On 30 September 1342, William de Bohun, Earl of Northampton, faced Charles of Blois near Morlaix in Brittany. The fighting belonged to the War of the Breton Succession, a struggle over a duchy that England and France were rapidly turning into another theatre of the Hundred Years’ War.
Morlaix deserves more attention than it usually receives. Prepared ground, dismounted men-at-arms and English archers helped a smaller army withstand a larger opponent. Yet the familiar description of an English victory needs qualification: Northampton’s army survived, but Morlaix itself remained beyond his grasp.
For me, that tension makes the battle particularly interesting. Winning the fighting and achieving the purpose of a campaign were two rather different accomplishments.
Battle of Morlaix at a Glance
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| Date | 30 September 1342 |
| Location | Near Lanmeur, north-east of Morlaix, Brittany |
| Conflict | War of the Breton Succession, within the Hundred Years’ War |
| Anglo-Montfortist commander | William de Bohun, Earl of Northampton |
| Franco-Blois commander | Charles of Blois |
| Result | Usually classified as an English tactical victory |
| Strategic limitation | Northampton did not capture Morlaix |
| Principal evidence | English chronicle accounts, with important differences between them |
Background: Why Were England and France Fighting in Brittany?
The death of Duke John III of Brittany in 1341 opened a disputed succession. John of Montfort claimed the duchy, while Joan of Penthièvre advanced a rival claim through her husband, Charles of Blois.
Edward III supported the Montfortist cause. Philip VI of France backed Charles, his nephew. Brittany’s ports and position made the conflict attractive to both crowns, though the inhabitants had rather less reason to welcome their interest.
Northampton’s expedition reached Brittany in August 1342 and subsequently besieged Morlaix, a Blois stronghold. Charles assembled a relief army. The siege was about to become a field battle.
Forces
The armies’ exact strengths are unknown. Figures should be presented as estimates, rather than a settled count of the men who fought.
| Army | Published estimates | Main qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Anglo-Montfortist | Approximately 3,000–5,000 under Northampton in some reconstructions | This includes Breton allies and may include troops left to contain Morlaix’s garrison |
| Franco-Blois | Approximately 10,000–15,000 in some reconstructions | Other interpretations use smaller totals; the number of Breton levies is especially uncertain |
The safest conclusion is that Northampton faced a substantially larger army. A neat ratio risks concealing how uneven the evidence is.
Leaders and Troop Composition
| Leader or contingent | Role | Troop composition |
|---|---|---|
| William de Bohun, Earl of Northampton | Commanded the Anglo-Montfortist army | English men-at-arms, longbowmen and Breton allies |
| Charles of Blois | Led the force attempting to relieve Morlaix | French and Breton men-at-arms, infantry and mercenary troops |
| Geoffrey de Charny | Named in the fighting and captured | Associated with the attacking men-at-arms |
| Breton supporters on both sides | Supplied local manpower and knowledge | Equipment and military experience varied considerably |
The armies were not two uniform national forces.
- Men-at-arms included knights and other well-equipped professional or aristocratic soldiers.
- English archers supplied concentrated missile fire.
- Breton contingents fought for competing dynastic causes.
- Mercenary infantry appear in accounts of Charles’s army, although their identification and battlefield role require caution.
Arms and Armour
No surviving inventory tells us precisely what each contingent carried at Morlaix. The following is a reconstruction from equipment appropriate to the period.
| Troop type | Likely weapons | Typical protection |
|---|---|---|
| English longbowmen | Longbows, arrows, knives and assorted sidearms | Padded clothing; helmets and additional armour according to means |
| Dismounted men-at-arms | Spears or lances, swords, axes and maces | Mail, padded garments, coats of plates and developing plate limb defences |
| Mounted men-at-arms | Lances, swords and other close-combat weapons | Similar transitional armour, with considerable variation |
| Breton infantry | Spears, shields and assorted hand weapons | Anything from ordinary clothing to padded or mail protection |
| Crossbowmen, where present | Crossbows, bolts and sidearms | Variable helmets and body armour |
The important visual distinction is transitional armour. A battlefield of 1342 should not resemble a parade of complete fifteenth-century plate harnesses. Mail remained prominent, supplemented by plates protecting vulnerable areas. The Royal Armouries’ account of the Hundred Years’ War explains this broader development.
Sword types appropriate to the period include:
- Arming swords: straight, double-edged, one-handed weapons used alongside shields.
- Oakeshott Type XII: a useful modern classification for fullered, tapering medieval blades.
- Oakeshott Type XIV: generally shorter, broad blades tapering towards a pronounced point.
- Oakeshott Types XIIIa and XVIa: larger swords with longer grips, representing plausible contemporary alternatives.
These are period-appropriate possibilities, not excavated Morlaix identifications. Nor did England and France possess neatly separate national sword patterns.
It is also best to avoid describing arrows as guaranteed armour-piercing weapons. Their effects depended on range, impact angle, arrowhead and the quality of the protection struck.
How the Battle Unfolded
Northampton moved out to meet the relief army and selected ground near woodland. The chronicles describe concealed pits and ditches, an obstacle intended to disrupt an approaching enemy.
Charles’s attacks failed to overwhelm the dismounted defenders. Geoffrey le Baker emphasises prolonged, determined fighting on both sides, rather than an effortless English success. The accounts differ over the sequence of attacks, so an exact reconstruction remains uncertain.
Modern reconstructions place archers alongside the men-at-arms and describe mounted attackers becoming disordered at the concealed ditch. Northampton subsequently withdrew into the woodland. His army was contained there before escaping and returning towards Morlaix. The duration and details of this episode are less secure than simplified battle diagrams suggest.
That withdrawal matters. A defensive position could defeat an assault without leaving its occupants strong enough to pursue the enemy. Northampton still had to preserve his army.
Contemporary and Near-Contemporary Quotes
The surviving chroniclers wrote from particular political perspectives. Their words are evidence, but they are not neutral battlefield transcripts.
Henry Knighton, describing the preparations, records that the defenders:
“dug pits and ditches around them and covered them over with hay and grass.”
This English wording appears in Kelly DeVries’s translation of the passage. Knighton wrote later in the fourteenth century and should not be presented as an eyewitness.
Geoffrey le Baker writes:
“Pugnatum est fortiter ex utraque parte”
Translated here: “There was fierce fighting on both sides.”
The phrase is a useful corrective to accounts in which Charles’s soldiers appear incapable of anything beyond falling into holes. Le Baker was partisan, but he acknowledged their determination.
Archaeology: What Has Actually Been Found?
No securely identified excavation report was found in the sources checked for this article confirming Morlaix battle pits, arrowheads or horse armour. Those claims should therefore be removed from the existing page unless supporting documentation can be supplied.
The distinction matters:
- A medieval ditch needs dating and context before it becomes a battlefield defence.
- An arrowhead alone cannot establish the battle, its owner or the circumstances of its loss.
- A traditional battlefield location is not the same as an excavated and securely identified site.
Morlaix remains principally a battle reconstructed through written evidence. Archaeology may eventually refine that picture, but it should not be recruited to confirm a story before the finds have been demonstrated.
Battle Timeline
| Date or stage | Event |
|---|---|
| 1341 | John III’s death triggers the succession dispute |
| August 1342 | Northampton’s expedition reaches Brittany |
| September 1342 | The Anglo-Montfortist army besieges Morlaix |
| Before the battle | Charles advances to relieve the town; Northampton prepares a defensive position |
| 30 September 1342 | Repeated attacks fail to destroy Northampton’s army |
| Later fighting and aftermath | The English withdraw into woodland, then escape |
| Campaign outcome | Morlaix remains untaken |
The chronology is clearer than the hour-by-hour fighting. Assigning precise times to every charge would give the evidence a confidence it does not possess.
Outcome and Legacy
Morlaix demonstrated the value of combining obstacles, missile troops and disciplined soldiers fighting on foot. Its tactical significance belongs within a wider development already visible in Britain and later associated with Crécy and Poitiers.
It should not, however, be treated as a perfect rehearsal for either battle. Terrain, army composition and command decisions differed.
Northampton preserved his force and inflicted a serious reverse on Charles. He did not secure the town he had set out to capture. That is the most useful judgement of Morlaix: a successful defence with an incomplete strategic return.
Medieval victory could be an awkward thing to explain to the people paying for it.
