The Battle of Sluys was a major naval battle of the Hundred Years War, fought on 24 June 1340 off the Flemish coast. King Edward III’s English fleet defeated a French fleet positioned to block his passage into the River Zwin. The victory enabled Edward to land in the Low Countries and continue his campaign against France, although it did not end French naval activity in the Channel.
The Battle of Sluys, 1340
The English and French Fleets
French documents suggest that the French force comprised approximately 202 vessels: six galleys, seven royal warships, 22 oared barges and 167 merchant vessels. The fleet was reportedly accompanied by a large body of men, although medieval estimates of the numbers involved vary considerably. One account gives a total of 19,000 men, but such figures should be treated cautiously.
The fleet was commanded by Hugues Quiéret, Admiral of France, and Nicolas Béhuchet, a royal financial administrator who held command responsibilities. The fleet included Genoese galleys under the command of the experienced naval commander Pietro Barbavera. Galleys were fast-moving vessels well suited to raiding, while the larger ships and requisitioned merchant vessels could carry substantial numbers of soldiers and supplies. The French force included crossbowmen and men-at-arms.
The English fleet consisted mainly of requisitioned merchant ships. King Edward III also had royal warships, including his flagship, Thomas of Winchelsea. As with the French fleet, most vessels were suited to carrying troops or supplies. Estimates place the English fleet at around 120–150 vessels, although the surviving accounts do not provide a definitive total. The force Edward carried to Sluys included men-at-arms and longbowmen; figures of approximately 1,300 men-at-arms and 1,000 longbowmen have been cited, but should not be treated as a complete muster of everyone aboard.
The English fleet was part of the wider naval effort of Edward III’s reign. For further context, see Naval Warfare.
The Battle of Sluys
The French fleet was positioned to prevent Edward’s passage into the Zwin. Chroniclers describe the French ships as being chained or otherwise secured together, forming a defensive barrier. The Chronicle of London reports that the English appeared to retreat, prompting the French to loosen their chains and pursue. The English then turned back and attacked.
The English fleet manoeuvred before attacking. The fighting involved archers and crossbowmen, artillery, and hand-to-hand combat as troops attempted to board opposing vessels. English longbowmen could deliver sustained volleys, while the effectiveness of both bows and crossbows depended on range, conditions, and the skill of their crews. The claim that longbows fired at a fixed multiple of the rate of crossbows should be treated as an estimate rather than a universal rule.
The French ships were closely packed, restricting their ability to manoeuvre once the fighting began. English ships closed with the French and engaged in boarding actions. Men-at-arms fought on the decks while archers continued to loose arrows. The French fleet suffered heavy losses, and the English captured or destroyed a large proportion of its vessels.
The battle ended in a decisive English victory. The surviving accounts differ over the number of ships that escaped and the scale of the losses. Some report that the Genoese galleys and a group of other vessels managed to get away.
Losses at Sluys
Naval combat could be particularly destructive because crews and soldiers had limited opportunities to escape from a sinking or captured vessel. However, accounts of Sluys also describe prisoners being taken and rescued, so it would be misleading to suggest that no quarter was given in every encounter.
Estimates of French deaths vary widely, and the large figures given in medieval chronicles should be treated with caution. Nicolas Béhuchet was captured and hanged, reportedly from the mast of his own ship. Hugues Quiéret was killed during the battle or in its immediate aftermath; accounts differ over the circumstances.
English losses were considerably lower, although precise figures are uncertain. Estimates of several hundred English dead appear in later accounts, but should not be treated as a definitive total.
The Aftermath of Sluys
The defeat at Sluys severely damaged French naval capacity, but did not permanently destroy the French ability to wage war at sea. King Philip VI retained the resources to rebuild and continue operations. French attacks on English shipping and coastal settlements continued after the battle.
Later accounts report that English merchant ships were seized in the weeks following Sluys and that their crews were killed. Such claims require careful attribution to their sources rather than being treated as independently established facts.
The loss of ships and experienced sailors nevertheless affected French maritime activity. Sluys helped secure the passage of Edward’s army to the Continent, enabling the campaign that culminated in the siege of Tournai. The victory did not, however, end French naval raids or give England an unchallenged command of the Channel for the remainder of the war.
Contemporary Accounts of the Battle of Sluys
The surviving narratives provide valuable evidence for how the Battle of Sluys was reported and remembered. Kelly DeVries’s comparison of English, French and Low Countries accounts highlights the different explanations writers offered for the English victory and French defeat, including divine favour, leadership, Flemish involvement and archery. The chronicles should therefore be read both as accounts of events and as interpretations shaped by their authors’ perspectives (DeVries, 1995).
Giovanni Villani
The Florentine chronicler Giovanni Villani presents the battle through a perspective shaped by reports from the Low Countries. His account describes Flemish advice that Edward III should delay the attack until reinforcements arrived, but says that Edward chose to engage the French fleet. Villani’s narrative is useful for the reported role of the Flemings and the decisions attributed to Edward, although its figures and reported speeches should not be treated as a precise naval return (DeVries, 1995).
That year, 1340, on the day of St. John the Baptist, the 24th of June, the good King Edward III, King of England, arrived in Flanders at the port of Zwin with 120 armed ships, with 2000 noblemen-at-arms and an infinite number of common people, including many English archers; and he found the fleet of the King of France, which was 200 ships with 30 armed galleys amd armed barges, of which the admiral was Barbanero di Portoveneri, a great pirate, who had done great harm to the English and Gascons and Flemings along their coasts, and seized the isle of Cadzant, which was opposite Zwin, and pillaged and burned and killed over 300 Flemings. The people of Bruges, learning of the arrival of the King of England, sent their ambassadors to Sluys begging him for God’s sake and for his love of them that not give battle against the armada of the King of France – which was as large again as his fleet, and moreover included the Genoese galleys – and that he wait for two days and rest his men, for at that moment they were arming a hundred ships of good men to aid him, and he would have a certain victory. The valiant king did not wish to wait, but had his men-at-arms and sergeants arm themselves.
Giovanni Villani, contemporary
Jean Froissart
Jean Froissart’s chronicles provide one of the best-known descriptions of Sluys. They offer vivid details of archery, boarding actions and the capture and recapture of ships, but were written retrospectively. DeVries’s comparison of different versions of Froissart’s Chroniques shows that his presentation and explanations of the victory developed across redactions. Froissart should therefore be read as a narrative source whose account evolved over time, rather than as a single eyewitness transcript (DeVries, 1995).
Fierce fighting broke out on every side, archers and crossbowmen shooting arrows and bolts at each other pell-mell, and men-at-arms struggling and striking in hand-to-hand combat. In order to come to closer quarters, they had great iron grappling-hooks fixed to chains, and these they hurled into each others’ ships to draw them together and hold them fast while the men engaged. Many deadly blows were struck and gallant deeds performed, ships and men were battered, captured and recaptured.
Froissart’s Chronicles
A second passage describes the recapture of the Christopher, the taking and rescuing of prisoners, and the intensity of the fighting. Froissart also gives a duration for the battle that differs from the account in the Chronicle of London.
The battle then began very fiercely; archers and cross-bow-men shot with all their might at each other, and the men-at-arms engaged hand to hand. In order to be more successful, they had large grapnels, and iron hooks with chains, which they flung from ship to ship, to moor them to each other. There were many valiant deeds performed, many prisoners made, and many rescues. The Christopher, which led the van, was recaptured by the English, and all in her taken or killed. There were then great shouts and cries, and the English manned her again with archers and sent her to fight against the Genoese.
This battle was very murderous and horrible. Combats at sea are more destructive and obstinate than upon the land, for it is not possible to retreat or flee—everyone must abide his fortune and exert his prowess and valor. Sir Hugh Quiriel and his companions were bold and determined men, had done much mischief to the English at sea and destroyed many of their ships; this combat, therefore, lasted from early in the morning until noon, and the English were hard pressed, for their enemies were four to one, and the greater part men who had been used to the sea.
Froissart’s Chronicles
Chronicle of London
The Chronicle of London gives a detailed account of the English fleet’s approach and the fighting. Its narrative presents the victory as divinely supported and praises Edward’s leadership, while describing the English use of a feigned retreat and the French ships’ chains. These details are evidence for the chronicler’s interpretation of the battle, but the account’s fleet totals and description of the battle’s duration differ substantially from other narratives (DeVries, 1995).
On Friday morning, our King saw his enemies on the sea, and said “because Our Lord Jesus Christ was put to death on a Friday, we do not wish to spill any blood on this day.” At that time the wind had been in the east, before the King took to the sea, for a whole fortnight; but by the grace of the Almighty the wind immediately turned to come from the west. Thus by the grace of God the King and his fleet had the wind and weather as they wished them. And so they sailed forward up until the break of day at sunrise, and he saw his enemies so formidably prepared that it was too horrible to look at, for the ships of France were so strongly bound together with large chains, equipped with castles, wooden breastworks, and barriers. But nevertheless Sire Edward our King said to those who were around him in the English fleet: “Good lords and my brothers, do not at all be dismayed, but be entirely of good comfort; and he who for me today gives battle will be fighting in pursuit of a just cause, and will have the blessing of God Almighty, and each shall keep whatever he may gain.” And as soon as out King finished giving this speech, everyone was eager to seek to avenge him against his enemies. And then our sailors drew the sails to half-mast, and drew up their anchors as if they were goinf to flee; and when the navy of France saw this they unfastened their great chains in order to pursue us. And immediately our ships turned back against them, and the melee began with trumpets, nakers, viols, tabours, and many other musical instruments. And then our King, with 300 ships, vigourously attacked the French with 500 large ships and galleys; and eagerly all our men put forth great diligence in order to give battle to the French. Our archers and crossbowmen began to fire so thickly, like hail falling in winter, and our artillerymen shot so fiercly, that the French were unable to look out or to hold their heads up. And while this fight lasted, our Englishmen entered their galleys with great force and fought hand to hand with the French, and cast them out of their ships and galleys. And always our King, in the cog Thomas of Winchealsea, inspired them by fighting strongly with his enemies. And at the hour of mid-morning a ship of London, belonging to William Hansard, came to them; it did much good work in the battle. For the battle was so fierce and so dire, that as the attack lasted from noon all day and all night, and the next day up until the first hour, and when the battle was won, no Frenchman remained alive except for Spaudeville, who fled with 24 ships and galleys.
Conflicting Accounts of the Battle
The surviving accounts differ in their fleet totals, descriptions of the fighting and explanations for the English victory. Giovanni Villani describes Edward III arriving with 120 armed ships and facing a French fleet of approximately 200 vessels, while the Chronicle of London gives much larger figures of 300 English ships attacking 500 French ships and galleys. These figures should not be treated as directly comparable naval returns: the chroniclers may have counted different categories of vessels, and their totals may also reflect the conventions of medieval narrative.
The accounts also differ in their explanations of how the victory was achieved. The Chronicle of London presents the English as feigning retreat to induce the French to loosen their chains, while Froissart describes fierce fighting, ships being captured and recaptured, prisoners being taken and rescued, and the recapture of the Christopher. Froissart’s account gives a duration of fighting from early morning until noon, whereas the Chronicle of London describes combat continuing through the day and night into the following morning. DeVries’s comparison also highlights differences in the importance writers assign to leadership, divine favour, Flemish involvement and archery (DeVries, 1995).
These differences are a reminder that the chronicles are narrative accounts, not consistent operational records. Their testimony is valuable for understanding how the battle was remembered and described, but precise fleet totals, the duration of the fighting, tactical details and casualty figures should be treated with caution. Where the accounts disagree, the disagreement itself is part of the evidence.
Further Reading
- Kelly DeVries, “God, Leadership, Flemings and Archery: Contemporary Perspectives of Victory and Defeat at the Battle of Sluys 1340”, American Neptune, vol. 55 (1995).
- The Effects of the Battle of Sluys upon the Administration of English Naval Impressment, 1340–1343
- Tactics, Strategy and the Battle of Sluys
- The Organisation of Impressed Fleets
Images
Bataille de l’Écluse (1340). The image is identified as public domain on Wikimedia Commons. The Wikimedia source record is here. The source image is available through the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Miniature from Froissart’s Chronicles. This public-domain image is sourced from Wikimedia Commons. It is a modern crop of a photograph of the original artwork. Click the image for the source file and full details.
Miniature from Froissart’s Chronicles. This public-domain image is sourced from Wikimedia Commons. It is a modern crop of a photograph of the original artwork. Click the image for the source file and full details.
British Library manuscript page. Photograph of the page in Froissart’s Chronicles covering the Battle of Sluys. Sourced from the British Library. The British Library retains copyright and permits non-commercial use subject to its terms and appropriate credit. Click the image for the source file and full details.
Pingback: King Philip VI of France - The Hundred Years War