Main > The Round Table
Knight of the week
Sir James A:
Prince Edward was my favorite character in "A Knights Tale". Thanks for the background info. :)
Sir William:
--- Quote from: Joshua Santana on 2012-06-10, 15:05:56 ---
--- Quote ---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 chevauchée 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
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Sir William on 2012-06-12, 16:46:53 ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---Here's Edward's preferred method of warfare (yes it's wikipedia, but it's not bad in this case):
--- End quote ---
Yep that's it! :)
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version