Talk:Scotland in the High Middle Ages

Title
Why the "High Middle Ages"? This seems to be about Scotland in the Middle Ages in general. Adam Bishop 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It was either that or "Central Middle Ages". The article confines itself to the the period before 1286, and largely avoids the period before 900 (excepting contextualization). There is, for example, little discussion of the Stewarts, Wars of Independence, Lordship of the Isles or Scots language, features of Later Medieval Scotland; nor is there much discussion of Pre-900 Gaelic, Pictish, British or English cultures, etc, etc. - Calgacus 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice a preceding article is hoped for, the red link being to Dark Age Scotland: links to the Dark Ages get quickly changed to {Early) Middle Ages, which would relate to a division between Early, High and Late.  Understandably, the article focusses on Alba with other areas appearing only as they're conquered: it would perhaps be clearer if the intro spelled out their status at the start of the period, and I'll think about rephrasing that bit of the intro.  There's mention of the introduction of primogeniture, but none I've found of the preceding system which Peter Beresford Ellis goes into great detail about as a complex system of tanistry involving election of chieftains and low and high kings from hereditary elites: any reason for not referring to this system? Overall, very interesting. ...dave souza 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea, Dave. Early, High and Late would make much more sense than Dark Age, High Med. Stew. etc. You're of course free to rephrase the intro. I had a better intro at first, but I lost it and had to retype it, which was annoying. I'm competent to do an article on the Dark Ages too, but my knowledge and competence wanes quickly after the death of David II, so I'm less able to do one for Later Medieval Scotland. As for tanistry/primogeniture, I'm personally not convinced that this topic is understood properly by historians. Gaelic culture was just as flexible as French culture after all, and what's the real difference between rex designatus (a title given to David I's son Henry) and tanaiste? Personally, I would confined myself to saying that the pool of candidates for royal succession narrowed significantly after the accession of David, but wouldn't apply a strict tanistry/primogeniture divide at any period. - Calgacus 19:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Nice job. I have not read it all yet, but based on the sources it appears to be a great addition. --Stbalbach 19:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let's hope it can still be improved too. - Calgacus 19:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Art
I wonder how to classify art in Scotland during this period. Other articles cover for example Hiberno-Saxon art and Celtic art which preceded the HMA. Was there a notable art movement in Scotland after the 10th century, or was it overshadowed by what was happening further south and in Ireland? --Stbalbach 19:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about that. Come to think about it, it's rare to read anything about Scottish art in this period. I do know that, in terms of monastic and church architecture, Scotland is highly susceptable to paradigms produced in Anglo-Norman England and northern France. There are a couple of "round towers" surviving in Scotland, (one at Abernethy), a building highly prevalent in Ireland; but like I said, I don't really know. But if you have the expertise, a new section on Art under Culture, would be a great addition. - Calgacus 19:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect there was nothing happening other than continued Celtic traditions and new influences from Romanasque, Anglo-Saxon art and Hiberno-Saxon. Ill keep it in mind if I come across anything. --Stbalbach 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Length
I know that I am not about to make myself very popular with Calgacus, but can I just raise my head tentatively above the parapet, and gently suggest that, although an excellent article, this subject would perhaps (and it is only a suggestion) benefit from being split into sub-articles. 110 kilobytes really is pushing the Wikipedia envelope.--Mais oui! 22:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I doubt it'd even be a good article if it were cut so much. The references and bibliography alone take up a sizable chunk. I could probably get it down to the 80-90 region though (a section has to be added on sheriffs btw). The section on origins could be moved, certainly it could be when the article on the Early Middle Ages is complete. - Calgacus 19:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I cut it down to 103 kbs. This, of course, is far from sufficient. I think there are other sections that I could probably cut down too. But this may take some time. But, remember that this article is the High Medieval version of this article, not this article. I could probably cut the Kings section, moving it to History of Scotland in the High Middle Ages, but that could create some problems. I'd rather have a comprehensive article than a featured one, but if anyone can suggest adequate ways of cutting this article, I'd be very happy to listen. - Calgacus 22:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

First Crusade bit
Where does the quote about the First Crusade come from? I mean, originally, from which chronicle or wherever...it looks interesting. And on a related note, do you know the book "Scotland and the Crusades", by Alan Macquarrie? (I've never had an opportunity to look at it myself, although I suspect my question would be answered there, haha) Adam Bishop 05:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The quote was in an old presentation I once did, unreferenced. I must have got it out of some library book or something. I searched for ages for the reference, but figured no-one would notice (good job there). I thought I got it from the Oxford Companion to Scotland, but I couldn't find it in there when I looked for it. Even though I don't like MacQuarrie particularly as a historian, I suspect that he is probably the source, so I'll try and get hold of it again to obtain the reference for you. What Picard do you think is being referred to? I mean, there can't have been too many Picard sources from the period.- Calgacus 05:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * addendum: I did indeed get the quote from the Oxford Companion to Scotland, p. 115, article "Crusades". The author, who is in fact Alan MacQuarrie, does not name the source, nor give a reference. So, the real reference must be in MacQuarrie's main book. - Calgacus 05:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, it was, he got it from Guibert of Nogent. That makes sense...I thought it meant the source was Picard, as in written in the Picard language, which would be odd for the First Crusade (Guibert wrote in Latin, like the rest of the First Crusade chroniclers). Adam Bishop 01:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Did you get the reference for the exact passage as well BTW? - Calgacus 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the Kingdom of Alba
I feel that this section gives unnecessary complex detail already in the linked article of the same name, and emphasises the idea that this is a history of Alba rather than the whole of what became Scotland. It would be better to have a brief outline of how immediately post-Roman the Caledonii? to the north of the Antonine wall became Alba - brief summary of Picts / Gaelic Scots as here and mention of Viking incursions, while the friendly buffer tribal areas became the Kingdom of the North, thence Kingdom of Strathclyde, Galloway and Northumbria. This should be much shorter than the current section, and main articles linked would be Scotland in the Early Middle Ages and Origins of the Kingdom of Alba. I'll try to draft this soon. ...dave souza: talk 19:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly, you have to remember that this article was written before the Origins of the Kingdom of Alba; the latter was only created in order to relieve this article of its size (and if you look at that article, you'll see how large it originally was). Secondly, a large part of that concerns origin mythology produced in the period of the article. (The original draft of this article had a section on origin mythology). This section, I believe at the moment, is vital; because although it is widely believed that Gaelic Scotland has its origins in a conquest of Cináed mac Ailpín, the latter was in fact just another Gaelic Pictish king, and as far as the evidence goes, the myth was just a cultural product of the 10th and later centuries when Pictish identity had become irrelevant to the realities of the time. Moreover, the article has to contextualize the Kingdom that dominated the period. In theory, we could just replace the section with "there was an Alba in 900", but origin is a crucial, historigraphically, the most crucial, aspect of definition. If that section is trimmed, then intellectually the kingdom is left largely undefined. - Calgacus 20:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that this context and clarification is vital, but feel that it's a bit lost in the mass of detail and could be concisely summarised, while also briefly setting the context of the other non-Gaelic kingdoms at the start of the period. It may be something I've missed, but what's the current thinking on whether the Picts may have been Brythonic (P-celtic) and proto Goidelic (Q-celtic), and hence close to the Brthons to the south, rather than a mysterious separate bunch invaded by the Goidelic Scotti? ...dave souza: talk 20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything can be summarized quickly; but with the MacAlpin myth so popular, there needs to be a few sentences explaining its background. This is benefitial to the reader, and prevents future editors from getting confused. You have a point about the other kingdoms though. They have their own section - not their own origin section of course, but just their own section. However, the Alba origin section covers not just the kingdom of the Scots, but the people (as far as it's relevant to the period) who called themselves (in Latin at least) Scoti or Albani for most of this period. You'll notice, there's nothing about Anglian penetration in Dark Ages Lothian, or Gaelic settlement in Dalriada. If you'll notice, some of your concerns are quite well addressed in the geography and demography sections. - Calgacus 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(Comment: Calgacus says: "The original draft of this article had a section on origin mythology". I think that the first draft of this article was fantastic, if far too long. I know that Calgacus has saved what he can by creating spin-off articles, but I'm just wondering if there are not a few more bits and pieces that he, or we, ought to salvage as stub articles. For example, I myself wholesale nicked his first draft section on Burghs and added it as the "Origins" section to the Royal burgh article (which I am delighted to see that Calgacus has since further expanded). Are there other bits that we should salvage and cut and paste elsewhere, or create as stubs? This has nothing to do with your discussion, just a tangential thought.)--Mais oui! 20:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably, if you're talking real stubs, there is potential for small things, for instance Life of St Cathróe of Metz]; otherwise, virtually all the text that was cut was saved in those spin-off articles. - Calgacus 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've boldly tried to edit this section to be clearer to the uninitiated, but haven't yet sorted out reference links (those remaining could be removed here, and confined to the main article) or trimmed the viking reference in the next section. Will return to this in the morning. ...dave souza: talk 00:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Reviewed and completed. I've tried to edit the notes where note links have been deleted from the origins section, but the numbering already seemed to be one out, with link [2] connecting to note [1] for reasons beyond me. ...dave souza: talk 19:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll have to forgive me, I didn't see much reason for the omission of some of that stuff. The early mythological texts are very important. However, I reworked it in line with your revisions. - Calgacus 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Notes/references
I am finding the system of notes used in this article virtually unintelligible. Therefore I cite here: Lynch, Michael, Scotland: A New History, Pimlico 1992; page 62 re origin of burgh charters. Laurel Bush 10:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC).


 * Well, it used to be ok, but not it's not. I can't see why myself. The first ref in the text is to TradCitation, shown as ref (2) on the page but numbered as note (1). I added a first line to the page, just "Test" with a template containing ref|Test. My new, and absolutely definitely first, ref template was numbered as (2) in the preview. It seems that the first version with the numbering problem is around version 37431384 of 23:46 UTC, 30 January 2006. Angus McLellan 17:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I spent ages trying to fix that; it's inexplicable; ref 2 is the first reference. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 17:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't spent ages; if at first you don't succeed, give up. I am going to try using the [|Wikimedia Cite.php] thingy and see how it looks with that. I've made a sandbox version to try it here and it numbers ref 1 as 1, but there are a number of dire warnings on the Cite.php page, so I'll wait until I've go to the final ref before I claim success. I am using an LCD method: replace the existing "ref|name" and "note|name text" with "ref>text</ref". Now either I have found a problem, or I have screwed something up when editing, as the ref contained under the picture of William the Lion is not working. Human error probably. Angus McLellan 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's it. The ref in the William the Lion caption is displayed as ref 1, but actually directs to 31. Don't ask me how to explain it. :( - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 18:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Cite.php has a different, much uglier, bug when putting refs in captions. Template:ref is broken in a less obvious way, but still it's broken. There's an open Bugzilla ticket for the PHP one here, but I didn't find any mention of the Template being bugged in this way. Moving the note on William into the body is a work-around for both problems. Angus McLellan 19:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed, more or less, following a workaround on Template_talk:Ref. This works, almost as well, or as badly, with cite.php, as you can see in the sandbox. Angus McLellan 21:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern. Ref 43 seems to direct to 44. Perhaps 44 is where I should include my citation, top of this talk section. Laurel Bush 10:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC).


 * The two notes were the wrong way round in the notes section, 44 then 43, changed that. I think it's ok now to note 58. There's one missing/broken at that point, not sure what/which/why. If you try adding your ref, I think it will work. Angus McLellan 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Scotland
This article is currently the Featured article at Portal:Scotland.--Mais oui! 15:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
Well done, Calgacus and co. This is indeed an excellent article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Good job! =) --OneEuropeanHeart 04:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent news, well done. I've been meaning for a while to concisely point to the post-Roman Brythonic kingdoms at the start of the Origins of the Kingdom of Alba section, have done so now and hope all are content. Congratulations again. ...dave souza, talk 10:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not much to add here except more congratulations. What a superb article. After lunch I'm going to give it a thorough read. Well done! Nach0king 12:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup. This is an absolutely fascinating read and its great to see Scotlands early history featured on the wiki main page. An Siarach
 * Indeed. Congratulations to Calgacus on a great success, and let's not forget everyone else who contributed, from editors to the peer reviewers. It really is an exceptional article. Angus McLellan 13:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Impressive. Eixo 17:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, thanks for the comments; all very much appreciated. It remains to do the other two medieval articles (which are currently in development). Kudos also to the guy who is translating it into Norwegian. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

One question
According to the text: the crowds are royal singers, though Dictonary.com translate the term to "An ancient Celtic stringed instrument that was bowed or plucked. Also called crwth." That sounds like some sort of a fiddle to me. Or? I am in the process of translating the article to Norwegian, and it is possible to leave a message at my userpage. -- Finn Bjo
 * Crowd is the English word used in my English translation of Giraldus Cambrensis' Topographia Hibernica. I was assuming Giraldus was using a Latin word meaning crowd, or group of people. I'd never heard the word "crowd" before as a musical instrument, although the ancient Gaelic word for harp is Cruit, which corresponds with "crwth". However, I went and checked the Latin, and it says that Scotland uses [utitur] "cithara, tympano, et choro" i.e. the cithara (the harp/lyre), the tympanum (the drum) and the chorus (the crowd, singers). I've no idea why the translator chose "crowd" instead of "chorus of singers", but there you go. Anyways, "crowd" here simply means singers, not a musical instrument as we understand it. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. I'll return to just singers then, and not singers with a string instrument as my current text uses. Good article, even though the distinctions between Gael and Scot is hard to follow some of the time. -- Finn Bjo
 * I think the two terms are discussed in depth. The key is that, in this period, ethnically a Scot was a Gael (the Latin term for a Scottish Gael was simply Scotus), but not all Gaels were Scots (although the term could be used in this broader way); but by the end of the wars of independence, being a subject of rex Scotorum also made you a political Scot. Good work on the article BTW, shame I know no Norwegian. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you don't read Norwegian? Shame, you should do as James Joyce did, learn it to be able to read Henrik Ibsen in his native tongue... :-)  Worked a lot with the Norwegian article, also done a lot of reading to catch up. I do feel the article, as it follow the English quite close, is lacking one aspect, and that's the Norse settlement on the western isles. I will try to compose an article to fill that hole. It seem obvious to me, even though I am Norwegian and have bias here, that the Norse culture did have a small impact on Scottish history and was part of the etnical pattern that shaped the modern nation Scotland. By the way, the emigration went both ways, there was a large group of scots that went to Norway in the Middle Ages and settle on the Norwegian west coast, around Haugesund. Finn Bjo
 * I had the same question after reading your excellent article, and then saw the discussion here. I don't think it is safe to assume "choro" or "chorus" means singers: the terminology of musical instruments in the middle ages is very mixed, but I've seen this term in Giraldus most often interpreted by music historians as a crwth (or crowd, the early bowed instrument, not harp). See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crwth which gives the Latin for crwth as "chorus". It also doesn't make a lot of sense to consider it as 'singers' in the context: Giraldus is listing "instrumentis". I would also add the minor musical quibble that the harp pictured on your page, and the other surviving early harps you refer to, are 15th century, not 'medieval' in the sense of contemporary with the period you are describing, as the article implies. - C. Webb


 * Hey. Thanks for your response. Firstly, you are correct that it is not that safe to assume chorus means singers. However, the predominant usage of the word in medieval British and Irish Latin is choir, or group of singers (see, for instance, Baxter & Johnson (eds.), Medieval Latin Word-List From British and Irish Sources, Oxford, 1934). And this fits in with the Chorus of Strathearn women who sang to Alexander III and Edward I. However, John Bannerman interpreted the passage with "tympanum" referring to the timpán, and the chorus referring to the crwth; but as the crwth in this sense is associated with Wales, why then is it not mentioned as being associated with Wales? Bannerman's only real argument is that "the crwth is surely what the Scots would find in the British kingdom of Strathclyde as they moved into and took over that area in the 10th and 11th centuries" ("The Clàrsach and the Clàrsair", in Scottish Studies, vol. 30 no. 3, 1991, p. 9). Hardly convincing! Also, I wouldn't worry too much about the use of the word instrumentis, this is just a mechanism of an agent, whether a thing or person, not necessarily a "musical instrument" in our sense. Regarding the harps, yes these harps date to about a century after this period, but this hardly matters (we have no earlier harps); the Norse-Gaelic warrior also dates to about a century after our period. The images are far more illustrative than not, and are definitely "medieval". Also, the wiki article on the crwth is misleading; the Irish and Scottish Gaelic word cruit meant "harp" in our period, not crwth (although I imagine it may have been used to refer to those). The word Clàrsach (Scottish) or Cláirseach (Irish) do not appear to be in existence until the end of the fourteenth century. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving me the impetus to look into this more closely. About the only thing that seems clear is that the term choro is ambiguous, but on further reading it does seem that the association to crowd (the crwth) is doubtful, although I do think the latter was meant by your original translator (i.e. not crowd of people). There is, in fact, an association to Wales, Giraldus says "Hibernia quidem tantum duobus utitur et delectatur instrumentis; cithara scilicet, et tympano. Scotia tribus; cithara, tympano et choro. Wallia vero cithara, tibiis et choro." I.e. he says Wales also uses the choro. The immediately following words say that 'they' (not clear if he means just the Irish, or also Scots and Welsh) play on bronze strings rather than gut strings, which may be one reason for thinking choro is a string instrument. Christopher Page ('Voices and Instruments of the Middle Ages') gives a tentative translation of choro as " 'string-drum'(?) " (p.223) and cites a French 14th century list of instruments that use gut strings, which includes choros (p.242). But on page 229, discussing Giraldus, he says "chorus and tibia probably denote wind instruments". Others argue that it means bagpipes, based on Pseudo-Jerome's ninth century description "the chorus was made of skin, with two air-pipes". He is referring to the use of chorus in a list of instruments in Daniel (3:5). Some medieval illuminators also illustrate this biblical passage with pictures of bagpipes. This argument comes from A.K. Gilbert ('Bagpipe' in 'A Performer's Guide to Medieval Music',p.399), who does note there are other interpretations, e.g. that it could mean an organ. What seems most consistent is that it has the connotation of multiple voices but - in the context - that this is a description of an instrument that has more than one note (e.g. a bagpipe, an organ, a double pipe, or some kind of stringed instrument where multiple notes sound together) rather than a group of singers. - C. Webb
 * P.S. just came across another data point on this - in Walter Bower's Scotichronicon from mid-15th century he lists the instruments that James I could play, including the choro. This is usually translated as bagpipe but others argue that it should be fiddle or crwth. This is discussed by Pete Stewart, in his book about early Lowland Scots bagpipes (The Day It Daws), who also makes the interesting suggestion that Giraldus might have meant the triple pipes, which appears in a Pictish carving played along with harp, and is also seen in manuscripts contemporary to Giraldus. I really think it is incorrect to keep the intepretation as singers in the main article.

French translation
There's a big translations of Scotland in the High Middle Ages going on in the French Wikipedia, and the main translators are stuck with a sentence "It was a government of gift-giving and bardic lawmen". So they called on me (as one of the few regulars there with English as my mother tongue) to have a look to see if I could gather any sense from the sentence. I've explained what all the words mean, and have read the whole article, but that "It was a government of gift-giving and bardic lawmen" seems to stick out like a sore thumb. It doesn't seem to fit in the article. Was the government at the time throwing presents around, and the lawyers and lawmakers were singing all the time? I don't get it! --Wonderfool 11:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Gifts being the glue of social loyalty, kings gave them out; bardic lawmen is a way of describing the brehon - law being oral, not written down, etc. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User:FinnBjo's WP:FA-quality translation no:Skottland i høymiddelalderen omits "and bardic lawmen", translating the sentence as "Det var et styre bestående av utveksling av gaver," or something to do with "government of exchange and gift". Given that "bardic lawmen" could likely have been done in one or two words in Bokmål, but wasn't, I reckon you can safely leave it out of the French version where some long-winded circumlocution would be required. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually came across the term "bardic lawmen" in one of my sources; there must surely be a short way of translating it, no? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it was eventually translated as "il s'agissait d'un gouvernement reposant sur les cadeaux et les charges qu'il offrait ainsi que sur une loi orale". --Wonderfool 12:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

French Translation again
Hi everyone, I would like to be sure about the meaning of this sentence "The reigns of both Edgar and his successor Alexander are obscure in comparison with their successors" (end of 3.1). I thought this sentence meant that their reigns were not very well-known. But somebody thinks that their reigns might have been bad. I did not think about that but that's right the word "obscure" is not obvious to us. Who is right? --Thanks


 * You are: difficile à comprendre. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, Sorry. My problem is to know whether "obscure" means not very well known or bad in this sentence. In my opinion, it means unknown, but another wikipedian thinks it could mean bad reigns. Is that clearer now? :)


 * Hmm. What I meant was "You are right". It means not very well known, difficult to understand, confusing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Scotland in the Late Middle Ages
I intend to begin this in the near future, commencing where this article leaves off and ending with the death of James IV. The period after the Wars of Independence in particular is a major blind spot at present: the treatment it receives in the History of Scotland is sketchy at best. I have one small concern. My chief interest-and area of expertise-lies in political history. I would not therfore choose to explore some of the cultural and linguistic issues touched on in this article, which will obviously mean a complete absence of intellectual continuity. Not, I suppose, that that is a major problem in a house of a thousand styles! Rcpaterson 04:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's great. Not to worry about political focus; it will surely balance itself over time. If you like, I can eventually add some stuff, sections on literature, culture, demogrphics, etc.Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! Rcpaterson 05:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hosting
I take it hosting in the second paragraph under headline Scotland in the High Middle Ages refers to the gathering of a host (army). I'm sure it does not refer to any of the computer-related subjects you'll find by clicking hosting... Finnrind 20:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha. Yes, hosting (slogad) means the gathering of a host (the Bishop of St Andrews in the 12th century had an official called a Slogadach, the man who called up the Scottish army from episcopal lands). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sport?
I note that there is no mention of sport in the article at present. Would hunting, falconry, archery etc have been popular?

Are there any sources for the origins of golf, or similar games, during this period? How about other ball games?

Any info appreciated. Ta. --Mais oui! 08:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Think shinty/hurling - the ancestors of these games were being played then. Hunting and archery are a given - they surely go back to the bronze age, if not earlier. Difficult to say about the ancestors of football though. Golf is a more controversial one. Some say it came via the Low Countries, but there is a claim of a Gaelic game called "cluiche poill" - or something like that, meaning the "hole game". --MacRusgail 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The shifting border
I think this is an excellent article, but I think more could be said about the borders. Not only did Scotland gain influence over the Hebrides in this period in the North, and Scottish earls rule Norwegian Orkney, but in the south, the border shifted between the Firth of Forth and the River Ribble at different points. Indeed I believe that David made his capital at Carlisle. However the maps don't reflect this. With the intermittent control of lands in modern day England, Scotland must have attained its largest area on the Mainland within this period. --MacRusgail 04:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Improvement
It is a long time since this article gained WP:FA status. I am not sure it still deserves that status at the moment. Specifically, there are quite a few WP:MOS issues and some inconsistencies in citations, there are also now a lot of unsourced statements, but perhaps the biggest problem is that at times this reads rather like an essay. If anyone can help improve the article up to FA standards that would be extremely helpful.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 16:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Echoing that call for someone interested in the topic, I am going to nominate it for FA review soon if noone takes up the torch, Sadads (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Only doing some minor stuff, an expert would be needed for a deeper analysis of the text. The article has good content, but unfortunately a lot of structural and style issues. GermanJoe (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated the article at FAR Brad (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Long or short century form
The article currently has a combination of long and short forms of writing centuries (e. g. 13th century vs thirteenth century). I believe either is allowed by the MOS, but we should pick one. My general preference is for the long form, but I am happy to apply either. Any views?--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 16:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. I am much more concerned with consistency than any particular outcome. Ben   Mac  Dui  20:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will fix this soon if there are no other preferences.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 13:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 21:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Illustrations
Now that the text is pretty stable (hopefully), I have made a few changes to the illustrations, filling in some of the gaps and trying to make things more appropriate to the text. I am rarely committed to individual pics, so if anyone has alternative suggestions, please go ahead and make them. There can be problems with illustrations and text on different displays and I will check this, but if anyone sees a problem please let me know. I also wonder if, as nice as it is to see the spectacular photo of Dunnottar Castle at the top of the page, does anyone object to it being moved so that the Scottish History infobox can be at the top, where it is on most of the articles in this series?--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 10:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your attention to this is most welcome. Re Dunnottar, to be honest I prefer it at the top - precisely because it tells you exactly where you are, unlike the Infobox. This isn't an issue if you are just visiting but if you have three or more windows open, checking this against that, it's handy to have a visual clue sometimes. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Ben on this one; a good picture always attracts the casual reader in more than an infobox, however good. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Scotland - an Anglo-saxon country
An issue which is not given much prominence here is the consequence of the Treaty of York. As a result The Kingdom of Scotland (or perhaps more truthfully just the King of the Scots) incorporated a huge chunk of northern England, and an equally huge number of its English Anglo-phone inhabitants - who had already lived there for 700 years, exactly as long as the invading Gaelic Irish 'Scots' had been established in their kingdom of Scotland, or Kingdom of the Scots. This is why Scotland's national language is English (99%)and not Gaelic (1%). Indeed it's why the Scottish capital is in Edinburgh and not Scone or elsewhere within the original 'Scotland proper'. It seems to me perfectly possible to argue that ever since then Scotland, despite its name, has actually been an Anglo-saxon country with a Celtic fringe: its common heritage and culture is almost indistinguishable from that of England because most of it (or rather most of the populous parts i.e. the lowlands) was once part of England. Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.10.61 (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaken. The Treaty of York 1237 does not result in the incorporation of what is now northern England into the Kingdom of the Scots. In fact it pretty much does the opposite, with Alexander II giving up his royal claim for feudal tenures.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 11:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.Hard to be certain exactly what the Treaty of York did do. But here's part of the Wikipedia page on it, which does suggest that the King of the Scots got given a significant amount of land in Northern England. Cassandra:

"The King of England grants the King of Scotland certain lands within Northumberland and Cumberland, to be held by him and his successor kings of Scotland in feudal tenure with certain rights exempting them from obligations common in feudal relationships, and with the Scottish Steward sitting in Justice regarding certain issues that may arise, and these, too, are hereditary to the King of Scotland's heirs, and regarding these the King of Scotland shall not be answerable to an English court of law in any suit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.239.185 (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Changes under David I
The sentence "There also developed obligations that produced smaller numbers of feudal troops." has no stated source. It does not summarize the paragraph which it leads off. The sentence is passive, lacking an actor. The "obligations" referred to seem to be feudal obligations imposed by the Norman influence. Could someone supply the source so that the sentence's meaning could become clear? --Bejnar (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As pointed out in edit summaries, it is meant to be a topic sentence setting up the paragraph and that is why is does not have a source immediately. The obligations are obviously feudal, because it says feudal later in the sentence. This all seems very straight forward and obvious to me, but I am open to suggestions that lend greater clarity.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 17:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What does the phrase "smaller number" refer to? Smaller than what? Were the troops denominated "feudal troops" in addition to other troops or in replacement of them? If so what was the nature of those other troops? If these are feudal obligations did they develop within an existing hierarchy, or were they imposed from above on an existing hierarchy? If so, was there a tit for tat (a bargained for compensation)?  If instead it was a new hierarchy, how did the new one replace the old? --Bejnar (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What this sentence is trying to say that in addition to what has previously been mentioned (also), a smaller number than the previous number (smaller number), of feudal troops (feudal troops) were raised. It is possible to ask a lot of questions about almost any sentence based on what is not in it. You could perhaps do some further reading to find out the answers, or you could read on where some of these issues are explained, but none are necessary for what this sentence is trying to do. If you have a better way of setting up this paragraph then please suggest it here and we can try to come to some consensus on the wording.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 20:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am still trying to understand what that sentence is saying. Are the "smaller numbers of feudal troops" produced the same as the "200 mounted and armoured knights" mentioned later in the paragraph? So other than those of David's retinue (household), were the remainder of these 200 produced by knight-service? And is it true that they would not have been part of the previously mentioned "all able-bodied freemen aged between 16 and 60" because they were nobles? Or were they part of it, but what is important is now that they are trained fighters, with their training supported by feudal economic structure? --Bejnar (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes the 200 knights mentioned later are an example of the troops of which there is a small number and produced by knights service. No, these are not part of the common army mentioned above. That seems pretty clear to me, but if you can come up with a form of words that you see as clear that is fine.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 09:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scotland in the High Middle Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120526201738/http://www.gov.im/isleofman/geography.xml to http://www.gov.im/isleofman/geography.xml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207145644/http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/census/censushm/occpapers/occasional-paper-10/index.html to http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/census/censushm/occpapers/occasional-paper-10/index.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6MiUdpWnT?url=http://www.nms.ac.uk/our_collections/highlights/monymusk_reliquary.aspx to http://www.nms.ac.uk/our_collections/highlights/monymusk_reliquary.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scotland in the High Middle Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510010157/http://www.mallaigheritage.org.uk/exhibit/galleys.htm to http://www.mallaigheritage.org.uk/exhibit/galleys.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nms.ac.uk/our_collections/highlights/monymusk_reliquary.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scotland in the High Middle Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120801060356/http://www.abdn.ac.uk/history/staff/details.php?id=d.n.dumville to http://www.abdn.ac.uk/history/staff/details.php?id=d.n.dumville

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)