General Michael Collins

For "reason", read "pretext" and for "being invited", read "invasion" ?

Sargon of Akkad

That's not what the sources we have had handed down to us say. It may have been foolish to invite the wolf to defend the sheep against the fox, but that's another story...

General Michael Collins

If we were to lend credence to everything handed down to us, and refuse to speculate on true motives, history would be mythology. They say Niall Noigiallach was to blame, but he seems a convenient scapegoat if you ask me. That was as much about attacking the Romans as the British.

Brunel

Quote:

Please, find and quote anywhere that I have said the English were evil?

You're the type who revels in the biased (biased towards Scotland) threads about Scotland's "battles for independence" against the nasty, baby-eating English but when an Englishman comes on and tries to tell the TRUE story of the wars rather than the heavily romanticised ones (most of Scottish history is heavily romanticised like no other nation's) and he mentions that, far from being all innocent, sweetness and light and the victims of evil English agression, there were Scottish kings at the time who were as equally adept at invading and annexing neighbouring countries as Edward I was (such as Alexander II who laid claim to Northern England and Norways territories in the Western Isles) you start complaining about a "pro-English bias."

Quote:

This is chicken egg territory, you didn't comment on Athelstan or Edmunds claims of overlordship over every other british king they could reach.

Four problems with that:

1) Athelstan was king when England didn't even exist, so England was not invading Scotland at the time. I'm referring to England and Scotland only;

2) Athelstan's son, Edmund, may have conquered Strathclyde, a Celtic kingdom in what is now southwestern Scotland and northwestern England, but he did NOT conquer Scotland. Strathclyde was no more a part of Scotland as it was a part of England.

3) This invasion was no different to the Picts (Scots) conquering part of the Anglo-Kingdom of Northumberland and annexing it for Scotland (the area is now southeastern Scotland and the city of Edinburgh, which the Anglo-Saxon King of Northumberland founded) and doing so BEFORE Edmund invaded Strathclyde.

4) Edmund then CEDED Strathclyde to King Malcolm I of Scotland who then annexed it into his nation. Edmund did this in exchange for a treaty of mutual military support and thus established a policy of safe borders and peaceful relationships with Scotland. If Edmund hadn't been so generous what is now southwestern Scotland would now be in England, just as what is now southeastern Scotland should belong to England, too.

England was fully justified in controlling Northumbria. It started off as an ANGLO-SAXON kingdom, and so was under the control of the Anglo-Saxons originally. The King of Northumbria, Edmund, even founded a city in his kingdom which he named after himself - Edinburgh (Edwin's town). The fact that Edinburgh and the northernmost part of the former Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria are part of Scotland today is because the Scots invaded and annexed it. It was the Scots who inavded it, not the English.

The area that Lothian occupies today is what used to be the northernmost part of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria. It was not a case of the English invading Scotland. In fact, the Battle of Nechtansmere, which our Scottish friend so confidently told us was a case of England invading Scotland, was actually a case of the Picts (Scots) invading the northern part of Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria and winning, leading to them taking it over and Scotland annexing it in 1018. It was a case of the Scots invading an Anglo-Saxon kingdom and it remaining in Scotland today.

Edward I was hardly the only person claiming the Throne of Scotland. He was just one of FIFTEEN people laying claim to the Throne of Scotland. I don't see what problem the Scots had in accepting a great leader like Edward I as their king, and instead settle on lightweights like Balliol.

Brunel

I agree with you.

Of course, MichaelCollins thinks you're wrong, but he's obviously never heard of Hengist and Horsa, the first two Anglo-Saxons to step foot in what is now England, who were invited over by Vortigern, King of the Britons (England and Wales) to help him fight the aggressive and warlike Picts (Scots).

But many Scots and Irish today prefer to listen to the history which has been changed and romanticised to suit them. They prefer to believe that the warlike and savage Anglo-Saxons came over through a decision they made themselves. They don't like to be told what REALLY happened - that the Anglo-Saxons were invited over by the leader of the Celts in what is now England and Wales to help defend his lands against the warlike Scots.

Brunel

In fact, rather than being the Anglo-Saxons who invaded Britain - they were invited over - I might be right in thinking that it was you Irish who invaded Britain and settled here in the far north of the islands. Today we call those Irish invaders and settlers "Scots."

The word "Scot" comes from the Latin word "Scotti", which originally denoted the Irish Celts.

All this was mentioned last year during the Queen's visit to Ireland. An Irish historian speaking on Sky News as live pictures were shown of the Queen visiting Trinity College in Dublin reminded us that it was the Irish who invaded Britain first - but the Irish often don't like to be reminded of that fact.

pablo668

Edward didn't claim the throne of Scotland. He adjuticated it, he more or less forced the Scots into recognising him as their feudal superior. He appointed guardians in the place of the former king.
I don't have anything reliable to back this up but as far as I can tell Edward considered the throne of Scotland to be vacant and defunct.
He did play the Scots nobles against eachother with the hint or possibility of the throne of Scotland being a reward for services rendered.

My favourite author of Scots history is John Prebble. He is actually an englishman. He delivers well written, well researched and balanced accounts of Scots history.
I have read just about every book I can get my hands on about the history of Scotland and it's relations with England and nowhere have I ever seen claims like those that you are making.

The Groundwork of British History is an old antiquated imperialist take on British history (and I love it) and even that makes nothing like the claims you have, quite the opposite in fact.

Now, as I have asked before, where are you sourcing your arguments from?

General Michael Collins

Hmmm ... hence my mentioning Niall Noigiallach? You may know him as Niall of the Nine Hostages, and the historical invader was more likely his father, as the Irish chronology is somewhat confused. That's Eochaid Mugmedon, for the record. And far from wanting to forget that episode in Irish history, I've sought to bring it to the attention of the forum, in the "GMC's questions on Roman History thread". He was by no means the first Irish invader of Britain, and others such as Cormac Mac Airt and Conn Céd-Chathach may qualify for that title. But, Niall went over to assist the Gaelic communities in Scotland from Pictish attacks. His condition for doing this was that Northern Britain be renamed "Scotia Minor", as opposed to "Scotia Major" (Ireland) and of course, you're quite right in saying Scots was the original title of the Irish. With the Picts defeated, he formed an Alliance with them and invaded Roman Britain. After some attacks he was driven back, and when the Roman army left, he returned again. There followed a brutal assault on the remnants of Roman Britain and the story goes that the Romans would not go back to protect the Romano-Brits. So, apparently, aid was called for to the Saxons, who promptly gave it. What I suggested above was that that sounds like to useful a pretext for the Saxon invasion, and it was probably underway or planned in any case.

A lot of Irish are aware of that fact. What they don't care for so much is the English interpretation of this as a Casus Belli some 600 years later, especially when Niall made no attempt to control Britain, as far as we know. He just left. Would that others could follow his example.

I think Sargon will have seen me comment on this in other threads, even if you have not. For your benefit, in relation to your point : Not only is the claim of Northern Aggression in 450's or early 400's tenuous to Norman English invaders of Scotland in the 13th Century, it is also misleading. Because you are claiming that - "they started it", or something of that nature. However, there is significant evidence to point to Roman incursions into Alba (Scotland, if you will) and Éire (or Scotia, if you prefer) long prior to these events. The foundation of an Irish National Militia points to a strong fear of invasion, and that was several centuries prior to Niall. Indeed, that Militia was charged with watching the East coast for ships, just in case it needed to be clearer. The conclusion is obvious, Ireland's war was with Rome, not Britain. And it is further supported by the deaths of both Niall and Nath Í on the continent rather than in Britain, according to the historical tradition. So, not only is the Irish war with Roman Britain of no relevance to the Saxon English (except as pretext), neither are the Norman English any relation to the Saxons, and thus the invasion of Scotland by the Norman English must stand entirely on its own merits.

Brunel

Edward's claim as overlord of Scotland harked back to the Treaty of Falaise 1174, a treaty which again came about because of Scottish aggression.

The Treaty came about after William I (or William the Rough) of Scotland invaded the North of England in 1174 as he thought, just like Alexander II of Scotland the century after, that it should be a part of Scotland.

Unfortunately for him, he was defeated by the defending forces of King Henry II of England at the Battle of Alnwick (pronounced "Annick") in Northumberland in 1174, was captured and imprisoned in Falaise in Normandy.

William was then forced to sign the Treaty of Falaise, which required that Scotland would forever be subordinate to the English crown. It was England's attempt at curbing Scottish aggression.

The Treaty was cancelled by Richard the Lionheart in 1189. However, Edward I knew that the Treaty stated that Scotland would forevermore be subordinate to the English crown and that is why he claimed overlordship of Scotland.

So Edward's claim of overlordship of Scotland came about due to yet another instance of Scottish expansionism into England.

pablo668

That's all pretty good. No argument with the historical events as you have laid them out. It's your labelling them as 'Scottish Expansionism' that is very strange.
You can keep calling it that all you like but the fact remains that is called that in no history book that I know of.
As I have stated before, when two kingdoms share a border, and over many centuries both push and shove and claim, gain and cede territory each way, then it is foolish in the extreme to label one or the other as an aggressor or expansionist.

Edwards claim came about as a result of his opportunism, nothing else, remember The Scots and English had held the peace at least over the entirety of Alexander the Thirds reign, though you keep ignoring that.