fame of Geoffrey’s triumph over the count of Blois availed to fix in popular memory the true meaning of the name. While the English “Place of Battle” at Senlac has long forgotten its dedication to S. Martin, its namesake in Touraine has forgotten both its battles and become “St.-Martin-le-Beau.” [427] _Gesta Amb. Domin._ (_ibid._), p. 168. [428] R. Glaber, l. v. c. 2 (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p. 60); copied in _Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_), p. 122. [429] _Gesta Cons._ (as above), p. 120. [430] R. Glaber, l. v. c. 2 (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p. 61); copied in _Gesta Cons._ (as above), p. 122. [431] _Gesta Cons._ (as above), p. 121; _Gesta Amb. Domin._ (_ibid._), p. 170. [432] R. Glaber, as above; _Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_), p. 123. [433] _Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_), p. 120. With very little bloodshed, the Angevins had gained over a thousand prisoners.[434] The most valuable of them all was put in ward at Loches;[435] but he took care not to stay there long. Theobald took warning by the fate of William of Aquitaine;[436] he had no mind to run the risk of dying in prison, and held his person far dearer than his property.[437] Three days after his capture, finding that no amount of silver or gold would avail to purchase his release, he yielded the only ransom which Geoffrey would accept: the city of Tours and the whole county of Touraine.[438] A nominal overlordship over the ceded territory was reserved to Theobald, and Geoffrey had to go through the formality of doing homage for it to him.[439] When the substance was securely his own, the count of Anjou could well afford to leave to his vanquished rival the shadowy consolation of an empty ceremony. Moreover, the circumstances of the whole transaction and the account of King Henry’s grant to Geoffrey clearly imply that Theobald’s rights over the most important point of all, the capital itself, were considered as entirely forfeited by his rebellion, so that with regard to the city of Tours Geoffrey stepped into the exact place of its former counts, holding it directly of the king alone. [434] Fulk Rechin (Marchegay, _Comtes_), p. 378; R. Glaber, l. v. c. 2 (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p. 61). For the date of the battle--August 21, 1044--see Chronn. Rain. Andeg., S. Albin., S. Serg., Vindoc., S. Flor. Salm., and S. Maxent. ad ann. (Marchegay, _Eglises_, pp. 11, 24, 136, 166, 188, 395). The _Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_), p. 121, and _Gesta Amb. Domin._ (_ibid._), p. 170, make it 1042, but they cannot possibly be right. [435] _Gesta Amb. Domin._ as above. [436] Will. Poitiers (Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._), p. 182. [437] _Gesta Cons._, as above. See the comment of Will. Malm. _Gesta Reg._, l. iii. c. 231 (Hardy, p. 396).