The Battle of Patay was fought on 18 June 1429, following the French victory at Orléans and the rapid French recovery of territory along the Loire. An English relief force under Sir John Fastolf had joined forces with John Talbot and Thomas Scales, but the English were caught before they could properly prepare their defensive position. The resulting French victory was one of the most serious English defeats of the Hundred Years War.
“God sends us the Deer to manifest his will.”
The Battle of Patay, 1429
After the Victory at Orléans
The French victory at Orléans in May 1429 transformed the situation along the Loire. French forces moved rapidly against the English positions at Jargeau, Meung-sur-Loire and Beaugency, while the English attempted to concentrate sufficient forces to halt the advance.
The French did not immediately move towards Paris. Instead, they remained in the Loire Valley while the English garrisons were being reduced. The capture of Jargeau was followed by the recovery of Meung-sur-Loire and Beaugency. The English commanders were increasingly concerned that the French advance would cut their communications and threaten the remaining English positions in the region.
The English Retreat
Sir John Fastolf was bringing a relief force from the direction of Paris. John Talbot and Thomas Scales, having withdrawn from the area around Orléans, joined the movement of the English forces towards the Loire.
At Meung-sur-Loire the English briefly attempted to secure the bridge and guardhouse. They with Drew when news arrived of the approach of the larger French army. The English then moved towards the area around Patay and Janville.
The French sources describe the English as moving both on foot and on horseback. Perceval de Cagny records that Talbot and Fastolf had come to Meung to collect the garrison before moving towards Janville. French scouts followed their movements, while the French army prepared to pursue them.
The English Position at Patay
The English moved into the countryside near Patay and attempted to prepare for an engagement. Their archers were placed in a position where woodland, hedges and the surrounding terrain could help protect them and allow them to make use of their bows against an advancing enemy.
The English were not expecting the French to arrive so quickly. The traditional accounts emphasise the lack of urgency with which the English prepared their position. The French, meanwhile, sent mounted scouts ahead to locate the English army.
Jean Chartier describes the English taking up a position at the edge of a wood near a village. His account says that the French scouts and vanguard, including La Hire and Poton de Xaintrailles, found them there and immediately attacked. Perceval de Cagny similarly describes the English taking up a position in a field and being attacked by the French vanguard before they had properly established themselves.
The Stag Reveals the English
The best-known explanation for the discovery of the English comes from the French chronicles. Monstrelet describes the French scouts putting up a stag as they approached Patay. The animal ran towards the English army, which was assembling nearby. The English shouted when they saw it, and the noise revealed their position to the French scouts.
The story quickly acquired a providential interpretation. The stag became a symbol of the unexpected discovery of the English and of the belief that divine providence had favoured the French. It is the origin of the traditional description of the deer as having been sent by God to reveal the English army.
The important military point is that the French scouts discovered the English before the English were ready for battle. The French commanders could therefore advance rapidly instead of allowing the English archers time to establish the defensive position for which they were trained.
The French Attack
Once the English position had been discovered, the French commanders ordered a rapid advance. Joan of Arc was with the army, alongside the Duke of Alençon, the Constable of France and experienced commanders including La Hire and Poton de Xaintrailles.
Monstrelet describes the French army advancing in battle order after its scouts had located the English. The French vanguard moved quickly towards the English position. The English attempted to reorganise, and some commanders proposed remaining among the hedges and dismounting to prevent an attack from the rear. Others considered the open ground a better position, and the English moved away from their initial defensive ground.
By the time the French attacked, the English had not completed their preparations. The French vanguard charged before the English could establish the defensive measures normally used by English archers. Monstrelet records that many of the English had not yet been able to plant their defensive stakes.
The result was a rapid collapse of the English position. The French attack overwhelmed the English before their archers could exert the influence that had been so important in earlier English victories.
The Defeat of the English
The English army was routed. Jean Chartier records between two and three thousand English dead and a large number of prisoners, including John Talbot, Thomas Scales and Walter Hungerford. Perceval de Cagny gives a similar figure of two to three thousand English killed and between four and five hundred prisoners.
Monstrelet gives a lower figure of about 1,800 dead and between 100 and 120 prisoners. He also records the capture of Talbot, Scales, Hungerford and Thomas Rempston. The different figures demonstrate the difficulty of establishing precise casualties, but the sources agree on the scale of the defeat and the capture of several senior English commanders.
Unlike the battles in which English archers had been given time to prepare their positions, Patay developed too quickly for the English defensive system to have its usual effect. The French cavalry and men-at-arms were able to attack an incompletely prepared English force, producing a decisive victory.
Fastolf’s Escape
Sir John Fastolf escaped from the battlefield with a small number of men. The circumstances of his withdrawal became one of the most controversial aspects of the battle.
Wavrin, who was with Fastolf’s relief force and is identified by the editor of Perceval de Cagny’s chronicle as an eyewitness within the English ranks, provides a significantly different perspective from the later accusation of cowardice. His account places responsibility for the disaster more heavily upon Talbot’s decision to engage. Fastolf survived the destruction of the English force and withdrew only after the position had become untenable.
Monstrelet presents a much more damaging account. He says that Fastolf fled without striking a blow and records that Fastolf had advised the English commanders to withdraw into their fortified positions rather than fight until reinforcements arrived. Talbot opposed this proposal.
Fastolf’s Reputation
The accusations surrounding Fastolf did not end with the battle. Monstrelet records that the Duke of Bedford bitterly reproached him and deprived him of the Order of the Garter. The same account says that Fastolf’s earlier arguments against fighting were later considered reasonable and that he eventually regained the Garter. It also records the quarrel that developed between Fastolf and Talbot after Talbot returned from captivity.
The episode became a lasting part of Fastolf’s reputation. The surviving evidence does not provide a single uncontested account of his conduct. Wavrin’s eyewitness account is important because it presents his withdrawal within a narrative that places greater responsibility on Talbot and describes Fastolf’s actions in the context of a collapsing battle. The later accusation of cowardice, however, became influential in English historical tradition and helped shape the reputation attached to Fastolf for centuries afterwards.
The dispute is also significant because the English chroniclers do not preserve a detailed battlefield narrative comparable to the French accounts. The surviving English chronicles mainly record the defeat, the dispersal of the commanders and the capture of Talbot, Scales and Rempston. The dispute over Fastolf therefore has to be reconstructed from the more detailed French and Burgundian narratives, especially Wavrin and Monstrelet, together with later evidence concerning Fastolf’s career and reputation.
The Significance of Patay
Patay was a major French victory. The English had suffered a defeat in the open field only a few weeks after the fall of Orléans, and several experienced commanders were now prisoners.
The battle also had a wider significance for the reputation of English military power. At Patay, the English archers were unable to reproduce the defensive success associated with battles such as Agincourt because they had been discovered and attacked before their position was properly prepared.
The victory encouraged the French advance through the Loire Valley and strengthened the position of Charles VII. The French army returned to Orléans with its prisoners, where the victory was celebrated and Joan of Arc’s reputation was further enhanced. The campaign then moved towards the next objective: taking Charles VII to his coronation at Reims.
Patay therefore belonged to a sequence of French victories that transformed the military situation in 1429. The defeat did not end English power in France, but it marked a sharp reversal of the position that had existed when the English controlled Orléans and dominated much of the Loire Valley. It was one of the battles and sieges that shaped the course of the Hundred Years War.
Sources and Evidence
| Source | Key point |
|---|---|
| Jean de Wavrin, Recueil des croniques et anchiennes istories de la Grant Bretaigne | Wavrin was with Fastolf’s relief force and is identified by the editor of Perceval de Cagny’s chronicle as an eyewitness within the English ranks. His account is important for the course of the battle and for the later dispute over Fastolf’s conduct. View source |
| Enguerrand de Monstrelet, Chronique | Detailed French/Burgundian narrative describing the French reconnaissance, the stag that revealed the English position, the rapid French attack, the English casualties and prisoners, and the subsequent accusations against Fastolf. View source |
| Jean Chartier, Chronique de Charles VII | French royal narrative describing the English movement from Meung towards Janville, the discovery of the English near Patay, the attack by the French vanguard and the subsequent defeat. Chartier gives between two and three thousand English dead and records the capture of Talbot, Scales and Hungerford. View source |
| Journal du siège d’Orléans | French account of the siege and the campaign that preceded the French advance through the Loire Valley. It provides context for the events leading to Patay rather than a detailed account of the battle itself. View source |
| Perceval de Cagny, Chronique | French/Angevin narrative describing the English movement from Meung and Beaugency towards Janville, the French pursuit and the battle near Patay. It records two to three thousand English dead and four to five hundred prisoners. Its editorial notes identify Wavrin as an eyewitness in the English ranks. View source |
| Gregory’s Chronicle | Brief English/London record of the defeat. It records the deaths and captures of senior English commanders, including Talbot, Scales and Thomas Rempston, but provides little battlefield detail. View source |
| Chronicles of London | English/London chronicle tradition recording the dispersal of the English commanders and their subsequent capture. The Patay material is brief and lacks the detailed battlefield narrative found in the French chronicles. View source |
| Brut Continuation D | English chronicle evidence recording the dispersal of the English commanders after the French victories around Orléans and their subsequent capture. View source |
| John Benet’s Chronicle | Brief English chronicle account recording the capture or death of the English commanders and the abandonment of the campaign. It provides confirmation of the defeat but little information about the fighting itself. View source |
The French and Burgundian narratives broadly agree on the essential sequence of events: the English moved through the Loire Valley, were discovered near Patay before they had properly prepared their position, and were rapidly defeated. They also agree on the capture of senior commanders and the escape of Fastolf. The stag story appears prominently in Monstrelet’s account and became part of the providential interpretation of the victory.
The differences are more significant when the details are examined. The chronicles give different casualty figures, while their descriptions of the English deployment and the precise circumstances of Fastolf’s withdrawal vary. Wavrin’s position with the English makes his account especially important, while Monstrelet provides the most damaging version of Fastolf’s conduct. The English chronicles are much briefer, generally recording the defeat and the capture of commanders without attempting to reconstruct the battlefield. Patay therefore has to be understood through comparison between accounts rather than through a single continuous narrative.
Further Reading
- Hugh Collins, “Sir John Fastolf, John Lord Talbot and the Dispute over Patay: Ambition and Chivalry in the Fifteenth Century” , in Diana Dunn (ed.), War and Society in Medieval and Early Modern Britain , Liverpool University Press (2000), pp. 114–139.
- Anne Curry, “Representing War and Conquest, 1415–1429: The Evidence of College of Arms Manuscript M9” , in Joanna Bellis and Laura Slater (eds.), Representing War and Violence, 1250–1600 , Boydell & Brewer (2016), pp. 139–158.
- Olivier Bouzy, “French and English on the battlefield” , Connaissance de Jeanne d’Arc 23 (1994), pp. 25–36.
- Michael K. Jones, “The Battle of Verneuil (17 August 1424): Towards a History of Courage” , War in History 9:3 (2002), pp. 259–286.