The "Mystery" of Taillebourg 1242 . . .

[stockwellpete]

This seems to have been a really huge battle by medieval standards, but there is a distinct lack of detail about it other than Day 1 saw a ferocious struggle to control the bridge across the Charente river (which the French won). The main battle was fought on Day 2 nearby just outside the town of Saintes, but details for this are very sketchy. I have been able to find out that the armies were of a similar size, around 20,000 each and that the French had many more mounted knights than the English. The commanders on the French side seem to have been Louis IX and his brother Alphonse of Poitiers, but there must have been many more prominent Frenchmen at the battle. For the English, I am not sure who was in command. It sounds like Henry III had legged it after losing the battle at the bridge so presumably Richard, Earl of Cornwall was in charge. It also seems that the Poitevin rebels, led by Hugh de Lusignan, had capitulated to Louis IX before the battle started so were there any still fighting with the English. I know that Simon de Montfort was one of the leaders of the English army.

Has anyone got anything more on this battle? I don't have Oman. Does he cover it at all? Btw, the campaign is known as the Saintonge War. Thanks.

[Paul59]

This seems to have been a really huge battle by medieval standards, but there is a distinct lack of detail about it other than Day 1 saw a ferocious struggle to control the bridge across the Charente river (which the French won). The main battle was fought on Day 2 nearby just outside the town of Saintes, but details for this are very sketchy. I have been able to find out that the armies were of a similar size, around 20,000 each and that the French had many more mounted knights than the English. The commanders on the French side seem to have been Louis IX and his brother Alphonse of Poitiers, but there must have been many more prominent Frenchmen at the battle. For the English, I am not sure who was in command. It sounds like Henry III had legged it after losing the battle at the bridge so presumably Richard, Earl of Cornwall was in charge. It also seems that the Poitevin rebels, led by Hugh de Lusignan, had capitulated to Louis IX before the battle started so were there any still fighting with the English. I know that Simon de Montfort was one of the leaders of the English army.

Has anyone got anything more on this battle? I don't have Oman. Does he cover it at all? Btw, the campaign is known as the Saintonge War. Thanks.

Hi Pete,

When I was deciding on the last battle to make for the Medieval game it was actually a toss up between Taillebourg and Tinchebrai. I eventually decided that we needed another 12th century battle rather than another late one. I did not get very far into researching it unfortunately, but Oman does mention it briefly. There is an online version of Oman, it is the original 1898 version not the second edition, so it may be a bit out of date. Here is a link that takes you straight to the start of his piece in Taillebourg, you just need to click on the page to advance to the next one.

https://archive.org/details/historyofar ... 2/mode/2up

Here is the wiki page on the battle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taillebourg

cheers

Paul

[stockwellpete]

Hi Pete,

When I was deciding on the last battle to make for the Medieval game it was actually a toss up between Taillebourg and Tinchebrai. I eventually decided that we needed another 12th century battle rather than another late one. I did not get very far into researching it unfortunately, but Oman does mention it briefly. There is an online version of Oman, it is the original 1898 version not the second edition, so it may be a bit out of date. Here is a link that takes you straight to the start of his piece in Taillebourg, you just need to click on the page to advance to the next one.

https://archive.org/details/historyofar ... 2/mode/2up

Here is the wiki page on the battle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taillebourg

cheers

Paul

Thanks Paul.

Oman only talks about the battle at the bridge on Day 1. He doesn't mention Day 2 at all, which is interesting in itself. He talks about Henry's army being made up primarily of Gascons, rather than English. How could it be so big, then? I have a DVD on the Plantagenets, hosted by Dan Jones, and it mentions the campaign in 1242 briefly and suggests that Henry III was actually at the second part of the battle. It suggests De Montfort confronted him at the end of the debacle and said that he should be "locked up". His book on the Plantagenets barely mentions Taillebourg at all. My suspicion is that this is a great military disaster that is being "hidden from history" in this country because the French won.

[Paul59]

My suspicion is that this is a great military disaster that is being "hidden from history" in this country because the French won.

It wouldn't be the first time!

Matthew Paris (one of the primary sources) writes about it here:

https://archive.org/details/matthewpari ... 8/mode/2up

He doesn't give much detail, mainly just more propaganda. Strangely (unless I have misread it), he does not mention the fighting on the first day.

This is the battle description from "Armies of Feudal Europe" by Ian Heath, but I guess you already have this;

[Benedict151]

Had a quick look but can't see anything in Delbruck, Verbruggen (always my first port of call) or Contamine (which I was slightly surprised about as he is French!)


sorry
Ben

[stockwellpete]

I have come across this, which talks about two separate engagements, and puts the de Lusignans in the battle. One at the bridge and then another the next day outside Saintes. And then other accounts say that Saintes was besieged, so that makes a third phase.

"The battle took place on the bridge built over the Charente River and was also fought near Saintes. The King of France and his brother, the Count of Poitiers, occupied in Château de Taillebourg, overlooking the Charente River, whereas the monarch of England and Hugh de Lusignan gathered their allied armies on the opposite side of the river. The English resolved to take the bridge and launched an attack on the French positions, and in response the French cavalry sallied forth from the fortress, catching Henry III and Lusignan’s men off guard, forcing them to flee to the nearby city of Saintes. Henry and Hugh then escaped to Gascony, leaving their army leaderless, and it was not difficult for the French forces to defeat their rivals near Saintes, although the second engagement was quite long, but the English were beaten in the end."

https://www.angevinworld.com/blog/the-b ... f-england/

[stockwellpete]

Had a quick look but can't see anything in Delbruck, Verbruggen (always my first port of call) or Contamine (which I was slightly surprised about as he is French!)


sorry
Ben

It is very odd if there really was a large engagement involving 20,000 on each side. Sounds more likely that after the French had captured the bridge the English/Poitevins/Gascons fled in disarray back towards Saintes and there was some sporadic fighting outside the town before the siege got under way. But really, if you are going to do it as a scenario, you would have to focus on the battle across the bridge. Unfortunately, that doesn't make for a good scenario unless you enable the French to have other crossing points. They possibly did send some soldiers across by boat.

Edit: the Verbruggen reference is particularly infuriating. He writes that Tournai sent 300 men. What else does he know?

[Benedict151]

it is a 'mystery' as you say!

[stockwellpete]

Matthew Paris (one of the primary sources) writes about it here:

https://archive.org/details/matthewpari ... 8/mode/2up

He doesn't give much detail, mainly just more propaganda. Strangely (unless I have misread it), he does not mention the fighting on the first day.

Ah, this is quite useful because it talks about the fighting outside Saintes and gives the names of some knights and puts the de Lusignans in the battle.

[stockwellpete]

Right, I am going to have a go at this one next. I have ordered Maddicott's book on Simon de Montfort to see if it has any extra details, so that should come in the next few days.

At the moment, it is not clear to me who actually was in the English army, once the French had forced their way across the bridge at Taillebourg. The sources are a bit unclear. It could be that Henry III had departed, fearing that he would be captured. Or it could be that he stayed until he was certain that Saintes could not be defended any longer. It seems fairly likely that Henry's younger brother Richard, Earl of Cornwell was involved in the attempted defence of Saintes and that the de Lusignans were still with the Anglo-Gascon army at this stage. We do know that it was Simon de Montfort who organised the rearguard that attempted to hold the French back. It was this event that caused the major rift between Simon de Montfort and Henry III that eventually led to the 2nd Baron's War and the battles at Lewes and Evesham in 1264 and 1265.

So I think what I am going to do (unless Maddicott suggests something different to me) is have Simon de Montfort as the C-in-C with the rearguard outside Saintes. Richard of Cornwell will start in Saintes with a contingent and will probably be active at the start (although I could build in a variably short delay here). Ditto for the de Lusignans. But Henry III will start, with a smaller contingent, on the road out of Saintes and will take a check each turn to see if he will join the battle. After a certain point, if he has not joined, he will depart for England and not take part in the battle.

The composition of the French forces is very straightforward. The problem for them will be deployment, particularly getting enough of their forces across the bridge at Taillebourg to overwhelm the Anglo-Gascon rearguard.

[fogman]

RE: Maddicott

You wasted your money if you wanted to get more info on Taillebourg.

p31: ‘When the existing truce with Louis finally collapsed in the following month, Henry summoned reinforcements from England, and it was at this stage that Montfort was recalled from Burgundy. He came grudgingly, joining Henry in July, when he was immediately caught up in the king’s humiliating and pellmell retreat from Taillebourg to Saintes in the face of Louis’s advancing army. He was one of the nobles who, according to Paris, fought hard and well outside Saintes, but this was no more than a rearguard action. Defeated and out of money, Henry pulled back to Bordeaux...’

Otherwise a good read.

And there is no way, the numbers of combatants were as reported.

[stockwellpete]

RE: Maddicott

You wasted your money if you wanted to get more info on Taillebourg.

I wanted a book on de Montfort anyway and it is only a fiver.

p31: ‘When the existing truce with Louis finally collapsed in the following month, Henry summoned reinforcements from England, and it was at this stage that Montfort was recalled from Burgundy. He came grudgingly, joining Henry in July, when he was immediately caught up in the king’s humiliating and pellmell retreat from Taillebourg to Saintes in the face of Louis’s advancing army. He was one of the nobles who, according to Paris, fought hard and well outside Saintes, but this was no more than a rearguard action. Defeated and out of money, Henry pulled back to Bordeaux...’

Otherwise a good read.

And there is no way, the numbers of combatants were as reported.

That Maddicott paragraph makes it sound as if Henry III (and Richard, Earl of Cornwall) were still with the army on the second day when the fighting occurred outside Saintes. This is what my Dan Jones DVD says too, so that has firmed up one very important aspect of the scenario, at least. It means that I don't need a script now to see if Henry III fights in the battle or retreats, and instead I can portray the English army as partly demoralised for not being able to hold the bridge at Taillebourg.

Modern estimates are suggesting 25000 for the French and 30000 for the English, which still sound absolutely huge to me. Are you saying that you think these numbers are too high?

Btw, do you have access to Le Goff's "Louis IX" book? It is £100 to buy, which is far too much for me, but it may have info on the battle.

[Athos1660]

Matthew Paris (one of the primary sources) writes about it here:
https://archive.org/details/matthewpari ... 8/mode/2up
He doesn't give much detail, mainly just more propaganda. Strangely (unless I have misread it), he does not mention the fighting on the first day.

I haven't read much about this battle (close to nothing). But apparently, there are 2 opposing sources of the battle :

1) Matthew Paris' version : the French crossing of the Charente river at Taillebourg without a fight
On the 19 July, the Lord and the inhabitants open the doors of their city to King Louis IX and his army. The following day, Henry III leaves Saintes to join his army but afraid of being caught, he leaves on this very evening. On the 20 and 21 July, the French army crosses peacefully the bridge and jostles the enemy. On the 22 July, the French defeat the English army at the walls of Saintes.

Two French monks used the same version : Vincent de Beauvais and Guillaume de Nangis.

2) Jean de Joinville, biographer of Louis IX and his comrade during his 1st crusade, writes about a tough battle on the bridge over the Charente at Taillebourg and the French King actively taking part of it :

« Le roi d’Angleterre et le comte de la Marche vinrent là pour livrer bataille au roi devant un château que l’on appelle Taillebourg, qui est bâti sur une mauvaise rivière que l’on appelle Charente, à un endroit où on ne peut passer que sur un pont de pierre très étroit. Aussitôt que le roi arriva à Taillebourg et que les armées furent en vue l’une de l’autre, nos gens, qui avaient le château de leur côté, firent tout ce qu’ils purent à grand peine et passèrent en prenant de grands risques avec des bateaux et sur des ponts et attaquèrent les Anglais, et l’engagement commença vif et rude. Quand le roi vit cela, il s’exposa avec les autres ; car pour un homme que le roi avait quand il passa du côté des Anglais, les Anglais en avaient mille. Toujours est-il, comme Dieu le voulut, que, lorsque les Anglais virent le roi passer la rivière, ils perdirent courage et se jetèrent dans la cité de Saintes. »

The 'truth' might be between these two views.

My 'source', the Historical service of the Palace of Versailles about the painting of the battle by Delacroix : here.


______________________________________

Btw, do you have access to Le Goff's "Louis IX" book? It is £100 to buy, which is far too much for me, but it may have info on the battle.

btw the French version of it (kindle) costs only 15 euros (if it can help).

[Paul59]

On the wikipedia page for the battle, there is a link to the French wiki page for the Bataille de Taillebourg. I have used Google translate for what it says about the second phase of the battle:



Those details did not make it to the English wiki page!

[Athos1660]

French Historian jean chapelot's version :

La bataille de Taillebourg se résume, en fait, à une charge massive des chevaliers français, qui ont déboulé du château, contraignant leurs adversaires anglais de fuir vers Saintes, où aurait lieu la véritable bataille. 500 gens d’armes auraient traversé la Charente sur un pont de bateaux, vraisemblablement au niveau de la cale actuelle de Port-d’Envaux, permettant ainsi de prendre les Anglais à revers, quand ceux-ci tentaient de repousser Louis IX sur l’étroit pont de Taillebourg. Si bataille il n’y eut point, le franchissement du pont de Taillebourg fut fondamental, la véritable bataille sous les murs de Saintes signant la défaite des Anglais.

Translation :

The battle of Taillebourg boils down, in fact, to a massive charge from the French knights, who hurtled from the castle, forcing their English adversaries to flee towards Saintes, where the real battle would take place. 500 men-at-arms would have crossed the Charente on a bridge of boats, probably at the level of the current hold of Port-d'Envaux, thus making it possible to attack the English from the rear/flank while they were trying to push Louis IX back from the narrow bridge of Taillebourg. If there was no real battle, crossing the Taillebourg bridge was however fundamental, the real battle under the walls of Saintes signifying the defeat of the English.

[fogman]

Account from 1670, compiled from other chronicles.

http://www.histoirepassion.eu/?1242-La- ... ncais-vers

Letter from Henry III to Frederick II regarding the battle

http://www.histoirepassion.eu/?1242-Hen ... lle-contre

[fogman]

Modern estimates are suggesting 25000 for the French and 30000 for the English, which still sound absolutely huge to me. Are you saying that you think these numbers are too high?

Btw, do you have access to Le Goff's "Louis IX" book? It is £100 to buy, which is far too much for me, but it may have info on the battle.

For that kind of numbers to be possible, the surrounding arriere bans had to be summoned. That would have been noted by chroniclers.

Le Goff would not give you more info on military matters than Maddicott.

[Athos1660]

Source : Jean Chapelot, « La bataille de Taillebourg a-t-elle eu lieu ? », L'Histoire, vol. 350, no 2,‎ 2010, p. 68 -73
(charged online article).
(translation of the title : "Did the battle of Taillebourg happen ?")

[stockwellpete]

For that kind of numbers to be possible, the surrounding arriere bans had to be summoned. That would have been noted by chroniclers.

Le Goff would not give you more info on military matters than Maddicott.

Someone has told me what is in Le Goff by PM and he is writing about a very large French army - 4000 knights and 20,000 other soldiers, as well as a very large siege train. Prior to Taillebourg, his army had captured around 10 castles, although some of them may not have been very big. Not much information is given on the English army, except that Henry III did not have enough soldiers. So I think we can assume that the English army was probably smaller, not bigger, than the French army.

[stockwellpete]

Account from 1670, compiled from other chronicles.

http://www.histoirepassion.eu/?1242-La- ... ncais-vers

There is a lot of useful information in this account, although the numbers mentioned (200,000) seem absurdly high . . .

"Henry returned from there to camp in the meadows of Taillebourg: He saw with luy, among other lords, Earl Richard, his brother, the Earl of The March, whom he called his father, Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, his brother-in-law, the Earls of Salisbéry, Norfolk and Glocester, and sixteen hundred knights; but only six hundred crossbowmen and twenty thousand footmen are given.

It is not said how many troops Saint Louis had, but it was agreed that he had more than the Anglois. It is claimed that there were two hundred thousand men on both sides in the Battle of Saintes.

Saint Louis had with luy his two brothers, the Count of Artois and the Count of Poitiers, and Alphonse of Portugal, Count of Boulogne, Robert Mallet, Lord of Normandy, Richard, Viscount of Beaumont, the Viscount of Chastelleraud, the Count of Brittany, that is to say Pierre de Dreux who had been Count, because it was celuy that was accused of treason."

So that gives me quite a reasonable cast of commanders to use. We can see that the French army was composed of soldiers from right across France - Artois, Poitiers, Boulogne, Normandy, Brittany and so on. Presumably these were the arriere bans you mentioned in another post?