Talk:Battle of Bannockburn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

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) More complicated than that really....The surrender of castles through pacxts of thia nature was an ordinary aspect of medieval war...it seems probable that Dundee fell to the Scots in 1312 by just such a measure. 'Guerilla' warfare is a challenging term in a medieval context. Most of the fighting, at least from 1308-9, was conducted by men-a-arms - knights in armour if you like - as was the case in France, Spain, the Low Countries. Also - Barbour was at pains to paint Edward Bruce as rash in order to enhance the reputation of Robert.

[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.

[edit] New research

Two books have been written on the subject of this battle in recent years, Bannockburn Revealed and Bannockburn Proved, author William Scott. This research uncovers information using non traditional historical research and extensively research evidence. Mr. Scott's book hasw been utterly debunked by a succession of very competent medievalists, but has gathered support from no-one with a credible background in the history of medieval Scotland or England. Surely - as an advert- Mr. Scott's paragraphs in praise of his (own) book should be removed?

The paragraphs that have now been removed, were entered by Ewsd02 09:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC), not by the author. I simply read the books and thought it was worth representation. Perhaps a link to the website on the main page would be a fair compromise?

New research on the BattleNB, This link takes the reader to an advertising site fo Mr.Scott's book.


I have removed Scott's insert from the page because it violates Wikipedia policies on a number of levels: it is self-promotion, it represents Scott's original research, contains ad hominem attacks on other authors and provides no citations to support the assertions being made.Iain1917 07:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read the books, there is ample evidence to support the assertions being made. Whether you agree with it or not, this is well researched material that deserves representation on an open source information site like wikipedia. Many of Scott's assertions have yet to be accepted by the historical community, however, this may be because his conclusions differ from those of the more established researchers, and indeed invalidate many of their publications if correct. People should be able to review all available material and decide for themselves, University Lecturers must not have a complete monopoly on how our history is interpreted. Ewsd02 09:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read the books, which did nothing to convince me of the author's point of view, but that is not the reason for removing the paragraphs. The reason was, as stated above, that the removed paragraphs violated Wikipedia standards. If you wish to provide a link to the books so that readers can access them, that is fine. However, it is not fine to have material that is original research, nor is it fine to have material that includes ad hominem attacks. This is an encyclopedia that has particular ways of doing things. If you wish to draw attention to Scott's work, why not establish your own web pages about it? You could do a Wiki entry about Scott himself, but remember that Wiki entries need to be neutral and factual, rather than polemical and expressing opinion. Iain1917 07:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NATIONALITIES

is it correct to talk about the combating Armies in terms of nations when such entities did not exist at this period of History? For example, to talk about "English" armies or "Scottish" armies when these nations did not exist as we know them today? ben 1314

Well, they do fulfill the criteria which are nowadays used for a country: a territory, a government and a fixed population. "Nationality" and national awareness are indeed 19th century notions but the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England were established countries in this timeframe... so to speak of the English army and the Scottish army in the sense of the army of the Kingdom of England or the army of the Kingdom of Scotland is correct. -- fdewaele, 14 June 2007, 15:01 (CET).

Medieval Welsh, Scots, Englsih and Irish peole were well aware of their national identities if 13th-14th century record and narrative evidence is to be taken seriously - and if not, why bother with history at all. Englishh records refer to 'The Scots' all the time, check out Strvenson's 'Documents Illustrative of Scottsh History' the 'Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland' 'Rotuli Scotiae' 'The Treaty Rolls' 'Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem'. ALso in narrative accounts - Guisborough, Vita Edwardus Secundus, Scalacronica, Barbnour, Foroun, Bower, Barbour, Brut, etc. etc. The beleif that 'nationalism' was a product of the Napoleonic wars derives from Sociology rather than history and has its origins in Marxist idealism.

In which case wasn't it an English (Bruce, born Writtle) victory over the Welsh (Edward II, born Caernarfon). Or a Accursed victory over the Church of Rome.

[edit] Very confusing

The first couple of paragraphs are very confusing. I've read the introduction and first couple paragraphs several times, and I still have no idea about the basic concepts of the battle. For instance: who held the castle? You would think this would actually be stated, but no, of course not! It appears that the Scots were laying a siege against... Scots! What? Doesn't make any sense at all. I guess the English must have held it (though the article, apart from the infobox, never actually names Edward as the leader of the English), but why does it say a Scot held it?

Overall, this whole thing really confused me. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not so confusing really.....The ENglsih held Stirling Castle, the Scots laid siege to it in the spring of 1314. An agreement was made that the Castle would surrender to the Scots unless it was releived by an Englaish army by midsummer. An Englsih army approached Stirling and was defeated, after which the Castle surrendered.

[edit] Map image

I think it admirable that someone should have gone to the trouble to create a map for the battle, but if it is going to appear on the entry, it must be made clear that it is an interpretation and that it is not an authoritative statement of what happened. I would suggest that it would be better to remove the image: the location of the fighting, which took place in two separate areas on two successive days, is too uncertain to provide a map. There are numerous alternative hypotheses for the location, and no valid physical evidence to choose between them. I will leave it now to allow debate about the retention of the image, but if there has been no convincing argument in favour of it, I will remove it. Iain1917 13:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edward, King Edward or Robert the Bruce? Very Confusing and poorly written.

The opening sections of this article are very poorly written with regard to the naming/identification of the relevant parties. It is entirely unclear whether Edward Bruce or King Edward is being referred to as much of the piece simply refers to "Edward" or "Bruce" which is ambigious. The ambiguity continues as the remainder of the piece simply refers to "Bruce", rather than Robert the Bruce, or Edward the Bruce. In an article that mentions both brothers, the surname "Bruce" should not appear in isolation. Equally, reading the opening sections the reader is left in doubt as to who actually led the Scottish army, was it Robert the Bruce or his brother Edward? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistairgd (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 200 Templars

Many know the story how 200 Templars rode out to save the day for Scotland and the Bruce and this twisting of history by apparently English writers of the article is sad indeed. Many may know the story, but ot is just a story. It was invented by Fr. Hay circa 1700 as part of a romance about the Sinclair familiy. There is not a scrap of medieval evidence to support it, which is why not one of the many reputable scholars (Barrow, Duncan, Boardman,Brown, MacNamee, Duffy, Prestwich etc. )of the period accepts it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.162.156 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

GM PS /s CINCU Sr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.75.17 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)