Basically this is the only thing that particular member always claims. Dont get mad about him, just ignore, its the easiest way to handle him… Even writing under bug reports that that particular bug is not there for him, so does not seem to be an issue at all.
1 Like
No but you ranted in favour of Islamic religious tax or Jizyah without a knowledge of how loopholes in this taxation scheme were exploited to force convert or murder people. Anyways your last post was deleted by the moderators because such discussions have no place in a gaming forums so lets not get into that again.
Let me see, Edward carried out a Jewish pogrom where he had every head of the household of every Jewish family in England arrested and subsequently executed, levied taxes on them and banned them from England but he is still a good guy. He had his soldiers mutilate his uncle Simon de Monfort’s corpse by slashing off his testicles and hanging it over his nose but still he’s a good guy. The video that you linked attempts to whitewash all his crimes quite conspicuously so here’s another one that’s presented somewhat more objectively.
But yes I must admit comparing Longshanks to Hitler was perhaps unfair but still Edward I was no great king of England about whom Brits like yourself can brag about or rush to defend him whenever someone on the internet says something not too flattering about him.
Also yes perhaps Edward I did not seek a Scottish genocide, he already attempted a Jewish one so I doubt even a medieval king would go that far but his implementation of jus primae noctis in Scotland would’ve resulted in something similar had it succeeded regardless of what Edward intended.
My entire point has been if we are to have an English campaign for the first time why not choose a more positive one like that of Richard I. We could’ve played a more extensive and interesting phase of the crusades to his eventual capture and ransom by Leopold of Austria and maybe perhaps add some of the less historically accurate but popular tales like his alliance with Robert of Locksley (Robin Hood) and reclamation of his throne with Locksleys help as portrayed in tales like The Legend of Robin Hood and Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott.
1 Like
It is the smallest Add on to date though. Even the free the last Khans included 4 new civs.
10€ isn’t too much. 50-75% of base game price sure is though.
If you compare it directly, sure, the price is relatively high, but you also have to consider that the price of the base game is very low for what you get. They could have sold DE for 30€ and it would still have been an amazing deal. I see the new DLC as a way to finance future support of the game.
2 Likes
The fact that the base game may or may not be underpriced doesn’t change the fact new DLC is overpriced.
2 Likes
I totally agree that King Edward was unkind to the Jews…in fact many English (and French) kings were not kind to Jews at all. But that is a different discussion from the one that I was engaging you with over Edward’s relationship with the Scots.
The moderators deleted my previous comments? I am fine with that. Personally, our conversation was getting a bit on the very aggressive side. I appreciate that you admit that comparing Edward Longshanks to Adolf Hitler was wrong. I will also say that I apologize for being arrogant in my previous comments as well.
As for you stating that we should have a more “positive campaign” by having King Richard I “the Lionhearted” instead of King Edward I “Longshanks”, I will say this: Richard was not too much of a “great king” either. He also did not treat Jews that well as king, and he did not care much for the English people as common Robin Hood legend would led you to believe (also, Richard’s brother John was also not as cruel as commonly believed as well).
Richard for one bankrupted his realm in costly wars with the Kingdom of France that gained his realm little benefit. In fact, it was Richard’s slight mis-management of of finances during his rule that had his bother John have problems with the barons (of course, John himself made problems during his reign).
Comparing Richard to Edward…Edward is by far the more successful king economically and militarily for England. While both men when on crusade, and Richard’s crusade was more successful than Edward’s (and more well known), Edward certainly was a more successful monarch, albeit more controversial due to Scots today disliking him because of how he tried to annex Scotland at the end of the 13th century.
Personally, I think it is quite fine that King Edward is getting his own campaign in AoE2. He deserves it. As for Richard? He already has one covering his exploits in the Third Crusade.
NOTE: to any admins reading this comment of mine, I apologize if an of my previous comments violated community guidelines. My only excuse is that I got too excited debating historical fact with another person. I am extremely passionate about history, so I hope that you forgive me.
You have just committed heresy.
Even Saladin liked Richard.
On a serious note, Longshanks campaign makes sense, and I welcome it. The Middle Ages were a time of great turmoil, and campaigns like Longshanks, Ivaylo and Ghengis are there to show that these kind of people were real, and not just fiction villains.
World History is full of monsters, there is no sense in hiding them.
2 Likes
Ivaylo is hardly perceived as a villain though. But otherwise I agree: I love how some campaigns are not about the top-of-the-pops historical figures and I definitely welcome campaigns about some characters that otherwise go relatively unnoticed simply because they weren’t ever-so-victorious and all-smashing. That is the reason I enjoyed the El Cid campaign, the Sforza campaign, the Ivaylo campaign.
1 Like
The thing with Longshanks, is that he was victorious and all-smashing.
One of the most successful rulers of the age, and very much a successful villain that won out in the end.
He is there to remind us that the Universe has no sense of justice, and Evil often wins.
2 Likes
Then don’t buy it. Let the rest of us support the devs and give them the money we think they deserve for their hard work. In the grander scheme of things game devs generally make peanuts compared to other companies… Especially RTS devs
4 Likes
I agree, honestly, the devs are doing a great job even compared to other parts of the Age of Empires series, I’m just not the kind of person who will invest a lot of money into videogames.
Is there any good biography about Longshanks, he seems to be the English version of Cao Cao.
1 Like
He is the english Cao Cao, but if Cao Cao was a king and not a court eunuch.
They are very comparable.
“Edward I was a tall man for his era, at 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m), hence the nickname “Longshanks”. He was temperamental, and this, along with his height, made him an intimidating man, and he often instilled fear in his contemporaries”
1 Like
Yes but then again he is controversial. He is not the king that we know from the fairy tales, with a noble heart and a strongly defined sense of honor; destroying the forces of evil in the name of social justice.
He shouldn’t be, a king like that would not last a week at any Medieval court.
A newborn lamb amongst wolves would have a better fighting chance!
The realities of rulership, even today, is that it is messy place where only the ruthless and ambitious survive.
SocJus is Evil!
1 Like
Well, Richard was not a “bad king” but I criticize the extent of his “greatness” which I think the Robin Hood myth and many cinematic portrayals have emphasized all so often. The Story of Robin Hood usually always casts Richard in a very good light (with the exception of the 2010 Russel Crowe Robin Hood film, which does cover some of Richard’s darker side).
If we are talking about “great medieval English Kings” you have to hand it to Richard’s father Henry II for establishing the mighty Plantagenet dynasty that would rule England for centuries…or Edward I “Longshanks” as we have already been discussing, as Edward make the English monarchy quite powerful and effective…even despite Edward ruling in a post-Magna Carter medieval England.
Henry V needless to say was another great English monarch.
I would personally rate Henry II, Edward I, Edward III and Henry V as “greater English monarchs” over Richard I. I can understand why others would like Richard a lot, especially due to his Third Crusade performance, which was admittedly the BEST part in Richard’s career.
Could not agree more.
1 Like
Richard was the very model of a Warrior King.
He often fought on the frontlines, usually answered challenges personally, had much faith in God, was generous to the Church, adventured in distant and exotic lands, and surrounded himself with an elite cadre of warlike Knights.
He is so often idolized by pop culture, because he virtually represented every trope conceivable for a Medieval monarch.
He is the type of king novels were actually written about, and fictional kings were modelled on.
As a ruler, he had shortcomings, but as a near-mythical figure, he is up there with Arthur and Saint Michael in the Book of Revelations.
1 Like
He was a firm king…not necessarily “viscous” (though he did show some of his anger over the Scottish people due to their stubbornness to submit to his rule, and of course he was responsible for massacring many English Jews in London). Edward was that typical medieval, European monarch who wanted to make his realm great and he very much succeeded in that.
Without Edward Longshanks, England would have been less unified in the 13th-14th century period, Wales would have not been annexed into England (the tradition of naming the heir “Prince of Wales” would not have occurred), and without Edward, the Kingdom of England would not have been in a good position to take of the Kingdom of France. Edward’s grandfather King John I lost nearly all English lands held in France…and his grandson reversed that.
We must all keep in mind that many of Edward’s enemies (Scots, Welsh, French, rebellious English barons) would have wanted to have history write down Edward as a tyrant and a cruel man, and that maybe be part of the reason why Edward today is controversial.
The film Braveheart is certainly critiqued as one of the more inaccurate film adaptations of medieval history, in some part due to depicted Edward in a incessantly evil man for the purposes of cinematic entertainment.
Richard I ruled for 10 years (1189 – 1199) and Edward I ruled for 35 years (1272 – 1307) kindly explain to me the logic behind drawing a direct comparison of their rules in terms of economic and military success? What Richard achieved in his 10 years as a valiant and honourable monarch Edward couldn’t in his 35 years of malice and skullduggery.
Richard never ordered any attack on Jews, they were done mostly by bigoted and intolerant citizens. He even made reparations for the Jews after the attack and ordered the ones responsible to be executed, an order that even angered the Archbishop of Canterbury. Most attacks on Jews in the reign of Richard were carried out by bigots which included many of his soldiers, ones who were supposed to enforce his edicts. It’s even said that this was one of his motivations for the Crusades so the English would be united against a common enemy instead of waging a civil war.
I am not even going to start comparing Crusade performance both in terms of success and relation with allies. Even Saladin considered Richard a worthy enemy. As for his dark side, Richard displayed his darkest when he ordered the execution of 2000 of prisoners of war after a breakdown of a prisoner exchange agreement with Saladin that resulted in Saladin executing all his prisoners as well. This was perhaps the only time in his life that Richard displayed such wanton barbarism that surprised all his crusader allies. Only one of his allies had Richard a beef with and that was Leopold of Austria.
On the other hand Edward achieved hardly anything in the Crusades and only lead a charge that failed badly and was even almost assassinated by a Nizari Assassin and had to turn back.
Edward unlike Richard was a colonialist who believe in forcefully subjugating his weaker neighbours, repressing all feeling of patriotism and self-determination till they are completely assimilated while relentlessly exploiting them and extorting them out of most of their resources. Being from a nation that was once a colony of the British Empire believe me I know what I am talking about.
Richard died due to a gangrene resulting from a crossbow bolt injury. He even had the crossbowman brought before him to know the reason and pardoned him. Edward died so befittingly of dysentery in a campaign against Robert the Bruce.
I hope you will not think of me as too much of a sentimentalist when I say that someone who orders the mutilation of corpses, especially that of his kin hardly qualifies as human in my book, let alone a regent.
Either way it all boils down to personal preference and if you ask me I’ll choose Ricky The Lion over Eddy Long Legs any given day and twice on a Sunday.
The fact that Edward ruled longer meant that he had a more lasting impact on England’s politics than Richard did. Furthermore, like I outlined earlier, Richard pretty much ruined the nation by bankrupting it, which make his brother and successor, John, have a very difficult time managing the realm. Edward Ion the other hand, handed down a pretty effective realm to his son, Edward II, but that Edward II was nothing like the glory of his father, and under his reign, England lost control of Scotland and suffered other issues, such as rebellion and government mis-management. I think that fact alone is enough to make Edward considered a better English king than Richard. But let’s continue the discussion:
Well spotted. Yes, Richard I was NOT as horrible to the Jews as Edward was. But exactly as you say, Richard did execute Muslim prisoners unjustly, which did prompt Saladin to kill his own Crusader prisoners (on a side note: Saladin is a mixed bag, he did show exceptional chivalry and honor towards the European crusaders, but there were times where Saladin displayed brutality against his foes. This is actually one of my personal researches that I am undergoing: was Saladin really a honorable foe, or was he a brutal warrior?)
This was pretty much only due to the circumstances of the crusade that Edward participated in. The Eighth and Ninth Crusades that Edward partook in were terribly organized crusades not on Edward’s part but by ALL the Europeans that took part in it, and in addition, the Muslim powers of Egypt and Syria were at their zenith in military power as compared to the Third Crusade era that Richard I was a part of, where the Crusaders enjoyed MORE support, MORE warfunding, and had control of MORE territory. So I do not think that it is entirely fair to judge Edward harshly on his crusading days, because by his time (13th century) the method of crusading has lost a large portion of is effectiveness due to the Muslim kingdoms of the Levant growing in power and consolidating their lands so that they could properly address European foreign interventions into there territories.
You are forgetting that Ricahrd also tried to colonize France just as Edward did. And yes, Edward was much more involved in taking over Scotland and Wales compared to Richard, Richard did meddle in the affairs of Ireland when he was king. Basically, BOTH rulers meddled into the affairs of France, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland one way or another. It was natural given that the Kingdom of England was situated in the middle of all those other kingdoms. Richard, being a Norman-English descendant of William the Conqueror naturally wanted to expand his kingdom at the expense of his neighbors in the 12th century just as much as Edward I wanted to in the 13th century. It is just that Richard had a longer reign than Edward, and that Richard was a bit less successful in Edward in terms of military conquest (France in the 12th century was a more unified foe to Richard compared to the France in teh 13th century against Edward…France suffered major internal issues which allowed Edward I, Edward III, Henry IV and Henry V of England to take advantage over France and make significant gains in the Hundred Year’s War. If Richard were alive to witness the time of the Hundred Years War, he would have been thrilled to see his successor English kings doing so well against France. Richard himself was only able to make small gains against the French as Edward had)
I fail to see why this would make Richard better than Edward? Even though Richard “pardoned” the enemy crossbowman than shot at him, Richard’s retainers would go on to butcher the crossbowman after Richard died. I would dare say that it was a fault on Richard’s part to not make sure his retainers kept the pardon honored and carried out, before he passed away.
Based on your previous comments, I would say that you did seem to get very sentimental over your statements. But the fact that you hope to not be considered sentimental by me means that you are willing to acknowledge your mistakes, and I appreciate that. For me, I am open to have ANY historical debate, no matter how controversial . I would prefer if said conversations remain civil, and seeing you be much softer in your most recent comments as compared to your earlier ones is heartwarming. So thank you ULTRAMAS5762 for toning down your aggression.
I do not want to get angry when I debate history…my goal is to help others understand history in a more objectional manner. I love for the truth of history to be made known, whether it be “bad truth” or “good truth”.
And lastly: if you prefer Richard the Lionhearted over Edward Longshanks, I am totally fine with that. You seem passionate about Richard and that is totally understandable. I used to like Richard myself admittedly. But recently, after I conducted more research into King Edward I, I have found that the latter is more noteworthy of a English-warrior king than Richard is. So my honest opinion is that Edward was the better king than Richard.