Analysis of The Significance of The Tenure of King David I of Scotland

Does David I deserve his reputation as the ‘King who made Scotland’?

Inaugurated King of Scots in 1124, it is clear that David I had a considerable impact on Scotland, but is it accurate to depict him as the ‘King who made Scotland’? His medieval reputation holds him as a King devote to religion, who’s aim was to civilise what was perceived as a Barbarous country. Modern historians however tend to focus on the progress he made in developing Scottish culture. He made such cultural advances though his dedication to the expansion of religion in medieval Scotland. David was infamous for his founding of monasteries and Burghs and he is often referred to as “ane said sanct for the Croune" . He even granted lands to Anglo- Norman incomers,who in turn anglicised southern Scotland. David I made further impact through his reform of Governing. He brought a great deal of Norman influence to Scotland when he began his rule. Although David spent much of his early years in Scotland, he was forced to exile due to his parent’s death in 1093. He then spent much time under the court of Henry I, gaining the Anglo-Norman influence of the English court. So it was inevitable that in 1124, when David made claim to the Scottish throne, there would be a huge change in the country’s governance. Many refer to the changes made by David as the ‘Davidian Revolution’. This summarises the changes made by David to the Scottish Kingdom, whether through reform or expansion.

In order to analyse the claim that David was the ‘King who made Scotland’ one must first examine the huge impact he made through his foundation of religious order. He had a great admiration for religion, and encouraged monasticism in the forms of Premonstratensian, Tironian and Cistercian worship. Many of these houses were to become economic goldmines in the future with a colossal scale of sheep farming engaged by Border Abbeys. He invested a great deal of money into the creation of a large number of monasteries such as Melrose and Holyrood. Sources from the time agree that his devotion was great, Ailred of Rievaulx proclaimed “He found three or four bishops in the whole Scottish kingdom, and the others wavering without a pastor to the loss of both morals and property; when he died, he left nine, both of ancient bishoprics which he himself restored, and new ones which he erected” This huge investment into religious expansion had a massive impact on Scotland’s culture. It changed and adapted peoples moral beliefs. This also created the foundations of the church as a social instrument in Scotland. With the Church developing into a source of local gathering. It is a well known fact that David I did not create the structure of the late Medieval Scottish church, but it was under his reign that it began to take its crucial shape. Something which may not have been possible without his devoted backing and aid in spreading monasteries. David made great use of the recreation of the diocesan structure. Not only did it bring Scotland in line with the rest of Europe, but it allowed Bishops spread out across the realm to be valuable Royal agents. David also had the power to appoint, or at least recommend Bishops, meaning he had created power from within the Scottish Church. Many have claimed that David may have had interior motives for his religious expansion, but there is no evidence to prove these claims. Scotland had such a scattered population that such expansion was indeed necessary. So to conclude, David I may not have created the structure nor the tendencies of the Scottish Medieval Church, he was hugely influential in its growth and success, along with its impact on the country overall.

But it was David’s founding of many Burghs that had the biggest social impact. It allowed the country to truly expand, with a new economic spur that was crucial to Scotland’s development. David also invested much of the new found Scottish wealth into the creation of many Royal Burghs, such as Edinburgh and Perth. There was a great deal of social advancement also, as Burghs began to develop, so did their social structure. “Let it be known to all you beloved that we, with God’s aid and the licence of our King David, have established a burgh at St Andrew’s and in that burgh we have made this man Mainard the Fleming provost with the king’s consent and his firm peace…” David had created an opportunity to advance the way communities functioned, with a much greater focus on the way they could be effectively run. This would show its clear effects in the near future, with the creation and progression of many Burgh laws and customs. Burghs soon began to have a sense of new self governance with a bustling of import and export, especially with England. Bartlett portrays the need for constitutional form within his writings on Norman-style towns. “it also meant that creation and dissemination of new kinds of legal status and corporate identity, as the European chartered town slowly took shape. The new economic life demanded new constitutional form.” David knew this,, he allowed merchants to have a form of self-governance in which they could support their own internal and external governance. It was these new forms of community responsibility that allowed Burghs to truly develop under David I. Although it is important to remember that these Burghs were not great in size, their genius geographical placement allowed them to thrive both economically and socially. David had them placed specifically near to new royal castles, in order to allow assistance in the their civilising.This of course all went hand in hand with the religious expansion of the time, with the new social advances within Burghs creating even more religious support. It is not hard to perceive why many praised David I as a saint sent by god. A majority were educated with huge religious influence, making their records echo with biblical connotations such as David slaying Goliath. David I’s focus on the placement of new Scottish Burghs was hugely important to the development the country, and is true supporting evidence of the claim that he was the ‘King who made Scotland’.

Another crucial impact David had on Scotland was on the way it was governed. He had spent a good part of forty years submerged in the South of England at the Anglo-Norman court, even acquiring a norman wife and Earldom. So it is very little surprise that he brought such a norman influence to Scotland. The key aspect of this being the introduction of feudalism. This meant that in exchange for military service, the Scottish nobility would be granted lands from the crown. The lords could then acquire ‘vassels’ who were usually granted a Castle or lands in order to help the monarch maintain order. This was crucial in the development of Scottish social structure with the list of sub-tenants pyramiding down to the bottom of peasants. This along with religious impact began the ideology of the king being the upmost lord. Historians such as Smout convey “Provided it was controlled by a strong personality at the top, it was an extremely effective way of ruling a defuse medieval state” David had brought about a much greater structure and civility to the role of ruling. Scotland through governing reforms such as feudalism was to gradually become a new civilisation. But it can be argued that under David’s reign feudalism was less thorough. His initial grants to Normans and Britons were mainly restricted to Southern Cumbria and Lothian. Although he had a pool of willing participants granted by Henry I from both Normandy and the lands of the earldom of Huntington, there still had to be more submersion for Scotland to truly latch onto the system. It was not until the mid 1100s when Malcolm IV began to colonise the British Strathclyde with Normans that feudalism began to truly effect the country as a whole. Feudalism was also spurred on by a deal of immigration from all over Europe, but mainly from France. As feudalism was very popular throughout Europe at this time, these immigrants were already accustomed to the system, and were a great instrument to the transition. However to counter, it can easily be argued that it was the foundations of feudalism laid by David that even made this possible. So it is clear to see that David I’s efforts were crucial in laying the foundations of governing change in Scotland that would in turn transform its social structure, but his efforts still needed development from his successors.

A final but fundamental perspective to be analysed when tasked with the claim that David I was the ‘King who made Scotland’ is his predecessors. It is crucial to investigate what David had inherited or fixed in order to understand his impact. This brings us to view his predecessor, Alexander I, reigning between 1107 and 1124. Although like David, Alexander was recalled as a pious king, he was not known for his peaceful character. He was described by some such as John of Fordun “Now the king was a lettered and godly man; very humble and amiable towards the clerics and regulars, but terrible beyond measure to the rest of his subjects; a man of large heart, exerting himself in all things beyond his strength.” He lacked the mass popularity that David received, but David’s key factor to success in comparison was his lack of conflict. Alexander spend much time aiding Henry I in his campaigns in Wales. During his reign, David stayed clear of any major conflict, allowing Scotland to expand and progress without any real focus on external matters such as war. David appeared to have a much stronger focus on the country as a whole, and his true religious devotion meant he was content with this expansion. However, it can be argued that Alexander did leave governing foundation for David to inherit. He did begin to create English style reforms in the Scottish church, also introducing the roles of chancellors and sherifs into the civil government. Although, there is very little evidence to show that this would effect David’s Anglo-Norman governing,as he already had huge influence form the English court, and these were the changes that truly define the impact of David’s rule. So investigating David’s predecessor only strengthens the claim that he was the ‘King who made Scotland’. In comparison, David was a much greater ruler who was greatly appreciated at the time.

In conclusion, it is extremely arguable that David I deserves his reputation as the ‘King who made Scotland’. His input to the reform and expansion of the Scottish religious order was crucial to both Social and economic development in medieval Scotland, creating huge cultural changes. His creation and expansion of numerous Scottish Burghs also greatly improved the rate of social development, with communities becoming more structured and self governing. His reform of governing through his Anglo-Norman influence was also a huge factor in the way Scotland grew and advanced, with aspects such as feudalism crating a new form of social structure. And finally, it is clear that in comparison to his predecessor Alexander I, David was truly victorious in his developments to Scotland.