Why didn't Scotland fight in the crusades in any meaningful

>>2564071
>Scotland didn't fight in the crusades in any meaningful capacity
I'll have a source with that thanks

>>2564081
I'll have a source for the contrary. Name one great Scottish crusader. Even Good Sir James basically an-hero'd in Spain fighting moors because he couldn't crusade in the Holy Land.

>>2564094
>I'll have a source for the contrary
that's not how honest discourse work
either give a source that backs your thesis, or source things that will indirectly support your thesis
I'll make it even easier for you, you just need to find a single account of how many scots participated, and compare it to which amount of other people participated, then take into account how Scotland was sparsly populated and was located in a distant region of the world than, like, basically every other crusader state

>>2564071
They would die of sunburn before reaching the holy land

OP I recommend that you read The Impact of the Crusading Movement in Scotland 1095 - 1560, by Alan Denis MacQuarrie

Short answer: you're wrong, Scots did participate in the crusades.

>>2564118
You do well, but not well enough, to mask your anger and prejudice.
>>2564141
Thanks mate, I'll give it a look!

File: 1477030556284.jpg (50KB, 500x398px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x398px

>>2564134
This man gets it.

Scots don't like the sun

>>2564219
I'm quite angry at unsubstantiated claims desu, yes
i don't even really give a damn wether scots participated at all or were the main actors
i just want /his/ to be good

File: 1476362140579.png (10KB, 215x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 215x200px

>>2564219
you're welcome my man. just be sure you give your premise a google in the future to check whether it's actually true.

>>2564259
Literally what are you going to do if I don't. You aren't God and can't control the world. You just need to accept it as is.
>>2564247
/his/ is now a /pol/ colony, much in the same way that /pol/ is now a /b/ colony.

>>2564275
that guy isn't acting as God giving you rules. He's just giving you a tip on how to be a better /his/ user. Up to you to follow or not really. You wanna be a shit lad, be a shit lad
Just know it makes me sad, I don't care if you don't care

>>2564219
>You do well, but not well enough, to mask your anger and prejudice.
Now I'm not him, but your combination of base stupidity, laziness and arrogance does have me annoyed. The onus is on you to substantiate your own claims. Don't act like a snotty cunt of a child in need of a firm slap when somebody fails to do your own work for you.

>>2564302
MY perception substantiates my claims. You're projecting. Let go of your anger.

>>2564314
>perception
>claims
>feels
>reals
uh...not really no

>>2564332
I forgive you

>>2564345
And I reserve hope you'll decide to drop this style of discourse in the future, for the good of everyone involved

>>2564361
*tip*

>>2564368
the wording might sound pretentious but the sentiment is sincere

Their country was a backwater up until King David introduced Norman castles and institutions. Scotland was hardly in any position to send prime men when there was danger from the Norman and Plantagenet kings of England as well as Norway (they controlled the isles of Scotland).

James Douglas, a companion of Robert the Bruce went on crusade in Spain with the late king's heart encased in silver around his neck. Douglas and his retinue fought valiantly at the cost of their lives.

>>2564071
>>2564071
>Is it because the English didn't allow safe conduct?
why the fuck would the english allow cattle thieving brigands safe conduct?

>>2564584
Fucking THIS

Scotland was nothing before the Davidian Revolution. It had no towns to speak of nor any implementation of an economy outside of pastoralism and limited agriculture.

The only serious drawback was that it undermined the Gaelic nature of Scotland in favor of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon influenced Lowlands.

Were there Irish crusaders?

>>2567653
>The only serious drawback was that it undermined the Gaelic nature
A good thing.