Talk:England and King David I

POV probs

I find this highly POVy

• Ailred mocks nothing; he is the only chronicler to report the Galwegian gallantry and its ineffectiveness - the other chroniclers just say the Scots attack then break
• Bruce and Balliol are compromised by divided loyalties  : Ailred describes Bruce as belonging by right to King Stephen, but from his youth a follower of the King of Scotland, which seems about right for having done homage to David saving only his fealty to the King of England. If David is not prepared to forswear his oath to support Matilda, then what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander
• "doubtful allegations of cannibalism" ; I have taken up the reference and see no description of the eating of human flesh, even less any allegations of that ; this looks like inadvertent creation of a straw man
• description of enslavement as 'routine' is a bit strange; of the various parties involved, who regarded slave-raiding the civilian population as routine? Is the word being looked for not something more like systematic?
• The view that the Battle of the Standard was hardly a defeat at all hardly reflects the contemporary consensus, and there are some modern authors who would take a different line eg Michael Lynch -quoted with approbation in another context- describes it as a 'shattering defeat', and somehow does not get quoted.

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.

• The RR Davies quote is a neat little epigram in the introduction to a book in which he establishes that the Celtic world was still going in for slave-raiding after the English and Normans had largely given it up
• I have the Lynch book , but in the 1992 revision. The closest I can find to the sentiment attributed to him is (p 79)

As late as the 1130s David was still, to Norman Chroniclers, the epitome of Norman knighthood, which was why his expedition into England at the head of an ‘incredible army’ of semi-barbarous peoples was so shocking to them.

If ever he suggested hatred and cultural treason, he has clearly thought better of it since

Unfortunately the remark could still be interpreted to suggest that the behaviour of the Scots wasn't really as shocking as the chroniclers found it (although the more natural meaning seems to me to be that his association with the enterprise was shocking). The supporting reference is to a passage in the Gesta Stephani (to be found on pages 176-8 of Anderson 'Scottish Annals') which establishes that chroniclers found the Scots behaviour shocking, but does not seem to directly supportly the 'explanation'. On David's death, many of the same chroniclers give him highly favourable obituaries and none suggest that he approved of the atrocities they found shocking or did not repent heartily that they had been done in his name. David's dealings with knights and abbots seem to have allowed him to continue to be the epitome of Norman knighthood (which should be clearly distinguished from modern concepts of chivalry). The Anglo-Norman magnates don't seem to have regarded other Scoto - Normans with any great disgust either; when William of Aumale married some years after the battle, he married one of Walter fitz Duncan's daughters; admittedly she was an heiress, which often smoothes over minor difficulties)

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)

Yes, and there happens to be a Roman-inspired cliche of unarmoured barbarians that the Normans brought to Britain with them. The reference in the article will take you to the stories of cannibalism, which I rechecked and can promise exist. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And there happens to be a twentieth-century cliche of the barbarous Huns bayonetting babies; but its existence does not demonstrate that the Wehrmacht always behaved like officers and gentlemen in occupied territories...

I had already checked the reference, before concluding that it did not support the suggestion that chroniclers had alleged cannibalism (which is normally taken to involve eating human flesh). If you re-re-check the reference I think you will find that it amounts to an allegation that having slaughtered the innocent, some Scots washed down their food with water tainted/mixed with the blood of their victims. Do you have any instances of chroniclers alleging anthropophagy, or are you working on some looser definition of cannibalism? Rjccumbria (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of Words Change Over Time

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)