• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Originally posted by historycaesar
Edward I was truely English, we invaded Wales ans Scotland and ignored France...

Yes, but as head of a multinational hereditary empire, might he not be expected to spend most of his time where the trouble is, or at least subjugating the smaller neighbors whilst the big, hulking rival (i.e. France) is not focused on knocking you off?

One might argue that the marriage of Ed II and the Princesse de France was the sort of dynastic alliance you'd expect to see if Ed was going to move against his other neighbors. It doesn't make him "English"--he most likely spoke very little, if any for one thing, and the language of the court, when not French, was latin--it makes him a good dynast and ruler looking to expand where opposition is weakest.

Merely because he held the title King of England doesn't make him English any more than the Norman kings of Sicily are Italian or Guy de Lusignan (I think I have the name right) was Armenian. He was a French peer who had powerful holdings outside France.

Furthermore, an incident is recounted wherein a chronicler with the young Ed. I on crusade in the holy land heard him mutter a couple of words of English, which was considered rather unusual. His Official biographer noted of him, "he can scarcely be looked on as an englishman."

Upon the death of his father, Ed. I went first to Paris to swear homage to France, then to Gascony to spend many months putting down the rebellion of Gaston de Bearn. Only then did he bother heading up for an English coronation.

England was a crucial piece in the Plantagenet Empire, but arguably Normandy was more important, as it was the nexus of communication lines between London and Bordeaux.

To view the Plantagenet realm as England plus a few French counties is to follow the nationalistic and narrowminded Whig interpretation of History. It simply isn't true. Going back a little furtehr but still in the CK Timeframe, Henri II spent 14 Weeks in England vs. 38 in France in 1170, the year of Beckett's murder. That year, he covered over 2000 miles travelling around his realm. In fact, that year he arrived in England on 3 March. This "English" King hadn't set foot in England in 4 years!

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and acts like a duck, it's a duck. If it looks French and it sounds French and acts French, it's French. :D
 
Originally posted by Drakken
Still, French vassals identified Edward III as being an "Anglois", even if he spoke only French with the English nobility.

It is less the English "nation", which did not exist until centuries later, than the history of wars, rivalties, and oriflammes raised against England for Aquitaine that has sprung this rejection of Edward as monarch by French vassals. French-speaking or not, even if grandson of Philip IV, Edward was still seen as King of England, thus the natural rival of the King of France. To one too many French vassals even the idea of an English ruler on the French throne would have meant that all the wars fought, lives lost, and blood spent against them in the past were meant to weigh nothing in the balance, and because of a puny technicality of feudal law.

Drakken


No, he was the natural rival of the Roi b/c he owned more of France than the Roi! Much as other of the peers would come to trouble future kings w/o having to be outsiders (Bourbon, Guise, &c) so in this case the Duke of Aquitaine and Normandy was a troublesome vassal whose (French) lands le Roi coveted. The fact that he was also King of England had very little bearing on the issue, except to make le Roi take more pause in consideration of the resources at the Plantagenet disposal.

And if the English had somehow managed to win the war, Edward III was certainly not an "English" ruler. To the extent he was known as "Anglois" b/c that happened to be the highest title he possessed. In his correspondence with le Roi, he refers to himself as Duke of Aquitaine or of Normandy or of another French holding, first and only later in the list of titles as Roi d'Angleterre. And the notion of that "English" Monarch certainly didn't seem to bother the Dukes of Burgundy all that much.
 
Originally posted by Wheels
And the notion of that "English" Monarch certainly didn't seem to bother the Dukes of Burgundy all that much.

The Dukes of Normandy didn't care because they were on the verge of becoming Kings by themselves. Hence they wouldn't have to suffer a foreign rule.
 
Originally posted by Wheels

And if the English had somehow managed to win the war, Edward III was certainly not an "English" ruler. To the extent he was known as "Anglois" b/c that happened to be the highest title he possessed. In his correspondence with le Roi, he refers to himself as Duke of Aquitaine or of Normandy or of another French holding, first and only later in the list of titles as Roi d'Angleterre. And the notion of that "English" Monarch certainly didn't seem to bother the Dukes of Burgundy all that much.

Was it not Edward III who employed Caucher(sp?) who was one of the greatest english poets ever?

Was it not Edward III who spent enough time in england to form a knight order and hold several important parliments...

And in his titles he was: King of England and France, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy, Gascony, and Aquaine...
 
Originally posted by v.Oldebarnevelt
a question...
By which nations were the English ever defeated on the waves?

I can only think of one...

If by English you mean "the people living in what is now the UK", then the list would be: the Romans, the Angles, the Jutes, the Saxons, the Vikings, the Normans, the French, the Dutch.

If by English you mean "the Kingdom of England": the French & the Dutch.
 
Originally posted by Wheels

Furthermore, an incident is recounted wherein a chronicler with the young Ed. I on crusade in the holy land heard him mutter a couple of words of English, which was considered rather unusual. His Official biographer noted of him, "he can scarcely be looked on as an englishman."

I suspect that the real implication here is that the word "English" stands in for "commoner".

Anyway the English had plenty of trouble with Salic Law also. If you follow the reasoning at the top of this thread it's pretty clear that Stephan was an illegitimate king and that the Empress Maud's claim was wrongfully denied. And of course the Plantagenet claim to the English throne goes back to Maud and Henry II, so there was a reasonable case to be made the Edward III was illegitimate and that Stephan's decendants were the rightful kings of England. I sort of wonder why the Valois didn't think of that one.

The USA won some rather important fleet battles against Britain (and by extension England) on the Great Lakes. I'd add them to the list.
 
England was beaten by Spain lots of times (read about Luis de Córdoba or Álvaro de Bazán or Luis Fajardo or Blas de Lezo, all of them in the EU spanish leader file, to start with) in sea battles . By Castile in one of the biggest sea battles of the Middle Ages, La Rochelle. :D
 
Originally posted by Amadís de Gaula
England was beaten by Spain lots of times (read about Luis de Córdoba or Álvaro de Bazán or Luis Fajardo or Blas de Lezo, all of them in the EU spanish leader file, to start with) in sea battles . By Castile in one of the biggest sea battles of the Middle Ages, La Rochelle. :D


Oh Yes, we lost tons of sea battles but when it counted our fleet and rocks destroyed your ships, you Spanish are weak, what is a little Anglo-Scottish winter?:rolleyes: :D