[148] From R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 15, we should suppose that Saer’s appeal to Louis was made in London; but the _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._, shows that it was made at Farnham. On the other hand, the Flemish chronicler represents Saer as departing straightway from Farnham for Mountsorel “on the morrow,” _i.e._ Saturday, 29 April, “o grant chevalerie d’Englois” and some seventy French knights (pp. 190, 191); while Roger says the relieving force--which he makes to consist of six hundred knights and more than twenty thousand men-at-arms--started from London “pridie kalendas Maii, id est die Lunae proximo ante Ascensionem Domini” (_l.c._). The last day of April, 1217, was Sunday, not Monday. I think we may combine the two accounts, and assume that Saer left Farnham on April 29 to go not directly towards Leicestershire, but to London. The journey thither, and the necessary preparations after he had joined his associates there, must have taken a couple of days, and the combined forces could hardly set out before Monday, 1 May. The _Ann. Dunst._, p. 49, say the relieving force consisted of “the barons who were at London,” the Count of Perche, the Marshal of France, and ten thousand _armati_ whom Louis had given them. The _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16085–92, which says the party set out from Winchester at the same time that Louis and the rest of his forces returned thence to London, is obviously quite wrong. [149] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 15–17. [150] “Satis innocenter,” _Ann. Dunst._, p. 49. [151] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 17. W. Cov., vol. ii; p. 237. _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16097–16105. [152] _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 191, 192. Cf. _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16055–81. [153] _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 192, 193. “E li Waudois les assaillirent, mais desconfis furent.” [154] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 194. Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 17, and W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 237. [155] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16115–26. [156] _Ib._ ll. 16126–53. [157] “Se sunt embatuz folement,” l. 16161. [158] _Ib._ ll. 16153–99. [159] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 18. [160] _Ib._ For the knights see also _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16264–6 and 17025. [161] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 18, 19. [162] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16203–24. [163] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 19, 20. Cf. _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16225–32. [164] R. Wend., _l.c._ [165] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16236–7. [166] _Ib._ l. 16238. [167] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 20. [168] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16240–46. Cf. R. Wend., _l.c._ In p. 25 Roger gives the date of the battle as “quarto decimo kalendas Junii, sabbato scilicet in hebdomada Pentecostes,” where the ecclesiastical date is correct, but not the civil one. One MS. of the _Hist. Ducs_ makes it “la velle de la Pentecouste;” but the other has “la velle de la Trinite,” p. 194, note 3. The Annals of Waverley, a. 1217, give the true date, “tertio decimo kalendas Junii, in hebdomada Pentecostes.” So also R. Coggeshall, p. 185. [169] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16277–310, 16331–4. [170] _Ib._ ll. 16247–61, 16314–15.