunch of peasants in the middle ages'. You might say she was delusional, but her initial interrogation and her eventual trial bely that theory, despite their philosphical traps and the convenient excuse it offered to avoid martyrdom. The most important thing is that she believed in it utterly and it inspired her to act in ways that changed the course of history.
If there is a God, I don't see how He did. The war was already on and the actions of Jeanne brought it to a close. It's kind of ironic that after she sparked the chain of events her part in it came to an end rather quickly, and tragically.
Freemanuncg
Warlord
I feel that regardless of wether anyone believed her, they used her as a figure head, something to unite the French people against the invading English. (it didnt matter to them if she really saw God, what mattered was that they could say publicly 'hey god's on our side' and raise the moral of the French people which was pitiful due to years of occupation. She herself was most likely the victim of some fever or disease in her childhood which caused her to have hallucinations. of what? what else. God telling her that the english that oppressed the French were bad and that he was on her side, and why not she was a little girl. But what she Did was provide a source of moral support to the French armies that eventually threw the English out.
amirite
amirite
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Fair point. However, there's a difference between being open-minded to a possibility which is beyond our current ability to prove or disprove, and so boldly stating it as Civ King did.
Fixed.
Xanikk999
History junkie
The squabbling fuedal lords fighting against each other over controlling France during the period where Charles VI was mentally unfit to rule could hardly count as an invasion really.
The Burgundians were hardly the main adversary facing the french. In fact, they were only fighting against the french very briefly and switched sides back to them when they found out that their English allies were losing their hold on french lands at a rapid pace towards the end of the war.
Can we get back on track and discuss why Joan of Arc was accepted rather than dwell on whether she was actually divinely inspired? That argument makes about as much sense as proving that "god" exists which is impossible.
Edit2: Blast I just realized you probably are referring to the royalty of England descending from norman origins.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I was referring to the fact that both the Houses Valois and Plantagenet were French, at least to the extent that national identity was applicable to the period, and that the war was essentially a dynastic struggle within France. The ethnicity of their various minions was more or less politically irrelevant, and reflected the territory of each faction, rather than any form of national conflict.
It was specifically the Armagnac faction of the House of Valois that Joan set out to save, remember, not "France", a notion that wouldn't have carried much weight for the average fifteenth century peasant. It's awkward enough trying to imposing national liberation narratives on those conflicts which did at least have a quasi-national tinge to them (the Scottish Wars of Independence, for example), but in this case the idea of the war as an Anglo-French is not merely anachronistic but contrary to the facts of the matter, and would have been one entirely alien to its participants.
Xanikk999
History junkie
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.
Both king's had claims to the throne of France and according to french Salic law the English claim would be legally invalid since inheritance of the crown of France cannot pass among the female line. This is important because Edward III who first invaded France based his claim on his mother being the next-in-line to the French throne after Charles IV died since Charles had no male children.
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.
Edit: Sorry I am probably not arguing anything you are saying after re-reading your post a few times you I think you misunderstood me also. I was not arguing that the English's allies in the war were ethnically important at all. They just wanted to gain power at the expense of a weaker kingdom that being France. There wasn't much motivation otherwise that I can think of for the the burgundian's getting involved other than that since supporting France and trying to profit off England would be much harder during the war since France at the time of the English-Burgundian alliance was losing large amounts of land.
No, that was me trying to put myself in place of a person then and examine what they would have thought. Joan was interrogated, and they interrogators found complete honesty in here answers so they were willing to agree that she had indeed been "sent". From there that confirmation forced people to get rid of their prejudices because after all how could you be prejudiced against someone who was "sent by God". She became a beacon of hope for the French. Also she saluted the king when he was disguised which opened credibility. Apparently she gave a sign of "providence" to the king which made him fully accept her.Fair point. However, there's a difference between being open-minded to a possibility which is beyond our current ability to prove or disprove, and so boldly stating it as Civ King did.
Fixed.
So "Divine Providence" was the cause, or at least what the people thought was "Divine Providence".
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
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...
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.
Similar threads
