• Log In
• Register

The exact details of ancient or medieval events are oftentimes lost in the mayhem that constitutes the work of contemporary chroniclers. This complaint can certainly be leveled against the sources describing the Battle of Poitiers in 1356 A.D. The disparities surrounding nearly every aspect of the engagement make any positive statement dubious. One of the most puzzling features of the battle is the conduct of the Duke of Orleans. While some sources decry his wholesale retreat without engaging the enemy, others speak of only a partial retreat, while others still do not speak of his role at all. The only way to reconcile these problems is to examine the primary sources and scrutinize them in relation to each other. This will reveal, I believe, that the Duke did indeed retreat rather than lead his third French division into the fray.

To begin with several of our sources can be dismissed because their treatment of this facet of the battle is either described in a most cursory manner or is not detailed at all. The argument runs that this omission may show that this episode simply did not happen; however the preponderance of sources make mention of it, in one way or another. This leads us to reject that assertion. The Anonimalle Chronicle is wholly unsatisfactory in this regard. It writes off the Duke of Orleans' division as having been defeated in the same manner as the Dauphin's was dispatched.1 Perhaps the problem here comes from the late authorship of the work. Error may have crept in during the intervening decades.

In a similar vein, the Black Prince himself overlooks the Duke of Orleans' actions, perhaps because the departure of so large a body of the French host before the fight would have detracted from the magnitude of his victory.2 It is possible that he simply did not know the retreat ever took place, but that seems unlikely given the number of prisoners the English took in the course of the battle.

Casting aside these brief accounts we now must wrestle with the lengthier works. Jean Froissart, the great French historian and poet, has provided us with a fairly detailed record of the contest.3 Froissart explains that King Jean had his army "divided into three battalions, each consisting of sixteen thousand men-at-arms, who had before shown themselves to be men of tried courage."4 The commanders are then laid out as the Duke of Orleans, the Duke of Normandy (the Dauphin), and finally the King himself.5 By this account a full third of the King's forces were under the command of our Duke of Orleans.

Moving farther in the story we come to a description of the modifications made in the Black Prince's fighting posture. Here Froissart tells us that the Prince "ordered some valiant and intelligent knights to remain on horseback, similar to the battalion of the French marshals."6 This statement leads us to believe that these Marshals were actually in command of one of the three divisions.7

According to Froissart the battle opens with the advance of the French Marshals.8 This action was followed by the commitment of the division commanded by the Duke of Normandy.9 The King himself leads the last French battalion into the fray.10 We are now left to speculate on what has become of the command structure of the French army.

Three knights who had accompanied the young son of the King to the rear met the Duke on their way back to the front. The source tells us "On their return, they met the division of the Duke of Orleans, quite whole and unhurt, who had fled from behind the rear of the King's battalion."11

We have already established that the French army had been divided into three battalions. In light of this, how do we account for the four divisions mentioned in the actual battle? Froissart states clearly that the Duke of Orleans had fled the battlefield with his entire division. It is plain that one of these divisions could not have existed in its entirety, as Froissart would have us believe. Knowing that a division commanded by neither the Dauphin nor the King entered the fight first we would be hard pressed to label this as merely a mistake, especially since others have corroborated a French attack of no less than three divisions. It is therefore probable that the Duke did not flee with an entire division, but rather left with some of his men. From this source we would also surmise that he left before the battle started, as he was far in the rear after his division had already been engaged. This is also puzzling. Why would the Duke take flight before he had engaged anyone and before he could have known the terrible outcome of the battle?

Our mental picture of the battle is somewhat refined when we examine the account of the Herald of Sir John Chandos.12The most interesting feature of this rendition is that we are told of four battle orders from the start.13 The Duke of Orleans, according to the Herald, was given command of the third battalion, to come only before the King himself.14 The noticeable discrepancy so far is that now we have the Duke in command of the third battalion and the Marshals clearly in command of the first. Already some of the internal discrepancies of Froissart's narrative are partially explained.

Perhaps more telling is the exclusion of the Duke of Orleans from any actual fighting. After the second division, commanded by the Dauphin, was repulsed, the next French unit to move forward is the force held back under the command of the King.15 Strikingly, no mention is made of "powerful Duke of Orleans," the King's own brother.

Geoffrey le Baker, an English clergyman writing soon after the battle, may provide the next critical piece to our puzzle.16 Baker also speaks of three waves to the French attack. The Marshals come first, followed by the Dauphin. After a "fair retreat" on the part of the French the battle is joined by the French King and his detachment.17 This is not much new and corresponds closely to the order of events given to us by the Herald of Sir John Chandos.

The scholar is left to wonder why, if there was a division commanded by the Duke of Orleans, was this other division omitted? Geoffrey le Baker provides a key piece of information that goes much toward answering this confusing discrepancy. This key regards the disposition of the French forces before the battle began. Assuming that le Baker drew his account mostly from English sources and from the recollections of actual participants, it is fair to say that he knew little more than any English soldier could have known. Geoffrey le Baker tells us that the French were drawn up in fields concealed from English view.18 This is important because the battle is presented to us only as each battalion comes into sight of the English. If there was a third French division that never presented itself alone there would be no way for le Baker to have known about it, unless he were savvy enough to have interviewed French prisoners.

The final and crucial piece of the mystery can be found in the Scalacronica of Sir Thomas Gray.19 Sir Thomas informs his readers that the Duke of Orleans' battalion "joined the King's column after its repulse, and, having dismounted, advanced with it gallantly to attack the Prince's column."20 What we see here is a half-defeated force melding in with the fourth line and continuing the attack in this final formation.

Our entire conjecture is put to the test if we take stock of the Chronique des quatre premiers Valois.21 This French narrative, written in the fifteenth century, places the Duke of Orleans at the head of the second French division.22 Following the first attack the chronicle tells us "the men of Orleans launched a very bold attack, but lost their order in the process."23 The lack of order is the critical element of this explanation. The chronicle goes on to explain that the defeated division of the Duke was ordered to join the King's division for the final push.24

What is clear about this account is that the Duke's attack was disorganized and resulted in the incorporation of his division into the King's force. These assertions stand up, however, while many of the others do not. It is unlikely that the Duke led the second wave, because his presence in the second attack would have been noticed and recorded by the other chroniclers, including the English ones. The disorganization of this attack may shed light on this problem. The assault may have been so chaotic because the Duke was not, in fact, present. This seems to make sense with respect to the other sources. It also makes sense if we consider the source. This chronicle is a French source, which may have omitted the Duke's retreat as a detail not commensurate with furthering a sense of French bravery.

With all these pieces we can now begin to reconstruct what actually happened at the battle so far as it concerns the Duke of Orleans. As the troops came into formation the French King drew up his army into four battalions. The Marshals commanded the first battalion, the Dauphin the second, our Duke of Orleans commanded the third and King Jean led the fourth. We reject Froissart's notion that the Duke commanded the first because if he had there would have been no reason for his flight. He would not have seen the downfall of the French forces as of yet and he certainly would not just quit the field with his entire division before the brawl. We furthermore must severely question the Valois contention that he commanded the second division. The chronicler's confusion was probably due to the merging of forces that took place between the Dauphin's battalion and the Duke's muddled host. We understand this more clearly as the battle continues to play out.

The Marshals advanced first and were put to retreat. The same fate befell the Dauphin as we see in all the sources. We now come to the peculiar story of the Duke of Orleans. His division did not advance, as it should have. Both of our English sources fail to mention him and for good reason. Geoffrey le Baker did not know the Duke of Orleans was supposed to mount an attack and neither did the English army. All they witnessed was the advance of a very strong battalion under the command of the King coming out of obscurity. They never saw the Duke of Orleans' division because the Duke was long gone. Froissart tells us that the Duke is discovered in the rear. So he was. The Duke must have witnessed the destruction of both of the two preceding divisions. This made him fearful and he retired to the rear, undoubtedly with a large portion of his men.

Froissart mistakenly had the Marshals take hold of his command because in actuality the Duke's division was driven forward in a piecemeal manner into the back of the Dauphin's engagement. This also accounts for the Valois' insistence that the Duke commanded the second division. Without the Duke's direct leadership a good portion of his troops became confused and advanced with the Dauphin's division. After the retreat of the Dauphin's division the remnants of the Duke's force found their way into the King's battalion and continued the assault. This matches with Sir Thomas' second hand knowledge of the battle. It is possible that the Duke rejoined the fight in the King's division following his ignominious retreat. The Chronique des quatre premiers Valois speaks of the Duke and some of his men rejoining the rear division.25 This action implicitly makes sense, as the Duke would want to atone for his previous lack of fortitude.

In the final analysis it must be understood that the Duke of Orleans did retire from the battlefield untested, however only with a fraction of his troops. His absence from many of the sources is attributable to the fact that to many observers only three divisions struck out against the English. The phantom third division is lost in history because it became a leaderless jumble attaching itself to a variety of other banners. We can only speculate what would have happened if the Duke's division, complete with its cowardly leader, had smashed into the English front at Poitiers.

Discuss this Article

Have an opinion, a question, or correction? Leave comments for this article in the discussion area.