A historian exonerated the Black Prince for a massacre that took place more than 600 years ago after discovering it was actually committed by vengeful French soldiers.
Edward of Woodstock’s reputation was tarnished by the account of a French chronicler who said he ordered the massacre of 3,000 innocent people in the French city of Limoges during the Hundred Years’ War between England and France.
The prince, Edward III’s eldest son and heir, has been known as The Black Prince for the massacre since the 16th century and remains maligned in some circles in France to this day.
However, evidence emerged in 2017 that the prince, who was ruler of Aquitaine in south-western France, did not order the massacre during the sack of Limoges on September 19, 1370.
In fact, it was the French forces who murdered 3,000 of their countrymen for opening the gates of Limoges to let the English in.
The intriguing findings can be found in a biography of the Prince by military historian Michael Jones, who says he wants to “remove an unjustified stain on the Prince’s reputation”.
A provocative account of the sack of Limoges by French chronicler Jean Froissart described the “indiscriminate” killing of men, women and children who had thrown themselves before the prince begging for mercy, but whose pleas were ignored.
He wrote: “The English broke through the main gate and began to murder the inhabitants indiscriminately – as they had been ordered to do.
“It was a terrible thing. Men, women, and children fell on their knees before the prince, begging for mercy, but he was so overcome with anger and an all-consuming desire for revenge that he listened to no one.
“All were killed by the sword wherever they were found.
“There was not a heart so hard in Limoges that day, none who had an ounce of compassion, who was not deeply affected by the events that took place before him.
“Over 3,000 citizens were executed that day.”
However, Mr Jones has examined archives in Limoges and Paris and uncovered compelling new evidence that casts doubt on Froissart’s version of events.
The discovery of a letter written by the prince three days after the city was captured contains no mention of a mass murder of residents.
In addition, the account of a local chronicler has come to light, who witnessed how a group of citizens went to the main gate, raised the banner of France and England in a prearranged signal and opened it.
Large numbers of people in Limoges supported the prince who had ruled them for the past 10 years and wanted nothing to do with the city’s treacherous bishop, Jean de Cros, who orchestrated the French recapture of Limoges the previous month.
The bishop spread the rumor that the prince had died of a sudden illness in order to persuade his fellow clergymen to absorb the French forces of John the Duke of Berry (brother of Charles V of France).
Crucially, Mr. Jones unearthed documents relating to a legal dispute between two Limoges merchants that took place in the Paris Parlement (court) on July 10, 1404, showing that the enraged French garrison killed the inhabitants who flocked to the city , when English troops admitted them in.
The testimony concerned the suitability of the rival applicants to hold royal office, and the testimony related to the applicant’s father, Jacques Bayard, who, with a group of other poor people, left the Prince’s soldiers to Limoges.
His father “carried the banner of the English to the main gate, where he was captured and beheaded by the captain of the (French) garrison”.
The garrison then fired on the houses around them and retreated towards the Bishop’s Palace.
After the sack of Limoges, the prince struck a conciliatory tone which Mr Jones said is completely at odds with someone who allegedly ordered the massacre of 3,000 people.
The prince explained: “As a result of the betrayal of their bishop, the clergy and the inhabitants of the city (in Limoges) suffered heavy losses of their bodies and possessions and endured much suffering.
“We do not want them to be punished further as accomplices in this crime when the bishop was to blame and they had nothing to do with it.
“We therefore declare them pardoned and exempt from all charges of rebellion, treason and forfeiture.”
Edward of Woodstock was England’s pre-eminent military leader during the first phase of the Hundred Years’ War, which lasted from 1337 to 1453.
In 1346, aged just 16, he won his spurs in Crecy, where the French nobility were being crushed by English longbowmen.
Ten years later, he led the vastly outnumbered English to victory at the Battle of Poitiers, which forced the captured French King John II to bow to the terms of a treaty that marked the culmination of English dominance in that conflict.
As lord of Aquitaine, he ruled over large areas of south-west France and held court in Bordeaux. He died on June 8, 1376 after suffering from dysentery.
Mr Jones, 62, from South London, said: “Edward is one of our great heroes who has inspired those around him to fight and won phenomenal military victories.
“His reputation was tarnished by Froissart’s account of the sack of Limoges, which I’ve always been suspicious of because it seemed atypical.
“The prince was a tough warrior, but a very pious man.
“The more I looked at Froissart’s account, the more wrong it was.
“My gut feeling, followed by archival research, painted a very different story of what happened.
‘Froissart appears never to have visited Limoges and his account was almost certainly imaginative.
“The prince had decided on a policy of clemency towards the towns which had transferred their allegiance to the French, most of Limoges had remained loyal to him and still clung to him, and the rest had been tricked into sending the troops the Duke of Berry’s deception.
“The townspeople, who were on good terms with the prince, were furious to find they had been deceived about his death and let the English in.
“Froissart’s love of a good story led him to invent passages of his story – just to invent things.
“His colorful portrayal of the sack of Limoges has lingered in our imaginations for too long.
“It is time to remove this unjustified stain on Edward’s reputation and restore one of our great heroes to his rightful place.”