Although I spent over 20 years continuously reading, researching, and studying the Hundred Years War (but haven’t done much in the last 5 years or so) why is it that it is only in the last week, and only within the context of the TMP forums, that this “Gesta” has come to my attention?

Has his works suddenly been found in a similar manner to the Dead Sea Scrolls or something? I have zero reference to him, nor any quotes from his writings, in the archives for all my research from the late ’70′s (a long time pre-Internet), up to after Millennium (and well into the Internet Age). For that reason, I am highly sceptical of this source until I can see transcripts of what he wrote, and provenance and authentication for his manuscripts, plus acceptance and recommendation from noted experts in the field of medieval literary archaeology.

The position of Henry’s camp is undisputed as on the south side of Maisoncelles – it is stated in several chronicles. If this Gesta is stating “at the rear of the engagement” – that is pretty vague. Consider the Somme in WW1 – Paris was considered “at the rear of the engagement” and that was certainly not abutting the battle lines. I suspect you are over-interpreting the Gesta’s statement to mean adjacent to the army – such positioning would be suicidal in the event of a forced move backwards by the battle line.

No Doug, historical records have proven time after time that armies keep their baggage and encampment well back from the line of battle, often well back and off to one side of it too. As a wargamer, consider why in WRG rules, an enemy unit exiting table, off your own table base edge, is considered to be plundering your baggage.

Garry

The Gesta cleric, he who was WITH the English baggage, is conspicuous by his absence in any of the references you’ve linked to. The battle map, placing the baggage clear down to one side of Maisoncelle, is surely wrong, as it does not suit the Gesta’s narrative at all: the baggage was drawn up, even moved, so as to be positioned “at the rear of the engagement.”

It appears I misremembered the timing of the death of Jean Froissart, and confused my recollections of his detailed study of Crecy, and attributed that memory as his detailed work to Agincourt. Even so, it does not detract from my original research and writing of the MW#99 article (before I had heard of Froissart), where no less than eight noteworthy tomes attributed the French Squire’s raid as summarised above, and detailed in the original MW article. That there was such universal agreement of the raid on the baggage coinciding with the second French charge of the English line, made it undisputable for me.

Dr. Godfried Croenen, Institutional Research Fellow in the Department of French, University of Liverpool, and Emeritus Professor Christopher Allmand, sometime Head of the Department of History, University of Liverpool, date his death as circa 1404. The University of Liverpool’s sub-site for Froissart and his writings can be tracked from here – http://www.liv.ac.uk/~gcroenen/biblio.htm – last updated 22 Aug 2008

The University of Sheffield also has an extensive site dedicated to Froissart within the Humanities Research Institute – The Jean Froissart Project site accessible from – http://www.shef.ac.uk/hri/projects/projectpages/onlinefroissart/overview.html appears detailed though access is restricted in parts.

Steve Muhlberger of the Department of History, Nipissing University is another recent translator of Froissart. The University link is – http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/froissart/tales.htm Muhlberger states Froissart died after 1404.

I also have (unreferenced) sources on file that state Froissart died at Chimay in 1417. Most scholars seem to agree that his final work was a rewriting circa 1399-1400 of the opening section of his Book I narrative. Only one manuscript of this final redaction of Book I now survives: Reg. Lat. 869 of the Vatican City’s Apostolic Library.

—–

Regarding the versions of his work in circulation and used as sources; (taken from the 2002 version of the University of Sheffield’s Froissart Project homepage) -

His main work is the “Chroniques de France, d’Angleterre, d’Ecosse, de Bretagne, de Gascogne, de Flandre et lieux circonvoisins”, an account of European wars from 1328 till 1400.

Among the modern editions are those of: Buchon, “Panthéon littéraire”, 3 vols (Paris, 1835 and 1846), defective in the first book. Kervyn de Lettenhove, 29 vols (Brussels, 1867-1877), gives the various recensions of each chapter. Siméon Luce began to publish in 1869 the edition of the Société de l’Histoire do France, 8 vols. (Paris, 1869-1888); G. Raynaud, commissioned to continue this undertaking, published volumes IX to XI, which contain part of Book 11 (Paris, 1897-1899). The poem “Méliador” was edited by A. Longnon for the Société des Anciens Textes Français (Paris, 1895).

Note that all the Victorian era versions were produced in France, without the balance of non-French transcription, therefore the accuracy of those “modern” versions should remain suspect, particularly as they are based on manuscript versions known to be hostile to the English causes and actions.

In the last few decades, new transcriptions, translated to English, have been undertaken by universities in the UK and USA, with reference and access to the post-mortem medieval versions, and some of the original Froissart manuscripts. As these latest versions have been prepared by language departments of humanities faculties as literal and contextual translations, without biasing influence from historian or militarist agendas, they should prove more accurate – particularly those versions which combined translation of medieval French into medieval English (the language of Chaucer) and presented that alongside conversion into modern English.

—–

I hope that sets the record straight regarding Froissart? I apologise for any misleading caused by the original post.

Regarding the timing of the raid on the English camp – http://www.aginc.net/battle/ops.html gives an account stating it was after the order to execute prisoners was given, attributing it to the rallying for the 3rd French assault as mentioned by Doug. Note the linked deployment map – http://www.aginc.net/battle/battle-map.htm – personally, I believe the alternating archers and men-at-arms English deployment depicted fits with contemporary accounts of the battle, I know there is a big debate on TMP about this right now. However, that map also shows the English camp to the west of Maisoncelles, when a contemporary chronicles states, “The English kynge had his campe at Maisoncelles on the southen syde” (reference lost by careless filing), which fits with the map in my original post.

A French nobles eyewitness account of the battle (translated here – http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/agincourt.htm) mentions the slaughter of the prisoners (without judgement of it’s morality) but with unclear timing as to when it occurred. The account does state that it was caused by the attack on the English rear, and not preceding it.

—–

This reply is getting a little long now, so I’ll post it and let others join in

Garry