Firstly, the initial treaty was signed at a time when Edward I was attempting to subdugate Scotland and at war with France, so how it can be seen as anything other than defensive is strange. It developed further though.
and to plagarise from another website...
To call it a treaty based on amutual dislike of England and to state that France cared not a jot for the Scots is disingenuous. Scotland would not have lasted if it were not for the alliance with France. Hell the bodyguard of the King of France was Scottish.
Also you are making the assumption that France would not help Scotland. During the Rough Wooing OTL, French troops assisted the Scots. If the French had not assisted the Scots during the time of Elizabeth I then there would be no need for the treaty of Edinburgh in 1560. I fail to see how this would be different if she had a brother who was King.
Also, with regards to the colonial point you make. I never mentioned it as the butterflies would not affect straight away the colonial situation. That would only change later on.
Religion ended the alliance and put Scotland on a path with England. It would be simpler for any King of England to attempt to turn Scotland towards the English sphere than invade. This way, he secures the northern border and does not have the risk of war. Basically OTL policy.
and to plagarise from another website...
The formal part of this alliance is mainly linked to a succession of military treaties, renewed reign after reign (20 times between 1326 and 1558). The culmination was during the Hundred Years War and particularly with the Scots troops who disembarked at la Rochelle (up to 30 000 soldiers) in the period 1419-1429 and played a major role, beside the dauphin Charles and Joan of Arc, in the recovery of the French territory.
This alliance also had cultural and commercial aspects. The Scottish students came to French universities such as Paris, Orléans, Bourges, Montpellier, and the first Scottish universities, Saint Andrews and Aberdeen, were designed upon French university model.
By the XVIth century and through general letters of naturality, granted by kings of France and kings of Scots, French and Scots living abroad had dual nationality.
Scotland was at that time one of the major commercial partners of France, especially regarding the Bordeaux wine called “Claret”, and had a low tax status.
The history of the old alliance between France and Scotland, better known as the “Auld Alliance”, is unique in the history of nations because there is no equivalence in terms of duration and intensty.
To call it a treaty based on amutual dislike of England and to state that France cared not a jot for the Scots is disingenuous. Scotland would not have lasted if it were not for the alliance with France. Hell the bodyguard of the King of France was Scottish.
Also you are making the assumption that France would not help Scotland. During the Rough Wooing OTL, French troops assisted the Scots. If the French had not assisted the Scots during the time of Elizabeth I then there would be no need for the treaty of Edinburgh in 1560. I fail to see how this would be different if she had a brother who was King.
Also, with regards to the colonial point you make. I never mentioned it as the butterflies would not affect straight away the colonial situation. That would only change later on.
Religion ended the alliance and put Scotland on a path with England. It would be simpler for any King of England to attempt to turn Scotland towards the English sphere than invade. This way, he secures the northern border and does not have the risk of war. Basically OTL policy.
Last edited: