Talk:Battle of Falkirk (1298)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] 72,000 Infantry???

Is this a typo? It says 72,000 infantry for the English side. I believe it's suppose to be 12,000 infantry? Intranetusa 00:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"the cause of Scottish freedom would have to wait for another champion" seems a bit dramatic, and strays toward POV. orthogonal 17:46, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • Yes, agreed Gmh04 17:48, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath?

This section exhibits a highly biased POV. I will make some minor changes at this time, but it will almost certainly require more work after that happens. Pádraic MacUidhir

[edit] Edward Longshanks?

Is there any reference to Edward I being referred to as "Longshanks" outside of the movie Braveheart? If not, this might be construed as a bit POV given the depiction of Edward in the film.D J L 20:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually Ive heard that name several times outside the movie.Cameron Nedland 16:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward, Longshanks, and the Braveheart Myth

Many medieval monarchs were awarded nicknames, most often by the monkish chroniclers who recorded the details of their lives, usually reflecting some aspect of their character, appearance or circumstances. For example, King John, Edward's grandfather, was called 'Lackland' because he initially missed out in Henry II's distribution of the family estates ( he subsequently became Lord of Ireland, but the nickname persevered). Likewise, Edward was informally called 'Longshanks' because he was unusually tall. The nickname would never have been used in the way it is in Braveheart, and there is absolutely no evidence that he was ever referred to in this way by the Scots.


I've now had a chance to digest this article properly, and I'm sorry to say that the battle of Falkirk has been viewed through the awful prism of Braveheart, as the above user has obviously guessed.

First and foremost, all reference to 'Longshanks'has been removed because it is indeed inaccurate and improper to refer to Edward in this way in any serious piece of historical writing.

Second, Edward's army was not 'reluctant' to face the Scots in battle, which meant a definite outcome to the campaign. The army had been close to collapse before the battle because it was hungry and because the enemy could not be found. Although the Welsh had indeed been mutinous before Falkirk, they went on to make a vital contribution to Edward's victory. I would be interested to know the names of the 'several historical sources' that are alleged to claim the contrary.

Third, the Scottish cavalry could not remain on the field because it was both lightly armed and lighly mounted. Imagine, if you will, a juggernaut bearing down on a mini car, and this might convey some idea of the English knight and the Scottish light horse. Scotland, at this time, did not have the capacity to breed-and feed-the kind of heavy horses used by armoured knights throughout Europe. Moreover, Scottish knights could not afford to equip themselves with the same kind of armour and weapons used by the English. If they had made a stand at Falkirk they would have been cut to pieces. Sir Robert Kieth's horsemen did indeed make a contribution to the Scottish victory at Bannockburn; but they never had to face the English knights, tied up in Bruce's schiltrons. They were most effectively used against Edward II's archers, thus preventing them carrying out the same devastating work they had at Falkirk.

I hate to be critical about other people's work, but to be frank this is a very poor account of the battle of Falkirk, which seems to draw its chief inspiration from Braveheart. The analysis of the cavalry battle verges on the ridiculous. My editing has eliminated the worst errors, but I believe this whole piece requires substantial rewriting. Might I suggest that articles of this kind are written in future by people who have a working knowledge of the elements of medieval warfare.

Rcpaterson 23:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

PS I note that the necessary changes I made have been edited out, with a reversion to the highly innacurate previous version. I have changed this back in accordance with the above observations; but this is the last time I will do so. I am not playing ping pong with this. Rcpaterson 07:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


I've now substantially rewritten this piece to give a fuller account both of the fighting at Falkirk, its historical significance as a battle, and -most important of all-the crucial command role played by Edward I. No mention is made of the movie referred to above because it has no place in any serious historical analysis. Rcpaterson 03:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I fear you will have your work 'reverted' by the Braveheart tendency. This is distressing, but not surprising. A brief point or two.....the tiny Scottish cavalry element at Falkirk consisted of men-at-arms, largely meners, tenants and associates of the Comyn family. They would have been indistinguishable from their counterparts in England, France or the Low Countries. The same applies to 'short bows'. The evidence for Scottish shortbows comes from 19th century historians - Oman and Gardiner - not from medieval source material. CsinC

[edit] Pyrrhic victory?

Given that Edward was later forced to retreat could this be considered an english pyrrhic victory? Dermo69 12:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Given that allegedly in Medevial battles-the loser was judged to have the one with the most casualities-Wallace's 1/3 casualites killed {2,000?} matched Edward Infantry losses of {2,000}-and that Wallace's "army" was still 2/3 alive of 6,000 (Half deserted and half remained with Wallace}-the "English victory" could be looked upon as half "pyrrhic victory" and as half Draw-Edward had killed or driven away many of the Scots-yet he had to retreat from Scotland-aparently his only sensible option-and had not destroyed Wallace's forces.
  • In modern terms, we might describe this as a tactical victory for the English (they were left in command of the field), but a strategic victory for the Scots (the invading English army was rendered incapable by the action and had to abandon its campaign). --146.109.240.242 09:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)'

[edit] I believe irish were present

If I remember correctly, there was a fairly large amount of irish infantry at the battle. The article does not mention this.