Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

History HubΒ  permalink

Wars of independance

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Mckay1402 (U5278290) on Wednesday, 15th June 2011

  Were the Balliol family almost single handedly responsible for a lack of unity in Scotland? Had the Bruces and balliols stood together and presented a united front would the other nobles have stood with them?
  
  The two strongest claiments to the throne seemed to be more interested in fighting each other than the 'liberty' they proclaimed to be so keen to fight for. No sooner than the Declaration of Arbroath had been made Edward balliol was fighting on the side of the English in order to get one over on the Bruce.
  
  Also why didn't the disinherited return to Scotland after Bannockburn? It was a decisive victory for Scotland and should have looked like they were in a strong position. What caused the seeming disloyalty to the cause?
  
  Finally was the death of the 'Maid of Norway' the single most catastrophic thing that has happened to Scotland?

  Link to this forum: Wars of independance

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Thursday, 16th June 2011

  There used to be people on this board with plenty of knowledge of Scotland's affairs, Mckay, but I don't know if any of them are still around. I am very vague about Scottish history, but I think the constant battling and warfare between claimants to the throne and the aristocracy generally was just par for the course in medieval Europe really. The kingship of England was relatively settled but the barons were still keen to ensure their concerns were met, and were prepared to force the issue if needed.
  
  I think there was a very strong sense of family in these times and ensuring YOUR descendants were the most powerful was the main criteria for action. For fighting, overturning monarchs, arranging advantageous marriages etc. From our perspective, valuing security and peace, it all seems counterproductive, especially when people sought the protection of the English. However the power structure of the countries was not settled at that stage and the Scots were still trying to push their way into England as much as vice versa.
  
  As regards the Maid of Norway, I wonder if she would have been the panacea required. If she had married the future Edward II, where would that actually have left Scotland? And if she had married one of her barons or earls that would likely have been ructions again. And could she have stayed single? (What did she die of - one site says seasickness, but don't you usually recover after a few days from that? or do children not have the strength always to recover? do they more or less starve?)
  
  I can't discuss all this with you in detail, because I just never get Scottish history properly into my head. Hopefully someone else will, since Scottish history is quite fascinating.
  
  Cheers, Caro.
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Wars of independance

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Mckay1402 (U5278290) on Friday, 17th June 2011

  Thanks Caro
  
  It certainly is fascinating. The thing that most interested me was that Scotland and England were peaceful neighbours until this episode. After that it became Edwards goal to bring Scotland in under the English crown. I asked a professor of Scottish history the same questions and got the following answer:
  
  A crucial dimension to understanding this period is that the distinction between the cause of the king and the cause of the kingdom or country, which seems to natural to us, was not generally accepted then (although there were attempts to articulate this distinction). The crux was that a kingdom needed a king, and you could not have a king without a royal dynasty. It seemed natural--especially to kings or those who thought they should be king--to assume that your interests and the kingdom's interests were identical. The fact that there was no clear successor to Margaret the maid meant that division was ineviatble, because you could hardly expect the chief claimants to distinguish their cause from the kingdom's.
  
  At the level of the nobility generally, their position depended entirely on their lands. It was quite natural for them, therefore, to look after their landed interests. Putting this another way: if you were a major noble, it did not make much sense to throw everything away simply for the sake of making a stand. What they tended to do was to try and calculate the best time to resist, and in the meantime buckle under!
  
  Most of the disinherited had most of their ancestral lands in England. When Robert forced the nobility to choose between him or the king of England, it did not make sense for them to chose Scotland and loose everything in England.
  
  Certainly very interesting. The questions around the Maids death do make you wonder. Sea sickness wouldn't kill you but food poisoning at sea might look the same and could definitely kill you.

  Link to this forum: Wars of independance

  Report message3

Back to top