History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedWhy did Knights Go on the Crusades?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2009 at 15:53
I'd say for a man who had one of his own childhood friends tortured to death (and torture seems a mild description of it) as a form of execution, the word bastard is putting it very, very mildly.  There is every indication that he took great pleasure in what he did to those around him--read his reaction to the execution of the Earl of Atholl who was one of his own relatives and incidentally had been fleeing, escorting women to Norway when he was captured. Read the vengeance he took against some of those same women. I consider Edward something of a ravening beast feeding on every weaker creature around him. (What was the death toll when he massacred the city of Berwick again? Try to find another single atrocity in England or Scotland with a death count even close to that high) But you already knew that.  I can't manage to find that any good he did outweighed the evil. Of course, I'll freely admit a good deal of that evil was in my own country and to my own people, and no one ever said Scots don't have long memories.

However, I will give you that he was a better than average king in his own country. Although his personal courage was never questioned, I have some questions about his generalship. I'm not so sure he could have captured Jerusalem--but pure speculation.

There's no point in getting into this and it was fiercely debated just recently in another thread. The people who admire the man will admire him. The ones who hate him will hate him.

I'll manage to bite my tongue and not answer any defenses of him however much it hurts. :)

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

What! A Scot who doesn't like Edward the Longshanks! Never!


I dislike him less than you might think. He had certain virtues and did some good things in England -- but anyone who says that PEACE was one of his virtues isn't being realistic.

Edit: LOL Ok. I DON'T dislike him less than you might think. I admit that I despise Edward Longshanks with a passion but I make an ATTEMPT to be fair about it and see the good that he did (which did exist) along with the purely evil. (The massacre of Berwick-on-Tweed and the execution of most of the leadership of Scotland and Wales, the destruction of... Yeah, it's a long list but you get the idea)

But it's VERY difficult to see the man as a promoter of peace.


I'd regard Edward as one of the greatest medieval kings of England. Still a bastard though.


Edited by JRScotia - 29-May-2009 at 17:41
Saor Alba
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2008
Location: Mercia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2009 at 16:57
The mere mention of Edward I`s name to ardent anti-English Scots causes objectivity and rationality to fly out of the window to be replaced by hysterical irrationality.
 
However, back to the crusade. Edward`s arrival did cause the Mamkuk leader, Baibars, to call off a possible assault on either Tripoli or Acre and eventually negotiate a ten-year truce. The valiant young prince`s expedition to the East may have achieved little, but it did win for him great renown in Europe.
From Woden sprang all our royal kin.
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2009 at 17:01
Personal remarks are uncalled for, Wulfstan.  If you want to defend Edward, defend him. That's your right. Attacking other posters is not.


Edited by JRScotia - 29-May-2009 at 17:03
Saor Alba
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2009 at 21:09
Why on earth are we discussing the moral qualities of Edward I?
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2009 at 15:28
The man's name came up. Instant argument between the rabid anglophile and the rabid Scots nationalist. We don't like each other (to put it mildly) and it's a good excuse to sharpen the swords and have at each other.

No. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Wink

I really think the question had been answered as well as such a general question could be though even before the traditional hostilities broke out. There was a myriad of reasons.
 
From a modern viewpoint, it's just impossible to understand.

Saor Alba
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 1367
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2009 at 16:22
Do you consider me a rabid anglophile? I take it you're talking about Wulfstan...
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2009 at 16:49
What were the motives of Irish, Scottish or Welsh crusaders? How much do we know about them? Do we know any famous ones? I know Earl Ragnvald of Orkney participated in a Norwegian crusade in the 1150s, but I doubt he counts as Scottish.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 1367
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2009 at 18:00
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

What were the motives of Irish, Scottish or Welsh crusaders? How much do we know about them? Do we know any famous ones? I know Earl Ragnvald of Orkney participated in a Norwegian crusade in the 1150s, but I doubt he counts as Scottish.


Sir Walter Scott wrote a novel about a Scottish crusader Prince under the service of Richard the Lionheart, called 'The Talisman'.

There were supposedly a few Irish crusaders, but never a real independent expedition. And besides, they were mainly anglo Normans, not Gaels. It is plausible to think that a few Kerns may have taken the cross though.

I'm not 100% sure about the Welsh, but weren't they together with the English, Danes and Friesians with the capture of Lisbon in 1147? (The one victory to come out of that crusade)
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 07-May-2009
Location: denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 111
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2009 at 20:56

Crusaders came from all over western Europe, though French may have played a special role. If scandinavians role as vikings are very well known (perhaps even excaggerated, since there is some confusion between being a "viking" and a person from a specific part of Europe), there role in the crusades may be less known and perhaps underestimated. Perhaps "crusades" here in a wider sense, as fighting for faith anywhere, not only in "Holy Land".

Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 00:33
No, I wasn't talking about you, Parnell. We disagree at times but I wouldn't consider you an anglophile.

Edit: I'm not aware of any independent Scottish expeditions. although Scots went on crusades. Of course, James of Douglas carried King Robert Bruce's heart but there was no Holy Lands campaign at the time and only a few dozen in his party including the squires. An interesting and tragic expedition but not that could be considered independent.


Edited by JRScotia - 31-May-2009 at 01:35
Saor Alba
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 14:09
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Crusaders came from all over western Europe, though French may have played a special role. If scandinavians role as vikings are very well known (perhaps even excaggerated, since there is some confusion between being a "viking" and a person from a specific part of Europe), there role in the crusades may be less known and perhaps underestimated. Perhaps "crusades" here in a wider sense, as fighting for faith anywhere, not only in "Holy Land"


Absolutely, the understanding of the crusade was gradually expanded by the Catholic Church itself and by the time of Innocent III any military campaign against Muslims, pagans or heretics could receive the papal indulgence that was given to the first crusade.

Crusading in Scandinavia was diverse. The Kingdom of Norway sent two major crusades; one in the wake of the first crusade in 1107, which fought the Muslims in Iberia and on several Mediterranean islands before arriving in the Holy Land, where they took part in the siege of Sidon by preventing the Fatimid fleet from supplying the city. The second was the aforementioned crusade in the 1150s, which followed much the same route.

While the Norwegians only embarked on crusades to the Holy Land, the Danes also crusaded in the Baltic. A Danish crusade in 1147 christianized the Wends (at least formally) and in 1219 established Danish Estonia. The Swedes on the other hand seem to have exclusively crusaded in the Baltic (there is no record of Swedish crusaders in the Holy Land), especially against the Finns and Novgorod. The traditional story is that the Swedes conquered and christianized the Finns through three crusades, in the 1150s (the coast), the 1250s (inner Finland, Tavastia) and lastly in the 1290s (southeast Finland, Karelia). This can be considered one of the most successful crusades, as it succeeded in making the Finns christians and Finland remained a part of the Swedish kingdom for 600 years.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.