The Battle of Poitiers: Fighting and Political Consequences

On September 19, 1356, King John II of France fought the Anglo-Gascon army commanded by Edward, Prince of Wales, near Poitiers. Edward later became commonly known as the Black Prince. The battle ended in French defeat and the capture of the king and his youngest son, Philip. It was a major turning point in the Hundred Years War, but did not end the war on the spot.

Before the battle, the prince had led his army deep into France, attacking towns and seizing supplies before withdrawing southward. The Chandos Herald’s verse biography records the fall of Romorantin and the advance toward Tours; the prince’s letter that October also mentions the areas around Bourges, Orléans, and Tours. John II assembled forces in pursuit, and the armies ultimately drew close outside Poitiers. The battle was the result of these movements and pursuit, not an isolated contest set for a prearranged date.

References: [2] [3] [1]

Froissart calls the battlefield the fields of Beauvoir and Maupertuis and describes the English side deploying among hedges, vineyards, and scrub, with archers guarding narrow approaches and some men-at-arms fighting dismounted. He also records shortages of provisions in the prince’s army, with earlier destruction making further foraging more difficult. Terrain and supply conditions thus made mounted maneuver, fighting on foot, and archery all factors in the battle.

The cardinal of Périgord traveled between the armies seeking an agreement. Both Froissart and the herald record the failure of mediation, but their accounts of terms and speeches differ. The negotiations clearly failed to prevent battle; the lengthy dialogues in these works should not be treated as verbatim transcripts or used to assign all responsibility on the basis of one side’s narrative.

References: [1] [2]

The opening fighting involved the advance force led by the French marshals. Arrows wounded horses, and men-at-arms engaged at close quarters; Marshal Clermont was killed and Marshal Audrehem captured. The Chandos Herald states that Salisbury’s rearguard first received the attack and then joined the other forces. This reminds readers that “front” and “rear” in a marching column need not correspond to the order of actual engagement.

The dauphin Charles’s force then fought heavily and withdrew after defeat, while the king’s division continued to advance. Some of the prince’s men were already pursuing fugitives and had to regroup against the final assault. John Chandos, James Audley, and Gascon lords took part in close combat, and John II was eventually captured while resisting. Differences between accounts leave the details of unit movements disputed; they should not be reduced to the simple failure of a single cavalry charge.

References: [2] [1]

Richard Barber emphasizes that some of the prince’s commanders already knew one another through earlier campaigns and tournaments. Such relationships may have helped them exercise independent judgment and cooperate when battlefield communication was difficult. His reconstruction of the final phase includes an attack from the rear by Jean de Grailly, the Captal de Buch, and a flanking movement by Warwick’s troops. This is an interpretation based on several accounts, not evidence that every maneuver precisely executed a unified plan laid down in advance.

Froissart’s description of the king’s capture highlights a different confusion: several fighters claimed the right of capture, while the king and Philip were surrounded by a crowd before nobles sent by the prince took charge. His narrative includes Denis de Morbecque, a French-speaking man in the English king’s service, accepting the surrender. His career also shows that the armies’ allegiances cannot be divided entirely along modern national lines.

References: [4] [1]

The immediate effects of defeat on local society included nobles killed or captured and fugitives converging on nearby towns. Froissart records that Poitiers shut its gates and that defeated troops were pursued outside the city. The list attached to the prince’s dispatch also names numerous regional lords and officials. These sources demonstrate losses within the ruling elite but cannot establish how much the local population declined overall.

English and Gascon fighters regarded captives as sources of ransom. The chronicle describes some agreeing on the battlefield to a ransom and terms for returning to fulfill their obligations, while others were taken away with the army. The prince did not immediately capture Paris. He returned to Bordeaux with the king, other prisoners, and a large baggage train. Captives required guards and booty needed transport; practical logistics still constrained action after victory.

References: [1] [3]

On October 20, 1356, the prince wrote from Bordeaux to the bishop of Worcester, thanking him for his prayers and announcing the capture of the French king and his son. Roger de Cotesford carried the letter, accompanied by a list of captives and the dead. The copy in the bishop’s register also records its receipt in December. Military news thus entered England through messengers, ecclesiastical connections, and written lists.

Written by the victorious commander, the letter chiefly attributed success to God rather than offering a complete tactical analysis. Numbers in the list are no substitute for casualty returns from both armies. Reading it alongside the two narrative works confirms outcomes such as the king’s capture while leaving room for judgment about army sizes, individual credit, and the precise course of events.

References: [3] [1] [2]

Capturing the king did not automatically place the French state under the prince’s control. Peace talks and warfare intertwined over the following years, with Charles participating in government as regent. The agreement negotiated at Brétigny in May 1360 was revised at Calais in October. It was not an immediate instrument of surrender issued on the battlefield in 1356.

The Calais text required the French king to pay three million gold écus and included Poitou among the territories assigned to the English king. Its provisions did more than list lands: local clergy, nobles, and townspeople were to be notified to obey the English king and released from their former allegiance to the French Crown. The political consequences of Poitiers thus extended from one king’s captivity to ransom negotiations, territorial transfers, and the rearrangement of local loyalties. Treaty provisions must still be distinguished from their complete fulfillment.

References: [5]