|
Author
|
Topic: Prices in battle
|
Maria
Moderator
|
posted 07-25-2005 02:20 PM
  
And the question is, At what age?
Because if I am the King, I certainly don't send my son to battle, cause I don't want him dead, do I?
On the other hand, hey, he's supposed to be a future warrior, so I should send him. If he's mature enough, right?
|
Peter
Member
|
posted 07-25-2005 02:51 PM
I think Early Medieval, was one of those periods where being 'blooded' in battle could come at a very early age indeed. Not forgetting that these young men lived and breathed danger, were taught the skills of warfare from the time they could walk.
And the chances of dying in battle were most likely a lot less than dying of some illness. The King wanted someone who be able to take over if he died. And the more skillfull at an early age would give the young Prince that edge.
No, I think the King would be very pleased if his son could go on a campaign at the age of 13/14 and come back better for it.
Peter |
Paul
unregistered
|
posted 07-25-2005 07:20 PM
In medieval England a young heir to the throne would have been kept as far away from battle as would be possible.
He would have learned his warrior skills in tournaments from the age of 16 yrs or so.
Before that age he would have had tutors who would have schooled him in the skills of swordsmanship and archery etc.
There was no way that a king would have risked his sons life on the battlefield and therefore end the family's lineage to hold the throne.[This message has been edited by Paul (edited 07-26-2005).] [This message has been edited by Paul (edited 07-28-2005).] |
Maria
Moderator
|
posted 07-27-2005 04:22 AM
Thanks.
I rember reading somewhere about princes being sent overseas... can't remember the exact term for this... something like practice(but I have a feeling this was near the end of Middle Eve). Also, I remember Romanian prices being sent to the Ottoman Empire, to ensure the loyalty of the father. But then again, powerful kings never agreed to that. |
Maria
Moderator
|
posted 07-27-2005 04:41 AM
I looked it up, the trip to foreign contries was Grand Sneer(?) or Grand Tour, but it was in fashion in the 18th century. |
Peter
Member
|
posted 07-27-2005 03:13 PM
It goes without saying that different countries and different ages would treat royalty (so called)as befitting. And leaving the early medieval ages things changed drastically. Mainly due to a more stable goverment in many counteries.
But the early English Kings (if we may call them that?), some didn't last long.
Edmund 1 (940-946), was King about the age of 18. But was said to be a general at the battle of Brunanburh at the age of 15. He died aged 24.
Eadred (946-955), was King about aged 16. He lasted until he was 25.
Edwy (955-959), was King about aged 14, he was 18 when he died.
Edward, the Martyr (975-978), was King of the English from about 12.
Ethelred II (The Unready) 978-1013 was only 10 when he came to the throne. So he lasted pretty well considering.
Whilst they might not have the physical strength of an older person, they certainly had to handle themselves. Because, as we can see they didn't last long.
If we move forward to Henry I (1100-1135), we can take the point from Maria. Here his son William died in the wreck of the 'White Ship' aged 10 (1120). This was, I believe due to his training between Normandy and England.
Being 'blooded'of course just meant that. The King would have his chosen son & heir at certain battles (where he would be well protected). But this learning process 'may' enhance his survival prospects.
A little aside to this is from Sweyn (1013-1014)Is said to have died from a fall off his horse during an army advance -traditionally struck down in the course of an hallucination that the sainted King Edward, whom he obsessionally hated, rode towards him in full armour to challenge hin in single combat. Seeing that Edward was assassinated at about the age 15, it does suggest that someone of that age would not be out of place on the battlefield if their physical size allowed them to do so.
An interesting topic which could move over to the training of Welsh Princes.
Whatever the truth it would seem that even having eyes in the back of your head might not help you much despite your size or training.
Phew!
Peter |
Paul
unregistered
|
posted 07-28-2005 05:50 AM
I can recommend a book on this subject.
The death of kings, by Michael Evans.
Fascinating stuff!
Also, I have read that the son of a nobleman or king would be expected to be an accomplished horseman by the age of seven.[This message has been edited by Paul (edited 07-28-2005).] |
Peter
Member
|
posted 07-28-2005 06:51 AM
Cheers Paul,
I don't know that one.
Will look it up through Abe-Books on the web.
Peter |
Tiptoft
Member
|
posted 08-14-2005 07:43 PM
a bit late to this i am but nevertheless... I can think of Edward of Woodstock, Prince of Wales, fighting at Crecy aged 16; Henry of Monmouth, Prince of Wales, aged 15 fighting (and being wounded in the face by an arrow) at Shrewsbury 1403. Edward I, when he was Prince of Wales fought alongside his father at Lewes, but was 25 at the time...
...Richard 3rd Duke of York, at the time heir to the throne, had no qualms about taking his 2nd son Edmund Earl of Rutland (aged 17)alongside him for his ill-advised sortie out of Sandal Castle, Wakefield in 1460...
...11 years later, the 18 year old Edward, Lancastrian Prince of Wales perished on the field at Tewkesbury...Well apart from the last example, (when the Prince was nominally the Lancastrian C in C and had no choice but to fight) in every case the king (or heir!!) had at least one other son.
Not sure about the tournament being safe though; i think Henry II lost 2 sons to tournament accidents.... x ------------------
|
Maria
Moderator
|
posted 08-15-2005 06:49 AM
Thanks! |
Maria
Moderator
|
posted 08-15-2005 06:50 AM
Oh, by the way, I was reading a book about the Kings of Scotland. Hm... definately not a career choice. Almost all seem to have suffered a violet death.[This message has been edited by Maria (edited 08-15-2005).] |
Paul
unregistered
|
posted 08-15-2005 07:35 AM
James I - Murdered in the royal lodgings at Blackfriars, Perth in 1437 by Sir Robert Graham as a result of a conspiracy led by the Earl of Atholl.James II - Killed by an exploding cannon while he was supervising the siege of Roxburgh Castle in 1460. James III - Murdered in 1488 after the Battle of Sauchieburn in which the king was opposed by a force led by his 15-year-old son, James IV. It had been prophesied that he would be betrayed by his nearest kin and King James III had imprisoned his brothers as a result. James IV - Killed at the Battle of Flodden Field in 1513 as he advanced into England in support of the French and the "Auld Alliance" James V- Died of his wounds and grief after his defeat at the Battle of Solway Moss in 1542. James V's daughter, Mary Queen of Scots was executed in 1587 but her son, James VI, eventually died of natural causes in 1625.
Regards, Paul. [This message has been edited by Paul (edited 08-15-2005).] |
Maria
Moderator
|
posted 08-16-2005 09:18 AM
Yes, I know! And here am I, wishing I was a medieval princess! I must have been mad! I read somewhere that the executioner(?) had to strike several blows to cut Maria Stuard's head... ugh. Boring life suddenly doesn't seem so bad... |
Paul
unregistered
|
posted 08-16-2005 09:49 AM
Three strokes apparently, he then had to cut through the skin and gristle with a sheath knife to complete the job.
Not pleasant at all!
For a history of beheading look here http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/behead.html Paul. |
Peter
Member
|
posted 08-16-2005 03:09 PM
I'm glad I've already had my dinner with you two at it .
And it wasn't a chop either .... sorry!
Peter |
Paul
unregistered
|
posted 08-16-2005 07:36 PM
Anne Boleyn was more fortunate in that her husband Henry VIII permited her to be executed by the best executioner in France, from Calais, and also allowed her the relief of being beheaded with the sword instead of the axe.
Although her crime of "adultery" would normally have meant that she should have been burned at the stake.Henry paid £40 for the executioner and Anne paid an additional £20 for a quick and clean ending.
Paul [This message has been edited by Paul (edited 08-16-2005).] |
Maria
Moderator
|
posted 08-17-2005 06:46 AM
Sorry, Peter... 
I guess we could start a whole new topic on the subject of "nice behaviour" in the middle ages. |
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
Castle Quest
