In retellings of the Robin Hood story, we hear a great deal about good King Richard. In actual history, Richard the Lionheart neglected England to go off on a Crusade far away for years on end, where he engaged in acts of terrible brutality.
819 years ago today, King Richard I butchered 2,700 Muslims he had been holding as prisoners in Akko.
Would you fight to keep such a person in place as your rightful king?
Gee, that makes Prince John sound like a pretty good alternative.
No better here: http://www.pruningshears.us/
Judging the history from today’s standards may be an interesting and worthwhile discussion but it’s not valid. I cannot think of any justification for ending life such as that in any time but that’s from a 2010 standard. There are things we do today that will be considered atrocities in 600 years that they won’t see as justifiable in any time.
Why is it not valid?
To you and me anyone killing 2700 of anyone is unthinkable in anytime. 600 years ago was it so unthinkable to reasonable thinkers? Where there such reasonable thinkers back then? It’s wrong looking back but if you and I would have grown up 600 years ago I don’t know that we would have though the same about it. I would hope so but I can’t say for certain. 600 years from now it may be unconscionable to think that any would have to labor to put food on the table but right now it is fulfilling and seems right. I know this is very different than killing 2700 people but 600 years from now reasonable thinkers may not think so..
That’s an explanation for why people might think about things differently. But it’s not an explanation for why it’s invalid to evaluate events that happened in the past.
I struggled for the right word to use. “Unfair” sounded too childish. But saying “that’s wrong” from here has the advantage of 600 years. In 600 years what I’m doing now and being patted on the back for may be just as horrid in 600 years as killing 2700 people. It’s not a fair judgement.
Well, you’re right, it’s not “fair” in the sense that Prince John can’t talk back. But life, whoops, I mean death isn’t fair that way. That’s just the nature of the universe. And you’re right that you may be judged harshly in 600 years. But you’ll be dead — it won’t hurt your feelings.
So here we all are now, those of us who are alive, and even the oldest among us is hopelessly young against the span of history. I still don’t understand why you feel is it a bad idea to look to history for examples of conduct to emulate and of conduct to avoid, and to make judgments about which historical conduct fits in which sort.
It’s a good idea to use history as a means of emulating or avoiding current conduct which is why I said that it’s a worthwile discussion. So to answer Truman’s question, of course not, that’s silly, I never would. King Richard should have been dethrowned and put in prison for life. But had I grown up under King Richard my answer may have been different. I’ll stop repeating myself.
OK.
Hopefully abortion will be one of those things…
I agree. If we truly advance it will be but I fear that we don’t. But I also think the federal government shouldn’t be involved in the matter either way.
A simple way to settle this matter is to take a look at the historical record. Were people outraged? You bet they were. There were paintings of the mass execution of prisoners. It was regarded as a very significant event.
Lets be fair about this too, Robin Hood as an old english folk tale was almost certainly popular as a figure who railed against authority. When folk tales were codified and written down, anything too seditious wouldn’t make it into print. It’s ok for Robin Hood to steal from the rich and give to the poor, as long as he will get down on his knees and doff his cap to some suitable “noble” figure. In this case, a crusader king who enriched and fought for catholic interests. And for hundreds of years afterwards it was the catholics who wrote an awful lot of stuff down. To be honest I know very little of the history of Robin Hood literature. However it is true that King Richard was popular with the church, whilst King John was something of a reformist, who despite suffering a barons revolt and losing several overseas possession (calais and other parts of northern france, largely due to the crippling financial burden of richard’s crusade) managed to lay the foundations of bureaucratic government in England.
And in answer to your question, I wouldn’t fight for any king, I don’t think a monarch can be rightful in any sense, and I really don’t condone massacres. I find it sad that in the UK I was taught in school about “great heroes” of our past, only to find out about the barbarous savages that they were (In contrast to the people casually labelled as such and murdered.)
So King Richard murdered his way across the Holy Land, Churchill spent his youth murdering people in India and middle years recommending the gassing of kurds in Iraq and Tony Blair murdered … oh wait, he isn’t a hero. Yet …
Anyhow, sorry for a rather long and rambling post, but it’s rather late on this side of the pond and my (key-less) housemate has yet to get back in, so I’m up until she decides to show …