This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I find this highly POVy
I also have major problems with the bit of Lynch that does get quoted, and will return to this point when convenient-- Rjccumbria ( talk) 21:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC) After noting that the behaviour of the Scots shocked the English chroniclers, the article gives the following footnote
Michael Lynch, in his single-volume Scotland: A New History, explains the initial hatred displayed in the northern English chroniclers not in terms of the brutality shown during David’s invasions of northern England, but in terms of what might be called cultural treason. Michael Lynch, Scotland: A New History, p. 83; R. R. Davies, First English Empire, p. 11, offers a slightly different, but not incompatible, explanation: "The outrage with which the contemporary chronicles responded to what they termed the barbarism of the Scots…is surely to be explained in part by the shock of the Anglo-Normans on realizing that their economic and cultural superiority and civility as well as their military dominance were being challenged for the first time in three generations. Empire-builders are distressed by challenges to their right to build empires".
so apparently the unfavourable view taken by the chroniclers is to be explained away as due to bias. I think it would be fairer to also explore the possibility that the chroniclers were greatly shocked because what was going on was greatly shocking.
This may be unduly simplistic, but the eruption of the Scots into Northern England seems to me to have involved a certain amount of (literal) 'chains and slavery' which 12th century monks would have been fully entitled to be shocked at. If somebody can advance some argument as to why the reported slave-raiding didn't actually happen, or wasn't actually that shocking, I would be interested to hear it -- Rjccumbria ( talk) 23:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Understanding this period of history is hampered by the changed meaning of words over time. It is equally hampered by the careless use of words way back then too. Words such as 'The Scots' 'Scotland' 'England' 'the English' and 'King' need to be examined carefully since their meanings are understood differently today than they were hundreds of years ago in the 12th century. 'Scotland' then meant specifically that area of the Highlands home to the Gaelic speaking Scots. The inhabitants of the lowlands and South East were Anglo-Saxon or English but were nominally subjects of the King of the Scots. A 'king' back then may or not have been 'sovereign' since a king could be a subordinate of a 'high king' - which seems to have been David's original relationship to Henry when Henry provided him with a Norman army with which to invade and conquer northern Britain on his behalf. Furthermore the idea that there was subsequently a war between 'the 'Scots' and 'the English' seems inadequate to describe a war or wars which were really about two (or three) groups of Britain's competing Norman occupiers fighting each other for power. All very tricky. Cassandrathesceptic ( talk) 13:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I find this highly POVy
I also have major problems with the bit of Lynch that does get quoted, and will return to this point when convenient-- Rjccumbria ( talk) 21:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC) After noting that the behaviour of the Scots shocked the English chroniclers, the article gives the following footnote
Michael Lynch, in his single-volume Scotland: A New History, explains the initial hatred displayed in the northern English chroniclers not in terms of the brutality shown during David’s invasions of northern England, but in terms of what might be called cultural treason. Michael Lynch, Scotland: A New History, p. 83; R. R. Davies, First English Empire, p. 11, offers a slightly different, but not incompatible, explanation: "The outrage with which the contemporary chronicles responded to what they termed the barbarism of the Scots…is surely to be explained in part by the shock of the Anglo-Normans on realizing that their economic and cultural superiority and civility as well as their military dominance were being challenged for the first time in three generations. Empire-builders are distressed by challenges to their right to build empires".
so apparently the unfavourable view taken by the chroniclers is to be explained away as due to bias. I think it would be fairer to also explore the possibility that the chroniclers were greatly shocked because what was going on was greatly shocking.
This may be unduly simplistic, but the eruption of the Scots into Northern England seems to me to have involved a certain amount of (literal) 'chains and slavery' which 12th century monks would have been fully entitled to be shocked at. If somebody can advance some argument as to why the reported slave-raiding didn't actually happen, or wasn't actually that shocking, I would be interested to hear it -- Rjccumbria ( talk) 23:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Understanding this period of history is hampered by the changed meaning of words over time. It is equally hampered by the careless use of words way back then too. Words such as 'The Scots' 'Scotland' 'England' 'the English' and 'King' need to be examined carefully since their meanings are understood differently today than they were hundreds of years ago in the 12th century. 'Scotland' then meant specifically that area of the Highlands home to the Gaelic speaking Scots. The inhabitants of the lowlands and South East were Anglo-Saxon or English but were nominally subjects of the King of the Scots. A 'king' back then may or not have been 'sovereign' since a king could be a subordinate of a 'high king' - which seems to have been David's original relationship to Henry when Henry provided him with a Norman army with which to invade and conquer northern Britain on his behalf. Furthermore the idea that there was subsequently a war between 'the 'Scots' and 'the English' seems inadequate to describe a war or wars which were really about two (or three) groups of Britain's competing Norman occupiers fighting each other for power. All very tricky. Cassandrathesceptic ( talk) 13:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)