To what degree was the Black Prince the epitome of the Age of Chivalry?

The Black Prince’s marriage to his cousin Joan of Kent has also been questioned. We learn from Sir Thomas Grey’s Scalacronica that she had been previously married twice.  One of these husbands was still alive at the time of her marriage to the Black Prince. Furthermore it is said that the Black Prince was the god-father to her child to one of these previous marriages. None of this seems like chivalric behaviour. Not only in that she still had a previous husband alive but the fact that he was her child’s god-father as well. This was an age whereby Christianity was solely Roman Catholic. The marriage had to get special papal dispensation. The Pope gave his permission and therefore if it was accepted by the most Holy man at the time then it would not have been argued with. Even if it seems suspicious given the circumstances, it has to be remembered that the Black Prince was 31 years old when he married, which is considered too old. There also seems to have been no reason other than love for the marriage, it was a non-political union and one which Edward III gave his son the choice over. He did not force his son into a marriage with simply proposed alliances being the agenda. We can see in their letters to each other that there was general compassion between the pair. In one letter that he wrote during the Nájera campaign he addresses her as ‘My dearest and truest sweetheart and beloved companion’  The Black Prince truly loved his wife and if the marriage was for general love, then what is not chivalric about it? Edward was the heir to the throne and so a marriage with an alliance being the outcome would have been expected of him. The fact that he snubbed this and chose to marry for love fits in perfectly with ideas about chivalry.

The prisoners of Poitiers are a source of controversy if we are to look at their treatment. The treatment of prisoners was a reflection of the character of their captor. Within these prisoners were two men with different initial fates. Firstly there was King John, who was treated very well according to Froissart in his chronicle. The Black Prince served the French king ‘as humbly as he could’ and refused to dine with him at the King’s table as the Black Prince said he was ‘sufficient to sit at the table with so great a prince as the king was’. This act the French acknowledged was very noble and chivalrous, with Froissart suggesting that they thought if God allowed the Black Prince the life to, then he would be destined to be a very noble man. The French king was sold to Edward III, along with several of the other Poitiers prisoners before being offered their ransoms. This treatment of the king would define the Black Prince for his treatment of prisoners. However it could be questioned as to whether it should. Another prisoner, of the Poitiers campaign, it has been suggested was given very differing treatment to that of the king; the French war captain Bertrand du Guesclin was a man that the Black Prince was reluctant to let go. At first it seems that Edward held him at Bordeaux for several months ‘without offering him terms of his release’. Once that he was told this was un-chivalric, he released Bertrand and offered him 10,000 florins as long as Bertrand swore not to arm himself against the Black Prince, his family or Don Pedro in Spain. Bertrand refused this and instead set his ransom at 100,000 doubles d’or, of which half was remitted by the Black Prince. The fact that the Black Prince did allow Bertrand to go and remitted half of his ransom in compensation shows us that the Black Prince was chivalric. He treated his prisoners well and the fact that he at first didn’t offer the terms of release to Bertrand does not mean that he was treated badly.

The pinnacle of the Black Prince’s military career is most probably the Poitiers campaign. It was here that he showed his military genius. The intention was simply a chevauchée, an expedition only intending to be an armed raid as apart of economic warfare. The pillaging and burning was designed to demoralise the population as well as hit France on a financial level with a possible food shortage. However the actual battle of Poitiers was not an initial plan of the campaign. Instead it was a consequence of the French army under King John being close by to the Black Prince’s smaller army. The French initially declined battle with the English. The Black Prince then led his army after the French in order to take battle. The battle was fierce and Le Baker implies that it was going against the English, when the Black Prince showed his courage and battle prowess possibly turning the battle, inspiring his troops with his ferociousness. Chivalry was primarily about military abilities, and that the Black Prince overcame these odds showed just how he was the epitome of chivalry in that he refused to concede defeat and it proved to his advantage as the battle was won and many prisoners were captured.

Within both Poitiers and Crécy, the Black Prince showed his valour and heroism in the face of danger in battle. The heroism and loyalty of the Black Prince is mentioned by slightly later medieval writers who write about him, John of Gaunt and Henry of Grosmont. Chivalry was all about war and the conduct of it. War was mainly actions such as chevauchée which was about burning land and property. Therefore one can not call the Black Prince un-chivalric for his burning of the land and of the conduct towards the peasants on the land. After all, ‘chivalry was a secular, military code, one that determined behaviour between members of the warrior caste’. As aforementioned, Poitiers showed the Black Prince and his army overcome the odds to win the battle. Crécy is similarly regarded in the chronicles where the Black Prince learnt his knightly honour, he defended his companions, brought to back up to their feet when they fell as well as ‘laying low the riders, shattering helmets and breaking spears, skilfully parrying blows...’. Le Baker states that it was at Crécy that Edward learnt the knightly deeds that he would carry out at Poitiers. If these chronicles are perceived to be an accurate portrayal of him at these battles then it can be seen that he certainly held the chivalric nature in his fighting spirit. He was brave and fearless, putting his loyalty to the king and following his orders before anything else.

The Black Prince was the king’s eldest son and the heir to the throne. Therefore it was natural that it would be expected that he would have a chivalric nature. The king became the chief patron of chivalry and as such it was expected that his son would follow this and be an example for nobles to follow. As the heir he had by 1362, ‘built up the most successful balance of titles and territories held by a Plantagenet heir since the twelfth century’. No prince had held so much power since for two centuries. It could be that all of these titles and territories were simply away to ensure the integrity of the royal patrimony in England, Wales, Ireland and Aquitaine. However the problem with this theory is that the proposition that Aquitaine be split up and bestowed on to a younger member of the Royal family was soundly rejected in the mid 1370s. Therefore it would appear that the only person in the family capable of such a feat was the Black Prince. Only he had the chivalric nature enough to be able to keep a six year peace in Aquitaine and hold it for as long as he did. As well as this, he was one of the founding members of the Order of the Garter; a political organisation which held chivalric connotations. Through this in England and through the Order of the Star in France, knights would swear that they would use their weapons faithfully in service to their king and kingdom. ‘The brotherhood is first and foremost composed of the knights of on nation under their ruler.’ The Order of the Garter did affect the military decisions of some of its 26 members such as Sir Lewis Robessart and Sir John Fastolf. With the Black Prince’s involvement in the order we can see that he was regarded as one of the most chivalric knights within England at the very least. Therefore if we take this into account it can be seen why he might well be regarded as the epitome of the ‘Age of Chivalry’.

        The Chandos Herald regards Edward as ‘wise, loyal, catholic and eager for the common good’. All of these qualities are a part of what makes the Black Prince to a large degree the epitome of the ‘Age of Chivalry’. He was an excellent leader in battle, leading the troops from the front and showing them how the battle should be fought. He unlike his predecessors married for love rather than for any political gain, a very chivalric ideal. Despite the open question on if a knight should restrain his men in warfare with the Black Prince failing to prevent churches being burnt down in 1355,for example Seisson, the Black Prince was stern with his men.  In 1346 for example, a score of his men were hanged when the Messien church near Beauvais was burnt down, as well as when Carentan suffered the same fate. The Black Prince and his father were both keen tournament enthusiasts, which would be an expected chivalric activity and one in which one could show their true warlike chivalric nature. As a founding member of the Order of the Garter, he proved to be one of the top 26 chivalric knights in the kingdom. He treated his prisoners well as shown by his treatment to King John in the aftermath of the battle of Poitiers. Even Bertrand du Guesclin it could be argued was treated well, with the Black Prince remitting half of his ransom. Limoges which is the one blemish on his military career came at a time when he was ill. He also had other problems after his Nájera campaign with Aquitaine revolting due to the raise in taxes, which as lord he had a right to do. Overall the Black Prince defined chivalry for his age, setting a high example and was by definition the epitome of the ‘Age of Chivalry’.

Word Count: 2860

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Chandos Herald ‘The Illness and Death of the Black Prince (1367-77)’ in R. Barber         (ed. and trans.) Life and Campaigns of the Black Prince (Woodbridge,         2002), pp.134-9;

Le Baker, Chronicle in A.R. Myers (ed.) English Historical Documents, 1327-1485         Vol. IV (London, 1969).

Froissart, Chronicles, in R. Myers (ed.) English Historical Documents, 1327-1485         Vol. IV (London, 1969).

Froissart, ‘The Sack of Limoges’ in G. Brereton (trans. and ed.), Froissart:         Chronicles (        (Harmondsworth, 1978),         pp.175-80.

Sir Thomas Grey, Scalacronica in A. King (ed. and trans.), Sir Thomas Grey,         Scalacronica (Chippenham, 2005), p.199 & p.199n

Nájera Campaign Letter 1, (1367), from Seminar 8, 29th March 2011.

Secondary Sources

R. Barber, Edward, Prince of Wales and Aquitaine: A biography of the Black         Prince (Woodbridge, 1978).

R. Barber, ‘Edward , prince of Wales and of Aquitaine (1330–1376)’ Oxford         Dictionary of National Biography, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008         [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8523, accessed: 14 May 2011].

R. Barber, The Knight and Chivalry, (London, 1974).

H. Cole, The Black Prince (London, 1976).

D. Green, Edward, The Black Prince (Harlow and London, 2007).

C. Given-Wilson and F. Bériac, Edward III's Prisoners of War: The Battle of         Poitiers and Its Context in The English Historical Review, Vol. 116, No. 468         (Sep., 2001), pp. 802-833.

G. . Harruss, Shaping the Nation: England 1360-1461 (Oxford, 2005).

H.J. Hewitt, The Organisation of War under Edward III, 1338-62 (New York, 1966)

W.M. Ormond, ‘Edward III and His Family’ in The Journal of British Studies,         Vol.26, No.4 (Oct., 1987) pp.398-422.

K. Strnad-Walsh, Book Reviews in Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, Vol. 71, No.         284 (Winter, 1982), pp. 409-412.

---