What was Joan of Arc really like?

63
What was Joan of Arc really like?
Any creativity based on stories There are many Joans of Arc. This painting depicts her entry into Orleans.


The personality of the "savior of France" Joan of Arc has always attracted much attention, and much literature has been written on this topic. It would seem that what else can be added here? However, telling her story as part of a course in the history of the Middle Ages at school, I began to feel that her generally accepted biography does not at all explain the phenomenal twists and turns of her short but stormy biography, and especially the fact that Charles VII, whom she raised to the throne, did not rescue her from captivity.



Apparently, her biography and especially the characterization of Jeanne, with the exception of a number of events that took place, is a later literary creation, which began during her rehabilitation, which began in 1452, twenty years after her execution on May 30, 1431. That's when her image was greatly embellished, since most of those who knew her personally were already dead, and the living had good reasons to lie. Why? Because this is the history of the king and the royal dynasty, and it must be decent.

I went the other way and tried to imagine what Joan of Arc must have been like to live such a life and go through its twists and turns in such a way. And I came to the extravagant conclusion that she must have been a cavalry girl, but, unlike Nadezhda Durova, of an exceptionally bad and aggressive nature.

There is much in Jeanne's biography that was completely unbelievable by the standards of medieval society and could not have happened, but it did. For example, the girl put on men's clothing, armor, joined the army, personally participated in battles, and was even shot with a crossbow. In a society where gender roles were strictly defined, and for wearing men's clothing a woman was seriously suspected of having connections with evil spirits and witchcraft, this could not happen. Even in her official biography, one can see an inconsistency.

Even her most talented biographers cannot derive the wearing of armor from the religious visions that possessed her. Okay, Jeanne heard the voice of Archangel Michael. So what now, should she put on an iron skirt? Especially since that was a very decent role for a woman in religious ecstasy. That is why I believe that these difficult-to-explain moments in Jeanne's biography point to her real character and the real circumstances of her biography.

Restless childhood


Jeanne was born and lived most of her life in the village of Domremy in the present-day Vosges department in Lorraine. The village was restless, as two borders passed through it: the Meuse River marked the border between the Kingdom of France and the Duchy of Lorraine, which belonged to the Holy Roman Empire, and a stream marked the border between parts of the Duchy of Bar, one of which belonged to the royal lands, and the other was a fiefdom of the empire. Jeanne's family lived on royal lands, were wealthy and personally free, and paid taxes to the king. The inhabitants of the royal lands at that time were subject to the castellany of Vaucouleurs. In 1428, this was the only castellany in eastern France that was subject to the Dauphin (heir to the throne) Charles.

As you might imagine, the border village was full of all sorts of adventures, raids and skirmishes. The Burgundians, who were allies of the English at the time, tried to capture Vaucouleurs, but they failed.

In Domremy, they supported the Armagnacs, one of the parties during the Hundred Years' War, on whose side was the Dauphin Charles, and in the village of Max, on the other bank of the Meuse, already in Lorraine, they sympathized with another party, the Burgundians. The relations between the parties were extremely hostile, they periodically carried out bloody reprisals against their opponents. So fights between residents on political grounds were commonplace.

And another feature. Jeanne's father, Jacques d'Arc, was appointed elder in 1425-1427 and was responsible for tax collection. In the above-described circumstances, this guaranteed a tense life in conditions of constant conflicts. It is unlikely that the family was popular in the local community at that time. Only later, when Jacques obtained a permanent exemption from taxes from the king in 1429, these circumstances were forgotten.

Moreover, not all the children were loved in the family. The eldest son Jacquelot, who married the daughter of the mayor of the neighboring village of Grès, and the younger sister Catherine, who married the son of the same mayor, but died in childbirth before Jeanne's departure, were apparently the parents' favorite children. The other children: Pierre, Jean and Jeanne - were not very favorite, perhaps because of their reluctance to share the inheritance.

That is why I think that Zhanna, who grew up in conditions of constant conflicts, hostility and violence, developed a bad and aggressive character. For example, under the influence of a very pious mother, a pilgrim, Zhanna perceived all attention to herself as a girl negatively, reinforcing her rejection with fists, a stake or a pole that came to hand, combined with choice abuse.

Putting on pants


An interesting question: what did Jeanne need in Vaucouleurs? This fortified town was only 17 km north of Domremy as the crow flies, with the road being somewhat longer. A day's journey, in total. Jeanne's father was often there on tax business.

In general, the very idea of ​​saving France for a 16-year-old girl was completely unbelievable. Both because a girl of that age should have been sitting at home and waiting to get married. And also because they were surrounded by enemies, the Dauphin was somewhere far to the southwest. There had just been an attempt to take Vaucouleurs, in the summer of 1428, when its captain Robert de Baudricourt was forced to sign a capitulation, but did not surrender the fortress. Around this time, Jeanne came to him for the first time, but he drove her away.

Somewhere around January 1429, she came to him again. So why? I think it was because the villagers could no longer stand her character and, given the extremely low chances of marrying her off, they were hatching plans to send her away somewhere. In a more peaceful time, Jeanne would have simply been kicked out and would have become, for example, a bandit. But here the political situation helped her. Someone, apparently, jokingly said something like: "Such a fighting girl will even liberate France!" She heard, she liked the idea. Her brothers, who had no chance of inheriting, followed her. Her parents, I think, breathed a sigh of relief when she left. Later, however, her father went to see his daughter and used this visit to petition King Charles VII for tax exemption, which he received. The inhabitants of Domremy did not pay taxes until the French Revolution, 360 years. Pure profit disguised as paternal feelings.

At Vaucouleurs, I believe, Jeanne began by hurling the most profane language at Captain de Baudricourt. He could not help but receive her, since she was the daughter of his doyen, the headman who collected taxes. But then the exchange of pleasantries, I believe, went on to this level. Jeanne declared that French men were so timid that they should wear skirts. Robert de Baudricourt was 29 at the time, a mature man by the standards of the time, but young enough to be offended. Realizing that he could not escape from such a hold, he prepared a trap for the girl with a dialogue that went something like this:

And you, madam, I suppose, will put on trousers?
And I will wear it!
And will you wear armor too?
And I will wear it!
And will you go and fight with the Burgundians?
And I'll go!
Excellent! Pick out some armor for the lady!

Captain de Baudricourt had hoped to make a joke and put the obstinate girl off her guard. Most of them would have been embarrassed by the suggestion that they dress in men's clothes. Jeanne, too, realized that she had been cornered, and if she refused, she would have to go home, curb her wild temper, and wait for marriage. And she made a fateful choice.

There is always some spare equipment in the fortress: trophies, from the wounded, from the killed, so Jeanne was given more or less suitable pieces of armor. She apparently rode a horse well. She had never used a sword before, but she could have been given a few lessons.

Then, apparently, Zhanna took part in the first skirmishes. It was not easy even for many men, and even more so for a girl. But, as one can assume, the first skirmishes showed that Zhanna is not afraid of blood, and she clearly has a tactical sense of the moment when it is necessary to attack and strike in order to win.


After Joan's baptism of fire, Captain de Baudricourt found himself in a difficult situation. A girl on horseback and in armor was a sight to behold once in a lifetime. Her character, correctly applied to the political situation, was gaining growing popularity. De Baudricourt began to consult with the Duke of Bar, René of Anjou, about what to do. It seems that they were the ones who suggested that Joan go straight to the Dauphin Charles.

Why not?


At that time, Dauphin Charles was in the castle of Chinon, southwest of Tours. It was really not a short distance. As the crow flies, 436 km, and with roads, 600 km. A month's journey. And through territory controlled by the English and their allied Burgundians.


Dauphin Charles, in the painting already King Charles VII

Under these circumstances, the plan of the Duke of Bar and his captain was quite obvious - most likely, Jeanne would not make it and would disappear on the way, saving them from trouble. That is why de Baudricourt said to Jeanne at parting: "Go and come what may».

It is believed that they were extremely surprised when they learned that Jeanne had reached the Dauphin. There is evidence that she was able to get there in just 11 days with only five companions. On horseback, at a forced march, this is entirely possible.

Most of what is written about the Dauphin's reception of the girl is apparently a product of literary fantasy. There is testimony from Jeanne herself at the church trial, there is testimony from two witnesses already at the rehabilitation trial 20 years after the execution. About miracles, about voices, about all sorts of things... But the question remains: why did the Dauphin and his entourage need this girl? They could have not accepted her.

The political situation, meanwhile, was precarious. The Dauphin Charles himself, 26 years old in 1429, was declared illegitimate by his mother, and his father Charles VI the Mad signed the Treaty of Troyes with the English King Henry V, declaring him heir to the French throne. Then Henry V died and was succeeded by the underage Henry VI, who was 1429 years old in 8. If the Dauphin Charles had no right to the throne, then he would be succeeded by the Duke of Orleans Charles, who had been captured by the English in 1415 and was in the Tower in 1429.

In fact, the French throne was empty at that moment, the country was split: some supported the English Henry, some supported the French Charles. The English were pressing at that moment, together with the Burgundians they captured the north of France, including Reims, where the French kings were crowned. For some reason, it did not occur to them to bring Henry VI to Reims and crown him; perhaps they were counting on a quick victory over the supporters of the Dauphin Charles.

It was in this situation that an unprecedented miracle appeared in Chinon: a girl in armor.

Jeanne herself hardly had any definite plans at that moment, but among the Dauphin's entourage there may well have been a plan to break through to Reims and hold a coronation there, which would have turned the tide in their favor. However, decisive people were needed, while the Dauphin's entourage and the military leaders loyal to him were in a state of decline. In February 1429, the French lost the "Battle of the Herrings", although they outnumbered the English.

And so the Lord sent them Jeanne, whose determination was worth a hundred points to any knight. After some consultation, the Dauphin and his confidants decided that why not take advantage of this unexpected gift. They had nothing left to lose, and they were morally mature enough for a desperate attempt. But at the same time, they initially intended to use Jeanne as a tool to achieve their goals, and nothing more.

It was then that Jeanne was not only given new armor, but also concocted a new biography for the purposes of propaganda, in which all sorts of religious visions occupied an honorable place. Theologians from Poitiers worked with her, teaching her how to behave, what to say, and in general it was better not to speak out unless necessary. At this time, Jeanne became a symbol.

True, one of the Parisians who kept a diary at the time wrote that the king's army was led by a witch, a "cruel woman" who beat with a stick anyone who dared to express dissent.

The Dauphin probably received her already at the final stage, after the necessary processing, in order to sanction her actions. Her assistant was the Duke of Alençon Jean II, who literally shortly before these events had bought himself out of English captivity for 200 thousand ecus in gold (an ecus is 4,532 grams; 906,4 kg of gold), for this he had sold his possessions and was practically a beggar. He was eager to fight, counting on improving his financial situation with victories. And in general, the same desperate people gathered around her.

Quick march, quick onslaught


Already in the Orleans campaign, Joan's tactical intuition played a major role. Under her influence, the French attacks on the forts built by the English became stubborn and furious. On May 4, 1429, Fort Saint-Loup was taken, on May 6, Fort St. Augustine was taken, on May 7, immediately after morning mass, the storming of the fortress of Tourelles began, which was taken in the evening, after a whole day of fighting. In these battles, Joan was wounded in the leg by a spike and an arrow in the shoulder. On May 8, the English left the fortifications, lined up, stood for a while, and left.


The plan of Orleans at that moment. The fortress of Tourelles was a bridgehead on the left bank of the Loire, protecting the bridge that was destroyed


This is a model of the fortress of Turel. It was a difficult object to attack.

When starting a battle or an assault, Jeanne always demanded the most decisive onslaught and attack, and she led the attack with a banner, which often brought success.

Four further battles took place in June 1429: the capture of Jargeau on June 10-12, the Battle of Meung-sur-Loire and the capture of the bridge over the Loire on June 15, the Battle of Beaugency with the capture of the bridge over the Loire on June 16-17, and finally the Battle of Patay on June 18.

This is all the area around Orleans, with bridges over a large river. The English had captured almost everything except Orleans itself, in order to prepare and carry out an invasion of southern France. But Orleans was a thorn in their side, preventing them from using the bridges over the Loire safely. Joan had eliminated this most serious threat in just two months. At the Battle of Patay, without a break the day after the capture of Beaugency, the French cavalry routed, half destroyed and routed an English army more than three times larger, winning their victory by a sudden, decisive attack. This was her style of war.

On June 25, 1429, an order was issued to gather troops for a campaign against Reims in Gien, 60 km southeast of Orleans. Reims is 200 km as the crow flies in a northeasterly direction, and taking into account the turn to Troyes, it is 250 km. The French army covered this distance from June 29 to July 16, that is, in 17 days. An average of 14 km per day. There were few battles, the cities surrendered and opened their gates. On July 16, Reims opened its gates, and the next day, July 17, 1429, the coronation of Charles VII took place.

The king rewarded Jeanne extremely generously: hereditary nobility for her and her relatives, a coat of arms, exemption from taxes for her native village, and finally, she was entrusted with holding the royal standard at the coronation ceremony - honors unthinkable for an ordinary peasant girl. Life was good, one might say. But the whole problem was that Jeanne had no brakes.

Reasons for elimination


If she fought so well, why didn't the king place his bets on her in the future? The generally accepted version doesn't give any clear answer to this question.

However, plans to eliminate Jeanne definitely arose the very next day after the coronation. There were many reasons for this, but there were two main ones. Firstly, if it was still acceptable to acquire the crown in such an extravagant way, then Charles VII could not make any further decisions under the influence or pressure of Jeanne. Otherwise, he would have completely lost his reputation, already tarnished by past failures. They say that a girl rules for the king. If Jeanne lost faith in the king, then for her to stage a rebellion would be the same as changing her clothes. And the troops would support her. But a rebellion and the deposition of the king could lead to a catastrophe.

Secondly, the king's opponents claimed that his army was commanded by a witch who was closely connected with devils.
And it is not known which is worse: being a weakling or an accomplice of a witch.

In their assault on Paris in late August and early September 1429, Jeanne and the Duke of Alençon acted virtually on their own, and the king clearly did not want to support their initiative. Ultimately, the assault failed, although it had certain chances from a purely military point of view. Jeanne was effectively debunked by this failure. For her last military undertaking, the lifting of the siege of Compiegne, which had sworn allegiance to the king and was besieged by Burgundian troops, Jeanne was able to recruit only about 400 volunteers and most likely set out on her own, without the king's permission. What happened next is known. On May 23, 1430, she was captured at the gates of Compiegne.


The artists also depicted the moment of Joan of Arc's capture

I would not rule out the involvement of Charles VII himself and that the capture of Joan was one of the moves in a complex combination of negotiations with the Burgundian Duke Philip III the Good, whom the king very much wanted to get as an ally. But the details are unlikely to ever become known.

By being captured, Jeanne saved the king from further trouble. Charles VII apparently had no doubt that his opponents would treat her as a witch and a heretic. Historians have often accused the king of treason and unwillingness to help Jeanne. But, in general, it must be admitted that dead Jeanne was much more advantageous to him than alive, for a number of reasons.

Only 20 years later, after winning the war with the English and suppressing a major feudal rebellion, feeling real power in his hands, Charles VII decided to correct the history of his reign to make it more decent. In 1452, he ordered an examination of the legality of Joan's trial, and on July 7, 1456, an acquittal was read. I think that the king still valued her, and if she had been of a calmer disposition, he would have showered her with all sorts of favors. But, alas, Joan of Arc's disposition was such that he had to get rid of her.
63 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    26 January 2025 05: 22
    Quote: Dmitry Verkhoturov
    That's why I think
    What do professional historians think about this? wink
    1. +10
      26 January 2025 07: 31
      Professional historians will most likely prefer to remain silent, because why argue with an amateur? The author has only signed his complete impotence in the field of history of the European Middle Ages with these lines...
      The Dauphin Charles himself, 26 years old in 1429, was declared an illegitimate child of his mother.
    2. +6
      26 January 2025 08: 33
      If you are interested, there is a wonderful lecture and video by Klim Zhukov about Zhanna on YouTube.
    3. +6
      26 January 2025 08: 39
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      What do professional historians think about this?

      I first read about Jeanne in a book from the ZhZL series back in elementary school. She sank into my soul and then I read everything I could get my hands on about her, starting with Mark Twain's 1896 novel "Personal Memories of Joan of Arc by Sieur Louis de Conte, Her Page and Secretary", dedicated to the life of Joan of Arc, and ending with articles in scientific journals. Many inconsistencies caught my eye - which the author also drew attention to. One of the PR textbooks by Russian authors has its own "version of Joan". I have my own version. I wanted to write a historical novel about her based on this version. But I ran into a banal ignorance of the little things in life at that time. So I decided not to write it.
      1. +3
        26 January 2025 19: 19
        Quote: Caliber
        I have my own version.

        Here is one of the versions, dressed up as a novel.
        I read it, it was interesting, I liked it.

        https://proza.ru/2010/08/04/1395
        1. +1
          26 January 2025 20: 53
          Quote: Napayz
          https://proza.ru/2010/08/04/1395

          Thanks for writing!
    4. +6
      26 January 2025 10: 46
      Professional historians professionally retell the chronicles and works of their predecessors, thinking about nothing else and generally trying not to think. laughing
      1. +5
        26 January 2025 10: 54
        Quote: wehr
        Professional historians professionally retell the chronicles and works of their predecessors, thinking about nothing else and generally trying not to think
        These are all voices in your head and judging by the content of the articles, there is a lot of fun there wink
        1. +3
          26 January 2025 10: 56
          You can't just do collectivization all the time. You need to rest your soul too. laughing
          By the way, I do not adhere to the traditions of mental laziness disguised as “specialization”.

          What, are you offended by the truth? laughing
          1. +1
            26 January 2025 11: 04
            Quote: wehr
            You need to give your soul a rest too
            This is quite enough. Excess is harmful.
      2. +3
        26 January 2025 20: 53
        Quote: wehr
        thinking about nothing else and generally trying not to think.

        Do not judge rashly, the Scripture says!
        1. +2
          26 January 2025 21: 05
          Yes, if only it were reckless! I have read so many of them that it becomes obvious, unfortunately.
          For example, when the late Trepavlov did not even ask himself the question of why and for what reason the Kasimov Khanate appeared and why it was needed at all - you are left dumbfounded.
          And Trepavlov was far from the worst. He tended to retell, but at least he retelled very hard-to-find sources.
          1. +1
            26 January 2025 21: 08
            Quote: wehr
            retold very hard to access sources.

            Well, you see! This is also valuable. By the way, I had an article about Jeanne and Gilles de Rais here on VO. I don't want to repeat myself and rewrite it. There's been a lot here over the past 10 years...
            1. +3
              26 January 2025 21: 11
              Retelling without trying to understand and comprehend seems overly simple to me.
      3. -1
        28 January 2025 20: 20
        Quote: wehr
        Professional historians professionally retell the chronicles and works of their predecessors, thinking about nothing else and generally trying not to think.
        The problem is also that today's professional historians professionally retell the chronicles and works of their predecessors - also professional historians. The predecessors (also professional historians) in turn retell the works of their predecessors (also professional historians). But here is an even earlier generation of predecessors, who are also professional historians in turn retell the works of their predecessors, but ... (by the standards of modern historians) - amateurs. Because none of those whom today's professional historians call historians of the 18th century (and these are precisely the historians who actually created the current official version of history, so to speak, "summarizing" and "completing" the works of their predecessors, historians of the 17th and earlier centuries) had a specialized historical education. Not to mention the degrees of historical "sciences". wink wink
    5. 0
      31 January 2025 10: 56
      Robert Ambelain, "Dramas and Secrets of History, 1306-1643", chapters 5 and 6.
  2. +13
    26 January 2025 06: 28
    Well, yes.
    Zhanna became overly confident in herself. "She became a star," to use a modern term.
    There is a Nadya Saavchenko in Ukraine, this is a very similar example. She fought a bit, was captured, returned as a heroine, thought she had grabbed God by the beard. She almost staged a terrorist attack, wanted to become president, but she was never registered :)
    Insane self-conceit coupled with a complete lack of understanding of the political situation.
  3. -3
    26 January 2025 07: 09
    Do you hear, Zhanna, Zhanna!!! Rose Street is driving me crazy
    It echoes, doesn't it?
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. +26
    26 January 2025 07: 53
    What was Joan of Arc really like?
    I like our Joan of Arc performed by the brilliant Inna Mikhailovna Churikova more than in foreign films. I've always wondered what Joan really looked like? In the drawing by Clement de Fauquembergue in the margins of the register of the Paris Parliament, 1429, made on the day when news of the French victory at Orleans arrived in Paris. Although Fauquembergue never saw her in person, this is almost the only surviving image made during her lifetime. (Photo No. 1) The head of the statue, discovered in 1820 in the ruins of the Church of Saint-Maurice in Orleans, was long considered an image of Joan of Arc (Photo No. 2) However, in the Hermitage of Notre-Dame-de-Bermont there are frescoes on which (as some researchers and biographers believe) possible images of Joan have been preserved (Photo No. 3)
    There are two very important written sources about the life of Joan of Arc. The first is the Procès de Condamnation, the record of the trial in which she was convicted. The second is the record of the retrial in which she was exonerated, the Procès de Réhabilitation. This retrial involved a series of investigations conducted some twenty years after her death. The first source consists primarily of interrogations of Joan of Arc. The second contains the accounts of many eyewitnesses who knew Joan of Arc personally. In these documents, she is described as a short, sturdy woman with black hair. She wore men's clothing and her hair was cut short all over, just above her ears.
    1. +15
      26 January 2025 08: 08
      Churikova played the actress who played Zhanna. The role was a success.
      1. +14
        26 January 2025 09: 13
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        Churikova played the actress who played Zhanna. The role was a success.

        Churikova played the weaver Pasha Stroganova.

        Brilliant work
      2. +7
        26 January 2025 20: 52
        The director (G. Panfilov) had plans to make a film about Joan of Arc with Churikova in the leading role. The film was not allowed to be shot.
  6. +14
    26 January 2025 09: 04
    It has long been known that if a woman gets carried away, she can no longer see the edges. It is unlikely that this case was an exception.
  7. +17
    26 January 2025 09: 16
    All this is interesting, of course. But no more than any alternative history. There are no documents or evidence. Well, you can't consider some diary entries of a Parisian that Jeanne beat her personnel with a stick (which is not surprising, she needed to quickly bring the army struck by despondency and decay to its senses) as such. In general, it could have been like this, or it could not have been. Fighting legends with the help of speculation is not the best option.
    1. Fat
      +10
      26 January 2025 10: 54
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      Fighting legends with speculation is not the best option.

      Golden words! smile drinks
    2. +9
      26 January 2025 14: 52
      Well, you can't consider some diary entries of a certain Parisian that Jeanne beat her personnel with a stick as such
      Of course not! Because the author of "Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris" is clearly a Bourguignon and had an extremely negative attitude towards Jeanne.
      1. +7
        26 January 2025 15: 19
        To analyze the situation of the civil war, one must take into account the point of view of the other side. And for the king, this was also a reality. He needed to unite his subjects - the Armagnacs and Burgundians - under his rule, and not to conquer the country. Therefore, negotiations with the Duke of Burgundy were more important to him than military victories.
        1. +5
          26 January 2025 15: 26
          To analyze the situation of civil war, one must take into account the point of view of the other side.
          Of course, Dmitry!
          I would like to thank you for the article on a topic so unusual for you, although I do not agree with many of the theses presented. Thank you!
          1. +5
            26 January 2025 15: 32
            Thank you! laughing
            Anything else like that? For example, about Slavic spies in Constantinople during the attack in 860?
            1. +7
              26 January 2025 15: 38
              This is your will as an author, but in my opinion - it is not worth it. You are very much "swimming" in medieval realities, which was reflected in my first comment under this material.
              1. +4
                26 January 2025 15: 52
                Studying the Vikings in detail, I had the opportunity to appreciate the "professionalism" of professional historians... sometimes I wanted to speak out, but I must adhere to printed decency. Mental laziness and a complete lack of curiosity, in a word.

                Okay. Does your objection somehow change my assessment of the political situation in France in 1429 as extremely unstable?
                1. +7
                  26 January 2025 16: 06
                  While studying the Vikings in detail, I had the opportunity to appreciate the "professionalism" of professional historians...
                  There are enough of their own "weirdos" there "don't be naughty"!
                  Okay. Does your objection somehow change my assessment of the political situation in France in 1429 as extremely unstable?
                  It doesn't change. But there is one point: you wrote that the Dauphin was declared a bastard, and this could not happen in principle.
                  PS: Charles was declared an enemy of the kingdom.
                  1. +1
                    26 January 2025 18: 43
                    This is like interpreting the corresponding clause of the Treaty of Troyes, in which Charles was not named as a son. laughing In my opinion, declaring a bastard or excluding him from the succession as an enemy of the kingdom is politically equivalent. Considering that it came from a mad king, there was practically no difference.

                    Yes, I managed to get the French translation of the contract, fortunately "Gallica" is now available to everyone.

                    Okay. Even if I concede this point to you, what have you gained? Your objection does not change the assessment of the political situation in 1429 as extremely unstable. laughing
  8. +10
    26 January 2025 10: 44
    A lot of letters, but the author did not fully understand the problem. Jeanne was the illegitimate daughter of the French king, who was given to be raised in a rural family and fought for the interests of her daddy. At that time, those who were supposed to know knew about this, but there simply could not be documents confirming this fact. Just as there are no documents that Bobrinsky is Catherine's son number 2. Never in his life would any dude with the prefix DE go to fight under the banner of some crazy serf. For them, they were like dirt on his boots. But under the banner of royal blood, even if illegal - always welcome. And there were many such examples. In this scenario, everything falls into place.
    1. +6
      26 January 2025 10: 57
      Your version would be great under one condition - if Zhanna was not a girl, but a boy. Then everything would come together.
      So, the same question remains: why did the girl put on pants and armor?
      1. +5
        26 January 2025 14: 03
        This is not my version. This is the opinion of serious historians. It is the one that most fully ties the facts with logic and common sense. And not all this...
      2. +4
        26 January 2025 21: 47
        Quote: wehr
        So, the same question remains: why did the girl put on pants and armor?

        What a binomial theorem)))
        It is obvious that a man ended up in a woman's body! feel
    2. +9
      26 January 2025 11: 23
      Joan was the illegitimate daughter of the French king
      A conspiracy theory that has been ridiculed more than once. In comparison, the author's version is much more plausible.
      1. +2
        27 January 2025 13: 56
        It doesn't take much intelligence to label things. Especially when you don't understand the meaning of the words you use. All the conspiracy theories about COVID turned out to be true. The US Congress has published a 557-page report on the results of a two-year investigation into the origins of the epidemic. And, if we are to believe the conclusions of the authors of the investigation, it turns out that almost all the conspiracy theories about COVID-19 turned out to be true.
        The authors of the document also came to the conclusion that Dr. Myasnikov had previously voiced: lockdowns and other restrictive measures had no scientific basis and only worsened the situation.
        1. +1
          27 January 2025 14: 40
          The Germans say: "This conspiracy theory turned out to be true. Give us another one!" laughing
        2. 0
          31 January 2025 14: 14
          Citing US Congress documents as a source... Doesn't that make you laugh?
  9. +2
    26 January 2025 10: 54
    I took a different approach and tried to imagine,
    Slippery slope...
  10. +8
    26 January 2025 11: 04
    Read - and you will be happy!
    https://fishki.net/anti/3139671-podlinnaja-istorija-zhanny-dark.html
    1. +6
      26 January 2025 14: 05
      Read - and you will be happy!
      https://fishki.net/anti/3139671-podlinnaja-istorija-zhanny-dark.html

      You know, when I am offered to get acquainted with genuine history of something without having sufficient evidence, I start to giggle. However, if you offer me to read the autobiography of the second horse of comrade Budyonny S.M., I will be happy to. But only precisely autobiography! wink
      1. +2
        26 January 2025 18: 30
        I just suggest you familiarize yourself with an alternative version, which seems more plausible to me, so that you can compare it with the one proposed by the author of this opus and draw your own conclusion. That's all. And keep your sarcasm to yourself. Better move your brains, if they are, of course, present.
        1. 0
          28 January 2025 18: 17
          I'm just suggesting that you take a look at an alternative version that seems more plausible to me.
          I prefer not to switch my attention to alternative versions. There are many of them, but there is an official version. Which suits me quite well. And alternative ones have every chance of becoming official. Simply by presenting irrefutable evidence.
          1. +1
            28 January 2025 19: 04
            Where is the logic? There is no irrefutable evidence for the official version, but you prefer to stick to it.
            1. +1
              29 January 2025 17: 51
              There is no irrefutable evidence to support the official version.
              There is no irrefutable evidence at all. But the official version is accepted by the majority. You know that the minority in such cases must either convince with more compelling evidence or agree. So far I have not seen convincing evidence that the official version is lying. hi
  11. +17
    26 January 2025 11: 18
    Quote: Walrus
    In these documents she is described as a short, stocky woman with black hair.


    The girl, the forensic medical commission established this without a doubt (and to its deep regret).

    As for the head of the statue, it is most likely not Joan, but one of the nine "preuses", virtuous women; of these, Esther, Deborah and Penthesilea were most often depicted in armor.
  12. +11
    26 January 2025 11: 55
    Well, as in "The Tale of Igor's Campaign": Is it not fitting for us, brothers, to begin new words about old deeds... In short, not an article, but new tales about the old. Conjecture sits on conjecture and drives conjecture.
  13. BAI
    +12
    26 January 2025 13: 26
    According to the title - now we will get the ultimate truth. But in life - we got another, rather controversial, version
  14. +9
    26 January 2025 14: 01
    France, in general, is seen as having survived the Hundred Years' War by chance.
    Now Bertrand du Guesclin, now Joan of Arc, and now after a century of military and dynastic failures (Jacques de Molay cursed it because) the most powerful state in Europe is unexpectedly born, constantly laying claim to Northern Italy, Burgundy and Lorraine, Spain and Flanders.
    Why?
    Yes, because it was already very powerful, even under Philip the Fair, and the subsequent Time of Troubles, as later in Russia, only showed: there are enemies all around who want to snatch something, grab something, rob and kill the people, the scorched earth tactics used by the English caused rejection and opposition.
    As in our history, the cruelty and genocide of the "Lisovichki" could not endear even the likely compradors to the Polish "Sovereigns".
  15. +10
    26 January 2025 14: 11
    The author has the right to his thoughts. I do not argue. The author has every right to express his opinion. Moreover, I think the author is absolutely right to add the following remarks during the article: "I think", "I consider", "it seems to me", and so on. But! The opinion of the author of the article cannot be an axiom. And we will most likely never know the truth about Zhanna. The article contains only the opinion of the author, his version of what happened, nothing more.
    It has a right to exist, but only as the author's version. There can be no talk of any serious historical research here. That's my opinion. smile hi
    1. Fat
      +4
      26 January 2025 19: 29
      Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
      The opinion of the author of the article cannot be considered an axiom.

      What kind of axiom is this? If the author's research is a logical construct, a hypothesis.
      Andrey, An axiom is a requirement to accept a statement without proof! An axiom does not need to be derived and proven by definition. "The sun rises in the east and sets in the west" is not an axiom, but merely a postulate. smile
      And I agree with the rest
  16. +1
    26 January 2025 18: 32
    In life, the Maid of Orleans was never called Joan of Arc by anyone except the novelist de Pizan. And yes, she is clearly a bastard
    1. 0
      3 February 2025 19: 28
      Bastard of a Martian? Or an alien and a predator?
  17. +3
    26 January 2025 20: 41
    As a parody of Zhanna, we had a woman named Bochkareva.
    They also didn’t know where to put her.
    The Reds solved the problem radically - no man, no problem.
    But no one was exempted from taxes for 30 years.
  18. +1
    26 January 2025 21: 24
    Quote: wehr
    overly simple.

    It's very difficult to do simply!
  19. +1
    31 January 2025 04: 28
    Nde. The beginning was promising, but the end result was disappointment. I thought there would be some kind of theory about Jeanne being the king's illegitimate sister, replaced with some idiot before her execution, but it turned out that Jeanne herself was the idiot. Well, it happens, you come from the people, say a couple of slogans and unexpectedly become a national leader. She did. During the war. In the absence of media, in which anyone can become famous.
    No, it doesn't happen.
    It's even surprising how far-fetched the argumentation of the author, who specializes in military history. Is he deliberately trolling readers? Let's say the armor could have been more or less suitable, but you have to get used to wearing plate armor, otherwise it (especially from someone else's shoulder) will beat the whole body. The same applies to horse riding - riding a calm village horse or a donkey is one thing, but staying in the saddle during a battle is quite another. And where could Jeanne have learned to fight while sitting in the saddle, if even noble ladies rode on special saddles? You can learn this only if you study specifically. And the same applies to wielding a sword. A sword is not a club, not an axe, and not even a cleaver; you won't learn anything in a couple of lessons over the course of a week or two. Especially when the task is not to hit an unarmored, unarmored person, but to participate in a real fight with a more or less prepared opponent.
    The author, in essence, bases all his constructions on one premise – supposedly in medieval society “gender roles were strictly defined” and wearing men’s pants (pardon, stockings – pants were not worn then) was the most severe haram.
    The problem is that the author himself writes that the biography of Jeanne is a later literary work, but for some reason does not allow the idea that the majority of historical sources are the same literary works that significantly distort our understanding of the past.
    Without delving into complex historical falsifications, let's give a simple example. Everyone knows that Jews determine kinship along the maternal line, although the entire Old Testament is permeated with the opposite idea - only the father plays a role. The question is, did the Jews, clinging to all sorts of inconvenient little things (like sidelocks and the Sabbath), suddenly invent something new for themselves - or did the innovations make it into the final version of the Holy Scripture? Logic suggests the latter, since up until the invention of genetic analysis, motherhood was determined much more reliably than fatherhood. Therefore, the maternal lineage should be the original option, and the paternal lineage - a specific exception that later became the mainstream. But does it turn out that the history of religious norms is distorted? It turns out so. The bearers of those norms that seized an ideological monopoly tried to erase alternative options (often with their bearers) from historical memory. And there must be many variations. The canon of biblical books itself was finally approved at the Council of Trent in the century following Joan's life. Before that, there was no ideological uniformity and there could not be, since it is impossible in principle to achieve uniformity of texts in handwritten books, and the printed Bible appeared 30 years after Joan's death.
    Maternal kinship presupposes a slightly different status for women, and the image of a warrior maiden exists in folk legends in many different countries (and it never intersects with the image of a witch). Therefore, it is not surprising that women could sometimes take up arms. Although, of course, unlike fantasy, in the old days, the “strong and independent” did not graze in herds and were an exception.
    1. 0
      3 February 2025 19: 48
      Armor, let's say, could be found more or less suitable, but wearing plate armor requires getting used to

      What is the inconvenience of armor compared to the fate of France? For a fanatic, enduring pain is no problem. And did she always wear armor in battle? Paintings by European medieval artists often show military leaders without armor or incomplete armor.
      The same goes for horse riding –

      Well, Jeanne hardly fought with spears, Her job was to be a banner, a symbol.
      And the same goes for swordsmanship.
      .
      Did Jeanne wield a sword?
      since it is, in principle, impossible to achieve uniformity of texts in handwritten books,

      Oh well. Of course there was no 100% identity, but in general the books of the Bible from the pre-print period have been preserved, and there is nothing apocryphal in them.
      Jews, clinging to all sorts of inconvenient little things (like sidelocks and Shabbat) suddenly made up

      One should not confuse the Jews of biblical times and the Jews of Joan's time. They are completely different peoples, even genetically, and in language, and in customs, and even in faith (the ancient Jews did not know the Talmud).
      1. 0
        5 February 2025 21: 29
        >> For a fanatic, enduring pain is not a problem.

        You can tolerate anything, but flagellants can't fight normally. Even soldiers with sore feet can't fight, and even less so with a sore body.

        >> And did she always wear armor in battle?

        The author claims that she did, I go by the author's words. By the way, not wearing armor _in_battle_ is harmful to health.

        >> Her job is to be a banner, a symbol.
        And the same goes for swordsmanship.

        Your words completely destroy Verkhoturov's concept that Zhanna was such an unstoppable village psychopath. And that is supposedly why she became a symbol. And you claim that she first became a symbol.

        >> Did Jeanne wield a sword?

        The author writes that she owned it and I proceed from the author’s words.

        >> in general, the books of the Bible from the pre-print period have survived, and there is nothing apocryphal in them.

        Because all the apocrypha, alternative versions of scriptures and even non-canonical translations were burned to hell in the process of fighting for the purity of faith.

        >> One should not confuse the Jews of biblical times and the Jews of the time of Joan.

        Lol, I'm not confusing things. Especially since in the Bible, if it comes down to it, there are no Jews, there are Judaizers, whom the dull modern atheists consider synonymous with Jews. And the Judaizers are the original monotheists, who originally lived in the vicinity of Zion, i.e. Vesuvius.

        But in any case, why do people who made the Old Testament religion their national religion contradict it in one of its most important points?
  20. 0
    31 January 2025 14: 28
    Personally, this version seems to me the most plausible of all those I have heard before. Of course, I am not an expert or a historian. But only this version explains all the inconsistencies psychologically. The documents could have been forged for ideological reasons. The memories could have been edited for the same reasons. But the psychological portrait could have been changed... And examples of the actions of such a girl and their results, including the reaction of officials to the inadequacy that became clear only after her ascension to the top, we can observe today. There is one. Her last name is Poklonskaya. ))
  21. 0
    4 February 2025 20: 39
    If you look at famous historical figures without bias and from different sides. Then sometimes unexpected and surprising conclusions are made. Yes, in those cruel and dark times any woman - a warrior for Catholics is definitely and without appeal - a WITCH!