Talk:Auld Alliance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
While it is definitely true that Scotland and France were often allied in the Middle Ages, there could be a pro-English party in Scotland at times. I am suspicious of the claim that Scots and French were treated as citizens of each others countries, since the concept of citizenship did not exist in the middle ages, you were subjects of a king, this is the first I have heard of this. Could someone give a source for this? 13:51, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
- I am currently researching it, so that this crucial point in the Auld Alliance can be referenced. Starting point from Elizabeth Bonner's [1] works,[2] Pandemonis 00:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- This article [3] discusses citizenship in France and states "Genevans as well as Swiss and Scots were considered French citizens in the sixteenth century." OoberMick 12:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- I am suspicious of this article. I am having difficulty accessing it, I can get the first part but not the rest of it. Do you have it in an easily accessible form? PatGallacher 15:26, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
- It seems to be a book review. To see the second part, just scroll down past the advert :) --Nantonos 18:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- I cannot scroll down past the advert. I also try following the link, but nothing happens. Could you send me a copy of the review? PatGallacher 18:54, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
- It hasn't loaded for me either. Is Charlotte C. Wells an authority in her field? And also, it would probably be better to source it from the book rather than the book review -- Joolz 17:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Switch off javascript in your browser. As for Charlotte C. Wells I don't know if she is an authority, but after some googling I found her page at northern iowa university. I've written down the refence for her book and if I get time I'll have a look at it in Edinburgh Uni library. I'm no historian, is what she wrote controversal in some way? or is it just being questioned because you have never heard it before? -- OoberMick 10:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- How do you switch off javascript? I'm cautious about one article departing from the received wisdom, although she may be right that the concept of citizenship was beginning to emerge in France in early modern times, but the Auld Alliance article goes further, raises a lot of questions. I haven't the time to chase after obscure articles which cannot be easily accessed. PatGallacher 11:07, 2005 July 29 (UTC)
- Although you say that the article departs from the received wisdom, I'm not so sure. I first heard the statement about the dual nationalities at a lecture on the Auld Alliance which I attended in 1975. While I agree that it would be nice to see some primary printed sources to discover what was actually agreed, I had no reason to doubt the information that we were given at the time -- surely the essence of received wisdom. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- As for the concept of citizen not existing in the Middle Ages, while that is undoubtedly true, the concept of subject did exist -- in fact it still exists in Britain or did until pretty recently -- and it carries a lot of the same connotations. Perhaps the treaties used that concept. The problem would bear further investigation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Could a reference be provided for the statement that Scots were French citizens until 1903? 165.146.184.194 22:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Modern scholarship tends to downplay the importance of feudal ties (lord:vassal) and emphasize the importance of national conscience. The conflicts and alliances between Scotland, France and England provide an exemplary context for this assessment because notions of English and Scottish 'identity' arose (at least in part) out of each culture confronting the other. The Scot in large part defined himself (and his 'country'--not an anachronism) in opposition to the English, or at very least the English king. This process began with the 'importation' of French minor aristocracy to Scotland in the 11th and increasingly in the 12th centuries under David I, Alexander II, and III: this development effectively created a self-sustaining Franco-Scottish aristocracy (though with notable land connections to England.) Aristocratic competition between Franco-Socttish and Anglo-French aristocracy provided a frame for certain 'national' tensions. Scottish identity was reach a fever pitch during the Wars of Independence from the 1290's through the 1430's. The French connection here is vital and the Auld Alliance played a fundamental part (if also less profound the migration of French aristocracy to Scotland-- the two things supplemented each other)
English national identity developed in a more complex manner. The importance of common law is undisputed. One crucial moment in the development of this conscience came, again, during the Wars of Independence; this time two fold. First, the English defined themselves in opposition to the Scot (though also in opposition to others-- Flemish, French, Irish). But the unique English sense of citizenship also involved (and more significantly) a fundamental tension between crown and community. Again, this tension and the development of this aspect of their citizenship developed significantly within the Anglo-Scottish conflict. Most significant is Edward I's continual tensions with his nobles over funding his Scottish and European wars (ultimately resulting in increased Monarchical accountability in treaties of 1297). This ever-increasing sense of the monarch's responsibility to consult his 'citizens' continued to increase and reached its pinnacle during Edward III's reign and his famous conflict with the French (where the Scots have been rightly praised for their participation).
Ultimately, therefore, the Auld Alliance is inspeperably connected (at least in its origins) with the Anglo-Scottish conflict and the Anglo-French conflict. Within this context, the development of distinct Scottish and English identities developed. During the 11th and 12th centuries, the movement of the French into England (and in a much different way into Scotland) laid the groundwork for independent national identities. One must emphasize, however, that this French (Norman) aristocracy moved throughout the Anglo-Norman aristocratic world with 'aplomb' as Robin Frame puts it. National borders were never significant barriers. It was with the rise of the Anglo-Scottish and Anglo-French conflicts (and concurrently the development of the Auld Alliance) that national borders hardened and national identities were forged. It is only during and after the intial stages of these long conflicts (a line could be drawn for the Anglo-Scottish conflict in the mid 1330's) that any sense of 'citizenship' existed. The fundamental shift from largely feudal to largely political/national identities finds a useful example in this period. -- Micah Clark
- Very interesting. Looks like good material for an article on the development of national identity there. Thanks for that -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] A Franco-Scottish alliance.
I've made several small amendments the eliminate a number of misconceptions. These are as follows:
1. The Auld Alliance- a term worn smooth by time-refers to the various treaty arrangements between France and Scotland, dating from 1295. The inclusion of Norway is wrong and misleading.
2. It came to an end in 1560 with the Treaty of Edinburgh (correctly highlighted further on in the body of the article), not in 1746. French support for the Jacobite claim to the British crown was created under specific political circumstances which had nothing at all to do with the ancient treaty arrangements between France and Scotland.
3. The alliance dates to the reign of John Balliol, not William the Lion.
On a general point I have serious doubts about the Auld Alliance being the first such arrangement between nations. Alliances, both offensive and defensive, between nations and city states date back to classical times. (Having no response to this point, I have now removed it because it is erroneously misleading.)
Rcpaterson 20:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Supplement to the above
Unfortunately, my attempts to iron out some of the inaccuracies and misconceptions in this piece on the Auld Alliance are being subject to what I have to consider as deliberate sabotage, with continual reversions with no explanation given. I would have thought that the above points would have been justification enough for my editing, but apparently they are not. I thought also that those who used and edited these Wikipedia items were simply interested in factual accuracy; but clearly this is not the case. It is becoming ever more obvious to me that issues of personal vanity, blind preconceptions and simple malevolence are all at work. I am not descending into a childish game of tit-for-tat, so I myself will make no further reversions. I will however amplify the above points for those of you who have a genuine interest in the simple facts.
The Auld Alliance is the popular name given to a series of treaties for mutual defence between France and Scotland. The first such treaty was concluded in 1295, during the reign of King John of Scotland and Philip IV of France. The alliance was renewed in 1326 and at several points threafter. It is quite meaningless to raise earlier connections between France and Scotland in this context, just as it is to suggest a spurious extension of the alliance to the times of the Jacobites. William the Lion had ambitions to extend his rule to Northumberland, and became involved in a multi-party squabble with Henry II of England, which also involved France and Henry's own sons. There was no formal alliance between the contending parties.
The inclusion of Norway in the Auld Alliance is simply wrong; I can not make it any clearer than that; and I personally find the references to Norse Sagas and the colonisation of Normandy bafflingly incomprehensible. By the time that the Scots began to use the word 'Auld'-old-in relation to their alliance with the French all former connections with Norway had been long forgotten.
The alliance came to an end with the Treaty of Edinburgh in 1560. By that time Protestant Scotland saw Catholic-and imperialist-France as a far greater threat to her liberty than Protestant England. The termination of the treaty is recognised in the body of the article, in clear contradiction to the nonsense about the Jacobites trotted out in the introduction.
Those of you with even the most superfical knowledge of diplomatic history will understand that the claim that the Franco-Scottish alliance was the first arrangement of its kind is patently ludicrous. Alliances, both offensive and defensive, between nations and city states, have an ancient provenance.
If anyone requires any further information on the above points I will do my best to answer. But please accept my advice to treat this innacurate, badly written and superficial article with considerble care. Rcpaterson 01:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dubious claims
I've removed the external link Auld Food which seems strong on soup recipes but dodgy on history. The claim that the Auld Alliance "had its beginnings with a treaty between Scotland and France signed by William the Lion in 1165" implies he must have been gey nippy, as William I of Scotland states he only became king on 9 December of that year, and was crowned on 24 December. That article makes no mention of a treaty with France, but does associate him with the Treaty of Falaise, which suggests a twisted joke. I've also removed other dubious claims (see above) which will have to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability with supporting Reliable sources if they are to be included. ...dave souza, talk 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Auld and New
I've just started a wholesale rewrite of this article, with the aim of exploring the highs and lows of the Anglo-French alliance in the course of its history. The existing page is both patchy and inaccurate, providing little real explanation of what the alliance was about. In reference to some of the points made above I also hope to clarify the question of 'mutual citizenship.' The short answer is that there was no citizenship because such a concept did not exist at the time. The rights extended were purely concerned with the ability to own, inherit and dispose of property, much like the case of Robert Calvin after the Union of the Crowns. Anyway, give me a day or two. Rcpaterson 01:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's a pleasure to read what you've written so far, Raymond. I can hardly wait for the Next Exciting Installment! -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks! Rcpaterson 22:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This work is now close to completion. Unfortunately a small but interesting point concerning the Scottish author of the Chronicle of Pluscarden has twice been removed-without explanation-from the section dealing with the Scots in France by an anonymous IP user. I will repeat it here just in case of any further sabotage. From her appearance of Orleans in 1429 Joan of Arc was accompanied by a small band of Scots, soldiers and clerics. One of them, the anonymous author of Pluscarden, stayed with her right to the end, witnessing the martyrdom of the "wonderful girl"-his words-at Rouen in May 1431. Rcpaterson 22:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Norwegian?
Why do we care what this was called in Norwegian? Why does a Norwegian translation rate over any other language besides French, English and probably Scots Gaelic? Corvus cornixtalk 23:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because Norway also were a part of the alliance, but I agree that someone more knowledgable should expand that part.Inge (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Inge, what's your source for Norway being part of this? What treaty, and how long did the alliance last? And where does the ludicrous translation "auld-alliansen" come from? Jon kare (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't know much about this topic and as far as I remember and could see from the history I wasn't the one who added the Norwegian name. When one reads the Norwegian version of this article it becomes quite clear that Norway was a part of the alliance allthough it seems that the bond was stronger to Scotland than France. That article seems to be well referenced and uses the "ludicrous translation" as the article title. However as I am not very familiar with the topic I won't be the one to add more info to this article.Inge (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Headings
The headings on this page sound like they're from a history book. The headings should describe the text to follow, and shouldn't be some silly metaphors or alliteration. It begs the question, that if the headings have indeed been taken from a book, then what about the text itself? RevenDS (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The headings were provided by a published historian who rewrote this article for us. The reason that it sounds like a history book is that he writes history books. We are lucky that he contributed this well-written and entirely original article out of the goodness of his heart. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
