The real Edward I of England

Originally posted by Heraclius  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.

I wouldn't say that the Scots were invaded unwarrantly, from an English point of view. They were siding with France in their quarrels with England and had been doing so for some time before this. The English had every right to secure their northern border if they had a track record of aligning themselves with their enemies when a war came about.

Originally posted by Constantine XI 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.

Edward the Elder (r. 899-924)

Yes, but Basil Rathbone made such a good villain!!!!

Thanks Duchess - sometimes historians take themselves way too serious.  History should be fun!

Originally posted by King John Going back to the original question though, Edward I is so named because the numbering of kings started with Norman kings. Before the Norman Conquest kings were known by names like Aethelred 'the Unready' or Alfred 'the Great' or Harold Godwinson.

Edited by Aelfgifu - 24-May-2007 at 11:50

If going by Aelfgifu's logic Edward I should be Edward II because Edward the Confessor was the only Edward (pre-Conquest) who was king of England - Danelaw, Wessex, et al. Edward the Elder was only king of Wessex so he doesn't count as king of all England.

Edited by gcle2003 - 25-May-2007 at 06:47

Originally posted by Melisende What's that phrase - your enemies' enemy is your ally, or something along those lines.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

I prefer the use of the word "ally" rather than "friend" in that saying, I find it more accurate. There is a big difference between a friend and an ally.

Perhaps we need to make the distinction between the "King of England" and an "English King".

Originally posted by Constantine XI Perhaps we need to make the distinction between the "King of England" and an "English King".

Perhaps someone can help flesh out a thumbnail of early Anglo-Saxon history. The British king Vortigern first imported Anglo-Saxon mercenaries to the British Isles in 449, thus sparking off the Arthurian wars. There seems to be some reason why the year 529 keeps sticking out in my mind. Was this the point by which the Anglo-Saxons had all of the area we now know as England? At any rate, there was a period of Anglo-Saxon history known as the Age of the Heptarchy (the seven kingdoms). The seven kingdoms of the old Anglo-Saxon heptarchy were East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex, and Wessex. Periodically, one of the kings of the old Anglo-Saxon heptarchy would reduce the other six to submission and take the title of Bretwalda. In 802, Egbert King of Wessex came to the throne and by 829, he had taken over the entirety of the old Anglo-Saxon heptarchy. The king-lists of England usually cite Egbert (r. 802-839), a distant ancestor of the sitting Queen, as the first Anglo-Saxon king of a united England.