Jump to content

Talk:Auld Alliance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.5.8.105 (talk) at 10:47, 16 August 2012 (→Citizens). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Citizens

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? PatGallacher 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just to add - while there was no concept of national citizenship in the Middle Ages (only subjecthood, and it would be problematic for Scots to be considered subjects of the French Crown, given the legal entailments), there was citizenship of cities. Theoretically a Scot might, through recognition by the French Crown or other relevant authority, be regarded as a citizen of, say, Paris. Whether or not this actually occurred is another matter, and not something I'm in a position to answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.100.97 (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's an intresting idea that 'English national identity developed in a more complex manner' but is it really true? England developed or grew out of the fusion of several kingdoms, all or mostly all founded as Anglo-saxon kingdoms, collectively 'Angleland'. Scotland by contrast emerged through the stitching together of Pictich, Scots-gaelic, Norwegian, old British and Anglo-saxon kingdoms - surely a much more complex situation that that in England?

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)[reply]

May I point you in the direction to another comment on this page? Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Auld_Alliance#Documents_relating_to_the_Norwegian_involvement I think you'll find it an interesting read. Luredreier (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Norway was part of the alliance from the start, but in 1326 they didn't participate in the renewal of the alliance. Norway was also probably not strong enough to keep up with the alliance in practice, but this was never put to the test. So to conclude, Norway was only in theory part of the alliance, and only during its earliest years. -GabaG (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Style is a bit la-la novelised history to me - somewhere between Jean Plaidy and a 2nd form history text book (or a Key Stage 2 online learning resource, as it probably is these days). Bakewell (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rcpaterson is an artist, and all the dry grasping of censoring Wiki ghouls will not bring him back whence he sensibly fled. I doubt there is anyone here who could finish one of his sentences. Speaking of which, if proving someone wrong is to your taste, or for some more wholesome reason, he left a sentence unfinished, see below. Anarchangel (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance in transition

-from Rcpaterson Talk- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Auld_Alliance&diff=67356093&oldid=67345663 Numerous edits identify you as the author of most of Auld Alliance; this one in particular contains the first appearance of the cliffhanger: "In growing to manhood King James, fully aware just how treacherous and faithless Louis could be."
Can't wait to hear what comes next! Anarchangel (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Scots law based upon Roman law?

A discussion on the origins of the Scottish legal system is taking place at WikiProject Scotland. Editors of this article may be able to throw light on the topic. To contribute to the discussion, please click here. References, per WP:VERIFY, would be especially welcome! Thank you in advance. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Documents relating to the Norwegian involvement

On the website of the National Archival Services of Norway I found articles on two documents, currently in the Centre historique des Archives nationales in Paris, which I believe relate to the Auld Alliance. The first is a letter from King Eirik II of Norway to Audun Hugleiksson giving him the authority to negotiate a "mutual and everlasting alliance and friendship treaty with France", and is dated 24 June 1295.[4] The other is the ratification by King Eirik II of the treaties Audun Hugleiksson had agreed to with King Philip IV of France, and is dated 28 March 1296 in Bergen (then the capital of Norway).[5] One of these treaties included the commitment that Norway would aid the French war effort with 100 large and 200 smaller ships and 50,000 warriors. This is something the article calls completely unrealistic and goes onto say that Norwegian historians have viewed Audun's negotiations "with open mouth, partly in disbelief, partly in admiration." Maybe this could form the basis of a section on the Norwegian involvement? -- Nidator T / C 14:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses text from My Wound is Deep: History of the Anglo-Scottish Wars, 1380-1560 and possibly For the lion: a history of the Scottish wars of independence to which Wikipedia is not legally entitled, lacking proper licensing by the publisher. The text was added between these edits. Some examples of copyright problems include: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]

I am heartily sorry to say that it seems the article will need to be rewritten to remove any remaining text by this contributor, since he has verified that the publisher did not license its use. I am blanking the article accordingly and listing it at the copyright problems board. I hope that the contributors to this article will be able to help salvage it. Alternatively, it is possible to restore to a point before the introduction of this text: [16]. (For more information, see CCI.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Section on Legend

What this article lacks is a section on possible earlier semi-mythic alliances, such as the supposed alliance between King Achaius of Scotland and Charlemagne, and such characters as Guilliermus Douglas Scotti who lead the Scots, under Charlemagne against Desiderius, King of the Lombards. Brendandh (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be interpreting unrelated sources to advance an original argument. Indeed, the article previously suffered from this problem, with people insisting that a treaty with Norway somehow made Norway part of the Auld Alliance despite not one reliable source ever advancing this argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but there are documentary sources extant. David Hume of Godscroft, for example, writing advances the legend of Sholto Douglas, and that of his son Guilliermus fighting for the Franks. Indeed there is still an Italian aristocratic family, by the name of Douglas-Scotti living near Piacenza (then part of the Frankish empire). Furthermore this crops up again in Sir Herbert Maxwell's History of the House and Race of Douglas. Brendandh (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never dissolved?

I don't know how to incorporate this into the article, but apparently there's going to be published a paper by a University of Manchester historian Dr Siobhan Talbott next year which would argue that the Alliance was probably never formally ended - which would allegedly also make it the longest in history: http://netstaff.cmsstage.manchester.ac.uk/news/display/?id=7313 --Thrissel (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the paper is published. Then you can incorporate the info using the paper as a reliable source. Before the current fetish for citing everything, I did have some information on Franco-Scottish dual nationality prior to 1906 but since I learned about that and other consequences of the AA in a 1974 lecture and couldn't find a reliable source, it had to go. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a reasonable advice. I'll probably forget to try and look it up but possibly somebody else will if they read this. --Thrissel (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that dual Franco-Scots nationality was rescinded by the French republic by terms of one of the treaties of the Entente Cordiale? Brendandh (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that that is the case. However I don't think the change was retrospective. Hence any Scot born before 1906 retained the dual nationality. Just my opinion though. I may be wrong. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, the source linked above says in the fourth paragraph "J. Macpherson, published in Scottish Field in 1967, says Dr Talbott, showed that France refused to accept Westminster’s abrogation of the Scottish side of the Auld Alliance in 1906, following the Entente Cordiale between Britain and France. By French law, a Scotsman born before 1907 still possesses the full rights and privileges of Franco-Scottish nationality." --Thrissel (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a whole series of reasons for finding this claim implausible, which have been discussed already. The sources claimed for this appear very insubstantial. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. PatGallacher (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't think that the claim is particularly extraordinary. Just hard to substantiate. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned before, concepts like citizenship and nationality were rather undeveloped in the middle ages. France went through all sorts of upheavals in the relevant period, including the Revolution when citizenship did become a more developed concept, and France temporarily annexed e.g. Holland and Catalonia, when a lot of people must have gained and lost French citizenship. Yet all this time this peculiar quirk of French citizenship law is supposed to have persisted unchanged, until the Entente Cordiale, which was just an understanding not a legal treaty. Also, Scotsman would have been legally difficult to define after 1707. The few sources provided are extremely vague, nothing in serious academic works. PatGallacher (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does Auld mean?

Does it mean old in this context? I could not find any reference in the text. Would be nice if someone could add the meaning of the word for all those of us who are not so familiar with the English language. Tony Mach (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first paragraph carefully. The meaning of "auld" is given in the article's second sentence. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Derek Ross for drawing my attention to a sentence that was added by the most helpful User:Unoquha at 17:54, 30 July 2012‎. It is greatly appreciated. Tony Mach (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I didn't realise that the second sentence had been added so recently. Kudos to Unoquha -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Auld_Alliance&oldid=507667335"