Gone Medieval - A Complete History of Medieval Scotland

Episode Date: June 26, 2026

What if Scotland’s story began with a miracle in battle, a white cross in the sky, and a kingdom forged through war, faith and sheer ambition?Matt Lewis is joined by Professor Murray Pittock to race through medieval Scotland, from the Saltire’s legendary origins to Picts, Gaels, Vikings and the rise of Alba. They trace how a patchwork of peoples became a nation.MOREViking Siege of DumbartonListen on AppleListen on SpotifyOrigins of Scottish IndependanceListen on AppleListen on SpotifyGone Medieval is presented by Matt Lewis. Audio editor is Amy Haddow, the producer is Joseph Knight. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music used is courtesy of Epidemic Sounds.Gone Medieval is a History Hit podcast.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week PLUS early access, ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From long-loss Viking ships and kings buried in unexpected places to tales of murder, power, faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond. Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. Eleanor Jarniger, and some of the world's leading historians as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life only on history hit. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries with a brand new release every week exploring everything from the ancient world,

to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. Hello, I'm Matt Lewis. Welcome to Gone Medieval from History Hit, the podcast that delves into the greatest millennium in human history. We've got the most intriguing mysteries, the gobsmacking details and latest groundbreaking research from the Vikings to the printing press, from kings to popes to the crusades. We crossed centuries and convales and to delve into rebellions, plots and murders, to find the stories big and small that tell us how we got here. Find out who we really were. We've gone medieval. On a blustery September morning in the year 832, two armies faced one another on a battlefield somewhere in what is now eastern Scotland.

One belonged to the Picts and Scots, led by King Angus. The other was an invading force from the Anglo-Sondon. Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria. Outnumbered and fearing annihilation, legend has it that Angus prayed for divine intervention. Then, as dawn broke overhead, a white cross appeared against the blue sky. Inspired by this heavenly sign, his warriors charged into battle and won a stunning victory. Whether true or not, the story became one of Scotland's founding myths, the white diagonal cross of St Andrew, the Soltire, remains Scotland's national flag to this day. And while the tale clearly riffs on an overused trope of medieval myth and legend, it also helps paint a helpful picture of

the tensions, fissures and factions that ran through Scotland's contested medieval history. In the Middle Ages, there were many Scotland's. Lands of Picts and Gales, Britons and Northumbrians, rival kingdoms and competing identities. And yet by the dawn of the early modern age, These diverse peoples have been moulded into a single realm, one that survived Viking invasions, resisted English conquest and emerged as one of Europe's most distinctive kingdoms. I'm Matt Lewis and this is Gone Medieval. Today we're taking on the rather ambitious challenge of plotting the complete history of medieval Scotland in one episode. Joining me is Professor Murray Pittick, author of the new book The Shortest History of Scotland,

and together we'll journey from the age of the pick, and the coming of St Columba, through the rise of the kings of Alba and the wars of independence, to trace how a recognisably modern and vibrant Scotland was forged in the crucible of the Middle Ages. Welcome to God Medieval, Murray. It's great to have you with us today. Great to be here, Matt. Looking forward to it. I mean, we've been limbering up, haven't we? We're warmed up, because we're just going to have a little thousand-year sprint through Scottish history as quickly as we possibly can. That's it. All the pressure is on you.

We're going to be ambitious. Let's start ambitious. If we're going to try and cover the whole kind of medieval history of Scotland, we need to obviously start at the beginning. So when we think about the fall of Roman Britain, who are the different kind of tribes and peoples that inhabited the land that we call Scotland? Who is there? We have some Roman names. I'm not quite sure how much faith we should put in them. But we have got obviously the Picts. I suspect, though not identified, we got the Scots. and we have the other Brithonic peoples such as the Votodini, those figures who are the heroes and the subject of the Godotan, the Welsh language epic, which commemorates their sixth century raid on Ketreth, Catterick in Yorkshire, which led them to get a bloody nose and a bit more besides. So those are among the central ones. The picts are still.

call the Picts, but they're called that because in the fourth century, they began to be called Picty the painted ones by the Romans who traded with them from the Adrian's Wall area and elsewhere. So they're the bulk of the inhabitants of the landmass that we now call Scotland. But although we used to think that the Scots came in as kind of Irish invaders in the 5th century, it's all a bit 19th century, if you look at very early Irish traditions, you're probably looking at a borderless Irish Scottish world in which there's Gaelic, although basically they were the same language then and for much later, is spoken right across an area from the western shores of what is now Scotland to Cork in Ireland. Is there very much that separates those groups of people

either in terms of culture or religion? Religions are rather hard, again, to be exactly. act about. In terms of culture too, you can see the basis of, perhaps could even see it, and maybe a little bit fanciful in the great hill forts like trappling law in the southeast of Scotland, of the things that become central to Scottish experience, association of family, association of institution or group, as it was then, rather institution and association of place. who are you related to, how do we know each other, where do you come from? Those questions. And I think all the peoples of what became Scotland have that to some degree.

But of course, we know the Picts and Scots best. And the Picts too, probably like the Votodini, if indeed the Votodini can really be distinguished from the Picts, are brithonic speakers, that is Welsh speakers functionally. Yeah. And you sort of alluded to my next question, but I was going to ask about how important that connection to Ireland was for the West of Scotland and whether we should see the West of Scotland as almost part of an Irish group at that point. I think that I probably wouldn't, I mean, yes, except I probably wouldn't use the term Irish. But I think the key element is that it was in not until the 12th century that the papacy started to request that Scootie.

was used as a Latin term to describe Scots and not interchangeably to describe Irish and Scots, mostly Irish, but sometimes Scots. They were not fundamentally distinct groups, but then, I wouldn't want to call them Irish either, if you would mean. They are a Scottish, North Scotch Irish, which is a different American term, but they are fundamentally Gaelic speakers who are ethnoculturally, the Amiens. ancestors of many of today's Scots and Irish people living in a continuum right across Scotland, Western Scotland and Ireland. Yeah, yeah.

And one of the really early beneficiaries that we hear about of that continuum that you talk about is St. Columba. Can you tell us a little bit about who he is and the work that he does to Christianise Scotland? Well, St. Columba was a member of the Irish nobility of Prince of family. and he comes to Scotland or rather to, I suppose what we might, he's acted both through the Picts and the Scots, but sets up the monastery at Iona, which is very much in the Scotia Irish or Scoti kind of world in the West, coming from a situation where he's effectively probably mixed up in a murder in what is now Ireland, but becomes nonetheless an important religious

leader. One of the things he does is he carries out very close relationships and relationship building with the kings of Scotia and the kings of Pickland. And as a result, from Columbus alliance with the Crown or the Crowns at that stage comes the development of a medieval Scottish polity which very closely links the king and the church and the person of Colomber as the symbol of clerical and royal authority and of course there are adela his monk who writes the life of st. columbar was very important to in spreading the image and story of columbar and it's of course in the life of st. Columba we get the first reference to the Lochness monster at least it happened to be in the river nest, but let's not worry too much about details.

No, no, no. We'll just keep it in slotness. So should we consider that that early connection between the church and the state, for want of a better phrase, is that important in the development of Scottish nationhood from that point onwards? It is, I think. I think the Synod of Whitby and the resolution of the date of Easter in the 7th century, which is seen fundamentally by, in the 19th century, we're seen as some kind of struggle between the ancient Celtic church and alien Catholic power, but it's actually really a debate between a left behind group

who hadn't yet caught up with the changing date's way of calculating the date of Easter and modern thought, that were passed then for modern thought within the Western Catholic Church. The sense of the crown and the church as involved in a project of joint mutual support of modernisation, both then and much later in the reign of Vail Collar the Third and Queen Margaret becomes St Margaret, who also does a great deal to change and improve the Scottish Church, though, without despising its past, but it brings it more into the, perhaps more into the European mainstream. Yes, that remains absolutely central to the

way in which the church and crown developed together in Scotland, not least in the, you know, David the first in the 12th century is called a ser sank for the croon because he imports and develops and pays for so many religious foundations. And in doing that, he stretches the Scottish state's ability to pay. And by the time of the little ice age, when the climate, the climate was turning down and Scotland was not so productive as it had been at the close of the 13th century, then that was one of the things that triggered the Reformation because Scotland had huge amount of productive capacity invested in the church and in religious orders. From around the 8th century, we begin to see the emergence of some much more clearly

kind of defined Scottish kingdoms like Alba and Outcluct that goes on to become Strathclyde and Benissia. Why do you think we're beginning to see these things solidify? And do you think there's any influence there from increasing Vikings? incursions? The short answer to that is, yes, I mean, at least some part of the crystallization of politics in Scotland comes from external pressure, two kinds of external pressure. First of all, pressure from Northumbria, and Benissia is really part of the Northumbrian realm to the South, and also pressure from the Vikings, from the end of the 8th beginning of the 9th century, from the north and east. But I think there's all.

Also the question is the extent to which regged, as it's called, and some of the kingdom, some of the Welsh-speaking kingdoms in what's now the northwest of England, and Alt-Clut-Stra-Klyde have a commonality in the sense that we know very little about them, really, but they probably have a strong degree of cultural commonality. Alt-Clut is permanently, because they're both Welsh speakers and they don't think they're English and Scots. They think they're the same sorts of people and they probably are the extent to which political borders are important between them is I think maybe a bit moot

in the early part of this period certainly straf Clyde alt-clupp never recovers from the Viking siege of 870 on debarton rock their hilltop capital and although they move the head of the kingdom to govern and what is now Glasgow they never I think properly recover from the strength they had before that. It's very interesting because that's the same year, 870, that a huge army is raised in England by the Danes for the Viking Kingdom of York to challenge effectively those first few years of the reign of Alfred the greater. Huge challenges from Vikings in England too. So there's a degree of similarity in the emergence of both England and Scotland as polities. And they actually develop at the same time. So when,

Constantine 2nd defeats the Vikings at Strathurn in 904. He's the last king to be called King of the Picts and King of the Scots. We traditionally associate the Scottish Kingdom uniting with Kenneth McAlpin and the 840s, but that's more of a convenience. He was probably king of both, but there had been kings of both before, but really by the time of Constantine II. But likewise, it was really Edward the Elder and even more clearly Atholstan. a united the English kingdom, and that's really very close in time to the uniting of the Scottish

Kingdom under Constantine. But the critical reason, there's probably two reasons why a different kingdom developed in the north of the island. The first is, quite simply, Hadian's wall, and the persistence of the wall. After all, the kingdom of Scots always wanted the land at least to the wall until the 13th century. Didn't always have it, but they tended to pursue it. And also the second is the defeat of the Northumbrian war band by Bridie the third and his allies at Dunaican near Forfar in 8685. So that's, I mean, that probably is the first decisive battle of what becomes Scottish history, because it stops Northumbrian incursion into Scotland. Yeah, yeah. And how significant during this period are the kings of Alba?

The first kings really of Alpa, as it's as the term is used. is our Constantine the second and his successors rather than kings of the Scotson picks. There's a Scottish habit which you can discern early in the medieval period of being more aggressive than you can actually get away with. And Constantine gets himself fundamentally in trouble with Athelstan who makes, Athelstan has got designs in being of being Brett Valdah, overlord of the whole of the Roman province of Britannia, but he also has designs on places that were outside the Roman province of Britannia in Scotland. And he defeats Constantine. Constantine is, effectively goes down to Buckingham to give homage to Acklestown as a sub-king.

He's given the first place among sub-kings in the island, but nonetheless, it seems to have annoyed him because the first thing he does when he goes back is raise a great allied army with the Danes in the north of England to attack and hopefully overthrow Athelstan and the battle takes place the best site we have we're not certain is in the Whirl, Brunambara, and Constantine is defeated.

I have to say he was a trier. I mean, it must have been getting on for 70 when that battle was fought, but he was clearly so determined and not to accept Athelstan's overlordship that he went for total overthrow and lost.

Yeah, which does point to a clearly kind of defined and identifiable sense of Scottishness and independence, at least from England as it's emerging at this point. So in Constantine's mind and those of his followers,

there must have been a sense that they were Scottish now. Well, I think we're not, probably there's still a number of peoples in Scotland, and the fact we know there are a number of peoples in Scotland to identify separately. However, it's also all your enemies identify you. So the Anglo-Saxons start using the term Scots in the early mid-10th century.

So yes, they are identifying the forces opposing them as a unitary force. Sometimes, of course, these things aren't, but they're categorized as such by those fighting them and occasionally by themselves. So that seems to have happened to some extent. And is it around this time too that we get the emergence of the St Andrews-Soltire as the kind of flag of Scotland? Allegedly. So it's of an even earlier date and is supposed to have appeared in Lothian

as a sign in the sky, and not two jet trails, but two traces of cloud crossed over a blue sky. But we don't actually see it used by the Scotland. and explicitly or by the Scottish Army until much later in the medieval period. So it's possibly there, but we don't know it's there. They might just have been giving it sort of ancient origins, mythical origins when they start using it. Indeed.

It's not one which has got claims to be the oldest flag with the Danish flag in Europe, whether it is or not, is another matter. I'm not going to disagree. How do the Kings of Alba then start to spread their influence south? Because they'll reach out into areas that are covered by Northumbria, for example. Are we seeing them take advantage there of, again, Viking incursions into England and the Norman invasion in the south of England? Are the Scots in the north seeing that as an opportunity for them to take some land? The Scots in 1018 at Carham effectively drive Northumbria out of what is now Scotland.

And that starts to shift the border to the tweed. Northumbria, up till that point, probably had about 30 miles or 35 miles of territory inside. what's now, Scotland on the East Coast. But Scotland was taking advantage of what I think is, you know, this is not how it features in English history, but what was effectively the collapse of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom, Ethelred the unread is incompetence and brutality, the fact that, first of all, swaying Fortbyrne and then his successor,

Cunute turned it into a Danish or quasi-Danish polity. So there were a lot of problems, and it wasn't until Edward the Confessor came to power in 1042 that Scott's ambitions were reigned in after the conquest. There is a real geopolitical moment when Edgar Atheling, the heir presumptive to the throne after the death of Harold II, Hastings and visitors to the British Museum this summer can decide whether or not he's being knocked down by a spear or an arrow. since both are possible in the biotapestry, Edgar Atheling and his sister Margaret under the Scottish court. And Malcolm III marries Margaret and he also tries to support Northumbria,

always a semi-detached part. Indeed, to rather later than this, in some ways, a semi-detached part of the English kingdom, but to support Northumbria as a stalking horse to push William out, or at least partly out, it's possible Zegger Atheling had promised Malcolm Yorkshire, as well as Northumberland, if he were to restore him to the Saxon throne. But it doesn't work. William responds, as William and his successors certainly knew how, with the utmost brutality, and Malcolm III falls back into Scotland. But he keeps on, I mean, his children by Margaret, all of very robust anger. Saxon names, and he's obviously looking to have the possibility of the children by his first Kelto Norse wife as being son and heir there, becoming king of Scots, and possibly one of

his sons by Margaret, becoming king in England. So, once again, it's this inordinate, that one might say, geopolitical level of ambition for somebody who is much less well off than William in terms of troops, resources, power. He's dreaming big, though. You've got to love that. He's dreaming big. And then, of course, he gets killed in a squabble at Anak in 1093. So that is the end of him. Yeah. How much of a sense do we have about how the Scots kingdom is governed at this point? there an identifiable capital? Is it quite a centralised system or is it delegated into regions?

No, it's very decentralized. Effectively, there are large scale, lords in terms of peace, military leaders in terms of war, which we call more mayors. The term is a bit slippery. Some more mayors thought of themselves, particularly those from the family of Macbeth, who of course became king of Scots, as sub-kings, if all, indeed kings and their persistent problems from that family against what you might call the central power but the central would have to be in inverted commas and some became great territorial probably came the great territorial magnates like the earl of fife who succeeded them one of the things you see about in scotland as opposed to england is that lordships and names such as earl of fife are linked with

lots of lands in Fife, whereas the Duke of Norfolk, say, may have tons of lands in Yorkshire, and, you know, the Earl of Surrey may have lots of lands in the north as well, they're not clearly linked to geographical leadership, but in Scotland they really do tend to be, and that's a difference which reflects the decented nature of the polity. If we were to go slightly later in, that was in some ways part of the salvation of Scotland, because to some extent, some of the Franco-Norman nobility, who were not, didn't conquer, but were invited in by King David the first in the 12th century, although they'd actually been first invited in by Macbeth in the 1050s, but not to settle. But some of them in the 12th century thought to themselves,

they made kindred who held title in England and certainly in France, that actually the Scots king was significantly less able to tell them what to do. I mean, of course, they'd still did a lot what they wanted to do in England and France, but the Scots King was really a lot less able at holding them back. And so they thought when the time came of crisis at the end of the 13th century, well, we might support the Scots King because actually we get to do what we like here, so that's all right. And we begin to see a period from the kind of the 12th century onwards in which under David I, William the Lion, Alexander the second, there's this switching between kind of a lying with the English and fighting against the English.

And they tend to have fairly, generally quite bad relationships with the Plantagenet Kings, but sometimes not quite so bad too. Why do you think Scottish kings are becoming so connected to English kings at this point? Well, I think, first of all, Scotland provides, under David I first, Scotland provides, again, advantageously, because of the England's got a civil war between Stephen and Matilda, a major political and military threat to England. The Scots Crown backs Matilda, because she is the Holy Roman Empress,

and she is also the granddaughter of Melcholome III. So she is Scotland's, if you think, by that, biggest geopolitical counter. And in doing so, David I, the English Crown still wants to claim, so the English Church wants to, to claim suzerantay over the Scottish Church. David I mean, there are arguments for the Scots having majority of their own church as they come to do. But David actually thinks about

settling up the headship of the primacy of the church at York because he has every intention of capturing York. And he doesn't, he's not far off it. He exerts very significant power across the north of England more than any other Scottish king does. And that sets up a reaction because Stephen, who dies in 1154, succeeded by Henry II, Henry the second, is even at this distance, a hell of a tough bastard. David has just died. David's son and error has just died. And we're left with the teenage male column the fourth who goes to see, you know, Henry to, you know, sure that his claims can be upheld, that Henry tells him to sod off, basically, and that he's got to sign up for giving them all away. And basically, he backs down because he's a teenager,

and Henry's a thug. And also, Henry is quite prepared to deploy not only English power, but now the lands of his queen, which involve very significant possessions in the west of France. So he's a very powerful king. But then when William the lion comes to contest with Henry, and indeed he dedicates the Arbrohahambe to St. Thomas O'Beckett, particularly just to thumb his nose at Henry, because Henry's had Thomas Abackett killed, he loses critically, effectively becomes a dependent of the English king,

and Henry is allowed to intrude some English occupation, in theory anyway, to some extent in practice, into Southern Scotland, and also hold William effectively under his thumb. It's very dynamic at this stage because Richard I, who really wants to go and kill Saracens in the Holy Land, basically allows William to buy back all his rights with a substantial cash payment, which Scottish state raises. for their king. And William continues then to extend his power in Scotland, but once again runs into trouble because he's seen as too close to foreign interests. And it needs John to help him put down a revolt in 2011-12. So it's all over the place. Then the biggest, I think the thing that probably comes to a non-Scottish ordinance and to some Scottish audiences comes as the most surprising answer to a question, how far as a Scottish army ever advanced into England, occurs in 12, 15, 16, when Alexander II taking advantage of John's weakness at this point brings Scotland's army to Dover,

with the aim of, which he does, of offering homage to King Louis of France for a whole range of lands he's taken over in the north of England. And it must be said, the barons in Yorkshire submit and the North generally submit to Alexander II. And it's only because the King Louis is eventually defeated by the now John dies fortuitously, and Henry III comes to part only because the French king is defeated. Does Alexander II lose a very advantageous position? But he does lose it. Eventually, he has to put up with the quick claim of York in 1237,

which means fundamentally that Scotland gives up its claim to the northern counties of England down to the wall and in some cases beyond. And it establishes what is perhaps Andorra has a case, but I'm not quite sure how good a case it is, what is arguably the earliest land border in Scotland? Because apart from Berwick and a few square kilometres round the Solway for debatable land rather Solway for the border set at the

quick claim of York, which in England and Scotland, almost 800 years ago, is the border we have today. I'm always fascinated during this period, during the anarchy with David, and as you mentioned there, with Alexander, you know, getting submission from the barons of the north of England. The English in the north, at least, don't seem too concerned about being ruled by Scotland, you know, when David is in charge of the north of Scotland, everyone seems actually fairly comfortable with it. Absolutely. I don't think it's a big deal for the baronial classes at this stage, I think it's probably, and indeed possibly for ordinary people, it's harder to know. I think it's probably the extent of wars in the around the Scottish Wars of Independence and the

extent of attacks on the North of England by the Scottish Crown in that period, which are critical, though it must be said that there were slaving raids on the North of England to carry off principally women, but not just women for enslavement in Scotland, which can't exactly been popular. How significant a problem for Scotland was the death of Alexander III without a clear male air, because they've had a good, long, strong run of kings by this point? It was enormously significant, absolutely enormously.

Margaret was the heir, and of course, once again, like Mail Column IV, it was Scotland's misfortune to have a highly aggressive and very well-armed and organized Plantagenet King in the shape of Edward I on the throne south of the border. Margaret dies on the voyage to Scotland and effectively an interregnum succeeds and Edward is called into adjudicate

because there isn't a clear successor to the Crown and he makes certain claims. He won't adjudicate unless people say that he's the supreme authority. And although sometimes in later controversy, this has made a lot of, I think for most people, it wasn't necessarily a big deal to say, Edward, you're the Supreme Authority here. They weren't saying, yeah, you own as lock, stock and barrel. It was a formal submission so that he could make the decision. But of course, it was to have terrifically bad consequences because he chose King John rather than the very elderly,

Robert the 5th de Bruce, Robert the competitor, who was probably, which shows the medieval, it was probably 77 at the time that John Balliol became king, his competitor was 77. So medieval people didn't always peg out at 45. But John Balliol, of course, drawing on the significantly Franco-Norman and French-sympathizing nobility concluded the old alliance with France in 1296, and that was quite clearly seen by Edward I was a stab in the back. It's not as if this hadn't been coming. Scots were active on the French side in Crusades in the 13th century.

There's a very clear tendency under Alexander II and Alexander III to move closer to France. In Alexander the Third's time, people start to complain about English barons. all those, clearly his majority of their interest in England, the whole land in Scotland. So the old alliance is coming before it's, you know, signed, sealed and delivered. But for Edward I was absolutely intolerable. He invades Scotland. And of course, Balliol, being the strategic genius he wasn't, effectively meets him at Dunbar in East Lothian, effectively basically a very disadvantageous ground,

just when Edward's supply chains are fully intact. He's just crossed the border. Let's stop him at once. Basically, the further north you try to stop him, the more chance you've got. And John Baderl is beaten and effectively runs up the East Coast and is overtaken and has to surrender his badges and clothes of royal office. So it becomes what was called tomb to barred, empty coat. He got nothing left.

And I mean, does the old alliance point to a Scottish design? to really get out from this idea of English overlordship, that they're looking for allies somewhere else that can bolster their ability to remain independent from England? So I think in the early stages, it is more the still that is Franco-Norman nobility, seeing actually Scotland as a more advantageous base for themselves than England, or at least one worth cultivating,

and one that's prepared to reach out to France, which of course gives Scotland extra part, But the Scottish kings, until the wars of independence, really, the Scottish kings do, and sometimes afterwards, habitually overestimate their actual capacity to compete with England. So I'm not sure they realised how potentially weak they were. And it's worth noting that when it comes to, say, the papal tax returns in 1296, the diocese of St. Andrews is not far away from the diocese of Canterbury in terms of value. Scotland's richest diocese in the centre and south of the country are quite close to English competitors. So they probably weren't as economically disparate as they later became. I love how this is becoming the almost continual story, though, of Scotland sort of overreaching,

over-inflating its own ability to achieve things that it can never quite achieve. I mean, this period of the Wars of Independence is, it's packed with huge names. William Wallace, Robert the Bruce, battles at Stirling Bridge and at the... Bannockburn. Do we see a really solidifying sense of Scottish nationhood? Is it changing during this period? Is it becoming something different than it has been up until this point? Well, my own view is it's probably there in the 12th and 13th centuries. Undoubtedly, it gets a big boost from the War of Independence. I mean, that's, you know what common sacrifices, which were the way in which both Abraham Lincoln and later Ernest Renan referred to nation building

are very important, and there was an awful lot of common sacrifice in Scotland in the 50 years from 1296. So, yeah, it was important, but also what was important was the formulation of, one has to say, some of the most advanced political ideas available, certainly in Europe and possibly globally at the time, and which were put forward initially by Scotland's leading overseas academic voice, Duns Scotus, the Blessed John of Duns, as Professor of Paris in 1300, and were used as arguments, or some of the arguments, by Bordred Bissett, who was a Scottish, not yet at that stage, was to become a Scottish archdeacon and was Professor of Civil Law Bologna, who brought Scotland's case to the people in 301. Scotus argued that human communities had the right to choose their

own leaders and that those leaders are due to protect them. And once they were chosen, they weren't, as Hobbes would later argue, chosen for all time, tough luck if he's a nutcase, he's your nutcase, but they could be chosen at intervals and replaced. So that kind of thinking, and also from somebody who was as an individual thinker, the primary thinker about freedom in the medieval period, I mean, because Scotius is the philosopher of individual freedom, what constitutes our freedom of will, theological and personally, as well as talking about the freedom of nations.

Absolutely. It influences the declaration of our growth, which is a document that crystallizes much of this, and the references to Scottish freedom, which you can find in the great poem, later 40th century poem, about Bruce's campaign, Archdeacon John Barbers, the Bruce,

our freedom as a noble thing freedom make man have liking freedom or solace to man gives he lives at ease that freely lives and the great opposition which Barra makes in the poem between freedom as the principle of the individual and national

as against tyranny and thraldom enslavement to another king another country and having we've constantly talked about the Scots sort of having ideas bigger than they were

were capable of perhaps delivering. This is a moment where we see them defeat, what is at least on paper, a more powerful English kingdom. Why do you think they're able to do this? Is it simply the incompetence of Edward II in England, or is there something else going on that's tipping the scales in Scotland's favour? No, that Robert de Bruce is one of the leading military geniuses of the medieval period, and he has some very, very strong supporters such as Randolph O'Hurlam Murray and Sir James Douglas. From the St. Strait Trull, I think, the first victory he wins after his initial series of defeats, Robert doesn't lose another battle. Throughout his battle-ridden career for more than 20 years, he just doesn't lose. He beats his Scottish opponents, he beats his English

opponents. He beats Edward I first at Banat-Burn. He beats Edward II's army at Byland in Yorkshire in 1322 with huge loss of life. He beats Edward the Third's army in Weirdale. And that's the difference. He almost, through his brother Edward, takes over the whole of Ireland. He's got ambitions to create a countervailing scutie type Scottish Irish polity, which will put enormous pressure, given the relative sizes. We don't have the Industrial Revolutionary population here on the English polity. So yes, Robert Bruce is extremely ambitious, and he comes very close.

He does succeed personally in getting it all right, but nobody else could quite manage what he'd done. Yeah, yeah, so we ought to be looking at his brilliance rather than anything else. I think so. I mean, people still prefer Wallace because he's not, Wallace was not an ordinary bloke. Wallace was a toff by anybody's calculations. But to most people, Wallace in Scotland, Wallace is seen as an ordinary bloke. People prefer the ordinary bloke, who is an underdog who lost. You know, that's what, that's, of course, a Scottish and perhaps a British feature of prefering the underdog. But, you know, Bruce is not an underdog. Bruce was a winner. and Scotland exists today because of King Robert I. Yeah. And as we move on from the success in the War of Independence

through the kind of 14th and 15th century, do we see as a result of this, do we see a newly confident Scotland? Do we see kind of cultural and economic growth and vibrance, partly as a result of the victories in the wars of independence? Culture. I think probably Scotland struggles to be as well as it was under Alexander III, actually because the Wars of Independence take a huge toll economically. Robert has a policy of

basically destroying all castles that might be occupied. So although castles aren't at modern scale economic lukai, they certainly are a medieval scale. It's quite important the kind of market provided by a well-occupied castle. The climate is perhaps a little bit later starting to turn against Scotland in terms of what it can achieve. But there are a lot of achievements. And one of the things is that you'd see, and this is evident even before King Robert, is the early formation of quite sophisticated institutions. First of all, the widespread creation of Bada Grammar Schools in the 12th and 13th century, universities from St. Andrews in 1411, and by the, even until the 18th century, Scotland had the largest number of places for university per capita in Europe.

And organizations like the Faculty of Advocates, the effect of the legal profession with rights to plead in 1532, and later on, Society of Writers to the Signet and others. So I know we're going slightly towards the end of the medieval period now, but there is a continuum of the creation of quite significant institutions geared towards educational and professional development. And there's also a lot of Scots who go abroad. And they repatriate some wealth. It's difficult to say how much into Scotland in this period.

So one of the things is, as Scotland becomes, finds it more difficult to sustain export markets at scale because its tastes are getting more and more expensive and its exports are, with the exception of some luxuries like salmon, fairly routine, that actually what Scott start to do is to go and set up business in the receiving ports in Rotterdam, in the Baltic, in Norway, to try not only control the trade which they're involved in, but also to control the export trade insofar as they can from those destinations. So the sense of Scottish engagement with Europe and European institutions and Scottish export of many of its elites to actually spend time in European cities or to settle there is a medieval initiative. And it makes a significant

difference to the way which Scotland develops as a kingdom. And as we move later on in the medieval period, the status of the people that the kings of Scots marry in general keeps on rising. And eventually, of course, to the stage where the daughter of the King of Scots is a fit match for the future King of France. And the old alliance continues to be incredibly important through this period of two. We quite often see Scots forces fighting with the French in the Hundred Years' War in France. Do we see Scotland, you've talked a little bit there about the ways in which. they are sort of focusing on the continent rather than the British Isles maybe in terms of trade.

Do we see them having a much more continental outlook than perhaps England does? I think England's huge contribution to the world international world trade and the low countries is a continental outlook. I think probably Scotland's a little more diverse. I mean, it's not the Scots don't want to trade with England, though some of them are very keen on the idea, no doubt, and you do get lots of comments about nationality. It's not really a modern thing. You do get lots of comments about people from England and Scotland in both sides of the border in the medieval period. There are only 50 Scots in London as late as 1567. And, you know, the Council of Aberdeen in the 15th century, we're very fortunate with Aberdeen. We've got

borough councilmen it's dating back to 1398. In the 15th century, twice. issues orders to the population of the city to stop attacking the English who come into the city because they're just making a pilgrimage to a saint. They're not actually doing anything that's inappropriate at all. But actually, it's about controlling the popular anger and resentment rather than actually being an elite construct. But basically, the real issue for trade is that sea is much quicker. And on the west coast, Scotland also continues to remain. close to what is now Ireland because sea is much quicker. That's a sea-driven society. So that's a big reason for Scotland having a different identical medieval period too. But there are very significant

donations of Scottish troops and administrators to France in a hundred years' war. And this also helps to crystallise nationality. The disaster of the defeat of the Duke of Clarence at Bouget in 1418 at the hands of the Earl of Bachham, supported by, supported by, supported by, French troops with 10,000 Scots on the field is a crystallizing moment for Scottish reputation history in France. When Joan of Arc comes to liberate Orleans and what's the turning point of the war in 1430, you know, it's allegedly the march of what is now known as the March of the soldiers of Robert Bruce, the traditional tune, Hey, Tutti, Tati, is played at the final storm where she's accompanied by the Scots Guard.

And indeed, in the first attempts to relieve Orleans, there's a monument in the city today to Patrick Ogilvy, who commanded those attempts. And also, Joan of Art was received by a bishop from Fife, who was the bishop of Orleans, when she entered the city in 1429. And to this day, the march of the soldier of Robert Bruce is one of the most significant French military marches and is paid in state funerals in France by on the pipes. Absolutely. There is a real and probably still under-researched and underdeveloped crystallisation there where significant numbers of the Scottish elites are engaged in France and to some extent, a more limited extent, vice versa. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I say we've done an incredible job. You've done an incredible job, Mary of getting us through almost a thousand years of Scottish history in under an hour. So just to conclude, just to sum up, when we get to the end, of the medieval period.

What kind of situation would you say Scotland is in internally? Is it now a confident, strong kingdom that is free from kind of threats of being overtaken by England? Has it stepped firmly out of England's shadow now? Well, I think that was always its aim. And from the granting of the imperial crown, the closed crown in 1329, which was the ambition of medieval Scots kings, certainly the stewards did very well. in presenting Scotland as a powerful and independent European kingdom with increasing status.

But once again, they showed enormous levels of overconfidence, both in the historic defeat of James I, 4th at Florida in 1513, and even in terms of the development of James' Navy, because the Prince Michael, one of the largest ships of its day in Europe, was in fact the ship that was answered by Henry with the Honouré Grasseur some years later. So they were in an arms race, but really this was an arms race. They couldn't win. And that was once again what we might call a sign of Scottish overambition, which you can see in the gift of the Duke of Burgundy,

of Mons, still extent of Mons Meg in Edinburgh Castle to James II, one of the largest bombards of its day, huge piece of artillery. Banging Monsmeg's belly foe was the statement made as late as 18th century of Scotland for having sex inside Mons Meg, which you could just about do, especially if you were small and not particularly active. But it's got a huge calibre of gun, and it represented the kind of ambition of the late Stuart Kings to compete once again.

they couldn't do it. I find myself liking this over ambition, though. I've enjoyed all of the stories of them believing they can do these things, even if it turns out that most of the time they can't. I think that the interesting is, and I don't want to take us outside of period, is that actually that it's in the 18th and 19th centuries that they find that they can.

And in a way, Scotland is probably in the contemporary era as less ambitious than it's ever been. Yeah. Well, there's a challenge. rally and cry. Or an observation. Something's really changed because you can see in the Bragadocio and invention and the sheer will to dominate in 18th to 19th century Scots, the platformed by the British Empire, they can do this, which they've never been able to do before. And they always wanted to. Yeah. Well, this has been absolutely fascinating, Murray. So thank you so

much for taking us through a fascinating millennium of Scottish history in under an hour. You've delivered as promised. And I found it all absolutely fascinating. So thank you very, very much for joining us. It's been a pleasure, Matt. Thanks for letting me. Ramble on. Not at all, thank you. Murray's book, The Shortest History of Scotland, is out now if you'd like to discover even more about this nation's history. You can find episodes in our back catalogue on the Viking Siege of Dumbarton and the Declaration of Our Broth that Murray mentioned as we were talking. There are new instalments of Gone Medieval every Tuesday and Friday, so please come back to join

Eleanor and I for more from the greatest millennium in human history. Don't forget to also subscribe or follow us on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts and tell all of your friends and family that you've gone medieval. You can also sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries with a new release every week at historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. Anyway, I better let you go. I've been Matt Lewis and we've just gone medieval with history hits.