a Question on England for historians

[Gaelstrix]

Col. Tartleton,

Norman England was quite powerful, but I think you are exaggerating a bit. The Scandinavian countries were actually very powerful, although waning near the end of the Viking era, and France, although loosely united, did manage to push the Normans completely out of their territory.
To England's credit they had a much smaller population density than the continent, yet they had amazing victories and crushing defeats, like any other country.

Even when the Scots ruled the English they made a point of putting England first. Being King of Scotland was sub par and they knew it. A low populated small country of mountains and islands on the edge of the old world. Being King of England was a pretty big deal. England was important. Not really comparable with a united France, but there was no such place. Scotland, or to be more honest the other England, (the part of Scotland where all the people actually live was basically North-North England) took the world by storm in the modern era, but the medieval era was not it's time.

It's important to understand that the romantic idea of Robert the Bruce and William Wallace was written for an 18th century Scottish audience (by Burns of course) who were in mixed opposition to the United Kingdom and were looking at the American and French revolutions. The formative development of the modern Scottish identity is somewhat anti-Union and anti-English and either Radically Liberal or Jacobite Lost Cause whether it's fair or not. The modern SNP is just acting in the national character.

Excuse me, you're speaking from a very arrogant Anglo-centric point of view here. King James and the Stuarts did take the court to London, which was sensible, since it's the largest city, but that's it, they sat in London. It was this err, "betrayal" that led to the Bishops war and the War of the Three Kingdoms, and also why the great majority of the country didn't rush to the support the Stuarts after their fall. The ones that did mainly for religious reasons.
Scotland is NOT, North England, England never conquered her by force, baring occupying briefly in the Interregnum for 9 years. It's true that after union, the United Kingdom, England and Scotland together, were a force to be reckoned with in the Imperial era. I have a Scottish identity and I am not anti union, I am however proud of WW and RtB for keeping our pride in refusing to be an annexed territory. Consensual union, which was mutually beneficial, is not a loss of freedom.
You seem like a smart man, you can be proud of England's many accomplishments, like I am of Scotland's, without trying to demean your brethren nations.

P.S. Haha, I've never met a Jacobite. No idea where you got that from

[TenkiSoratoti]

Looking forward to this DotS now.

The film 'Braveheart' might as well be a Lord of the Rings alternate history. Let's not forget Mel Gibson's obvious anglophobia (aka Patriot/Gallipoli) and forget that film ever existed.

Kilts, bagpipes, lowly peasants fighting for their freedom.... all ball. I will not be pleased if this mod makes even a subtle reference/tribute to it. It is insulting to Scotland and insulting to history and I'm sorry to have to be a drama queen about it.

Even when the Scots ruled the English they made a point of putting England first

What a confusing analogy you have there. Little bit more complex than that I think.

[Gaelstrix]

The film 'Braveheart' might as well be a Lord of the Rings alternate history. Let's not forget Mel Gibson's obvious anglophobia (aka Patriot/Gallipoli) and forget that film ever existed.

Kilts, bagpipes, lowly peasants fighting for their freedom.... all ball. I will not be pleased if this mod makes even a subtle reference/tribute to it. It is insulting to Scotland and insulting to history and I'm sorry to have to be a drama queen about it.

Haha so true, well, it's probable they had some bagpipes, but apart from the Highlanders, some of whom would have worn leather and thick great kilts or trews. However, "Barbour tells that King Robert turned away those who were not adequately equipped. For most, such equipment would consist of a spear, a helmet, a thick padded jacket down to the knees and armoured gloves. It is highly probable that a large proportion of the spearmen had acquired more extensive armour given that the country had been at war for nearly twenty years." "The balance of the army consisted of archers and men-at-arms."
The film just has about 500 guys with blue face paint, always in a field. Probably the best TRUE heroic moment was missed (unarmoured Robert axing the charging Hereford) as well as all the tactics and back and forth politics that could have been entertaining.
Ah well, it is Mel Gibson.

[TenkiSoratoti]

When one considers that the Scots have attempted, on many occasions, to challenge English sovereignty over the north of England you start to realise that it was never a one way street.

The English have had numerous Bannockburns themselves. One instance involved an English knight killing a pet bull terrier and then repeating the same on his Scottish champion opponent but severing his head and holding it up in front of both armies. Needless to say the battle went the same way.

[Hengest]

We also forget that Britain is a Scottish invention not an English one, thanks in no small part to the continued strength of the country to match England well beyond the Middle Ages. Other Celtic countries also try to jump on the bandwagon and claim similar histories whenever the point is made, but anyone who knows their history will tell you that Wales and Ireland were never in any way comparable to Scotland from 1450 onwards, if not earlier.