I AM always on the lookout for subjects which people want to read about and so it is thanks to Martin and Katherine Longmuir that this week’s Back in the Day starts the first of a two-part feature on the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France.
This week we will see how the Alliance formally came about, and next week we will deal with the later stages of the Auld Alliance which, it should not be forgotten, continued all the way up to the Union of the Crowns in 1603 – some say it ended with the Reformation and the ascent to the throne of Mary, Queen of Scots, in 1560, but there is evidence that her son, James VI and I, kept open the diplomatic channels to France in the late 16th century.
It is a remarkable story of genuine friendship and political finaglings, as well as recurring wars and no little misery, and while most Scots have heard of the Auld Alliance, we can only guess just how many Scottish people know the real facts about this massive part of their country’s history. Hopefully by the end of this two-parter there will be a lot more – do tell your friends and relatives what we’re up to.
Back in 1995, the 700th anniversary of the signing of the treaty met with quite a bit of celebrations, particularly in Edinburgh where the Auld Alliance was commemorated during the Festival and the Military Tattoo. A delegation, including Lothian and Borders Police Pipe Band, went from Edinburgh to Paris at the time of that year’s Five Nations rugby international, and the meeting between the two countries was renamed the Auld Alliance match for the occasion. The BBC broadcast a history and politics-based programme from Paris that night and the pipe band stopped the traffic on the Champs Elysees, an event which featured on every major news programme on French television where presenters explained to a largely bewildered and unknowing French population that the “Vielle Alliance” was 700 years old.
The French Consulate in Scotland made considerable efforts to tell the story of the Alliance and to celebrate the long-standing links between our two countries. Had there been an SNP government in Holyrood at the time much more would surely have been made of the anniversary, but as we all know in 1995 the Tories ruled the roost in London and their branch office in Edinburgh didn’t exactly fall over themselves to get involved in the celebration.
That was a pity because it would have been an ideal opportunity to give more information to the people of Scotland and France about our joint history.
There is little doubt that England and Ireland have been the two biggest influences on Scotland over the centuries but right through mediaeval times and the Middle Ages, Scotland’s links with France were deep and enduring and gave us everything from Mary Queen of Scots to those French words that were “Scotticised” and are still part of a language – ashet (assiette), caddie (cadet), a jigot or gigot, douce, and my own personal favourite corbie or corby, which derives from corbeau meaning a crow.
There is a huge point about the Auld Alliance that is often missed by historians, probably because they may not see a link to the modern day or realise the lessons we can learn from the 1295 treaty. When Scotland eventually becomes independent, and it will, we shall require recognition of our new status by other countries to enable Scots to say that we truly are an independent nation – the United Nations and European Union will have a lot to do with that.
That’s why the Auld Alliance is so important – it was formal international recognition by a powerful country that our wee land was a nation in its own right and not the plaything of England.
For most of the 13th century, there was very little dispute that Scotland was a country in its own right. Indeed, the Pope in Rome had recognised Scottish independence as far back as the reign of Macbeth in the 11th century.
The strong links to France really started when Macbeth’s successor Malcolm Canmore’s son King David I invited Norman knights from France and Flanders in modern-day Belgium to come to Scotland and make their homes here.
As we saw in a previous Back in the Day column, those powerful immigrants revolutionised Scottish society and gave us such things as burghs and sheriffs. Trade with France grew exponentially and Franco-Scottish trading links – we got their wine, they got our wool and soldiers – were well established by the 13th century.
The Treaty of York in 1237 between Kings Alexander II of Scotland and Henry III of England established the Anglo-Scottish Border and the principle that the Scottish king would only do homage to the English monarch for the lands he held in England. When he came to the throne in 1272, even King Edward I of England recognised at first that Scotland was separate, but the problem was that Longshanks wanted to rule over Scotland, despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that he clearly did not like us.
It was Scottish bad luck that on the death of King Alexander III in 1286, his heir was a tiny child in Norway, the uncrowned Queen Margaret. Six Guardians were appointed as regents but the Fair Maid of Norway died on her journey home to claim her crown in 1290.
The Scottish aristocracy argued among themselves as to who with would be the new king – John Balliol (or de Bailleul) who was half-French, and Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick had the strongest claims – but made a tactical error by asking Edward Longshanks to decide the case.
Edward was already angered because he had wanted Queen Margaret to wed his son Edward and thus eventually unite the kingdoms, and having been thwarted in his dynastic ambitions he now decided to impose his sovereignty on Scotland.
You will not find the history in Braveheart, but the reason why Edward was able to maintain his claim of “suzerainty” or overlordship was because the Scottish nobility accepted – at first – his preference of John Balliol as King over the claims of the Bruces. Balliol took the throne in 1292 and duly did homage to Edward.
The Scottish nobles soon began to resent the fact that they were now beholden to a foreign king as well as a weak one at home. As Edward continued to humiliate Balliol – he later became known as “Toom Tabard” or “Empty Coat” - a Council of Twelve nobles was formed to effectively become the government of Scotland.
They began agitating for Balliol to show his kingship and demonstrate to Edward that he would not be pushed around. It is important to note that at the time in the 1290s when this was all happening, Edward was planning war with France in order to maintain and extend the great areas of that country which were his as Duke of Gascony, lands which the French King Philip IV had declared forfeit to the crown in 1293. Under great pressure from the Council of Twelve, Balliol went against his sworn duty to Edward when Longshanks insisted that Scottish lords join him in war against France.
The Council was now only too aware that Edward’s real aim was complete subjugation of Scotland which he had declared would become either a sub-kingdom of England or be integrated into one nation very much run from London.
WE do not know the exact process by which Scotland and France became allies, not least because Longshanks later ordered the destruction of many of the kingdom of Scotland’s records, but we do know from French sources pretty much how things were sorted.
The French-owned original Auld Alliance document itself resides in the Archives Nationale in Paris and is a beautiful thing to see, written on vellum in Latin and carefully preserved to this day.
In brief it states that the two kingdoms, realising that they now had a common enemy, agreed that if either country was attacked by England, the other country would wage war on England in turn.
It was signed as the Treaty of Paris in 1295 and counter-signed by John Balliol (pictured above) early the following year. For once, Toom Tabard had stood up to Edward, even if the Treaty favoured France more than Scotland, though Philip had promised to pay for aid to Scotland at his own expense.
One can only imagine the towering rage of Longshanks when he learned that the Scots and the French had drawn up a mutual defence treaty, arguably the world’s first such document.
Effectively it was a declaration of war against Edward, and very soon there was indeed armed conflict between Scotland and England.
The Council of Twelve decided to show they meant business and ordered an attack on Carlisle before the ink was dry on the treaty.
It was unsuccessful, but had an immediate consequence as Edward decided to postpone his war in France and invade Scotland.
The first major effect of the Auld Alliance was Edward’s destruction of Berwick in March, 1296. With a massive army, Longshanks marched north and laid siege to Berwick, then very much part of Scotland and the nation’s most important seaport.
What happened then stains the reputation of Edward Longshanks to this day. Systematically and with utter butchery, the English army swept through the town, destroying everything in their path, murdering and raping their way up to the doors of Berwick Castle.
No-one, not even children, not the tiniest babe-in-arms, was spared. The estimates of the number of dead civilians range from 4,000 upwards, and the slaughter shocked all civilised peoples and certainly had the effect Edward intended of cowing the Scots. The Castle was garrisoned by William Hardy, the Lord of Douglas, but he had no chance against the forces led by Robert de Clifford on behalf of Edward. Douglas surrendered the garrison and he and his soldiers were granted their lives though many were imprisoned.
In response to the atrocity at Berwick, John Balliol sent a message to Edward formally renouncing his homage. Edward duly marched north and his mounted knights won the brief Battle of Dunbar on April 27, 1296, which scattered the remaining Scottish forces to the winds.
John Balliol fled north of Stirling, but eventually surrendered to Edward. He renounced the Auld Alliance, but the Scots had ceased to listen to or obey their king who was taken to the prison in the Tower of London.
As a direct result of the Auld Alliance, Scotland’s Wars of Independence had started with utter defeat.
Yet over on the west coast a young giant of a man from the junior nobility, hardly even a laird himself, took up arms against the English.
His name was William Wallace.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel