In its early days, Aberdeen consisted of two settlements, one in what is now known as Old Aberdeen, and another dubbed New Aberdeen. The town’s first charter was granted by William the Lion in 1179. In 1319 Robert I gave a charter to the city of Aberdeen, in which he recognised it as a corporation, and granted it certain possessions.[1] Henceforth, from the earliest days of its founding, Aberdeen has been steeped in intrigue and history. “Aberdeen was one of the major economic and administration centres of late medieval Scotland.”[2] Some time periods have inevitably proven more fruitful than others. Beginning with the formal recognization of Scotland’s independence in 1328 and ending with the death of King James V in 1542, the time period under consideration in this paper will attempt to deduce whether the city of Aberdeen was of anything more than local significance in Scotland.

            Nobility clashes and disagreements were a major factor in battles across Scotland during the medieval period. The Battle of Harlaw on 24 July, 1411 was no exception. Donald, Lord of the Isles, declared war on the lowlands because his claims to the Earldom of Ross were rejected by the Earl of Mar and the Scottish government. With a large force, comprised primarily of the MacLeod, MacDonald, and MacLean clans, he attacked the lowlander’s army at Harlaw, after charging through the highlands and burning towns like Inverness and Dingwall.[3] Donald’s advance was met two miles past Inverurie at Harlaw by the townspeople of Aberdeen, lead by Sir Robert Davidson, Lord Provost of Aberdeen, along with a force of Keiths, Forbes’, Leslies and Irvines, led by the Earl of Mar. After an impressively brutal and bloody battle, no clear victor emerged. “…The great battle of ‘Red Harlaw’ in 1411 has been seen as a conflict fought to protect not only the burgh, but also the political and territorial integrity of the late medieval kingdom from the ‘wild’ host of Donald of the Isles.”[4] Essentially, it can be said that this battle was fought to protect the welfare of Aberdeen from the conquest of a power hungry lord. Unfortunately, as horrible as this battle was, because of the outcome, it played a very small role in the grand scheme of things for Scotland. Had Donald emerged victorious, then perhaps Aberdeen’s prominence on the greater Scottish stage would have been enhanced. As such, this battle can be deemed as an event more closely related to local matters than national ones.

            Battles, or events leading up to them, increasingly became linked with Aberdeen. Stephen Boardman writes that “the burgh of Aberdeen undoubtedly played a major role in the unfolding drama of 1488-9.”[5] What Boardman was referring to were the warring factions of James III and his son (the future James IV). James III took refuge in the northeast of Scotland, primarily in Aberdeen, to rally support from his nobles and enable him to raise forces which would crush the rebels[6]. He visited Old Aberdeen for the consecration of his new Chancellor, Bishop William Elphinstone, and then issued a number of charters from Aberdeen in April 1488.[7] At some point in April or May 1488, James and the supporters of his son reached a provisional settlement of their differences in Aberdeen. Although it is true that the city did provide a haven for James III whilst fleeing his son, it does not concretely prove that Aberdeen was particularly special in this case. It could be argued that this scenario could easily have taken place in any other city in the northeast of Scotland, where James III’s primary supporters were located. Therefore, contrary to Boardman’s theory of Aberdeen’s almighty importance, it is being proposed that the city was in actuality merely a convenient large meeting place with which to try and accomplish a peace mission between father and son.

            Education was an important principle to the Scots, as witnessed by the pre-existence of two universities during this time period: the University of St. Andrews, founded on 25 February 1412 and the University of Glasgow, founded on 7 January 1451. However, by the late fifteenth century Bishop William Elphinstone, with the blessing and support of James IV, decided that Scotland was in need of a third university. He traveled to the Vatican to seek a papal bull allowing him to create this institution. He sought permission to erect a university in Old Aberdeen where Theology, Canon and Civil Law, Medicine and the Liberal Arts could be taught.[8] This permission was granted by Pope Alexander VI on 6 February 1495.[9]

            The foundation of a new university may seem like a substantial development for any city, and Aberdeen was no exception. However, the great university foundation turned out to be somewhat of a dud in the very beginning. Bishop Elphinstone’s grand aspirations turned out to be a bit too grand. Very few universities throughout Europe were teaching Law and Medicine, and with the University of Aberdeen attempting to do so, it did place them within the sphere of the educational elite. Unfortunately, there were not nearly enough resources devoted to fueling these subjects, and during the preliminary years of the university, very few graduates actually came out with those degrees. David Ditchburn argues that had Bishop Elphinstone invested resources into the two pre-existing Scottish universities instead of establishing an entirely new institution, he might have been able to do so much more, and more quickly, to strengthen university provision in Scotland as a whole.[10] This is a viable argument, as it does indeed make little sense to allocate large sums of money to build a brand new university, when there were already two within the country that would have benefited from additional resources, and in turn would have been able to improve the quality of conditions and teaching in those institutions.

            Also, one of Bishop Elphinstone’s main arguments for building a university in Aberdeen was that both St. Andrews and Glasgow were inaccessible to those from the highlands and the northeast of Scotland. He claimed that Aberdeen was “located amidst a population which was ‘rude and ignorant of letters, and almost barbarous’”[11], and a new institution was needed to correct this and produce well rounded citizens. This was, of course, a very weak argument, as many northern Scots had no trouble attending the two pre-existing Scottish universities. Indeed, many actually circumvented these institutions altogether and followed the age-old tradition of attending university on the continent. Therefore, a true need for a university in the north of Scotland did not exist. “…The possibility remains that King’s College was partly a piece of vanity, masterminded by a bishop anxious to regain status for both his diocese and himself.”[12] It is true, however, that once King’s College opened in Aberdeen, many were grateful for a university in such close proximity.

            Despite the eagerness of local students to flock to the university, King’s College did not satisfy everybody. “At the Reformation attempts were made to alter the nature of King’s and when it refused to accept the changes a second Aberdeen university, now Marischal College, [founded in 1593] was created…”[13] Although the foundation of Marischal College occurred outside of the time period of study in this paper, it is important to note that in just under a century it was felt that yet another university was needed in Aberdeen, located not two miles away from the original. This further illustrates the inadequacies and expense of the existence of the University of Aberdeen.

            The question remains, however, as to whether or not the founding of the University of Aberdeen actually had any bearing on national interests. It would be fairly safe to state that no, in the period of time under inspection, 1328 to 1542, the University of Aberdeen was not yet successful enough to project much interest from anybody other than local students and faculty. The university did not begin to gain prominence until sometime after the seventeenth century.

            Money obviously plays a very import role within any country, and Aberdeen did have the opportunity to be a part of this. Between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, a royal mint occasionally produced coinage and some exchequer audits, during which the crown’s financial officers presented their accounts, were held in the town.[14] It could theoretically be argued that this feat placed Aberdeen’s status within the realm of nationalistic importance. However, in reality this would only be inflating the true role of Aberdeen. Occasionally minting coins does not implicitly mean that a certain place is of vital importance. As a matter of fact, coins are minted in a variety of locations, dependant upon the King’s will, and Aberdeen just happened to be chosen as one such location. Therefore, Aberdeen’s importance continued to remain limited to its immediate locality.

            Even with all of these extensive events to Aberdeen’s credit, the city remained relatively unknown through the time period in question. Jean Froissart, writing in his chronicles, tells the tale of the battle of Otterburn. Whilst Aberdeen was not directly affected by this event, it did play a minor role in the situation. The Scots had the intention to invade England, and used Aberdeen as a decoy. Froissart writes: “to keep their intentions secret, they arranged to hold a festival on the borders of wildest Scotland, in a city called Aberdeen, to which most of the Scottish chiefs went.”[15] The phraseology of this passage, using the words ‘in a city called Aberdeen,’ implies that Aberdeen was not a well-known and prominent city during this period. Throughout his chronicles, Froissart rarely needs to explain that a name is actually a city, as most contemporaries of the time would be familiar with locations such as Paris, London, Stirling and so forth. This was not the case with Aberdeen, hence it can be clearly seen that the city had not yet become a location that people beyond its walls would know and immediately recognize as belonging in, and being of importance to, Scotland.

            There is additional secondary evidence supporting this theory of Aberdeen’s obscurity and insignificance during this time period. While the majority of Scottish parliaments were held in Edinburgh, there were occasionally some exceptions, such as the October 1431 parliament held in Perth.[16] Unfortunately, Aberdeen was not one of these. There was never a parliament held within the city during this time period, even when James III sought refuge in Aberdeen whilst fleeing his son and supporters. Apparently, Aberdeen did not strike the king as a convenient or important enough location in which to hold a parliamentary session. Also, on at least two occasions, one of which occurred just before the time period being studied, Aberdeen had been put to the flames by English forces. The second of these attacks occurred in the summer of 1336, when the English king Edward III personally ‘leveled the town of Aberdeen to the ground’.[17] One would surmise that an attack of this scale would imply that Aberdeen was an important landmark in Scotland that the English king felt compelled to destroy. However, it is just as likely that Aberdeen was merely one of many towns that the king burnt and destroyed on the way to his final destination. In fact, the only result of this attack was that the town was soon rebuilt and extended. Again, there is no overwhelming proof that Aberdeen was of anything other than local significance with respect to this event.

            Overall, Aberdeen has experienced a tumultuous history since its inception. The period from 1328 to 1542 had seen Aberdeen involved in everything from battles protecting the city from the ravages of highland lords to the minting of Scottish coins. However, it has been argued in this paper that much of this history had primarily affected only the city proper and the immediate surrounding area. Scotland as a nation did not particularly benefit from Aberdeen’s contributions until sometime after the sixteenth century. 

           

Bibliography

 

Primary sources:

Brereton, Geoffrey, (ed., trans.), Jean Froissart Chronicles (London, 1978).

Secondary sources:

Barrell, A. D. M., Medieval Scotland (Cambridge, 2000).

Bell, R. E., ‘Scotland’s Universities’, Comparative Education, 36 (2000), 163-175.

Boardman, Stephen, ‘The Burgh and the Realm: Medieval Politics, c.1100-1500’ in

Denninson, E. Patricia, Ditchburn, David, and Lynch, Michael, (eds.), Aberdeen Before 1800: A New History (Aberdeen, 2002), 203-223.

Ditchburn, David, ‘Educating the Elite: Aberdeen and its Universities’ in Denninson, E.

Patricia, Ditchburn, David, and Lynch, Michael, (eds.), Aberdeen Before 1800: A New History (Aberdeen, 2002), 327-346.

Macfarlane, Leslie J., William Elphinstone and the Kingdom of Scotland 1431-1514: The

Struggle for Order (Aberdeen, 1985).

Rait, Robert S., ‘The Scottish Parliament before the Union of the Crowns’, The English

Historical Review, 15 (1900), 209-237 [accessed from Jstor on 6 Dec. 2006].

Somerset-Fry, Peter and Fiona, History of Scotland (London, 1985).