WI: Joan of Arc wasn't captured?

Remember the trial verdict wasn't reversed until the 1450's - why?

By the standards of that era, was that a long time to overturn a conviction? How often were heretics' convictions overturned, anyway? (I don't mean these as rhetorical questions - I don't know the answers.)
 
If she hadn't been captured, I suspect she would have eventually have been killed in battle and thus still be a martyr and saint. In fact, she may have been made a saint a bit sooner, then again who knows.

I don't remember the author or the name of the work, but I believe a German artist penned a story in German telling the tale of Joan ending with her dying while storming the ramparts of an English-held fortress. IIRC, it was written in the 18th century.

By the standards of that era, was that a long time to overturn a conviction? How often were heretics' convictions overturned, anyway? (I don't mean these as rhetorical questions - I don't know the answers.)

As I posted earlier, until Rouen fell to the French the records of her first trial were not available. Rouen at that time was all but invincible to outside attack when naval supremacy were secure. And the English had that for pretty much the majority of the Hundred Years War. The city was one of the last in France (other than Calais, of course) to be retaken by the French. It wasn't dithering by the French. Just inaccessibility of records.
 
even if joan failed to win over charles if she survives the war I can easily see Jean duc d Alencon take her under his wing. Otl he was her biggest powerful supporter and was devastated when she died. So lets say tremoille proves unsuccessful in convincing charles to not reinforce joans troops and joan gets the reinforcements then she couldve won. Provided she continues her victories and ends a conqueror. Otl charles promoted her family to minor nobility.So perhhapseven if she is removed from the scene i can see charles granting her a similiar minor noble title for her service.

If all else fails she still has one supporter Alencon. Alencon would no doubt if she asked him take her under his wing and she could become his advisor if charles refuses to have anything more to do with her. What is unlikely is her playing an influential role in Charles court afted the war. Her best case is after the warAlencon apoints her commander of his troops and she srves France due to his backing
Charles of course will notmove i doubt against a prince of the blood for someone like Joan. So yes her military career can continue but only if she retains Alencons support and affer the war serve under him rther than directly Charles

Remember Alencon was a feudal lord who had his own armies which answered to Charles.
 
Last edited:
even if joan failed to win over charles if she survives the war I can easily see Jean duc d Alencon take her under his wing. Otl he was her biggest powerful supporter and was devastated when she died. So lets say tremoille proves unsuccessful in convincing charles to not reinforce joans troops and joan gets the reinforcements then she could've won. Provided she continues her victories and ends a conqueror. Otl charles promoted her family to minor nobility. So perhaps even if she is removed from the scene i can see charles granting her a similiar minor noble title for her service. (1)

If all else fails she still has one supporter, Alencon. Alencon would no doubt if she asked him to, take her under his wing and she could become his advisor if charles refuses to have anything more to do with her. What is unlikely is her playing an influential role in Charles' court after the war. Her best case is after the war Alencon appoints her commander of his troops and she serves France due to his backing. (2)

Charles of course will not move I doubt against a prince of the blood for someone like Joan. (3) So yes her military career can continue but only if she retains Alencons' support and after the war (4) serve under him rather than directly Charles (5)

Remember Alencon was a feudal lord who had his own armies which answered to Charles. (6)

1) She got the same minor noble title in her lifetime as her two brothers. But with greater victories I could see Charles raising her to a higher status of nobility.

2) Problem is, in later years Alencon turned against Charles to the degree that Charles ordered Dunois to arrest him. Between Alencon on the one side, and Charles and Dunois on the other, I can't see Joan of Arc of all people turning against the King of France, no matter how close she was to Alencon. She'd more likely try to play the role of a self-appointed (and desperate) would be peacemaker.

Alencon had serious problems with his own ego thanks to he and Charles sharing the same French king as a great-grandfather.

3) I'm not sure of your meaning here? Could you please re-phrase this sentence?

4) The war went on for another twenty years.

It wasn't until military technology improved with French artillery allowing the destruction of even the strongest fortresses in just a few days that there could be any blitzkrieging in France.

Joan moved very quickly, but her victories were difficult to secure.

Also, France's finances were still in a mess.

Basically, Charles needed John Duke of Bedford's wife (Anne of Burgundy) to die of the plague in 1432, then Bedford's remarriage (to Jacquetta of Luxembourg), to insure outraging the Duke of Burgundy (Philip the Good) over the "insult" to his dead sister, followed by Bedford's own death in 1435, to rupture the Anglo-Burgundian alliance and make a Franco-Burgundian peace treaty (and alliance) possible. Until this happened, France would be fighting a war on two fronts, against two of the richest (Burgundy) and most militarily powerful (England) nations in Europe.

Joan's survival would mean an interesting amount of gasoline being poured on the military side of the HYW, but any serious actions waged by the French against Burgundy at this time (1431-1435) was a mostly wasted effort. Even Joan's voices had gone silent.

5) I don't know how thrilled Joan would have been fighting under a feudal banner. Frex, technically she could have, I suppose, followed La Hire when he was forced by economic circumstances (when Charles pulled his financial backing) to go to Germany (Eastern France). But she didn't.

6) Except that in Joan's time Alencon, IIRC, had just been released after paying a ruinous ransom to gain his freedom. IDK how much of a levy he could have raised right during Joan's time. Probably not much bigger than the followers she had when she was taken prisoner.
 
Last edited:
I can remember having read & enjoyed a published AH story (in an anthology of about 4 stories, set in different periods, with different PODs, and with different authors) in which Joan's "voices" told her to help Henry against the Valois, instead. Has anybody else here read that, and if so then can you remind me about the anthology's title, and about the story's title and author?
 
I can remember having read & enjoyed a published AH story (in an anthology of about 4 stories, set in different periods, with different PODs, and with different authors) in which Joan's "voices" told her to help Henry against the Valois, instead. Has anybody else here read that, and if so then can you remind me about the anthology's title, and about the story's title and author?

Joan was a very young child when Henry V died. He wouldn't have needed her. Henry's fans have always believed that had he lived he would have acted more wisely and defeated Charles for good before Joan was even old enough to go to Chinon. Or at the very least, accept Philip the Good's offer to take the surrender of Orleans for Burgundy, thereby avoiding the error of the "birds in the bushes". Or if not, at least acted with far greater celerity against Joan at Orleans (or avoided the disaster at Patay). Henry VI of course was a baby/child king at the time.
 

Stolengood

Banned
Thomas Beckett represented the possibility of a Saxon uprising.
...um.

Thomas Beckett wasn't a Saxon; he was a Norman. Don't take your histories from plays, please. Just wanted to say. :(

(As an addendum, if anyone else has seen it: What do you think of The Passion of Joan of Arc?)
 
Joan was a very young child when Henry V died. He wouldn't have needed her. Henry's fans have always believed that had he lived he would have acted more wisely and defeated Charles for good before Joan was even old enough to go to Chinon.
While Henry V was certainly much skilled, such statement is quite debatable. While Charles VII don't have his ressources or political stability (without talking about skills), Armagnacs and what remained of the Kingdom of France wasn't that easy to take over.

Battle of Baugé, as an exemple, shows the possibility that had "pre-Joan" french/scottish armies : it's basically this battle that allowed the dauphin to keep enough power to have still 2/3 of his kingdom under his authority.

Admittedlt, Verneuil showed as well that English/Bourguignon forces were able to keep the land they occupied.

I don't think that either side, could have be rid of the other "easily".

Now, what allowed Lancasters to have that much of France on their hands was mainly the alliance with Bourguignons. And even before Joan of Arc campaign or that appeasment policy of Charles VII managed to break this alliance, Bourguignons began to grumble at the English takeover.
And, when we know that Bourguignon support was basically what allowed English to be present in Paris...

I don't known much about "Henry V's fans" but if they think his victory could have been quick and/or easy, well...they're wrong. Probably as much than Joan of Arc's fan thinking his survival would have made Charles VII's victory quick and/or easy.
 
(As an addendum, if anyone else has seen it: What do you think of The Passion of Joan of Arc?)

Maybe one of the best adaptation on Joan of Arc's life : not on her history (while it's quite correct on this) but Dreyer focused on and managed to represent both the mystical aspect of her legend, and what seems to appears in the trial transcripts : a great inner strength.
 
Top