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

Why didn't Scotland fight in the crusades in any meaningful capacity?
Is it because the English didn't allow safe conduct?
Are the English really that oppressive and insecure?

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

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.

>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

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.

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

This man gets it.

Scots don't like the sun

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 Veeky Forums to be good

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

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.
Veeky Forums is now a /pol/ colony, much in the same way that /pol/ is now a /b/ colony.

that guy isn't acting as God giving you rules. He's just giving you a tip on how to be a better Veeky Forums 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

>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.

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

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

I forgive you

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

*tip*

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.

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

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.

Robert the Bruce took part in a crusade in Spain no?

Were there Irish crusaders?