DFC-2, once again, you evade the issue and launch into your own diatribe about Joan based upon silly speculation and ignoring historical review of the matter.
Waiting patiently for you to prove your point .
On the contrary, her tactics were not unconventional unless you consider "attacking" unconventional. The English did not adjust and the English continued to lose even after Joan was gone, hence Charles name, "Charles the Victorious"
The Duke of Alençon noted that Joan's approach was to attack without preparation. This is great
if you catch your enemy by surprise or they are not trying to lure you into a foolish assault, but if the latter happens then the supply train can be broken or sections of your forces can be cut down. Think Custer, who was a lousy commander and responsible for many unnecessary deaths before he got out of the Civil War because of his repeated vainglorious assaults. As with Joan, a short span of victories covered a multitude of failures. In fact, the English remained in France nearly twenty years after Joan's death. The English recovered quite well, especially considering the differences in resources for the two armies.
The reality was that Charles was a self-indulgent, ego-maniac who was jealous of the prestige and love that the people of France had for Joan. He did not want any competition and at the first opportunity, abandoned Joan to the English so he could claim all the glory for himself and not have to share the spotlight with her.
Not very afraid of her claimed relationship with heavenly powers, was he? Anyway, what's your point as a response to me? Your idle speculation in no way contradicts my idle speculation. Both his intention to use her as a symbol and your claim that the people loved her can easily work side-by-side, except of course that no one loved her enough to ransom her from captivity.
Recent scholarship that focuses on the nullification trial testimony asserts that her fellow officers esteemed her as a skilled tactician and a successful strategist.
A key phrase there simply reiterates the point I made. A generation after Joan's death, when the English had finally been defeated and Charles was looking for ways to build a creation myth around his new nation, a long dead symbolic teenager suddenly became useful.
Joan's Mother had been trying in vain for years to get her daughter's reputation repaired. Pierre Cauchon was not only fearless in his conclusions, he had widely published the whole transcript of proceedings despite the fact that they showed Joan to be intelligent and included evidence of disagreements about procedures among the 100 or so witnesses he allowed to attend. We owe our warts-and-all knowledge of problems with trial procedures largely to Cauchon's effort to prove his fairness to all parties by transparently allowing everything to be saved and revealed.
In contrast, when Charles got into the game, not only were the Nullification trial results preordained, but the desired outcome was helped by the way he honored those associated with her at the same time as the "judges" sought "testimony." There were essentially (one crusty old priest continued to assert that Joan's angels were a fabrication) no disagreements expected or allowed. The "judges" came in with a long list of what they expected to prove and the "testimony" consisted of numerous people repeating the same phrases word-for-word over and over. The only disparities were in the responses of the self-aggrandizing who attempted to top each other with ever more outlandish claims about her psychic ability, courage, holiness, and, of course, their deep and pure connection to her. It is fun reading Pernoud's footnotes as she gently tries to resolve contradictory nonsense and get at the truth, but it didn't stop her as a Joan-nut from doing everything possible to portray the very open trial while Joan was alive as irrelevant and the statements made a generation after her death as all important and perfectly true, not usually something an unbiased historian does .
reply
share