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
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.
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)...