Gesta, 93; Capgrave, De Illustribus Henricis, 120; Elmham, Liber Metricus, 141.
[172] Elmham, Vita, 77; Des Ursins, 532. Cf. Rymer, iv. ii. 17.
[173] Rymer, IV. ii. 178; Elmham, Liber Metricus, 142.
[174] Rymer, IV. ii. 176; Cal. of French Rolls, Rep. 44, App. 584.
[175] Gesta, 100, 101; Gregory, 114; Capgrave, De Illustrious Henricis, 120; Waurin, ii. 236; St. Rémy, 410; Monstrelet, 393.
[176] Waurin, ii. 236, 237; St. Rémy, 410.
[177] Monstrelet, 394, followed by Holinshed, iii. 87.
[178] Monstrelet, 394; Elmham, Liber Metricus, 146.
[179] Windeck, cap. 66; Capgrave, Chron., 315; Otterbourne, 278; Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 317.
[180] Rot. Parl., iv. 94.
[181] The Sheriff was to have the indentures ready by February 14, 1417; Rymer, IV. ii. 192.
[182] Ordinances, ii. 230, 231.
[183] Ibid., iii. 9; Rot. Parl., iv. 320.
[184] Muster Rolls of the Army, preserved in the Chapter-House at Westminster, printed in Gesta, 265. Livius, 31, gives 100 lances and 300 archers. Stowe, 353, follows Livius. 100 spears and 300 archers in Holkham MS., p. 15. Holinshed, iii. 89, gives 470 lances and 1410 archers.
[185] Gesta, 111; Elmham, Vita, 96. Harleian MS., 2256, f. 181, gives Portsmouth as the place of starting.
[186] Livius, 33; Gesta, 111; Monstrelet, 406.
[187] Livius, 31, 32, gives a list of the retinues which amounts to 9066 men, though he ends by saying 16,000. Gesta, 190, gives 16,400. See Ramsay, i. chap, xvii., Appendix, pp. 250-252.
[188] Elmham, Vita, 97.
[189] Basin, i. 26. See also Waurin, ii. 242; St. Rémy, 429; Livius, 34.
[190] Rot. Norm., 316, 317.
[191] Delpit, Doc. Fr., p. 219, No. CCCXXXVII.; Livius, 34; Gesta, 111, 112; Stow, 353, followed by Holkham MS., p. 15.
[192] Elmham, Vita, 101.
[193] Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 321, 322; Elmham, Vita, 99, 100.
[194] St. Denys says it was besieged unsuccessfully, but there could have been no time for this. Cf. Elmham, Vita, 98.
[195] Livius, 35; Gesta, 113; Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 322.
[196] Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 322-324; Livius, 35.
[197] Livius, 36.
[198] Gesta, 113; Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 323.
[199] Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 322.
[200] Chronique de Normandie, 228.
[201] Elmham, Vita, 104; Livius, 36.
[202] Cotton MS., Claudius. A. VIII. f. 6.
[203] Elmham, Vita, 105.
[204] Livius, 37.
[205] Livius, 38, 39; Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 324; Elmham, Vita, 107-111; Gesta, 114. See also Waurin, ii. 244; Monstrelet, 426; St. Rémy, 429 and 422. On September 5 the castle agreed to surrender, if not relieved before the 19th. Delpit, Doc. Fr., pp. 220, 221, Nos. CCCXXXIX., CCCXL.
[206] Rot. Norm., 164; Carte, i. 247.
[207] Rot. Norm., 167; Rymer, IV. iii. 16; Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. 1. 746.
[208] Elmham, Vita, 116; Livius, 40, 41.
[209] Redmayne, 51; Elmham, Vita, 116; Livius, 42; Gesta, 115.
[210] Redmayne, 51.
[211] Livius, 43, 44; Gesta, 116.
[212] Elmham, Vita, 117, 118; Livius, 42; Gesta, 116.
[213] Livius, 44; Elmham, Vita, 122. Elmham says that Clarence was posted opposite the castle. Stow, 356, says that Gloucester besieged the castle, while the King besieged the town. Holkham MS., p. 16, follows Stow.
[214] Livius, 44; Elmham, Vita, 122, 123; Rot. Norm., 187.
[215] Livius, 45: Elmham, Vita, 123, 124; Gesta, 117.
[216] Rymer, IV. iii. 23, 24; Gesta, 117; Elmham, Vita, 124, 125.
[217] List of the captains of castles conquered in 1417; Appendix to Gesta, 275. Holkham MS., p. 16.
[218] Livius, 46.
[219] Elmham, Vita, 128. He calls the leader of this expedition the Duke of York, at the time a boy of only six years old.
[220] Livius, 46.
[221] Ramsay, i. 250, calls this the south side of the town. It is hardly credible that the gate on the road to Caen would be on the south side when that town lies north of Falaise.
[222] Gesta, 118; Elmham, Vita, 128; Livius, 46.
[223] Rot. Norm., 312; Gregory, 121.
[224] Rot. Norm., 312; Elmham, Vita, 129-132; Livius, 46, 47; Gesta, 118.
[225] Otterbourne, 279, says that Henry spent Christmas at Bayeux in 5 Henry V., that is, 1417, though in another place he calls it 1418. Walsingham, Hist. Angl., also calls it 1418, but his computations of years are always a little hazy, and he seems to begin the new year at Christmas. Both authors mention that it was at this time that Falaise surrendered, which makes the date 1417.
[226] Rot. Norm., 308. Livius, 49, gives the date of the delivery of the castle as February 6.
[227] Elmham, Vita, 133-138; Livius, 49; Gesta, 118.
[228] Waurin, ii. 242.
[229] Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 248; Walsingham, Ipodigma Neustriæ, 486; Elmham, Vita, 139, 140; Gesta, 119, 120; Chronique de Normandie, 182; Gregory, 121.
[230] Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 328; Walsingham, Ipodigma Neustriæ, 486; Elmham, Vita, 139, 140; Gesta, 119, 120; Chronique de Normandie, 182; Gregory, 121.
[231] Rot. Norm., 248; Rymer, IV. iii. 362.
[232] Carte, i. 276.
[233] Ibid., 273.
[234] Ibid., 273.
[235] Ibid., 274, 276.
[236] See p. 64, note 271, for an estimate of his forces in this expedition. Elmham, Vita, 141, calls it a strong force.
[237] Gregory, 121. He includes the Earl of March in the list, who, however, did not join the expedition till later, as he was at present in England.
[238] See Commission to the Earl of Huntingdon of March 17, Rot. Norm., 381.
[239] Elmham, Vita, 139, 143.
[240] Gesta, 120; Elmham, Vita, 141. Both these authorities call this place ‘Cawdey,’ and are followed therein by Holkham MS., p. 16. The editor of the Gesta thinks this is a clerical error for Hambie. This town, however, was captured after Vire, and it is hardly likely that both these contemporaries would have made the same clerical error. Elmham may have copied from the Gesta, but as he was personally acquainted with Humphrey, and gives by far the fullest account of this expedition, it is probable that he wrote on good authority, if not from personal experience.
[241] Rot. Norm., 289-292.
[242] Elmham, Vita, 141; Gesta, 120; Livius, 50.
[243] Rot. Norm., 298-300.
[244] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 746
[245] Robsart was at St. Lo before the day of surrender. Rymer, IV. iii. 41.
[246] Rot. Norm., 300-303; Rymer, IV. iii. 41.
[247] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 746; Rymer, IV. iii. 40.
[248] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 746; Rymer, IV. iii. 44.
[249] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 708.
[250] Rot. Norm., 381; Elmham, Vita, 144.
[251] Paston Letters, i. 10.
[252] This place is called ‘Noo’ in Gesta, 120, and is taken by the editor of that chronicle to be Pont Douve, now called Pont d’Ouilly. In Elmham, Vita, 142, and Livius, 50, it is called ‘Nehoo.’ Pont Douve was captured by Gloucester (Rymer, IV. iii. 44; Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 746), but it is not the same place as this, which is obviously Néhou, a place situated four kilometers from St. Sauveur le Vicomte. I cannot locate Pont Douve, but should gather from the date of surrender that it was near Carentan on the Douve, for it fell on March 17, the day after Carentan. This is the date given in the Norman Rolls and in the text of the Fœdera, though in the margin Rymer calls it March 27 and is followed by Hardy in his syllabus of the Fœdera, without any reason being assigned.
[253] For whole campaign see Elmham, Vita, 141, 142; Livius, 50; Gesta, 120, 121.
[254] Gregory, 121, who, however, gives the number of castles as twenty-four. The higher estimate is to be found in a record of the Parlimentary Rolls in the year 1428. Rot. Parl., IV. 320.
[255] Stow, 356.
[256] Walsingham, Ipodigma Neustriæ, 486; Gregory, 120.
[257] Livius, 51; Elmham, Vita, 148.
[258] Elmham, Vita, 148, 149; Livius, 52.
[259] Waurin, ii. 244; Monstrelet, 426.
[260] Even at the end of the siege there was abundance of corn and wine in the city. Elmham, Vita, 163.
[261] Walsingham, Ipodigma Neustriæ, 486; Gregory, 120.
[262] Elmham, Vita, 148; Livius, 52.
[263] Elmham, Vita, 150; Holkham MS., p. 17.
[264] Elmham, Vita, 151; Livius, 52.
[265] Ibid.
[266] Elmham, Vita, 152, 153; Livius, 53.
[267] Elmham, Vita, 153; Livius, 53.
[268] They had been brought over to France by the Earl of March, Harleian MS., 2256, f. 182vo.
[269] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 693; Carte, i. 265.
[270] Elmham, Vita, 153; Livius, 54.
[271] When Gloucester reached the King before Rouen at the end of this campaign, he had 3000 men under his command (Chron. Norm., 241). However, he had then been reinforced by another force of some 2000 men sent over from England (see p. 67 below). Whether these last reinforcements followed him to Rouen, or whether, when their work was done, they returned to England, we cannot tell, but they were certainly over and above the numbers he commanded at this present time. If they became a definite part of his following and took part in the rest of this year’s campaign, as seems most probable, they would help to fill the gaps in Humphrey’s ranks caused later by casualties before Harfleur, which must have been severe, and by the garrison left to hold that town. Perhaps with these deductions they might have increased his force by some thousand men or more, which would compel us to conclude that before the siege of Cherbourg Humphrey had at his disposal some 2000 men. This is confirmed by taking a list of men serving under the Duke in the Côtentin. It is compiled from the statements of the chroniclers and from the official records which give the names of those who acted for Gloucester in the matter of signing terms with the various towns. The retinues are taken from the muster-roll of Henry’s army printed in the Appendix to the Gesta (pp. 265-272). The list, of course, cannot be taken as exhaustive, as many who are not mentioned may have taken part in the campaign.
| Lances. | Archers. | |
| Gloucester’s own retinue captained by—Reginald Cobham, |
45 | 114 |
| William Beauchamp, | 45 | 152 |
| The Earl of March, | 93 | 302 |
| The Earl of Suffolk, | 31 | 90 |
| Lord Grey of Codnor, | 51 | 174 |
| Sir Walter Hungerford, | 91 | 276 |
| John, Lord Clifford, | 50 | 150 |
| Sir Gerard Ufflete, | 20 | 67 |
| John de Robsart, | 1 | 3 |
Total:—427 Lances and 1328 Archers.
This list includes the names of captains who appear before Cherbourg as well as earlier in the campaign. Charles de Beaumont, Marshal of Navarre, was also with Gloucester, and probably had a contingent under his command. The total number of 1755 men approximates to our 2000 estimate, whilst at the same time allowance can be made for possible contingents which, though in the field, are not mentioned. Chron. Norm., 230, tells us that at the beginning of the campaign Talbot was sent into the Côtentin with 500 or 600 men, and Gloucester went to open up the road to Rouen. This may be a mere mistake of names, and so Humphrey may have only had a small force, little in excess of his own retinue, when he started out on his expedition, though this is not likely, if the men who served under him brought their whole contingents.
[272] Elmham, Vita, 154, 155; Livius, 54.
[273] Elmham, Vita, 155-158; Livius, 54.
[274] Rymer, iv. iii. 64; Cal. of Norm. Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 746.
[275] Waurin, ii. 244; Monstrelet, 426.
[276] Elmham, Vita, 159; Livius, 55.
[277] Elmham, Vita, 160, 161, 162; Livius, 55, 56.
[278] Holkham MS., p. 17.
[279] List of captains printed in Appendix to Gesta, 276.
[280] Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 329; John Page, 6; Elmham, Vita, 179; Gesta, 123.
[281] Des Ursins, 539, 545.
[282] Ibid., 540-542.
[283] Delpit, Doc. Fr., 222.
[284] Chronique de Normandie, 230, says that Gloucester arrived on St. Catharine’s Day (November 25), but his men were ‘arrayed’ at Rouen on November 6; Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 718. Cf. Livius, 64.
[285] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 746.
[286] Paston Letters, 10; Gesta, 123, 124; Elmham, Vita, 180, 181; Livius, 61 John Page, 6-8; Chronique de Normandie, 238; Harleian MS., 2256, f. 185, 185vo.
[287] Elmham, Vita, 191; Livius, 64. Chronique de Normandie, 241, says that Gloucester brought with him some three thousand men.
[288] John Page, 11; Cotton MS., Claudius, A. VIII. f. 8vo; Harleian MS., 2256, f. 186.
[289] John Page, 16.
[290] Delpit, Doc. Fr., 224, 225.
[291] Elmham, Vita, 182; Livius, 62.
[292] Waurin, ii. 247; St. Rémy, 431.
[293] Waurin, ii. 249.
[294] John Page, 20; Waurin, ii. 253; Elmham, Vita, 192; St. Rémy, 432. St. Rémy says that Henry fired on these people, and both he and Waurin say that they were ultimately taken back into the town.
[295] John Page, 16.
[296] John Page, 18.
[297] Waurin, ii. 257; St Rémy. 433.
[298] John Page, 21.
[299] John Page, 33.
[300] Waurin, ii. 261.
[301] Elmham, Vita, 199.
[302] Harleian MS., 2256, f. 189.
[303] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 746.
[304] Waurin, ii. 262. Livius, 68, says 300,000 crowns, which is equal to 150,000 English nobles.
[305] Des Ursins, 545.
[306] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 746; Elmham, Vita, 205, 206.
[307] Monstrelet, 450.
[308] Elmham, Vita, 191.
[309] Waurin, ii. 252.
[310] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 739.
[311] Rymer, IV. iii. 130; Elmham, Vita, 209, 210.
[312] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 762; Rymer, IV. iii. 102-104.
[313] Cal. of French Rolls, Rep. 44, App. 610.
[314] Rymer, IV, iii. 102. William Beauchamp was the leader of a company in Gloucester’s retinue. Stokes was much employed by the King in negotiations at this time, and is possibly the John Stoke who in 1440 became Abbot of St. Albans.
[315] Rymer, IV. iii. 112.
[316] There is considerable uncertainty as to when Gloucester went to besiege Ivry. Elmham (Vita, 210) says that Gloucester was sent from Vernon, but at this time Elmham was absent with Warwick (Vita, 215), and so may well have made a mistake. The Chronique de Normandie, 244, says that the siege was begun by Gloucester in March, on the Friday after the Feast of our Lady (March 25), and lasted forty days. Ivry surrendered on May 10, therefore this would mean that Gloucester began the siege on April 1, marching thither from Evreux, where the King was on that day. It is inconceivable that Gloucester would go to Vernon and then back to Ivry, which would be to make two sides of a triangle. See also Livius, 32, who puts the expedition immediately after the fall of Rouen. The fact that Gloucester promised to observe the treaty signed at Vernon April 7, does not prove that he was there. Clarence did the same, and he had gone to Mantes long before.
[317] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 42, App. 314.
[318] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 746; Rymer, IV. iii. 52. In Rymer, though the document expressly says May 10, 1419, it is put under May 5, 1418; Elmham, Vita, 211; Livius, 72; Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 776; Carte, i. 303.
[319] The Chronique de Normandie, 244, says that after taking Ivry Gloucester overran the county of Chartres with a large force. No other authority mentions this, and it seems unlikely that Gloucester would have taken the offensive in Chartres, in view of the truce which he had sworn to observe. The truce excluded the Duchy of Normandy, so that his operations before Ivry did not infringe it. See Rymer, IV. iii. 102-104. Holinshed, iii. 107, follows the Chronique de Normandie.
[320] See Beaucourt, Histoire de Charles VII., vol. i. pp. 296, 297.
[321] Elmham, Vita, 219.
[322] Waurin, ii. 268, 269; Elmham, Vita, 222. Elmham takes a long time to describe in his usual florid style the maiden modesty with which Catherine received Henry’s kiss.
[323] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 783; Rymer, IV. iii. 119.
[324] Elmham, Vita, 219-226; Chronique de Normandie, 246; Waurin, ii. 268-270; Monstrelet, 453, 454.
[325] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 41, App. I. 789.
[326] Waurin, ii. 276; Elmham, Vita, 227-231; St. Rémy, 438.
[327] He was still at Mantes on August 5, when he wrote to tell the Londoners of the capture of Pontoise. Delpit, Doc. Fr., p. 227, No. CCCLIII.
[328] Elmham, Vita, 231, 232.
[329] Elmham, Vita, 232-234; Waurin, ii. 276, 277.
[330] Chronique de Normandie, 248, says November 6; Elmham, Vita, 239, says October 29; Gesta, 132, October 30. Cf. Livius, 79.
[331] Chronique de Normandie, 248. Gesta, 132, puts this expedition before the siege of Meulan; Elmham, Vita, 239, puts it during the progress of the siege of Meulan; Livius, 79, puts it immediately after the Conference of Meulan; Stow, 359, follows Livius.
[332] Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 331; Otterbourne, 283.
[333] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 42, App. 331; Carte, i. 527; Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 331.
CHAPTER III
[334] Rymer, IV. iii. 146.
[335] He arrived in Rouen on his way to join Henry on April 17, 1420. Cochon, 439.
[336] Rot. Parl., iv. 108.
[337] An ordinance, issued at Mantes on November 13, 1419, points to the fact that deserters were becoming unpleasantly numerous. Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 42, App. 355.
[338] Ellis, Original Letters, 1st Series, i. 1.
[339] Herald’s Debate, 61.
[340] See ‘The Libel of English Policy,’ Political Songs, ii. 187-205.
[341] In 1415, for instance, crown jewels were pledged to London for the loan of 10,000 marks; Rymer, IV. ii. 141.
[342] Third Rep. of Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, 232, Trial of Edward, Duke of Buckingham.
[343] Anstis, Order of the Garter, ii. 70.
[344] Waurin, ii. 331, 332.
[345] Devon, Issue Roll, 362, 363.
[346] This idea is supported by the fact that in 1425 a rumour was abroad that James was going to help Gloucester in Hainault with 8000 Scotch. Dynter, iii. 465.
[347] Waurin, ii. 280-294; St. Rémy, 439-442; Monstrelet, 460-465; Des Ursins, 553, 554.
[348] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 42, App. 337; Chastellain, 25-29; Gesta, 134, 135.
[349] Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 42, App. 374.
[350] Gesta, 137; Elmham, Vita, 252; Harleian MS., 2256, f. 196; Chastellain, 44. Livius does not mention Gloucester as being there. Probably the chroniclers confuse Meulan and Troyes.
[351] Rymer, IV. iii. 175.
[352] Rymer, IV. iii. 179; Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 335.
[353] Rot. Parl., iv. 123.
[354] Ibid., iv. 107.
[355] Ibid., iv. 107, 117.
[356] Stubbs, iii. 90. Ramsay, i. 228, thinks that money was asked for but refused. See Wake, 355.
[357] Rot. Parl., iv. 125.
[358] Ibid., iv. 124, 127, 128.
[359] London Chron., 188; Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 336; Elmham, Vita, 296.
[360] Gesta, 148.
[361] London Chron., 164, 165.
[362] London Chron., 162; Gregory, 139, calls him ‘ovyr seer’; Short English Chron., 57, calls him ‘surveour’; Fabyan calls him ‘overloker’ and gives a long description of the feast, 586-588; Holinshed, iii. 125, calls him overseer.
[363] London Chron., 162-165; Short English Chron., 57; Gregory, 139.
[364] Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 337; Waurin, ii. 344; Elmham, Vita, 300-1.
[365] Elmham, Vita, 304; St. Rémy, 454; Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 339.
[366] Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 339.
[367] Rot. Parl., iv. 129.
[368] See above, p. 38.
[369] See Chastellain, 69. As a rule the Cods (Kabbeljan) were the citizen party, and the Hooks (those who were to catch them) consisted of nobles.
[370] St. Rémy, 453.
[371] For the causes of quarrel between John of Brabant and Jacqueline see Chastellain, 69.
[372] Chastellain, 69; see also Monstrelet, 497.
[373] According to another chronicler, this was Lewis Robsart ‘per Lodowicum Robishert voluntarie de ducta’ (Chron. Henry VI., 6). A certain ‘Lewis de Robstart’ was left by Henry as his representative with Catherine between the Convention of Troyes and his marriage (St. Rémy, 443). Also a certain ‘Lodovico Robersart’ was an executor of Henry V.’s will (Rot. Parl., iv. 172), and this man was also a supervisor of the Duke of Exeter’s will (Testamenta Vetusta, i. 210). Lewis Robsart had indented for men in the 1415 campaign (L. T. R., Foreign Accounts, 10 Henry V.). This almost looks as if Henry had helped to engineer the flight. On the other hand, there is a possibility that the chronicler quoted above mistook the Christian name, for in 1424 we shall find Sir John Robsart accompanying Gloucester and Jacqueline to St. Albans (St. Alban’s Chron., i. 8), and admitted to the confraternity of the monastery at this time (Cotton MS., Nero, D. 7, f. 147); also a Sir John Robsart was naturalised on October 20, 1423 (Rymer, IV. iv. 103). There was a John de Robsart whom we have seen serving under Gloucester in the Côtentin expedition. If this is the man who brought Jacqueline over, the inference is that Gloucester was partly responsible for her flight to England. A Sir Lewis Robsart also took part under Gloucester in the fighting before Cherbourg, so in either case the Duke’s complicity seems possible.
[374] Chastellain, 70.
[375] St. Rémy, 453.
[376] Ordinances, ii. 241.
[377] Rymer, IV. iv. 8.
[378] Chastellain, 70, 71.
[379] Waurin, ii. 356; Ordinances, ii. 291; Rymer, IV. iv. 34.
[380] Letters discovered at Lille seem to prove that Henry not only encouraged Jacqueline to flee to England, but also favoured her marriage with Gloucester as a help towards his policy of strengthening his position in France. See Beiträge, i. 48.
[381] Miss Putnam (Mediæval Princess, p. 86) suggests that Gloucester had met Jacqueline on the way home from Dordrecht. Leopold Devilliers in the preface to vol. iv. of Cartulaire, p. xxvi, says, ‘Leur liaison remontait à l’Epoque où ils s’étaient vus en France pour la première fois,’ but he does not say when this hypothetical meeting took place.
[382] Rymer, IV. iv. 24, 25.
[383] Rot. Parl., iv. 320. In theory three archers went to every man-at-arms, but this was often exceeded. In Henry IV.’s wars in Wales, and later in the French wars, there were often as many as four or five archers to each man-at-arms.
[384] See Cal. of French Rolls, Rep. 44, App. 624-635.
[385] Rot. Parl., iv. 320.
[386] Cal. of French Rolls, Rep. 44, App. 624; Rymer, IV. iv. 27.
[387] Rymer, IV. iv. 27. Miss Putnam (Mediæval Princess, 89), following Löher (Beiträge, i. 48), says that Gloucester sailed on the day that his passport was granted—a fortnight before Henry—and that this was arranged in order to remove him from the attractions of Jacqueline. There is no evidence that Gloucester sailed before Henry. Others, e.g. the Earl of March, got their passports at this time, and it seems likely that they were given them merely because the embarkation was beginning.
[388] June 10. Elmham, Vita, 308; Gesta, 153; St. Rémy, 445; Monstrelet, 503; Waurin, ii. 348; Chastellain, 79. The French chroniclers all give it as St. Barnabas Day, June 11.
[389] Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 340; cf. Add. MS., 4003, quoted in Ramsay, i. 295. The French chroniclers give 4000 men-at-arms and 24,000 archers; St. Rémy, 455; Chastellain, 79.
[390] Chastellain, 79.
[391] Monstrelet, 503.
[392] Chastellain, 79.
[393] Elmham, Vita, 309.
[394] Delpit, Doc. Fr., p. 231, No. CCCLXIII.; Monstrelet, 504.
[395] Rot. Parl., iv. 320. Gloucester’s men were arrayed on July 13. Cal. of Norman Rolls, Rep. 42, App. 427.
[396] Chastellain, 80.
[397] Elmham, Vita, 311.
[398] Rot. Scot., ii. 228-230.
[399] Elmham, Vita, 310, 311; Gesta, 153; Chastellain, 94.
[400] Chastellain, 94.
[401] Cal. of French Rolls, Rep. 44, App. 635.
[402] For this campaign see Elmham, Vita, 312-314; Monstrelet, 512, 513; Gesta, 153, 154; Chastellain, 95, 96; Waurin, ii. 398-400.
[403] When Henry first landed in 1424 Chastellain says that Gloucester was governor of Paris. This, of course, is a mistake, for the post was at that time held by Exeter, who, however, joined the army at Mantes. It is possible that this is merely a mistake of date and that Gloucester took Exeter’s place, and if this is so, it may be that he went thither straight from the siege of Dreux, and did not take part in Henry’s campaign on the Loire. See Chastellain, 79.
[404] After March 27 mention of Gloucester ceases in the French Rolls; Cal. of French Rolls, Rep. 44, App. 635.
[405] Lond. Chron., 110; Chron. Henry VI., 1.
[406] Harleian MS., 2256, f. 197.
[407] Rymer, IV. iv. 50.
[408] Cotton MS., Cleopatra, C. iv. f. 32.
[409] Rymer, IV. iv. 66; see Walsingham, Hist. Angl., ii. 342.
[410] Ashmole MS., 1109, ff. 146, 147.