Talk:Battle of Bannockburn

Removal of promotional mention of fringe works
I have removed mention of the following book from the list of references:


 * Scott, W., "Bannockburn Proved", 2006

as added without explanation on 13:00, 18 July 2013 []. I note that Mr Scott's work has been discussed in the past on this talk page, and nothing convinces me here or a quick Google search that these books are anything other that the fringe theories of one man. Most of the activity involving Mr Scott's work seems to come from one editor, and that editor's edits solely concern adding mention of Mr Scott's work. I have also removed the 2 other remaining mentions of Mr Scott's books on Wikipedia, along with seemingly promotional links to his website, from the articles Henry de Beaumont and John III Comyn, Lord of Badenoch. Rubiscous (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I find your reason for removal of reference to W. Scott’s work completely incomprehensible. Your phrase ‘the fringe theories of one man’ could fairly be applied to the author of virtually any book on the subject. I have read Mr. Scott’s book ‘The Genius of Bannockburn’ in its entirety and as a student of the battle for nearly sixty years who previously held with the Dryfield theory, I have to say that his theory of a Carse battle site, which is closely argued from original sources and first hand study of the local geography, is totally convincing. The fact that this has been backed up by numerous finds on the proposed site suggests that his theory is correct. Neil Oliver’s recent programme on the subject completely vindicates Scott’s view that it is next to impossible for the English horse to have gained access to the Dryfield. I always found it odd that the phrase ‘The English mounted in great alarm’ could be viewed as being consistent with a battle site which was anywhere other than at their camp.

The fact that I find the quality of the article to be very poor suggests to me that the authors should have a long hard look at it and perhaps swallow a little of their pride. Andygm (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andygm (talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your responding to an old post by someone who hasn't edited for over a year. No matter. We don't care about editor's opinions on the subject of an article, we care about the sources used, and this one is a self-pulished book by someone who is an expert in a number of fields but not history. We almost never use self-published books. Read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. If you disagree and want to use it you'll need to ask at WP:RSN. Doug Weller  talk 20:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Prelude section is odd
This section is weird and doesn't seem to align with either day 1 or day 2 of the battle, as set out in the subsequent paragraphs. Is there some confusion here between English and Scottish forces? I'm not very knowledgeable by any means, but I thought it was the Scottish pikemen who advanced in formation [schiltrons] against the English cavalry. That's what Britannica and the subsequent text of this article seems to suggest. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Fair points. The word English is probably a mistake for Scots given the context but I don't have the cited text to check.  The description of the Scots army here really best fits the Day 2 situation but might attempt to describe the Scots army as a whole, thus duplicating the last part of the previous section.  These two sections could possibly be edited together to reduce duplication.  Monstrelet (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Agreed. If the prelude section isn't actually the prelude at all, and is wholly or partly wrong, it can be mostly deleted with anything useful merged. I wasn't able to find a copy of the cited sources online. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This is like an A-level essay
Needs heavy editing. 86.16.88.22 (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Reference to "Sir" Robert the Bruce
I have removed a reference to "Sir Robert The Bruce's leadership" and changed it to "Robert the Bruce's leadership". At this time Robert the Bruce was King of Scots (and before that he was an Earl from 1292 and so would have been referred to as Robert, Earl of Carrick)so it is nonsensical to refer to him as Sir Robert - it would be like calling Edward II "Sir Edward of Caernarfon" or "Sir Edward Plantagenet". Moreover using Sir Robert the Bruce here could easily cause confusion with another individual present at the Battle Bannockburn -  King Robert's illegitimate son (Sir) Robert Bruce. he was knighted by King Robert at Bannockburn and who was then known as Sir Robert Bruce, later becoming Lord of Liddesdale. Dunarc (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Captive List
Could Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, be added to the list of captives? Mortimer being captured at the battle is mentioned in the Bruce Campaign in Ireland page, but not in the Roger Mortimer article.

Thanks. Geographynerd101 (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)