Talk: Wars of Scottish Independence
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
Hmm, why are four of the events in italics? Don't we usually we reserve these for titles of things (books, movies), and sometimes for quotes. I'd just take the italics out, but I'm concerned they mean something to someone (who has forgotten to add the appropriate key). -- Finlay McWalter 13:02, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I suspect they're italics because the original web-page where this aricle was cut-and-paste from http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Wars-of-Scottish-Independence had them in italics (perhaps to the distinguish battles from other events). I agree they should be removed. Gmh04 14:01, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Hmm, I think NationMaster copies from wikipedia, not the other way around. Anyway, I'll take the italics out. -- Finlay McWalter 14:06, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
"In 1320 the Declaration of Arbroath was issued by the Pope acknowledging Scottish independence from England." I think the Pope, Pope John XXII, in Avignon (not Arbroath) didn't participate in the issuing of the declaration. Further, the Pope was asked by the people of Scotland to accept the right of Scots to self-determination (i.e. we chose our King, rather than God), NOT Scots simply "acknowledging" their independence. Previously, Pope John had regarded Scotland as unchristian, because he hadn't heard Scotland side of the story. If no one objects I'll reword the above statement. Dduck 14:30, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
GDR, if you want to say that the Auld Alliance is not the oldest alliance in Europe, that's fine but you have to explain why first. -- Derek Ross 22:57, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Well, in the 6th century BC Sparta and Tegea made a defensive alliance, the beginning of the Peloponnesian League. I'm sure there were plenty of recorded and unrecorded alliances long before that, in Europe and elsewhere.
- The Auld Alliance is a famous alliance, and very significant in the history of Scotland. There's no need to inflate its significance; just state the facts! I'll make my change again. Gdr 14:00, 2004 May 4 (UTC)
I see. Well that makes sense. I must say that I was thinking of it as the first treaty between modern (or at least mediaeval) nations rather than classical ones. On that basis I'd prefer to qualify the statement rather than remove it though, otherwise it's likely to make a reappearance at some point when someone else thinks "they haven't mentioned that and everyone knows it". -- Derek Ross 15:04, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- It will be hard for you to restrict the terms of reference to make this kind of qualification work. Even if you exclude classical states, there were many earlier treaties and alliances between medieval states, for example the alliance between Charlemagne and the Lombards in 770, or the treaty between Charlemagne and Offa of Mercia in 790, or the alliance between Ethelred II of England and the Normans in 1002.
- However, I agree with you on the difficulty of preventing this kind of legend from resurfacing. Gdr 16:56, 2004 May 4 (UTC)
