eplied, speaking of being in God’s grace, "If I am not, may God bring me to it; if I am, may God keep me in it." The brilliance of this answer stunned the court.78 At still another point, she refused to answer a question because, she said, she had already answered the same question a week before. The scribe instantly said that she was mistaken. Joan challenged him to search back through the pages of the trial record. The scribe did so -- and Joan was proven right. With a spunk that was incredible under the circumstances, she jokingly told the scribe that if he made such a mistake again, she would pull his ears.79
Joan’s brilliance at her trial does not have a direct bearing on her skill as a military commander. Still, the ability to think quickly and creatively under conditions of horrific stress is essential in a successful leader of forces in battle. Joan’s conduct at her trial proves that she had gray matter in abundance to quickly master the rudiments of the art of war with no prior training
D’Alençon’s testimony (supported by Jean Chartier’s chronicle) that Joan was "magnificent" in placing the artillery may be misleading to people with no military experience.80 Magnificence in "placing" the artillery is not the same thing as magnificence in operating the artillery. A modern-day general does not need to know the complex "switchology" of operating the ballistic computer of a state-of-the-art tank. The specially trained crewmen of the tank are paid to have that skill. The general only needs to know the capabilities and limitations of that tank in doing damage to the enemy as he moves and places that tank, like a chess piece, on the chessboard of the battlefield. Likewise, Joan did not need to learn the technical minutiae of how to mix gunpowder for her artillery. Rather, she quickly had to grasp how the big guns should be positioned on the battlefield to do the most damage to the enemy -- for example, by shooting at the corners of square castle towers and at the center of round castle towers.81 Joan had the innate intellect to rapidly acquire the moves of a battlefield chess master.
Joan’s ability to forcefully articulate what had to be done in the crisis of war was one of her great leadership attributes. Her stated conviction that God was guiding her had a hard-edged practicality to it that she expressed in a powerful way. She understood perfectly that God’s guidance was not to be confused with God’s doing the work. Before the Dauphin Charles gave his final approval for Joan to place herself at the head of the army, he had her questioned by a panel of learned clerics in Poitiers to ascertain whether she was, as she claimed, the virtuous instrument of God’s will or a deceitful force of evil. Seguin Seguin was a professor of theology who was on the panel at Poitiers. Years later, he gave his testimony at the retrial. He stated that one of the examining clerics at Poitiers had said to Joan that if God wanted to deliver the people of France from their troubles, there was no need of soldiers. Joan replied "In God’s name, the soldiers will fight and God will give them the victory." This answer pleased the assembled clerics.82 D’Alençon testified that he had had his doubts about the haste with which Joan ordered the assault on Jargeau. She gently reproved him with the words "Do not have doubts.... Act, and God will act."83 Joan’s understanding that God’s guidance had to be coupled with human deeds provided fodder for her cutting wit. D’Alençon described one of the many times when the army leadership was divided over whether or not to attack immediately. Urging the bolder course as always, Joan "said that if she were not sure that God was conducting their campaign, she would rather keep her sheep than expose herself to dangers like these."84 Joan’s ability to forcefully express the view that God was on the side of the French but that the French had to earn God’s help by their own exertion was yet one more aspect of her character that enabled her to pull the army along behind her.
The informal and ad hoc "committee" nature of