« 前へ次へ »
lives, and thus saying he rode along their ranks attended by two persons. When all was 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.
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, Oxfordt, Suffolk, the earl marshal J, the earl of Kent§, the lords Cambre, Beaumont ||, Willoughbyf, 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.
f Richard de Vere, earl of Oxford. This nobleman 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 I 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.
If Robert, lord Willoughby of Bresby, 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 oh the English; but it availed nothing, for they were all killed or made * See the Focdera, where the loss of these jewels, &e. 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 -f% 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 tho 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 tho 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 tho 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 aud 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 J, the marshal Boucicaut §, carried a prisoner to England, where he died, sir James de Chastillon, lord de Dampierre ||, admiral of France, the lord de llambures, master of the cross-bows, sir Guichard Daulphin, master of the king's household IT. Of the princes were, duke Anthony of Brabant, brother to the duke of Burgundy* *, Edward duke of Bar, the duke d'Alencon, the count de Nevers, brother to the duke of Burgundy, sir Robert de Bar, count de Marie, the count de Vauderaont, John brother to the duke of Bar, the count de Blaumont, the count de Grand-pr^, the count de Roussy, the count de Fauquembergh, sir Louis de Bourbon, son to the lord de Preaux.
• This account of the loss of the English, is much f The name of sir Guichard Dauphin appears to have
more probable than that given by most English historians, betrayed Shakspcare into the error of making the Dauphin
who state that the total loss amounted to only forty.—En. of France present at the battle of Azincourt, which ho
•f He was very corpulent, and is said to have been was not,—unless we suppose the error to lie with the
pressed to death in the throng. The earl of Suffolk was editors, in confounding two persons meant by Shakspcare
also among the slain. to be distinct. In the camp scene before the battle, his
X Charles d'Albret, count de Dreux, succeeded by his dauphin does not hold such a rank in the debate and conson Charles II. versation as is suitable to the heir of the French monarchy,
5 Boucicaut died in England two years after. He left but precisely that which the master of the household might
no issue. hold with propriety. In one scene, he is thus mentioned,
|| He married Jane de la Riviere, and had issue by her "Enter Rambures, Chfttillon, Dauphin, and others."
one son, James II., lord de Dampierre, who served the ** Of the princes, Anthony, duke of Brabant, left two
dauphin faithfully, and was made grand-pannctier de sons, Philip and John, successively dukes of Brabant,
France. and both dying s. p., Philip count of Nevers left Charles count of Nevers, who died s. p., and John, count of Estampes and of Nevers after the death of his brother.
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'Auxit, de Brimeu, de Poix, TEstendart, lord de Crcqui*, 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^j, 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 Clarsyff, the lord de Rocheguyon JJ, and his brother the vidame de Launois, the lord de Galigny, the lord d*Alegre§§ in Auvergne, the lord de Baufrremont in Champagne, sir James de Heu||||, the lord de Saint Bris, Philippe de Fosseux, sir Regnault deCrequy, lord de Comptes, and his son sir Philippe, the lord de Mannes, and his brother Lancelot, Mathieu and John de HumiereslTIT, brothers, sir Louis de Beausault, the lord de Rout, 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 IIustin Kieretff f, le begue 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. Crepin, 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. Symon and his brother Gallois§§§, Collart de la Porte, lord of Bellincourt, sir Yvain de Cramailles, the lord de Cerny in the Laonnois, sir Drieu d'Orgiers, lord de Bethencourt, sir Gobert de la Bove, lord de Savoisy, the lord de Becqueville * and his son sir John Marthel, the lord d'Utrecht, the seneschal d'Eu, the lord de la Riviere, de Tybouville, the lord de Courcy, the lord de St. Beuve, the lord de Beaumainnil f, the lord de Combouchis, the lord de la Heuse, the lord Viesport, sir Bertrand Painel, the lord Chambois, the lord de St. Cler, the lord de Montcheveul, the lord d'Ouffreville I, sir Enguerrand de Fontaines and his brother sir Charles, sir Almaury de Craon, lord de Brolay §, the lord de Montejan, the lord de la Haye, the lord de l'lsle-Bouchart, sir John de Craon, lord de Montbason ||, the lord de Bueuil IT, the lord de Laumont-sur-Loire, sir Anthony de Craon, lord de Beau Vergier *•, the lord d'Asse, the lord de la Tour t+, the lord de l'lsle-Gonnort, sir John de Dreux, sir Germain de Dreux, the viscount de Tremblay, sir Robert de Bouvay, sir Robert deChallus J j, sir John de Bonnebault, the lord de Mongaugier §§, sir John de Valcourt, the lord de Sainteron, sir Ferry de Sardonne, sir Peter d'Argie, sir Henry d'Ornay, the lord des Roches, sir John de Montenay, the lord de Bethencourt, the lord de Combourt, the viscount de la Belliere || ||, the lord de la Tute, sir Bertrand de MontaubanUlf, Bertrand de St. Gille, seneschal of Hainault, the lord de la Hamecte, the lord du Quesnoy, the lord de Montigny, the lord de Quiervran, the lord de Jumont, the lord de Chin, sir Symon de Havrech, the lord de Poctes, sir John de Gres, sir Allemand d'Estaussines, sir Philippo de Lens ***, and sir Henry, brothers to the bishop of Cambray, sir Michel du Chastellicr and his brother Guillaurne de Vaudripont, Ernoul de Vaudrigien, Pierre de Molin, Jean de Buait, George de Quiervran and his brother Henry, the lord de Saures, sir BrifFault his brother, le Baudrain d'Aisne knight, sir Maillart d'Azouville Palaraedes des Marquais, the lord de Bousincourt, the lord de Fresencourt, the lord de Vallusant, the lord de Hectrus, Guernier de Brusquent, the lord de Moyin the Beauvoisis, his son Gamot de Bournouville and his brother Bertrand, Louvelet de Massinguehen and his brother, sir Collart do Phiennes, Alain de Vendome, Larnont de Launoy, sir Colinet de St. Py, the lord de Bos d'Ancquin, Lancelot de Fremeusent, the lord d'Aumont "f"f"|*, sir Robinet de Vaucoux, sir Raisse de Moncaurel JJJ, sir Lancelot de Clary, the lord de la Rachie, sir Guerard d'Herbaines, sir Guerard de Haucourt, sir Robert de Montigny, sir Charles de Montigny, sir Charles de Chastillon §§§, Philippe de Poitiers, the lord de Fenldes, the lord de St. Pierre, Guillaume Fortescu, Burel de Guerames, Robert de Potiaumes, the son to the bailiff of Rouen, the provost to the marshals of France, Bertrand de Belloy ||||||, Jacques de Han, the lord de Baisir and Martel du Vauhuon his brother, Jean de Maietraicts, Raoul de Ferrieres, Raoul de Longeul knight, Henry de la Lande, sir Ernault de Corbie, lord d'Aniel, Jean Discoiievelle, sir Yvain de Beauval, sir Brunei Fretel, le Baudrain de Belloy knight, sir Regnault d'Azincourt, the governor of the county of Rethel, Ponce de Salus knight, lord of Chasttl-neuf, the lord de Marquectes, Symmonet de Morviller,
Edward, duke of Bar, and John de Bar, lord of Puisaye, were brothers, and both died s. p.
Robert de Bar, count ef Marie 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 Rene of Anjou (duke of Lorraine, &c.), grandson of Yoland.
John I., count of Alenyon, succeeded by his son, John II.
Ferry, count dc 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 Grandpre, 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 Sarrcback, count of Commercy. He was recognised among the dead by a wound which bad made one arm shorter than the other.
Walcran, eldest son of Raoul II., lord of Rayneval and grand-panne tier de France, and his wife Philippa, daughter of John de Luxembourg, count dc Ligny and castellan of Lille. Walcran possessed the lands of Fauquemberg by the will of his aunt, Jane dc Luxembourg, widow of Guy de ChAtillon, count of St. Pol. This count Wale ran left only a daughter, married to Baldwin d'Ailly, vidame of Amiens.
* John, lord dc Croy, and his two eldest sons, John and Arehambaud. + David, lord of Auxf.
% Raoul, surnamed L'Estcndart, on account of the many standards he had won from the English, son of John IV., lord of Crcquy.
$ Philip, brother of David, lord of D/nnpicrre, not Dampierre, which was in the house of Chatillon.
|| Raoul II., lord of Rayneval, grand-pannetier do France, left four sons, of whom Waleran, the eldest, waj count of Fauquemberg, and killed at this battle; John, tbe 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.
T Colard, or Nicholas, lord of Mailly, and his eldest son Colard.
** John de Bethune, lord of Mareuil, Autrechc, &c youngest son of John, lord of Vendeul and Vergier.
ft 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 atAzincourt.
%% Guy VI., lord de Rochcguyon, 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 Tourzcl, lord of Alegre. But I find in Moreri, that he lived to the year 1418.
UK Heu, a family of Le Pays Alessin, celebrated in the sixteenth century,
%% Matthew and John de Humieres, sons of Matthew, lord dc Humieres, and brothers of Philip dc Humieres, made prisoner on the same day.
*** Rcnty, a branch of the house of Croy.
•f-"hr 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.
XXX Guy III., de Nesle, of the family of Clermont-euBeauvoisis.
§§§ Matthieu de Rouvroy, and Guillaume le Gallois, his brother,—descended in the female : line from the old counts of Vermr-ndois.
• William Martel, lord of Bacqueville, often men- a law-family, and Q. if any of the branches were addicted
tioned before. He was the last person distinguished by to arms?
the venerable office of Porte-orisflamme. fU Oliver V., lord of Montauban, a great house in
■f Robert VI. de Harcourt, lord of Beaumenil. Bretagne, died soon after 1386, leaving five sons,—
+ Q. Offrainville? Denis de Longueil, lord of 1. "William, who died in 1432; 2. Robert, bailiff of
Offiainville, was .killed at Azincourt, together with his Cotentin, at the siege of Orleans in 1420; 3. Bertrand,
elder brother, William lord of Longucville, and his son killed at Azincourt; 4. Renaud, lord of Crepon; 5. John.
Robert. *•* John de Recoiirt, castellan of Lens, brother to
§ Amaury de Craon, lord de Briole, of the branch of Charles, admiral of France, was killed at this battle ; but
La Suze. I find no others of the family.
|| John de Craon, lord of Monfbazon and viscount ft+ John Hutin, lord of Aumont, Chars and Chapes,
of Chnte audun, grand-echanson de France. echanson du roi, Ac.
% John, lord of Beuil, master of the cross-bows from J*f John, lord of Montcavrel, was killed at this battle.
1396 to 1399. He left only one daughter, in whose right Montcavrel
** Antony, lord of Beauvergier, grand-pannctier de passed into the family of Monchy.
France. §$§ Charles de Chfitillon, lord of Sourvilliers and
tt Agne III., de la Tour, lord of Orliergties. Marigni.
JJ Probably Robert de Chabannes, lord of Charlus, Gaspard de Chastillon and Hugh his brother, of the
father of Stephen lord of Charlus, James, lord of La Chastillons, lords of Blois and la Mastic, were also killed.
Palice, and Anthony, count of Dammartin. |||||| Hugh, lord of Bellay and Giseux, married Isabel
5§ St. Maur, lords of Montgaugier, a house of Touraine. de Montigny, lady of Langey. Bertrand his son. He
llll Anthony de Bellievrc, ancestor of the Bcllievres, had two other sons, one killed at Crevant, another at
presidents and chancellors, lived at this time; but it was Verneuil.