Freedom is a noble thing - A Scottish Megacampaign, Part One
- Thread starter Tommy4ever
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Before I comment on the (very enjoyable) update, and as someone currently at school in the UK, I thought I'd just offer my thoughts on the idea of self-aggrandisement in UK and Anglosphere curricula.
I can't speak for other Anglosphere nations, obviously, but I must say that my experience hasn't been particularly filled with self-aggrandisement. Even in history, from the age of 11-14 one is (or at least, I was) taught a really rather basic outline of English/British/UK history which covered 1066 up to King John in Year Seven, the Tudors, Stuarts and the Civil War in Year Eight (which, oddly enough, was followed at the end of the year by a very brief look at Native Americans in the 19th century) and the Industrial Revolution through to WWI in Year Nine, which was supplemented with a brief look at Hitler's rise to power.
Of those, one could probably say that the Year Nine topics offer the most opportunity for teaching how great we were, but I actually found the course rather moderate. Aside from a look at slavery and abolitionism, the Empire was barely touched upon, and nothing was taught of any prime ministers or anything. Further, the WWI aspect was less about how we eventually won (and I use the term "we" to include all of the Entente Powers) and more on actual remembrance of soldiers and so forth.
As for the GCSE course (which, it may surprised you to learn, I'm not actually doing,) the spec that is taught at our school is about the history of world medicine and the "American West", which is basically the term they use to include Manifest Destiny, Native Americans and so forth. If anything, one could say that it's the US being aggrandised!
That said, and not to derail the thread too significantly, I would agree fully with anyone saying that the UK's education system is largely sub-par. I actually wrote and delivered a speech on the issue a few months back, though this probably isn't the place to discuss that further.
All of that said (and if you're still with me Tommy, thanks a lot!) the German's reign was relatively peaceful, though once again interesting. It's odd considering his longevity that little seemed to happen aside from the crusade, though one would imagine that it is less about his reign itself and more about what follows it. I'm very much looking forward to seeing what instability comes with Morgan's accession to the throne!
I can't speak for other Anglosphere nations, obviously, but I must say that my experience hasn't been particularly filled with self-aggrandisement. Even in history, from the age of 11-14 one is (or at least, I was) taught a really rather basic outline of English/British/UK history which covered 1066 up to King John in Year Seven, the Tudors, Stuarts and the Civil War in Year Eight (which, oddly enough, was followed at the end of the year by a very brief look at Native Americans in the 19th century) and the Industrial Revolution through to WWI in Year Nine, which was supplemented with a brief look at Hitler's rise to power.
Of those, one could probably say that the Year Nine topics offer the most opportunity for teaching how great we were, but I actually found the course rather moderate. Aside from a look at slavery and abolitionism, the Empire was barely touched upon, and nothing was taught of any prime ministers or anything. Further, the WWI aspect was less about how we eventually won (and I use the term "we" to include all of the Entente Powers) and more on actual remembrance of soldiers and so forth.
As for the GCSE course (which, it may surprised you to learn, I'm not actually doing,) the spec that is taught at our school is about the history of world medicine and the "American West", which is basically the term they use to include Manifest Destiny, Native Americans and so forth. If anything, one could say that it's the US being aggrandised!
That said, and not to derail the thread too significantly, I would agree fully with anyone saying that the UK's education system is largely sub-par. I actually wrote and delivered a speech on the issue a few months back, though this probably isn't the place to discuss that further.
All of that said (and if you're still with me Tommy, thanks a lot!
) the German's reign was relatively peaceful, though once again interesting. It's odd considering his longevity that little seemed to happen aside from the crusade, though one would imagine that it is less about his reign itself and more about what follows it. I'm very much looking forward to seeing what instability comes with Morgan's accession to the throne! 
I wasn't, and I don't think Tommy was commenting either, on the level of self-aggrandizement in primary or secondary education in the English-speaking world. I was commenting on the tendency of historians, scholars, and journalists from the Anglosphere to have an overly idealistic and self-important view of their nation in world history, especially in popular history, and it's popular history (the type of history that few professionals will ever cite, mind you) that is widely read by the public and fills people with poor and often misconceived notions - in part, doing to a lack of scholarly broadness. It is generally well understood in academic circles that American and British scholars have an overly emphasized self-importance of their own nation and contributions to world history.
This of course, doesn't take away from the erudite and scholarly prose in which some may write (mostly directing this comment to Niall Ferguson, who I find to be a very superb historian and scholar in his own work, but he certainly has an extremely idealistic and positive view of "empire"). As someone trained in the Anglosphere Academy and a historian and philosopher, it is mostly the case that American and British philosophers and historians have this view.
"England created modernity." David Starkey, stated in one of his lectures.
Jeremy Paxman's book Empire (2011), essentially argues that Britain, through the British Empire, created the modern world and modernity as well.
Daniel Hannan gave a lecture, in the United States, in 2011 on how the English (and larger English speaking world) created the essentials of modern freedom. It has since been published as the book Inventing Freedom (2013).
Roy Porter's book The Creation of the Modern World (2000) also emphasizes the idea that England such get the credit for invention the modern world.
Timothy Mitchell has written on how the stage of Modernity was created through English ingenuity and economic practices.
The entire notion of Whig History is a uniquely British/English invention, that, as I have mentioned before, has no more credibility in the academic discipline of history or philosophy. Let alone the tendency of Whig history to white-wash the realities of certain past events in English/British history. Let alone calling an invasion of foreigners a "glorious revolution" when under all other legal definitions it was an invasion and the English 'conspirators' had committed treason (but winners write the official history). William of Orange didn't care about the rights of Englishmen, he cared about forming a powerful alliance that needed England in the struggle against the hegemonic ambitions of Louis, and the 'revolution' paved the way to achieve this. Let alone, on this point, that so many English historians like to see Britain as the main power that defeated Napoleon, when it was the continental powers, especially Austria and Russia who had been fighting and lost more more men than all other nations during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic conflicts. Cf. Charles Eisdaile Napoleon's Wars - An International History (2008) or the recent Napoleonic works by Philip Dwyer (2008 and 2013).
Americans who have a similar Anglophilia in historical work:
Arthur Herman's How The Scots Invented the Modern World (2000) argues that the Scots essentially created the modern structures of Western life: liberalism, democracy, and capitalism (and this Scotland is in union with wider union during the time period of the Kingdom of Great Britain.
Rodney Stark's new book, How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity (2014), while be a more balanced approach to the development of modernity by covering non-Anglosphere contributions, still is marred with a pro-Anglosphere bias, especially when discussing modernity through the Industrial Revolution and formation of modern political liberalism and democracy.
Carla Pestana also has a similar idea on how Britain, alone, created the modern trans-Atlantic world, Protestant Empire: Religion and the Making of the British Atlantic World (2010)
The comment was, as stated, directed at the scholarship produced in the Anglosphere when it discusses modernity. As if a single nation or group of language speakers can get credit for the invention of the modern world? That's rubbish. These types of works completely neglect the contributions of the non-English speaking world. As mentioned, the problem isn't that the things they are saying aren't necessarily not true, in many cases, as mentioned again, there is a strong correlation between Protestantism, Liberalism, and modern democratic politics that is largely unique to the Anglosphere, but the misrepresentations of history to make one believe that only the Anglosphere created modernity is something that few academics would whole-heartily embrace.
EDIT: It should be noted that I don't hold the "Anglo-American" Academy in low regard (naturally, as someone trained in it, and likely to make a career in it as well). Many of the best universities and paradigm changing discoveries in history come from Anglosphere scholars and archaeologists. I, as many others do, hold the scholarship of the Anglosphere when discussing modernity and the modern evolution of political liberalism, in low regard as it tends to have an over important view of self in this trans-formative era in history.
This of course, doesn't take away from the erudite and scholarly prose in which some may write (mostly directing this comment to Niall Ferguson, who I find to be a very superb historian and scholar in his own work, but he certainly has an extremely idealistic and positive view of "empire"). As someone trained in the Anglosphere Academy and a historian and philosopher, it is mostly the case that American and British philosophers and historians have this view.
"England created modernity." David Starkey, stated in one of his lectures.
Jeremy Paxman's book Empire (2011), essentially argues that Britain, through the British Empire, created the modern world and modernity as well.
Daniel Hannan gave a lecture, in the United States, in 2011 on how the English (and larger English speaking world) created the essentials of modern freedom. It has since been published as the book Inventing Freedom (2013).
Roy Porter's book The Creation of the Modern World (2000) also emphasizes the idea that England such get the credit for invention the modern world.
Timothy Mitchell has written on how the stage of Modernity was created through English ingenuity and economic practices.
The entire notion of Whig History is a uniquely British/English invention, that, as I have mentioned before, has no more credibility in the academic discipline of history or philosophy. Let alone the tendency of Whig history to white-wash the realities of certain past events in English/British history. Let alone calling an invasion of foreigners a "glorious revolution" when under all other legal definitions it was an invasion and the English 'conspirators' had committed treason (but winners write the official history). William of Orange didn't care about the rights of Englishmen, he cared about forming a powerful alliance that needed England in the struggle against the hegemonic ambitions of Louis, and the 'revolution' paved the way to achieve this. Let alone, on this point, that so many English historians like to see Britain as the main power that defeated Napoleon, when it was the continental powers, especially Austria and Russia who had been fighting and lost more more men than all other nations during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic conflicts. Cf. Charles Eisdaile Napoleon's Wars - An International History (2008) or the recent Napoleonic works by Philip Dwyer (2008 and 2013).
Americans who have a similar Anglophilia in historical work:
Arthur Herman's How The Scots Invented the Modern World (2000) argues that the Scots essentially created the modern structures of Western life: liberalism, democracy, and capitalism (and this Scotland is in union with wider union during the time period of the Kingdom of Great Britain.
Rodney Stark's new book, How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity (2014), while be a more balanced approach to the development of modernity by covering non-Anglosphere contributions, still is marred with a pro-Anglosphere bias, especially when discussing modernity through the Industrial Revolution and formation of modern political liberalism and democracy.
Carla Pestana also has a similar idea on how Britain, alone, created the modern trans-Atlantic world, Protestant Empire: Religion and the Making of the British Atlantic World (2010)
volksmarschall said:
The comment was, as stated, directed at the scholarship produced in the Anglosphere when it discusses modernity. As if a single nation or group of language speakers can get credit for the invention of the modern world? That's rubbish. These types of works completely neglect the contributions of the non-English speaking world. As mentioned, the problem isn't that the things they are saying aren't necessarily not true, in many cases, as mentioned again, there is a strong correlation between Protestantism, Liberalism, and modern democratic politics that is largely unique to the Anglosphere, but the misrepresentations of history to make one believe that only the Anglosphere created modernity is something that few academics would whole-heartily embrace.
EDIT: It should be noted that I don't hold the "Anglo-American" Academy in low regard (naturally, as someone trained in it, and likely to make a career in it as well). Many of the best universities and paradigm changing discoveries in history come from Anglosphere scholars and archaeologists. I, as many others do, hold the scholarship of the Anglosphere when discussing modernity and the modern evolution of political liberalism, in low regard as it tends to have an over important view of self in this trans-formative era in history.
Last edited:
Ah, my apologies. Your use of "scholarship" next to "continental schools" put me in mind of actual academic study when compared with that of the continent, as opposed to a school of thought of scholarly works when compared with their continental counterparts. Neither was I, however, refuting Whig history's Anglospheric origins or trying to give it credibility or anything like that, which some of your comments make me think I may have conveyed. (Which is my fault entirely. I really shouldn't be getting into historiographical debates so late at night! )
That said, it's interesting that you're more sympathetic towards Niall Ferguson. My father's just finished his Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, which he recommended to me as being well worth a read. The title put your recent comments on Britain and modernity in mind, and I had imagined that it would be the kind of book that you'd deplore! I'm pleasantly surprised to find out that I was wring in my assumptions.
Having said that, and going back to the topic at hand, I am very much looking forward to seeing the MacDrostan's returned to Scotland, Wales liberated and all of the family's continental possessions taken in the name of liberty and nicer maps!
)That said, it's interesting that you're more sympathetic towards Niall Ferguson. My father's just finished his Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, which he recommended to me as being well worth a read. The title put your recent comments on Britain and modernity in mind, and I had imagined that it would be the kind of book that you'd deplore! I'm pleasantly surprised to find out that I was wring in my assumptions.
Having said that, and going back to the topic at hand, I am very much looking forward to seeing the MacDrostan's returned to Scotland, Wales liberated and all of the family's continental possessions taken in the name of liberty and nicer maps!
I wouldn't say I deplore the work of Whig historians or contemporary books that seem to have such similar argumentative lines. I generally am dissuaded by their constant invocation of triumphalism (as I'm equally turned off by any form of teleology in historical scholarship - philosophy, different game - but teleology should be absent from modern scholarship), again, like one nation or group of people can be credited with the 'birth' of an entire era. (*cough* they seem to forget that the most important philosophies were coming out of Europe and not England at the same time). I have sympathy with Ferguson solely on the ground of the breadth of his scholarship. I would generally see his work as fine, but his views on empire are a little bit perplexing, perhaps an inclination of my biases towards anti-militarism and anti-imperialism in real life.
You might find it odd, but I find all reads worthwhile, even ones that are otherwise thoroughly rejected by professionals, just because it's important to have the competing schools of thought and their scholarship read. As someone who predominately writes in the field of historiography, it's also required of me to be extremely well-versed in historicism. By Continental schools, I was mostly referring to historiographical and philosophical schools of thought are mostly found in Continental Europe and not in the Anglosphere: Annales, Post-structuralism, Frankfurt School of philosophy; these contributions only coming late to the Anglo-American academies and still haven't received altogether that much attention or care from the English world.
You might find it odd, but I find all reads worthwhile, even ones that are otherwise thoroughly rejected by professionals, just because it's important to have the competing schools of thought and their scholarship read. As someone who predominately writes in the field of historiography, it's also required of me to be extremely well-versed in historicism. By Continental schools, I was mostly referring to historiographical and philosophical schools of thought are mostly found in Continental Europe and not in the Anglosphere: Annales, Post-structuralism, Frankfurt School of philosophy; these contributions only coming late to the Anglo-American academies and still haven't received altogether that much attention or care from the English world.
Morgan II, the Last, MacDrostan
Lived: 1355-1421
Head of House MacDrostan: 1411-1421
King of Scotland: 1411-1413
Holy Roman Emperor: 1411-1421
Duke of Lower Lorraine: 1411-1421
Lived: 1355-1421
Head of House MacDrostan: 1411-1421
King of Scotland: 1411-1413
Holy Roman Emperor: 1411-1421
Duke of Lower Lorraine: 1411-1421
Under Morgan II the MacDrostan Empire came crashing down, within a half a century of his death the dynasty that had defined Scottish politics for half a millennium, and continental politics for at least a century, was extinct. Although Morgan’s ascension to the Scottish and Imperial thrones in 1411, as his brother Patrick’s heir, provided the catalyst for the wars that destroyed the Imperial House’s power. This was a confrontation that had been building for some time.
Under the previous two Emperors, the Scottish nobility had been side-lined from political power within their own Kingdom. Indeed, the Parliament of Scotland, an important noble institution, had not been called since the beginning of the 14th century. Whatsmore, the traditional rights and privileges of the aristocracy had been swept away by the proto-absolutist reforms of the Emperor. Within Germany, the MacDrostans were never wholeheartedly accepted, the erosion of Imperial power on the continent, designed to buy the loyalty of the German Princes, had only appeared to embolden their political ambitions, even if it did successfully postpone conflict for decades.
Morgan’s religious sympathies for the Fraticelli elements within the Scottish Church, acted as the final trigger for revolt in Scotland. As Morgan moved towards his coronation as King and Emperor in Breda, Gilbert MacGiric, the powerful Duke of Lancaster and Lothian, assembled the long dormant Parliament of Scotland in Edinburgh, symbolically rejecting the ancient MacDrostan capital of Stirling for the larger city. At the Edinburgh Parliament, MacGiric and the greater part of the Scottish nobility, denounced Morgan. They called for his replacement as King by Gilbert, and crucially, demanded the destruction of the centralised political regime in the country – issuing the Magna Carter, or ‘The Great Charter of the Liberties of Scotland’, which called for a return to an idealised vision of the feudal past in which the Monarchy, nobility, Church and common folk shared power in a more balanced system. The Earl’s Revolution had begun.
Morgan instantly recruited a large army of mercenaries from Germany and deployed them to Scotland to crush the rebellion. Yet, despite the Emperor retaking much of the Eastern shoreline of the Kingdom, his inability to rally any substantial support within Scotland itself greatly weakened his position. Things would only get worse for the Emperor when his German Empire began to collapse. In Germany, over the course of 1412 three separate threats emerged – firstly the Bohemians invaded the South of the Empire, then the Lotharingians rebelled, attempting to break free from the Empire entirely, before, finally, a group of Central German Princes that had remained loyal launched a revolt demanding an elective monarchy.
Gilbert MacGiric (Left) and the remains of the MacDrostan Empire circa 1415 (Right)
In order to face these new threats, Morgan was forced to withdraw most of his forces from Scotland – allowing MacGiric’s armies to force them from the few bastions that they had been able to capture. With the Scots sending support to his enemies on the continent, Morgan agreed to surrender the Scottish crown in 1413 – bringing to a close the reign of the MacDrostan dynasty over Scotland, a reign that lasted some 497 years and involved 19 Kings. A genuine watershed moment in the Kingdom’s history.
On the continent, Morgan was ultimately unsuccessful in all three of his wars – the Bohemians seized control over Bavaria, restyling themselves as the Kingdom of Bavaria and Bohemia, the Lotharingians and their allies, notably Frisia, successfully broke free from Morgan’s vassalage whilst within the rump remains of the Empire Morgan was forced to accept an elective system of succession. The shattered remains of his realm finally mellowed into a period of peace in 1416.
When Morgan died five years later the Imperial diadem was predictable snatched from the MacDrostans, never to return. In the first decade of the century the English MacDrostans had been destroyed, then in 1411-1413 they had been expelled from Scotland, finally in 1421 they had lost the Imperial throne. Morgan’s successors endured as the Dukes of Lower Lorraine until near the end of the 15th century when they finally died out. Across Europe, only one branch of the family remained landed into the 16th century – a minor, loosely related, cadet branch that claimed the family name remained Earls of Fife well into the 18th century. Yet, by then, the story of the House of MacDrostan as a major force on the world stage was over.
Last edited:
Well, thats us done with the MacDrostans - I hope you all enjoyed the ride . There will be one more update in the CKII portion - following King Gilbert MacGiric of Scotland - before Part One will be declared completed and we can move on to the EUIV portion.
. There will be one more update in the CKII portion - following King Gilbert MacGiric of Scotland - before Part One will be declared completed and we can move on to the EUIV portion.
You sure do have a knack for destroying your player country/family in your AARs, don't you? Another shocking ending on your part!
I guess the MacGirics deserved to be kings, considering they've been trying to capture the Scottish crown for centuries now.
A bit unrelated (alternate linguistic development fascinates me), but I bet the English language in this timeline would still be similar to our own language, just with Spanish/Asturian influence instead of the French/Norman influence. It would produce quite an interesting parallel language. Did the Christians win the Reconquista in this game, by any chance?
I guess the MacGirics deserved to be kings, considering they've been trying to capture the Scottish crown for centuries now.
A bit unrelated (alternate linguistic development fascinates me), but I bet the English language in this timeline would still be similar to our own language, just with Spanish/Asturian influence instead of the French/Norman influence. It would produce quite an interesting parallel language. Did the Christians win the Reconquista in this game, by any chance?
Last edited:
....well that was unexpected.
Onward and upward!
How will you avoid becoming part of France in EUIV?
Onward and upward!
How will you avoid becoming part of France in EUIV?
Nothing left but the original holding of Fife? That's wonderfully poetic, that is.
Serves them right for their avaricious Cymry-oppressing, Empire-grabbing, border-forsaking antics, I say!
A shame to see the MacDrostans go, though I'm sure that the MacGirics will prove just as interesting. I do like dynastic changeovers, though. They often make for very interesting periods of history – certainly in terms of keeping a country from simply dominating all of Europe (which the MacD's looked set on doing at some stage, if they hadn't already.)
Looking forward to the travails to come in EUIV!
Also, in repsonse to volksmarschall's earlier reply to my thoughts, I don't find it at all odd that you find all reads doth while. I'm certainly not one to discriminate texts based on how accepted they are, or whether they adhere to my existing biases (though this may well be down more to my lack of formal schooling in what actually is widely accepted and so forth.) If anything only reading that which, if you don't necessarily agree with, you find valid, is in my eyes nothing short of a one-way ticket to stubborn narrowmindedness!
A shame to see the MacDrostans go, though I'm sure that the MacGirics will prove just as interesting. I do like dynastic changeovers, though. They often make for very interesting periods of history – certainly in terms of keeping a country from simply dominating all of Europe (which the MacD's looked set on doing at some stage, if they hadn't already.)
Looking forward to the travails to come in EUIV!
Also, in repsonse to volksmarschall's earlier reply to my thoughts, I don't find it at all odd that you find all reads doth while. I'm certainly not one to discriminate texts based on how accepted they are, or whether they adhere to my existing biases (though this may well be down more to my lack of formal schooling in what actually is widely accepted and so forth.) If anything only reading that which, if you don't necessarily agree with, you find valid, is in my eyes nothing short of a one-way ticket to stubborn narrowmindedness!
An unexpected turn of things to say the least! Well I hope that the new, MacGiric dynasty will be more long-lived on the throne of Scotland (even i the MacDrostans where longlived too). Could you also post a short dynastic information about the MacGiric dynasty as a whole before going on to EU4?
Superb ending to the dynasty Tommy4ever. Really loved this 1st part and very much looking forward to the next. Well done that man!
Congratulations Tommy for finishing this! You make me disappointed in my inability to ever make it into the eleventh century unless I already start from there!
Gilbert, the Liberator, MacGiric
Lived: 1365-1425
Head of House MacGiric: 1393-1425
Duke of Lancaster and Lothian: 1393-1413
King of Scotland: 1413-1425
Lived: 1365-1425
Head of House MacGiric: 1393-1425
Duke of Lancaster and Lothian: 1393-1413
King of Scotland: 1413-1425
King Gilbert ranks amongst the genuine titans of Scotland’s Medieval history. Alongside Kenneth MacAilpin, who founded the Kingdom, Donald II who brought the MacDrostan’s to power and expelled the Norwegians, and Brice the Bold, who, broadly, established the borders of the Kingdom of Scotland that held firm for centuries. Modern historians have often looked back at Gilbert and his ‘Earl’s Revolution’ as a crucial stepping stone in Scotland’s development towards modernity and indeed democracy. In reality, the rebels’ ambitions were to restore a version of a more ‘traditional’ feudal monarchy following around a century of brash centralisation by the last MacDrostan monarchs, and this is what they achieved. However, it would be wrong to dismiss Gilbert’s revolt as an entirely reactionary affair. Indeed, the Magna Carta was unlike any document in Scottish history, with its guarantees of fundamental rights and liberties that extended well beyond Gilbert’s aristocratic base. Moreover, after 1413, the Scottish Parliament became the envy of Europe – enjoying a more prominent role in the governance of the land than any similar institution across Christendom. It might be important not to overestimate 1413, yet the date remains an important and drastic turning point in Scottish history.
Gilbert’s dynasty, the House MacGiric, has a fascinating history in its own right. The family traces its origins to one of the smaller clans of the Highlands, hailing from the area around Loch Ness. Through luck in marriage and war, the MacGirics gradually rose to prominence – controlling significant tracts of Highland territory by the end of the 11th century, a period regarded as the Golden Age of the MacDrostan monarchy. During the Civil Wars that brought an end to the ‘First Fraticelli Wave’ associated with the reign of Murdoch III (1098-1115/1118), the MacGirics made the first of many bids for the Scottish crown when Angus MacGiric became the favoured candidate of the Highland clans – opposing both the heretical King, and his centralist, although religiously orthodox, son David.
Although they were defeated, from the beginning of the 12th century onwards the MacGirics began a dizzying advance. Repeatedly, MacGirics were put forward as the only realistic claimants to the Scottish crown from outside the increasingly despised MacDrostan dynasty. During this period, the dynasty quickly amassed a vast powerbase across the Kingdom. When Gilbert launched his revolt in 1411 he was Duke of Lancaster and Lothian whilst a cousin sat in the Edinburgh Parliament as Duke of Murray and a half-brother as Duke of Gwynedd. Quite simply, from almost nothing, and despite a centuries long rivalry with the apparently unassailable MacDrostans, the MacGirics had become the most powerful force in the land.
The spark for the ‘Earls’ Revolution’ had been the calling of the Edinburgh Parliament in 1411. Gilbert’s decision to assemble the Parliament in the prosperous city of Edinburgh, rather than the traditional capital of the MacDrostan era, Stirling, had acted as a visceral rejection of the previous dyansty’s legacy. Even after the war was over, and Gilbert installed as King, court and Parliament remained in Edinburgh – which quickly emerged as the Kingdom’s new capital. The shift of the capital from the declining city of Stirling, to the vibrant and expanding city of Edinburgh reflected a sense of optimism that pervaded the Kingdom through most of Gilbert’s reign. His regime managed to secure a degree of social peace that was the envy of Europe as the nobility almost universally united behind his rule, the Church celebrated the reaffirmation of Catholic principles, unorthodox Neo-Fraticelli currents continued to be tolerated within the existing structures of the Church whilst the mercantile classes eagerly greeted the regime’s stability. Only the powerless and disorganised rural masses, the great majority of the population, were left aggrieved by the new settlement, Gilbert giving the Kingdom’s landed elite free reign to place new and heavy exactions on the peasantry in a rush for ever greater incomes.
In the last years of King Gilbert’s reign the apocalypse arrived on Scottish shores. The Black Plague would wipe out anywhere from ¼ to 2/3 of the population of Europe, all but destroying the Medieval World and ravaging the social stability fostered by Scotland’s new feudal settlement. The horrors of the Plague afflicted Scotland from 1423-1426, returning with ever decreasing ferocity repeatedly for decades to come.
The most prominent victim of the Great Plague in Scotland was none other than King Gilbert himself. His son and successor, Ranald, would rise to the throne in a world that was changing beyond recognition.
Last edited: