Then, near Crécy in Ponthieu, which they burned, they pitched their tents and took up their lodging and station in all safety on the edge of a wood and waited to see if anyone would attack them. When Philip of France, who was awaiting the English king at Antony, heard that he had withdrawn from Poissy and that he had repaired the bridge, a feat which the French had thought impossible, and had crossed over it, Philip realized that he had been duped and tricked and was sorrowful therefore. He again gathered an army of nobles and foot soldiers and many of the best Genoese crossbowmen, in greater numbers than could be believed possible, and swiftly followed the king of England to Crécy. He had with him in his company and army the king of Bohemia, very brave and skilled in arms. His prowess in arms and the greatness of his heart attest his bravery, for he was blind in both eyes and old and yet had not therefore relinquished arms⁵⁶. He had a son, Charles, who afterwards became Roman emperor, who was also present there. He also had a daughter named Bonne, whom John, duke of Normandy, King Philip’s first-born son who is now reigning, had married⁵⁷.

Note 56. For the intimate relations of John of Luxemburg, king of Bohemia, with the Valois, see Puymaigre, "Jean I’Aveugle en France," Rev. des quest. hist, LII (1892), 391-452.

Note 57. Charles became Emperor Charles IV in 1347. The marriage of Duke John and Bonne of Luxemburg took place July 28, 1332. The passage dominus Johannes dux Normanniae primogenitus regis Philippi nunc regnantis is a troublesome one. The translation assumes that Jean de Venette’s Latin is as rude as he admits it to be, and that the last two words really refer to John and not to Philip. An alternative assumption is that he meant func for nunc. The translation would then read "the eldest son of King Philip who was then reigning." Considering the context, however, it would seem peculiarly superfluous, at this point, to remind the reader that King Philip was reigning at that time. It seems even more superfluous to accept a literal translation and the assumption from it that this passage indicates composition before Philips death in August, 1350. Jean de Venette has mentioned King Philip so many times before without feeling any necessity for telling his reader that he was "now reigning" that it is extremely difficult to see why such a phrase would be called for at this point. As an aside, however, explaining the change in John’s position, it becomes comprehensible. There is no other evidence for early composition of this section, while there is considerable for a later date.

Then when the king of France and his men came near Crécy, where the king of England was, he boldly attacked the English drawn up facing them and their great multitude of archers in battle array, on the battlefield near Crécy, on Saint Louis's Day, 1346, at the end of the ninth hour⁵⁸. While our Frenchmen were disposing themselves for battle, lo! suddenly rain descended from heaven. All the atmosphere, which before had been clear, darkened. The strings on the cross bows of the Genoese crossbowmen who had come to aid the French⁵⁹ were soaked by the rain and shrank, so that when it was time for them to be drawn against the English, they were, woe is me! useless. It was not so with the bows and arrows of the English, for when the rain began as they were awaiting battle, they had quickly protected their bows by putting the bow strings on their heads under their helmets. When the French lines attacked⁶⁰ in some disorder and confusion, on account, it is said, of undue haste on the part of the French king, and the crossbowmen were told to draw against the English, they tried in vain and could not, in spite of all their efforts, stretch the cords to the bows,’ so shrunken were they. And so the Genoese crossbowmen could not shoot a single bolt, though in an attack they should have been first, according to the custom of war. Our Frenchmen, seeing this and not knowing the cause or impediment, supposed that they were feigning treacherously and were making no attempt to shoot because they had received money from the other side to that end. They accordingly began to kill and massacre them, refusing to accept their excuses though all the while the crossbowmen were excusing themselves with great cries.’® The enemy, who had been terrified, regained their daring on seeing this, and bravely attacked our ill-ordered French lines, wounding the French soldiers with bows and arrows and swords, until they could not stand against them in the conflict. They fell in battle in numbers that cannot be believed and those who could escape speedily turned and fled. And so the French lost the field, and a great number of our Frenchmen—nobles, knights and footsoldiers—lay there dead, and with them the blind king of Bohemia, of whom I spoke before. He had had himself led to battle and, unable to see, had struck as many allies as foes, or more,⁶⁴ with his sword. There also⁶⁵ fell the count of Alencon, the king’s brother, the count of Blois, his nephew, Count Louis of Flanders, who had been cast out⁶⁶ of Flanders by his Flemings under Jacques van Artevelde, the count of Bar, the count of Harcourt (who was the first count of that county, since before him the title had been baron, not count), the count of Sancerre, the duke of Lorraine—and I think there was another duke⁶⁷ whose name I cannot recall—and incredibly many others⁶⁸.®® Many of the English perished, but not so many as of our men. King Philip, grief-stricken, retreated that night to Amiens and afterwards to Paris.⁶⁹ The victorious king of England withdrew with his spoils, many horses and other riches. He passed close to Montreuil and burned Etaples. Proceeding further, he came up before Calais and there pitched his tents in the fields near the church of Saint Pierre, which was then in the fields outside the town. He occupied and devastated the whole countryside, wishing to take Calais by force of arms or otherwise; and this he did later.

Note 58. Jean de Venette commits an error of one day at this point. Saint Louis day is Aug. 25, and King Philip remained that day at Abbeville out of respect for the royal saint. Battle was joined the next day about vespers. Les Grandes Chroniques, IX, 281-82. Vespers is shortly after the ninth hour.

Note 59. A adds I> before venerant, and reads pro Gallicis for pro Francis.

Note 60. A adds ad pugnandum after aciebus.

Note 61. A reads cognantes cordes for cogentes cordas.

Note 62. A adds super praedictum after impedimentum; Géraud omits super. The translation ignores this phrase.

Note 63. The subject of rain at Crécy and its effect on the crossbow cords is dis- cussed at length by Viard in "La Campagne de juillet-aoit 1346 et la bataille de Crécy," Le Moyen Age, XXXVI (1926), 73-74, n. 2. This passage of Jean de Venette is one of the earliest recordings of the story. The passage in the continuator of the chronicle of Richard Lescot (p. 74), as indeed most of his story for this period, seems to be based on Jean de Venette. In Les Grandes Chroniques (IX, 282) the flight of the Genoese is ascribed to the fire of three English cannon. This author also remarks upon suspicion of treason, and reports that it was commonly said that the rain had so softened (si moilliées) the crossbow cords that they were useless. This is just the opposite of Jean de Venette’s statement that the cords were shrunk by the rain, but it is more in accord with the facts as described by Payne-Gallwey in his book, The Crossbow. He discusses this matter at some length (pp. 5-6).

Although much doubt has been thrown on the statement that the crossbows of the Genoese failed to act on this occasion, owing to their strings being slackened by wet weather, it is possible that the incident occurred, without, however, in any measure influencing the result of the battle. The strings might easily have been rendered less effective than usual by the heavy rain that fell just before the battle, and by the bright sun which is known to have succeeded the rain. This combination of water and heat would certainly relax in some degree the strings of the crossbows used at the time of Crécy, if they were uncovered, and would make the strings too loose to be of good service till they could be removed from the bows in order to be shortened by twisting, and then replaced; all of which would entail, of course, time and care. It should be remembered that the bows of the Genoese crossbowmen at Crécy were doubtless composite ones, made of horn, sinew, and glue, bows of steel being of later introduction. The composite bow was straight, hence its bowstring was fixed to it in a necessarily rather slack condition; for this reason the threads composing its string, being more or less detached, were liable to absorb moisture. On the other hand, the threads that composed the tighly strained string of a steel crossbow, lay closely packed to- gether, and as in this case the string was always thickly smeared, both inside and outside, with beeswax to preserve it, it was impervious to water. To test the matter, | have sunk a steel crossbow in a tank of water for a day and a night and have found no appreciable alteration in the tightness of its string. I have also placed in water a crossbow with a comparatively loose string—such as those which I believe were used by the Genoese at Crécy—and found that after half an hour’s submersion, the application of a lever to bend the bow caused the string subsequently to stretch down the stock an inch further than its proper position, its tautness and consequent effectiveness thus being lost.

There are reasonable grounds for believing that the military crossbow was of wood and not steel, and that it "was bent either by hands alone, or, as was more probable, by a thong and pulley, a claw fixed to the girdle, or by means of a goat’s-foot lever," but not by a windlass. The probable maximum range of a crossbow at Crécy was 200 yards. The long bow has a greater effective range (from 220 to 400 yards) and can be fired more rapidly than the crossbow, which explains sufficiently the discomfiture of the Genoese. One of the best contemporary French chroniclers of this region, Gilles li Muisis, says the crossbowmen were without the protection of their shields, which were well to the rear in the wagon train (Chronique, pp. 161-62). There is no good reason for accepting Jean de Venette’s explanation for French defeat as of any weight. As an example of popular tradition it is interesting. An alibi for defeat which could be ascribed to nature, to the foreigner, and to the man of low degree, would have a wide appeal.

Note 64. A adds et plus before gladio

Note 65. A reads ibidem for ibi.

Note 66. A reads erat eiectus for expulsus fuerat.

Note 67. A adds ut credo after dux.

Note 68. This casualty list for the French at Crécy contains two errors when compared with the lists given in other chronicles. The first of these relates to the count of Bar, who was not killed at Crécy. Possibly Jean de Venette confused in his memory Henry IV, count of Bar, who died in 1344, with Henry IV, count of Vaudemont, who was killed at Crécy. The latter was son-in-law to King John of Bohemia. The other error relates to the second duke, whose name could not be recalled. None of the other lists include an- other duke. Could it be that Jean de Venette is merely exhibiting further confusion about his first error? The count of Bar in 1355, after Crécy and before the time when Jean de Venette was writing, resumed the title of duke. The most extensive lists are found in the contemporary English chroniclers, Geoffrey the Baker, Robert of Avesbury, and Adam Murimuth. The Chandos Herald reports one king, one duke, seven counts, and sixty bannerets as the French killed. The persons referred to by Jean de Venette are Charles II (the Magnanimous), count of Alengon, second son of Charles of Valois and brother of King Philip; Louis I de Chatillon, count of Blois, son of King Philip’s sister Marguerite of Valois and older brother of Charles of Blois, claimant to Brittany; Louis I, count of Flanders and Nevers, son-in-law to King Philip V; John IV, count of Harcourt, older brother of Geoffrey of Harcourt and father of John, count of Aumale, who was wounded at Crécy and whom we will encounter again as the chief victim of King John’s coup of April 5, 1356 (see p. 59); Louis II, count of Sangerre; Raoul, duke of Lorraine, brother-in-law to Louis and Charles of Blois. Harcourt had been raised from a barony to a county in March, 1339, as recorded in the couplet:

Harcourt fut Comte neuf

Treize cens trente neuf.

See La Roque, Histoire de la maison de Harcourt, 1, 357; 111, 247-49. See also Moranvillé, "Philippe VI a la bataille de Crécy," Bib. de I'Ecole des chartes, L (1889), 295-97.

Note 69. A reads revertens postea venit Parisius for reversus est et post Parisius.