Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Topic: The real Edward I of England Posted: 20-Aug-2005 at 22:37 |
I have a question which I hope someone can answer. Why is it that Edward Longshanks is known to history as Edward I, King of England. Shouldn't that be reserved for an earlier King Edward of England, namely the man most popularly known as Edward the Confessor. Why does Longshanks get called the First, and not the Confessor? Just seems a bit incorrect to me.
|
|
Ahmed The Fighter
Chieftain
Lion of Babylon
Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 04:47 |
Good point Constantine XI, Edward the confessor was the penultimate Anglo-Saxon king and the last of house of Wessex,The numbering of English monarchs starts from scratch after the Norman conquest, which explains why the regenal number assigned to English kings named Edward begin with the later Edward I(ruled 12721307) and do not include Edward the Confessor (Who was the third king Edward).
Edited by Ahmed The Fighter
|
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
|
|
Ahmed The Fighter
Chieftain
Lion of Babylon
Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 05:10 |
I hope I did.
|
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 08:38 |
I wish Edward I's name hadnt been utterly raped in the most ridiculous movie *braveheart* which made him out to be somekind of genocidal lunatic, who was probably only one step away from bathing in scottish blood or whatever.
I assume Longshanks is known as the 1st, because with the Anglo-saxons replaced by the Normans there was noneed to carry on from where they left in terms of numbering of monarchs, a totally different monarchy doesnt need to acknowledge the past monarchies.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 16:16 |
The movie Braveheart greatly dramatized what Edward Longshanks really
did to Scotland. The whole thing about the stealing of a Scot's wife on
the first wedding night was never instituted. He did conquer the
peaceful kingdom of Scotland, and killed some people, but not anywhere
near genocide.
|
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 16:39 |
The problem with Braveheart most of all is the fact the English are painted as mindless barbarians killing people for the sake of it, the Scots on the other hand as peace loving victims of this big bad empire.
The fact the Scots were kicking the crap out of each other almost endlessly was barely mentioned, the clans were at war with each other as much as they were the English if not more. Its briefly brought up a couple of times but nowhere near as much as it should of been.
There should be a law against blatently lying about history in movies, its a mockery of the people targeted in this case the English and insulting.
Edward I was a good king for England and a man of his time, big deal he conquered some territory, who the hell wasnt? Grrrr I hate Mel Gibson (points to yet another BS movie downing this time the British "The Patriot")
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 18:34 |
Originally posted by Heraclius
The problem with Braveheart most of all is
the fact the English are painted as mindless barbarians killing people
for the sake of it, the Scots on the other hand as peace loving victims
of this big bad empire.
The fact the Scots were kicking the crap out of each other
almost endlessly was barely mentioned, the clans were at war with each
other as much as they were the English if not more. Its briefly brought
up a couple of times but nowhere near as much as it should of been.
There should be a law against blatently lying about history in
movies, its a mockery of the people targeted in this case the English
and insulting.
Edward I was a good king for England and a man of his time,
big deal he conquered some territory, who the hell wasnt? Grrrr I hate
Mel Gibson (points to yet another BS movie downing this time the British "The Patriot") |
What i meant by peaceful is that they were no threat to the English.
The English had to be a little mindless to lose to an enemy with no
heavy cavalry that had only 5,000 spearmen at Bannockburn, but they
weren't crazy fools who would go around and pillage as much as Mel
showed in Braveheart. What the English did was wrong, there is no
debating that, they invaded a foreign nation that did nothing to them
and was no threat to them. Edward I I beleive would have won at
Stirling if he would have have not been in France at the time. He did
win decisively at Falkirk. The clans were always at war with each
other, not showed in the movie. They also show Robert the Bruce as some
little wussy who wouldn't fight for anything, he was the one who
bravely fought at Bannockburn and never betrayed his country, so that
is total BS. The Patriot was bullcrap to, but the Brits did commit some
atrocities.
|
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 19:41 |
Remember though this is 13th/14th century England not 21st century Britain, we cant judge an invasion by our standards today, wars back then were fought often for the most trivial of reasons or on very very tiny justification.
Englands invasion of Scotland be it for just the sake of conquest or whatever cant be condemned by us now, remember this was a time when cities were sacked mercilessly and populations massacred if they resisted, prisoners of war could expect torture and execution, religion controlled all and those who opposed it could expect to be burned alive. It was a totally different world back then.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 21:03 |
Yeah, for the time it was not that wrong at all. That still does not make it right for the massacres that happened.
|
|
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 22:12 |
Edward I was a good king for England and a man of his time, big deal he conquered some territory, |
On what planet are you living mate. A medieval king a good man? ROFLMAO. Infact braveheart may not be historically correct, but the cruelty shown was commonplace in the medieval era.
|
|
Gavriel
Pretorian
Joined: 17-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 02:11 |
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa
Originally posted by Heraclius
The problem with Braveheart most of all is
the fact the English are painted as mindless barbarians killing people
for the sake of it, the Scots on the other hand as peace loving victims
of this big bad empire.
The fact the Scots were kicking the crap out of each other
almost endlessly was barely mentioned, the clans were at war with each
other as much as they were the English if not more. Its briefly brought
up a couple of times but nowhere near as much as it should of been.
There should be a law against blatently lying about history in
movies, its a mockery of the people targeted in this case the English
and insulting.
Edward I was a good king for England and a man of his time,
big deal he conquered some territory, who the hell wasnt? Grrrr I hate
Mel Gibson (points to yet another BS movie downing this time the British "The Patriot") |
What i meant by peaceful is that they were no threat to the English.
The English had to be a little mindless to lose to an enemy with no
heavy cavalry that had only 5,000 spearmen at Bannockburn, but they
weren't crazy fools who would go around and pillage as much as Mel
showed in Braveheart. What the English did was wrong, there is no
debating that, they invaded a foreign nation that did nothing to them
and was no threat to them. Edward I I beleive would have won at
Stirling if he would have have not been in France at the time. He did
win decisively at Falkirk. The clans were always at war with each
other, not showed in the movie. They also show Robert the Bruce as some
little wussy who wouldn't fight for anything, he was the one who
bravely fought at Bannockburn and never betrayed his country, so that
is total BS. The Patriot was bullcrap to, but the Brits did commit some
atrocities.
|
Did nothing to them???
the Scots were constantly raiding into the south,stealing cattle and
horses from the Lords of Northumbria and durham.The scots allso
commited atrocites at York and when they tried to sack Durham city
,they sacked countless cathedrials and Cumbria only escaped this
because they bankrupted themselves and payed tribute.
Bravehart is utter crap,typical Gibson (he hates us with a passion
doesnt he?)for a start william wallace wasnt some peace loving wannabe
farmer,he was a Knight for christs sake,he owned two castles!
And the scots with Blue paint on,LOLOLOLOLOL,as if!
I did like the bit when the Irish infantry met up with there Crazy buddy that was funny.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 09:20 |
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
On what planet are you living mate. A medieval king a good man? ROFLMAO. Infact braveheart may not be historically correct, but the cruelty shown was commonplace in the medieval era.
|
Errr maybe you have problems reading what people actually say, I said he was a good KING not MAN, I said he was a man of his TIME, therefore typical of the kind of people of the age he lived in, were mass executions etc were common-place.
Anyway if you judge 13th/14th century rulers by 21st century standards then your pretty dumb.
Please learn to read before you answer, it makes you look very stupid otherwise.
Edited by Heraclius
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 16:20 |
Originally posted by Gavriel
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa
Originally posted by Heraclius
The problem with Braveheart most of all is
the fact the English are painted as mindless barbarians killing people
for the sake of it, the Scots on the other hand as peace loving victims
of this big bad empire.
The fact the Scots were kicking the crap out of each other
almost endlessly was barely mentioned, the clans were at war with each
other as much as they were the English if not more. Its briefly brought
up a couple of times but nowhere near as much as it should of been.
There should be a law against blatently lying about history in
movies, its a mockery of the people targeted in this case the English
and insulting.
Edward I was a good king for England and a man of his time,
big deal he conquered some territory, who the hell wasnt? Grrrr I hate
Mel Gibson (points to yet another BS movie downing this time the British "The Patriot") |
What i meant by peaceful is that they were no threat to the English.
The English had to be a little mindless to lose to an enemy with no
heavy cavalry that had only 5,000 spearmen at Bannockburn, but they
weren't crazy fools who would go around and pillage as much as Mel
showed in Braveheart. What the English did was wrong, there is no
debating that, they invaded a foreign nation that did nothing to them
and was no threat to them. Edward I I beleive would have won at
Stirling if he would have have not been in France at the time. He did
win decisively at Falkirk. The clans were always at war with each
other, not showed in the movie. They also show Robert the Bruce as some
little wussy who wouldn't fight for anything, he was the one who
bravely fought at Bannockburn and never betrayed his country, so that
is total BS. The Patriot was bullcrap to, but the Brits did commit some
atrocities.
|
Did nothing to them???
the Scots were constantly raiding into the south,stealing cattle and
horses from the Lords of Northumbria and durham.The scots allso
commited atrocites at York and when they tried to sack Durham city
,they sacked countless cathedrials and Cumbria only escaped this
because they bankrupted themselves and payed tribute.
Bravehart is utter crap,typical Gibson (he hates us with a passion
doesnt he?)for a start william wallace wasnt some peace loving wannabe
farmer,he was a Knight for christs sake,he owned two castles!
And the scots with Blue paint on,LOLOLOLOLOL,as if!
I did like the bit when the Irish infantry met up with there Crazy buddy that was funny.
|
Yeah, I forgot about the sack of York. As for the blue paint, it was
utter bull crap, maybe 3rd century Scots wore blue paint but not 13th
century Scots. William Wallace being a peace loving farmer was a load
of crap, he was a knight and a pretty good one to. I should have done a
little research before i said that the Scots did nothing to the
English. It was a two-way street, and the English did raid much of
Ireland during the Middle Ages. Then again, for the times, it wasn't
bad at all.
|
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 20:08 |
The movie the Patriot was so predictable I couldn't bear to watch it through to the end. I watched up to the part where Heath Ledger (Gibson's son in the movie) was killed and then switched off the TV to do something more productive.
And yes there is a bit much Anglo-bashing in the media. Ever noticed what proportion of "bad guys" in movies and on tv have English accents compared to good guys (who always have American accents).
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 20:36 |
Yeah, I even noticed this in Rush Hour(a little off topic). Both of the
good guys don't have English accents. Chris Tucker's high pitched voice
and Jackie Chan's Asian accent represent the good guys. Whereas the bad
guy is British. The same in Braveheart, the good guys have Scottish
Accents and the bad guys have English accents.
|
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 21:00 |
It is annoying that the English/British are portrayed as the bad guys so often, im sure there are some people that are dumb enough to believe we are really like that.
The Patriot was so predictable, but the most sickening part was when Mel Gibson was fighting the very very evil Englishman and got slashed beaten and I think at one point shot and yet had the strength (undoubtedly powered by patriotism) to slay the bad Englishman for America. Itd be touching if it wasnt such total crap.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 21:07 |
The character was based on Banastre Tarleton. He did massacre
surrendering troops which was called the Waxhaw Massacre. I personally
think that the British are very cool people. Some Americans like to
make fun of British sophistication. There is even a racial slur I found
on Answers.com "English or just gay" that is used by Americans. The
British have been America's greatest ally since WWI and i think people
seem to forget that if it was just the US and Russia versus Germany, we
would not have won the war. If we did, it would have been at a much
greater cost.
|
|
|
Gavriel
Pretorian
Joined: 17-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Aug-2005 at 05:29 |
Well,the British were fighting the Germans for longer than the
Americans and the Russians.Six years we were fighting for and i think
some credits deserved for that. Ahh whatever.....
The peace loving Scots made a full blown invasion of England in
1346,the battle of Nevilles cross was fought by a large Scottish
army and a scratch force hastily assembled by the
Archbishop of York.The Scots invaded England at the request of the
French who they were allied too,King DavidII probably believed all the
English troops were in France,But England has foreseen this happening
and had left certain northern lords at home charged with defending from
the Scots.
The English Longbows and the Scots choice of ground made it a
remarkable victory for the English with most of the Scottish
aristocracy being captured including King David II.He was ransomed for
the sum of 66,ooo in 1357 a hell of a lot of money,in took Scotland 20
years to pay it.
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Aug-2005 at 07:51 |
Yeah, I did give the British much credit for fighting the war. I do not
beleive that the war could have been won without the British suppoert.
The Scots did have some more reasoning for the invasion of England in
1346, it was part of the Auld Alliance. Mel Gibson should be thrown in
jail for making such biased crap. Why doesn't he make a movie of the
Scottish invasion of England? Violence, blood, change a lot of things
to make it bullcrap and you have a Mel Gibson movie.
|
|
|
Turkic10
Knight
Joined: 01-Jul-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Aug-2005 at 16:01 |
In the interest of historical accuracy, it would be nice to hear the heroes of the American Revolution in movies and tv shows speaking with the English accents that they would have had. It would be a reminder as to where they came from. Of course, Americans would scream blue murder if that happened.
|
Admonish your friends privately, praise them publicly.
|
|