Photo AI
How much do Sources A and B reveal about differing interpretations of the role of Edward I in the Great Cause? Use the sources and relevant historical knowledge. - Scottish Highers History - Question 1 - 2019
Question 1
How much do Sources A and B reveal about differing interpretations of the role of Edward I in the Great Cause? Use the sources and relevant historical knowledge.
Worked Solution & Example Answer:How much do Sources A and B reveal about differing interpretations of the role of Edward I in the Great Cause? Use the sources and relevant historical knowledge. - Scottish Highers History - Question 1 - 2019
Step 1
Source A: The Role of Edward I
Answer
Source A presents Edward I as a controlling figure in the Scottish succession crisis. The source reveals that Edward had immediate authority over the claimants and attempted to leave Edward I’s control over Scotland in doubt due to the judges’ judgments. His decisions not only affected the ongoing succession process but also indicated that his involvement was pivotal in shaping the narrative surrounding the 'Great Cause'. This implies that Edward was seen as someone who imposed his will for his benefit, particularly regarding Scotland’s future.
Step 2
Source B: Competing Viewpoints
Answer
Conversely, Source B, from Powicke, emphasizes that the Scottish nobles petitioned Edward to uphold the Treaty of Birgham, suggesting that they acknowledged his role while also resisting his influence. This reflects a more complex interpretation of Edward’s role, as he was petitioned for assistance while simultaneously facing resistance. It indicates that while some Scots recognized his authority, there was still significant dissent against it.
Step 3
Overall Interpretation
Answer
Combining insights from both sources, it becomes clear that Edward I's role is multifaceted. While some interpretations label him as an authoritative figure eager to exert control, others reflect a recognition of his power and the complex dynamics of resistance emerging from Scottish nobles. This duality points to the differing perspectives on Edward's involvement, demonstrating that interpretations of his role cannot be singularly defined.