Talk:Battle of Bannockburn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Another poor article, as with the Battle of Stirling Bridge, that does not live up to the importance of the battle in Scottish history. - Colin MacDonald
Now expanded! Rcpaterson 02:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Casualties.
Where on earth did the figure of 4000 Scots casualties at Bannockburn come from? Such a loss-a casualty rate of close on 50%- would make Bannockburn a pyrrhic victory in every sense of the term. The truth is we have no precise information on casualty rates for either side; but as the Scottish schiltrons were not penetrated by Edward's cavalry, and as his archers were dispersed at an early stage, King Robert's losses are likely to have been modest. Rcpaterson 06:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Headline text
Isn't the Robert Burns' poem Bannockburn Scots Wha Hae? Rshu 14:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you are right. I left this section, though, as it stands. Please edit as you wish. Rcpaterson 22:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lead image.
Would it be possible to get a better image? I know this is an ancient battle, but one that we have to label as "fanciful" doens't seem to add much to the understanding of the articel... 68.39.174.238 03:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It's actually laughable in its silliness. Bruce's troops would not have worn kilts. Besides, the kilt shown-the short or small kilt-did not appear in Scotland until the eighteenth century. Rcpaterson 16:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The King's Rebuke.
I realise that this is a page that is going to atttract all sorts of attention, informed or not. The amendments concerning Barbour and the Bruce-Mowbray Pact were both very clumsy in wording and profoundly ill-informed. Barbour may have writen in verse but he is first and foremost a chronicler and historian, one of the chief sources we have for the life and campaigns of Robert Bruce. Like most medieval chroniclers he is far from perfect and prone, on occasion, to considerable exaggeration; but his epic is based on conversations with those who had served and fought with Bruce, and much of the detail stands up to historical scrutiny. To claim that his rebuke to his brother was an 'invention' without any supporting evidence is intellectually shallow. Bruce's whole strategy since 1307 had been based on the avoidance of battle with the main English army; Edward's pact now committed him to the defense of a static position, the very opposite of guerilla warfare. His rebuke was both likely and justified. Edit wisely and think carefully. Rcpaterson 04:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Knight and the Poet.
Once again I see there has been an attempt to discredit John Barbour and-at the same time-conjure the Black Douglas out of of his place at Bannockburn. We have four main contemporary, or near contemporary accounts for the battle; Barbour's The Bruce; Sir Thomas Gray's Scalicronica; and the anonymous accounts of the monkish authors of The Lanercost Chronicle and the Vita Edwardi Secundi-the Life of Edward the Second. Of the four Barbour is the only Scottish source; he is also by far the most detailed. One could hardly expect English sources to give a precise description of Scottish dispositions and command arrangements: so why is Barbour's account of four schiltrons to be dismissed and why did he feel the need to magnify artificially the role of Douglas at the battle? If Douglas was not a major player at Bannockburn when did he become one? He had fought with Bruce since Methven, and proved himself to be a tough and capable soldier. It would be astonishing if he had not been given a leading command role. Barbour is, of course, as I have said in the above, prone to exaggeration; but this is quite different from outright lies. He was writing at a time when Bannockburn was still a living memory, and informed opinion would have been immediately aware of manipulation and invention. If we dismiss Barbour then we dismiss all attempt to create a convincing account of Bruce's military career, and such events as the Battle of Inverurie and the Battle of the Pass of Brander might as well never have happened. I can do no better than quote Professor Geoffrey Barrow on this matter, who says of John Barbour on Bannockburn; "We accept his judgement or abandon any attempt at a detailed account." (1976, p. 326) Rcpaterson 16:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC) I am not an accomplished 'Wikipedia'user, so I may be writing this in the wrong place - if so, please accept my apologies. There are a number of useful medieval accounts of this battle, all of which, except Barbour, clearly describe the Scottish army as consisting of three major formations. The reason Barbour gives a fourth formation to Douglas is that from his perspective - half a cenury later - it would seem impossible for Douglas NOT to have had a senior command role, however it was not until after the death of Edward Bruce in Ireland that Douglas became prominent as a political figure. Interested persons might like to consult Dr. Michael Brown's 'The Black Douglases'. Incidentally - although SIr Thomas Grey (Scalacronica) was not present at Bannockburn, he had (while a POW in the 1340s)) access to Scottish chronicles which no longer exist. Finally, Barbours 'Bruce' was probably written as a 'performance piece' for the entertainment of the Scottish nobility. It is an important source, but should not be taken too literally.
[edit] Army numbers
There have been two recent attempts to amend the figures for the size of the English army at Bannockburn, either making the figure far too low-12000-or far too high-30000 plus. Anyone who wishes to may take John Barbour, the chronicler, as their point of departure for this, with a figure of 100000, no less, for the English army. There is, however, no need to guess around this point: we know from muster roles, pay roles and the like that Edward II gathered some 3000 knights and 17000 infantry. I am quite prepared to debate this point; but it does no service to the Scots, the English or to simple historical accuracy to produce arbitrary and inaccurate figures. Rcpaterson 22:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Are there muster rolls/pay rolls for the Englsih army iof 1314? There are several documents relating to the conscription of troops, but these are demands for service, not records of actual recruitment. It is perfectly possible that the English army did amount to 20,000 men, but more likely that it was rather smaller than that judging by the strength of Englsih armies in Scotland for which such material has survived - see R. Nicholson 'Edward III and the Scots' and A. Ayton's 'Knights and their Warhorses' for more information on these topics. CB.
