Joan of Arc

Joan of Arc

Joan of Arc Brief summary

From about age 13, Joan would later claim, she began having visions of St. Michael (captain-general of the armies of Heaven), St. Catherine, and St. Margaret (both early Christian martyrs). Joan believed the saints told her to drive the English away from Orleans and out of the country, and to take Charles VII to Reims to be crowned. In 1429, after repeated visions, Joan went to the commander of the French army at Vancoulers to explain her mission. He was doubtful at first, but finally sent her — dressed in soldier's clothes — to Charles. Joan soon convinced Charles that God had sent her to save France. She reportedly did this by revealing to him secrets that he believed were known only to himself and to God.

Charles gave Joan a suit of white armor. Legend states that her sword came from the church of Saint Catherine of Fierbois. Even though she had never been there, she told her attendants the sword could be found behind the alter, and it was. Joan then led a group of French soldiers against the English at Orleans. She was wounded, but fought on. Her courage inspired her soldiers to drive the English from the city. Because of this victory, Joan became known as the Maid of Orleans. After a few more battles in which her army cleared the English from the surrounding Loire valley, Joan brought Charles to Reims for his coronation on July 17, 1429.

Click to expand...

I’ve wondered about the real history behind this woman for many years. How did a delusional girl manage to convince anyone of importance to listen to her? More interesting is this occurred back in feudal days where a mere peasant and especially some young girl would be ignored by the nobility. My own thoughts on this girl, is that she somehow gathered a popular following of peasants which then drew some attention from the French nobility. Obviously, they thought she might be usable as a pawn, that’s my best guess. Either that or people actually believed her, which is possible considering the times, but hard for me to believe.

I'm curious if anyone is aware of good sources that provide accurate and objective information on this historical oddity. A good book on the subject (free from religious bias) would interesting.

I haven't read any books on her. I saw the recent-ish movie about her, and remember the part when she was introduced to the King. The King decided to test her by dressing a member of his court as himself, and putting him on the throne; while the King went to conceal himself in the crowd. Joan, who had never seen the King before, entered, went up to the throne and knew that this man was not the King. She was then asked to identify him, and she walked over to him in the corner.
I've no idea if that is what actually happened or not.
However, you can bet the house on the fact that for a teenage peasant girl to be allowed to lead the national army during a time of crisis, she must have been mightily impressive and convincing. I would imagine she was tested on various occasions in this way.

I have read an account of her by Hume, he said she was no young girl, but a horse parking attendant who was in love with the King and was about 20ish when she started having "visions." In that era she would be a middle aged woman.

In my personal experience I have found confidence and bravado can do amazing things with people. She must have had a very powerful personality, and been in the right place at the right time.

I too would like to read a well done book on her. I have a book written by Mark Twain, but it looked too novelized so I never started it.

Susan

A true defender of England - she saved us from union with France.
Albeit temporarily...

As the story goes
When she was burned at the stake, the crowd demanded to see her stipped bare and see her "privy parts".
Wait a second
No one in that crowd believed in evolution, they all were forced to go to church, none of them had ever played a video game or watched TV. Things that make you go HUUUUM.

plumjam said:

I haven't read any books on her. I saw the recent-ish movie about her, and remember the part when she was introduced to the King. The King decided to test her by dressing a member of his court as himself, and putting him on the throne; while the King went to conceal himself in the crowd. Joan, who had never seen the King before, entered, went up to the throne and knew that this man was not the King. She was then asked to identify him, and she walked over to him in the corner.
I've no idea if that is what actually happened or not.
However, you can bet the house on the fact that for a teenage peasant girl to be allowed to lead the national army during a time of crisis, she must have been mightily impressive and convincing. I would imagine she was tested on various occasions in this way.

Click to expand...

That's I what a mean about myths. Stories like that make Joan of Arc out to be more of a myth then a real historical figure. Yet history does record the person existed and played a major role in French history at the time. I would just like the truth about this person.

sgf8 said:

I have read an account of her by Hume, he said she was no young girl, but a horse parking attendant who was in love with the King and was about 20ish when she started having "visions." In that era she would be a middle aged woman.

In my personal experience I have found confidence and bravado can do amazing things with people. She must have had a very powerful personality, and been in the right place at the right time.

I too would like to read a well done book on her. I have a book written by Mark Twain, but it looked too novelized so I never started it.

Susan

Click to expand...

Mark Twain's book seems to be the best I can find so far as well. A book written by French skeptic or atheist would be ideal, well an objective historian.It seems I might actually have to do some real research (away from the internet) to get information I'm looking for. I can't find my old college history book but I believe similar information is presented.

sgf8 said:

I have read an account of her by Hume, he said she was no young girl, but a horse parking attendant who was in love with the King and was about 20ish when she started having "visions." In that era she would be a middle aged woman.

In my personal experience I have found confidence and bravado can do amazing things with people. She must have had a very powerful personality, and been in the right place at the right time.

I too would like to read a well done book on her. I have a book written by Mark Twain, but it looked too novelized so I never started it.

Susan

Click to expand...

That's an interesting bit of information, I can't find that written anywhere else though. Yes, certainly though the woman must of had some charisma and must been convincing. I just wonder about alter motives of the nobility.
She would have been seen as a pawn I'd imagine.

I'm reading this now:

http://www.amazon.com/Joan-Arc-Story-R%C3%A9gine-Pernoud/dp/0312227302/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214949666&sr=8-1

This is a very respected history of Joan of Arc and I see that it was used as a reference in the Wikipedia article about her.

I have no idea whether the author is a skeptic or not. That shouldn't really matter. A historian wouldn't make any judgements about whether the voices Joan heard were really God speaking to her or not. This author does what she should, which is to quote Joan's actual words based on Joan's own testimony at her nullification trial and by witnesses who were with her during the 3 year period between her arrival at Vaucouleurs and her execution.

I've never heard what sgf8 wrote about her age. I've never seen a reliable source state that. Everything I've read says that she was about 16 when she first met the dauphin and convinced him that she was sent by God to raise the seige of Orleans, which, of course, she did. Joan gave her own age as 19 at her trial. She was dead before she was 20.

"I just wonder about alter motives of the nobility."

I assume you mean ulterior motives. Like what? The french were being beaten badly by the English and were desperate. Orleans had been under siege for 6 months and was the last French stronghold in the north. The English needed it to control the Loire. If they took Orleans, there would have been no major town or fortification left to prevent them from taking the rest of France.

well and women had more power than we think in those times. A woman could be inspired by God and get away with a bit.

I'm not sure what her point was, what made her kind of even THINK of this. A good unbiased book would be interesting.

kittynh said:

well and women had more power than we think in those times. A woman could be inspired by God and get away with a bit.

I'm not sure what her point was, what made her kind of even THINK of this. A good unbiased book would be interesting.

Click to expand...

In reality, women had almost no power at all, which is one of the things that make Joan of Arc's story so interesting. Even women of noble birth had very little say in their own lives. They had no input in who they could marry unless they were very lucky and had extremely progressive fathers. This was not usually the case and women were married off, often to much older men they had never met, to forge political alliances. Married women were dominated by their husbands. Most had almost no say in how their lands were governed, even if they brought a substantial amount of wealth and property to a marriage. Women could be beaten by their husbands for any infraction, they could be forced into convents by their families, etc.

Joan's point was clear. As she stated from the beginning, her goal was to lead the French army so that they could throw the English out of France. This would allow the dauphin, Charles to be crowned as King. She accomplished both.

The Mark Twain book looked good at first, but then I went to "Library Thing" (this is where my library is, you can click on the link to my books at the bottom of this post) and looked at the reviews others were giving the book. It looked too novelized and people were gushing over it (which is a bad sign to me).

According to David Hume (1711-1776) "The Maid of Orleans"

"In the village of Domremi, near Vaucouleurs, on the borders of Lorraine, there lived a country girl of twenty-seven years of age, called Joan d'Arc, who was servant in a small inn, and who in that station had been accustomed to tend the horses of the guests, to ride them without a saddle to the watering-place, and to perform other offices, which, in well-frequented inns, commonly fall to the share of the men-servants. This girl was of an irreproachable ife, and had not hitherto been remarked for any singularity; whether that she had met with no occasion to excite her genius, or that the unskilful eyes of those who conversed with her, had not been able to discern her uncommon merit. It is easy to imagine, that the present situation of France was an interesting object even to persons of the lowest rank, and would become the frequent subject of converstion...had turned thither the public eye; and Joan, inflamed by the general sentiment, was seized with a wild desire of bringing relief to her sovereign in his present distress. ...[she] mistook the impulses of passion for heavenly inspiration; and she fancied that she saw viions, and heard voices..."

"It is pretended, that Joan, immediately on her admission, knew the king, though she had never seen his face before...(Hume goes on to explain the story already reported)...This is certain, that all these miraculous stories were spread abroad in order to captivate the vulgar. the more the kind and his ministers were determined to give into the illusion, the more scruples they pretended."

"...Her dexterity in managing her steed, though acquired in her former occupaion, was reguarded as fresh proof of her mission...her former occupaion was ever denied: she was no longer the servant of an inn: she was converted into a shepherdess, an employment much more agreeable to the imagination. To render her still more interesting near ten years were subtracted from her age; and all the sentiments of love and chivalry were thus united to those of enthusiasm, in order to inflame the fond fancy of the people with prepossessions in her favor."

Then Hume talks about her first victory and then he ends with that.

I have no idea where Hume is getting his sources, and he is clearly a skeptic. Much of his writing deals with critical thinking of miracles. He also did a lot of history writing.

Susan

Hume was primarily a philosopher and was certainly a skeptic. I have no idea where he got his information, but I wouldn't put much stock in it. I've never heard anyone else make these claims. You should find out what his sources were before you take this at all seriously. I very much doubt that he was correct.

It was also written far too long ago to be taken seriously unless what he wrote is confirmed by more modern historians. During a college course I was doing research for a paper on Beethoven. I was discussing my sources with the professor. My main source was going to be a biography written in the 1950's (This was in the late 80's). The professor told me that the source was far too old. He said that there had been quite a bit of new and more accurate research done since that book was written and that I needed to find a newer source.

I would agree that Hume is very outdated, and we don't know his sources. The problem is that we are seeing very little in the way of scholarly research for this women. Do we have birth records for Joan, how will we know the fact from the stories. May people believe they are justified in changing history to justify the end result. My mind is open, I can believe that Hume also embellished him story as well. Do we actually know how old Joan was?

Susan

Solus said:

Joan of Arc

...

I'm curious if anyone is aware of good sources that provide accurate and objective information on this historical oddity. A good book on the subject (free from religious bias) would interesting.

Click to expand...

More books (i.e. several thousands) have been written about Joan
than about anyone else from that period. There is no shortage of
available material if you care to look for it. This would seem as good
a place as any to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc_bibliography

Just for interest, this little drawing (dated 1429) is the only surviving
image of Joan/Jeanne/Jehanne made during her lifetime:

sgf8 said:

Do we actually know how old Joan was?

Click to expand...

Joan herself did not know for sure how old she was. I'd imagine
that was rather a common occurrence in those days.

sgf8 said:

I would agree that Hume is very outdated, and we don't know his sources. The problem is that we are seeing very little in the way of scholarly research for this women. Do we have birth records for Joan, how will we know the fact from the stories. May people believe they are justified in changing history to justify the end result. My mind is open, I can believe that Hume also embellished him story as well. Do we actually know how old Joan was?

Susan

Click to expand...

TX50 is right. There is quite a lot on Joan. If you read one of her modern biographies, it should answer a lot of questions for you. Check out the link I put in my earlier post.

What is your concern? That her biographers might believe that she actually spoke with God? If that's what you're worried about, have no fear. No historian worth the price of a book would ever take that position in a history book. It seems to me from the Hume text that you quoted that he is somehow trying to paint her as a liar so that he can discredit her as a fraud. I certainly don't believe that she or anyone else has actually talked to God, but that has nothing to do with how incredible her story was. She may have been schizophrenic or just so devout that she imagined she was speaking to God. Whatever the case may be, we will never know, but that doesn't diminish how exceptional what she accomplished was.

You are looking for information about her as if she were a modern person. There are disagreements among historians about the number of actual children born to certain medieval Kings! If good records weren't kept for European monarchs, what kind of records do you think would be kept for farmers?

I don't completely agree that she did not know how old she was. There is some dispute about the date, but I believe that she herself said that she was 19 at the time of her nullification trial. People in medieval times generally knew how old they were unless they were orphans.

TX50 - There is an issue with your link. I'd like to see it though. I was under the impression that there were no surviving portraits of her (or to be more accurate, none that she ever actually posed for).

What is your concern? That her biographers might believe that she actually spoke with God? If that's what you're worried about, have no fear. No historian worth the price of a book would ever take that position in a history book. It seems to me from the Hume text that you quoted that he is somehow trying to paint her as a liar so that he can discredit her as a fraud. I certainly don't believe that she or anyone else has actually talked to God, but that has nothing to do with how incredible her story was. She may have been schizophrenic or just so devout that she imagined she was speaking to God. Whatever the case may be, we will never know, but that doesn't diminish how exceptional what she accomplished was.

Click to expand...

I don't have a concern. I just wasn't aware that there were scholarly books on her. I will add these to my reading list. Just to be clear I don't have much of a problem with people talking to God or to flowers in their garden, I am concerned when they claim they are talking back to them.

As I said before, Hume was a skeptic and may have had his reasons why he wanted to discredit Joan. What I said in the beginning was that I knew very little of Joan, only what Hume had written about her. Then I quoted what I had read.

Susan

OK. Please let us know which you read and post a review.

TX50 - I've seen that drawing. It was made during her lifetime, but not by someone who ever met her if my memory serves.

Vic Vega said:

I'm reading this now:

http://www.amazon.com/Joan-Arc-Story-R%C3%A9gine-Pernoud/dp/0312227302/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214949666&sr=8-1

This is a very respected history of Joan of Arc and I see that it was used as a reference in the Wikipedia article about her.

I have no idea whether the author is a skeptic or not. That shouldn't really matter. A historian wouldn't make any judgements about whether the voices Joan heard were really God speaking to her or not. This author does what she should, which is to quote Joan's actual words based on Joan's own testimony at her nullification trial and by witnesses who were with her during the 3 year period between her arrival at Vaucouleurs and her execution.

I've never heard what sgf8 wrote about her age. I've never seen a reliable source state that. Everything I've read says that she was about 16 when she first met the dauphin and convinced him that she was sent by God to raise the seige of Orleans, which, of course, she did. Joan gave her own age as 19 at her trial. She was dead before she was 20.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the book recommendation, that one looks more like what I'm looking for.

"I just wonder about alter motives of the nobility."

I assume you mean ulterior motives. Like what? The french were being beaten badly by the English and were desperate. Orleans had been under siege for 6 months and was the last French stronghold in the north. The English needed it to control the Loire. If they took Orleans, there would have been no major town or fortification left to prevent them from taking the rest of France.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can be a terrible speller when I rush. What I mean by ulterior is that the French nobility did not believe her stories about visions from god. No leader would believe her to be some messenger sent from heaven to save France. The nobility saw her as a useful pawn that could be used to rally the country against the English. I have to be vague about nobility because I am ignorant of the French court apart from the king Charles VII. I could easily be wrong though perhaps her story was truly believed. I welcome information to contrary and plan to check out a book or two on the subject.

I suspect she was a bit simple and was used as a pawn by smarter people on both sides of the war. Then the propaganda mill got started and the stories grew like Topsy.

Who was Topsy, anyway?

Solus said:

What I mean by ulterior is that the French nobility did not believe her stories about visions from god. No leader would believe her to be some messenger sent from heaven to save France. The nobility saw her as a useful pawn that could be used to rally the country against the English. I have to be vague about nobility because I am ignorant of the French court apart from the king Charles VII. I could easily be wrong though perhaps her story was truly believed. I welcome information to contrary and plan to check out a book or two on the subject.

Click to expand...

I think you are way off here.

People in Medieval Europe were extremely superstitious and also very religious. This held true for the nobility as much as for common people. Before Charles let Joan lead his army, he almost certainly would have had to be convinced that she was telling the truth.

After she successfully raised the siege of Orleans, could he have had any doubt that she was truly sent by god?

Soapy Sam said:

I suspect she was a bit simple

Click to expand...

Your suspicions are incorrect.

Based on her own words and descriptions of her from people who actually knew her, it is clear that she was not simple at all.

Source?

Soapy Sam said:

I suspect she was a bit simple and was used as a pawn by smarter people on both sides of the war. Then the propaganda mill got started and the stories grew like Topsy.

Who was Topsy, anyway?

Click to expand...

Slave girl in H B Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin". She had no knowledge of her parents and said she thought she "just growed" leading to the phrase " just growed like Topsy" or in later or politer circles "grew like Topsy".

Thanks for that.
Never read it.
I was a Brer Rabbit man.

I loved parts of UTC, can't believe I missed that Topsy reference. I'll have to remember that and use it sometime.

Thanks,

Susan

I love the Brer Rabbit stories - it's especially fun when you know the context and how they trace back to the African Spider stories, and related..

And, happy I could help Susan!!

sgf8 said:

I too would like to read a well done book on her. I have a book written by Mark Twain, but it looked too novelized so I never started it.

Click to expand...

sgf8 said:

The Mark Twain book looked good at first, but then I went to "Library Thing" (this is where my library is, you can click on the link to my books at the bottom of this post) and looked at the reviews others were giving the book. It looked too novelized and people were gushing over it (which is a bad sign to me).

Click to expand...

Susan -- don't discount the Mark Twain version just because others liked it or it's novelized. From what I read somewhere along the line (during my study of Twain when I was in college IIRC), he used as much research as was available to him at the time. It was as approachable a version of the story as I've ever read, and as likely. Yes, it's "novelized," but it's put through Twain's filters of human nature, which are as accurate as just about any I've ever looked through...

Solus said:

She would have been seen as a pawn I'd imagine.

Click to expand...

Each side believed she was a pawn of the other side, and perhaps they used her that way, but I believe she believed in herself, and that belief led her an incredible amount of credibility.

I have read rather a lot about her, and in the 1970's a French author actually questioned if she was burned at all, or if a substitution occurred. As t the merit of his arguments i have no idea, as they are fairly technical and I have never seen any other author taken them up, but as I recall the claims involved payments and mentions of her after her death. As at least one "false Maid" existed, the waters are muddy to say the least! Anyone know anything about this claim?

Vic / CJ
I admit I know nothing of Joan beyond the general story, which must have accrued layers of legend around any factual core by now, especially given her place as a propaganda icon to both sides in the conflict.
If I'm dead wrong to think her simple, so be it, I've been wrong before, but someone who reports visions of saints and involves herself in a conflict which was bound to chew her up and spit her out sounds at least fearfully naive and mentally unstable.
Either she really had hallucinations or she pretended to- neither of which makes her sound like a paragon of rationality.

Suppose I took an extreme view and speculated that she never existed at all, but that the story was just a story. (I'm not , but let's start from there).
What physical evidence exists to prove this wrong?
What contemporary records?
How reliable are these?

Compared to (say) Robin Hood?

Vic Vega said:

OK. Please let us know which you read and post a review.

TX50 - I've seen that drawing. It was made during her lifetime, but not by someone who ever met her if my memory serves.

Click to expand...

I don't know anything about its accuracy as a portrait. It appears in the
margin of a record of the local council of Paris for May 1429. I'd hesitate to
call it a portrait, anyway. For what it's worth, here's a link to an artist's
reconstruction based on the girl in that little drawing.

The painting, by Angus McBride, appears in "French Armies of the
Hundred Years War" by Osprey Publishing.

This looks like a pretty good place to start on primary sources...
http://primary-sources-series.joan-of-arc-studies.org/
Hope helps!

cj x

cj.23 said:

I have read rather a lot about her, and in the 1970's a French author actually questioned if she was burned at all, or if a substitution occurred.

Click to expand...

A substitution..?

Boy, talk about your crappy jobs. I thought "whipping boy" was bad.

A quick Google search reveals that there are in the libraries of England and France, several transcripts of Joan's 15th century trials. These documents are generally considered genuine and reliable by scholars. It seems that there is substantial evidence that she was a real historical figure.

cj.23 said:

I have read rather a lot about her, and in the 1970's a French author actually questioned if she was burned at all, or if a substitution occurred. As t the merit of his arguments i have no idea, as they are fairly technical and I have never seen any other author taken them up, but as I recall the claims involved payments and mentions of her after her death. As at least one "false Maid" existed, the waters are muddy to say the least! Anyone know anything about this claim?

Click to expand...

That corroborates the story I heard, that she was taken into the 1980s- via time travelling phone booth- where she lived out her life as an aerobics instructor in California.

I've just been reading the precis of several of the Amazon.com J d'A biographies, including the one Vic Vega is reading.

While they don't obviously quote them, these certainly imply that there exist a significant number of documents written at the time , which historians take seriously as a pattern .

I have to admit, mediaeval history is not a particular interest of mine, so I doubt I'll read them, but I accept Vic's correction that Joan seems to have been no simpleton.
That she may, howeever, have been mentally ill seems to remain a serious probability. She was clearly a very strange person.

I find it quite amusing that while British school education usually mentions Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt, - all English successes of the earlier phase of the Hundred Years' War, there is rarely much mention of the latter part. Castillon is never mentioned, or the fact that Henry VI was as daft as George III ("British" Royalty has a proud tradition of loopiness, proudly upheld by our future king).

Ayway- I'm sure Joan was a plant from MI6,who wanted to shake off the whole French Connection so they could get on with the Wars of the Roses.

Soapy Sam said:

I've just been reading the precis of several of the Amazon.com J d'A biographies, including the one Vic Vega is reading.

While they don't obviously quote them, these certainly imply that there exist a significant number of documents written at the time , which historians take seriously as a pattern .

I have to admit, mediaeval history is not a particular interest of mine, so I doubt I'll read them, but I accept Vic's correction that Joan seems to have been no simpleton.
That she may, howeever, have been mentally ill seems to remain a serious probability. She was clearly a very strange person.

I find it quite amusing that while British school education usually mentions Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt, - all English successes of the earlier phase of the Hundred Years' War, there is rarely much mention of the latter part. Castillon is never mentioned, or the fact that Henry VI was as daft as George III ("British" Royalty has a proud tradition of loopiness, proudly upheld by our future king).

Ayway- I'm sure Joan was a plant from MI6,who wanted to shake off the whole French Connection so they could get on with the Wars of the Roses.

Click to expand...

Soapy -

I've been on vacation for a couple of weeks so I'm just getting back to this thread. I'm glad you took the time to read the material. Joan's case is very interesting for a lot of reasons. I'm glad to see that you agree with me that she was no simpleton.

As for what caused her to have these visions (mental illness, religious furvor, etc.), who knows? That will never be determined, however, she obviously believed what she was saying.

I'm an American, so I have no perspective on how English history is taught in English schools. Interesting comments, and yes, Henry VI was mad as a hatter.

Vic Vega said:

In reality, women had almost no power at all, which is one of the things that make Joan of Arc's story so interesting. Even women of noble birth had very little say in their own lives. They had no input in who they could marry unless they were very lucky and had extremely progressive fathers. This was not usually the case and women were married off, often to much older men they had never met, to forge political alliances. Married women were dominated by their husbands. Most had almost no say in how their lands were governed, even if they brought a substantial amount of wealth and property to a marriage. Women could be beaten by their husbands for any infraction, they could be forced into convents by their families, etc.

Click to expand...

This is something of a myth.

While some of your points are indeed true, it was not treatment specific to women, but applied equally to both sexes. Sons had as much say as daughters in who they married, and younger brothers were routinely forced into priesthood by their families also.

Joan of Arc was far from the first woman to go into battle in the Middle Ages. In fact noble women were expected to be able to perform all of the duties their husband performed, and there are ample cases of noble women levvying forces for the king in place of husbands who were absent or dead.

I don't know why the OP finds it so hard to believe that people of medieval France would have believed Joan of Arc was inspired by God. Religion was at the heart of every aspect of daily life. Medieval people were far, far closer to God than modern Christians are. "He" permeated every moment of their existence.

(Not that I believe in God, but they did)

gumboot said:

This is something of a myth.

While some of your points are indeed true, it was not treatment specific to women, but applied equally to both sexes. Sons had as much say as daughters in who they married, and younger brothers were routinely forced into priesthood by their families also.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was responsing to a comment about women specifically.

Perhaps the mistake is the equate mental illness with being "simple"?

If she had hallucinations, it seems at least possible she was schizophrenic, and schizophrenics are often highly intelligent.

Good Joan of Arc Books

I set up a page containing reviews of different books and movies about Joan of Arc's life that might help you find what you are looking for. Just go to the Book, Movie, Music page at MaidOfHeaven.com and look through them. The biography by Mark Twain that someone already mentioned is very good and easy to read and the whole book is available online at MaidOfHeaven.com.