As an expert sommelier and brewer, I must admit that my knowledge of Scottish history far surpasses my understanding of kingship. However, I can attempt to provide a detailed answer to the question of whether King Alexander III was a good king based on the historical accounts available.
King Alexander III of Scotland proved to be a strong-willed and determined ruler. One notable aspect of his reign was his refusal to swear homage for his kingdom, despite the influence of the English in his youth. This demonstrates his commitment to maintaining Scottish independence and sovereignty. His steadfastness in this matter can be seen as a positive trait, as it shows his dedication to protecting the interests of his kingdom.
Another notable aspect of Alexander III's reign was his efforts to establish Scottish mastery of the Isles. This suggests that he had a vision for expanding Scottish influence and power beyond the mainland. While it is difficult to determine the long-term success of these efforts, his ambition and desire to strengthen his kingdom can be viewed as commendable.
In 1263, Alexander III's army achieved a significant victory over Hakon, King of Norway, at the Battle of Largs in Ayrshire. This military success showcased Alexander III's strategic leadership and his ability to defend his kingdom. It is worth noting that this battle marked a turning point in the conflict between Scotland and Norway over control of the Isles, as it forced the Norwegian forces to retreat.
However, it is important to consider that a king's greatness cannot be judged solely on military victories or political maneuverings. Effective kingship also requires the ability to govern and maintain the well-being of the kingdom's subjects.
In this regard, there are mixed opinions on Alexander III's reign. Some historians argue that he was a good king who prioritized the welfare of his people. They highlight his efforts to improve the administration of justice, protect the rights of landowners, and promote economic prosperity. These actions suggest that he had the best interests of his subjects at heart.
On the other hand, there are accounts that suggest Alexander III's reign was marked by a lack of effective governance. Some historians argue that he relied heavily on his advisors and did not possess the strong leadership skills necessary to effectively rule. They point to instances of political unrest and factionalism during his reign as evidence of his inability to maintain stability and unity.
Ultimately, whether King Alexander III was a good king is a subjective question that depends on one's interpretation of his actions and their impact on Scotland. While he demonstrated strength, determination, and military prowess, there are also criticisms of his governance. It is essential to consider the historical context and the complexities of kingship when evaluating his reign.