For years I have been reading the history of England. In the process I’ve learned there is more than one book entitled the history of England. For example the latest tome I’m reading is by Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800 – 1859), “The History of England, from the Accession of James II”, five volumes of 1,000 pages each. The number of other independent authors addressing the same overall subject is too numerous to mention. Some have a parenthetical allusion to a particular reign of monarch; while one at least by Thomas Frederick Tout (1855 – 1929) is unqualified (though it covers England’s medieval period or Middle Ages in the 1200s). Another dwells primarily upon the era of the Magna Carta during the same period. There is even the History of England in Verse (1876); or, if you prefer, the Oxford History of Britain.
Throughout all that I have read, without exception, the account of battles and wars – many lasting for years – constitutes the predominant and endless theme. Underlying these wars is inevitably religious conflict or the more ludicrous fiction of divine inheritance. But the battle against the infidels (aka, “the Crusades”) is unquestionably the most preposterous and objectionable. I can only digest its significance when recalling that much of the evolution of popular government began as far back as the Romans in the Mediterranean and then spread westward through Italy and over what is now called Germany and France to Ireland, the United Kingdom and England.
The Crusades: In 1095, Pope Urban II proclaimed the first expedition at the Council of Clermont. He encouraged military support for Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos and called for an armed pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Across all social strata in western Europe there was an enthusiastic response. Participants came from all over Europe and had a variety of motivations, including religious salvation, satisfying feudal obligations, opportunities for renown, and economic or political advantage.
It irks me to read the almost joyous accounts of slaughter of one tribe by another while dwelling with equal glee and disregard upon the castles and furnishings of the reputed leaders. As is evident in the following quotation the test of power and manliness appears always to have been the power to kill. The nexus of this aggressive bent with blunt amusement is disturbingly undeniable.
“The Dominican chronicler, Nicholas Trivet, thus describes the personality of Edward I.: “He was of elegant build and lofty stature, exceeding the height of the ordinary man by a head and shoulders. His abundant hair was yellow in childhood, black in manhood, and snowy white in age. His brow was broad, and his features regular, save that his left eyelid drooped somewhat, like that of his father, and hid part of the pupil. He spoke with a stammer, which did not, however, detract from the persuasiveness of his eloquence. His sinewy, muscular arms were those of the consummate swordsman, and his long legs gave him a firm hold in the saddle when riding the most spirited of steeds. His chief delight was in war and tournaments, but he derived great pleasure from hawking and hunting, and had a special joy in chasing down stags on a fleet horse and slaying them with a sword instead of a hunting spear.”
Excerpt From The History of England
Thomas Frederick Tout
Edward’s temperamental nature and height made him an intimidating figure and he often instilled fear in his contemporaries, although he held the respect of his subjects for the way he embodied the medieval ideal of kingship as a soldier, an administrator and a man of faith. Modern historians are divided in their assessment of Edward; some have praised him for his contribution to the law and administration, but others have criticised his uncompromising attitude towards his nobility. Edward is credited with many accomplishments, including restoring royal authority after the reign of Henry III and establishing Parliament as a permanent institution, which allowed for a functional system for raising taxes and reforming the law through statutes. At the same time, he is also often condemned for his wars against Scotland and for expelling the Jews from England in 1290.
Reading about these vagabond kings and queens who moved their war chests back and forth across the continent and the islands for what appears to have been little more than a device for ulterior purposes, is disquieting. It begins to resound of a comic book about the ploys of a spoiled and unthinking British gentry. The battle was always between entitlement and timing. The issues of oligarchy vs representative government (parliament) were seldom fought upon authenticity or legitimacy; rather upon what use could be made of specious reasoning or deceit.
“Even to the partisan of Earl Simon, Edward was “a valiant lion, quick to attack the strongest, and fearing the onslaught of none. But if a lion in pride and fierceness, he was a panther in inconstancy and mutability, changing his word and promise, cloaking himself by pleasant speech. When he is in a strait he promises whatever you wish, but as soon as he has escaped he forgets his promise. The treachery or falsehood, whereby he is advanced, he calls prudence; the way whereby he arrives whither he will, crooked though it be, he regards as straight; whatever he likes he says is lawful, and he thinks he is released from the law, as though he were greater than a king.”
Excerpt From
The History of England
Thomas Frederick Tout
The inclination to overlook this historic bloodshed and inutility unfortunately works to diminish the strength and distaste of the offences. Instead of publishing a library of books about the history of England’s civil wars, it would in my opinion have been more suitable to capture the inadequacy of the former rulers to rise above the absurdities of conflict for social improvement. Modern politics, in its constant infliction of hatred upon others, is little different. And if we are to believe the popular pundits when spouting about Trump’s on-going manifestations, the ground-level anxiety may well translate into riot and harm beyond belief. It is regrettable the masses, to their ultimate discredit, continue to be absorbed by the foolish activity of cartoon heroes like Trump whose only assertion of truth is denial. As a political gambit it may serve an end but it is otherwise an obtuse device equivalent to a stammering criminal in a court of law.