Talk:James Douglas, Lord of Douglas

message: Why do we feel the need to hide the physical descriptions of the Good Sir Douglas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrish Smith (talk • contribs) 
What is Sir James Douglas' Gaelic name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.110.226 (talk • contribs) 
:I'd wager something like "Seumas Dubhglas". I'm not so sure about that, though. -- Ashmodai 07:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Should we put Sir James Douglas' coat of arms on this page? It seems to be something like . The heart was only added after he received the heart of Bruce, but can be found in most coats of arms that are based on Sir James Douglas'.
I could throw something together in Paint Shop Pro, but I'm not sure whether there are any Wikipedia guidelines for that. -- Ashmodai 07:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms 

message: This is a poor, badly paced article about one of the most significant soldiers-and guerilla fighters-in Scottish history.  Too much space is devoted to his experience in Spain and not nearly enough on his early career.  In general it requires a wholesale rewrite to let the world understand his true significance, but for the time being I have confined myself to correcting several highly irritating errors and misconceptions.  For those who wish to follow the path these are as follows:
DOUGLAS LARDER.  Warfare at this time was barbaric by its very nature, and it is pointless to make specific reference to it, or to explain, or to excuse.  The point about the 'Douglas Larder' was not that it was 'barbaric' but that it was unique, and therefore far from being 'common practice.'
CHAPTER OF MYTON.  Bruce did not send Douglas and Moray to 'lift' the siege by direct attack, as the wording of this piece implied; he had much better military sense than that.  The two commanders were sent on a diversionary raid into Yorkshire, intended to draw the English away from Berwick.  How Douglas was able to 'see' that that most of the English army was from the north is beyond my comprehension (do northeners look different?).  There was no 'Archbishop of Melton'.  William Melton was Archbishop of York.  Melton most certainly did not form an army of 'prelates' (where did all those bishops come from?), but an army in part made up of priests, monks friars and other minor clerics.
We should not assume that the clerics were incompetent as soldiers. Virtually all of them would have been born into noble families and the use of arms would nave been part of their education. Also, a good many clerics - and prealtes too - spent a considerable part of their lives soldiering - Antony Bek of Durham for example. 
OLD BYLAND.  Edward III did not 'lead' the army of 1322 into Scotland for the simple reason that he did not come to the throne until five years later (Prince Edward was only ten years old in 1322).  I would have excused-and corrected- this as a simple typo, but it appears again a little later, and even more absurdly.  The army of 1322 was, of course, led by his father, Edward II, who was not present at and therefore did not 'flee' from the battle of Old Byland.
WEARDALE.  The reference to the near capture of Edward III is hopelessly out of place and under narrated.  This incident occured in the Weardale campaign of 1327, which deserves much fuller treatment, and is infinitely more important than some of the other incidents alluded too here.  The English army was never sent specifically to capture Douglas.  This should not need saying; but it clearly does.
Rcpaterson 01:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black and White 

message: If there are no complaints, this article is being moved to Sir James Douglas. He was possibly the first and certainly the most famous to take this article name. Even tho' he was known as the Black Douglas to his enemies, it was only his great nephews that differentiated between Black and Red. Brendandh 02:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an objection, namely WP naming conventions concerning honorifics in titles (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names).  Unfortunately, I moved it to the wrong name - I wasn't aware it had a previous name, but was acting on the discussion in James Douglas (disambiguation).  I have removed it to what apparently was its former title. fishy 21:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find this move back rather annoying, Sir James Douglas was the first of his name on historic record, a great hero of the wars of Scottish Independence, and furthermore was known as Sir James within his lifetime and by contemporary chroniclers, a name also by which he is known today. The disambiguation problems by calling him the Black Douglas arise because all Earls of Douglas and their close kindred from the 3rd Earl of Douglas to the ninth were known as Black Douglas. This to differentiate betrween them and the Red Douglas Earls of Angus. Sir James was feudal superior of the barony of Douglas, called commonly today a lairdship, but know then as the lordship of Douglas, this was not a title in peerage, as this had not been formally rationalised at this date. The name James which has been used as a common name throughout the history of the House of Douglas is in regard of this early warrior. The governor of British Columbia, although I am not sure of it exactly, was (great?) grandson of Dunbar Douglas, 4th Earl of Selkirk, therefore a direct male descendant of Sir William the Hardy, Sir James Douglas father. regards. Brendandh 13:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Response at User Talk:Brendandh (responding to crosspost on my talk page). fishhead64 18:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: According to http://www.burkes-peerage.net/articles/scotland/esnews/es0502a.aspx (retrieved Dec 30, 2007), which is an extract from The Great Historic Families of Scotland, by James Taylor, M.A., D.D., F.S.A, published in 1887, the companion of James Douglas was Sir William de Keith of Galston (in Ayrshire), not the William de Keith who was Marischal of Scotland.  The Marischal of Scotland in 1330 was Sir Robert de Keith, who fell at Dupplin in 1332. 
I believe (can't immediately find confirmation other than dubious websites) that the William de Keith who was Marischal died in 1293.
Accordingly, I have removed the reference to this William de Keith (of Galston) as Marischal of Scotland.
Toddj (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companions of James Douglas at Teba - Sir William de Keith 

message: "Patriot with a cause", "Douglas! Douglas!" - come on. I'm not even reading the content; whoever does - please replace these with something encyclopedic.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-wikipedian section titles 

message: "but can be assumed by the Lockharts' change of name and their arms." I have cut this amendment. It is not grammatical and without more detail is obscure. Locard's presence may be 'assumed' but without any historical foundation. The tradition, based in part on the change in the family surname from Locard to Lockheart and the accompanying rebus in their heraldic blazon, is not supported by any of the sources and is not itself relevant to Sir James Douglas' story. The Lockhart article in Wikipedia can examine this topic.JF42 (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simon Locard 

message: RE: My "amendment of over-specific references to time and place of death" and your
"Undid revision 549404331 by JF42 (talk)Explain please. Douglas did die at Teba." - Brendandh, I don't know if this the place to post it but my explanation is this:
It is fair to conclude that Douglas died at Teba. However, to say Douglas died at the Battle of Teba as moot, since the Castilian sources suggest he may have died before the climactic battle which is identified on Wikipedia as 'The Battle of Teba'. The Castilian cronica makes it clear there was only one general engagement at Teba (We can of course to distinguish between the Battle of Teba and the Siege of Teba). Both the French sources (Le Bel & Froissart), as well as Barbour and Fordun are ambiguous and flawed in regard to the military circumstances of Douglas' death- and of course these do not mention Teba at all. Therefore I believe it is more accurate simply to say Douglas died at Teba.
As far as the date 'August 25th 1330' is concerned, this appears in only one source, the comparitively late Bower in his C15th  annotation  of Fordun's Scotichronicon: "Apud castrum Tibris". Due to apparent scribal error there is also some confusion about whether the date should be 'Vii.kal.septembris or ‘viii kal.’ 
While a date in August 1330 is not unlikely, we really have no idea whether Douglas died on August 25th 1330 or not and, without confirmation from a reliable source, these being in short supply for the early C14th, it is surely more appropriate simply to say Sir James died in 1330. It prevents the many uncertainties, ambiguities and legends about Douglas' life and death being cut and posted as fact because they're on Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date and place of Douglas'  death 

message: With regard to the objection by 76.115.116.50 (crazy name, crazy guy) that the reference to Douglas dying in a minor skirmish "is simply inaccurate because the Gran Cronica refers to "a big battle in which a foreign count died"" - there are two points to make. First:  I don't think anyone ever wrote "minor skirmish"- I could be mistaken but I think the phrase originally used was "fierce skirmish".
Secondly, the Castilian phrase used in the reconstituted "Gran Cronica" is "muy gran contienda." Contienda is a word which has a wide variety of meanings, only one of which is 'battle'. It also contains more nuanced references to conflict such as:  confrontation,  showdown, clash,  a 'set-to' etc. Physical violence need not even be involved, although obviously in this case we can assume it was, but  it is worth noting that the cronista(s) tend to use the words lid  (pitched battle) or pelea (fight)  when referring to military encounters between the Christians and the Moors. 
During the siege of Teba, the Cronicas make it clear that there was only one general engagement, the two-pronged attack by Uthman that led to the rout of the Moorish relief force. It is stated specifically that Alfonso XI wanted to preserve his field force in order to meet any Moorish attempt to lift the siege with the maximum strength possible.
The "muy gran contienda" is depicted as the climax of a period of skirmishing.  The Moors had been harassing the Christians as they watered their livestock outside the siege lines on the banks of Rio Guadalteba and to counter this Alfonso posted patrols to intercept the raiders. Describing the resultant clashes in the area of the river, the Gran Cronica goes on immediately to say "And one day on that river there was a very big {CONTIENDA} and from [among those serving in] the King's army, there died a foreign count...." Now, as we know, there was only one 'very big battle' at Teba, so it seems wholly appropriate to describe the 'muy gran contienda' as a particularly fierce skirmish or confrontation between the Christian patrols and the Moorish raiders, whether a more concerted Moorish interference with the Christian watering parties or a particularly forceful response by the Christians- or both, we can only speculate. The Gran Cronica ends the account of the death of the foreign count by relating it specifically to the defeat of Uthman's stratagem a few days later, the big battle, which is depicted as divinely orchestrated 'pay back' for the worthy but rash foreigner.
The distinction between the two levels of fighting seem to me to be clear and important to emphasise, particularly because of the insistence by some commentators that Douglas died during the defeat of Uthman's unsuccessful attack on the Christian siege camp which is questionable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skirmish /Very big battle 

message: It occurs to me this description is over specific and .  I'm not sure 'warlord' is even appropriate. The Wiki link describes a situation which does not accurately describe Douglas' status, viz:
"a person who has both military and civil[1] control over a subnational area due to the presence of armed forces who are loyal to the warlord rather than to a central authority." 
Douglas was more accurately a feudal lord, even if at first the tenure of his family lands remained ambiguous. Thereafter his loyalty was unquestionably to the Scottish Crown and to the person of Bruce, who rewarded him with more land, though not a noble title.
Would it not be sufficient to say "Scottish knight and feudal lord"?  I would suggest that "one of the chief commanders of the Wars of Scottish Independence"- surely covers his role in the fighting. True, this mostly consisted of raiding and skirmishes of varying size and intensity and involved only one truly pitched battle- Bannockburn- but 'Guerilla fighter' strikes me as both a touch anachronistic and redundant. Most fighting in this period was on a small scale, with sensible commanders avoiding pitched battle whenever possible, unless circumstances appeared to be overwhelmingly in their favour.
If no-one objects I'll change this in due course
JF42 (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scottish warlord, landowner, and guerilla fighter" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on James Douglas, Lord of Douglas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403135855/http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/byland.htm to http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/byland.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.blackdouglas.co.uk/theblack.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The quotation giving the description of Douglas is not that given by Barbour in  the Brus but from a modern English translation- I am not sure which- but that should be made clear and the source cited.
JF42 (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The poet and chronicler John Barbour provides us with a pen portrait" 

message: "Arms borne by of all successive Douglases after Sir James." This caption to the  accompanying illustration might not be quite correct either in heraldic terms or the historical assertion. There is also a typo that should be corrected. It might be better to   make a more general statement, "Heraldic device with heart borne by Douglas' descendants"
JF42 (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms II 

message: "Douglas set sail from Berwick upon Tweed, accompanied by seven other knights with twenty six esquires and gentlemen."
Le Bel states that Douglas and his seven knights were accompanied by "XX escuiers beaulx et jounes." Froissart in his later adaptation  of Le Bel, perhaps conflating knights and squires, changes this to "jusques a XXVI escuiers fors et jeunees."
It is probably best to cite the figure of twenty esquires offered by Le Bel as the earlier source.
JF42 (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  twenty six esquires  

message: I believe this classification might be questionable since the noble family of which Sir James Douglas was the most notable ancestor as progenitor of the Earls of Douglas, is distinct from the more recent notion of a Clan Douglas based on a shared surname rather than aristocratic lineage. For this reason I suggest the addition is misleading and would  be better removed.
JF42 (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noble Family: Clan Douglas 

message: The infobox says he died 1330, but the article text says 1329. Which is it? Neither has a citation  SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have sourced his death date, this is now fixed SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of death