History Hub permalink
The Auld Alliance
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Friday, 14th January 2011
Currently reading Neil Oliver's A History of Scotland, and I was wondering about the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France. I couldn't help pondering that Scotland didn't really get much out of it on the whole, and whether it brought Scotland more harm than good.
It seems to me that the French used the alliance to get the Scottish to invade England when the English were causing trouble for the French - in other words, simply a diversionary tactic for the French to potentially weaken the English forces in France. And more often than not, it seems that the Scottish army was beaten, and often resoundingly, causing political problems back in Scotland, either from a weakened king politically, or from the death of a king and/or leading nobles and thus leading to power vacuums and political instability.
Even when relations between England and Scotland were good, such as when Henry IV and James IV were on their thrones and signed the Trreaty of Perpetual Peace, James felt he had to back France and invaded England, which led to the disastrous rout at Flodden Field - surely it was not in Scotland's interests to invade England.
Finally, the geography of the situation meant that France was generally hardly ever in a position to be able to help Scotland directly by sending troops to help fight the English on English soil. Or put another way, when France asked for help the Scots jumped to it, but when Scotland was in need of help the French were unable (or unwilling?) to assist.
So, my question for those with a much better knowledge of Scottish history than I have, was the Auld Alliance really worth it for Scotland? It seems to me that it actually hindered Scottish national interests at certain times in their history, rather than advanced them. And it seems to me that it was rather one-sided, with France benefitting from the alliance but Scotland rarely so. Would others agree with my (rather ill-informed) observations? -
Message 2
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Friday, 14th January 2011
such as when Henry IV and James IV were on their thrones Â
I meant Henry VII, not Henry IV
mea culpa -
Message 3
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 14th January 2011
Stoggler
Once again I rush in where angels fear to tread-- But I would suggest that there is more to an alliance than just being part of the same wars.. I think that there are grounds for saying that the Scottish belief in the superiority of Scottish culture, thinking, learning etc owes a great deal to its contacts with France.
For example C.R. Fay in his "Adam Smith to the Present Day" starts with a glowing tribute to Smith's "Wealth of Nations". Considering counter-claims to the importance of continental, as specifically French, political-economists before Smith Fay points out that quite a number of them were in fact originally from Scotland.. And in many ways the most important Scottish revolution came when the Edinburgh Parliament voted in the 1690's- at a time when an estimated 20% of the Scots people were wandering beggars or 'sourners' to create a unversal system of elementary education.. This was to lead to the great period of the Scottish Renaissance when Edinburgh became the Athens of the North. Then Scotland now within Great Britain provided not only Adam Smith but many of the geniuses who created GB- and standing for themselves, when the French Revolution removed the leadership of the 'ancien regime' and threw Europe into turmoil.
Of course what you say about the French as allies could be applied to the great year of rebellion in Ireland in 1798, when the Irish raised their own tricolour on hopes for French help, that was never more than token.
Cass
Cass -
Message 4
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Friday, 14th January 2011
Ireland was famed for picking lousy Allies, and Scotland was not much better!
In 1798, the French landed in Ireland too late, and in the wrong place, with just enough men to annoy the English into a response, without sending enough to actually beat them.
O'Neill was doing great in the 1590s, until the Spanish sent 'help', and he lost his army trying to dig them out of Kinsale, 300 miles away from where they ought to have landed.
Aye, God save us from our friends. . . . -
Message 5
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 14th January 2011
Thinking a bit more of my very inadequate knowledge of Scottish History
(a) Is there not a bit of a suggestion in the Waverly Novels recreation of Scotland's "gothic" age, that somehow the Scots had more in common with French chivalry than those dour, practical and down to earth "Sassenachs"? Is it Quentin Durward who actually gets involved in the Hundred Years War and shows just what a chivalrous knight should have been in an age when Chivalry was in decline?
(b) France was a useful place to send the infant Mary Queen of Scots and her French mother safely out of the reach of Henry VIII's expedition across the border to seize her and presumably keep her as an eventual bride for his son Edward.
Cass -
Message 6
Posted by eristheapplethrower (U9524346) on Monday, 17th January 2011
The auld alliance dates back to 1295.
The French did - repeat did - send troops to Scotland in 1385. This was to help counteract the invasion of Scotland by the ever popular English monarch Richard II.
There was a Scots Guard the Garde Écossaise in France (Quentin Durward) so France did provide a useful outlet for young Scots men to go fight the English and others and be paid for it. The Garde Écossaise were a fifteenth century introduction.
What would Machiavelli do? I think he suggested in The Prince what should happen when there is a strong power and a weaker power at odds. And you (bystander eg France) could square up to the stronger power. Then of course as bystander you would ally with the weaker power because if the two of your defeat the stronger then holy Ned you have dominion over two kingdoms.
Ah yes the reign of James IV brilliant except for the last fifteen minutes. -
Message 7
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
Thanks aneris (and for the other replies)
Having read more of the book now, it is clear that Scotland was certainly influenced by France in matters cultural from the Auld Alliance and from the continued connections after the formal end of the Alliance after 1560. It opened Scotland up to the wider European world in terms of culture as well as politics, which benefitted Scotland.
My original question though was more to do with the political and military aspects rather than culture, and I couldn't help feeling that in those respects it was rather a one-sided affair - I understand why the French would want to be allied with Scotland, and use the Scottish as a thorn in England's side and hopefully taking some of the English heat off France. But I still can't help feeling that overall, the Auld Alliance was as much a hindrance to Scottish interests as it was a help.
Perhaps that's the nature of alliances where one party is all-the-more dominant than the other. -
Message 8
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
Also in 1560 the English army and navy had to be sent to help persuade the French that they had overstayed their welcome in Scotland.
-
Message 9
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
Stoggler
I am not sure at what point it becomes relevant to consider whether policy was in the National Interest..
Obviously this change came in France with the revolution in 1789 when the General Will concluded that it was no longer appropriate for a King to say "I am the State"..
Machiavelli's work "The Prince" signalled part of that development, as did the contemporaneous "Utopia" by Thomas More.. But perhaps above everwhere else in parts of Scotland life was based on personal ties, in at least the Highlands the over-riding ones being to the clan and its leader.
As often comes up on the various threads dealing with Richard III the crucial factor in his defeat at Bosworth seems to have been that "those who stood by him" (as the AS Chronicle says of King Harold at Hastings) were not sufficient enough in numbers or strength to defeat the challenge to his rule.
Alliances between Kings and chief courtiers were based on the same tradition, and I have never yet read a History of Scotland that is interested in showing how the common people in that country worked the Parliamentary system to make sure that the monarch took account of the needs of the people as a whole.
T.B. Macaulay, who with his Scottish ancestry and huge knowledge of books should have known about this, wrote in the Edinburgh Review of 1828 that this was a unique achievement of the English Constitutional tradition.
How is the new Scottish Parliament doing?
Or the Irish one for that matter?
Cass -
Message 10
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
I may well be wrong, because I know Scottish history very cursorily, but there is also an element of psychology in the relationship between nations.
It seems to me the Scots loved to fight the English rather than create an enduring alliance with this Great Power right on their border.
I think the relationship was best during the reign of Elizabeth I, when under the wise counsel of Lord Cecil most of the Scottish Lords were being given an English pension. Paying is always a lot cheaper than war; although war brings glory the cost in lives and funds is often far too much than the alternative, as we are finding out today in Afghanistan.
Would it not have been better for the Scots to allow Mary, Queen of the Scots to be wedded to Edward VI instead of the French Dauphin? Then perhaps she may have become the Queen of England and we may have gotten to the Union of these two very productive countries, both intellectually and materially, one century earlier.
Tas -
Message 11
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
</quote>What would Machiavelli do? ... Then of course as bystander you would ally with the weaker power because ,/quote>
I would suggest that geography also plays a role here though. Sometimes, two great powers can carve up a weaker power without too much hassle, whereas as a confrontation between the two powers could be disastrously costly. The Soviet/Nazi pact of 1939 is an example of this cynical exploitation and also of the disastrous confrontation.
The relative locations of France, England and Scotland, however, suggests that a permanent French presence in Scotland was always un-likely tyo succeed. This points to the course of action the French chose, to use Scotland to distract and de-stabilise England.
As gfor the original question, that of whether Scotland really gained or lost from the alliance, well that is a question easier to answer with hindsight. Scotland, as a smaller power, rationally looked for a powerful protector. That this 'protection' was necessarily predicated on instability was perhaps less obvious at the time. -
Message 12
Posted by eristheapplethrower (U9524346) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
Que d'Écossais, de rats, de poux: Ah Scots, rats and lice you find them all the world over.
The Scots got around. When there wasn't a crusade and you had all that male energy in the Kingdom and going due south wasn't an option (the wars of Independence had closed that option). Fit tae de?
Scotland was a rather poor kingdom.
What did Scotland get out of the alliance with France?
Well I give a clue in my second paragraph [though I haven't double checked if it was my second paragraph] - the Auld Alliance provided a great outlet for men (principally) who were keen to seek their fortunes through largely military activity. Yes most of traffic came from Scotland to France rather than the other way around. This traffic was especially high in the second half of the fourteenth century and the first half of the fifteenth century.
No prizes for guessing why. You may recall that France was involved with a rather long war with England.
1356 Battle of Potiers there was a Scots contingent fighting with the French king.
1421 Battle of Beauge (a rather better result from the point of view of the French than Potiers) also involved Scots troops.
I still go with Machiavelli. France needed its poodle, its gadfly, its nutcracker. Scotland was one arm of the nutcracker, a gadfly and an obedient poodle. I can't remember if the French kings paid the Scottish monarchs a 'pension' as Elizabeth I did with James VI.
Clearly the Reformation of 1560 certainly changed the relationship with France .
(Though interesting that James VI adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1600 - one of the few Protestant kingdoms to do so. We all know the story of England's public riots when that country adopted the same calendar in mid C18.]
France was not the great trading partner that the Low Countries (including trade with the ports of Bruges and Middleburg and Campvere) proved to be, but the Scots did like their claret. And there was a a bit of a wine trade with Bordeaux
And the Scots language picked up a few words which you will hear in streets and wynds of Scottish towns and cities today. I mean words like ashet, aumry, braw, douce, dour, fash, gigot to name but a few. I buy gigot chops from the butcher every week. In England I think I would ask for chump chops. Some people claim that wonderful Scots term nyaff comes from the French gnaf. -
Message 13
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
Was the Auld Alliance not also unique?
I'm trying to think of another example where a country had a small ally on the other side of a neighbour in an alliance which lasted for centuries. I can't think of one from anywhere in the world. Even the Anglo-Portuguese alliance doesn't fit as Portugal is removed from England in terms of neighbouring by at least 2 countries. A comparable example would be, say, if Norway had been an ally of Poland against Sweden. But was Norway ever an ally of Poland against Sweden even once in history - let alone for centuries?
Can anyone think of any examples from around the world of enduring alliances comparable to the Franco-Scottish one? -
Message 14
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
Aneris
Useful post--
Going back to the Kingdom business-- in those ages political alliances were often, perhaps usually, also family alliances
In an age that believed in "royal bloodlines", marrying beneath yourself was often a risky business for a ruler, unless there was some man or woman of obvious merit worthy of elevation.. And there are indications, in for example marriages within peasant societies the world over in which brides generally tend to come from another village, that human beings have long understood the consequences of in-breeding [Perhaps the Ancient Egyptians, where at one time royal sibblings were married off, proved this]
Was it Charles XII of Spain in the middle of the Seventeenth Century who had the Hapsburg jaw so accentuated by in-breeding that he could neither masticate nor articulate, and was so mentally retarded that he could follow no affairs of state properly, merely scrawling his cross on official documents?
The English monarchy by extending its outreach across the German plains ended up with the Hanoverian line with apparently its own hereditary problems..
Cass -
Message 15
Posted by eristheapplethrower (U9524346) on Wednesday, 19th January 2011
Vizzer
I think you have raised an excellent point and one which the house of aneris has never thought about. But no we couldn't think of one either.
The Auld Alliance lasted from 1295 (the year before John Balliol's forced abdication) until the Protestant Reformation in Scotland in 1560. England and Scotland mattered more to each other in the last half of the sixteenth century.
Dame Fortuna.
In the seventeenth & eighteenth century Scots males with eye to making a fortune abroad and earning a quick buck found service in some of the Protestant armies of northern Europe including those of Prussia and later in the court of Imperial Tsars. -
Message 16
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 19th January 2011
Actually perhaps someone better versed in Scottish history might put Scottish international relations in a wider context- because for obvious reasons- we English are and have been particularly sensitive to being "piggy in the middle" between two old enemies.
But James VI may well not have been the first Scots monarch to find his queen in Denmark.. And those Scottish European regiments included one in the most militarily advanced Army of the early Seventeenth Century- the Dutch.
Cass -
Message 17
Posted by eristheapplethrower (U9524346) on Wednesday, 19th January 2011
James III of Scotland (personal rule 1460 - 1488) married a Danish woman. Margaret. A bit of a saint was his Margaret. Wouldn't say the same of James III but he was generous to his enemies less generous to his siblings. That's another story for another day. He didn't like his brothers much. But he was not as violent as say his father James II was. James II once threw a rival out of a window in Stirling Castle. If you have ever seen Stirling castle you will appreciate it would not have been a pleasant fall.
One of the finest medieval paintings which survives in Scotland show said King James III and his Danish queen
when they married in 1469 there was to be a dowry. the Danish monarch was a bit short of the readies so he offered the Scottish crown the Shetland and Orkney Islands (inc Fair Isle). The understanding was that the islands would pass to the Scottish crown in wadset and would be returned to Danish control once the dowry was paid. In short, they were pawned. So that is one Danish queen. Of course the dowry was never paid. so the islands remain under UK control.
Norwegian queen? Margaret (sister of Alexander III died 1283). Maybe close but in actual fact no cigar. Margaret the queen died giving birth to her daughter also Margaret. The younger Mgt is known history as the lady of Scotland heir presumptive to the throne of Scotland on the death of her grandfather Alexander III in 1286. Margaret married the Norwegian king Eric about 1281 but was born in Windsor Castle. That was because her mother was an Englishwoman married to the Scots King ALexander III. So English born sister of Scots king who marries Norwegian king. After Margaret's death the king went on to marry a sister of king Robert I of Scotland.
Does Ingibiorg Finnsdottir count? She was born in Norway. She was married to the Scots king Malcolm III (he of Macbeth fame). And remember at this time in the proceedings the Norse hegemony not only engulfed the northern isles but the Hebrides and the Isle of Man as well.
Piggy in the middle?
I think the people living in the northern end of the island (which geographically is 2/5ths the size of the island of Britian [ the Highlands of Scotland being in area roughly equivalent to Belgium]] would tend to suggest that they feel Pierre Trudeau's pain. You will recall his famous crack about Canada being a mouse in bed with an elephant. No prizes for guessing the elephant.
And one of the points of all this is that before John Balliol signed his treaty with France there was lots of coming and going between the two kingdoms of England and Scotland. And even after the Wars of Independence - several Scots kings did marry English women. David II, James I , James IV to name three.
What the Wars of Independence did was to end that happy period of landownership and 'fealty' on both sides of the Border. You were either on one side or the other. -
Message 18
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 19th January 2011
Going back to the Kingdom business-- in those ages political alliances were often, perhaps usually, also family alliancesÂ
Not in the case of the Auld Alliance which was over 200 years old before the Scots got a French royal wife. Though the Enlgish did try it as a way to win Scotland over. -
Message 19
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 20th January 2011
cloudyj
I wonder whether that had anything to do with the insecurity of the succession to the Scottish throne.. According to the popular History of Scotland that someone loaned (then gave) me I got the impression that there was rarely an acknowledged heir who would be hailed as King authomatically- as in "The King is Dead . Long live the King" countries. It seemed that the situation was often more like England in 1066 in which someone with a claim to be king had to prove that he had the personal power and support to back it up.
One has to wonder in an English context how Henry VII managed to persuade the Spanish to sent Catherine of Aragon when, as the Richard III thread- crew have argued, really it was not obvious that the Wars of the Roses were over for good.
Cass -
Message 20
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 20th January 2011
I wonder whether that had anything to do with the insecurity of the succession to the Scottish throne.. According to the popular History of Scotland that someone loaned (then gave) me I got the impression that there was rarely an acknowledged heir who would be hailed as King authomatically- as in "The King is Dead . Long live the King" countries. It seemed that the situation was often more like England in 1066 in which someone with a claim to be king had to prove that he had the personal power and support to back it up.Â
Cass,
Interesting question. Not so much a question of insecurity of succession though. Since William the Lion, the succession passed as directly as possible to eldest sons, with the famous exception following the death of Margaret of Norway leaving no clear successor. Otherwise it's no different to classic medieval primogeniture. In fact Scotland had remarkably stable succession, with several regencies and David II spending 11 years "imprisoned" in England. Although Scotland did have civil wars, there was no violent change in ruling house between 1306 and 1648! Though Mary was deposed by war in favoutr of her son.
It's worth noting that much of Scots law of the period refers to the crown of Scotland, rather than the person of the King of Scotland at that period, which could reflect your point about the status of the actual king being downgraded compared to other countries. The royal stability may come from regents feeling that they usurping the throne just didn't add to their power enough to risk it.
My sneaking suspicion is that, for France, the alliance was secure enough without marrying into the Scottish royal family - they had more important families to marry. Scotland had no other real choice of anti-English ally.
One has to wonder in an English context how Henry VII managed to persuade the Spanish to sent Catherine of Aragon when, as the Richard III thread- crew have argued, really it was not obvious that the Wars of the Roses were over for good.Â
The Tudors aren't really my thing, but from a continental view France was a real danger to Spanish interests in Italy. So long as the English weren't engaged in fighting each other, they were a potent force in international politics - Edward IV had been secure enough to invade France in 1475 and also engage in a long conflict with Scotland. -
Message 21
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Thursday, 20th January 2011
Re: message19.
Hello Cass,
You write:
One has to wonder in an English context how Henry VII managed to persuade the Spanish to sent Catherine of Aragon...Â
Wasn't this done to nip an emerging Franco-English alliance in the bud? Charles the fifth would do almost anything to annoy the French.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 22
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 20th January 2011
cloudyj
Your point about the Scottish succession puts me very much in mind of a time when I disgraced myself in my student days.. An eminent Medieval Historian came to lecture and explained that the insecurity of succession in the Angevin barony could not have been a factor in the build up to Magna Carta, because, almost invariably eldest sons, did succeed their fathers- paying the appropriate fees.
In questions I suggested that statistics have very little to do with feeling secure. The safest form of travel was airtravel- but people were much more nervous about getting on a plane than a boat, plain etc.
In fact all that his study might have proved was that the threat held over the eldest sons was so powerful that they towed the line - "kept honest" by that threat ..
In the same way, as I said, the books that I had read- as you have more or less suggested- implied that there was no established job-contract and specification for the Scottish King the way that was established by the Coronation Oath of Edward the Confessor- and has been used ever since. Anyone annointed King of England, and bound by that oath-in word and spirit- could call upon the strength of the English people to make his King's Peace effective. It read very much like the heir had to get around like Mr Cameron last year, trying to make sure that he would be at the head of a winning coalition. Scottish power brokers in the style of Warwick the Kingmaker seem to have been important.
The complications seem to have included for a long time the often separate status of the Highlands and Islands, which I believe the Stuart dynasty worked long and hard to undermine, including James VI outlawing the travelling 'bards' who kept alive the Histories and traditions of those regions and their clans.
Cass -
Message 23
Posted by hoddles off into the sunset (U14129169) on Monday, 24th January 2011
It's worth noting that much of Scots law of the period refers to the crown of Scotland, rather than the person of the King of Scotland at that period, which could reflect your point about the status of the actual king being downgraded compared to other countries. Â
This is reflected in the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320
"To him (King Robert), as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by his right and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand.
Yet if he should give up what he has begun, seeking 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 right and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be subjected to the lordship of the English" -
Message 24
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 24th January 2011
Hoddles
Thank you very much .. It does go along with my feeling that somehow the acceptance of a monarch was rather "on good behaviour"- in other words there was no confidence in the monarchy as an institution with a contract that provided some ground for the subject to remind the Crown of its bounden duty..
As I wrote to Thomas B today on another thread, it was several years ago that I wrote my one letter to Queen Elizabeth suggesting that really she was the only person to make a rallying call, as her father had done before D Day, and encourage her people to attack the malaise of obesity, laziness, general morosity and lack of competitive drive.
I received no acknowledgement.. But she did some of that in her Christmas message in 2010.
Cass -
Message 25
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Monday, 24th January 2011
Declaration of Arbroath? Ho hum.
Just a message from the North side to the Godfather, that if that Capone doesn't stay outta our patch, there'll be trouble.
Thugs, every one of them. -
Message 26
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011
It's as much a question of "What was in it for the French?" When a contingent of French knights was sent over to Scotland in the 1380s, they were not welcomed. The Scots resented their presence. In Froissart's words:
"What devil has brought them here? or, who has sent for them? Cannot we carry on our wars with England without their assistance? We shall never do any good as long as they are with us. Let them be told to go back again, for we are sufficient in Scotland to fight our own battles, and need not their aid. We neither understand their language nor they ours, so that we cannot converse together. They will very soon cut up and destroy all we have in this country, and will do more harm if we allow them to remain among us than the English could in battle."
The visitors were denied adequate food and lodgings
"Besides, whenever their servants went out to forage, they were indeed permitted to load their horses with as much as they could pack up and carry, but they were waylaid on their return, and villanously beaten, robbed, and sometimes slain, insomuch that no varlet dare go out foraging for fear of death. In one month the French lost upwards of a hundred varlets; for when three or four went out foraging, not one returned, in such a hideous manner were they treated."
After accompanying the Scots on a massive but fruitless raid into England (while the English raided deep into Scotland) the French couldn't wait to return home and departed-
"cursing Scotland, and the hour they had set foot there. They said they had never suffered so much in any expedition, and wished the King of France would make a truce with the English for two or three years, and then march to Scotland and utterly destroy it; for never had they seen such wicked people, nor such ignorant hypocrites and traitors." -
Message 27
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011
Froissart may have been a wee bit pro-English.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.