ページの画像
PDF
ePub

CHAPTER CXLVI.-THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH MEET IN BATTLE ON THE PLAINS OF AZINCOURT.-THE ENGLISH GAIN THE VICTORY.

*

On the ensuing day, which was Friday the 25th of October, in the year 1415, the constable and all the other officers of the king of France, the dukes of Orleans, Bourbon, Bar, and Alençon; the counts de Nevers, d'Eu, de Richemonte, de Vendôme, de Marle, de Vaudemont, de Blaumonte, de Salines, de Grand Pré, de Roussy, de Dampmartin, and in general all the other nobles and men-at-arms, put on their armour and sallied out of their quarters. Then, by the advice of the constable and others of the king of France's council, the army was formed into three divisions, the van-guard, the main body, and the rear-guard. The van consisted of about eight thousand helmets, knights, esquires, four thousand archers, and fifteen hundred cross-bows. This was commanded by the constable, having with him the dukes of Orleans and Bourbon, the counts d'Eu and de Richemonte, the marshal Boucicaut, the master of the cross-bows, the lord de Dampierre admiral of France, sir Guichart Dauphin, and some others. The count de Vendôme, and others of the king's officers, were to form a wing of fifteen hundred men-at-arms, to fall on the right flank of the English; and another wing, under the command of sir Clugnet de Brabant, admiral of France, sir Louis Bourdon, and eight hundred picked men-at-arms, was to attack the left flank with this last were included, to break in on the English archers, sir William de Saveuses, with his brothers sir Hector and sir Philippe, Ferry de Mailly, Aliaume de Gaspammes, Allain de Vendôme, Lamont de Launoy, and many more. The main battalion was composed of an equal number of knights, esquires, and archers, as the van, and commanded by the dukes of Bar and Alençon, the counts de Nevers, de Vaudemont, de Blaumont, de Salines, de Grand-pré, and de Roussy. The rear-guard consisted of the surplus of menat-arms, under the orders of the counts de Marle, de Dampmartin, de Fauquembergli, and the lord de Louvroy, governor of Ardres, who had led thither the garrisons on the frontiers of the Boulonois.

When these battalions were all drawn up, it was a grand sight to view; and they were, on a hasty survey, estimated to be more than six times the number of the English. After they had been thus arranged, they seated themselves by companies as near to their own banners as they could, to wait the coming of the enemy; and while they refreshed themselves with food, they made up all differences that might before have existed between any of them. In this state they remained until between nine and ten o'clock in the morning, no way doubting, from their numbers, but the English must fall an easy prey to them. Some, however, of the wisest of them had their fears, and dreaded the event of an open battle.

The English on that morning, perceiving that the French made no advances to attack them, refreshed themselves with meat and drink. After calling on the Divine aid against the French, who seemed to despise them, they dislodged from Maisoncelles, and sent some of their light troops in the rear of the town of Azincourt, where, not finding any men-atarms, in order to alarm the French they set fire to a barn and house belonging to the priory of St. George at Hesdin. On the other hand, the king of England despatched about two hundred archers to the rear of his army, with orders to enter the village of Tramecourt+ secretly, and to post themselves in a field near the van of the French, there to remain quiet until it should be proper time for them to use their bows. The rest of the English remained with king Henry, and were shortly after drawn up in battle array by sir Thomas Erpingham, a knight grown grey with age and honour, who placed the archers in front, and the men-atarms behind them. He then formed two wings of men-at-arms and archers, and posted the horses with the baggage in the rear. Each archer planted before himself a stake sharpened at both ends.

Sir Thomas, in the name of the king, exhorted them all most earnestly to defend their *The custom was not yet fixed of giving precedence beginning of the next chapter, and Boulainvilliers en the to the officers of the crown over the nobility, and even ancient parliaments of France. over the princes of the blood; but Monstrelet, who wrote under Louis XI., when that order was established, adopts it as a matter of course. See more particularly at the

+ Tramecourt, a village of Artois, bailiwick of St. Pol.

When all was

fives, and thus saying he rode along their ranks attended by two persons. done to his satisfaction, he flung into the air a truncheon which he held in his hand, crying out, "Nestrocque* !" and then dismounted, as the king and the others had done. When the English saw sir Thomas throw up his truncheon, they set up a loud shout, to the very great astonishment of the French. The English seeing the enemy not inclined to advance, marched toward them in handsome array, and with repeated huzzas, occasionally stopping to recover their breath. The archers, who were hidden in the field, re-echoed these shoutings, at the same time discharging their bows, while the English army kept advancing upon the French

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

PLAN OF THE BATTLE OF AZINCOURT.-From a plate in Barante's Histoire des Ducs de Bourgogne.

[blocks in formation]

Their archers, amounting to at least thirteen thousand, let off a shower of arrows with all their might, and as high as possible, so as not to lose their effect: they were, for the most part, without any armour, and in jackets, with their hose loose, and hatchets or swords hanging to their girdles; some indeed were bare-footed and without hats. The princes with the king of England were the duke of York, his uncle, the earls of Dorset, Oxford +, Suffolk, the earl marshal, the earl of Kent §, the lords Cambre, Beaumont ||, Willoughby ¶, sir John de Cornewall, and many other powerful barons of England.

*Hollingshed says, his throwing up his truncheon was for a signal to the archers posted in the field at Tramecourt to commence the battle.

This nobleman

† Richard de Vere, earl of Oxford. died the year following, and was succeeded by his son, John de Vere, then only nine years old.

John, lord Mowbray, brother of Thomas earl of Nottingham, and son of Thomas, duke of Norfolk, attainted and banished in the reign of Richard II. Henry

V. restored to him the title of Nottingham, and Henry
VI. that of Norfolk.
§ Kyme.

|| Henry, lord Beaumont, died 1 H. V., leaving only one son, an infant, who did not attain his full age till 9 H. VI. Sir Thomas Beaumont, brother of lord Henry, may be the person here meant.

Robert, lord Willoughby of Eresby, distinguished among the English captains for his gallant actions under Henry V. and the duke of Bedford.

When the French observed the English thus advance, they drew up each under his banner, with his helmet on his head: they were, at the same time, admonished by the constable, and others of the princes, to confess their sins with sincere contrition and to fight boldly against the enemy. The English loudly sounded their trumpets as they approached, and the French stooped to prevent the arrows hitting them on the vizors of their helmets; thus the distance was now but small between the two armies, although the French had retired some paces. Before, however, the general attack commenced, numbers of the French were slain and severely wounded by the English bowmen. At length the English gained on them so much, and were so close, that excepting the front line, and such as had shortened their lances, the enemy could not raise their hands against them. The division under sir Clugnet de Brabant, of eight hundred men-at-arms, who were intended to break through the English archers, were reduced to seven score, who vainly attempted it. True it is, that sir William de Saveuses, who had been also ordered on this service, quitted his troop, thinking they would follow him, to attack the English, but he was shot dead from off his horse. The others had their horses so severely handled by the archers, that, smarting from pain, they galloped on the van division and threw it into the utmost confusion, breaking the line in many places. The horses were become unmanageable, so that horses and riders were tumbling on the ground, and the whole army was thrown into disorder, and forced back on some lands that had been just sown with corn. Others, from fear of death, fled; and this caused so universal a panic in the army that great part followed the example.

The English took instant advantage of the disorder in the van division, and, throwing down their bows, fought lustily with swords, hatchets, mallets, and bill-hooks, slaying all before them. Thus they came to the second battalion that had been posted in the rear of the first; and the archers followed close king Henry and his men-at-arms. Duke Anthony of Brabant, who had just arrived in obedience to the summons of the king of France, threw himself with a small company (for, to make greater haste, he had pushed forward, leaving the main body of his men behind), between the wreck of the van and the second division; but he was instantly killed by the English, who kept advancing and slaying, without mercy, all that opposed them, and thus destroyed the main battalion as they had done the first. They were, from time to time, relieved by their varlets, who carried off the prisoners; for the English were so intent on victory, that they never attended to making prisoners, nor pursuing such as fled. The whole rear division being on horseback, witnessing the defeat of the two others, began to fly, excepting some of its principal chiefs.

During the heat of the combat, when the English had gained the upper hand and made several prisoners, news was brought to king Henry that the French were attacking his rear, and had already captured the greater part of his baggage and sumpter-horses. This was indeed true, for Robinet de Bournouville, Rifflart de Clamasse, Ysambart d'Azincourt, and some other men-at-arms, with about six hundred peasants, had fallen upon and taken great part of the king's baggage and a number of horses, while the guard was occupied in the battle. This distressed the king very much, for he saw that though the French army had been routed they were collecting on different parts of the plain in large bodies, and he was afraid they would renew the battle. He therefore caused instant proclamation to be made by sound of trumpet, that every one should put his prisoners to death, to prevent them from aiding the enemy, should the combat be renewed. This caused an instantaneous and general massacre of the French prisoners, occasioned by the disgraceful conduct of Robinet de Bournouville, Ysambart d'Azincourt, and the others, who were afterward punished for it, and imprisoned a very long time by duke John of Burgundy, notwithstanding they had made a present to the count de Charolois of a most precious sword, ornamented with diamonds, that had belonged to the king of England. They had taken this sword, with other rich jewels, from king Henry's baggage*,—and had made this present, that, in case they should at any time be called to an account for what they had done, the count might stand their friend.

The count de Marle, the count de Fauquemberg, the lords de Louvroy and du Chin, had with some difficulty retained about six hundred men-at-arms, with whom they made a gallant charge on the English; but it availed nothing, for they were all killed or made

* See the Fœdera, where the loss of these jewels, &c. is specified.

prisoners. There were other small bodies of French on different parts of the plain; but they were soon routed, slain, or taken. The conclusion was a complete victory on the part of the king of England, who only lost about sixteen hundred men of all ranks *; among the slain was the duke of York†, uncle to the king. On the eve of this battle, and the following morning, before it began, there were upwards of five hundred knights made by the French. When the king of England found himself master of the field of battle, and that the French, excepting such as had been killed or taken, were flying in all directions, he made the circuit of the plain, attended by his princes; and while his men were employed in stripping the dead, he called to him the French herald, Montjoye, king-at-arms, and with him many other French and English heralds, and said to them, "It is not we who have made this great slaughter, but the omnipotent God, and, as we believe, for a punishment of the sins of the French." He then asked Montjoye, to whom the victory belonged; to him, or to the king of France? Montjoye replied, that the victory was his, and could not be claimed by the king of France. The king then asked the name of the castle he saw near him: he was told, it was called Azincourt. "Well then," added he, " since all battles should bear the names of the fortress nearest to the spot where they were fought, this battle shall, from henceforth, bear the everdurable name of Azincourt."

The English remained a considerable time on the field, and seeing they were delivered from their enemies, and that night was approaching, they retreated in a body to Maisoncelles, where they had lodged the preceding night: they again fixed their quarters there, carrying with them many of their wounded. After they had quitted the field of battle, several of the French, half dead and wounded, crawled away into an adjoining wood, or to some villages, as well as they could, where many expired. On the morrow, very early, king Henry dislodged with his army from Maisoncelles, and returned to the field of battle: all the French they found there alive were put to death or made prisoners. Then, pursuing their road toward the sea-coast, they marched away: three parts of the army were on foot, sorely fatigued with their efforts in the late battle, and greatly distressed by famine and other wants. In this manner did the king of England return, without any hindrance, to Calais, rejoicing at his great victory, and leaving the French in the utmost distress and consternation at the enormous loss they had suffered.

CHAPTER CXLVII.-THE NAMES OF THE PRINCES, AND OTHER LORDS FROM DIVERS COUNTRIES, WHO PERISHED AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BATTLE, AND OF THOSE WHO WERE MADE PRISONERS.

HERE follow the names of those lords and gentlemen who were slain at the battle of Azincourt, on the side of the French.

We shall begin with the king's officers: the lord Charles d'Albreth, constable of France, the marshal Boucicaut §, carried a prisoner to England, where he died, sir James de Chastillon, lord de Dampierre ||, admiral of France, the lord de Rambures, master of the cross-bows, sir Guichard Daulphin, master of the king's household ¶. Of the princes were, duke Anthony of Brabant, brother to the duke of Burgundy**, Edward duke of Bar, the duke d'Alençon, the

This account of the loss of the English, is much more probable than that given by most English historians, who state that the total loss amounted to only forty.-ED. He was very corpulent, and is said to have been pressed to death in the throng. The earl of Suffolk was also among the slain.

Charles d'Albret, count de Dreux, succeeded by his son Charles II.

§ Boucicaut died in England two years after. He left no issue.

He married Jane de la Riviere, and had issue by her one son, James II., lord de Dampierre, who served the dauphin faithfully, and was made grand-pannetier de France.

The name of sir Guichard Dauplrin appears to have betrayed Shakspeare into the error of making the Dauphin of France present at the battle of Azincourt, which he was not,-unless we suppose the error to lie with the editors, in confounding two persons meant by Shakspeare to be distinct. In the camp scene before the battle, his dauphin does not hold such a rank in the debate and conversation as is suitable to the heir of the French monarchy, but precisely that which the master of the household might hold with propriety. In one scene, he is thus mentioned, "Enter Rambures, Châtillon, Dauphin, and others."

** Of the princes, Anthony, duke of Brabant, left two sons, Philip and John, successively dukes of Brabant, and both dying s. p., Philip count of Nevers left Charles

count de Nevers, brother to the duke of Burgundy, sir Robert de Bar, count de Marle, the count de Vaudemont, John brother to the duke of Bar, the count de Blaumont, the count de Grand-pré, the count de Roussy, the count de Fauquembergh, sir Louis de Bourbon, son to the lord de Préaux.

The names of other great lords, as well from Picardy as elsewhere: the vidame of Amiens, the lord de Croy*, and his son sir John de Croy, the lords de Helly, d'Auxi†, de Brimeu, de Poix, l'Estendart, lord de Crequi+, the lord de Lauvroy, sir Vitart de Bours, sir Philippe d'Auxi, lord de Dampierre§, bailiff of Amiens, his son the lord de Raineval, his brother sir Alain, the lord de Mailly ¶, and his eldest son the lord d'Inchy, sir William de Saveuses, the lord de Neufville, and his son the castellan of Lens, sir John de Moreul, sir Rogue de Poix, sir John de Bethune, lord of Moreul in Brie**, sir Symon de Craon, lord de Clarsy+t, the lord de Rocheguyon‡‡, and his brother the vidame de Launois, the lord de Galigny, the lord d'Alegre §§ in Auvergne, the lord de Bauffremont in Champagne, sir James de Heu, the lord de Saint Bris, Philippe de Fosseux, sir Regnault de Crequy, lord de Comptes, and his son sir Philippe, the lord de Mannes, and his brother Lancelot, Mathieu and John de Humieres ¶¶, brothers, sir Louis de Beausault, the lord de Ront, sir Raoul de Manne, sir Oudart de Renty, and two of his brothers***, the lord d'Applincourt, and his son sir James, sir Louis de Guistelle, the lord de Vaurin, and his son the lord de Lidequerke, sir James de Lescuelle, the lord de Hames, the lord de Hondescocte, the lord de Pulchres, sir John Baleul, sir Raoul de Flandres, sir Collart de Fosseux, the lord de Roissimbos, and his brother Louis de Boussy, the lord de Thiennes, the lord d'Azincourt and his son, sir Hustin Kierett††, le bègue de Caen and his brother Payen, the lord de Varigines, the lord d'Auffemont ‡‡‡ and his son sir Raulequin, sir Raoul de Neele, the lord de St. Crêpin, the viscount de Quesnes, sir Pierre de Beauvoir, bailiff of the Vermandois, sir John de Lully and his brother sir Griffon, the lord de St. count of Nevers, who died s. p., and John, count of Estampes and of Nevers after the death of his brother.

Edward, duke of Bar, and John de Bar, lord of Puisaye, were brothers, and both died s. p.

Robert de Bar, count of Marle and Soissons, was son to Henry de Bar another brother, and also died, s. p. Upon these deaths the succession was disputed between Louis, cardinal de Bar, the surviving brother, and Yoland, queen of Arragon, their sister. This dispute was terminated in 1419, when the cardinal resigned his right in favour of Réné of Anjou (duke of Lorraine, &c.), grandson of Yoland.

John I., count of Alençon, succeeded by his son, John II.

Ferry, count de Vaudemont. He was of the house of Lorraine, and acquired Vaudemont by his marriage with the heiress of Vaudemont and Joinville.

Henry II., count of Blamont, of the house of Salms. Edward II., count of Grandpré, of the house of Porcien. John VI., count of Roussy and Braine, descended from the old counts of Rheims. He left one daughter, Jane, married to Robert de Sarreback, count of Commercy. He was recognised among the dead by a wound which had made one arm shorter than the other.

Waleran, eldest son of Raoul II., lord of Rayneval and grand-pannetier de France, and his wife Philippa, daughter of John de Luxembourg, count de Ligny and castellan of Lille. Waleran possessed the lands of Fauquemberg by the will of his aunt, Jane de Luxembourg, widow of Guy de Châtillon, count of St. Pol. This count Waleran left only a daughter, married to Baldwin d'Ailly, vidame of Amiens.

[blocks in formation]

Symon and his brother Gallois §§§, Collart

Raoul II., lord of Rayneval, grand-pannetier de France, left four sons, of whom Waleran, the eldest, was count of Fauquemberg, and killed at this battle; John, the third, was lord de Meracourt, also killed here; Aubert, the fourth, lord of Betencourt, also killed here: Raoulequin, lord of Cardonnia, was the second;--but there must be some mistake about their father the bailiff of Amiens, and also about the brother sir Allain.

¶ Colard, or Nicholas, lord of Mailly, and his eldest son Colard.

** John de Bethune, lord of Mareuil, Autrêche, &c. youngest son of John, lord of Vendeul and Vergier.

Simon, lord of Dommart and Claed, son of John de Craon, lord of Dommart, and brother of William, lord of Nouastre, and John, lord of Dommart, who was also taken prisoner at Azincourt, and died in 1420.

John the young, lord of Midens, brother of John IV., lord of Crequy, Canaples, &c. was also killed at Azincourt. Guy VI., lord de Rocheguyon, counsellor and chamberlain to the king. His son, Guy VII., was the last male of this illustrious house. I find nothing of his brother.

§§ Morinot de Tourzel, lord of Alegre. But I find in Moreri, that he lived to the year 1418.

Heu, a family of Le Pays Messin, celebrated in the sixteenth century.

¶¶ Matthew and John de Humieres, sons of Matthew, lord de Humieres, and brothers of Philip de Humieres, made prisoner on the same day.

*** Renty, a branch of the house of Croy.

+++ Henry Quieret, lord of Tours en Vimeu, died in 1406, leaving two sons, Guy, and Peter, lord of Haucourt, both made prisoners at Azincourt; but I find none of the family killed there.

‡‡‡ Guy III., de Nesle, of the family of Clermont-enBeauvoisis.

§§§ Matthieu de Rouvroy, and Guillaume le Gallois, his brother,-descended in the female line from the old counts of Vermandois.

« 前へ次へ »