Talk:Battle of Flodden Field

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top-importance within medieval Scottish studies.

The Scottish reserve section mentions the Duke of Argyll, who was he? Archibald Campbell, 2nd Earl of Argyll, was present and died on the field. The Campbells were not made Dukes until the 18th century.


The text suggests that Flodden "was a major milestone on the way to unifying the kingdoms of England and Scotland in 1707." That statement seems counter-intuitive. One could just as glibly and irrelevantly claim that Flodden formed a fundamental plank in the revival of Scottish Nationalism in the late 20th century. Pedant17 20:55, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

The text briefly mentions that the Scots agreed to attack the English for the French. In fact, there existed a formal treaty between Scotland and France, since 1295, namely the Auld Alliance. dduck

so "the Scottish reserve led by .... Archibald Campbell, 4th Earl of Argyll (c.1507-1558), who was to pay for this inaction with his head many years later, watched impassively as King James and his army was destroyed".  ??!!!

This seems rather harsh, given that Archibald Campbell (c.1507-1558) was only six at the time of the battle.

  • The text claims that the Scottish army "dwindled" away, to only HALF its size! Due to what? Desertion? An attack of plague? Poor morale? Lack of confidence in the leadership, or in the "Auld Alliance"? There must be SOME story to an army losing half of its men. 129.24.95.222 15:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)(Oct.)


I'd say due to a combination of all those factors. Keep in mind, the Scottish army that invaded England was essentially a Feudal force. Such armies were notoriously difficult to keep together for any sustained campaign.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of making two revisions. The first is to shed a little more light on the infantry fighting. The second is to mention the unique Flodden Window in Middleton Parish Church, near Manchester.

Dr. Barry Worthington 1 March, 2006

Contents

[edit] Argyll and Hume.

I've removed this section because-as previously indicated-the information given is wrong and misleading. Argyll was killed in the course of the battle. The first Campbell chief to be beheaded was the eigth earl in 1661. The execution of Hume had absolutely nothing to do with his own part in the battle. Rcpaterson 00:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Image..?

In the battle chart there is a line "Also called the Battle of Branxton (Image created by Richard Hayton)". There is no link to an image however. --Dogfish 04:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it refers to the image directly above. (Not a very well-written caption, in my opinion.) Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
That's interesting... I get a link to another article directly above. --Dogfish 07:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Bloody Day.

I've expanded this article to give a much fuller account of one of the most important battles in Scottish history, and the largest ever fought on the borders. It deserves a more detailed telling. There are several points where I take issue with the previous version. These are

NUMBERS. The Scottish army was nowhere near '60000' strong, a number quite beyond the capacity of the Scottish state of the time to equip. The number is difficult to determine with precision; but the best figure I can come up with is about 30000, making the two forces roughly equal in strength. The English dead are calculated to be around 1500, not upwards to 4000.

MANOEUVRES. I've given much more space to Surrey's manoeuvres because these are of crucial significance in understanding the brilliance-and completness-of his victory.

SCOTS ARTILLERY. Yes, the Scots artillerymen were poorly trained, but the real point is that the guns were too heavy and could not be deployed at a sufficiently sharp angle to fire into the English in the dead ground below Branxton. In essence they fired over the heads of the enemy.

PIKEMEN. Actually Scottish tactics had changed considerably since Bannockburn. Although the divisions at Flodden gave the apperance of the traditional schiltron, they were organised, as I explained, in the contemporary landsknecht formations, which had a fearsome reputation on the Continent. They were ,moreover, not armed with schiltron spears but European pikes, still in use well over a hundred years later. The problem was that the Scots had probably not fully mastered the landsknecht technique, and the hilly country did not favour half-trained pikemen. Rcpaterson 10:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm. Category:Italian wars?

I think that this'll be removed. Brendandh 01:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And why, exactly? The battle was part of the broader conflict, even if it was off to the side a bit. Kirill Lokshin 01:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "lopping the heads off the pikes"

Is there any evidence that this happened on any significant scale? Surely the point is that as a pike formation becomes disrupted, it becomes possible to close to shorter range; and at much less than 18 feet (and certainly at less than nine feet, where you essentially end up with a rather cumbersome staff), a pike becomes nearly useless. That was why they carried swords to use at close range as a backup weapon; it wouldn't have been necessary to lop the heads off the pikes. I'm also a bit dubious how easy that would have been in practice, with both the billman and the pikeman moving. If it had been easy to lop the head off a pike, they would have been much less formidable weapons. See, for example, the article on Zweihänder. Contemporary authorities found it implausible that you could cut the head off a pike with either a halberd or a two handed sword, which would have had as much (if not more) cutting power than a billhook. --Merlinme (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)