Mount&Blade: Warband > The King's Court - Suggestions
Shield bash?
Blackthorn:
--- Quote from: Sierra125 on January 06, 2012, 05:17:48 AM ---Historical discussion vs Blackhorn is doomed to end in defeat.
--- End quote ---
In this moment, to me, you are perfect. (10 points for spotting the film reference!)
And it's alright- the sheer amount of propaganda RE: Scottish equipment is staggering- essentially a lot of pseudo-historians love to make armies seem massively ethnically characteristic when usually the differences were academic or minor, or visible only at the 'levy' end- and in the case of the Scottish wars of indepedence (or contested succession of the Baliol line), most of the upper reaches of the Scottish aristocracy were as Norman as their English counterparts, having been incorporated into the Scottish social strata from the 12th century in a policy of deliberate feudalisation and emulation of the Norman military model- essentially knights on either side would be dressed almost identically, and in a lot of cases were related and held estates that bridged the technical national borders- the Baliol's holding lands in Northern England and the de Lacey family in Yorkshire holding Scottish lands and title- this was a fairly regular occurance- during the fall of Normandy between 1190-1204 a lot of Angevin and Anglo-Norman knights had extensive French holdings actually within the French royal lands- men like William Marshall went and did homage for his lands in France as well as being a nominally English noble.
/lecture
But as a fun fact, the first instances of spiked roundshields (with more than a raised boss, but a clear 'pointed nipple') are the bucklers visible on M.i33- in some depictions the centre is clearly raised to a point and these are frequently thrust into the opponent's face or upper arms to work as crippling/off-footing strikes. Not quite the shield bash folk envisage in this thread, but still a form of shield-attack notable within the period discussed.
Amman de Stazia:
--- Quote ---in a lot of cases were related and held estates that bridged the technical national borders-
--- End quote ---
which was Edward 1st's legal pretext for claiming 'overlordship' of Scotland. Alexander had sent one of his earls to swear the oath of fealty to Edward for the King's English estates, which were held by him as personal property (as opposed to Scottish, Kingdom, property).
Edward found that to be conviently a case of "The King of Scotland has taken an oath of fealty to me as his feudal overlord"
and thousands were sentenced to death...
Bruce (when King) asked his nobles to renounce foreign possessions. Since most of these were in England, and had been confiscated by the English during the wars, there were not so many objections. Bruce himself held English estates (prior to changing sides and opposing Edward) - but when he switched sides Edward confiscated them.
Blackthorn:
--- Quote from: Amman de Stazia on January 07, 2012, 06:36:01 AM ---
--- Quote ---in a lot of cases were related and held estates that bridged the technical national borders-
--- End quote ---
which was Edward 1st's legal pretext for claiming 'overlordship' of Scotland. Alexander had sent one of his earls to swear the oath of fealty to Edward for the King's English estates, which were held by him as personal property (as opposed to Scottish, Kingdom, property).
Edward found that to be conviently a case of "The King of Scotland has taken an oath of fealty to me as his feudal overlord"
--- End quote ---
That -and- the involvement in the contested succession of Scotland- he was chosen as the final arbiter of succession, after all. I don't blame the man his ambition- frankly the Scots had spent the last 200 years trying to sieze Northern England whenever a war gave them an oppurtunistic opening- Edward was finally repaying the favour. Amusingly the ebb and flow of history is now siezed on by modern politicians and nationalists trying to justify a culture of hatred, ignorance and frankly, racism. Similar story if you visit Wales...
Amman de Stazia:
the arbitration came considerably later... There's probably not a shred of hard evidence to support it, but I have sympathy for the argument that the 'arbitration' was a put-up job by the Normano-Scottish nobles who would have preferred to be part of Edward's England...
It must have seemed like such a good idea at the time though. In the 1280's Edward was as respected among Scottish nobles as the Pope was in church, and the Norman factor meant that most important Scots were on very good terms with most important English.
Edward was the 'first Knight of Christendom' who had subdued a Welsh uprising, consolidated territory in Ireland and France, and maintained peace with Scotland. All the while without provoking any discontent at home.
Blackthorn:
And representing significant political stability for a state that had come close to unification several times, before dropping back into in-fighting.
And it all depends on what we consider ''The war''- there's a LOT of conflict prior to the actual War of Independence as the Scots term it- the arbitration pretty much marks the begining according to Scots historians. The issue there is that it ignores a lot of the building politics of the 13th century. Frankly, the Normano-Scots were the powerhouse of Scotland at the time, and it would have just been expedient if the internal conflicts were settled by owing an overall allegiance to the power-block to the south. If you remove the ingrained 'Scots/Saxon' politics from the equation- it makes a lot of sense. And if the Anglo-Norman vs. French conflict teaches us anything, it's that the Normans were -always- happy to be pragmatic if it was the best choice.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version