Thirty Against Thirty

In the early spring of 1351, in the rolling heart of Brittany, sixty men would commit a deed so wrapped in glory, myth, and blood that it would echo down through centuries. But to understand why thirty men loyal to the English king clashed with thirty men loyal to the French crown beneath a gnarled oak tree, you have to dig a little deeper than chivalric poetry. The Combat of the Thirty was not merely a romantic folly of knights playing at war; it was the very real result of a brutal civil conflict known as the Breton War of Succession—itself a storm cloud spun off from the greater tempest of the Hundred Years’ War.

Listen to the Article (aapx 7:51)

Brittany, the rugged and often independently-minded duchy on the northwest edge of France, was plunged into chaos in 1341 when Duke John III died childless. The prize—his duchy—became the center of a bitter struggle. On one side stood Jean de Montfort, stepbrother to the late Duke, backed by the English crown. On the other, Charles of Blois, nephew to the French king, backed by the French. Both had plausible claims, and both had armies. Thus, the local feud morphed into yet another proxy fight between Edward III of England and Philip VI of France.

The Breton conflict was a dirty little war, if we are being honest. Far from the glorious charges and trumpet blasts of grander battles, it was marked by raiding, sieges, extortion, and plunder. Starving peasants bore the brunt of it. Fortified castles became islands of power, often manned by mercenaries and adventurers—the rougher edges of chivalric society. This was the backdrop when Jean de Beaumanoir, captain of the Blois-aligned garrison at Josselin, and Robert Bemborough (or Brandebourch, or Brambro—no one ever could quite agree on his name), the English-allied commander at Ploërmel, agreed to settle their differences not with a siege or ambush, but with an arranged fight.

This idea was not without precedent. In an age drunk on tales of King Arthur, Roland, and the Song of Songs, honor and personal valor were currency almost as valuable as gold. Knights who had not been paid in months, who scraped by on ransom and loot, longed to reclaim their self-image as noble warriors. What better way than a pre-arranged duel to the death, surrounded by cheering ladies and the promise of immortality in song and chronicle?

And so it was set. Each side would bring thirty knights and squires. They would fight under the oak tree midway between the two castles. No man could flee, and prisoners would be taken only if surrender was the alternative to death. The agreement was clear—at least in spirit. Contemporary sources disagree on whether all participants were to fight on foot or if mounted combat was allowed. That detail, while minor on paper, would become a point of controversy.

On March 26, 1351, the two sides met. The English arrived first, dismounted, and waited in formation. The French came later, also dismounting, and soon the ground was filled with clanking armor, nervous horses, and the uneasy silence before steel is drawn. Froissart tells us they heard Mass before battle. The crowd of spectators was told to stay back. And then, at a given signal, it began.

The battle was savage. This was not jousting. This was not for show. Spears shattered, maces rose and fell, swords rang against mail and bone. One of the French fell early, but neither side broke. According to the chronicler Jean le Bel, they fought with such fury that they were forced to stop and rest from sheer exhaustion. Armor was adjusted. Wine was drunk. Wounds were bandaged. And then, like tired gladiators in a muddy ring, they went at it again.

The French nearly faltered. The English grouped into a tight formation, fighting with discipline. But then came a moment no one could have predicted. Guillaume de Montauban, a squire on the French side, mounted his horse. His comrades thought he was fleeing. Beaumanoir cursed him for a coward. But Montauban turned and charged the English line, breaking it apart. Seven English were cut down in the stampede. The mounted charge proved decisive, though some later chroniclers questioned its fairness based on the original agreement.

Their captain, Bemborough, was already dead, his skull cracked open by axe or lance. The rest, wounded and weary, surrendered. The battle was over.

Nine English lay dead. Two or possibly more French had perished. All others bore wounds they would carry for life. The surviving English were treated well, ransomed and released. Honor, it seemed, had been satisfied.

But what did it all mean? Strategically, very little. The Breton War of Succession dragged on for another thirteen years until Charles of Blois was killed at the Battle of Auray in 1364, and the Montfort line secured the duchy once and for all.

Yet the Combat of the Thirty became legend. It was immortalized in chronicles, poems, tapestries, and monuments. A tapestry was hung in Charles V’s court. A commemorative stone marked the battlefield. Napoleon wanted to honor it with a towering obelisk. Louis XVIII actually did.

Why such reverence for what was, essentially, a public brawl with fancy armor? Because people need stories. They need examples of courage, nobility, and human dignity, even when wrapped in the blood-soaked cloth of war. In an age where villages were razed and peasants starved, the idea that thirty men could fight and die for honor—and not for loot or land—was a soothing, noble lie. And sometimes, a lie is powerful enough to become truth.

Each chronicler framed the battle through their own lens. Le Bel gave a sober account. Froissart added pageantry. A Breton poet painted the French as saintly protectors of the peasantry and the English as butchers. A Scottish bard added courtly romance and ladies in attendance. Each version added layers of myth, like varnish on a weathered shield.

Even in modern memory, the Combat of the Thirty occupies a curious space. It has been cast as a pure example of chivalry—knights fighting for ideals in a cynical world. And yes, there is something deeply human in that. Most people, no matter their background, understand what it means to take a stand, to fight with honor, to not run when the odds turn grim.

But there is another lesson here, too. The battle is a reminder that even in the muddiest of wars, people will reach for meaning. They will turn brutal realities into sacred tales. They will look at an oak-stained battlefield and see not the blood and the groans, but the glory.

The men who fought at Halfway Oak did not change the course of a war. But they did carve their names into the stone of memory, not because they won, but because they fought with the eyes of the world upon them, and they did not flinch. That, in any age, is something worth remembering.