Froissart writes about the great and gallant deeds of the aristocratic circles with which he is indelibly linked. This was a social caste that was wholly devoted to waging and practicing for war. So much of his chronicle is made up of ‘many fine feats of arms’ that at first glance we assume that Froissart is firmly in favour of war, looking down on those who seek peace. However, on closer inspection Froissart’s view seems to be much more nuanced than war good, peace bad. By exploring certain events and characters which Froissart documents, and the inference gleamed from how he writes about them, I hope to show that that is the case. Since this is an essay which focuses squarely on the primary sources, I hope to achieve this only through direct examination of those sources.
An important event while discussing Froissart’s view on war and peace has to be the account of the conduct of the Cardinal de Périgord before the Battle of Poitiers.# The Cardinal tries to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict, before the battle breaks out, and arranges a truce so that a surrender or withdrawal of the English forces can take place. The cardinal, through Froissart, says that it would be ‘… a thousand pities if all these fine men here, on both sides, were to meet in battle.’ and that ‘Too much misery could come of it.’# Froissart does not condemn this attempt, and through the language used and the quotes of the cardinal he uses it can be implicitly understood that he is in favour of it. However, the cardinal’s attempts fail, the terms offered by the French being rejected by the Prince of Wales since, ‘subject to the honour of myself and my men’#, ‘this was a stipulation the Prince and his council would never have accepted.’# The importance of this, both that Froissart is open to the idea of surrender and that the both the King of France and the Prince of Wales are too, should not be underestimated. Though battle is joined, it is only because the Prince of Wales feels that the terms stipulated are not honourable is that the case. Clearly Froissart isn’t such a war monger that he cannot accept anything other than outright violent conflict.
Another important extract detailing Froissart’s nuanced view of warfare is seen in his retelling of the Jacquerie insurrection#. He describes the atrocities of the Jacquerie, the burning, pillaging and rape which they carried out in Beauvais and the surrounding areas, as ‘vile deeds’#, and the Jacquerie themselves were described as ‘evil men’ and ‘mad dogs’#. Though he describes the actions of the peasantry, ‘small and dark’# as opposed to the flattering terms Froissart uses to describe the nobility, he sees the burning and massacre of the village of Meaux as a good and honourable thing, carried out by the knights in retaliation as a wholly good thing.# Clearly this shows some deviation from how he describes the acts of the rebels. It seems than the Froissart is opposed to war, but only to war carried out by non-nobles or against the noble caste. It is clear that he doesn’t disapprove of such actions, he describes them nonchalantly enough in relation to the Prince of Wales’s pillaging before Poitiers, though he neither condones or condemns it explicitly. It leads to the conclusion that Froissart views war as a pursuit of the nobles and that that is the only type of good and honourable war. Even though nobles and knights take part in the same actions which he denounced when they were carried out by the Jacquerie he has no bad words to say about them.
Froissart revels in the many ‘fine feats of arms’# which he variously describes throughout his chronicles, such as at the Siege of Breteuil, or the Battles of Crecy and Poitiers. Though he says of the Battle of Crecy ‘too few great feats of arms were performed that day’#, owing to the forced march and late arrival of the French, he does describe the conduct of the King of Bohemia, John the Blind, in glowing terms, saying that he ‘fought most bravely’#. Honour, for Froissart, was the driving motivation on the field of battle. Though the French were tired ‘…they still went forward and preferred death to a dishonourable flight.’# The French knights who assaulted Breteuil in the siege tower were there since they ‘wanted to win distinction.’# This is certainly the type of warfare which Froissart considers the best, a knight taking to the field to win honour and glory. The action of Lord Boucicaut at the Siege of Romorantin, dismissing the Prince of Wales’s terms of surrender since they were not honourable was endorsed by both the Black Prince and, implicitly, by Froissart.# In his retelling of the Battle of Poitiers he chastises the ‘horrible scene of killing’# which took place beneath the walls of Poitiers itself, though he goes on to sum up the whole event as a ‘glorious battle’# several pages later. The full extent of Froissart’s views on honour and fighting can be seen when he reflects on the fates of the French. ‘All who fell at Poitiers or were taken prisoner did their duty so loyally to their king that their heirs are still honoured for it and the gallant men who fought there are held in perpetual esteem.’# Even the captured and defeated king is praised for his conduct, in not fleeing the battle and staying on the field until he was captured.
It is clear from the attitude which Froissart takes towards various events surrounding his narrative that he does posses a more nuanced view of warfare than might have been expected. He praises the actions of the defeated and victorious nobles who acted honourably on the feel of battle. He reserves most of his ire for the rebellious peasantry who seek to upset the preordained order. Nor, however, does he completely support war in the face of peace. His praise and flattering account of the actions of the Cardianl de Périgord show this clearly. While not chastising the sons of the King of France for fleeing the field ‘unblooded’ there social standing and honour of their positions protects them from the enmity which they might have encountered from him. Froissart’s views on warfare are laid bare in his narration of the conflicts surrounding his age. War is good, as long as it is pursued by nobles who, through ‘feats of arms’, try to win themselves honour. Honour, then, is what it is all about. |
Froissart's views on war and peace
Reply With Quote
