Talk:Battle of Bannockburn/Archive 1

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. Scottish armies of the 14th century invariably consisted of three major infantry divisions - falikirk is the only excpeption.

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)

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)

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)

RE: 'The Battle of Bannockburn (Blàr Allt a' Bhonnaich in Gaelic) (June 24, 1314) was a significant Scottish victory in the Wars of Scottish Independence. It was the decisive battle in the First War of Scottish Independence. According to William Wallace, the Scottish fought like "warrior-poets."' -- Wallace died in 1305, I think you're quoting Mel Gibson.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.242.194 (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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) Mr Paterson is absolutely right. Surely a better image can be found.....the Corpus Christi MS, illustration from Bower ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.178.92 (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I just added an alternative. An editor more familiar with the subject may wish to consider moving this (almost contemporaneous) image into the infobox. To replace the romantic/"fanciful" bit of Victorian nostalgia currently extant. Guliolopez (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeing as there doesn't seem to be any objection or other insights, I'm just going to "swap" the two images. And move the Victorian illustration out of the infobox in favour of the more contemporaneous image. Guliolopez (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good image but not of Bannockburn (it's a biblical battle - no idea which one). I've adjusted the caption.Monstrelet (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok this has been reverted with a challenge - legitimate, as I hadn't give my reasons.. The problem has arisen because someone in placing the image on commons has said it is an image of Bannockburn, and this has propagated on the web through mirrors. Interestingly, there is a version on the web called Battle of Berwick, which is equally erroneous. The Holkham Bible isn't a bible translation but a set of bible stories. The image is in the Apocalypse section and it's caption translates as "The Great fight each other: Likewise the Commons". We see the great at the top, the commons at the bottom. You can find the image in WO Hassall's facsimile edition here - it's Folio 40. Caption is listed at the beginning. Worth taking the time to look at some of the pictures - there are quite a lot of arms & armour pictures here which don't get published much. Can I recommend to the revision on grounds of accuracy? Monstrelet (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response here, Monstrelet, and I defer to your knowledge and judgment on this matter, as you have obviously done your research. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

But it is obvious proved that some of the Templars fled to Scotland after 1307 and it is also quite possible they took part in the battle as volunteers without flying any official insignia. Then you would never know them apart from other guys. Moreover Templars used state of the art equipment and looting bodies after battle was a common thing, so it is unlikely that if any has fallen, his body wouldn't be looted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.175.66 (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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

It is all very well to say 'it is obvious that templars fled to Scotlamnd', but it is important to remeber that there is not the slightest bit of evidence to that effect; not one jot or iota. The tale of templar snctuary in Scotland was invented by a Mr. Burnes in the mid -19th century; presumably as part of Masonic romance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.65.117 (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is documentary evidence to show that the Templars were given land at Balantrodoch (now known as Temple, oddly enough after the Templars), where they founded a preceptory. Whether they took part in the battles or not is open to speculation, but their presence in Scotland is not. The following quote is taken from the RCAHMS website "The modern 'Temple' is identical with 'Balantrodoch', the principal seat of the Knights Templars in Scotland. There is no record of its foundation, though it is commonly assumed that this was due to David I. The earliest reference is probably in a charter of 1175-99. After the suppression of the Templars, about 1309, "Temphill of Balantrodoch with the kirk" became one of the baronies held by the Hospitallers, while, at an unascertained date, the former Templars' church became parochial." taken from http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/53261/details/temple+church/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.12.178 (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See effigies in round Templar church, London including 7 Templars plus unidentified no. 8 which is marking the spot of burial for the Lord Jesus Christ... JC2 69.121.221.97 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we please stick to topic and not drift off down the Da Vinci Code route? I think we have the answers we need above - there is no primary or reliable modern evidence for formed bodies of templars, or ex-templars, or templars who became hospitallers, at Bannockburn. As the fate of all individual templars in Scotland is not known,we cannot state whether individual ex-Templars took part on either sideMonstrelet (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

700th anniversary - The Gathering II?
Please see article from today's SoS. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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.

Surely the point of King Robert's rebuke was that Stirling was the premier stronghold of Scotland. Lose it and Edward had lost control of the whole of the kingdom north of the Forth. The fact that Edward Bruce had allowed him a year and a day to relieve the castle meant that he had time to raise a large army and guaranteed a full scale invasion. Up to that point the English ruling classes were split, weakening their effort. The challenge (for such it was) meant that they would come together in opposition to Bruce, something he wanted to avoid. Andygm (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

'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.


 * I think it's a mistake to read too much into the use of "men-at-arms." While the forces Robert Bruce deployed in this period were made up largely of men who would have corresponded to the "men-at-arms" of other societies of the period in terms of social standing, they were not equipped in the same way that a Continental - or English - force would be.  The armies that Bruce was fielding were a mix of mounted spearmen who rode to battle but fought on foot and lightly mounted cavalry with relatively minimal armor and smaller, more agile horses.  There was no heavy cavalry analog in the Scottish armies of the period, and at the beginning of the 14th century, heavy cavalry remained the primary offensive striking arm in pitched battle.  Clearly, this was not an army built for pitched battle.

''iNTERESTING....BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE SOME EVIDENCE-BASED SUPPORT FOR THIS SUGGESTION. RECORD MATERIAL MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO DISTINCTION IN HORSE OR ARMOUR BETWEEN SCOTTISH AND ENGLISH MEN-AT-ARMS', WORTH CHECKING OUT DR. AYTOUN AND DR. KING ON THIS TOPIC, and several Ph.D. theses.......
 * Instead, what we see from the Scots of this period, and most of all, from Bruce's armies, are forces built for mobile warfare. These aren't field armies, they're raiding parties.  Whether they carried out "guerrilla warfare" in the modern sense is open to debate, but it was certainly 'asymmetrical' warfare by the standards of the day.  If we examine Robert Bruce's strategy and tactics over the years leading up to Bannockburn, what emerges is a pattern of mobile warfare that avoids enemy strength and strikes at weakness to achieve an attritional effect.  There are NO pitched battles {HISTORICALLY OF COURSE THERE WERE SEVERAL, THOUGH NONE OF THEM VERY LARGE], just a seemingly endless series of raids, looting expeditions, ambushes and sudden assaults on isolated strongpoints.  It's not just the avoidance of major pitched engagements with English field armies, it's also that Bruce never engaged in the sort of protracted siege warfare that was so typical of medieval conflicts [EXCEPT AT CARLISLE, BERWICK, EDINBURGH,STIRLING, DUNDEE, PERTH,ROXBURGH AND SO ON.....]  The series of events that led to Bannockburn is just so totally out of keeping with the grand strategy Robert Bruce had followed with rigorous discipline for years - events that could have (and would have, if not for the grossly inept handling and deployment of the English army) led to absolute disaster for Bruce's cause - that it is almost inconceivable that the terms given to the Stirling garrison represent anything BUT freelancing on the part of Edward Bruce...UNLESS OF COURSE THE EPISODE IS AN EXAMPLE OF BARBOUR TRYING TO UNDERMINE EDWARD BRUCE...WHICH HE DOES REPEATEDLY. 97.89.158.250 (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Composition of Scots armies
Have removed some material today which attempted to eliminate the role of Scots archers and replace them with pikemen. To take the last first, the article follows the convention of calling the Scots spearmen. I recommend we maintain that convention as this avoids confusion with the pikeblocks of 15th-17th. century warfare. On the archers, it is clear from original sources that there were Scots archers at Bannockburn (Chris Brown suggests maybe 10% IIRC). There is evidence that Robert I was aware of the potential of military archery and that after Bannockburn sought to build up the numbers of archers available to him. Monstrelet (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello there.I noticed you had reverted my edit.I have a ref which supports what happend in the battle.When Edwards Knight were engadged the scottish pikemen the English combined attack with archers failed and were pushed to the right flank.Robert the Bruce then engadged his light cavalry to chase down the archers since the archers wernt able to fully mobilise.

http://books.google.com/books?id=6J6-ZD9l6bIC&pg=PA49&dq=the+battle+of+bannockburn+scottish+army&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I think this main engagement with the English archers must be mentioned.So what do you think???Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I did leave in the part about the English and Welsh longbowmen not having a clear shot, bcause I know it is in several modern accounts of the battle, so thanks for that - maybe you want to put in an in-line citation? See Template:Cite book for a copyable template, if you need one.

The issue of Keith's attack on the English archers is a bit controversial. Kelly de Vries in Fourteenth Century Infantry Warfare doubts it happened at all. Most accounts seem to accept it though. There is no reason to believe the Scots cavalry were "light" - Barbour doesn't say this. Men-at-arms are just as, if not more, likely. This might raise more discussion, so may need a citation.

I will change pikemen, though, for consistency reasons outlined above. The statement about Scots archers would work better in a footnote, I think, for the sake of the flow of the piece. I'll do that too. Thanks for coming back to discuss Monstrelet (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks youre a great help.Also I added the fact that the scots used yew stave longbows but gave a further explanation they had largely inferior archer.I got it from that book I mentioned to you.Goodbye and thanks again.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I footnoted it to Strickland and Hardy's The Great Warbow - seemed a pretty definitive source. OK with you? Monstrelet (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem.Go ahead.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any source relating to the battle, or indeed any of the battles of the first Scottish war of independence which say or infer that the Scots used yew longbows. Where does the source get his evidence from? It's usually been accepted by the main writers on the subject (Barrow, Barron, etc.) that the archers from the Ettrick Forest used shorter bows than the Welsh (English) archers. I'm also intrigued by the reference to 500 Scottish archers, as I am not aware of any primary source which mentions Scottish archer numbers.Andygm (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On the issue of Scottish archery, the idea is taken from Strickland and Hardy as referenced. They argue strongly that the "short bow" is a Victorian invention for which there is no evidence.  They also argue that the indigenous bow of the British Isles was a long bow from which the longbow would evolve.  While I wouldn't say they prove their case conclusively, there is certainly no evidence that the Scots used an inferior bow to the English or Welsh at this time. Strickland & Hardy produce quite a bit of evidence to rehabilitate the Scots archer, so worth a read.  Chris Brown has also challenged the emphasis on Ettrick archers, showing Robert I had access to a wider range of archers.  HENRY V told me off page that he'd got the 500 archers from Armstrong's book.  Checking, however, I see Armstrong actually gives 1500 out of 7,850 for Scots archers.  It is the source for his comment about Scottish bows though, rather than directly from S & H.  The number of Scots archers is not considered by every author on the battle because of their relatively small role - I've got quite a few accounts I could trawl through to get an estimate but not at the moment.  On your edits, I would suggest the Vita Edwardi might do better as a footnote - I also note the failure to reference the other statement on arms (Robert I's 1318 statute, which I'll try to correct (it's online at the Scottish Parliament site IIRC).  Bastons poem needs at least to be put in the refs.  Monstrelet (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the reference to 500 archers (or 1,500) I think that this should be noted as an opinion of Armstrong rather than stated as a fact. I'm also surprised that Armstrong can be so precise about the total numbers of the Scottish army given that there is no contemporary evidence whatsoever as to its size Andygm (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair points both. I think all writers on the battle feel a need to make an estimate/guess of the size of the two armies (as, of course, does this page).  Armstrong is doubly constrained by the format of the series he is writing for.  In fact, his estimate isn't really precise - he thinks the Scots army had the fairly arbitrary figures of 6000 pikemen,1500 archers and 350 cavalry.  Fits quite well with most mainstream estimates overall, but the breakdown is speculative.  Monstrelet (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetins to you both.Page 63 in this book called Bannockburn 1314 Robert the Bruce victory suggests that there was only 500 scottish archers present in the main battle but as Monstrelet said Neil Amstrong sugests a total of 1500 archers.The question itself if it is indeed 1500 archers where did the other 1000 archers dissapear from the scence?Scottish Archers carried battle axes and disdained missile and often liked to engadge in a close melee,as said by this book http://books.google.ie/books?id=RHQHAQAAIAAJ&q=Scottish+archers&dq=Scottish+archers.Also the book also states on page 31 that before King Roberts reign scotland had been hugely deficient of archers.There is evidence that Robert I changed the feudal obligation of knight service to archer service.A Knights fee was to supply 10 archers.However a bow(short) is clearly different from a longbow.Most of The archers of scotand were recruited from the Borders and low-lands since they were the most anlicised in manner.I wouldnt expect the scots have such a high amount of archers if there amount of cavalry was pretty little anyway.If they used the longbow it takes in least 10-15 years of practice to gain profficiency and also there skill is completely medicore.This all implyes to those archers because they engaded the English archers on the second day at dawn and were quickly put to flight by the English ones.1500 scottish archers is too high and anyway Amstrong even admits that there is no evidence of the proportion that was meant for the scots concerning pikemen and archers.A scottish ordinniane and parliamiant was held in scone 1318 near Perth adressing many angles of importance but an intresting one is that when it specificly aimed at those second category of men worth goods to a value of a cow were expected to equip themeselves with either a spear or a bow.The first(spear) was the most favored of that category.Scottish pikemen have been trained by Robert the Bruce to engadge in the move(litterely push them of the battlefield) to makethemselves harder targets for English archers.There is no evidence of trained scottish archers at the time of Bruce.Those very few good archers came from ettirick forest on the Borders as at Falkirk 1298.Unfortunatly I would have to disagree with Monstrelet on the argument that the scots had a wide range of archers since there is no evidence for this as far as I have read.Archery Law as I previously stated wasnt introduced until by King James in 1424 when he returned from English captivity.http://books.google.ie/books?id=x1QCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA18&dq=The+scottish+archers+had+weak+skill#v=onepage&q=&f=false . This here states that English skill with the bow is indisputibly better then that of any scotsmen frenchmen ect.Archery Law was established twice in scotland both were a failuire.The French Francs-Archers formed by Charles VII in 1448 later turned out to be weak archers whom had no intrest in defending France or in archery and were no more a ruthless band of thugs so were quickly disbanded in 1535.Golf and football is propably a main reason for scottish indescisiveness with the bow in archery.Read this book Otterburn 1388.http://books.google.ie/books?id=5wEZgyYnoikC&pg=PA24&dq=Scottish+Archery+in+medievial+times&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false .It says that the scottish archers were drawn from the borders and low-lands but they did not match the English archers in number or in there tactical skil.Scottish corps of archers continued to be a minority in the scottish army.1500 Archers is way to high.http://books.google.ie/books?id=KCl1l35K-IcC&pg=PA39&dq=Scottish+Archery+in+medieval+times&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false .Also Robert the Bruce only stayed because of bad morale in the English camp.Scottish archers were only considerd a minority to Robert I not an accomplishement of victory.Bruce thought of having a sizeable amount of Longbowmen would counter the English ones but he could have never have recruited a huge nuber of them.The scottish archers were a small amount at Bannockburn and Falkirk.Goodbye and hope to see you again.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My first comment would be to find a copy of The Great Warbow by Strickland & Hardy. They give a reasonable amount of coverage to Scottish archery.  The idea that Robert I encouraged archery has some reasonable evidence.  But there was certainly an archery tradition before.  Like 13th.-early 14th. century England, forest areas provided the most skilled archers but not the only ones.  Chris Brown is good on this - see his books in the article bibliography. The Highlands and Islands do have a separate archery tradition, with a great deal of Scandinavian influence.  I'm guessing that Langs idea of Scottish archer/axeman comes from later Highland practice and not 14th. century Lowlands - he doesn't seem to give a reference for it.  Although archery laws were introduced in 1424, by this stage mercenary Scots archers were well known on the Continent.  The high watermark was probably the Scots army in France 1418-24, which managed a men-at-arms to archers ratio of 2-1.  Anyway, that is well in the future by the time of Bannockburn.

Monstrelet (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Monstrelet thanks for your reply about scottish archery on the Bannockburn talkpage.I would like to explain a few points to you about the difference between the short bow,crossbow and longbow in government records at the time of Edward II.I found a book about the battle of Falkirk(1298) regarding archers.The same as usual n quote that they had hugely deficient archers and that archery was not a strong tradition in scotland.http://books.google.com/books?id=ykx5PcLxu-0C&pg=PA28&dq=Ettrick+Bow+and+lonbow&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false .Of course they had a tradition (as does other countries) but as said in the book far from strong.Certainly the scots fought as mercenairies but they wernt allways archers or in fact had to be.Scottish mercenaries were employed by the french but in large amounts over-time.At the battle of Verniuil(1424),the English were commanded by the regent of France John the Duke of Bedford against the french led by the constable of France.The English archers were thought to have engadged the scottish archers but the scots were also put to flght.The last of Charles VII scottish allies were destroyed in this battle and the very last few fought at Heerings(1429) not as archers but as axemen.They also lost that battle.You might have heard of Edward III Yeamon of the Gaurd which was a 120 archer gaurd for the soveriegn.The French copied this idea and formed the scots gaurd(genndairimie das esscois) in 1418 by John Stewart but rarely fought in open-pitched battle with the exception if the French king as at battle in person like at the battle of Patay during the Italian Years War.Unfortunatly,the name Scots Gaurd became moot over time since Frenchmen started to fill up those ranks.Francs archers formed in 1448 were supposed to exercise the principle of archery at the church parishes.However the principle wasn't at all effective and was never even put to practice.When they went to church at sunday there are accounts of francs-archers plundering and looting goods.Charles de Bold convinced Louis XI after Guingaite (1479) when the french archers were exposed badly that they were not the best solution and started employing swisss pikemen.francs-archers had no exprerince or trainaing at all and during the italian years war they were nothing more then plunderers.They were also exposed really badly at Ravenna 1512 when the Gascon Archers ran off the battlefield.francs archers were said to only kill chickens not soldiors.The french drill with the use of the bow was not proficcient.http://books.google.com/books?id=hdh4Elj-3WEC&pg=PA513&dq=francs+archers+were+bad#v=onepage&q=&f=false .Louis XI even if he did not formally disband them let them freeley deterioate.http://books.google.com/books?id=xj8FAAAAIAAJ&q=francs+archers+were+bad&dq=francs+archers+were+bad&lr=

.http://books.google.com/books?id=OJQ9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA120&dq=francs+archers+were+bad&lr=#v=onepage&q=&f=false .http://books.google.com/books?id=6PyBAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA208&dq=francs+archers+were+bad&lr=#v=onepage&q=&f=false .Back to archery in general,the difference between short-bows and longbows are given in this government record.The most prominint was the longbow with an average length of two ells(2.3m),a thickness of 4 thumbs(10 cm) and could discharge a clotharrow arrow(1m or 3ft).The next was the turkish bow and was a composite-bow of shorter length(1.5-1.7m) which fired a wolfarrow.It was made of horn.yew and glue and with its two arms bieng bend forward against the way of the recurve.The third was an elm bow(short bow).Its lenght is not mentioned and it dischared a scottish barbed arrow.It would seem therefore the difference between the short bow and the longbow is the constuction of wood.So,as long as the bow has a yew construction and measures 2.3 m approx.Then it could therefore be correct to term it as a longbow.The Normans at Hastings used yew stave bows but were only 4 feet tall so are not taken as bieng longbows.http://books.google.com/books?id=utafxJAR63YC&pg=PA50&dq=Robert+Hardy.Longbow+of+Welsh+origin&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false .Goodbye--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is time to stop this strand here. Remember, this is the page for the Battle of Bannockburn.  So though while francs archers and their failings are interesting, discussing them under the Battle of Guinegate may be more appropriate. The Edward II info on the nature of bows is interesting for context but it seems to come from legal cases (bows and arrows were often described in detail in murder or poaching trials, for example).  The elm bow is interesting because, although elm was used for bows in England, the famous quote about elm bows is from Gerald of Wales 12th. century description of Welsh bows. Monstrelet (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Welsh units
I have reverted the placing of Welsh forces as an independent combatant in the info box, as it is in conflict with Template:Infobox military conflict. Clearly Welsh units were present and in fact were probably the major formed force to exit the battlefield, but did not form an independent party to the action. They are mentioned in the article text, which can be expanded with further information, if it can be backed with references Monstrelet (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

There is no need to create a webpage for Mr Scott. That is far from the point, and is merely an opinion that would reduce his work to some secondary status that the actual woeful Bannockburn article displayed for all to see does not actually deserve.

The Wikipedia webpage on Bannockburn should reflect the battle as currently understood in relation to the sources, (primary ones of course, not say, Barbour, who is a secondary source) the topography etc and any latest interpretation of them. It is unfortunate that you believe that because someone has updated the rather tragic wikipedia article based on the work of William Scott, and upset you or somebody else by attacking 'established' historians, you therefore believe his work should not be included.

May I say that although Bannockburn Revealed and Bannockburn Proved are indeed original works, they use all the early sources, fully included in one book for the first time, and examine them thoroughly. The works also utilise the knowledge gained from approximately 18 years of writing, studying and examining the area of Stirling to ascertain how the sources link in to the geography.

I also note that somebody has claimed that Mr Scott's work: "has been utterly debunked by a succession of very competent medievalists"-this is not true as far as I am aware and is actually not possible because the work is miles in front of anything ever published with regard to the Battle of Bannockburn on too many levels to mention. If this claim is true, then I would like to see a reference, an article or academic paper which does debunk this work. Any link or title will do and I will purchase or access it myself. I would truly appreciate this.

I feel that some sort of censor is involved in Wikipedia here, because the unsubstantiated claims of 'debunking' (or the other reasons like impoliteness or whatever) appear to have led to the work of William scott being totally ignored and this is of immeasurable loss to anybody who wishes to understand this battle. I see no reason why somebody cannot edit the article on Bannockburn in Wiki, which has an enormous amount of factual errors which are almost beyond belief and the complete opposite to what is inferred by the person who 'removed' any reference to Scott's work.

I would like to edit this article and the errors within, using primary sources (Vita Edwardi Secundi, Lanercost. Scalacronica, Baston's verses etc) but do not wish to waste my time by having it removed for spurious reasons, however the article as it currently stands is not an adequate reflection of what is currently known about the Battle of Bannockburn and that is simply wrong and very sad just four years before the 700th anniversary in 2014.

if the person who is so certain that William Scott is wrong would care to meet me anywhere in scotland, i will buy him lunch and explain not only why William Scott's research is correct, but why most other research is wrong. including the works of Barrow and Duncan-and i have read virtually everything written about this battle including most books in print. I have no idea why anybody could possibly not be convinced of the arguments (plural) research and conclusions of Mr Scot if they have actually read his work and understood it.

Once again, I must reassert that to say that any historians have debunked Mr Scott's work is completely wrong to my knowledge, the best they might have done is to ignore it, probably for the reasons given by the other more supportive commentator above, however i have no interest in the internal politics of the historical community, I wish only to see the truth conquer all.

I see there are some emotive comments about Barbour elsewhere on here. Barbour wrote a seminal piece of Scots prose, beautifully rendered and a joy to read, but he cannot be taken as being historically accurate unless what he states has been confirmed by primary sources. The reason for this is obvious if you consider that he wrote over 60 years after the event (Bannockburn) and that he was commissioned by Robert II to praise his ancestors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinghob (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is perfectly legitimate to seek to edit the article to remove errors.  However, given the obvious controversy over what Mr. Scott wrote (I have not read the books and can offer no personal judgement) I would recommend you discuss those changes here to seek consensus first.  Otherwise, you are going to put in a lot of work to see it reverted, an edit war could easily break out and we could end with a locked page, which doesn't help your cause of offering up alternative viewpoints. Monstrelet (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I was completely unaware of Mr Scott ever contributing to this article (as there is no mention of his work) though I did read the comment above on here today. However it was hinted at that perhaps this was an over enthusiastic supporter of Scott rather than himself. There is nothing controversial about Mr Scotts work as far as I am aware. However, I can assure you that although I have read and studied all of his works and papers (and virtually everything else written about Bannockburn including all the early sources in full) my goal is exactly the same as your own so obviously is; to allow a better article on the Battle of Bannockburn to be available. I have never attempted to alter an article in Wikipedia before, (though I have wished to!) so please bear with me, but I can assure you that i will discuss every aspect of any proposed changes thoroughly as having others comment on what you might propose is a fantastic facility that I wasn't even aware of until today.

I will feed in comments to see how they are received (or indeed opposed!) and then go to work rereading the sources or evidence that backs up what is stated, and will hopefully convince the people here that there is much that can be stated and verified about this battle. I use a mac and cannot find 'tildes' (and believed after my first discussion that my name would be added when I clicked save), so apologies for not signing myself properly, but I read the message about clicking the tab and will do that instead.

Thanks for the prompt reply Kinghob (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Kinghob


 * Looking forward to the input Monstrelet (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see some quotes, sourced directly from Scott's book. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all I am embarrassed to say there are indeed tildes on my keyboard. I feel a bit daft having never spotted them before.

Thanks for giving me a chance to put forward some changes and for the support. Having read the vast majority of works, whatever I propose will be cited by stated sources and I would welcome any challenge that might either argue against or hopefully advance an alternate argument, and of course some consensus when warranted. Especially on here, this discussion board. I have read wiki for years and it has been unbelievably useful and accurate in the main.

The strong impression you give is that you wish for accuracy and rational reasoning and that is comforting and perhaps challenging, but certainly welcome.

The kansas request for quotes should be ok though i will have to type them directly from the books or papers, I will do that no problem if you ask for a specific part of the battle you have an interest in, or have a dispute between Dryfield and Carse, (the lectures I have attended centre around this issue), and it takes understanding of day 1 and Day 2 to get your head around all of that. This is a discussion on wikipedia, and my mind was changed by the work of Scott because of the depth he went into and the insight this gives. That is his work though. Any proposed changes I may ask to be included will simply use the original sources, not Scott's work, even though it was by reading his first book (bought for me by my mum in Oban!) 6 or 7 years ago that led me to believe that there was indeed a great deal that could be proven about the site and military tactics related to the Battle of Bannockburn. --82.41.194.247 (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)--Kinghob (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Take care when using quotes from original sources. This may seem odd, but wiki rules give more weight to published modern sources in some cases.  Wikipedia is a digest of published opinion.  Creating an interpretation based on primary sources is considered original research.  You may therefore find your hard work undone by a zealous editor declaring it original research.  Personally, I prefer to see some quotes from original sources to illustrate points.  If you link them to a published opinion, they are less likely to be reverted.  Apologies if you know all this, but you have said you are just finding your way in editing in a previous post.Monstrelet (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I did not realise that more weight is lent to published modern sources in some cases. There are plenty of modern published works which cite the Carse of Balquhiderock (from General Christison in the 1950's onward) although a fuller understanding of the primary sources and what they reveal was not known to him. Similarly a very recent book by Chris Brown cites the Carse as the battle site as well, although having read this book, his arrival at the Carse as the site is more related to Barbour's words (a secondary source worthy of note when he agrees with the Primary sources) than the primary sources themselves, although they are quoted/covered to back up other ideas related to the battle.

This would need further explanation perhaps to ensure something isn't erroneously revised, because if I was commenting on the circumstances that led to the creation of the Scottish parliament, or the initial investigation into the Lockerbie atrocity,and wish to edit a page on these matters, then the obvious way to counteract or give an alternate view would be to cite modern works of which there is an abundance, but the issue itself would have to be more than a mere opinion of an author, it would have to be based on facts, or it would carry no credibility.

In the case of a historical event, multi faceted, if I am attempting to change the year the Stirling castle truce was made, (cited as 1314 in the wiki article) then one obvious way is to quote a letter from Edward II from 1313 that mentions the date of 24th June the following year, an ancient document. Of course this letter is in modern books where it is translated along with other documents, although not necessarily to substantiate a debate about Bannockburn per se. I am sure it is mentioned in some books, as far as I am aware most historians believe the date of the truce to have begun in 1313, any who do not are in a minority from what I have read, so this could be easily rectified. I would imagine that the source that backs up the wiki date of 1314 for the beginning of the truce would need to be examined as it would be wrong to simply quote a few lines from a book which may be factually incorrect on this matter although correct on other matters. --Kinghob (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Co-ordinates
We now have co-ordinates on the page - the satellite view is particularly impressive. I do have a query though. How and why do people use these? I ask because the co-ordinates centre on the Carse. This is the main battle area on the second day so that's OK but, unless you know the ground a bit, you won't find the visitors centre, monument or statue if you were using this to navigate. Should we recentre on the Visitor's Centre, maybe have alternative co-ordinates for that, or a Day 1/Day 2 split (don't know technically if we can have two sets though)? Monstrelet (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Kinghob: I use the satellite views of Stirling that are within the public domain to review the area prior to going out there and looking for the many features that are only really evident by personal observation. The Day 1 and Day 2 co-ordiantes are close enough to each other to allow them to viewed as one whole picture. I have done this myself. There is little dispute about where Day 1 was fought, I believe that only one writer has said that Day 1 was anywhere else except at the Milton Ford (Gloucester) or St Ninian's (Clifford) and the rest agree that the Scots held the wooded New Park and Dryfield on Day 1 and fought within that vicinity to hold on to this, the only route the English army would have taken to Stirling in 1314. Day 2, most if not all historians believe that the English camped in the Carse-if so then they were attacked there as there is no suggestion that the English Army had the slightest opportunity to travel elsewhere, or that the Scots would have let them move in the case of the Dryfield being where the battle was fought. The evidence appears to point to teh English being attacked in their camp, surprised that the battle was brought to them.

So the satellite would be a useful tool for both those who favour the Carse or the Dryfielders. Some of this might belong to the Carse or Dryfield sub section kindly created. I will leave that to the editor to decide, although I have tried to merely answer his query about satellite imagery in the main this needed explanation. --Kinghob (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Gaelic name of battle
In recent days, a number of deletions of the Gaelic translation of the name of the battle have taken place. While clearly it is not the original name of the battle, I am assuming it was inserted because of the place of the battle in later clan tradition. I have therefore defended it. However, I personally have no strong view as to it being there. I therefore leave it to others to make a case for deletion, meanwhile the status quo should stand.Monstrelet (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

MILHIST reassessment
Looking over the article I couldn't help but notice that it does not reach recent MILHIST B1 criterion and regretably, I've reset that to no. This means that the article will drop down the quality scale to C class. The B1 criterion states that all major content should be in line cited and recommends a rule of thumb that there should be at least one in line citation per paragraph. The article has already got a citation improvement tag but I hope editors will be inclined to imrove the article with a greater degree of citation.Monstrelet (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Shake up of images
I've taken the opportunity to swap the Holkham Bible image for a medieval image of the battle in the info box, as more representative of the subject. The Holkham image appears lower down - it is still useful as a contemorary image showing what the participants would have been equipped like. I removed the black & white victorian image - it was highly historically dubious with its 18th century style highlanders. I've left the image of Bruce v. de Bohun because it is more accurate in its portrayal of costume, even if de Bohun's coat of arms is completely wrong.--Monstrelet (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Battlefield interpretative centre presentations
Is anyone able to add something to the heritage centre section on the new interpretative centre displays, which are quite innovative (in the UK at least), so worthy of note.Monstrelet (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Sadly they're pretty grim, much more to do with an exciting visual experience than the nature of the event...all the Victorian myths recycled and put onto computer screens and digital projections. probably best to ignore them I'm afraid.