slyowl9 said:However, I believe you are mistaken on a few points, especially when you consider recent historical research. Joan of Arc is certainly not a myth. In fact, there is such an extensive collection of historical records preserved about her that there isn't even a shadow of a doubt regarding her existence or her impact on history.
It seems I may have misspoken, or perhaps my previous point was simply misunderstood by some of you. There is absolutely no question that Joan of Arc is a genuine historical figure—a woman of flesh and blood who holds a monumental place in the history of France. What I was attempting to emphasize in my last post is that her primary historical significance lies in her role as a myth and a legend, rather than just her existence as a physical person. She functioned as a massive catalyst for the French military; more importantly, she acted as a unifying force that brought together disparate social classes, rallying them all toward a single, shared objective.
The King certainly played his part in the grand scheme of things, just as the various generals did. However, we have to acknowledge the reality: she provided the spark and the sheer willpower that galvanized their troops. She wasn't acting as a military strategist, which actually makes her accomplishments on the battlefield all the more remarkable. If this were purely a matter of tactical maneuvering, why did the French continue to suffer losses year after year, leaving France on the brink of total collapse under English rule?
To truly understand this conflict, one must look closely at the social landscape of the era and the state of France at that time. It is important to remember that the concept of modern nations, centralized states, or even patriotism didn't exist yet; those ideas only emerged much later with the French Revolution and Napoleon. Back then, armies fought primarily for coin, land, or their King. At that point in history, France was essentially in a state of total chaos, lacking any unifying force that could rally everyone toward a single, cohesive objective. The feudal cavalry, which consisted mostly of landed gentry, was driven exclusively by the desire to expand their own influence and estates at the expense of the Crown. The King himself was incredibly weak—effectively more of a placeholder or a mere heir than a true sovereign. As for the infantry, they were either mercenaries who cared nothing for the cause, or peasants simply trying to keep their heads on their shoulders. To make matters worse, the country was reeling from a string of military defeats and widespread devastation, yet the King seemed far more concerned with asserting dominance over the nobility than with protecting his people or his land. Quite simply, the various social classes were unable to unite under the monarchy for a common cause. They required something "transcendental"—something beyond the reach of earthly politics and social strife. They needed a divine spark, a belief in a supernatural power and the sanctity of their struggle. That is exactly what Joan of Arc provided: the conviction that they were being guided by a "divine hand" and "divine providence."
During the Middle Ages, when the Church held immense sway over society, faith served as the ultimate driving force. It acted as a powerful unifying element, bringing together people from every walk of life to fight for a singular cause under the banner of divine power, much like the legendary crusade led by Joan of Arc.
History has shown us this pattern before. During their era of expansion, the Moors used Islam as a unifying force to create a cohesive empire. On the other hand, look at the Scots—strategically outmatched and facing a much larger, technologically superior English force composed of seasoned professionals. Despite those odds, they managed to secure decisive victories at Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn.
She appeared at the exact moment when Orleans was on the brink of collapse, and everything that followed feels less like a stroke of tactical genius from the French King or his generals and more like an actual miracle. Personally, I believe she truly was what she claimed to be—not just in the context of the movies, but in real life.
Personally, I believe motivation is one of the most potent weapons on any battlefield. I am certainly not alone in this view; thinkers ranging from Sun Tzu to George Patton have echoed similar sentiments, despite being separated by thousands of years of history.
Now, whether she truly possessed divine powers or heavenly foresight is something I won't dwell on, as that falls into the realm of faith rather than historical fact.
The trial that eventually cleared her name didn't take place a century later; it happened roughly twenty years after her death. At that time, there were still people alive who had known her personally, and even today, we have transcripts of their testimonies 🙂 including those from her own family members and fellow soldiers.
You make a fair point. She was condemned in 1431, but the retrial concluded in 1456. She was beatified in 1909 and canonized as a saint in 1920.
It’s quite simple: the English essentially weaponized the church courts to conduct a political trial. It wasn't the first time, nor would it be the last. 😁
The formal appeal was initiated in November of 1455. Pope Callixtus III authorized this appeal (known today as the "Rehabilitation Trial") at the request of the Inquisitor and three surviving members of Joan of Arc's family. Unlike the original trial, the appellate process included clergy from throughout Europe, and faithfully observed lawful court procedure. After taking the testimony of 115 witnesses and the opinions of theologians, the Inquisitor drew up his final summary of the case, the "Recollectio F Johannis Brehalli", in June of 1456, describing Joan of Arc as a martyr and her judges as heretics for having deliberately convicted an innocent woman in the pursuit of a secular vendetta.
