"John, Duke of Bedford's role in burning Joan D'arc" Topic

How would you qualify Bedford's role in her execution?

He struck the match?

Heinous murder, if he was involved, as for any others as well.

Helen Castor's "Joan of Arc" (an excellent book) explains it in the view of the time. Joan was obviously possessed. The Dauphin's party said by the spirit of God, the English by the spirit of the devil. If the English thought otherwise then they were wrong and should quit the war.

So they believed she was possessed by Satan. Her repudiation of her recantation would seem to have been the result of rape. Considering that judicial norms of the time included torture, it was perhaps not so unusual. But Bedford seems to have directed it.

One of our enemies commanders is captured by our allies, then handed over for trial by some of her fellow countrymen (admittedly pro-English) found guilty of various unnatural practices and sentenced to death. According to the morality of the day she got what she deserved, life was cheaper and different then. She might be a heroine in France, she's certainly not in England.
As for Bedford, I imagine he told the inquest to find her guilty.

Joan was a remarkable woman. She was not just a figure head but actually LEAD men into battle and scored victories over a seemingly invincible English army. Patay was probably the greatest. So her capture was probably a severe blow to French morale.

Now, in capture she also performed remarkably well. According to her letters and court/church manuscripts (or whatever they were called then) Joan handled herself remarkably well. She managed to make the clergy look sometimes idiotic with their assertions. At some point she had agreed to admit to heresy and to renounce it in favor of the church. At the critical moment she changes her mind and is off to be burned at the stake. In short, she was a bad-ass.

To the point of the OP, by any standards, it was murder. At this point in Medieval history, trial by ordeal was largely frowned upon and trial by rule of law was the norm. Witchcraft and heresy are convenient charges to scare people straight and as an expedient means to bring about an end…usually of an unwanted life. Such is the case with the late Joan. Had they kept her as a hostage, things might have gone differently for the English. As it was, her death made her a martyr int he eyes of the French. "Congratulations Sir John! You've just strengthened the resolve of the French army 10 fold!"

By most standards of the time, independent parties would likely have raised an eyebrow to the move. Murder is probably what it was even by their standards. But, to paraphrase Ashe from Army of Darkness, "Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the match." Bedford was, at least, complicit in the murder if not the acting authority.

This was a different time with different morality, you really cannot say to much more. To me the telling part is that she was captured by the French (if you don't know what I mean look up the history of Medieval Burgundy.)

To me the telling part is that she was captured by the French

No. No. They were Burgundians. Totally different people.

"French" were as divided as in a civil war. So one group of French capturing the girl commander from the other French is not a different morality, it is just very close to civil war. She was bound to be disposed of one way or another. Such a source of rallying and morale could not expect to retire, surely! And in her gut she knew that she was doomed to a very early death if captured….

Is it in the historical record the Bedford ordered her burned? Or just highly probable?

He brought the marshmallows.

The church judges allowed her to recant, wear woman's clothes and be imprisoned rather than executed. Joan retired to her cell, guarded by English jailers. She had been firm and clear in all her appearances before the court. The next day she appeared before them and changed her recantation. She was in disarray and on the verge of tears. She went back to her original story which she knew meant death. I wonder what happened the night before.

Certainly Bedford wanted her dead, not imprisoned. It is not in the record that he ordered her execution or whatever broke her spirit that night. It just happened to be convenient.

Joan did not lead the French army at Patay but arrived after the battle was over. Most of the "English" troops were "false French" (Frenchmen who accepted the dual monarchy).
She was much more important in breaking up the siege of Orleans. Her attempts to seize Paris failed.

Bedford may actually have believed she was a witch though as I think even his wife also had to fend off such accusations, he must have been sceptical. English popular culture considered her an evil figure who consorted with demons into the 1600's (see the Bard's Henry VI). The French made little effort to ransom her and no effort to rescue her.

Her death and its manner reflects badly on both sides. Bedford may have assumed she would recant and be discredited and may have not anticipated her stubborn change of heart. Still heresy was one of the few "crimes" for which burning at the stake occurred and was not unprecedented so he must have known the possible outcome. Though often portrayed as a reasonable person, here, he did not rise above the prevailing attitudes of his time.

The English were not driven from France until many years after her death, the key being an artillery train that could reduce castles/cities without the need for long seiges (such as Orleans).

TomT