The problem of “heroine”
Popular images show Joan as a general leading armies from the front. The surviving evidence is more complicated. She was clearly present at several important operations in 1429, and many contemporaries believed she was central to the French recovery. At the same time, the details of what she actually commanded, advised or merely inspired are uncertain. This article looks at the military context of the 1420s and then at what can and cannot be said about her role. Her biography is told in the companion articles; here the focus is the war.
The French position before 1429
The 1420 Treaty of Troyes, followed by the deaths of Henry V and Charles VI in 1422, left France with two claimants. The English and their Burgundian allies held Paris and the north, and the dauphin, now styled Charles VII by his followers, held a smaller territory in the center and south.
The 1420s brought a run of French setbacks. At Cravant in 1423 and at Verneuil in 1424 French armies, including Scottish allies, were beaten by English forces under the duke of Bedford, regent for the young Henry VI. The English were skilled at defensive battle tactics, using archers behind stakes and dismounted men-at-arms, much as they had at Agincourt. French commanders learned to avoid direct clashes. Instead they relied on garrisons, raids and small-scale actions.
The French court was also divided by rival factions, and money was short. In October 1428 the English began to besiege Orleans, a key Loire city. In February 1429, a French attempt to intercept an English supply convoy, known as the Battle of the Herrings, ended in defeat. The French cause seemed to be in poor shape when Joan arrived.
What she did at Orleans
Joan joined the relief force in late April 1429. Accounts suggest several things:
- She carried a banner, which she said she preferred to a sword, and was usually in the front or near the fighting.
- She urged the garrison and the captains to attack the English siege works rather than wait.
- She was wounded during the assault on the Tourelles, the fortified bridge gate, and returned to encourage the troops.
- She took part in councils, although the experienced captains, including Dunois and La Hire, seem to have made the tactical decisions.
Some of the captains later testified that she gave useful advice, while others stressed that her main value lay in morale. Both can be true. The English withdrew on 8 May, and the effect on both sides’ confidence was large. English soldiers, many of whom believed in witchcraft, were shaken, and the French soldiers and townspeople believed they had divine backing.
The Loire campaign and Patay
After Orleans, the army, under the duke of Alencon in nominal command, recaptured several bridge towns along the Loire. At Patay in June, an English force was caught while still deploying and was crushed by a French cavalry charge. Joan was with the army, but she was not leading the vanguard, and several of the commanders were more directly responsible for the fighting. Historians debate how much credit she deserves. Her presence seems to have strengthened the army’s morale, and she did press the king to move quickly.
Failure at Paris and decline
At Paris in September 1429 she took part in an attack on the walls that failed. This is a useful reminder that her influence was not unlimited. Court politicians preferred negotiation with Burgundy, and some commanders were reluctant to follow her lead in risky actions. In the months afterward she took part in smaller operations, such as the fighting at La Charite and Compiegne, where she was captured in May 1430.
What is uncertain
Several questions remain open:
- Titles and authority: she was given armor and a household, but there is little evidence she held a formal rank as commander in chief. She was treated as a leader in some ways and as an adviser in others.
- Combat: she herself said she preferred not to kill anyone, and no reliable source establishes that she killed in battle.
- Strategy: the plan for the relief of Orleans and the Loire campaign may have been mostly the work of experienced captains, and the idea of the Reims coronation may have come from a combination of her wishes and the court’s political interests.
- Testimony: much of what we know comes from her trial, where she was a defendant, and from the rehabilitation of the 1450s, when witnesses had reasons to praise her.
A balanced view
Joan’s military significance is probably best described as symbolic and psychological, with some practical effect through her insistence on action and her reputation for divine support. The wider French recovery depended on several things she did not control: Burgundy’s later switch, financial and administrative reform under Charles VII, and the development of artillery and a more permanent army. Calling her a heroine of the war is reasonable. Calling her its commander overstates what the evidence supports.