Talk:Battle of Baugé

Can we get a map of this battle?Cameron Nedland 20:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read that Arthur III de Richemont (future constable of France) also claimed the kill (Duke Clarence)Vitoldus44 22:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Few points
I had always understood that it was the Earl of Buchan who personally despatched the Duke of Clarence with his mace. Furthermore, no mention of the Earl of Wigtown (Victon- in French documents) co-leader of the Scots force in France at the time, and one of great importance: Buchan although holding Scots royal authority, the majority of his men were loyal primarily to Wigtown. I am also sure that Buchan was Constable by the time of this battle, therefore have tagged it awaiting sourced material. Brendandh 03:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Sumption's excellent history of the 100 yrs war (Vol 4 Ch XVII) has a useful account of the battle. He mentions that it was already dusk on 21 March when the battle started: that of Clarence's 1500 men at arms, 1054 perished in the battle: that it was on the following day, Easter Sunday, that some of the remaining men, led by Clarence's bastard son, stumbled across the then almost deserted battlefield to find Clarence's body being loaded onto a cart. There's no mention of an Easter truce, and the account suggests that neither side was expecting to fight that day (the English crossed the bridge at Baugé to find about 120 Scottish archers there, some of whom were playing football). Sumption doesn't mention any individual as being solely responsible for Clarence's death so it may simply have been death in the terrible melée that also took the lives of John lord Roos, Sir Gilbert Umfraville, and Sir John Grey. Sumption mentions only four leaders in the Dauphin's forces at the battle: Buchan, Wigton (Archibald Douglas), Gilbert de Lafeyette, and the Routier La Hire. Sumption says that Buchan was appointed Constable by the Dauphin at the subsequent celebratory banquet at Tours: for his efforts Lafeyette was made a Marshal at the same time.Thomas Peardew (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted the external link
Deleted the external link as the original domain had expred and it was being squatted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.156.151.41 (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancy in the numbers
In the intro and everywhere else, the English army comprises 10,000 men; in the first paragraph of the battle, it is down to 1,500... There wouldn't be anything glorious for an army of 6,000 Scots to beat an English army of "less than 1,500 men", would it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.196.50.189 (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this article has multiple problems. No citations for one thing. -- Asteuartw (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Scottish chroniclers based the numbers in the English army on contemporary estimates. However as the payroll records still exist for the English and Scottish armies, more accurate figure can be calculated. Although Clarence's army was around 4000 strong most of them were foraging and pillaging the countryside when Clarence heard about the disposition of the Franco-Scots army. He attacked with just the men he had available in his camp at the time (about 1500) despite his lieutenants advising caution. His impatience was rewarded by his demise. Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)