Orleans surrenders before Joan arrives

I was just reading that in March 1429, after failing to capture an English resupply mission in the "Battle of the Herrings," the city of Orleans offered to surrender to the Duke of Burgundy, an English ally. The English regent John Duke of Bedford refused to accept that surrender, and the siege continued until raised by Joan of Arc.

Suppose it was accepted, though? Despite the risks of leaving Orleans in an unstable ally's hands, Bedford had opposed the siege at the beginning and might have been glad to end it with something that could be spun as a victory. Perhaps more significantly, this might have longer-term impacts on Joan of Arc's mission: at the same day as the Battle of the Herrings, the local lord Robert de Baudricourt had sent Joan on to the Dauphin. What would happen if before she arrives to begin her mission to lift the siege of Orleans, the city surrenders?
 
First, it would put the Armagnac-Charles VII forces in a relatively bad position.
Orleans locked one of the main ways on Loire and would have it fell, it would seriously challenge their possibility to launch campaign as they did OTL in Normandy, and Joan's to Rheims.

Now, having it on Burgundy's hands would really be annoying for England : as you said Burgundy was a quite unstable ally and it would have really strengthened its faction.
Holding the city would have meant a far better strong point for negotiations, with English or with French (the latter being more likely, as not only Armagnacs began to make such, but that the new English court seems less disposed to favor them), and it was the main reason for Bedford to refuse such condition.

Don't forget that Burgundy faction, really strong in the northern part of the realm, was basically what allowed English to enter in Paris and that they not only kept an anti-Henry VI stance up to quite late, but such feelings were relatively strong even at this date among its supporters.

So let's assume Beford accept this (and, really, it's not likely) : stronger Burgundy faction, less options for Armagnacs, nothing much changes for Lancasters, but Winchester Cardinal would certainly have a stronger position within English policies (the siege was his idea)

For Joan of Arc, not having the opportunity to demonstrate her skills at Orleans would probably confine her in his symbolic role she had up to the battle.
While the military success can certainly been achieved by her mentors in this situation, without flux of volunteers, without the reaction it had on English and Bourguignons, they would be more espaced and more defensive.

I don't think the purely defensive faction at Bourges' court would win tough, the fact Charles VIII sent Joan to Orleans (even only mainly to escort ravitail and a little army rather than actual commander) shows a will to take the lead anew.

Now, I can't find one occurrence of this surrender offer : even Guillemin that is an ultra-critic of Joan of Arc historiography (really too much, by the way) doesn't mention it. Can I ask where did you found it?

What we have is Orleanais, sending a message to Philippe de Bourgogne saying basically that, the siege not being that furious, couldn't he ask Bedford for a truce.
Bedford refusing it, Bourguignons withdrew the handful of mercenaries they had.

The siege of Orléans being quite...less epic that the historiography painted it (you had regular truces, even if daily; incomplete besieging, etc.)
Almost all the ravitail send by Charles passed quietly in the non-besieged doors (Battle of Herrings was most a tentative to deprive English for them food, rather than feeding themselves)
I finally really doubt that the city would have surrendered effectively after Herrings : the city was more or less ravitailled.
 
Now, having it on Burgundy's hands would really be annoying for England : as you said Burgundy was a quite unstable ally and it would have really strengthened its faction.
Even more so than Armagnac hands? I'll grant it wouldn't vastly improve England's situation, but it would hurt their enemy's. And remember, if Bedford had gotten his way from the beginning, the city wouldn't have been besieged in the first place and remained Armagnac. He'd still be ending in a however-marginally better position than the beginning.


For Joan of Arc, not having the opportunity to demonstrate her skills at Orleans would probably confine her in his symbolic role she had up to the battle.
If the Dauphin even accepts her. As it was, though the sources are clearly biased, there seems to have been a fair degree of caution as to whether to endorse this girl who could easily be styled a heretic or even witch. As it was, they at least claimed they let her go to Orleans as a test to see whether God was with her and would give her victory. If they aren't able to test this main claim of hers, would they even receive her? I think they would. But it's not certain.

Now, I can't find one occurrence of this surrender offer : even Guillemin that is an ultra-critic of Joan of Arc historiography (really too much, by the way) doesn't mention it. Can I ask where did you found it?
Sure. Conquest : the English kingdom of France, 1417-1450, by Juliet R. V. Barker. It's also mentioned in the Wikipedia article, for what that's worth, which cites this book written in French that looks like a primary source.
 
Even more so than Armagnac hands? I'll grant it wouldn't vastly improve England's situation, but it would hurt their enemy's.
I don't remember having said that.
What I said, is that it would have changed little for England, much prevented an Armagnac/Charles VII action and would really increase Bourgogne power (critically in the negotiations with Charles, that were much supported by his council).

First, Armagnacs still hold Angers that is as much, if not more, fortified and a main passage on Loire. It's much westwards, of course, and Orleans taken would have mean a direct road opened to Bourges.
Second, England was quite passive in the continuation of the war, and Orleans siege is more the result of inner policies than (even if it's a factor, of course) part of a strategy of attack.

If the Dauphin even accepts her. As it was, though the sources are clearly biased, there seems to have been a fair degree of caution as to whether to endorse this girl who could easily be styled a heretic or even witch.
From the sources, primary and secondary, I have this wasn't really debated after the first encounter.
What was debated, is the place that Joan had to take : she wanted to be a war leader (supported gradually by some, and clearly not at the same importance before Orléans) or a symbol, a "fetish" to quote Guillemin.

As it was, they at least claimed they let her go to Orleans as a test to see whether God was with her and would give her victory.
Err. No. They send her to Orléans to escort a ravitail convoy with a relative indeterminate number of soldiers (up to 400 maybe). So far, only Joan thought it was about defeating the English troops.
Her leading the operation, is quite a "coup de force" not planned by the court.

If they aren't able to test this main claim of hers, would they even receive her? I think they would. But it's not certain.
She didn't claimed more to free Orléans, than to chase English out of France (aka N-W France) more generally. The claims to free the city are made once in Chinon, and would be likely butterflied by the PoD.


Sure. Conquest : the English kingdom of France, 1417-1450, by Juliet R. V. Barker. It's also mentioned in the Wikipedia article, for what that's worth, which cites this book written in French that looks like a primary source.
[/QUOTE]

Reading it, chapter 41, here is what I found (translating the best I can, the style is a bit archaic)

"After that the Count of Clermont withdrew to Orléans, he took some council there and swore and promised to his parliament to help the city with soldiers and ravitail for a certain day, and failed to do so; and stood for supporting the city only the Marshal of Saincte-Sevère with the bastard of Orléans.
And as the ones of Orléans don't hoped anymore being helped by the king, while they tended to preserve the lordship of the Duke or Orléans as their natural lord that was prisoner in England, and knowing as certain that almost all the nobles of France had compassion for him, and that the council of England gave for his lands abstinence of war for a time, granted by the power of Duke of Bedford, so-called regent of France, who by the ruthlessness of the council of Paris, didn't wanted to respect this abstinence, but besieged this said city.

In order to fulfill this, some nobles and bourgeois of the city of Orléans, went before the Duke of Bourgogne, and Sir Jean of Luxembourg, if they could by compassion help that said abstinence could be enforced without consequences, something that they agreed with much.

Then, said Dukes of Bourgogne and Luxembourg went to Paris. They came with them messengers from Orléans, and asked the Duke of Bedford to leave the siege and consent to the said abstinence, what he refused entirely.

It's why the Duke of Bourgogne was much displeased, and send with the messengers of Orléans, one of his heralds, who went to the army where all the ones that belonged to the said Duke's faction, and ordered them that they leave the said siege, and most of the Picards, Champenois and Bourguignons did so, weakening much the English power."

From what I read, Orléanais call for a truce that should be enforced as it was agreed before that, as Duke of Orléans was prisoner, his estates would be preserved from war.

Now, Chronique de la Pucelle, is clearly written by an Armagnac supporter in the XVI. It's indeed a primary source that ask for interpretation, but it's still one of the most interesting contemporary sources on this.
What I understand is : emissaries from Orléans ask Bourgogne if he could persuade Bedford to release the siege, Bourgogne granting it. (clearly putting Orléans in Bourgugnion sphere-of-influence, but not occupied by him and still held by Armagnacs/Charles)

The author you quoted must have a good reason to nuance that : can I ask you to copy there her point?

On Wikipedia, I only found this "Morale within the city and among its leaders was at a low point, so much so that consideration was given to surrendering the city." being not the same than saying an actual surrender proposition was made.

I hope you understand my concerns : it's not for being picky, and I would be much interested to see about this point.
But I couldn't find one positive mention about it so far.
 
From the sources, primary and secondary, I have this wasn't really debated after the first encounter.
What was debated, is the place that Joan had to take : she wanted to be a war leader (supported gradually by some, and clearly not at the same importance before Orléans) or a symbol, a "fetish" to quote Guillemin.
Okay. As I was saying, the sources I was referring to are very likely inaccurate. For instance, Barker agrees that the document saying the Dauphin sent Joan to Orleans as a test was very likely written after the victory to make it look like the court was being prudent and Joan had proved her mission beyond doubt. But no matter how little open doubting there might have been iOTL, things very well might look different iTTL. At least at her trial, Joan said that the voices had ordered her to "hurry and go and raise the siege of Orleans" even before she left her home. If that's true - and I haven't seen any reason to think otherwise - the Dauphin is going to be much more hesitant when the mission she's first asked for turns out to be impossible. The forces which iOTL pushed him to look prudent and seem like he was demanding proof are still going to be there, and it's possible they might push him to a different decision.


And you actually read French! Great; thanks for the translation!

I understand your concerns entirely, and I like this sort of discussion. Here's the quote from Barker:
Conquest said:
Jehanne's arrival at Chinon could not have been more opportune for the court faction, headed by Yolande of Aragon and her two sons, which was opposed to any accommodation with the Duke of Burgundy and wanted decisive military action. Those in favor of reconciliation with Burgundy, led by Georges de la Tremoille and Regnault de Chartres, archbishop of Reims, were in the ascendancy and had just begun an attempt to detach the duke from his English alliance. Poton de Xaintrailles had led a delegation, including representatives of the city of Orleans, to the duke with a proposition: if the siege was raised they would deliver the city into his hands and allow him to appoint its governors. Effective control would therefore lie with him, but the city revenues would be divided equally between Charles d'Orleans and Henry VI. Ever keen to acquire more lands, Burgundy accepted, only to be denied his prize by Bedford, who insisted that the Treaty of Troyes had decreed that all conquests were to become crown lands. Burgundy retaliated by withdrawing his troops from the siege.

Cautious to the last, the dauphin waited to learn that these negotiations had failed and Burgundy had decided to withdraw before unleashing Jehanne on Orleans.
 
Okay. As I was saying, the sources I was referring to are very likely inaccurate. For instance, Barker agrees that the document saying the Dauphin sent Joan to Orleans as a test was very likely written after the victory to make it look like the court was being prudent and Joan had proved her mission beyond doubt.
At the notable exception of Joan's trial accounts, there is anyway no primary source that wasn't written after her death.

But no matter how little open doubting there might have been iOTL, things very well might look different iTTL. At least at her trial, Joan said that the voices had ordered her to "hurry and go and raise the siege of Orleans" even before she left her home.
As said, she said certainly so after encountering Charles VII in Chinon's castle. However, there is no source proving she said so before (and of course, before Orléans was besieged).
When she left and went to Orléans, this is much certainly here objective (while it's far less certain it's the court's one), before that, it's all about speculation : she may have thought so but there's nothing to base a certainty on it.

Personally, tough, I would think it was the case : the siege was bandied about. But eventually, the decision was the court's : would have Orléans' siege be lifted and somewhat entered in Bourgogne sphere of influence, she'll would have be used for something else eventually.

If that's true - and I haven't seen any reason to think otherwise - the Dauphin is going to be much more hesitant when the mission she's first asked for turns out to be impossible.
Why? In a situation where Orléans didn't fall, with siege being lifted, and where Orléans estates are safe, I don't see how it would end by more caution on Joan.
Remember, before Orléans she's most seen as a "fetish", a symbolical feature showing that God is on France's side rather than a

And you actually read French! Great; thanks for the translation!
Thanks, but being French, this achievement is of little merit :D

I understand your concerns entirely, and I like this sort of discussion. Here's the quote from Barker:
I think she base herself more on the "Histoire et discours du Siège d'Orléans" than the "Chronique de la Pucelle" for this.

It's a printed book of 1576 that is copying a manuscript account of the siege, probably written in the 1460's. While we don't have the original manuscript, it's accepted that the print is an genuine copy and not a forgery, even if it was clearly re-written.
It still suffer from being an huge historiographical work written after the war was definitely over and suffering from certain mistakes and benevolent amnesia regarding how fared Armagnacs commanders.

For the account this source gives

18 February said:
And then, when the ones from Orléans saw themselves abandoned in little numbers of fighters, and saw the power and the siege of Englishmen growing each day, they sent Poton de Xaintrailles with some bourgeois before Philippe, Duke of Burgundy and sir Jean of Luxemburg, count of Ligny that were allies of England; and they beg and asked them to examine their situation; that for the affection of their lord Charles, Duke of Orléans, being prisoner in England, and for the preservation of his lands that he couldn't keep for this time,that if it pleased them to seek some abstinence of war with Englishmen, and to make them lift the siege up to the kingdom's troubles began to cease, or to give them help in the name of their impeached relative

Here, Orléans is more clearly asking Philippe of Burgundy to, if he's unable to make the English siege lift, to send his troops in the city to protect it in the name of the Duke of Orléans (against, the agressor, Bedford). More a protectorate than an actual take over of the duchy.
(I would point, however, that this source is the most hagiographic on Joan's role and quite darken the situation in order to lighten her : Orléans wasn't actually abandoned by Charles depsite the departure of troops, hence the regular ravitails, including the one more or less led by Joan with 400 men)

For anything regarding more, and even the quite folkloric answer of Bedford, I only found sources from the XVIII century. I would make a search at my university's library for more, so could you (sorry to ask you again something, but I'm genuily interested) please give me the primary source bibliography of this book?

---
For now, let's assume that what is asked of Philippe, is this protectorate on Orléans land.

Would have been accepted, the situation would have looked like this. (Don't pay attention to the green thing outside Guyenne, I don't know what it's supposed to show, giving England never had an hold on Poitiers or Tulle after the XV century)

I think you can see why Bedford went "Lol no". Not willing to lift the siege and Burgundy not willing to fight him, such embassy was likely to fail.

ybONvRL.jpg


Let's assume that not only Bedford agrees to lift the siege, but that Philippe manage to hold Orléans (while it was an lifting the siege "or" protecting Orléans and not an "and" that was proposed)

Burgundy domination was strong enough without need to add even more strategic point to their collection (critically when it was an unstable ally, that proven to be rightgully pissed when England tried to get influence in Flanders and searching compromise with Armagnac as well)

In this situation, Bedford influence in English Court of Paris is assured to be lowered, more disputed : at best he's replaced as regent, at worst you have huge political infighting that would certainly be used by Armagnacs and Charles VII.

I don't think such a PoD would change radically HYW outcome.
It could likely change its length, you would have more cautious campaigns rather than the OTL one, Bourguignons would have an even better play than OTL (and that's going to change many thing later, as in a Guerre du Bien Public-like conflict)...
 
Last edited:
I don't have time to write a long answer tonight, but here're Barker's footnotes on the subject. (34) refers to the first paragraph I quoted above; (35) to the very short second. (33) refers to the document about Joan being sent to Orleans as a test, which is the (alleged) report of the university faculty in exile at Poitiers who examined her.
(33) Taylor, 73-4; Little, 99-105, 108-12; Vale, 55-6
(34) Chartier, i, 65; Monstrelet, iv, 317-19; Claude Desama, 'Jeanne d'Arc et la dilomatie de Charles VII: L'Ambassade Francaise aupres de Philippe le Bon en 1429', Annales de Bourgogne, 40 (1968), 290-9; Little, 93-4.
(35) Ibid., 106
where
Chartier: Vallet de Viriville (ed.), Chronique de Charles VII, Roi de France, par Jean Chartier (Paris, 1858), 2 vols.
Little: Roger G. Little, The Parliament of Poitiers: War, Government, and Politics in France 1418-1436 (London, 1984).
Monstrelet: L. Douet-D'Arcq (ed.), La Chronique d'Enguerran de Monstrelet (Paris, 1859-62), vols. iii-vi
Taylor: Craig Taylor (ed. and trans.), Joan of Arc: La Pucelle: Selected Sources (Manchester and New York, 2006)
Vale: M. G. A. Value, Charles VII (London, 1974)

Thanks for your interest and research; if you do track down any of this, I'd love to see your results.
 
Okay, so after having asked around, there is some clues. I give them as I received myself.

Monstrelet, while being the contemporary chronicler that gives the more details, and one of the most used, shouldn't be taken as it is.

He's one of the squires of Philippe de Bourgogne, so a really good source. However, his appartenance to Bourguignon faction is also really clear and have to be remembered.

Even if the situation in Orléans could be desperate before reinforcements (while, as said, the military reinforcement accompanying Joan of Arc are really limited, and the English forces not that important), it's astonishing that Poton de Xaintrailles would have led such an ambassy : he was an "hawk", after all.
Now, if the situation was really desperate, he may not had much choice.

As what Monstrelet relates is contradicting with other sources, they can't be both true.
There's two possibilities :
- What Monstrelet is saying is true, and the Histoire et Discours du Siège d'Orléans is trying to hide this a bit in order to avoid such request being frowned upon (I don't really believe it, actually : it mentions an embassy asking Bourgogne to protect them against England and usually darken the situation to add to Joan of Arc's legendarium)
- Monstrelet is putting his liege in a better light, critically to point that frenchmen still believed each other even if in different sides during the war or both actually got a wishful thinking about this request and genuinely believed Orléanais asked for what he wrote.

Both seems equally valid, and I'm not sure you can definitely exclude one.
 
Top