To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Economy of Scotland in the High Middle Ages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The economy of Scotland in the High Middle Ages for this article, is the economic situation in Scotland between 1058 and 1286 AD. The year 1058 saw the ascension of Malcolm III to the throne of Scotland. His reign marks a significant cultural, economic, and political shift away from Scandinavia and towards England and the European Continent – most noticeable in his marriage to Margaret, the sister of Edgar Aetheling, who was the primary dynastic rival to William I, Duke of Normandy, for the throne of England following the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. The end of this period is marked by the death of Alexander III in 1286, which then led indirectly to the Scottish Wars of Independence. This period corresponds roughly with the High Middle Ages in Europe, which is generally ascribed to the 11th to the 13th centuries and the Medieval Warm Period, which directly affected the Scottish agrarian economy.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    4 550 734
    2 822 745
    3 064 293
    663
    816
  • The Dark Ages...How Dark Were They, Really?: Crash Course World History #14
  • The Atlantic slave trade: What too few textbooks told you - Anthony Hazard
  • Coal, Steam, and The Industrial Revolution: Crash Course World History #32
  • INET President: Rebuilding A Moral Economics
  • Catherine Schenk on currency in an independent Scotland

Transcription

Hi there my name’s John Green, this is Crash Course World History and today we’re going to talk about the Dark Ages, possibly the most egregious Eurocentrism in all of history, which is really saying something. (We’re Europe! The Prime Meridian Runs Through us; We’re in the Middle of Every Map; and We Get To Be a Continent Even Though Were Not a Continent.) But let’s begin today with a pop quiz: What was the best year of your life, and what was the worst year? Mr. Green, Mr. Green: Best 1994, Worst 1990. Oh, me from the past. It gets so much better, and also so much worse. For worst year I’m gonna go with 2001; best year 2006. Alright now it’s your turn, dear pupils: share your best and worst years in comments during the intro. [music intro] [music intro] [music intro] [music intro] [music intro] [music intro] Right, so what you will quickly find is that your worst year was someone else’s best year. So, too, with history. The period between 600 and 1450 CE is often called the Middle Ages in Europe because it came between the Roman Empire—assuming you forget the Byzantines—and the beginning of the Modern Age. And it’s sometimes called the Dark Ages, because it was purportedly unenlightened. But was the age so dark? Depends on what you find depressing. If you like cities and great poetry, then the Dark Ages were indeed pretty dark in Europe. But if like me your two favorite things are Not Dying From Wars and not dying from anything else, the Dark Ages actually weren’t that bad— at least until the plague came in the 14th century. And meanwhile, outside of Europe, the Dark Ages were truly an Age of Enlightenment.But we’ll get boring Europe out of the way first. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. Medieval Europe had less trade, fewer cities, and less cultural output than the Original Roman Empire. London and Paris were fetid firetraps with none of the planning of sewage management of places 5,000 years older like Mohenjo Daro in the Indus Valley Civilization, let alone Rome. But with fewer powerful governments, wars were at least smaller, which is one reason why Europeans living in Medieval Times— Uhh THOUGHT BUBBLE I KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO DO THAT. Anyway, people in Medieval Times lived slightly longer— life expectancy was 30— than Europeans during the Roman Empire— when life expectancy was 28. Instead of centralized governments, Europe in the middle ages had feudalism, a political system based on reciprocal relationships between lords, who owned lots of land, and vassals, who protected the land and got to dress up as knights in exchange for pledging loyalty to the lords. The lords were also vassals to more important lords, with the most important of all being the king. Below the knights were peasants who did the actual work on the land in exchange for protection from bandits and other threats. Feudalism was also an economic system, with the peasants working the land and keeping some of their production to feed themselves while giving the rest to the landowner whose land they worked. The small scale, local nature of the feudal system was perfect for a time and place where the threats to peoples’ safety were also small scale and local. But of course, this system reinforces the status quo – there’s little freedom and absolutely no social mobility: Peasants could never work their way up to lords, and they almost never left their villages. Thanks, Thought Bubble. One more point that’s very interesting from a world history perspective: this devolution from empire to localism has happened in lots of places at lots of different times. And in times of extreme political stress, like after the fall of the Han dynasty in China, power tends to flow into the hands of local lords who can protect the peasants better than the state can. We hear about this a lot in Chinese history and also in contemporary Afghanistan, but instead of being called feudal lords, these landlords are called warlords. Eurocentrism striking again. The other reason the Dark Ages are called Dark is because Europe was dominated by superstition and by boring religious debates about like how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. And while there’s something to that, the Middle Ages also saw theologians like Thomas Aquinas, who was quite an important philosopher, And women like Hildegard of Bilgen, who wrote all this important liturgical music and also basically invented the genre of the morality play. All that noted, things were certainly brighter in the Islamic world, or Dar al Islam. So when we last left the Muslims, they had expanded out of their homeland in Arabia and conquered the rich Egyptian provinces of the Byzantines and the entire Sassanian empire, all in the space of about 100 years. The Umayyad Dynasty then expanded the empire west to Spain and moved the capital to Damascus, because it was closer to the action, empire-wise but still in Arabia. That was really important to the Umayyads because they’d established this hierarchy in the empire with Arabs like themselves at the top and in fact they tried to keep Arabs from fraternizing with non-Arab muslims throughout the Empire. This of course annoyed the non-Arab Muslims, who were like, “I don’t know if you’re reading the same Quran we are, but this one says that we’re all supposed to be equal.” And pretty quickly the majority of Muslims weren’t Arabs, which made it pretty easy for them to overthrow the Umayyads, which they did in 750 CE. Their replacements, the Abb(ah)sids, Abb(uh)sids? Hold On... D’ahh, I’m right twice! Right, so the Abbasids were from the Abb(ah)si or the Abb(uh)-see family which hailed from the Eastern and therefore more Persian provinces of the Islamic Empire. The Abbasids took over in 750 and no one could fully defeat them— until 1258, when they were conquered by— wait for it— the Mongols. The Abbasids kept the idea of a hereditary monarchy, but they moved the capital of the empire to Baghdad, and they were much more welcoming of other non-Arab Muslims into positions of power. And under the Abbasids, the Dar al Islam took on a distinctly Persian cast that it never really lost. The Caliph now styled himself as a king of kings, just like the Achaemenids had, and pretty soon the caliph’s rule was a lot more indirect, just like the original Persians’. This meant that his control was much weaker, and by about 1000CE , the Islamic Caliphate which looks so incredibly impressive on a map had really descended into a series of smaller kingdoms, each paying lip-service to the caliph in Baghdad. This was partly because the Islamic Empire relied more and more on soldiers from the frontier, in this case Turks, and also slaves pressed into military service, in order to be the backbone of their army, a strategy that has been tried over and over again and has worked exactly zero times. Which you should remember if you ever become an emperor. Actually our resident historian points out that that strategy has worked-- if you are the Mongols. More important than the Persian-style monarchy that the Abbasids tried to set up was their openness to foreigners and their ideas. That tolerance and curiosity ushered in a golden age of Islamic learning centered in Baghdad. The Abbasids oversaw an efflorescence of culture unlike anything that had been seen since Hellenistic times. Arabic replaced Greek not only as the language of commerce and religion, but also of culture. Philosophy, medicine, and poetry were all written in Arabic (although Persian remained an important literary language.) And Baghdad was the world’s center of scholarship with its House of Wisdom and immense library. Muslim scholars translated the works of the Greek Philosophers including Aristotle and Plato as well as scientific works by Hippocrates, Archimedes and especially the physician Galen. And they translated and preserved Buddhist and Hindu manuscripts that might have otherwise been lost. Muslims made huge strides in medicine as well. One Muslim scholar ibn Sina, wrote the Canon of Medicine, which became the standard medical textbook or centuries in both Europe and the Middle East. And the Islamic empire adopted mathematical concepts from India such as the zero, a number so fascinating and beautiful that we could write an entire episode about it but instead I’m just gonna write it a little love poem: Oh, zero. Pretty little zero. They say you’re nothing but you mean everything to mathematical history ....and me. Oh it’s time for the Open Letter? [Scoots to chartreuse throne of pure velvety awesomeness] An Open Letter to Science and Religion: But first lets see what’s in the Secret Compartment. Oh, champagne poppers? Stan, what am I supposed to do with these? Dear Science and Religion, You’re supposed to be so irreconcilable and everything, but not so much in the Abbasid Empire. I mean, Muslim mathematicians expanded math to such a degree that we now call the base ten number system and the symbols we use to denote it “Arabic numerals.” And religion was at least part of what pushed all that learning forward. Like the great philosopher Ibn Rushd argued that the only path to religious enlightenment was through Aristotelian reasoning. And Muslim mathematicians and astronomers developed algebra partly so they could simplify Islamic inheritance law. Plus they made important strides in trigonometry so that people understand where to turn when trying to turn toward Mecca. You were working so well together, science and religion, but then like Al and Tipper Gore, just couldn’t last forever. Nothing gold can stay in this world, nothing gold can stay. Best wishes, John Green Baghdad wasn’t the only center of learning in the Islamic world. In Spain, Islamic Cordoba became a center for the arts, especially architecture. This is perhaps best exemplified by the Great Mosque at Cordoba, built by the Umayyad ruler Abd al-Rahman I In 785-786 CE. That’s right, this building, still standing today and one of the most amazing mosques in the world, was built in a year, whereas medieval cathedrals typically took, like, a million years to finish. The Muslims of Spain were also engineers who rivaled the Romans. Aqueducts in Cordoba brought drinkable water into the city, and Muslim scholars took the lead in agricultural science, improving yields on all kinds of new crops, allowing Spanish lives to be longer and less hungry. Everybody wanted to live in Spain, even the greatest Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, wanted to live in Spain, but sadly he was expelled and ended up in Alexandria Egypt. There he wrote his awesomely titled defense of rationality, A Guide for the Perplexed. I’m translating the title, of course, because the original text was written …in Arabic. Meanwhile, China was having a Golden Age of its own: The Tang Dynasty made China’s government more of a meritocracy, and ruled over 80 million people across four million square miles. And they might’ve conquered all of Central Asia had it not been for the Abbasids, whom they fought at the most important Battle You’ve Never Heard Of, the Battle of the Talas River. This was the Ali-Frasier of the 8th century. The Abbasids won, which ended up defining who had influence where with the -- with the Abbasids dominating to the west of the river and China dominating to the east. The Tang also produced incredible art that was traded all throughout Asia. Many of the more famous sculptures from the Tang Dynasty feature figures who are distinctly not-Chinese, which again demonstrates the diversity of the empire. The Tang was also a golden age for Chinese poetry with notables like Du Fu and Li Bo plying their craft, encouraged by the official government. And the Song Dynasty, which lasted from 960 to 1258, kicked even more ass-it’s-not-cursing-if-you’re-talking-about-donkeys. By the 11th century, Chinese metalworkers were producing as much iron as Europe would be able to produce in the 18th century. Some of this iron was put to use in new plows, which enabled agriculture to boom, thereby supporting population growth. Porcelain was of such high quality that it was shipped throughout the world, which is why we call it “china.” And there was so much trade going on that the Chinese ran out of metal for coins, leading to another innovation– paper money. And by the 11th century, the Chinese were writing down recipes for a mixture of saltpeter, sulfur and charcoal, that we now know as gunpowder. That becomes kind of a big deal in history, paving the way, as it does, for modern warfare and arena rock pyrotechnics, and— ohhhh, THAT’S WHY. [Pulls Champagne popper along with a mysterious lady hand from behind chalkboard.] Not so dark after all. Thanks for watching. We’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller, our script supervisor is Danica Johnson. [bazinga!] The graphics team is ThoughtBubble, and show is written by my high school history teacher Raoul Meyer and myself. Last week’s Phrase of the Week was also good advice: Quit Smoking! If you want to suggest future Phrases of the Week or guess at this week’s, you can do so in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. If you liked today’s video please click the thumb’s up button. You can also follow us on Twitter @thecrashcourse or on Facebook. There are links in the video info. Our writer and historian, Raoul Mayer, also tweets awesome Crash Course pop quizzes, so there’s a link to follow him as well, and me, you know, because I’m a narcissist. [music outro] We get to be a continent, even though we're not a continent... [music outro] We get to be a continent, even though we're not a continent... [music outro] We get to be a continent, even though we're not a continent...

Political geography

The Kingdom of Scotland was not identical to its modern geographical boundaries. Rather, the period is marked by further domination of Scottish hinterlands. During Malcolm III's reign, the lands he directly controlled consisted of the Lowlands north of the Firth of Forth, as well as the regions of Lothian and Cumbria, though forced to perform homage to the King of England for these lands until the conclusion of the Scottish Wars of Independence. Although the Scottish monarchy held nominal lordship over Moray, Galloway, and parts of the Western Isles, these supposed vassals often acted irrespective or in direct opposition to Scottish interests. In addition, the Earls of Orkney and Caithness often performed homage to both the King of Scotland and the King of Norway, which demonstrates the limited authority Scotland held over the mainland and outer islands.[citation needed]

However, the period from Malcolm III to Alexander III sees the effective expansion of the Scottish kings’ power over the rival centers and the implementation of royal authority. David I and Alexander II are perhaps the most visible examples of this expansion – with their imposition of new regional lords in the Moray, Galloway, and Argyll – but there was a consistent progression towards greater unity and control.[1]

Feudalism

As mentioned above, this period in Scottish history marks a cultural, economic, and political shift toward Continental institutions, practices, and relationships. The most notable of these is the introduction of a more formalized version of Feudalism.[citation needed] Generally speaking, feudalism was the structuring of society based upon hierarchical relationships whereby the holding of land was exchanged in return for service, generally military, or labor.[2] In addition to military service or labor, the lord would require dues, in either coinage, as is generally the case between the monarch and his vassals, or in-kind payment – which was the standard between a lord and the peasantry.[3] In Scotland, this payment was referred to as cáin. The cáin was generally paid in the form of the area's main produce.[4] The term denotes both the regular exaction of an area's revenue by the king, like the Scottish king's exaction of payment in the Southern Uplands, as well as irregular tribute to a superior authority, as was the case in Moray during its period of quasi-independence prior to the mid-11th century.[5]

Lord-vassal relationship

This system was heavily reliant upon personal relationships and oaths of fealty to maintain political authority and economic domination.[6] Relationships were often left vague when royal authority was limited. For example, the Scottish Crown maintained only loose authority over the Earls of Galloway until Alan, Earl of Galloway, died in 1234 with no legitimate male heir, and Alexander III divided the inheritance among royal supporters with weak familial ties to the earldom.[7]

This ambiguity generally supported greater stability at the expense of the royal treasury, as the cáin was collected infrequently, if at all. Scotland and England's relationship was performed in much the same way. The Scottish kings performed homage to the English king for royal lands in Cumbria and Lothian except during periods of English strength or Scottish weakness. For example, the Scottish king William the Lion swore fealty to Henry II of England in 1175 as stipulated in the Treaty of Falaise, which explicitly declared William held all of Scotland as a fief.[8] However, even during these periods of English supremacy, payment was exacted more as tribute for peace than vassalage dues. Richard Oram describes the terms of treaty and their “light touch,” emphasizing the limited economic impact on Scotland: “Henry also demanded control of royal castles in Lothian – Berwick, Jedburgh, Roxburgh, Edinburgh and Stirling, but sought neither men nor money for his wars, nor did he hear appeals from Scottish law courts”.[8]

However, this period of ambiguity between the Scottish monarch and his vassals gradually became more formalized during the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries as the Crown asserted greater political authority over mainland Scotland. In Moray, for instance, David I drew the troublesome district into his direct sphere through claiming of castles as royal property and the settling of English nobility explicitly loyal the king, and not local ties in mid-12th century.[9]

Criticisms of Feudal Terminology

In spite of the fact that most historians agree that from the 11th century through the 13th marks at minimum a greater formalization of feudalistic hierarchical relationships and structures,[10] the wholesale adoption of the classic manorial feudalism as an explanation for Scottish rural economy has been widely criticized. A. D. M. Barrell points out that unlike in England, where the Norman Conquest enabled the monarchy to redefine societal relationships through the major expropriation of native lords, Scotland was never conquered.[11] Therefore, the settlers introduced into Scotland were on top of existing socio-economic structures forcing the new population to tread carefully over established practices.[11] In addition, Susan Reynolds pointed out that land was not held as a grant from the king, but rather engaged in military service and paid taxes commiserate with their economic and societal standing.[12] Another obstacle frequently used to limit the applicability of feudal terminology to Scotland during this period was the relative importance of pastoralism, especially in the Northern and Western Highlands, over sedentary farming.[13] The inability to tie the peasantry to the land in much of Scotland, like in England, limited the lord's ability to extract economic resources and exert political control over from the peasantry.

Agriculture

Significant inroads were being made in Scottish agricultural practices during the High Middle Ages. This can partly be attributed to the Medieval Warm Period. This climatic change resulted in warmer, drier conditions throughout Northern Europe. Farming in Scotland therefore could be expanded into higher altitudes that were previously too cold for agriculture and valleys that were prone to floods or marsh conditions.[14] The expansion of agricultural production capability was accompanied by improvements in labor saving technologies that increased crop yields and pastoral output.[15] These included the carruca-type plough, which was more effective at plowing tougher soil, improved animal harnesses that shortened the time required for clearance in woodlands, and water mills that “freed more time and concomitantly more labor... which could then be applied to other activities.”[16] These factors in congruence directly led to the expansion of agriculture into new areas and the intensification of existing arable lands that increased annual yields and indirectly caused an increase in population.[17]

Assarts

In practice, this expansion into new lands manifested itself in the form of assarts. Assarts were lands that were newly cultivated from land formerly considered ‘waste.’ There were several different versions of the expansion. The reclamation of valleys prone to flooding and planting at higher altitudes due to the warmer and drier climate have already been mentioned.[citation needed]

Another substantial method of exploitation was the gradual push into forests. Forests were areas under the direct control of the king typically used for hunting and under special jurisdiction.[18] Although the forest law in Scotland was noticeably more lax than England, much of it was still restricted from agricultural production. It is worth clarifying that the forest considered ‘waste’ does not directly compare with modern usage of the term. This is not to say that these lands were completely absent of production. Richard Oram identifies the value of these regions to local inhabitants: “the afforested area was exploited routinely by the inhabitants of the settlements that lined its margins, as summer pasture for cattle and sheep, a source of autumn pannage for pigs and of winter feed for the livestock left unslaughtered in November, and for building materials and fuel”.[19]

During this period the monarchy acquiesced to the forests, especially in the lands more suitable for planting of cereals, to be made available for cultivation. This contributed to a slow transition from pastoralism to plant-based agriculture, but only in limited areas. Indeed, the pastoral economy experienced much of the same growth that landed cultivation enjoyed from the warming climate, as higher altitudes became suitable for grazing. However, there remained significant competition between the competing industries for land use throughout highlands and lowlands, alike.[20]

Pastoralism

Although the planting of cereals was becoming increasingly common in the Lowlands, its impact on much of Scotland was relatively unsubstantial to the overall economic output. Herding of animals remained primary means of subsistence and the most important form of agriculture for most of the Scottish mainland. Only about 40% of total land area was below 500 feet above sea level, compared to 78% in England.[21] This meant that a majority of Scotland was less profitable for plant-based agriculture compared to animal husbandry. Economic historian Bruce Campbell explains that the impact of pastoral agriculture is somewhat muted in the historical record that relies on parish churches for wealth statistics, “because tithes on [animal] products were less straightforward to collect.”[22] Even in areas that would be more suitable for farming were slow to transform. Galloway for instance, in the words of G. W. S. Barrow, “already famous for its cattle, was so overwhelming pastoral, that there is little evidence in that region of land under permanent cultivation, save along the Solway coast”.[23]

Trade

Burghs

Burghs founded before the death of King David I

Scottish trade during the High Middle Ages was largely centered around the “burgh” or “burgess.” These burghs enjoyed a variety of privileges, but most fundamental to their existence was the monopoly on the buying and selling of goods within its given territory. Although there existed limited trading settlements prior to the 11th century, verified by the excavations at Whithorn, the granting of burgh status strongly incentivized the growth of towns.[24]

David I was the most prolific king at awarding this burgh status to various trading centers and his successor, William the Lion, followed suit. By the end of David's reign in 1153 there were seventeen burghs, and by William's death in 1214 there were forty recorded burghs.[25] Of these newly created burghs, Berwick-upon-Tweed was the largest, most successful and most influential and remained so until the Scottish Wars of Independence.[26]

These burghs provided tangible benefits to the crown as well as boosting overall trade. The king benefited financially in three ways: royal monopolies, tolls, and burgess rents. The first method, royal monopolies, enabled the crown to sell or grant the rights for exclusive distribution of goods within the burgh's proscribed boundary.[27] The second key method of boosting revenue was the collection of tolls. These taxes were placed upon goods purchased in a burgh's hinterland – as only the burgh itself was toll-free – and enforced by inhabitants of the outlying areas were forced to buy and sell solely through the burgh. However, this was often difficult to enforce, and therefore the crown often relied upon burgess rents to compensate. The burgesses paid the rents, also known as ferme, annually to the king in exchange for maintaining their status. Together, these revenue-boosting methods were the primary cash income for the Scottish crown.[28]

Some historians have speculated that David's expansion of burgh status was partly motivated by the desire to open up Scotland to wider international trade networks. During this period, Flanders was experiencing a boom in the cloth industry motivated improvements in weaving production. This in turn increased demand for wool, which Scotland produced in abundance. In spite of England's dominance of the market, Scotland was able to share in the spoils of the boom – partly due to its utilization of colonists, whether Flemish, English, or French, that supplied capital and expertise into an underdeveloped industry.[29]

Money supply

This period of Scottish history also marked the profound growth of the money supply within Scotland. The initial cause of the growth of the money supply was domestic factors. A silver mining boom in northern England enabled David I to develop Scotland's first minted coins. The increase in available capital helped fuel commercial development, especially in Scotland and England, which gained directly from the mines in the Pennines.[30] However, even when the mines were exhausted of silver, the current account surplus enabled the money supply to continue growing. “During the thirteenth century, a positive and reciprocal relationship therefore existed between the growth of overseas trade, expansion of the money supplies, and advance of commercialization,” describes economic historian Bruce Campbell.[31]

Catholic Church

As the only pan-European organization the Catholic Church commanded both spiritual and temporal power during the High Middle Ages. One of the key manifestations of this power was its important role in the economic affairs of a state. These represent a significant portion of Scotland's overall economy due to the ten percent tithe paid by the faithful, their occasional role as temporal lord within the feudal system, and the production of land owned by the parish.[32] Their economic situation was further supplemented, by the fact that in most cases the parishes enjoyed a tax-exempt status from the state. In many ways, the Church acts as both a driver of economic growth and an indicator of it, through the availability of tax records that have survived.[citation needed]

Economic historian Bruce Campbell estimates the total number of ecclesiastical parishes at around 960 in 1290.[32] The wealth of these parishes varied significantly. Some village parishes existed on subsistence levels similar to the peasantry, while the large dioceses were considered nobles in all but name. For instance, the dioceses of St. Andrews and Glasgow had estimated total assets of £13,724 and £11,144, respectively in 1290. These two dioceses alone account for almost two thirds of total spiritual and temporal assets of the Catholic Church in Scotland.[22]

Overall assessment

By the end of the 13th century, Scotland remained highly rural with a significantly smaller and on average poorer population than its southern neighbor.[33] However, significant strides towards a stronger economy were taken during this period: the formalization of feudal relationships and expansion of the Scottish monarchy allowed for greater exploitation of agricultural production – pastoral and plant-based, the Medieval Warm Period and relaxation of forest law generated agricultural expansion into new fields and pastures, and the introduction of burghs enabled the initial urbanization and opened Scotland to international trade. Campbell succinctly sums up the state of the Scottish economy at the end of the High Middle Ages compared to Ireland, which possessed a similar geographic size and population: “On the eve of the War of Independence the Scottish economy was larger, commercially more dynamic, and more monetized than that of Ireland and, in the speed with which its money supply was growing, bears favourable comparison with its far larger and, in aggregate, wealthier southern neighbour, England.”[34]

See also

References

Notes

  1. ^ Richard Oram, Domination and Lordship: Scotland 1070-1230 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011), p. 2.
  2. ^ F. L. Ganshof, Feudalism (London: Longmans Green, 1952), p. xv.
  3. ^ Diana Wood, Medieval Economic Thought, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 34.
  4. ^ A. A. M. Duncan, Scotland, Making of the Kingdom (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1975), pp. 153-4.
  5. ^ Oram, pp. 75, 232.
  6. ^ Rhys Jones, “Mann and Men in a Medieval State” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 24, no. 1 (1999), p. 66.
  7. ^ Oram, p. 193
  8. ^ a b Oram, p. 137.
  9. ^ Oram, p. 83.
  10. ^ Oram, p. 199.
  11. ^ a b A. D. M. Barrell, Medieval Scotland (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 19.
  12. ^ Susan Reynolds, “Fiefs and Vassals in Scotland: A View from Outside”, Scottish Historical Review, 82, no. 2 (2003), p. 183.
  13. ^ Barrell, p. 19.
  14. ^ H. H. Lamb, “Trees and Climatic History of Scotland”, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 90, no. 386 (1964), p. 392.
  15. ^ Duncan, Scotland, Making of the Kingdom, pp. 310-11
  16. ^ Oram, p. 234.
  17. ^ Christopher Dyer, Making a Living in the Middle Ages: The People of Britain 850-1520 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), p. 179.
  18. ^ Barrell, p. 36.
  19. ^ Oram, p. 242.
  20. ^ Oram, p. 259.
  21. ^ Bruce Campbell, “Benchmarking Medieval Economic Development: England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, c.1290”, The Economic History Review, 61, no.4 (2008), p. 921.
  22. ^ a b Campbell, p. 903.
  23. ^ G. W. S. Barrow, Kingship and Unity: Scotland 1000-1360 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981), p. 12.
  24. ^ Peter Hill, Ewan Cambell, et.al., Whithorn & St. Ninian: the Excavation of a Monastic Town, 1984-91 (Stroud, UK: Whithorn Trust, 1997), p. 23.
  25. ^ Oram, 265.
  26. ^ Campbell, p. 910
  27. ^ Barrell, p. 34.
  28. ^ Oram, p. 274.
  29. ^ Oram, p. 271.
  30. ^ Campbell, 919.
  31. ^ Campbell, p. 920.
  32. ^ a b Campbell, p. 902.
  33. ^ Campbell, p. 931.
  34. ^ Campbell, p. 921.

Bibliography

  • Barrell, A. D. M., Medieval Scotland. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  • Barrow, G. W. S. Kingship and Unity: Scotland 1000-1360. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981.
  • Campbell, Bruce. “Benchmarking Medieval Economic Development: England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, c.1290.” The Economic History Review, 61, no.4 (2008): 896–945.
  • Campbell, Ewan and Peter Hill. Whithorn & St. Ninian: the Excavation of a Monastic Town, 1984-91. Stroud, UK: Whithorn Trust, 1997.
  • Duncan, A. A. M., Scotland, Making of the Kingdom. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1975.
  • Dyer, Christopher, Making a Living in the Middle Ages: The People of Britain 850-1520. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.
  • Ganshof, F. L., Feudalism. London: Longmans Green, 1952.
  • Jones, Rhys., “Mann and Men in a Medieval State.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 24, no. 1 (1999): 65–78.
  • Lamb, H. H., “Trees and Climatic History of Scotland.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 90, no. 386 (1964): 382–394.
  • Oram, Richard, Domination and Lordship: Scotland 1070-1230. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011.
  • Reynolds, Susan. “Fiefs and Vassals in Scotland: A View from Outside.” Scottish Historical Review, 82, no. 2 (2003): 176–193.
  • Wood, Diana, Medieval Economic Thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
This page was last edited on 4 March 2023, at 23:15
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.