John II (French:Jean II; 26 April 1319 – 8 April 1364), calledJohn the Good (French:Jean le Bon), wasKing of France from 1350 until his death in 1364. When he came to power, France faced several disasters: theBlack Death, which killed between a third and a half of its population; popular revolts known asJacqueries;free companies (Grandes Compagnies) ofroutiers who plundered the country; and English aggression that resulted in catastrophic military losses, including theBattle of Poitiers of 1356, in which John was captured.
While John was a prisoner in London, his sonCharles becameregent and faced several rebellions, which he overcame. To liberate his father, he concluded theTreaty of Brétigny (1360), by which France lost many territories and paid an enormous ransom. In an exchange of hostages, which included his sonLouis I, Duke of Anjou, John was released from captivity to raise funds forhis ransom. Upon his return to France, he created thefranc to stabilise the currency and tried to get rid of the free companies by sending them to acrusade, butPope Innocent VI died shortly before their meeting inAvignon. When John was informed that Louis had escaped from captivity, he voluntarily returned toEngland, where he died in 1364. He was succeeded by his eldest son, Charles V.
John was nine years old when his father, Philip VI, was crowned king. Philip VI's ascent to the throne was unexpected: all three sons ofPhilip IV had died without sons and their daughters were passed over. Also passed over was KingEdward III of England, Philip IV's grandson through his daughter,Isabella. Thus, as the new king of France, John's father Philip VI had to consolidate his power in order to protect his throne from rival claimants; therefore, he decided to marry off his son John quickly at the age of thirteen to form a strong matrimonial alliance.
Initially a marriage withEleanor of Woodstock, sister of King Edward III of England, was considered, but instead Philip invited KingJohn the Blind of Bohemia toFontainebleau. Bohemia had aspirations to controlLombardy and needed French diplomatic support. A treaty was drawn up. The military clauses stipulated that, in the event of war, Bohemia would support the French army with four hundred infantrymen. The political clauses ensured that the Lombard crown would not be disputed if the king of Bohemia managed to obtain it. Philip selectedBonne of Bohemia as a wife for his son, as she was closer to child-bearing age (16 years), and the dowry was fixed at 120,000florins.
John and his first wife Bonne
John reached the age of majority, 13 years and one day, on 27 April 1332, and received theDuchy of Normandy, as well as the counties ofAnjou andMaine.[1] The wedding was celebrated on 28 July at the church of Notre-Dame inMelun in the presence of six thousand guests. The festivities were prolonged by a further two months when the young groom was finally knighted at the cathedral ofNotre-Dame in Paris. As the new duke of Normandy, John was solemnly granted the arms of a knight in front of a prestigious assembly bringing together the kings ofBohemia andNavarre, and the dukes ofBurgundy,Lorraine andBrabant.
Upon his accession as Duke of Normandy in 1332, John had to deal with the reality that most of the Norman nobility was already allied with the English. Effectively,Normandy depended economically more on maritime trade across theEnglish Channel than on river trade on theSeine. Although the duchy had not been inAngevin possession for150 years, many landowners had holdings across the Channel. Consequently, to line up behind one or other sovereign risked confiscation. Therefore, Norman members of the nobility were governed as interdependent clans, which allowed them to obtain and maintain charters guaranteeing the duchy a measure of autonomy. It was split into two key camps, the counts ofTancarville and thecounts of Harcourt, which had been in conflict for generations.[2]
Adenier d'or aux fleurs de lys from John's reign (1351)
Tension arose again in 1341. King Philip, worried about the richest area of the kingdom breaking into bloodshed, ordered thebailiffs ofBayeux andCotentin to quell the dispute.Geoffroy d'Harcourt raised troops against the king, rallying a number of nobles protective of their autonomy and against royal interference. The rebels demanded that Geoffroy be made duke, thus guaranteeing the autonomy granted by the charter. Royal troops took the castle atSaint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte and Geoffroy was exiled toBrabant. Three of his companions were decapitated inParis on 3 April 1344.[3]
Meeting with the Avignon Papacy and the King of England
In 1342, John was inAvignon, then a part of thePapal States, at the coronation ofPope Clement VI,[4] and in the latter part of 1343, he was a member of a peace parley withEdward III of England's chancery clerk.[5] Clement VI was the fourth of sevenAvignon Popes whose papacy was not contested, although thesupreme pontiffs would ultimately return to Rome in 1378.
By 1345, increasing numbers of Norman rebels had begun to pay homage to Edward III, constituting a major threat to the legitimacy of the Valois kings. The defeat at theBattle of Crécy on 26 August 1346, and the capitulation ofCalais on 3 August 1347, afteran eleven-month siege, further damaged royal prestige. Defections by the nobility, whose land fell within the broad economic influence of England, particularly in the north and west, increased. Consequently, King Philip VI decided to seek a truce. Duke John met Geoffroy d'Harcourt, to whom the king agreed to return all confiscated goods, even appointing him sovereign captain in Normandy. John then approached theTancarville family, whose loyalty could ultimately ensure his authority in Normandy. The marriage of John, Viscount ofMelun, to Jeanne, the only heiress of the county of Tancarville, ensured that the Melun-Tancarville party remained loyal to John, while Geoffroy d'Harcourt continued to act as defender for Norman freedoms and thus of the reforming party.[6]
On 11 September 1349, John's wife, Bonne of Bohemia (Bonne de Luxembourg), died at theMaubuisson Abbey near Paris, of theBlack Death, which was devastatingEurope. To escape thepandemic, John, who was living in the Parisian royal residence, thePalais de la Cité, left Paris.
In 1343, negotiations were initiated between John's father – king Philip VI, and dauphinHumbert II of Viennois, regarding the future inheritance of theDauphiné, a vast feudal domain within theKingdom of Burgundy (Arles), under the suzerainty of theHoly Roman Empire. Since Humbert had no heirs, it was initially agreed that his domains will pass to Johns's younger brotherPhilip, Duke of Orléans. Already in 1344, those provisions were changed by the new agreement, designating John as Humbert's heir in the Dauphiné.[7]
By 1349, Humbert decided to relinquish his rule over Dauphiné in favor of theHouse of Valois, and the final agreement was made, designating John's oldest sonCharles as Humbert's successor, on the condition that Dauphiné will remain a distinctivepolity, not incorporated into the French kingdom. Thus in the summer of 1349, John's oldest son became the first ValoisDauphin de Viennois. In 1350, when John ascended to the French throne, his son Charles became theheir presumptive and thus for the first time both honors (Dauphin de Viennois, and heir to the French throne) were held by the same person.[8]
Philip VI, John's father, died on 22 August 1350, and John's coronation as John II, king of France, took place inReims the following 26 September. Joanna, his second wife, was crowned queen of France at the same time.[9]
John being crowned King of France with his second wife Joan
In November 1350, King John hadRaoul II of Brienne, Count of Eu seized and summarily executed,[10] for reasons that remain unclear, although it was rumoured that he had pledged the English the County ofGuînes for his release from captivity.[11]
John inherited a French military weakened by disorganization and feudal fragmentation,[12] and seven months after being crowned king, he issued the ordinances of 1351 which sought to address these issues. Enacted in response to military setbacks, such as the French defeat at theBattle of Crécy in 1346,[13] these ordinances aimed to address issues of organization, discipline, and payment within the French military,[14] and serve as proof that John as a chivalrous king had an exact grasp of the inadequacies of the feudal army.[15]
Themilitary ordinances of 1351, issued by King John II the Good, are considered the first comprehensive military ordinances in French history due to their systematic approach to reforming the royal army during theHundred Years' War.[15][16] While earlier French monarchs, such asPhilip Augustus, issued military-related decrees, none were as comprehensive or specifically focused on army-wide organization as John’s ordinances.[16]
Some of the aims of the provisions included:
Centralizing command: Establishing royal authority over military operations to reduce noble autonomy. The ordinances established standardized rules for the recruitment, payment, and conduct of soldiers, marking a significant shift from the decentralized and often chaotic feudal levies to a more cohesive royal army under centralized control.[16] These regulations included provisions for fixed wages and measures to curb indiscipline among troops.[17]
Institution of the "Montre" (Military Review System): To ensure accountability and proper equipping of troops. It mandated regular inspections, known as montres, to verify the number, equipment, and readiness of soldiers. Each combatant was required to be part of a company led by a captain, who was responsible for the unit’s discipline and preparedness. Horses were marked to prevent soldiers from presenting the same mounts in multiple units to inflate numbers and claim additional pay. Wages were paid only after the montre, ensuring soldiers were properly equipped and present. This system aimed to curb fraud, reduce desertion, and ensure that only well-equipped soldiers received payment, marking a shift toward a more professional army.[16]
Regulating pay and service: Introducing paid contracts (soldes) to ensure loyalty and standardize service terms.[17]
Formation of Royal Companies: To replace disorganized feudal levies with a structured royal army. The ordinance organized soldiers into companies under the command of appointed captains. These companies integrated barons, vassals, and sub-vassals, placing them under royal authority rather than feudal lords. Captains were accountable to the king’s representatives, such as the constable and marshals. This provision reduced the autonomy of feudal lords, centralizing military command under the crown. It laid the groundwork for the latercompagnies d’ordonnance, a standing army formalized under Charles VII in 1445.[18]
Standardizing units: Organizing troops into smaller units (routes) led by appointed captains for better coordination.[19]
Limiting noble independence: Curtailing nobles’ ability to act independently or abandon campaigns.[20]
Improving logistics: Enhancing provisioning to sustain campaigns.[21]
Discipline and Accountability: Captains were made responsible for their units’ conduct, with strict oversight by the constable and marshals. The ordinance aimed to curb the lawlessness of troops, particularly when not engaged in active campaigns, as demobilized soldiers often turned to banditry.[16]
These reforms aimed to counter the cohesive, professional English armies, which relied onlongbowmen and centralized leadership.
The French nobility’s resistance and internal divisions impeded the ordinances’ adoption. Nobles, such asCharles of Navarre, viewed the reforms as a threat to their Feudal autonomy and traditional rights to command personal forces.[22] Rivalries among noble factions, including Charles of Navarre and theDuke of Orléans caused political instability and undermined royal authority.[23] Nobles had a resistance to discipline and resented serving under royal oversight or alongside common soldiers, as this clashed with their privileged status. The incomplete implementation of the ordinences by the nobility meant that their enforcement was inconsistent, with some captains adopting the structure while others ignored it. The crown’s financial difficulties didn't help either, which forced reliance on feudal levies, limiting consistent payments to soldiers.[24]
TheBattle of Poitiers saw the English, led byEdward, the Black Prince, defeat a larger French army under John. The failure to integrate the ordinances contributed to the French defeat in several ways:
Lack of unified command: The French army (12,000–15,000) suffered from divisions among commanders, including John, theDauphin Charles, and the Duke of Orléans, preventing coordination. Some contingents, like Orléans’, fled or failed to engage.[25]
Poor tactical discipline: French knights reverted to impetuous charges, ignoring the ordinances’ emphasis on disciplined tactics. Disorganized assaults failed against English defensive positions with longbowmen.[26]
Fragmented army structure: The French army, a mix of feudal levies and semi-professional units, lacked cohesion. The vanguard’s impulsive attack under the Marshals of Clermont and Audrehem disrupted strategy.[26]
Logistical and morale issues: Supply problems, unaddressed due to incomplete logistical reforms, weakened morale. The English, better provisioned, maintained their defensive stance.[27]
Contrast with English effectiveness: The English army’s cohesion, professional soldiers, and unified command exploited French disarray, using longbowmen and terrain effectively.[28]
The French defeat at Poitiers had severe repercussions. The king’s capture led to theTreaty of Brétigny (1360) which ceded territories to England (most of which were later recovered by Charles V), and thousands of French casualties, including nobles, further weakened the feudal structure.[29] The battle exposed military weaknesses and highlighted the failure to overcome noble resistance, delaying military recovery until further reforms were enacted underCharles V.[30]
While John’s military ordinances were ambitious, their effectiveness was limited by the structural and economic constraints of the time. Although the ordinances were not entirely successful due to challenges in enforcement and the ongoing pressures of war, they represented the foundational step toward modernizing the French military, setting an historical precedent for later military developments.[31] Their emphasis on centralized control and discipline influenced subsequent reforms, notablyCharles V's tactical and administrative reforms, andCharles VII's creation of a standing army and permanent taxation which solidified royal control.[32] As a result, the feudal system evolved from a decentralized military structure to one where nobles were integrated into a royal framework, with the crown gaining significant power over the fragmented nobility.[33] These changes enabled France to recover from defeats like Poitiers and ultimately win the Hundred Years’ War by 1453.
On 16 November 1351, 3 months after creating the military reform ordinances of 1351, John established theOrder of the Star, achivalric order, to unify the French nobility under royal leadership and counterEdward III’sOrder of the Garter.[34] Unlike earlier religious military orders (likethe Templars andthe Knights Hospitaller, etc.) the Order of the Star was a distinctly French, royal initiative. It was the first organized, state-sponsored group of knights in France with a clear military purpose tied to national defense, setting it apart from feudal levies or informal knightly groups.[35] The order aimed to foster loyalty amongknights and prevent defections to foreign powers, as many nobles held lands across multiple kingdoms due to marriage alliances. By binding the nobility to the crown throughchivalric ideals, John sought to strengthen the loyalty and cohesion of his military elite, complementing the structural reforms of the April military ordinances.[36]
The following year, on 10 September 1355 John and Charles signed theTreaty of Valognes, but this second peace lasted hardly any longer than the first culminating in a highly dramatic event where, during a banquet on 5 April 1356 at theRoyal Castle inRouen attended by the King's sonCharles, Charles II of Navarre and a number of Norman magnates and notables, John II burst through the door in full armor, swords in hand, along with his entourage, which included the king's brotherPhillip, younger sonLouis and cousins as well as over a hundred fully armed knights waiting outside. John lunged over and grabbed Charles of Navarre shouting, "let no one move if he does not want to be dead with this sword." With John's son,Dauphin Charles, the banquet host, on his knees pleading for him to stop, the King grabbed Navarre by the throat and pulled him out of his chair yelling in his face, "Traitor, you are not worthy to sit at my son's table!"[37] He then ordered the arrests of all the guests including Navarre and, in what many considered to be a rash move as well as a political mistake, he had John, theCount of Harcourt and several other Norman lords and notables summarily executed later that night in a yard nearby while he stood watching.[38]
This act, which was largely driven by revenge for Charles of Navarre's and John of Harcourt's pre-meditated plot that killed John's favorite, Charles de La Cerda, would push much of what remaining support the King had from the lords in Normandy away to King Edward and the English camp, setting the stage for the English invasion and the resultingBattle of Poitiers in the months to come.[citation needed]
John was confident of victory—his army was probably twice the size of his opponent's—but he did not immediately attack. While he waited, thepapal legate went back and forth, trying to negotiate a truce between the leaders. There is some debate over whether the Black Prince wanted to fight at all. He offered his wagon train, which was heavily loaded with loot. He also promised not to fight against France for seven years. Some sources claim that he even offered to returnCalais to the French crown. John countered by demanding that 100 of the Prince's best knights surrender themselves to him as hostages, along with the Prince himself. No agreement could be reached. Negotiations broke down, and both sides prepared for combat.
On the day of the battle, John and 17 knights from his personal guard dressed identically. This was done to confuse the enemy, who would do everything possible to capture the sovereign on the field. In spite of this precaution, following the destruction and routing of the massive force of French knights at the hands of the ceaseless Englishlongbow volleys, John was captured as the English force charged to finish their victory. Though he fought with valour, wielding a large battle-axe, his helmet was knocked off. Surrounded, he fought on until Denis de Morbecque, a French exile who fought for England, approached him.
"Sire," Morbecque said. "I am a knight ofArtois. Yield yourself to me and I will lead you to the Prince of Wales."
King John surrendered by handing him his glove. That night King John dined in the red silk tent of his enemy. The Black Prince attended to him personally. He was then taken toBordeaux, and from there toEngland. The Battle of Poitiers would be one of the major military disasters not just for France, but at any time during the Middle Ages.
In France, what struck the people was not so much the defeat at Poitiers as the captivity of King John. When the French people learned of the frantic flight of the French lords from battle, they believed it was due to treason. And if not for English gold, then it was out of cowardice—and so, what did the once-revered words of 'honor' and 'nobility' mean? People began to hate the treacherous and cowardly knights. Some of them, returning to their estates, narrowly escaped being torn apart by furiousvilleins, even those who, as prisoners on parole, came back to gather their ransoms.[15]
Letter of Jean le Bon during his captivity inWindsor, to his sonCharles about Pierre de la BatutThe firstfranc ever minted, the "Franc à cheval", was minted upon Jean le Bon's return from captivity from 5 December 1360, and featured combative imagery. Gold, 24karat, 3.73g. Its weight is the account value of onelivre tournois.
As a prisoner of the English, John was granted royal privileges that permitted him to travel about and enjoy a regal lifestyle. At a time when law and order was breaking down in France and the government was having a hard time raising money for the defence of the realm, his account books during his captivity show that he was purchasing horses, pets, and clothes while maintaining an astrologer and a court band.
TheTreaty of Brétigny (drafted in May 1360) set his ransom at an astounding 3 million crowns, roughly two or three years worth of revenue for the French Crown, which was the largest national budget in Europe during that period. On 30 June 1360 John left theTower of London and proceeded toEltham Palace whereQueen Philippa had prepared a great farewell entertainment. Passing the night at Dartford, he continued towards Dover, stopping at theMaison Dieu of St Mary atOspringe, and paying homage at theshrine of St Thomas Becket atCanterbury on 4 July. He dined with theBlack Prince—who had negotiated the Treaty of Brétigny[40]—atDover Castle, and reached English-heldCalais on 8 July.[41]
Leaving his sonLouis of Anjou in Calais as a replacement hostage to guarantee payment, John was allowed to return to France to raise the funds. The Treaty of Brétigny was ratified in October 1360.
On 1 July 1363, King John was informed that Louis had broken his parole and escaped from Calais. Troubled by the dishonour of this action, and the arrears in his ransom, John gathered his royal council to announce that he would voluntarily return to captivity in England and negotiate with Edward in person.[42][43] When faced with the opposition of his advisors, the king famously replied that "if good faith were banned from the Earth, she ought to find asylum in the hearts of kings".[44] Immediately after he appointed his sonCharles the Duke of Normandy to be regent and governor of France until his return.[45]
John landed in England in January 1364 where he was met by SirAlan Buxhull, Sir Richard Pembridge and Lord Burghersh at Dover, to be conducted to Eltham and theSavoy Palace and was warmly welcomed in London in January 1364. He was received with great honour, and was a frequent guest of Edward at Westminster.[46] A few months after his arrival, however, he fell ill with an unknown malady. He died at the Savoy Palace in April 1364. His body was returned to France, where he was interred in the royal chambers atSaint Denis Basilica.[citation needed]
John's death in 1364 at age 44 was not unusually young for the period, especially given theBlack Death’s impact and the stresses of captivity. The lack of specific health complaints in chronicles suggests that a health condition was not a prominent issue during his reign. The "unknown malady" causing John's death could range from an acute illness (e.g., infection) to a chronic condition exacerbated by captivity. The Black Death, recurrent in the 1360s, or other infectious diseases are plausible causes, but no primary source confirms this.[47] Speculation about arsenic poisoning, mentioned in relation to his sonCharles V’s illness, is not supported for John himself.[48]
John II was succeeded as King of France by his eldest son, Charles, who reigned asCharles V, known asThe Wise.[citation needed]
The claim that King John II suffered from ill health often appears in discussions of his physical condition, lack of martial vigor (primarily referring to jousting rather than war), and the circumstances of his death. However, medieval sources rarely provide detailed medical diagnoses, and health descriptions are often vague or tied to political narratives. The claim appears to be a modern historiographical construct, as primary source evidence directly addressing his health is sparse and ambiguous.
Jean Froissart describes John’s courage at Poitiers but does not explicitly mention chronic ill health during his reign or captivity. Regarding John’s death in 1364, Froissart notes that he "fell ill and died" at theSavoy Palace in London, without specifying the nature of the illness.[47] This lack of detail is typical of medieval chronicles, which often prioritize narrative over medical specificity. Froissart’s focus on John’s lavish lifestyle in captivity (e.g., purchasing horses, clothes, and maintaining a court band) suggests that John was physically capable of engaging in courtly activities, which may argue against severe, debilitating illness during this period.[47] However, this could also reflect a public facade to maintain royal dignity. Froissart’s portrayal of John as a less martial king compared toEdward III orthe Black Prince may have led modern historians to infer physical weakness.[47] His preference for hunting over jousting and his reliance on advisors likeCharles de la Cerda could be interpreted as signs of frail health, but they could equally reflect personal temperament or political strategy. John II forbade his knights from jousting during theHundred Years’ War, prioritizing warfare over tournaments, which often distracted from military needs, setting an example as king and knight.[49]
TheGrandes Chroniques de France provides little direct evidence of his health. It mentions his death in 1364 at the Savoy Palace but does not elaborate on the cause, referring only to an unspecified illness. It does not describe him as frail or chronically unwell.[50]
English sources, such as those byThomas Walsingham, describe John’s warm reception in England and his participation in festivities, suggesting he was not visibly incapacitated during his final months.[51] The reference to an "unknown malady" aligns with Froissart’s account but lacks specificity.
John’s account books from his captivity in England, referenced in secondary sources, indicate that he maintained an active lifestyle, purchasing luxury items and maintaining a retinue. These records do not mention medical expenses or treatments that would suggest chronic illness.[49]
Documents surrounding theTreaty of Brétigny, which secured John’s release from captivity, do not mention his health as a factor in negotiations or his ability to rule. His voluntary return to England in 1364, prompted by his sonLouis’s escape, is framed in terms of honor rather than health, suggesting that he was physically capable of travel and political decision-making.[52]
Secondary sources often cite John’s "fragile health" or lack of physical vigor, but these claims are typically based on inferences rather than direct primary evidence.Françoise Autrand andJean Deviosse suggest John’s health was not robust, citing his limited participation in physical activities and his death from an unspecified illness. However, these works rely heavily on chronicles like Froissart’s that lack detailed medical information.[48][49]
Contemporaries report that he was quick to get angry and resort to violence, leading to frequent political and diplomatic confrontations.[citation needed] He enjoyed literature and was patron to painters and musicians.[citation needed]
The image of a "warrior king" probably emerged from the courage he displayed at the Battle of Poitiers, where he dismounted to fight in the forefront of his surrounded men with apoleaxe in his hands,[53] as well as the creation of theOrder of the Star. This was guided by political need, as John was determined to prove the legitimacy of his crown, particularly as his reign, like that of his father, was marked by continuing disputes over the Valois claim from bothCharles II of Navarre andEdward III of England.[citation needed] From a young age, John was called to resist the decentralising forces affecting the cities and the nobility, each attracted either by English economic influence or the reforming party. He grew up among intrigue and treason, and in consequence he governed in secrecy only with a close circle of trusted advisers.[citation needed]
He took as his wifeBonne of Bohemia and fathered 11 children in eleven years. Due to his close relationship with his favouriteCharles de la Cerda, partisans of Charles II of Navarre derided the king for "having no other God than him".[54] La Cerda was given various honours and appointed to the high position ofconnetable when John became king; he accompanied the king on all his official journeys to the provinces. La Cerda's rise at court excited the jealousy of the French barons, several of whom stabbed him to death in 1354. La Cerda's fate paralleled that ofEdward II of England'sPiers Gaveston andJohn II of Castile'sÁlvaro de Luna; the position of a royalfavourite was a dangerous one. John's grief on La Cerda's death was overt and public.[citation needed]
John acquired the titles of Count of Anjou, Count of Maine, and Duke of Normandy in 1332 when he came of age, as part of his father,King Philip VI of France, granting him overlordship of several territories. Upon becoming King of France in 1350, most of his titles returned to the royal domain, as his new status as king absorbed his regional titles.
Count of Anjou (1332–1350): The County of Anjou had returned to the French royal domain in 1328 upon Philip VI’s ascension, and he bestowed it upon his eldest son, John, to strengthen his position as heir and to manage these key territories. This was a common practice to provide heirs with administrative experience and revenue. The County of Anjou later became a duchy in 1360, granted to John's sonLouis.[55][56]
Count of Maine (1332–1350): Maine, closely tied to Anjou, was part of the same administrative package to prepare John for governance and to secure Valois control over these regions, which were strategically important due to their proximity to English-held territories. Maine was later integrated into the Duchy of Anjou.[55][56]
Duke of Normandy (1332–1350): Normandy was a critical region due to its economic importance and its vulnerability to English claims during the Hundred Years’ War. John’s appointment as Duke was intended to secure loyalty in a region with strong economic ties to England. He later granted it to his son, Charles (the futureCharles V), in 1355, to ensure effective governance during his own captivity after theBattle of Poitiers.[56]
Count of Poitiers (1344–1350): He was created Count of Poitiers in 1344 by his father, Philip VI, as part of consolidating Valois control over southwestern France.Poitiers was strategically significant during the early stages of theHundred Years’ War, and granting it to John strengthened royal authority in the region against English claims.[52]
Duke of Guyenne (1345–1350): Guienne was a medieval name for a region in southwestern France that largely overlapped with the historicalDuchy of Aquitaine. The name "Guienne" derives from an Old French rendering of "Aquitaine," and by the 14th century, it was often used interchangeably with or as a subset of Aquitaine. John held this title as part of the French crown's control over the region, which had been a contested area between France and England for centuries (notably during theHundred Years' War). At that time, the Duchy of Guienne/Aquitaine included areas likeBordeaux and parts ofGascony, though its borders fluctuated due to political and military changes.[57]
Count of Auvergne (1350–1360): He became Count of Auvergne in 1350 through his marriage toJoan I, Countess of Auvergne and Boulogne, on 19 February 1350, at Nanterre. As Joan’s husband, he held the titlejure uxoris (by right of his wife), as was customary for husbands of titled heiresses inmedieval France. John relinquished the title in 1360 when she died. Upon her death, the title reverted to Joan’s heirs, as John’s rights were tied to her lifetime.[58][59]
Count of Boulogne (1350–1360): He acquired the title of Count of Boulognejure uxoris in 1350 through his marriage toJoan I, on 19 February 1350. Boulogne was a significant coastal county, and John’s control reinforced Valois influence in northern France. The title was relinquished upon Joan’s death in 1360, with the title passing to Joan’s heirs.[55][58]
Duke of Burgundy (as John I) (1361–1363): Upon the death ofPhilip I, Duke of Burgundy (Philip of Rouvres) in 1361, the senior line of the House of Burgundy, descended from Robert I, became extinct. Philip I died without heirs. John was the son of Joan of Burgundy, the second daughter ofDuke Robert II of Burgundy, making him a first cousin to Philip I’s father.Charles II of Navarre, another claimant, was the grandson of Margaret of Burgundy, the elder daughter of Robert II, giving him a claim through primogeniture. However, the principle of proximity of blood favored John, as he was closer in degree of kinship to the deceased duke. Additionally, John’s position as king and his role as stepfather to Philip I (through his marriage toJoan I, Countess of Auvergne) strengthened his claim, and on 28 December 1361, John successfully claimed the duchy.[60] The duchy did not merge into the royal domain; it remained a distinct feudal entity, with the Burgundian estates firmly opposing annexation.[60][61] In January 1362, John appointed John of Melun, Count of Tancarville as govenor of Burgundy[62] before finally passing the duchy on to his youngest sonPhilip as anapanage in 1363.[58][63]
John II created severalduchies andcounties – seven in total, the most out of any French monarch (withCharles IX andFrancis I being second and third respectively). Most of them lasted until theFrench Revolution abolished the monarchy. During his reign he also expanded French territory and influence by acquiring the Duchy of Burgundy, creating the Duchy of Auvergne, and by placing his sons in strategic positions of power to insure the protection of French territory.[49]
John elevated the Barony ofTancarville to a county and created Jean, Viscount of Melun the new Count of Tancarville. He was already a close friend of John when the latter was still Duke of Normandy, before succeeding his fatherPhilip VI in 1350. The Count then held a number of high-ranking offices, serving simultaneously asChamberlain of France, HereditaryConstable of Normandy, Sovereign Master of the Waters and Forests of France, and perhaps, at one point, Sovereign Master of the King's Household. He also had solid military experience, having served in the King's armies since 1337; he had taken part in theBattle of Poitiers in 1356 and was captured there by the English. Upon his return from captivity, he was entrusted by the King with important missions of both a political and military nature. The Count of Tancarville played a significant role in the attempt to pacificate the kingdom. To combat theFree Companies, John the Good entrusted him, on 24 April 1361, with alieutenancy general, under which he could exercise all the king's powers in the Duchy of Berry, the County of Nevers, the Duchies of Bourbon and Auvergne, regions particularly threatened by theRoutiers.[64]
The County of Bar, located between France and theHoly Roman Empire, was strategically vital due to its position near Lorraine and Luxembourg. Part of Bar (the Barrois mouvant) had become a French fief in 1301, but its proximity to imperial territories made it a contested area. Elevating Bar to a duchy allowed John to reinforce French authority in this borderland, especially during theHundred Years’ War, when English influence threatened nearby regions like Normandy. John made efforts to secure loyalty from frontier nobles to counter external threats, suggesting the elevation was a strategic move to bind Bar more closely to the French crown.[65][66]
The first Duke of Bar,Robert I’s later actions, such as supporting the coronations ofCharles V andCharles VI, reflect his role as a loyal vassal. The ducal title enhanced Bar’s status, giving Robert greater influence in both French and imperial contexts, as Bar also gained recognition fromEmperor Charles IV.[67][68]
John elevated Castres to a county in 1356 and createdJohn VI of Vendôme asCount of Castres, alongside his existing title asCount of Vendôme, as part of a strategic effort to strengthen royal authority, reward loyal vassals, and stabilize the French crown’s influence during a period of crisis marked by the Hundred Years’ War, the Black Death, and internal political turmoil.
John VI of Vendôme, a member of theHouse of Montoire, was a loyal vassal who fought for the French crown, notably at theBattle of Poitiers in 1356, where he was captured by the English. Elevating Castres to a county and granting John VI the title was likely a reward for his service and a means to secure his continued loyalty, especially during a time when noble defections to the English were a significant threat. John frequently used titles and land grants to bind nobles to the crown, particularly in regions vulnerable to English influence, such as the south and west of France where Castres was located. The elevation enhanced John VI’s status, aligning his interests with the crown and reinforcing his role as a regional power. Such appointments were critical during John's reign, as he sought to counter English aggression and internal rebellions likethe Jacquerie. John VI’s role as count also positioned him to manage local governance, particularly after his wife,Jeanne de Ponthieu, acted as regent for their granddaughter Jeanne, Countess of Vendôme and Castres, from 1371 to 1372.[65]
Castres, located inLanguedoc, was a dependency of the Viscount of Albi and had been granted a city charter during theAlbigensian Crusade, indicating its regional significance. By elevating Castres to a county, John aimed to integrate it more firmly into the French feudal structure, countering local autonomy and potential English economic influence in the south, and to assert control over southern territories, where English campaigns and local unrest threatened royal authority. Granting the county to John VI, a trusted noble, ensured a loyal administrator in a region critical for maintaining French dominance.[58]
In 1360, the Duchy of Anjou, was created and granted toLouis I of Anjou, John's second son, elevating thecounty of Anjou to a duchy. Thisapanage included the counties of Anjou and Maine, centered in western France, a region critical for its proximity to English-heldAquitaine andBrittany, both contested during theHundred Years’ War.The grant coincided with theTreaty of Brétigny, which temporarily ended hostilities with England but required John to cede significant territories. By establishing Louis in Anjou, John aimed to secure a loyal royal presence in a region vulnerable to English influence and Breton autonomy.Louis was also given a role as a hostage in England under the treaty’s terms, reflecting John’s strategy to tie apanages to diplomatic obligations. The elevation of Anjou to a duchy increased its prestige, ensuring Louis’s status matched his responsibilities. Anjou’s strategic location made it a bulwark against English expansion from Aquitaine and a counterweight to the semi-independentDuchy of Brittany.Louis I of Anjou became a powerful figure, later pursuing claims to Naples and Sicily, expanding theAngevin dynasty’s influence beyond France. His apanage laid the foundation for theValois-Anjou branch, which played a significant role in French and European politics.The Duchy of Anjou remained a key royal stronghold, though its autonomy under Louis’s successors sometimes challenged crown authority.[69]
Created as an initial apanage for his youngest son,Philip II the Bold. However, when theDuchy of Burgundy became available in 1363, Philip received Burgundy instead, partly as a reward for his courage at thebattle of Poitiers, and Touraine was reassigned or reverted to the crown temporarily.Touraine, located in western France, was a smaller but strategically important duchy due to its proximity to Anjou and Poitou.The initial grant of Touraine to Philip in 1360 was part of John’s effort to provide for all his sons following theTreaty of Brétigny. Touraine’s strategic location near Anjou and Brittany made it valuable for maintaining royal influence in western France.The reassignment of Touraine after 1363 reflects John’s flexibility in reallocating apanages to maximize strategic outcomes. When Burgundy, a more prestigious and critical duchy, became available, Philip was given the larger prize, and Touraine was reserved for other uses or returned to the crown.Touraine’s temporary status as anapanage indicates its role as a flexible tool in John’s feudal strategy, used to balance familial and political needs.Touraine’s brief tenure as an apanage for Philip had limited long-term impact, as it was overshadowed by the grant of Burgundy. However, its initial creation reflects John’s intent to ensure all his sons had significant holdings to support their status and loyalty.Touraine later became an apanage for other royal relatives under John’s successors, reinforcing its role as a "floating" apanage for royal cadets.[70]
The Duchy of Auvergne was created from theTerre royale d’Auvergne (royal lands of Auvergne) while theCounty of Auvergne continued to exist in parallel. John granted it to his third sonJohn alongside the Duchy of Berry. Auvergne, in south-central France, had been part of the royal domain since its confiscation byPhilip II Augustus in 1209 and partial restoration to local counts.The elevation of Auvergne to a duchy was a strategic move to strengthen royal control in a region with a history of autonomy and pro-English sympathies among some local lords (e.g., the Counts of Auvergne). By granting it to John, King John aimed to secure Auvergne’s loyalty during the Hundred Years’ War.John’s role as king’s lieutenant in Auvergne (since 1358) made him a logical choice for the apanage. The grant formalized his authority, countering local resistance and English influence in the region.The creation of the duchy alongsideBerry reflects John’s intent to consolidate central and southern France under a trusted son, especially after the territorial losses of theTreaty of Brétigny.John of Berry held Auvergne until his death in 1416, when it reverted to the crown. His daughter Marie inherited the title of Duchess of Auvergne, and it later passed to her husband,John I, Duke of Bourbon, in 1426, integrating Auvergne into theBourbon domains.The apanage reinforced royal authority in Auvergne, though John’s heavy taxation to fund war efforts sparked revolts, such as theTuchin Revolt, highlighting the challenges of governing the region.[70]
John created theDuchy of Berry for his third sonJohn, encompassing the County of Berry and parts of Poitou. Centered in central France, Berry was a relatively stable region, strategically important for connecting northern and southern royal domains.The creation of the Duchy was part of John’s 1360 reorganization of apanages following theTreaty of Brétigny. Berry’s central location made it a hub for royal administration and a buffer against internal dissent, such as theJacquerie revolt (1358).John of Berry, appointed king’s lieutenant in 1358 for regions including Auvergne and Languedoc, was a key figure in John’s government. The apanage provided him with the resources to govern effectively and support royal policies.Unlike Anjou or Burgundy, Berry was less exposed to immediate external threats, making it a stable base for John’s administrative and artistic patronage.John of Berry became a renowned patron of the arts, commissioning works like theTrès Riches Heures du Duc de Berry. His governance strengthened royal influence in central France, with Berry remaining closely tied to the crown.The apanage’s stability contrasted with the autonomy of Burgundy and Anjou, reflecting John’s loyalty and the region’s integration into the royal domain.[71]
Historiography: The Trend of Negative Portrayal by Historians
King John II faced extraordinary challenges: theBlack Death, which killed a third to half of France’s population, theHundred Years’ War with England, internal revolts like theJacquerie, and plundering byfree companies. His capture at theBattle of Poitiers (1356) and the subsequentTreaty of Brétigny (1360), which ceded significant territories and demanded a massive ransom, have often been focal points for criticism. However, applying modern standards of leadership to a medieval monarch risks oversimplifying the political, economic, and social constraints of the era.[48]
The trend of criticizing John II began withJean Froissart’s influential but biased chronicle, which provided a narrative of bravery undercut by recklessness.[47]Jules Michelet’s 19th-century reinterpretation transformed this into a nationalist critique, portraying John as a weak ruler who failed France.[72] Subsequent historians—François Guizot,Charles Petit-Dutaillis,Edouard Perroy,Jean Deviosse, andMaurice Keen—built on Michelet’s framework, citing each other and Froissart to reinforce a narrative of incompetence.[73][74][52][49][55] This historiographical chain reflects a tendency to judge John II by modern standards of statecraft, often ignoring the medieval emphasis on chivalric honor and the external pressures of war, plague, and noble factionalism. The reliance on citations created an echo chamber, where each historian reinforced the previous one’s conclusions without fully reevaluating primary sources likeJean de Venette or considering the broader context.[75] Modern scholars likeFrançoise Autrand have begun to break this cycle by highlighting John II’s adherence to chivalric ideals and the impossible circumstances he faced, suggesting that the trend of criticism may be waning as historians adopt a more contextual approach.[48]
Portrayal by Jean Froissart and Contemporary Chroniclers: The Start of the Critique
The earliest significant criticism of John II likely stems from contemporary or near-contemporary chroniclers, particularlyJean Froissart (c. 1337–c. 1405), a Hainaut-born chronicler whoseChronicles are a primary source for theHundred Years’ War. Froissart’s account, while vivid and detailed, often reflects a chivalric bias and the perspective of his patrons, who included figures aligned with the English or Burgundian factions. His portrayal of John II at Poitiers emphasizes the king’s bravery but also his tactical errors, such as ignoring advice against engaging the English due to their superior longbow tactics. Froissart writes of John’s decision to fight on foot with a poleaxe, portraying it as courageous but implying it was reckless given the French defeat.[47] This narrative sets a tone of personal valor undermined by poor judgment, a theme later historians amplified.
Froissart’s account was influential because it was widely circulated in medieval Europe and became a foundational source for later historians. His depiction of John II’s capture and lavish lifestyle in English captivity—engaging in feasts, hunting, and pilgrimages—contributed to perceptions of a king more concerned with personal honor than governance.[47] While Froissart does not explicitly condemn John, his focus on the king’s extravagance and military failure provided raw material for subsequent criticism.
Another contemporary source,Jean de Venette (c. 1307–c. 1370), a Carmelite friar, offers a more sympathetic view, emphasizing the external pressures John faced, such as the Black Death and economic collapse. However, Venette’s chronicle was less widely read than Froissart’s, so it had less impact on shaping the critical narrative.[75]
Portrayal by Early Modern Historians: Amplifying the Critique
The critical trend solidified in the early modern period, particularly withJules Michelet (1798–1874), a 19th-century French historian whoseHistoire de France (1833–1867) is a landmark in French historiography. Michelet, a romantic nationalist, viewed the Valois monarchy, including John II’s reign, through the lens of France’s struggle for national unity. He criticized John II for his "weakness" and "extravagance," particularly highlighting the Poitiers defeat and the Treaty of Brétigny as catastrophic for French sovereignty.[72] Michelet’s portrayal of John as a well-meaning but ineffectual ruler, overly reliant on favorites likeCharles de la Cerda, set a precedent for later historians. His vivid prose and emphasis on national decline made his work highly influential, and he is a likely candidate for initiating the modern trend of criticizing John II.
Michelet’s interpretation influenced a chain of historians who cited his work, either directly or indirectly, as they built the critical narrative around John II. Key figures include:
1.François Guizot (1787–1874): A prominent historian and statesman, Guizot’sHistory of France (1829–1830) drew on Michelet’s framework and Froissart’s chronicles. Guizot emphasized John II’s military failures and the economic devastation caused by the ransom payments, portraying the king as a symbol of feudal incompetence.[73]
2.Charles Petit-Dutaillis (1868–1947): In hisThe Feudal Monarchy in France and England (1933), Petit-Dutaillis cited Michelet and Guizot, focusing on John II’s inability to centralize royal authority amidst noble defections and English aggression. He described John’s reign as a low point in Valois legitimacy.[74]
3.Edouard Perroy (1901–1974): Perroy’sThe Hundred Years War (1945) built on Petit-Dutaillis and Michelet, explicitly citing their works. He criticized John II for his strategic blunders at Poitiers and his failure to manage noble factions, particularlyCharles II of Navarre.[52]
4.Jean Deviosse (1920–1992): InJean le Bon (1985), Deviosse offered a more nuanced view, acknowledging John’s courage and chivalric ideals but still framing his reign as a failure due to the Poitiers debacle and financial mismanagement. Deviosse cited Froissart, Michelet, and Perroy.[49]
5.Maurice Keen (1933–2012): InThe Pelican History of Medieval Europe (1969), Keen cited Perroy and Michelet, describing John II as a king overwhelmed by circumstances, with his capture at Poitiers symbolizing the collapse of French royal authority.[55]
Recent historians have begun to challenge the critical trend, arguing that John II’s reign must be understood within its medieval context.Françoise Autrand inCharles V: Le Sage (1994) contrasts John’s failures with his sonCharles V’s successes but acknowledges John’s efforts to maintainValois legitimacy amidst unprecedented crises. Autrand cites Deviosse andFroissart but emphasizes the structural challenges—such as the decentralizedfeudal system and the economic impact of theBlack Death—over personal failings.[48]D'Arcy Boulton highlights John II’s establishment of theOrder of the Star in 1351 as a bold attempt to strengthen royal authority and unify the French nobility, though he notes its limited success due to political fragmentation and military defeats.[35] Similarly,Georges Bordonove argues that John’s personal bravery, notably in battles such asPoitiers in 1356, and his commitment tochivalric ideals reflect his dedication to royal prestige and the reputation of the Valois. Bordonove further notes that, during his captivity inEngland, John upheld the dignity of the French crown through his steadfast adherence to honorable conduct despite political and personal adversity.[15]
On 19 February 1350, at the royalChâteau de Sainte-Gemme, John marriedJoanna I of Auvergne (d. 1361),Countess of Auvergne andBoulogne. Joanna was the widow ofPhilip of Burgundy, the deceased heir of that duchy, and the mother of the youngPhilip I, Duke of Burgundy (1344–61) who became John's stepson and ward. John and Joanna had three children, all of whom died shortly after birth:
^Favier, Jean,La Guerre de Cent Ans, Fayard, Paris, 1980, p. 140
^Papal Coronations in Avignon, Bernard Schimmelpfennig,Coronations: Medieval and Early Modern Monarchic Ritual, ed. János M. Bak, (University of California Press, 1990), pp. 191–192.
^Sumption, Jonathan,Trial by Battle: The Hundred Years War I, Faber & Faber, 1990, p. 436.
^Autrand, Françoise,Charles V, Fayard, Paris, 1994, p. 60
^Jones, Michael. "The last Capetians and early Valois Kings, 1314–1364", Michael Jones,The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 6, c. 1300 – c. 1415, (Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 391.
^Allmand, Christopher (1988).The Hundred Years War: England and France at War c.1300–c.1450. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 15.ISBN978-0521319232.
^Sumption, Jonathan (1999).The Hundred Years War, Volume II: Trial by Fire. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 110–112.ISBN978-0-8122-3527-2.
^Allmand, Christopher (1988).The Hundred Years War: England and France at War c.1300–c.1450. Cambridge University Press. pp. 74–75.ISBN978-0-521-31923-2.
^abcdBordonove, Georges (2014).Jean II: le Bon (1350-1364), Fils de Philippe VI: Les Rois Qui Ont Fait la France. Pygmalion.ISBN978-2-7564-1187-3.
^abSumption, Jonathan (1999).The Hundred Years War, Volume II: Trial by Fire. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 112–113.ISBN978-0-8122-3527-2.
^Perroy, Edouard (1965).The Hundred Years War. Capricorn Books. pp. 136–138.ISBN978-0-253-20111-9.
^Rogers, Clifford J. (2000).War Cruel and Sharp: English Strategy under Edward III, 1327–1360. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. p. 256.ISBN978-0851158044.
^Contamine, Philippe (1984).War in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Blackwell. p. 171.ISBN978-0631131427.
^Curry, Anne (2002).The Hundred Years War. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 45.ISBN978-0333924358.
^Sumption, Jonathan (1999).The Hundred Years War, Volume II: Trial by Fire. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 115–120.ISBN978-0-8122-3527-2.
^Sumption, Jonathan (1999).The Hundred Years War, Volume II: Trial by Fire. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 115–120.ISBN978-0-8122-3527-2.
^Henneman, John Bell (1971).Royal Taxation in Fourteenth-Century France: The Development of War Financing, 1322–1356. Princeton University Press. pp. 200–205.ISBN978-0-691-05188-8.
^Sumption, Jonathan (1999).The Hundred Years War, Volume II: Trial by Fire. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 171–185.ISBN978-0-8122-3527-2.
^abSumption, Jonathan (1999).The Hundred Years War, Volume II: Trial by Fire. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 171–185.ISBN978-0-8122-3527-2.
^Curry, Anne (2002).The Hundred Years War. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 46–48.ISBN978-0333924358.
^Rogers, Clifford J. (2000).War Cruel and Sharp: English Strategy under Edward III, 1327–1360. Boydell Press. pp. 290–295.ISBN978-0851158044.
^Allmand, Christopher (1988).The Hundred Years War: England and France at War c.1300–c.1450. Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–22.ISBN978-0-521-31923-2.
^Allmand, Christopher (1988).The Hundred Years War: England and France at War c.1300–c.1450. Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–22.ISBN978-0-521-31923-2.
^Sumption, Jonathan (1999).The Hundred Years War, Volume II: Trial by Fire. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 440–450.ISBN978-0-8122-3527-2.
^Perroy, Edouard (1965).The Hundred Years War. Capricorn Books. pp. 136–148.ISBN978-0-253-20111-9.
^Wagner, John A. (2006).Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. Greenwood Press. pp. 201–203.ISBN978-0-313-32736-0.
^Keen, Maurice (1984).Chivalry. Yale University Press. pp. 179–180.ISBN978-0-300-03150-8.
^abBoulton, D’A.J.D. (2000).The Knights of the Crown: The Monarchical Orders of Knighthood in Later Medieval Europe, 1325–1520. Boydell Press.ISBN978-0-85115-795-5.
^Contamine, Philippe (1984).War in the Middle Ages. Blackwell. pp. 136–137.ISBN978-0-631-13142-7.
^Autrand, Françoise (1994).Charles V : le Sage. Paris: Fayard. p. 909.ISBN2-213-02769-2.
^Borel d’Hauterive, André.Notice Historique de la Noblesse (Tome 2 ed.). p. 391.
^Roland Delachenal, ed. (1910).Grandes Chroniques de France. Vol. 6. Paris: Société de l’Histoire de France. pp. 245–247.
^Walsingham, Thomas (1987). G. M. A. Richmond (ed.).The St Albans Chronicle. Translated by John Taylor. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 312–315.ISBN978-0-19-822167-8.
^abcdPerroy, Edouard (1951).The Hundred Years War. Translated by W. B. Wells. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.ISBN978-0-413-28880-6.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
^Françoise Autrand, Charles V, Fayard 1994, p. 111
^abcdeKeen, Maurice (1969).The Pelican History of Medieval Europe. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. pp. 162–165.ISBN978-0-14-021085-9.
^abcSumption, Jonathan (1990).Trial by Battle: The Hundred Years War I. London: Faber & Faber. pp. 92–93.ISBN978-0-571-20095-5.
^Wagner, John A. (2006).Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. Greenwood Press.
^abcdSumption, Jonathan (1999).The Hundred Years War, Volume 2: Trial by Fire. University of Pennsylvania Press.ISBN978-0-8122-3527-2.
^Wood, Charles T. (1966).The French Apanages and the Capetian Monarchy, 1224–1328. Harvard University Press.
^abSchnerb, Bertrand (1999). "Chapter 2 onwards".L'État bourguignon (1363-1477) (in French). Paris: Perrin.Five days later, on December 28, the king had the Estates of the Duchy of Burgundy, that is, the representatives of the Church, the nobles, and the townspeople, assembled before him at Saint-Bénigne. These Estates, convened in principle to provide financial assistance to the new Duke, presented him with petitions, requests, and memoranda concerning the government of the Duchy. King John responded to their requests by granting a Grand Charter of Privileges to the Burgundians....This document, the full text of which has survived, precisely describes the circumstances of the accession of the Valois to Burgundy, the king's desire, as the new duke, to gain the sympathy of his Burgundian subjects, and the new law and institutions established on this occasion.
^Vaughan, Richard (2002). "Chapter 1".Philip the Bold: The Formation of the Burgundian State. Boydell Press.King John at once laid claim to and took possession of this important fief which, if it could have been incorporated into the royal domain, would have greatly increased the power and the income of the crown. But the local particularism of the inhabitants, coupled with King John's generous feelings towards his youngest son, made this impossible.
^Schnerb, Bertrand (1999). "Chapter 2 onwards".L'État bourguignon (1363-1477) (in French). Paris: Perrin.the duchy of Burgundy, the counties of Champagne, Brie, and Forez, as well as the seigneury of Beaujeu, the bailiwicks of Sens, Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier, Mâcon, and Lyonnais. From now on, it was thus the entire eastern part of the kingdom which was placed under the authority of the Count of Tancarville.
^Vaughan, Richard (2002).Philip the Bold: The Formation of the Burgundian State. Boydell Press.
^Poull, Georges (1994).La Maison souveraine et ducale de Bar. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.
^Parisse, Michel (2005).Histoire de la Lorraine. Rennes: Ouest-France.
^Sumption, Jonathan,Trial by Battle: The Hundred Years War I, Faber & Faber, 1990, p. 457–460.
^abGreen, David (2014).The Hundred Years War: A People's History. Yale University Press.
^Knecht, Robert (1 April 2007).The Valois: Kings of France 1328–1589. A&C Black.ISBN978-1-85285-522-2.
^abMichelet, Jules (1855–1867).Histoire de France. Vol. 4. Paris: Hachette. pp. 112–118.
^abGuizot, François (1873).History of France from the Earliest Times to 1848. Vol. 2. Translated by Robert Black. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Low, and Searle. pp. 89–94.ISBN978-0-19-822613-0.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
^abPetit-Dutaillis, Charles (1933).The Feudal Monarchy in France and England from the Tenth to the Thirteenth Century. Translated by E. D. Hunt. London: Routledge. pp. 256–260.ISBN978-1-136-20247-6.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
^abVenette, Jean de (1953). Richard A. Newhall (ed.).The Chronicle of Jean de Venette. Translated by Jean Birdsall. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 78–82.ISBN978-0-231-90854-2.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
^Joni M. Hand,Women, Manuscripts and Identity in Northern Europe, 1350–1550, (Ashgate Publishing, 2013), 12.
^abcdeMarguerite Keane,Material Culture and Queenship in 14th-century France: The Testament of Blanche of Navarre (1331–1398), (Brill, 2016), 17.
^Jean de Venette,The Chronicle of Jean de Venette, translator Jean Birdsall, editor Richard A. Newhall, (Columbia University Press, 1953), 312.
^Gallo, F. Alberto (1995).Music in the Castle: Troubadours, Books, and Orators in Italian Courts of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Centuries. University of Chicago Press. p. 54.
Froissart, Jean (1978).Chronicles. Translated by Geoffrey Brereton. London: Penguin Books.ISBN978-0-14-044200-7.
Michelet, Jules (1855–1867).Histoire de France. Vol. 4. Paris: Hachette. pp. 112–118.
Guizot, François (1873).History of France from the Earliest Times to 1848. Vol. 2. Translated by Robert Black. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Low, and Searle. pp. 89–94.ISBN978-0-19-822613-0.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
Petit-Dutaillis, Charles (1933).The Feudal Monarchy in France and England from the Tenth to the Thirteenth Century. Translated by E. D. Hunt. London: Routledge. pp. 256–260.ISBN978-1-136-20247-6.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
Perroy, Edouard (1951).The Hundred Years War. Translated by W. B. Wells. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. pp. 134–139.ISBN978-0-413-28880-6.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
Deviosse, Jean (1985).Jean le Bon. Paris: Fayard. pp. 220–225.ISBN978-2-213-01558-3.
Keen, Maurice (1969).The Pelican History of Medieval Europe. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. pp. 162–165.ISBN978-0-14-021085-9.
Venette, Jean de (1953). Richard A. Newhall (ed.).The Chronicle of Jean de Venette. Translated by Jean Birdsall. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 78–82.ISBN978-0-231-90854-2.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
Roland Delachenal, ed. (1910).Grandes Chroniques de France. Vol. 6. Paris: Société de l’Histoire de France. pp. 245–247.
Walsingham, Thomas (1987). G. M. A. Richmond (ed.).The St Albans Chronicle. Translated by John Taylor. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 312–315.ISBN978-0-19-822167-8.
Boulton, D’A.J.D. (2000).The Knights of the Crown: The Monarchical Orders of Knighthood in Later Medieval Europe, 1325–1520. Boydell Press.ISBN978-0-85115-795-5.
Bordonove, Georges.Jean II: le Bon (1350-1364), Fils de Philippe VI: Les Rois Qui Ont Fait la France. Pygmalion.ISBN978-2-7564-1187-3.
.svg)
.svg)
