Print Page | Close Window

Reclaiming the Edwards?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Description: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
Moderators: Knights, edgewaters, es_bih
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=26882
Printed Date: 26-Jun-2019 at 18:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Reclaiming the Edwards?
Posted By: Huscarl
Subject: Reclaiming the Edwards?
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2009 at 21:51
Should we in England rename the numbers of the Kings of England called Edward, in order to ensure historical accuracy?

For instance, Edward 'the Elder' (899-924), Edward the Martyr (975-8) and Edward the Confessor (1042-1066) should all be renamed as Edward I,II & III respectively?

Then the currently-known Edward I (1272-1307) would become, correctly in English chronology, Edward IV, as the Normans did not start history off, but inherited a powerful, wealthy and complex economy far more successful than any other western state?

After all, there was talk about reclaiming the Bayeux Tapestry to England (where it was made by English noblewomen), and there is also a current fad of renaming years BC as BCE?

-------------
http://www.englistory.co.uk/ - http://www.englistory.co.uk/




Replies:
Posted By: Dacian
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2009 at 23:20
Originally posted by Huscarl Huscarl wrote:

Should we in England rename the numbers of the Kings of England called Edward, in order to ensure historical accuracy?

For instance, Edward 'the Elder' (899-924), Edward the Martyr (975-8) and Edward the Confessor (1042-1066) should all be renamed as Edward I,II & III respectively?

Then the currently-known Edward I (1272-1307) would become, correctly in English chronology, Edward IV, as the Normans did not start history off, but inherited a powerful, wealthy and complex economy far more successful than any other western state?

After all, there was talk about reclaiming the Bayeux Tapestry to England (where it was made by English noblewomen), and there is also a current fad of renaming years BC as BCE?


while the numbering issue would be correct why would anyone bother
very unimportant issue I might say but if anyone is willing to spend the money on republishing all the stuff to include the changes than why not...for spartanic historical accuracy :D


as for the Bayeux Tapestry what do you mean? renaming it as english (sort of the English Channel way? or getting it back to England if it is not there (no ideea where it is atm)


and last BC and BCE again matters not....same unuseful kind of changes that make the proponets feel important (kind of GMT>UTC time name change)



Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 00:48
The tapestry is in Bayeux, France....and I would love to see the justifications that British would make for its transportation to England when they refuse to return the Parthenon marbles and other stolen arifacts to their respective countries.


Posted By: Dacian
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 01:31
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

The tapestry is in Bayeux, France....and I would love to see the justifications that British would make for its transportation to England when they refuse to return the Parthenon marbles and other stolen arifacts to their respective countries.


bah I waited for an answer before I was about to ask the same question :D




Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 08:23
I'm of the impression that the pre Norman kings refer to a different realm entirely. The land of the anglo saxons, of Edward the Confessor and Harold etc. was an entirely different kingdom which didn't use the numbering system. Better to leave it the way it is - the three Edwards form a very distinct chain in High medieval British history, wouldn't want to confuse us!
 
On a lighter note, if the three Edwards didn't have numbers, what would they be called? Edward the Longshanks, Edward the Gay and Edward the Warlord maybe?


-------------
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 12:09
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

The tapestry is in Bayeux, France....and I would love to see the justifications that British would make for its transportation to England when they refuse to return the Parthenon marbles and other stolen arifacts to their respective countries.
 
 
The English don't make a case for its return, it was woven in France and French property.


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 13:49
I can't help but wonder why Henry III gave his children Anglo-Saxon names when all his post-Norman predecessors, to the best of my knowledge, stuck with Frankish names. If it was to establish a sense of continuity with the Wessex house it wouldn't make sense for Edward to disregard the previous Edwards and become Edward the first.

-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 16:37
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

I'm of the impression that the pre Norman kings refer to a different realm entirely. The land of the anglo saxons, of Edward the Confessor and Harold etc. was an entirely different kingdom which didn't use the numbering system. Better to leave it the way it is - the three Edwards form a very distinct chain in High medieval British history, wouldn't want to confuse us!
 
On a lighter note, if the three Edwards didn't have numbers, what would they be called? Edward the Longshanks, Edward the Gay and Edward the Warlord maybe?
After that of course they gradually tailed off - Edward the Quite Reasonable, Edward the Whatever Happened To Him, Edward the Teen, Edward the Cheery Old Roué and Edward the Better Forgotten.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2009 at 20:09

It was Edward the Martyr who really should be regarded as the first English king to bear the name. Edward the Elder was king of the Anglo-Saxons, although in a few charters he styled himself as "rex Anglorum". This would be for purposes of prestige only.

He did, however, receive the submission of the northern kings, but he did not rule the northern regions directly. It was his son, Athelstan, who was the first Anglo-Saxon king to rule the kingdom of York directly together with Mercia and Wessex. Consequently, it is he who is regarded  by historians as the first king of the English.
 
Henry III named his eldest son Edward because at that time there was a strong cult of Edward the Confessor who was regarded as being very pious. In fact when he became king, Edward seriously considered styling  himself Edward II in deference to Edward the Confessor.


Posted By: Windemere
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2009 at 23:22
It's been said that strong, self-confident monarchs tend to choose new, innovative names for their successors. Cautious, careful monarchs choose recent, familiar names, hoping to maintain continuity. Anxious, worried monarchs choose old, traditional names recalling past glories. Henry III had a long but uncertain reign, maybe in naming his son he was trying to restore some old glory to his  shaky dynasty.

-------------
Windemere


Posted By: Huscarl
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2009 at 19:40
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

 
The English don't make a case for its return, it was woven in France and French property.


Sorry Paul, but it was almost definately made by noble English needlewomen in either Winchester- known for such handcraft by expert needle workers then- or Canterbury.


-------------
http://www.englistory.co.uk/ - http://www.englistory.co.uk/



Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 21:18
The numbering represents the Norman England and it's successors in any case.

-------------
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.


Posted By: bod
Date Posted: 09-May-2009 at 22:28
It would be difficult to give numbers to many Anglo Saxon Kings because there were different kings for diffrent areas.

Would you start with Athelstan?


Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 19:20
Originally posted by bod bod wrote:

It would be difficult to give numbers to many Anglo Saxon Kings because there were different kings for diffrent areas.

Would you start with Athelstan?
 
Athelstan is regarded as the first king of the English, but he did regard himself as more then that. In his early charters he was styled rex Anglorum, but later, particularly after the battle of Brunaburgh where he defeated the Norse and Scots, he often signed charters as rex totius Britannie meaning overlord of Britain.


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 07:16
Oh La Tapisserie de la Reine Mathilde was made be English needlewomen? I think you might have a very hard time convincing the French of that. Even bypassing the outdated theory that it was Queen Mathilda and her ladies-in-waiting who made it (which they might not be willing to do), it was just as likely to have been made in the Loire Valley.

Whichever is true, if the English were to actually give up some of what they've *ahem* taken such as the Wallace Letters, they might find more sympathy for getting back something like the Bayeux Tapestry.  I have always suspected that the English still have the Black Rood of Scotland hidden away somewhere, too. They could give that back too while they're at it. Ha. Fat chance.

Or maybe the English made the Parthenon marbles, the Wallace Letters and the Rood as well?



Originally posted by Huscarl Huscarl wrote:

Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

 
The English don't make a case for its return, it was woven in France and French property.


Sorry Paul, but it was almost definately made by noble English needlewomen in either Winchester- known for such handcraft by expert needle workers then- or Canterbury.


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: Orderic Vitalis
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 16:03
The argument for bringing the Bayeux tapestry back to England was made last year by historian Dave Musgrove. He said:  "There is a pretty good academic consensus that it could well have been made in Canterbury. The Latin script that accompanies the pictorial images shows signs of being written by someone who came from an Anglo-Saxon background. Secondly the imagery in the tapestry is very similar to imagery that we know was in illuminated manuscripts that we know were in Canterbury's library at the time. It is an iconic document of English history and wouldn't it be amazing to have it shown in England where there is a very good chance it was made, and wouldn't that inspire people to get involved in medieval history? The crowds would come flocking."

You can read the article here:  http://medievalnews.blogspot.com/2008/07/should-bayeux-tapestry-be-brought-back.html - http://medievalnews.blogspot.com/2008/07/should-bayeux-tapestry-be-brought-back.html


-------------
Visit our site www.medievalists.net for articles, videos and more about the Middle Ages


Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 21:25
Somehow this last qote from Mr Musgrove makes my blood boil since it's one of the arguments that WE make only that we are certain that our Marbles were made here and not assumpt so.


Posted By: Chookie
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 22:24
The numbering from Longshanks is because he considered himself to first of the Plantagenet dynasty (which he was), not because of any Norman influence. He was after all fighting to "regain" his French territories.

As to the tapestry "in England where there is a very good chance it was made" to me, this quotation says there's a very slight possibility it might be English (so hand it over.........)

-------------
They make a desert and they call it peace


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 23:37
Oh, displaying it in France doesn't inspire people? WHY?

The arguments for it being made elsewhere are just as good and as far as I'm concerned the English already have more than enough that doesn't belong to them. A "pretty good consensus" is a LONG way from a consensus. And why should the English be given something else that doesn't belong to them?

Even if it had been CREATED in England (which I do not admit) why should that mean it BELONGS to England? If I have an Englishman paint a picture for me, that means I can't keep it in Scotland? Well, knowing the English record on the subject--very possibly.

Again, once the English have given back everything they took from the rest of their world (including their countries) you'll get a LOT friendlier reception.


Originally posted by Orderic Vitalis Orderic Vitalis wrote:

The argument for bringing the Bayeux tapestry back to England was made last year by historian Dave Musgrove. He said:  "There is a pretty good academic consensus that it could well have been made in Canterbury. The Latin script that accompanies the pictorial images shows signs of being written by someone who came from an Anglo-Saxon background. Secondly the imagery in the tapestry is very similar to imagery that we know was in illuminated manuscripts that we know were in Canterbury's library at the time. It is an iconic document of English history and wouldn't it be amazing to have it shown in England where there is a very good chance it was made, and wouldn't that inspire people to get involved in medieval history? The crowds would come flocking."

You can read the article here:  http://medievalnews.blogspot.com/2008/07/should-bayeux-tapestry-be-brought-back.html - http://medievalnews.blogspot.com/2008/07/should-bayeux-tapestry-be-brought-back.html


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 06:53
Originally posted by Chookie Chookie wrote:

The numbering from Longshanks is because he considered himself to first of the Plantagenet dynasty (which he was), not because of any Norman influence. He was after all fighting to "regain" his French territories.

As to the tapestry "in England where there is a very good chance it was made" to me, this quotation says there's a very slight possibility it might be English (so hand it over.........)
 
I suppose by "Longshanks" you mean that famous and remarkable English king Edward I. If so, Chookie, he was not the first of the Plantagenet kings. That would be, in fact, Henry II. 


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 19:16
Remarkable? I suppose one might look at it that way if one remarked on the slaughter at Berwick-on-Tweed done at Edward Longshank's order or others of his acts of barbarism.

I believe what Chookie was saying was that Edward Longshanks was the first EDWARD of the Plantagenet line.

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

Originally posted by Chookie Chookie wrote:

The numbering from Longshanks is because he considered himself to first of the Plantagenet dynasty (which he was), not because of any Norman influence. He was after all fighting to "regain" his French territories.

As to the tapestry "in England where there is a very good chance it was made" to me, this quotation says there's a very slight possibility it might be English (so hand it over.........)
 
I suppose by "Longshanks" you mean that famous and remarkable English king Edward I. If so, Chookie, he was not the first of the Plantagenet kings. That would be, in fact, Henry II. 


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 20:10
Concerning atrocities. The first acts of barbarism were actually commited by the Scots at the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon war of 1296. The Scots invaded England, commiting atrocities such as infanticide, mutilation of women, and the burning alive of 200 schoolchidren at Corbridge. Furthermore, at Easter of that year a large Scottish force attempted to storm Carlisle, failed but then ravaged the surrounding countryside.
 
All of this happened before Edward I was anywhere near Berwick.


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 19-May-2009 at 20:47
Anglo-Saxon war? The correct term is the Scottish War of Independence after your so admired Edward broke his vow of not interfering in Scottish affairs and decided to remove and imprison the Scottish king and conquer the country.

And it would be interesting to know how Edward Longshanks was "nowhere near Berwick" since in MARCH of 1296 he put that city to the sword murdering at about the LOWEST estimates 16,000 men, women AND children. Maybe he moved his army there that fast by magic? He wasn't picky enough to make it only "schoolchildren." ANY child would do for his butchery. After April 27 of 1296 after the Scottish defeat at Dunbar, there WAS no organized resistance remaining in Scotland which would make attacking Carlisle quite a trick. In fact, they were much too busy trying to defend themselves from a large invading army to even CONSIDER invading England.

Yes, let's talk atrocities.

Edit: There is a fascinating contemporary description of Edward Longshanks (written by an Englishman mind you) in the Song of Lewes (ed. & tr. by C. A. Kingsford, MA, St. John's College Oxford):

He is valiant as a lion, quick to attack the strongest and fearing the onslaught of none. But if a lion in pride and fierceness, he is a panther in fierceness and inconsistency, changing his word and promise, cloaking himself by pleasant speech. When he is cornered he promises whatever you wish but as soon as he has escaped he forgets his promise. The treachery or falsehood by which he is advanced he calls prudence and the path by which he attains his ends, however crooked, he calls straight, and whatever he likes he says is lawful.

When the Scots asked Edward Longshanks to mediate in their disputed succession--at which time the Scots and English were at peace and had been for some years, he swore he would never interfere in Scottish affairs. Afterwards, within weeks, he broke his word and drove the country to war. In that war, his acts can only be described as monstrous.

Whatever good can be said about the man, that is the truth.


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 19-May-2009 at 21:13
The Scots actually invaded England at Easter of that year when Edward I was at Newcastle. He did not begin military activity until after Easter. And the atrocities committed by the Scots actually happened.


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 19-May-2009 at 21:18
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

The Scots actually invaded England at Easter of that year when Edward I was at Newcastle. He did not begin military activity until after Easter. And the atrocities committed by the Scots actually happened.


Wulfstan, Easter does not fall before March. (I never checked when it fell that year but the liturgical calendar prevents it falling before March) There were plenty of times when the Scots invaded (or raided) England. But if you're going to look to a Scot for an apology, think again. Edward Longshanks STARTED that war. Pure and simple.

Actually there was a raid of England about that time--nothing LIKE an invasion. There was some hope that by raiding England (there was never any thought of taking Carlisle which would have taken a major seige) that Edward might be drawn away from Berwick. The ploy didn't work.


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 20-May-2009 at 05:11
The Scottish king, John Balliol had  acknowledged Edward I as having superior lordship over Scotland. When Balliol took up arms, Edward regarded him as a rebellious vassal and declared the realm of Scotland forfeit. The English king was behaving, in effect, as any medieval king would do.
 
The attack on Carlisle was not a minor event as you suggest, but a large scale affair. In fact there were three Scottish incursions into northern England before Edward crossed the frontier; and two of these raids caused considerable loss of life and damage to property.
 
Concerning the number of deaths after the fall of Berwick. The Scottish chronicler, Edward of Wynton, who was anti-English and consequently hardly impartial, gives a figure of 7,500. Moreover, in medieval times, a rebellious town was in law at the mercy of its overlord, and Edward regarded Berwick in those terms.
 


Posted By: Chookie
Date Posted: 20-May-2009 at 21:34
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

The Scottish king, John Balliol had  acknowledged Edward I as having superior lordship over Scotland.

Balliol had been imposed on Scotland by Longshanks, of course he was expected to do what his paymaster said...

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

When Balliol took up arms, Edward regarded him as a rebellious vassal and declared the realm of Scotland forfeit.

What Longshanks thought was immaterial, as is what he did. The realm of Scotland belonged to the people of Scotland not some bloody tourist.

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

The English king was behaving, in effect, as any medieval king would do.

Don't you mean as any medieval English king? Remember, some kings were elected.
 
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

The attack on Carlisle was not a minor event as you suggest, but a large scale affair. In fact there were three Scottish incursions into northern England before Edward crossed the frontier; and two of these raids caused considerable loss of life and damage to property.

Evidence please. Especially on the raid which didn't work - don't forget raids / incursions or whatever you want call them are designed to cause loss of life and damage to property.
 
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

Concerning the number of deaths after the fall of Berwick. The Scottish chronicler, Edward of Wynton, who was anti-English and consequently hardly impartial, gives a figure of 7,500. Moreover, in medieval times, a rebellious town was in law at the mercy of its overlord, and Edward regarded Berwick in those terms.

The numbers don't actually matter, had he done that in the 1940s he would have been in the same dock as Goering and Geobbels. On your point about a "rebellious town", Longshanks was not the overlord of Berwick, no matter what he thought. Berwick and Scotland were not his to muck about with.


-------------
They make a desert and they call it peace


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 21-May-2009 at 02:05
Let me say this. The English had NO claim to Scotland no matter what Edward Longshanks or any other Englishman thought. None. Absolutely none. Being an overlord didn't give one unlimited rights. How many times had the English fought their own king's French overlords? Hmmmm?

This oh so honorable English king also made a Solemn Oath not to  interfere in the traditional workings of Scotland when he agreed to mediate the dispute between Comyn and Bruce over the crown of Scotland. He had already secretly revealed to certain barons that he intended to conquer Scotland AND summoned his army to the border so that with an army sitting over the border they had no choice but to accept his demands even though they knew he couldn't be trusted. (And they certainly didn't consider their oaths binding given, as they were, under duress.)

The treachery or falsehood by which he is advanced he calls prudence and the path by which he attains his ends, however crooked, he calls straight, and whatever he likes he says is lawful.

As for the raid into England, of course it caused damage and loss of life. What do you think? You think the English invasion wasn't causing MORE damage and loss of life--but Scots were suppose to sit there and just let themselves be conquered? I think not! Want to know how many Scots the English killed and how much they destroyed over the next twenty years of warfare as they tried to conquer a FOREIGN COUNTRY?

The demands he made of Baliol within weeks were ones that he mad made SOLEMN VOWS that he would not make ever. He broke every oath he had made. Baliol (weakling though he was) had no choice except to fight.

Being overlord, which the French kings were to the English kings by the way, gave him no right to depose Baliol who he had chosen against the best interests of Scotland knowing that Bruce the Competitor would have gone to war rather than submit.

And most scholars believe Wynton's numbers are too low, nor was putting a civilian population to the sword typical medieval behavior in spite of your claim that it was.

His barbarity was remarkable in an age known for barbarity. Find another king who had a woman (Mary Bruce) hung in a cage exposed to abuse and the elements winter and summer outside a castle. (She should have chosen anther brother) Oh, yes he prepared a similar cage to hang an eleven year old girl, Marjorie Bruce.  At the urgings of others he rescinded that to solitary confinement!

Explain that--A child whose only crime was having a father.

Oh, yes, he was a REMARKABLE king. He was indeed.

As for who had the right to Scotland it was the Community of the Realm of Scotland and no one could give that away. From the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath referring to King Robert Bruce:

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

The Scottish king, John Balliol had  acknowledged Edward I as having superior lordship over Scotland. When Balliol took up arms, Edward regarded him as a rebellious vassal and declared the realm of Scotland forfeit. The English king was behaving, in effect, as any medieval king would do.
 
The attack on Carlisle was not a minor event as you suggest, but a large scale affair. In fact there were three Scottish incursions into northern England before Edward crossed the frontier; and two of these raids caused considerable loss of life and damage to property.
 
Concerning the number of deaths after the fall of Berwick. The Scottish chronicler, Edward of Wynton, who was anti-English and consequently hardly impartial, gives a figure of 7,500. Moreover, in medieval times, a rebellious town was in law at the mercy of its overlord, and Edward regarded Berwick in those terms.
 


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: bod
Date Posted: 21-May-2009 at 11:50
Your not a fan of Edward I then?ShockedSmile


Posted By: Huscarl
Date Posted: 21-May-2009 at 13:46
I started out asking about the Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman, Anjouvin and Plantagenet king's names, now we've descended into the usual bitter and futile bickering about Scotland and England...Ermm

All nobles from those eras were not particularly 100% pleasant, no matter whom you scrutinise.


-------------
http://www.englistory.co.uk/ - http://www.englistory.co.uk/



Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 21-May-2009 at 15:31
You could put it that way.  Tongue

Actually, he had his good side. He only fathered a few bastards and was considered unusually chaste and a good ruler in his own country. The English, you must recall, referred to him as "the lawgiver". It was his assumption that he had the right to conquer everyone else--a failing the Norman-French were much given to as far as I can tell--that tends to annoy. But did someone expect to bring up his name and think people wouldn't mention that the man is referred to as "The Hammer of the Scots"? Come on, let's get realistic here.

Were all nobles evil? No, I don't think so, but they didn't live by 21st century standards and it's a mistake to try to judge them by those. In fact, many of those nobles were loved by their own people, as was Edward.

However, even by 14th Century standards some of Edward's acts were considered shocking. Comments to the contrary, putting cities to the sword, including foreign merchants, was not common nor was it customary to cage female prisoners as though they were an exhibit in a zoo. And while one cannot blame him (in my opinion--you'll find this questioned) for inventing the punishment of hanging, drawing and quartering, he was the one who turned it into a common punishment.

Did I mention, I don't like him? Wink

Edit: Although I think it was the subject of whether the English have a claim on the Bayeux Tapestry that  turned the thing into an argument. I must admit I don't much care how the English kings are numbered.

Originally posted by bod bod wrote:

Your not a fan of Edward I then?ShockedSmile


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 21-May-2009 at 19:41
JRScotia:
 
Contrary to what you suggested, Edward I fathered no bastards, nor did he assume he had a right to conquer all others. And I would consider as shocking the action of that Scottish hero Wallace when he skinned the English nobleman Hugh Cressingham. In mitigation of Wallace`s interest in anatomy, Cressingham was dead at the time.


Posted By: Eigon
Date Posted: 21-May-2009 at 22:20

It wasn't just Scotland (or Gascony, or other continental forays).  My reasons for disliking Edward I are for what he did to the Welsh - specifically hanging, drawing and quartering Prince Dafydd for 'rebellion'.  This was a man he'd played with when they were both children!  And while Dafydd could be infuriating - nobody is that infuriating!

He's also blamed for killing all the bards of Wales (get rid of all the intellectuals to subjugate the country) though I think this is an exaggeration.  He certainly took the Welsh crown (reputed to be that of Arthur) and a large gold cross with a piece of the True Cross embedded in it, which was part of the royal regalia of Gwynedd.  That ended up in St George's Chapel Windsor, where there are still pictures of it, though the cross itself was later melted down.
 
Back to the numbering issue - probably best to leave it as it is, with the Anglo-Saxon rulers clearly differentiated from the Normans.


Posted By: Chookie
Date Posted: 21-May-2009 at 22:40
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

JWallace when he skinned the English nobleman Hugh Cressingham. In mitigation of Wallace`s interest in anatomy, Cressingham was dead at the time.

He did this personally? There is neither doubt nor reason for doubt about the flaying of de Cressingham, there were, however reasons for the treatment meted out to his body.

de Cressingham was even more hated in Scotland than Longshanks, but he was not loved in England either. This is an extract from the Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough:-

"The Scots stripped him of his skin and divided it amongst themselves in small parts, not indeed for relics but for insults, for he was a handsome and exceedingly fat man and they called him not the King's treasurer but the King's 'Treacherer' and this was truer than they believed. For he led many astray that day, but he too, who was smooth and slippery, exalted with pride and given over to avarice, was himself led astray."

Longshanks was even by 14th century standards, a vicious man.


-------------
They make a desert and they call it peace


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 21-May-2009 at 23:29
While Wallace was alive when Edward Longshanks had HIM hanged, drawn and quartered--his penis and testicles cut off, his belly cut open and his intestines pulled out while he still lived. Someone who had never sworn him fealty and was in no way a traitor by the way. 

What was done to Cressingham was not done "by Wallace" and is hardly as shocking as hanging, drawing and quartering at least dozens of men, caging people for years at a time or ravaging Berwick just to start the list.

By the way, if you do some research you will find that it was widely believed that Sir John Botetourt was in fact Edward's bastard. While it can't be proven, there is little other reason to see why he was so highly favored by that king and contemporaries apparently thought that was the case. It's frankly not a large issue. He was certainly reputed to have had affairs before his marriage which would have been about when Botetourt was born. One bastard hardly changed his reputation for general chasteness which doesn't make up for his other vicious attributes.

As for my accusation that he thought he had the right to conquer "everyone" his forays in conquest in Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Gascony, etc. make that not an altogether unreasonable statement although I will give you that I was using a touch of hyperbole.

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

JRScotia:
 
Contrary to what you suggested, Edward I fathered no bastards, nor did he assume he had a right to conquer all others. And I would consider as shocking the action of that Scottish hero Wallace when he skinned the English nobleman Hugh Cressingham. In mitigation of Wallace`s interest in anatomy, Cressingham was dead at the time.


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 21-May-2009 at 23:39
You'll get no argument here. What he did in Wales was at least as bad, possibly worse, than what he did in Scotland. I just happen to be a Scot so I'm more knowledgeable about his actions there.

Originally posted by Eigon Eigon wrote:

It wasn't just Scotland (or Gascony, or other continental forays).  My reasons for disliking Edward I are for what he did to the Welsh - specifically hanging, drawing and quartering Prince Dafydd for 'rebellion'.  This was a man he'd played with when they were both children!  And while Dafydd could be infuriating - nobody is that infuriating!

He's also blamed for killing all the bards of Wales (get rid of all the intellectuals to subjugate the country) though I think this is an exaggeration.  He certainly took the Welsh crown (reputed to be that of Arthur) and a large gold cross with a piece of the True Cross embedded in it, which was part of the royal regalia of Gwynedd.  That ended up in St George's Chapel Windsor, where there are still pictures of it, though the cross itself was later melted down.
 
Back to the numbering issue - probably best to leave it as it is, with the Anglo-Saxon rulers clearly differentiated from the Normans.


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 21-May-2009 at 23:44
I can't see any real reason for renumbering.


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: bod
Date Posted: 22-May-2009 at 09:58
Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

You'll get no argument here. What he did in Wales was at least as bad, possibly worse, than what he did in Scotland. I just happen to be a Scot so I'm more knowledgeable about his actions there.

Originally posted by Eigon Eigon wrote:

It wasn't just Scotland (or Gascony, or other continental forays).  My reasons for disliking Edward I are for what he did to the Welsh - specifically hanging, drawing and quartering Prince Dafydd for 'rebellion'.  This was a man he'd played with when they were both children!  And while Dafydd could be infuriating - nobody is that infuriating!

He's also blamed for killing all the bards of Wales (get rid of all the intellectuals to subjugate the country) though I think this is an exaggeration.  He certainly took the Welsh crown (reputed to be that of Arthur) and a large gold cross with a piece of the True Cross embedded in it, which was part of the royal regalia of Gwynedd.  That ended up in St George's Chapel Windsor, where there are still pictures of it, though the cross itself was later melted down.
 



It was fortunate for Scotland that Edward I spent all his money subjugating Wales before he turned his attention to Scotland. I wonder what would have happened if he had attempted to conquer  Scotland before Wales? Britain could have become a very different place. 

I do belive that what he did to Welsh culture was a tragedy.


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 22-May-2009 at 16:48
Spent all his money? Not that any Scot ever noticed. You might want to re-read Scottish history on that. The campaign in Wales unfortunately did not reduce his coffers. If any campaigns helped the Scots, it was his campaigns in France. That said, I agree about Wales. What was done can only be classed as a tragedy of huge proportions--the near destruction of a nation and its culture.

And I still think the English should return what they took. It will be interesting to see what happens the day the English show up in Edinburgh and say they want the Stone of Destiny back for an English coronation. Personally, I get less excited about that since I have serious doubts that it IS the Stone of Destiny. But since the English think it is, I say don't let them have it.
 

Originally posted by bod bod wrote:

Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

You'll get no argument here. What he did in Wales was at least as bad, possibly worse, than what he did in Scotland. I just happen to be a Scot so I'm more knowledgeable about his actions there.

Originally posted by Eigon Eigon wrote:

It wasn't just Scotland (or Gascony, or other continental forays).  My reasons for disliking Edward I are for what he did to the Welsh - specifically hanging, drawing and quartering Prince Dafydd for 'rebellion'.  This was a man he'd played with when they were both children!  And while Dafydd could be infuriating - nobody is that infuriating!

He's also blamed for killing all the bards of Wales (get rid of all the intellectuals to subjugate the country) though I think this is an exaggeration.  He certainly took the Welsh crown (reputed to be that of Arthur) and a large gold cross with a piece of the True Cross embedded in it, which was part of the royal regalia of Gwynedd.  That ended up in St George's Chapel Windsor, where there are still pictures of it, though the cross itself was later melted down.
 



It was fortunate for Scotland that Edward I spent all his money subjugating Wales before he turned his attention to Scotland. I wonder what would have happened if he had attempted to conquer  Scotland before Wales? Britain could have become a very different place. 

I do belive that what he did to Welsh culture was a tragedy.


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 22-May-2009 at 19:29
JRScotia`s suggestion that Edward sired a bastard called John Botetourt is based solely on his name being written over an erasure in a genealogical table in a Hailes Abbey chronicle. It seems to be an error by a scribe. There is nothing in John Botetourt`s subsequent career to suggest that he was Edward`s illegitimate son. Indeed there is nothing in Edward`s character to suggest infidelity. He was, after all, deeply devoted to his queen, Eleanor. 
 
Bod enquires why Edward didn`t attempt to conquer Scotland before Wales. It wasn`t a case of conquering anywhere. Edward regarded his military activity in both countries as the punishment of recalcitrant vassals who had revolted against their liege lord.


-------------
From Woden sprang all our royal kin.


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 23-May-2009 at 02:23
The suggestion wasn't mine--it's mentioned in numerous places. There are a number of reasons for the belief. He came from nowhere.  No one knew who his parents were but he was immediately given a high position with Edward's court--a court where position was solely determined by birth. That's suspicious of its own without the other. For all we know, the erasure was removing an error--more likely than that he erased something to make an error. And Botetourt was almost certainly born before Edward was married when there were many rumors about his having affairs. Talk about over-defensive--especially since as much as I dislike him, I pointed out that he had a reputation for chasteness. LOL

As vicious as he was to any country he thought he could find an excuse to conquer, he had a to some degree a good side when it came to his personal life and ruling England.

As for those "recalcitrant vassals", they were fighting against a liege lord who had sworn oaths to not interfere in their affairs and to respect the rights and traditions of the Scots. He had made the oaths dishonestly with every intention of breaking them. He was an oathbreaker. They had every right even by medieval standards to repudiate and fight against such a liege lord.  Oaths of vassalage went two ways. A vassal RECEIVED oaths as well as giving them. You want to tell me he hadn't broken those oaths? Not once have you denied it because you can't.

I mean it didn't just HAPPEN that he had rebellious vassals in every country he came in contact with. He found an excuse of any kind to either pretend they were in rebellion or to force them into rebellion. That was the only reason for the absolutely absurd demands he made upon Baliol--demands as I have pointed out repeatedly were in complete contradiction to anything the Scots had agreed to.

And when he deposed Baliol and seized Scotland by force of arms--the only word for that is conquest.


Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

JRScotia`s suggestion that Edward sired a bastard called John Botetourt is based solely on his name being written over an erasure in a genealogical table in a Hailes Abbey chronicle. It seems to be an error by a scribe. There is nothing in John Botetourt`s subsequent career to suggest that he was Edward`s illegitimate son. Indeed there is nothing in Edward`s character to suggest infidelity. He was, after all, deeply devoted to his queen, Eleanor. 
 
Bod enquires why Edward didn`t attempt to conquer Scotland before Wales. It wasn`t a case of conquering anywhere. Edward regarded his military activity in both countries as the punishment of recalcitrant vassals who had revolted against their liege lord.


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: bod
Date Posted: 23-May-2009 at 11:41
Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

Spent all his money? Not that any Scot ever noticed. You might want to re-read Scottish history on that. The campaign in Wales unfortunately did not reduce his coffers. If any campaigns helped the Scots, it was his campaigns in France. That said, I agree about Wales. What was done can only be classed as a tragedy of huge proportions--the near destruction of a nation and its culture.
[/QUOTE]

Edward spent a huge amount of money on his Welsh campaigns Acording to John E. Morris in "The Welsh wars of Edward I"  The cost of the 1282/83 war against Llywelyn ap Gruffydd was 98,000. This figure does not include all the money he spent on his first Welsh war 1276/77. or Madoc's war,1294/95 or the cost of Edwards castle building. A huge amount of money in 1200 terms

Things were very different in the Scotish wars, he was falling out with his Barrons over taxation. Lords such as Humphery Bohum and Roger Bigod withheld their forces in protest against Edwards financial demands.

This was also due to his wars in France, but if events had been difefrent and had invaded Scotland first, who knows?

You seem to forget the Edward I did fail in Scotland he caused a grest deal of damage I know but he did fail.



Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 23-May-2009 at 15:50
King Edward was not an oathbreaker. On 2 January 1293, at Newcastle, John Balliol annulled all the provisions made at the Treaty of Northampton and payed homage to Edward. The English king broke no oath.
 
To summarize the events of the "Great Cause".
 
All the main competitors - John Balliol, John Hastings and Robert Bruce - had accepted Edwards claim to overlordship over Scotland. Indeed it is instructive to learn that the Scottish "hero" Bruce in a letter tried to flatter Edward by appealing to him "as his sovereign lord and emperor". The same Bruce who was a scheming, greedy opportunist, and later an usurper. A man who was guilty of judicious murder to achieve his aim.
 
When Balliol and later Bruce revolted, Edward as overlord was in law punishing recalitrant vassals, and he consequently declalred the realm of Scotland forfeit. If, JRScotia, you want to blame anyone for inviting the "lion" into the Scottish fold, then blame the weak John Balliol for failing to stand up to Edward, and  blame the scheming Bruce. Edward behaved in the circumstances as any medieval king would have done. He is only a "monster" in the mythology of English hating Scots.
 
Edwardus Primus Scotorum Malleus hic est, 1308. Pactum Serva.
 
 


-------------
From Woden sprang all our royal kin.


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 23-May-2009 at 16:27
It would have been rather hard for the "Scottish Hero Bruce" to have done that since HE was not the claimant. The competitor in the "Great Cause" was Robert Bruce, 5th Lord of Annandale who was the GRANDFATHER of the future Robert Bruce King of the Scots. Bruce came into his titles at the resignation of both his father and grandfather that year and made a quick exit to Ireland to avoid the entire issue of swearing fealty to Baliol. And they never agreed to unlimited overlordship. There were limitations on what they agreed to. Unlimited overlordship was simply NEVER agreed to by the Scots until they were under the English heel with a sword at their throats--no one voluntarily gave overlordship without getting something in return. Get your history straight.

The very title given to him shows the hatred and distruction intended for Scotland.

There was never any doubt that Edward Longshanks (or Hammer of the Scots if you please, a title you are PROUD of? Shocked ) was Bruce's overlord for the substantial lands the Bruce's held in England. They refused and never did swear fealty to John Baliol for their Scottish holdings having considered him a USURPER from the first. Bruce couldn't usurp a throne that was rightfully his. Not a single Bruce ever swore fealty to John Baliol. 

You bet Robert Bruce schemed. He schemed almost every day for the first part of his adult life and then fought every day of the rest of it to get rid of the rapacious English who outnumbered the Scots 10 to 1 and had every intention of seeing that the Scots never had another day of liberty.  He signed secret agreements with (and was betrayed by) John, the Red Comyn who agreed to give up any claim to the Scottish throne to Bruce and with the great William Lamberton the Bishop of St. Andrews.

And he ultimately drove the English from our land. The man wha won our liberty! 


Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

King Edward was not an oathbreaker. On 2 January 1293, at Newcastle, John Balliol annulled all the provisions made at the Treaty of Northampton and payed homage to Edward. The English king broke no oath.
 
To summarize the events of the "Great Cause".
 
All the main competitors - John Balliol, John Hastings and Robert Bruce - had accepted Edwards claim to overlordship over Scotland. Indeed it is instructive to learn that the Scottish "hero" Bruce in a letter tried to flatter Edward by appealing to him "as his sovereign lord and emperor". The same Bruce who was a scheming, greedy opportunist, and later an usurper. A man who was guilty of judicious murder to achieve his aim.
 
When Balliol and later Bruce revolted, Edward as overlord was in law punishing recalitrant vassals, and he consequently declalred the realm of Scotland forfeit. If, JRScotia, you want to blame anyone for inviting the "lion" into the Scottish fold, then blame the weak John Balliol for failing to stand up to Edward, and  blame the scheming Bruce. Edward behaved in the circumstances as any medieval king would have done. He is only a "monster" in the mythology of English hating Scots.
 
Edwardus Primus Scotorum Malleus hic est, 1308. Pactum Serva.
 
 


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 23-May-2009 at 16:45
Originally posted by bod bod wrote:


Edward spent a huge amount of money on his Welsh campaigns Acording to John E. Morris in "The Welsh wars of Edward I"  The cost of the 1282/83 war against Llywelyn ap Gruffydd was 98,000. This figure does not include all the money he spent on his first Welsh war 1276/77. or Madoc's war,1294/95 or the cost of Edwards castle building. A huge amount of money in 1200 terms

Things were very different in the Scotish wars, he was falling out with his Barrons over taxation. Lords such as Humphery Bohum and Roger Bigod withheld their forces in protest against Edwards financial demands.

This was also due to his wars in France, but if events had been difefrent and had invaded Scotland first, who knows?

You seem to forget the Edward I did fail in Scotland he caused a grest deal of damage I know but he did fail.



The English failed in Scotland but ultimately it was Edward Longshank's SON who failed and not him. There's never a  day when Scots forget that Robert Bruce drove the English from Scotland. (LOL Schemer that he was--mostly with a war axe in hand. Wink )

However, the failure was not for lack of funds and you forget that the Welsh campaigns were ten years previous to the beginning of the Scottish campaigns.

Also several times the English brought some of the largest and best equipped armies to have ever been seen at the time into Scotland in the attempt to complete the conquest. For instance, in the bombardment of Stirling Castle he used the most advanced siege equipment ever built, refusing at first to accept their surrender so he could experiment with the pieces to see how well they worked continuing the bombardment against a helpless garrison. (Again, virtually unheard of in medieval warfare)

There was a simple reason why he didn't invade Scotland first. In 1282, Scotland had a strong king who was well able to defend the kingdom and certainly would have done so. He waited until it was without head and helpless to attack it.

Again, even in medieval days, not seen as honorable behavior as was strongly pointed out in the Declaration of Arbroath.



-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: bod
Date Posted: 23-May-2009 at 17:30
Edward II was fairly useless but he was left in an imposible situation, two wars going badly without the backing of his Barrons (The men with the money). 

Edward I  may have had the funds to conquer Scotland but he did not have the resorses to finish the job off like he did in Wales. 

I know why the campaign against Scotland happend when it did.Smile It is Just a what if Question. One of the questions that can never be answerd.


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 23-May-2009 at 17:42
I agree that he went in with some serious problems.

But that didn't stop the English from fielding a huge and extremely well-equipped army at Bannockburn. I can understand perhaps wanting put it down to something else, but it was the Scottish leadership that achieved the English defeat. It wasn't lack of funds that ultimately defeated them.

Edit: I ask "what if" questions myself. What if Moray hadn't died so soon after King Robert? What if the King hadn't sent James Lord of Douglas on a romantic quest with his heart? What if Scotland hadn't been suddenly left without every great leader and a child king by 1332? It makes one weep.




-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: bod
Date Posted: 23-May-2009 at 18:06
Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

 But that didn't stop the English from fielding a huge and extremely well-equipped army at Bannockburn. I can understand perhaps wanting put it down to something else, but it was the Scottish leadership that achieved the English defeat. It wasn't lack of funds that ultimately defeated them.


I know that Bannockburn was a Great Scotish victory, I'm as much a fan of Bruce as I am of Edward I (They are just very intersting people). However if Edward had the same resources that he had at the begining of his reign, Bannockburn may never even have happend.

Thank goodnes that it did happen, because Scotland recovered it's cultural identity unlike Wales. 


Posted By: Huscarl
Date Posted: 23-May-2009 at 18:38
Anglo-Scottish bitter rambling and endless theory....borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring...Cry

-------------
http://www.englistory.co.uk/ - http://www.englistory.co.uk/



Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 23-May-2009 at 19:28
Originally posted by bod bod wrote:


I know that Bannockburn was a Great Scotish victory, I'm as much a fan of Bruce as I am of Edward I (They are just very intersting people). However if Edward had the same resources that he had at the begining of his reign, Bannockburn may never even have happend.

Thank goodnes that it did happen, because Scotland recovered it's cultural identity unlike Wales. 


I don't think I can agree, Bod. I don't see what else the English could have done to suppress the country. They had it well and truly owned and Robert Bruce totally defeated. It was only through utter stubbornness on his part and that of his handful of followers and a willingness to embrace secret (or guerrilla, if you prefer) warfare  that Bruce won.  Experience has shown that a large and powerful army doesn't necessarily defeat a native guerrilla insurgency as was shown both to France and the US in Viet Nam.

I simply never saw a lack of resources as a big factor.

But I think there you put your finger on the extreme bitterness of many people toward Edward Longshanks (who I will give you was an interesting man). He not only declared himself overlord but absorbed countries into his own and destroyed their cultures in order to suppress them. Doing things like seizing the Stone of Destiny and the Rood of St. Margaret showed that his intent was to destroy the Scots as a people as he had previously done (at least in large extent) to Wales.

As far as Scotland and who was its king and overlord, it comes down to this:

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

All free men have not only the right but the duty to defend freedom and no baronial oath supersedes either the right or the duty.



-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 23-May-2009 at 20:48
The famous inscription Edwardus Primus Scotorum Malleus hic est, 1308. Pactum Serva was most likely added to Edward I`s tomb in the sixteenth century, probably by an admirer.
 
One thing we can almost be sure of: Had Edward I lived a little longer then Bruce`s head would have joined Wallace`s on London Bridge. Edward`s great victory at Falkirk 1208 shows that he had developed into a sound tactician, deploying the famous English archers in large numbers for the first time. Lucky for the usurper Bruce that Edward died at Burgh-by-Sands on 7 July 1307.
 
At his funeral his old friend, Anthony Bek quoted from the Book of Maccabees: "In his acts he was like a lion, and like a lion`s whelp roaring for its prey". A fitting epitaph for this remarkable and redoubtable English king.    


-------------
From Woden sprang all our royal kin.


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 23-May-2009 at 21:38
Perhaps, Wulfstan. Or perhaps not.

Robert Bruce, the rightful King of the Scots, had learned a thing or two himself, and Edward had never had to fight a guerrilla war before. Archers don't help much if the enemy doesn't cooperate by meeting you on the field. Winning such a war on somebody else's territory is a WHOLE lot easier said than done, however much you outnumber them and however much more money and arms you have than they do.

Just ask a few people who've fought that kind of war.

As for whether having a king who is nothing more than a predator seeking prey is a good thing or not may well be open to debate.  I'll agree with Bishop Bek in this case. That is, indeed, what Edward I of England was.

Edit: The complaints of the English to the Pope of the unfairness of the Scots in refusing to meet them on the field are worth reading if only for a good chuckle.

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

The famous inscription Edwardus Primus Scotorum Malleus hic est, 1308. Pactum Serva was most likely added to Edward I`s tomb in the sixteenth century, probably by an admirer.
 
One thing we can almost be sure of: Had Edward I lived a little longer then Bruce`s head would have joined Wallace`s on London Bridge. Edward`s great victory at Falkirk 1208 shows that he had developed into a sound tactician, deploying the famous English archers in large numbers for the first time. Lucky for the usurper Bruce that Edward died at Burgh-by-Sands on 7 July 1307.
 
At his funeral his old friend, Anthony Bek quoted from the Book of Maccabees: "In his acts he was like a lion, and like a lion`s whelp roaring for its prey". A fitting epitaph for this remarkable and redoubtable English king.    


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 25-May-2009 at 15:58
I'm always somewhat interested in the distinction drawn here between 'Scots' and 'English'. When Hadrian's Wall was built it perhaps marked a racial divide, but by, say, the millenium both sides of the border were Anglo-Saxon.
 
How come the Gaelic Scots never wanted independence from the Anglo-Saxon (and Norman) Scots? Or did they?


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 25-May-2009 at 17:46
Edit: Let me clarify what I was saying, which was a bit too casually phrased to be accurate.

After 1034 when Donnchadd I inherited Alba, Scotland came into existence largely as it is today except for a few portions such as the Isles and Sutherland which were still owned by the Norse. And there was a substantial input of Norse blood and constant intermarriage with the Norse which people tend to forget. But after that I know of no pressure for any kind of independence. They tended to be that way by nature but that didn't mean they wanted out of the kingdom. Try bossing the MacRauries around lol

It was a nation made up of a wide  mix of tribes (Gaels, Picts, Normans, Saxons, and Norse) just as Scotland is now made up of an even wider variety.  (Racial is really the wrong word but a hard one to avoid)

Now at one time some of the Isles claimed some degree of independence and the MacDonalds referred to themselves as princes of the Isles. The Orkneys continued to be owned by Norway. But that was never really an issue in the mainland. They were Scots and didn't care to be anything but Scots.

The distinction between Scots and English was not and is not a racial one but a national one.

Edit: There was a strong tendency in the Highlands for their loyalty to be to their own leaders. (I don't want to get into the over-romanticised notion of clan but the fact is that that's the best word for their organization at that point) Their leaders gave their loyalty to the king and FAMILY was a huge deal. Of course, the highlands continued to be mostly Gaelic until the Highland Clearances, but although highlanders and lowlanders didn't much like each other, especially on the level of nobility they simply had too many ties to split.

For instance one of the things that did save Robert Bruce was the fact that Christina of the Isles (who was titular head of the MacRauries at that point) was a sister-in-law. And good luck to the English king getting to him in her holdings.

That is why Bruce having killed John Comyn was a big deal--he had a lot of blood kin--powerful kin. They didn't use the phrase blood feud but that's largely what it was. (My own point-of-view is that Comyn deserved to be killed. He had betrayed Bruce to what would have been his death) There was very little more important in Scotland, both highlands and lowlands, than who your family was and Gaels, Picts, Normans, Saxons, and Norse all intermarried. For example Bruce's own mother was of the old Gaelic stock which is how he got the Earldom of Carrick. 




-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 25-May-2009 at 18:57
Thanks

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 25-May-2009 at 19:46
JRscotia:
 
You wrote that Edward I never had fought a guerrilla war. Well, he did fight one, and a successful one in northern Wales. It`s debatable whether he would have needed to fight an irregular type of war in Scotland, because I doubt if all the Scottish nobles would have supported Bruce. Would Edward have tried a subtle approach and tried to play one noble off against another? He did to some extent use this method in Wales. 


-------------
From Woden sprang all our royal kin.


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 25-May-2009 at 19:56
I don't recall the Welsh war ever having been truly guerrilla but I'm not going to argue that point since I don't feel like looking it up and I would have to. If the Welsh used a scorched earth policy I don't remember it for example nor have I seen it referenced in reading about the history of guerrilla warfare.

Bruce didn't need all of the Scottish nobles supporting him to fight a guerrilla war, obviously, since they didn't in the one he fought. You were the one who pointed out that the Comyns opposed him.  (Nor in Viet Nam, for example, did the Viet Cong need all the officials supporting them. This is  misunderstanding of the nature of guerrilla warfare) Any followers who had stuck with Bruce after Methven and Dail-Righ were highly unlikely to be "played off" against each other. It was a small and highly devoted band who were with him to the death along with relatives like the MacRauries. And you have to bring in the factor that Edward "raised the dragon banner" (war with no quarter) after Bruce's coronation which had not been rescinded upon his death--makes playing people off a bit difficult when you immediately execute them.

It was a pretty simple strategy. You avoid any large battles, use the terrain as a weapon when you have to fight, use scorched earth to deny the enemy supplies and destroy castles every chance you get to deny them to your enemy.

John Barbour states clearly that James Douglas had set up a spy network ("James of Douglas, all that tide, Had spies out on ilka side" which line he repeated at least three times at different places)

And like it or not the populace, given the chance, supported Robert Bruce which is essential in a guerrilla war (different from needing the support of all nobles). From a letter written by someone on the English from before Edward's death (translated by GWS Barrow in Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland): "I hear Robert de Bruce never had the goodwill of his own followers  or the people so much with him as now. It appears that God is with him for he has destroyed King Edward's power both among the English and the Scots".  And from the Lanercost Chronicle (hardly pro-Scottish) at about the same time also prior to Edward's death: "Despite the fearful vengeance inflicted upon the Scots who adhered to Bruce the number of those to willing strengthen him in his Kingship increased daily".

It had worked once he returned to the mainland from the Isles (except for the one disastrous landing of his brothers) and may well have continued to work. Obviously, even before Edward I died, Bruce had gained considerable strength. When the English brought their army into Scotland, Bruce's reaction was simply to break up his army until they left.

However, there's no way that I know of to test our theories, so probably I'll believe what I believe and you'll believe what you believe and never the twain shall meet.

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

JRscotia:
 
You wrote that Edward I never had fought a guerrilla war. Well, he did fight one, and a successful one in northern Wales. It`s debatable whether he would have needed to fight an irregular type of war in Scotland, because I doubt if all the Scottish nobles would have supported Bruce. Would Edward have tried a subtle approach and tried to play one noble off against another? He did to some extent use this method in Wales. 


-------------
Saor Alba



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net