Knight of the week

[Joshua Santana]

Thank you Sir John for this amazing history lesson on all these renown knights! Well done on all of them and I esp. liked learning more about St. Joan of Arc, she was an amazing person indeed. So thanks again on your extraordinary work put into Knight of the week, hope to see more soon

Hear! Hear! Hear! 

[Sir John of Felsenbau]

You're quite welcome. It does take a lot of work...making the surcoats/shields and fixing up the helmets, let alone all the research. I started this knight of the week to show the other members that I'm NOT here just to get knighted, but am trying to add what I can to your group. I wish there was a member in the Philadelphia PA area. Thanks again.

Sir John

[Sir John of Felsenbau]

This week's Knight of the week: "Prince Edward, The Black Knight" - He was born in 1330 and was the eldest son of King Edward III. He was created Earl of Chester in 1333 and Duke of Cornwall in 1337. He was vested as Prince of Wales in 1343, when he was almost 13 years old. At age of 14 he was sent to Oxford, but he was only there a year when hos father took him with him to France. The beginning of his military career was at the Battle of Crecy in 1346 where he was knighted by his father before the battle. He wore black armor that was given him by his father...hence his nickname.

In 1348 he became the first Knight of the Garter, of whose order he was one of the founders. In 1355 he was appointed his father's lieutenant and in 1356 he led another significant against the French at Pointers taking the French King as his prisoner. In 1362 his father created him Prince of Aquitaine and Gascony. He led an expedition in Spain in 1367 to restore the deposed King Pedro of Castile to the throne. In 1371 he returned to England and enjoyed his reputation for chivalry and valor.

His arms featured 3 white ostrich feathers on black, which originally belonged to John of Bohemia as a tribute to his valiant and noble actions at Crecy. He also put his motto in German: "I Serve." He died in 1376 from an illness he contracted in Spain.

He was portrayed in the movie: "A Knight's Tale" however in reality he didn't care or associate with the lower classes, so in the movie, he was out of character.

[Sir Rodney]

Sir John, I really look forward to updates on this thread.  You've done an excellent job. 

[Joshua Santana]

YES!  The Black Prince was the Chivalrous Rock Star of the Hundred Years Wars 

[Ian]

YES!  The Black Prince was the Chivalrous Rock Star of the Hundred Years Wars 

Many would say that Edward of Woodstock's (he was never known as the Black Prince until long after his death) tactics in the Hundred Years War were anything but chivalrous.  See chevauchĂ©e warfare, and ask the French about it, ha.  But, he's one of my absolute favorite figures in history, and definitely why I'm such a 14th Century-o-phile

[Sir John of Felsenbau]

Lord Rodney,

Thank you for your comments. I still have several more to post but I had to stop because I'm running out of room in my house...lol.

I hope that all the members appreciate my contribution when it comes time to sponsor me as a knight.

Sir John

[Joshua Santana]

Many would say that Edward of Woodstock's (he was never known as the Black Prince until long after his death) tactics in the Hundred Years War were anything but chivalrous.  See chevauchĂ©e warfare, and ask the French about it, ha.  But, he's one of my absolute favorite figures in history, and definitely why I'm such a 14th Century-o-phile

You are right that the French consider him to be anything but Chivalrous, whereas as the English see him as Chivalrous.  One of the confusing aspects of the Hundred Years Wars are two different views of Chivalry from two different nations.

[Sir John of Felsenbau]

That's true with anything...I don't think any two people have exactly the same taste or ideas.

Sir John

[Joshua Santana]

That's true with anything...I don't think any two people have exactly the same taste or ideas.

Exactly!   

[Sir James A]

Prince Edward was my favorite character in "A Knights Tale". Thanks for the background info.

[Sir William]

Many would say that Edward of Woodstock's (he was never known as the Black Prince until long after his death) tactics in the Hundred Years War were anything but chivalrous.  See chevauchĂ©e warfare, and ask the French about it, ha.  But, he's one of my absolute favorite figures in history, and definitely why I'm such a 14th Century-o-phile

You are right that the French consider him to be anything but Chivalrous, whereas as the English see him as Chivalrous.  One of the confusing aspects of the Hundred Years Wars are two different views of Chivalry from two different nations.

He burned, pillaged and raped his way through the Limousin, not to mention the massacres he ordered at Caen and Limoges...no, there was nothing chivalrous about that- but it was effective.  I'd say he dealt chivalrously when it suited him, but Heaven help those when it didn't.

[Ian]

He burned, pillaged and raped his way through the Limousin, not to mention the massacres he ordered at Caen and Limoges...no, there was nothing chivalrous about that- but it was effective.  I'd say he dealt chivalrously when it suited him, but Heaven help those when it didn't.

Agreed 100%, but he's still awesome

Here's Edward's preferred method of warfare (yes it's wikipedia, but it's not bad in this case):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauch%C3%A9e

[Sir William]

I think what he accomplished, especially in his earlier years, was awesome...the man?  Less so.  Although, several hundred years from now, some nationalist may see Hitler as a bastion of racial integrity and consider what he did to the Jews as unfortunate, but effective as well...I did some reading up on Adolf some years back as I was interested in what drove a man to commit such acts.  He was intelligent, charismatic, had a soft spot for a certain fraulein - take away the Holocaust and he doesn't sound so bad, in fact.  Both men were products of their respective environments and sought to rule those around them- however they pleased.  Its easy to forget the horror, cruelty, the loss of life back in those times in this day and age  because quite frankly, unless you've seen it for yourself, it is more of a philosophical discussion than anything else.  MHO.

Which is not to say that I'm not a fan of the Black Prince- his military prowess alone made him noteworthy and anyone who studies medieval history or takes a fancy to medieval whatever is bound to hear of him eventually.  I still think it funny that they found his sword languishing in an umbrella stand in a UK tobacco shop!  That last bit might be urban legend.

[Joshua Santana]

He burned, pillaged and raped his way through the Limousin, not to mention the massacres he ordered at Caen and Limoges...no, there was nothing chivalrous about that- but it was effective.  I'd say he dealt chivalrously when it suited him, but Heaven help those when it didn't.

You can make an argument for that.  I call as him using a new warfare tactic that seemed to be not Chivalrously, however one must consider that you don't want to play fair with the enemy every single instance.  But I agree with you.

Here's Edward's preferred method of warfare (yes it's wikipedia, but it's not bad in this case):

Yep that's it! 

I think what he accomplished, especially in his earlier years, was awesome...the man?  Less so.  Although, several hundred years from now, some nationalist may see Hitler as a bastion of racial integrity and consider what he did to the Jews as unfortunate, but effective as well...I did some reading up on Adolf some years back as I was interested in what drove a man to commit such acts.  He was intelligent, charismatic, had a soft spot for a certain fraulein - take away the Holocaust and he doesn't sound so bad, in fact.  Both men were products of their respective environments and sought to rule those around them- however they pleased.  Its easy to forget the horror, cruelty, the loss of life back in those times in this day and age  because quite frankly, unless you've seen it for yourself, it is more of a philosophical discussion than anything else.  MHO.

I agree with you 100% as well.  We also cannot forget that the English had a near "revenge" mentality that could be argued as one of the influential reasons as to why they used massacres and pillaging when they conquered France.  Cause: Feudal arguments over territories in France and disowning certain royals with French Family ties. 

However it is not to say that there were not Knightly individuals that acted Chivalrously on both sides despite the cause.