Bannockburn: Norman v Norman

By Ed Conduit

“Bannockburn: Norman v Norman” opens with the famous scene of de Bohun on his destrier charging de Brus on his palfrey, and asks this question: why do they both have French names and use Norman cavalry terms? Section one examines five factors in nationhood: a common enemy; language; religion; economy; and geography. These factors are then examined in the unmet national aspirations of diverse peoples including Georgians, Tamils, Kurds, and ISIL. The Scots language is the main distinguishing feature north and south of 55 degrees. Religion, economy, geography and common enemy have played little part.

Section two locates the Scots language in Indo-European context. It came from Anglo-Saxon, but via Northumbrian rather than Mercian as standard English did. Scots has kept features such as the “ch” sound and the “-na” ending that disappeared from Mercian, while Burns’ poetry contains many words that are closer to German or Frisian than standard English - “dicht”, “slicht” and “reekin”. Scots borrowed a little from Gaelic, but also from the Welsh spoken around Glasgow. Language follows genetics to some extent. The genetic map of the British Isles shows distinct gene pools in Orkney, Moray, or Cumbria, while the East and South of England show one large Anglo-Saxon heritage. The Scottish lowlands are quite diverse genetically.

Section three considers the “Norman conquest of Scotland” after 1124. The two leaders at the Battle of Bannockburn were both Normans aristocrats - Édouard II de Carnarvon who spoke no English and Robert de Brus, Comte de Carrick, who chose Latin when he wrote to Édouard with his claim of kingship. Where were “the English”? There had been genocide of the English after 1066 and the Saxon aristocracy were entirely dispossessed. Troops on de Brus’ side included some Saxons - “Sassenachs” from a Gaelic standpoint – who were descendants of English refugees from Norman ethnic cleansing. Sassenachs would have called the Welsh speakers “Wallis” - the Saxon word for “Welshie”. Was William Wallace actually fighting for a revival of Cumbric Strathclyde? When the linguistic evidence is considered, Scotland might be considered like Normandy, England, Sicily and the Canary Islands: another successful land grab by a group of Norman aristocrats.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Ed Conduit
• Release date: Sep 24, 2016
• ISBN: 9780955487729

Ed Conduit

Ed Conduit worked as a clinical psychologist for 43 years and has further degrees in lecturing, computer science and linguistics. He has no formal training in economics, but thinks that social democrats at the present time are obliged to try to understand money. His professional habit of trying to empathise with diverse peoples helps him achieve the national outlook of people in many nations.Ed's other e-book on politics and ecology is “Unsustainable Population”. He has also writtene-books on linguistics: "The Black Country Dialect", "Lakeland Language" and "The Iceland Bus”. His work on health psychology was printed in 1995 as “The Body Under Stress".

Book preview

Introduction: who was who at Bannockburn?

In 1314 a battle took place that continues to shape the history of the British Isles. While most of us do not know the significance of the battles of Naseby, or Worcester, or Tettenhall, this one stands out. An army led by Robert the Bruce defeated a larger army led by King Edward II. In Scottish history it is treated as the decisive event in the wars of independence. It has become a symbol again in the 21st century with the revival of a movement for an independent nation of Scotland.

So what is a nation? It is a terribly important concept, even worth dying for, but elusive. In the modern world there is a fairly definite number, approaching 200, of countries that belong to the United Nations. In previous centuries there were many more. In the space occupied by modern Germany there were as many as 500 states as recently as 200 years ago. A few were kingdoms, but more were principalities, duchies, or grand duchies, and when they came together in 1871 it was as an empire. They all spoke German, so was this their reason for coming together? The German language was a big common factor, though this left some unfinished business with Austria; this re-emerged with the Anschluss under Hitler. The unifying factor clearly was not geography, as this part of Europe has only a few rivers to use as markers of separation, and rivers were in any case highways. They were all Christian, though some were Catholic, so that was hardly a unifying factor. Or was it that they had a customs union and found it was good business?

Religion has been decisive for some nations. Spain was defined by Roman Catholicism after 1492 and Muslims and Jews were expelled. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are defined as countries by most of their citizens being Muslims. Geographical separation was central for the independence movements of Ireland and Iceland. Shared economic life has sometimes been important: Norse identity depended heavily on seafaring and fishing. Some African ethnicities, such as Masai or Dinka, are defined by cattle farming, though this rarely been the main reason for becoming a nation. Norse countries and most modern nations have diversified economies, so economics are less important.

Most national movements have sought to form a bigger nation from smaller ones, but sometimes the pressure is to get away from the bigger neighbour, as when Slovakia voted to separate from the Czech Republic. Switzerland had a fierce independence struggle from Austria, despite the unifying factors of speaking German, being Christian and pastoralism. In this case unity against a common oppressor was the decisive factor in nationality. In a few cases such as the Greeks in Cyprus the national feeling is for unification with a bigger neighbour. The reasons people have for defining themselves as a nation are quite tricky, and take up section one of this book.

Returning to Scotland, but 1200 years instead of 700 years ago, we would have found perhaps four countries. (There were also settlements of Norsemen, mainly in Orkney and Shetland, but these islands were then part of Norway.) In the west was Dalriada, where they had connections with Ireland, spoke Gaelic, and had been called Scotti by the Romans. In the north-east was another group of Celts, whom the Romans had called Picts, though they might have said they were seven kingdoms. In the south-west was Rheged around Glas Gau (Welsh for green hollow). This leaves the south-east: here the people were not Celts but spoke a Germanic language which they had brought across the North Sea from Anglia.

Robert the Bruce was clearly a very effective military commander, with a huge personal ambition. But why was he a Bruce? It turns out that there is no such common noun and that it is a place name in Normandy. It is the English way of saying the French surname de Brus, or possibly its Flemish equivalent de Brix. The Bruce was descended from the line of another Robert de Brus, who was granted the massive estates of Annandale by King David I in 1124. This time has been called Scotland’s Norman conquest by one author. The period 1124-1130 under David I was when feudalism was introduced. Land and aristocratic title were awarded in exchange for military service, and many Normans and Flemings migrated to Scotland.

One of the most dramatic moments of the battle occurs when Sir Henry de Bohun charged de Brus. De Bohun was riding a powerful destrier and was ahead of his comrades. Robert was on a palfrey and did not have time to manoeuvre. A destrier is a charger, large and fearless, while a palfrey is a smaller horse only for transport to the battle. An account of what follows comes from the makar Barbour, who says that de Brus nimbly evaded the charge and killed de Bohun with one blow of his