Talk:Battle of Bannockburn/Archive 2

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)

Totally agree, but someone else dosen't. I don't know what source is being used for 4,000 casualties. The casualties box previously read, "unknown but light" I'm going to change it to hundreds, but will be perfectly happy to back down if someone provides a source, because 4,000 is absoulute nonsense. --Lochheart (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of responding to a 3+ yr old post, removing a reference, removing referenced information and simply re-inserting "Hundreds" with NO reference, it would have been better to supply a reference to replace what you call absolute nonsense. Here on wikipedia, facts(from 3rd party published sources) are considered reliable sources not your personal opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It just so happens that this is the box for discussion on casualties. That is secondary source and therefore an author's opinion. We know,(stated in the article) that the trained soldiers numbered 6,000 - 7,000 and that this was likley nearly all of Bruce's trained infantry, we also know that in 1315, Edward Bruce landed 6,000 trained soldiers in Ireland (Edward Bruce under invasion of Ireland). If these aren't the same men, (and I'm not saying they are or not), it would have been impossible for Bruce to recruit and train these men with only 2,000 - 3,000 while continueing his campaign. --Lochheart (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, you SERIOUSLY need to read Reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Kansas Bear is right that Wikipedia should rely on published sources, not speculation. However, Lochheart is right to say there are problems with the figures.  Both numbers of participants estimates come from the same book - Grant.  The casualties come from three different ones - Sadler, Mackenzie and Grant.  There is no reason why they should fit together, because they are all taken out of the author's reasoned context. The text makes different judgements again. It is one of the perils of the Wikipedia colaborative editing philosophy. There are, as I see it, two solutions. We could make the info box consistent with the text by taking the text numbers into the info box. Alternatively, we could have a reasoned discussion on the casualty rates quoted by authors and how they fit with their troop numbers to reach a consensus as collaborating editors - which is why Wikipedia has talk pages. Can I suggest interested editors look at the sources we have used in the article and their rationales and report back? We then seek consensus on the best ranges to place in the info box and thereafter defend it against change not discussed on talk first?Monstrelet (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dryfield or Carse?
There is no evidence whatsoever of heavy Scottish casualties at Bannockburn, although all of the primary sources state that English losses were heavy.

Any author guessing at Scottish losses being heavy is using conjecture or mere opinion as no primary source states this or even suggests that this is so.

The reason for the lighter losses of the Scottish army can be gleaned from the sources themselves which show that the English were attacked in their camp at first light (very early in Stirling on June 24th) and were surprised by the rapid ground made by the three schiltrons which eventually spread out to form a narrower band that stretched from the Pelstream to the "great bend" of the Bannockburn. Therefore the English army was completely unprepared to respond, and then further rendered unable to respond as well; this was due to them being hemmed in by the streams at either side and behind them, the very reason that the camp was an excellent choice the night before as both a place for water and affording protection.

The protection of the streams the night before thereafter became their prison, the army of England was hemmed in; when attacked at dawn by the Scots, the English cavalry was unable to get up the required speed for a cavalry charge, due to having their field of charge substantially reduced by the Scottish tactics employed rapidly by foot-soldiers alone, (no cavalry in any primary source).

These foot soldiers included the Scottish King himself Robert I, right at the front according to the primary sources.

Imagine that fact about the Bruce alone as a king within the European context and the unknown principle of man of the people.

The pre-planned tactics of the Scots, surprising the English in their camp led to chaos and confusion. The English army, unable to deploy or use thier probable military superiority to good effect as they could have so easily had they been allowed to choose the battle site, lost the battle.

The choice of battle site was decided by the Scots.

The primary sources give ample evidence of this fact; that, at dawn, the English army was surprised and attacked within the area they had chosen to camp in the night before. There is no primary or secondary source that states otherwise.

One of the reasons for the low casualty rate for the Scots was that they had a plan, they were well drilled, well prepared and chose the site for a battle. Once the tactics were deployed, the battle was as good as won.

One of the biggest failings in the historical community, at least those that support the Dryfield, is that they dismiss the Carse of Balquhiderock because the English Army "wouldn't have chosen to fight there", (I have heard at least two historians state this personally) and yet even the Dryfield theorists all agree that the English army camped within the carse. There is no evidence in any source of the English army traipsing up the formidable slopes of the Dryfield (held by the Scots through battle the day before for good reason) or any reason why the Scots would allow them to gain entry to this area the following day; a formidable military endeavour in itself from the carse against a determined Scottish army.

This military feat, where the Scots allowed the English army to occupy an area the next day, an area they had defended so vigorously and successfully only the day before, would have been noted by the primary sources, mentioned at the very least. It would have been a sight to behold and write about, even without an opponent positioned on higher ground determined to oppose you to the death.

I hope we can work together and improve the Bannockburn article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinghob (talk • contribs) 20:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC) --Kinghob (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have taken the opportunity to edit this post into a connected subsection because it is actually a more fundamental point about the battle than the argument on casualty figures.Monstrelet (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have cut out the part relating to casualties in favour of the larger discussion on the Battle site for the destruction of Edward's cavalry. At risk of giving proponents of both the Dryfield site and the carse apoplexy I would like to propose a third alternative where Edward camped his cavalry. Very few people are aware that the Bannock burn had two tributaries running through the Bannocburn area. There was an upper and a lower tributary that ran roughly parallel to each other. The one everybody knows about is the lower one than ran and still runs through the great ravine from Whins of Milton. That is the burn that today people refer to as the Bannock burn and so it is assumed that when historical references to crossing it are made, this is the burn they are talking about. Is this a safe assumption, or a misconception that has arisen over the passing of centuries and one watercourse gaining more importance than the other as an industrious community grew from a tiny settlement of cot houses in 1314? As best I can I will argue this is a misconception and not a safe assumption at all. The upper tributary originally ran east from beyond Pirnhall past Corbywood and right past where the small settlement was, entering present day Bannockburn at Stein Square. From there on it ran through a steepening gulley some 350 yards or so parallel to the great ravine and steepening into a ravine itself beyond Ochilmount. From there it ran down to the carse where it intersected with the lower burn not far out on it. What lay between the two burns was a roughly u shaped promontory of high ground with no way up to it or down from it other than the open end of the u. Once a force blocked that open end the only way to try and get out was via the steep gulley of the upper burn. For those mystified why no one can find anything resembling the well known "evil ditch" term along the Bannock on the carse, that is your answer. It was never down there, it was up on the high ground above the mouth of the great ravine and on the upper tributary not the lower one. I say was, because little remains of the gulley now after it was filled in and housing built over it. The burn that ran through it has been diverted buried and obliterated and now there is not much more than a trickle running through where the steeper ravine part still exists. You can still see it on a Google map of Bannockburn. To the right of the obvious blue line of the lower burn a thin unnamed blue line still runs up from where the two burns join on the carse only to stop dead where it says Cowie Rd. The upper burn is the one the settlement drew its water from. It was the important heart and lifeblood of the settlement. To them that was the Bannock burn in 1314. I would argue that in that day it was also likely the larger water course of the two in volume. Why do I argue this? Over the centuries the tiny settlement slowly grew into a village, particularly with the development of water power. Mills were built down in the great ravine. Some may remember the Wilson tartan textile mill that was once there. Water was diverted from other burns, including the upper tributary to increase the water flow for the mill wheels and dams were built for the same purpose. The size and volume of that burn down in the great ravine today bears no relation to it's size and volume in 1314. It's size is entirely artificial and in 1314 it is quite possible it was no larger a body of water than the burn running through the Dollar glen is today. Due to the development of the local industries in the great ravine, the lower tributary became the important heart and lifeblood of the community. It became the important burn that signified the name Bannockburn and somewhere in that period the lower tributary took on recognition as the Bannock burn and the original bearer of the name above became a forgotten irrelevance. By the time people no longer needed to carry water from a burn, it had no relevance at all. By the early 1960's it was just a nuisance that kept bursting its banks and flooding the adjacent fields, so they diverted even more of it away and buried it in a pipe all the way to Stein Square in Bannockburn. I am well aware it is impossible to prove this happened, but I challenge anyone to disprove what I have said about the artificial altering and reversals in size of the two water courses and the new importance and relevance of the lower tributary with the advent of water power. Impossible to prove yes, but still logical reasoning, backed up by the evidence of alteration. The burn referred to as the Bannock burn in 1314 is not the burn running through the great ravine, its the upper tributary that ran parallel with it on the higher ground. I'm sure many are thinking not nearly enough at this point and they would right, there's more. In 2001 the then local council archaeologist published an old aerial photograph she'd found in the archives in the Stirling Observer. It showed an extensive honeycomb of circles that she believed were Bruce's pits. What struck me about it was the location. They were in the Pirnhall area. Not north of today's Bannock burn, south of it? In fact they occupied the area between where the upper burn ran and the lower one ran all around the line of the old Roman road. I questioned her on this and she confirmed that was the area shown on the photograph. She was understandably confused how the vanguard could have crossed the Bannock from the south and fell into the pits when the pits were south of the burn not north of it. In fact that confusion has apparently resulted in that location still not being investigated to this day. She also informed me of something else she had found confusing in that they had found remnants of wooden stakes embedded in the north bank of the Bannock suggesting that Bruce had prepared a defensive position on the north bank of the burn. That and the location of the pit circles ran counter to the entire historical account of the vanguard crossing the bannock and falling into the pits before encountering Bruce's line. How could Bruce's defensive line be at the Bannock itself and the pits be south of it? I pointed out that the small length of burn between the end of the great ravine and Milton bog at the ford over that burn was exactly where you would put a defensive line, with the burn itself as a further obstacle in front of you for the cavalry. Why it has to be asked would Bruce not use that ideal defensive position and let Edward cross it unchallenged? The lady agreed but couldn't fathom the discrepancy with the historical account. I put it to her that there used to be another Bannock tributary south of there and that was more likely to be the burn they were referring to. Then there was no contradiction with the accounts, merely a misconception on our part which burn they were talking about. I then offered to show the lady what was left of it and where the lost "evil ditch" actually was. To say she was astonished on seeing the site was putting it mildly, she had no idea the upper ravine existed, but even though a large part of the gulley running to Stein Square had been filled in and built over the depth of it could still be discerned from the large dip down in the old Cowie road as was. She also noted that three schiltrons in close order would entirely block any other avenue of escape but that gulley. It was the worst imaginable trap for cavalry not just hemmed in between two burns but on a high promontory between two deadly ravines. Unfortunately as she sadly put it at the time however impressive the trap might be, it would not be politically acceptable to her employers. How right she was. Before anyone explodes because I am not mentioning clues relating to the carse I will come to that, but first I would like to pose a question. It must be remembered that when Edward gave up at Milton re crossed the Bannock and turned east the foot and archers were still hours behind on the road. There was only cavalry when Edward went east and crossed the Bannock burn one last time to camp. Why then would Edward ignore high dry ground, firm safe footing for horses, good grass and accessible water, to go down on the carse and camp on a bog? Why would they do that? You would send the peasants down there when they turned up yes, but the aristocracy with their horses. I think not. There was nothing forcing the cavalry to go down there. They were not being pursued, it did not even occur to them the Scots would leave their positions and attack them. What possible reason is there for going down off the good ground to that bog. The answer is none, and they didn't. The burn they crossed for the third time before camping, was the upper tributary, not the lower one and that put them south of the burn in the great ravine not north of it, because in 1314 the burn they called the Bannock ran through the high ground, not the ravine. Why do I say it was a bog between the two burns on the carse? 10.000 years ago the entire carse was under water. It was the bed of an inland sea. An excavation up near the university once revealed the skeleton of a long beached whale. Anyone who cares to walk up the slope at Balquhiderock Wood will find at the top edge where the ground under turf is exposed that it's actually sand, because once it was a beach. There is similar evidence of that near Ochilmount at the top end of Bannockburn. That is why there is only a bare foot or so of soil down on that carse and below that if you dig is some 30 feet of blue clay. The houses they built closest to the railway line would shake like a jelly every time a train came past if they hadn't driven steel piles deep down into the clay first to prevent it. That's why water doesn't drain from there, not just because it's low ground, but because the clay that made the whole area a clay bog won't let it. 700 years ago before a system of drainage ditches was dug to run the worst of the water off it was a whole lot worse. It is not a matter of dispute, it is fact that it was a marsh, a bog, call it what you like, but you would not take horses out there. Clifford was unable to bypass Moray and Douglas at the Pelstream ford for two reasons. They could not ride up the ridge on the left on horseback and they could not get past to their right. Not because the Pelstream itself was so impassable away from the foot of the ridge, but because as soon as you left the foot of the ridge you were riding your horses into soft bog and liable to break their legs. These were seasoned horsemen, not fools. What about the historical references I have ignored, pointing to the carse? Let's get to it. There were campfires seen at night all over the carse. Absolutely. No one is denying that the peasants were sent down to camp in that bog, that's where the foot and the archers were. Good enough for them, not good enough for the nobility and commanders and too dangerous for valuable horses. As ever, the poor bloody infantry. There were many pools and powys. This has understandably led many people to assume that everybody was down in the carse, but we don't know what's first hand and what's second hand here. We don't know if this is only a reference to the final struggle that did take place on the carse, but only after Edward's cavalry had been slaughtered on higher ground, and the remnants had fled the field with the king. There is no doubt that there was an attempt to rally the still intact if disheartened foot down on that carse. There is also no doubt that it was a long struggle far different from the easy slaughter of the cavalry. Why was it so easy? Why did it take so long to organize the foot and the archers? Why were the cavalry overwhelmed before the foot and most of the archers even got going let alone engaged? The commanders and the low born were not camped in the same place, that is why. That is why the commanders failed to organize them until it was too late for Edward. That is why they took so long to get to the fight. That is why when they finally got there they couldn't help because of the press. Not because they were wedged between two burns, but because when they finally struggled up the slopes of that promontory there was so much press up there right to the back of it, they couldn't do a thing to help. The next thing they saw was the King and some surviving knights fleeing below them along the foot of the ridge and they panicked and ran back themselves until an attempt was made to rally them and save the day. As for the archers Keith dispersed. Those who contend that they were positioned behind Edward between two "impenetrable" burns and were chased off by Keith's cavalry need to consider this obvious question. If there was so much press and no room out there, how on earth did Keith manage to cross one of those "impenetrable burns" with his cavalry to chase them off? Did he just charge through his own schiltrons in the way? Of course not, because it didn't happen there. The archers who managed to get up the slope to enter the fight got up onto the not very elevated Ochilmount. There they were behind and a little south of their own men on the south side of the upper burn and gulley. It was from that position they were doing damage to both sides. From there they were easily chased off by Keith's cavalry, with no press to get through and no "impenetrable" burn to stop them. That left Bruce's archers free to take up the position, from where they could decimate any foot trying to follow the same route up Edward's archers came. One last point I would like to make concerns attempts by people who believe Edward camped down on the carse, to find the "evil ditch" on the course of the Bannock down there. Edward made his escape in the direction of the castle, that is where he went. If Edward was down on the carse, then the direction he surely went trying to escape from there was north towards the castle. That means the burn he escaped across would have been the Pelstream, not the Bannock burn. It defeats me why people who believe Edward was on the carse insist on looking for the "evil ditch" in the opposite direction to the Castle along the Bannock. There is just no logic in that at all. If there was some terrible ditch there why not head straight for the castle across the Pelstream rather than the opposite direction? Well I've made my case contentious though it is and doubt it will have pleased anyone. I have done it without being vitriolic, insulting, or abusive to anyone else and I wish more people would do the same. People are not stupid, idiots,or undeniably wrong because they disagree with me. They are just trying to make sense out of scarce information and missing confirmation and will do so in different ways. An open mind can still make errors, but an entrenched mind will never correct them. I expect no praise for this controversial effort and I'm sure I will not be disappointed. My thanks to anyone who got the whole way through without spontaneously combusting2001perseus (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is too long. No one is going to wade through this to find your point. Please put it briefly and clearly.--  SabreBD  (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Repeated addition of links to personal website...
Leodgunn, you've added an external link to a personal website of what appears to be excerpts from your book "The Bruce, Bannockburn and Beyond" four times now, and been reverted by three different editors. In addition to this being edit-warring, please have a look at WP:EXT, which gives guidance on this, and in particular the line that runs "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent". If you've an interest in history, consider editing the article itself, which would be welcomed, rather than adding links to your own websites across the wiki, which isn't. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving to GA/FA
Is there any interest among editors in getting this to GA and perhaps FA status before the centenary in June? It would make a good front page article for that day.--  SabreBD  (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy to contribute if I can Monstrelet (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is great, thanks. Lets give a bit of time to see if anyone else volunteers and then look at what needs doing.--  SabreBD  (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have few credible sources to hand but I am willing to help if I can. For a GA attempt I'd say it needs a couple of dozen or more inline refs, (probably the sources quoted already would do if someone has 'em and can fish out page nos), an expansion of the "Historical significance" section and a good copy edit. Assuming editors with some genuine credentials history-wise are involved in that, getting it to FA is often an exercise in more detailed copy-editing and diplomacy rather than content creation. In the context of the politics of Scotland in 2014, getting agreement on the 'significance' might prove interesting. Ben   Mac  Dui  16:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Article improvements
I have noticed that there is masses of unsourced information in the article. I have a source that I would like to use to improve the article. Noting that any unsourced info can be removed from Wikipedia. I will of course leave in any existing sourced information. Comments appreciated.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest you first add what sources you can, then give time for other editors to assist if possible before removing content? If all the unsourced content was removed from the article (which is dreadfully undercited), we risk having a patchy sub in place just before the 700th anniversary.Monstrelet (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel as if the removal of unsourced content did not change much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannibalcaesar (talk • contribs) 22:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, the vast majority of the article was unsourced and was therefore written to a bad standard. Wikipedia is about quoting the sources and reflecting what the sources say. Not just adding any old jargon of whatever you feel like. The "new" article replaced the unsourced info with properly sourced info from a published secondary source.QuintusPetillius (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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, English 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. English 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.Edward may have been born in Wales, but he was still English. Robert I was most certainly not born in Essex and was most ceratainly Scottish. The movie "Braveheart" gets young Robert and his father wrong, according to what I have read. The father, who had extensive lands in England, is played with a guid Scots accent, and Robert with an English. Besides which, Robert fought for the Scots at Falkirk, and temporarily gave up hope afterwards, to be re-encouraged by the famous spider. DaveyHume (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)



The human mind craves a simple narrative. Therefore Bannockburn becomes a simple 'nasty English' v 'good Scots' fixture. But it was not so simple. James Murray for example describes the whole war of independence as the last and only successful rebellion of Anglo-saxon England against the Norman conquerors. There is some truth in this. 'Scot-land' at this time meant only the Highlands. The Lowlands were (and had been for hundreds of years) inhabited by northern English, and though they may have been under the jurisdiction of Robert the Bruce it is not clear that he held these lowlands as part of the 'Kingdom of Scotland', or simply as just another Norman baron owing fealty for them to King Edward. Barons' rebellions were of course not uncommon events in the period. What we now call Scotland was certainly, at least, a two-part entity - and if one is to judge by the savage internal war which he prosecuted in Scot-land prior to Bannockburn the Bruce doesn't seem to have had much love for the 'Scots' half of his realm. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.12.220 (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC) The Lowlands were northern English? I regard the Scots pronunciation as more accurately Saxon than what the English tongue has become, but I do not think that in the 14th century they'd have thought of themselves as English. However, the American author of "How the Scots Invented the Modern World" holds that even at the time of the Jacobite, ah, Rebellions the Highlands were places of great savagery. "Kidnapped" suggests the same thing. DaveyHume (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So Robert the Bruce, just another Norman baron, led with vital support of the MacDonalds and other Gaelic-speaking clans an Anglo-Saxon rebellion, in the course of which he savaged the 'Scots' Comyns, coming from another Norman family... you make my head reel. --Thrissel (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Cassandra" you are heading ever more firmly back to your OR-posting IP-socking talk page misuse habits, on this and other articles. No doubt you are misrepresenting (or "misunderstanding") any sources you purport to support your opinions, if your previous pattern is anything to go by. You are making no genuine attempt to improve articles, the purpose of talk pages, but simply floating your own half-baked controversialist OR theses. You have incurred sanctions for this before; please desist. Can I also request, again, that since you informally sign your posts anyway you may as well get a user account to avoid the potential of any other numpty passing themself off as you, to avoid the appearance of IP-socking to escape tracking and avoidance of sanctions and to allow any post regarding your behaviour to go more appropriately on your talk page rather than clutter those of articles. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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 English 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 English army by midsummer. An English army approached Stirling and was defeated, after which the Castle surrendered. Moubray was a Scot in Englsih service. There was an interesting experiment, recorded by the BBC if I've got it right, in which was built a trebuchet of the size and style that they believed was the "War Wolf" that the English used to break down and enter the walls of Stirling Castle. From a bit beyond crossbow range, it did indeed demolish a wall five feet or so wide. That would be how it came to be in English hands.DaveyHume (talk)



I think that there is a point in the statement of confusion as to who held Stirling, particularly if you consider those who are not familiar with the battle and are looking for information.

The castle of Stirling was English held (one of only a very few left in English hands in Scotland by 1313) and was supposed to be relieved by an English Army by the Feast of St John 1314 (Midsummers day 24th June). The Scots did not lay siege to Stirling castle in 'spring' 1314, rather than Lent 1313. Therefore the truce lasted over a year.

There are several ways that this can be shown, but since there is no evidence of the alleged shorter period of months referred to within the wiki article and or reasons of simplicity, I will give just one reason at this time for the truce being known about for a longer period than 'spring 1314' and see if anyone objects:

".....we consider that we must answer you that before the Feast of the Birth of St John the Baptist we have arranged to be at Berwick upon Tweed with our Army to march beyond against our enemies and rebels in those parts".

By the King's Witness, at Westminster, 28th day of November. By the King himself. Foedera, Litterae & Acta Publica. A.D. 1313 An. 7 Edw.II. 237

This is the earliest mention of the relief date by the English army after the Stirling castle siege. The letter is addressed to concerned landowners and English supporters in Lothian who were alarmed at the run of the land the Scottish army had by 1313-this latter was to placate them, but it gives a specific date; June 24th 1314, one that was already agreed. This letter only confirms in writing what Edward II knew earlier-it is documentation of a specific date and purpose related to an full English invasion of Scotland. The reason Edward II would have an assembled army at Berwick before 24th June 1314 was because this was the expiry date of the truce entered into between Edward Bruce and Philip De Moubray in Lent 1313.

I hope that together we can write a better wiki article about Bannockburn and do Scottish history a service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinghob (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC) --Kinghob (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The opening lines of the Wiki article on Bannockburn are:

"Prelude

Around Lent of '1314' Edward Bruce, brother of the Scottish king, began the siege of Stirling Castle, which was commanded by Sir Philip Mowbray. Unable to make any headway, Bruce agreed to a pact with Mowbray - if no relief came by midsummer 1314, the castle would surrender to Bruce."

In view of the Edward II missive of 28 November 1313 cited above; does anybody object to the idea that an earlier date for the relief of Stirling castle was known about in November 1313, and that Edward II is acknowledging this fact by mentioning "the Feast of St John" the following year (24 June 1314) as a timeline at least? We have to bear in mind that this specific date mentioned in November 1313, with hindsight and using the information stated within the primary sources, is known as being the date of the end of a truce that related to the English relief of Stirling castle, and was also the date the actual Battle of Bannockburn was fought.

--Kinghob (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC) If Edward gathered his army at Berwick for the feast of St. John, it would not have been able to reach Stirling in time to beat the contracted date...which was the Feast of St. John. In November 1313 there were already plans for an invasion the following summer, but Stirling castle was not yet seen as being 'at risk' to the Scots. Barbour is alone in giving the date of Edward Bruce's siege and compact as 1313. The period from Lent to midsummer 1314 is much the more likely option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.249.167 (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have removed a small number of statements which may w=be sourced, but are not at all reliable. The term schiltrom does not imply any particular shape. It is likely that Moray deployed part of his division (the 'men of his own leding' as Barbour puts it) in a schiltrom to face the English,  cavalry on Day 1, but circular schiltroms would not have been at all practical for the main action on day 2. There is no reason to assume that Scottish men-at-arms were equipped any differently from English ones; if it were the case, surely contemporary material would tell us so. In fact - pay rolls, restauro, horse and armour purchases and  all the record evidence points to complete interchangeability. The case for 'lighter' Scots depends entirely on one line in Barbour's poem - two generations after the event - which is, in itself, contradicted by the very next line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.135.83 (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there any secondary sources that you could provide to support your argument? (e.g. an academic article or book etc. that makes these points) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much any bit of scholarship on the subject - Andrew Ayton, Michael Prestwich, Michael Brown,  - but since my Thesis (published as Knights of the Scottish Wars of Independence) was on the subject of the Scottish man-at-arms class in the early 14th C. I 'd suggest ...me - I just would n't feel right about citing myself. There is absolutely no evidence at all (apart from the one line in Barbour's poem) to support the contention that Scottish men-at-arms were equipped at all differently from their English counterparts. The contention has been repeated widely for over 100 years, but it is not evidence-based. Barbour was making a propaganda claim; in the very next line he goes on to tell us that the Scottish cavalry were all well-armoured in steel. By deleting amendments the editor is reinforcing accounts which depend on recycling the inventions of Gardiner and Oman; surely we can do better than that. I am a bit concerned about the reliance on some rather questionable sources for the main article, but I 'd not want to get into a rammy by making wholesale changes. Even so, if this is to become a good and useful piece - and given the amount of material available there's no reason why it should n't - it could do with some work. C.Brown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.135.83 (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Awkward. Chris Brown has written one of the best recent works on bannockburn.  If anyone else was referencing his work, it wouldn't be a problem.  Also, we should note that the idea that schiltrons were not always circular is covered by the wikipedia article on the subject Sheltron.Monstrelet (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Provided the interest is declared (as it has been) and we've got the works and page references, there shouldn't be a problem in Chris adding them in. The issues around writers citing their own work only usually emerge if its done anonymously, or if their works don't represent mainstream opinion. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've made couple of changes, but I'm not really clear how to adjust the reference numbering. A whole bunch (all numbered '10') refer to Jeremy Black's book, including the unsupportable modern assumption about 'light' Scottish cavalry. As a stop-gap measure I could cite me - Bannockburn 1314, p.129-30, History Press, but I'd feel a bit iffy about that...self-promotion and all that. The article as a whole really is n't awfully good, but it could be made so given that we have a lot of material to work from and I'd be more than happy to collaborate with others on improving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.246.79 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC) I see that the 'light cavalry' thing has been re-instated despite the evidence to the contrary. What can be done about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Brown. Who is Sinebot? She/He continually reverts amendments, but offers no justification for doing so. 86.137.246.79 (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sinebot signs unsigned posts on talk pages when the editor fails to, so it has been signing your posts here with your IP address as you have not been signing them. It does not make changes to articles.


 * I reverted your change because, per the edit summary: "no references given; rv to cited material". You may be sure that the existing text may be wrong but it is referenced and your changes to the text are not. You may be convinced of your contrary view but even if it is problematic to provide reliable sources for your changes, you must do so. You are correct to be cautious about citing your own works but it isn't outrightly prohibited and may be justified in some cases; see SELFCITE. I'm not sure why the other participants above haven't cited the work in question if they regard it as a reliable source, unless they don't have access to a copy. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I would have done so if I had known how to alter the footnote numbering. So what should I do now? How do I alter the referencing? I'd be keen to see a much better article (and it's not as if there's a dearth of valid material rather than re-hashes of Victorian antiquarianism) if only to reduce the amount of time spent explaining to people how bad the article is. CB.


 * See Citing sources and Signatures. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a go - I both have the book and think it is a reliable source. While I personally am convinced by Chris' arguments (which hinge round a misinterpretation of Barbour which tends to be repeated by authors not going back to sources), I think it will need a conditional statement as reputable historians do repeat the "light cavalry" version.  @ Chris Brown - Chris, you can sign your posts by clicking on those four blue tildes after Sign your post in the short cuts below.  I'd also advise, for etiquette if nothing else, to sign up as an editor.  IP editors are viewed with suspicion by established editors (because so many are disruptive, I suppose).  You however are a serious historian and should reflect that in a named account.  Best wishes Monstrelet (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Okey-dokey; how do I sign up as an editor?86.131.148.57 (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've edited the bit on Scottish cavalry and referenced same.Monstrelet (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It's still there at the beginning of the article I'm afraid. Don't know if you missed it or if someone is reverting it86.131.148.57 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Bannockburn&action=edit&section=28#

:: Is it correct to talk in terms of nationalities?
Yes, for that is how they described themselves. The documentation is not scant or obscure, it runs to many thousands of statements made by many different people who prepared for and/or fought this (and previous) battles. The two kings, the bishops (even the pope) the commanders of the armies, the eyewitness chroniclers who wrote three or four contemporary accounts - they all expressed their view of what they were doing in terms of nationalities, national armies (albeit with contingents from other nations) and nation-states.


 * 'Scot-land' at this time meant only the Highlands."

This is provably false. Every single contemporary source from at least Edward i onwards -- a plethora of English and Scottish state and church records concerned with diplomacy, conflict, governance, land ownership, taxation and legal jurisdiction speaks of "Scotland" as the land immediately north of the Tweed. Pick any book of regnal "rolls" from internet archive and read. 86.130.215.140 (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. The term 'Scotland' seems to have been applied to the whole kingdom from c 1249. Previously Scot-land or 'Scotland proper' was used to refer to the Highlands whilst the Kingdom of Scotland included Scot-land, Lothian and Galloway, each referred to as separate entities within the kingdom. That distinction was emphasised by royal charters up to the time of William the Lyon which expressly addressed subjects as French (i.e Norman) English, Scots, Galwegians, and Welsh (of Clydesdale). The huge irony of course is that in time the English of the lowlands came to call themselves 'Scots' and for centuries thereafter referred to the original Gaelic-speaking Scots of the Highlands as 'Irish'. At the time of Bannockburn however the multiple ethnic divisions amongst the Scottish king's subject were still clear cut; Robert the Bruce was 'French' and his lowland subjects in the south and east of his kingdom were still 'English in the kingdom of the Scots'. Much of the history of Scotland concerns the disunity and antipathy between Highland and Lowland, a centuries-long conflict between two 'nationalities' within a single kingdom. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Er, so you are now supporting someone who is arguing against your very own post (if under an IP-sock incarnation, nonetheless informally signed), in the section above from 30 June 2013? Must be difficult keeping track. Still the off-topic forum ramblings though I see. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Numbers & Losses
The correct numbers at the Battle of Bannockburn are - Scotland - 10,000 England - 20,000 The Scottish losses 600-800 Men and the English losses were 7,000 - 9,000

These numbers a given by the Battle of Bannockburn Heritage members themselves, so they would be very accurate. But when I try to edit the inbox it keeps on resseting to the untrue estimates. So how can I edit the inbox without it resseting?

Dragon25920 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, Rowanis12 sockpuppet:


 * Nusbacher, Aryeh (2000). The Battle of Bannockburn 1314. Stroud: Tempus. p. 85. ISBN 0-7524-1783-5.
 * Oman, Charles (1991) [1924]. A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages Vol. II. London: Greenhill Books. p. 88. ISBN 1-85367-105-3.
 * Armstrong, Pete (2002). Bannockburn. Botley, Oxford: Osprey Publishing. p. 43. ISBN 1-85532-609-4.
 * Grant, R.G. (2008), Battle: A visual journey through 5,000 years of combat, DK Publishing,p.118.
 * Sadler, John, Scottish Battles, (Biddles Ltd., 1998), 52–54.
 * Grant, 118.
 * Mackenzie, p.88 referencing Walsingham, p.141
 * Reese, p.174
 * You appear to be ignoring a few reliable sources. Care to explain your editing? FYI, the "Battle of Bannockburn Heritage members", do not appear to be reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There are no "correct numbers", only estimates. The info box therefore compiles a range of estimates from reliable secondary sources to demonstrate this uncertainty.  This is how wikipedia is supposed to work.  Not knowing the group Battle of Bannockburn Heritage, I have no way of knowing whether their estimates would be any more accurate than any other published author on the subject but I doubt it, as they'd be working from the same evidence.Monstrelet (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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 of 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.135.72 (talk contribs) (17:17, 8 December 2006)

The "demands for service" would have been to cover every military requirement of the English king, including the need to maintain stability within England, the need to garrison royal castles, the need to secure supply routes and so on. If the force raised was only 20,000, then it's doubtful that more than 15,000 would have made it to Bannockburn. unsigned 9/9/2021


 * Pay Roles are only wholly effective sources if the entire army is professional. As for muster roles are only a survey, not a call-to-arms. Therefore I suggest that we should accept John Barbour's account that there were tens of thousands of peasant infantry on the English side. As for the Scots it is widely accepted that there were 5,000 - 6,000 professional infantry, 500 professional cavalry and 4,000 volenters/irregulars known as 'small folk'. RS 12/07/09. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.140.135 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but "widely accepted" by whom. I have reverted your changes until a source is provided. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Republican jacobite is quite right...there is no reliable information on the size of the Scottish or English armies. The 'volunteers' may never have existed at all beyond the imagination of Barbour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.97.59 (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed the numbers and gave a reference from Grant's Battle, p 118. Dupuy's The Encyclopedia of Military History, Laffin's Dictionary of Battles and Bruce's Dictionary of Battles, give no numbers for Bannockburn. I don't expect these numbers to be "written in stone", merely a base from which to work. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seymour's Battles in Britain, p.90,92, states the English arrived with just under 20,000 and states it's confidence in Barbour's figure for the Scots at no more than 7,000 but probably nearer to 6,000. Sadler's Scottish Battles, p.46, states as many as 17,000 for the English and perhaps 5000 foot and 500 horse for the Scots. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree more with John Barbour figure of around 100000, Yes perhaps a figure of 3000 knights is on the pay roles, but those knights all have titles and it would be stupid to think that they alone went to a battlefield without their own household troops of knights and infantry not to mention their supply wagons so you can add a further 5-30 men to each of the 3000 English knights. There are also the knights from Germany Netherlands, Scotland and France to take into account. The argument of logistics, 100000 men marching is going to consume allot of food. But Barbour states that the army met up at Berwick which has a port, much of the army that came from the south of England and other distant lands probably sailed there the rest who where closer walked or rode but its not like 100000 set of from London to Stirling. Once they were all assembled the army was broken up into 10 groups which made their way to Edinburgh then Stirling. As for the supplying this large army, it is possible that supply ships where used to sail along the coast to Edinburgh. This was well in their means todo as it had been done before during the crusades. Scots having 30000 men is also reasonable, its not like 30000 men stayed together in one area for months, an army of that size would stay together for a few days at most then disband due to lack of provisions. I think one should take the fact into account that Barbour was born around 1316-20 and died 1395 he studied in both Scotland and England there is a good possibility he talked to men who where actually at the battle, he was also a part of the clergy, I do not see any point in over exaggerating the numbers by as greatly as 75%. And I take the word of someone who lived closer in time to an event than any historian living today--linz2d 11 April 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linz2d (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is extremely unlikely that the English had 100,000 men at Bannockburn - medieval armies simply didn't have the logistical capability to grow to this size, certainly for the length of a campaign. As to the 3000 knights and their followers, most of these men didn't have followers, except for pages and servants.  Most were serving more senior nobles.  The infantry weren't followers in the same way - they were raised separately.  Our best guide are the pay rolls of other English expeditions to Scotland in the late 13th./early 14th. centuries, which would be consistent with a 20-30000 figure for the English.Monstrelet (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * True, but this event could be considered a one off and it is widely believed to be the largest army to have ever assembled on British soil, except for World War II when over a million allied men took part in the invasion of Normandy. One also has to consider the time given to the English to assemble such a force, a whole year. Edward Bruce had besieged the castle from Lent to just before St. Johns day (aka Midsummer's day) in 1313 and made the the agreement (due to no side having the advantage) that if no relief came by midsummer day the following year then he would have the castle without force, Wikipedia has Edward besieging the castle in 1314 and making the agreement for midsummer's day the same year. Which really makes no sense to the story whats so ever, its the fact that Edward Bruce had given such a long time for relief to come that sets the stage for the epic battle. A year is long enough to make the preparation for having an army of 100000 gather at Berwick and for them to be supplied. I do not personally see the logistics as a problem, I acknowledge that its would be highly unlikely that the army of 100000 would stay together for anything longer than a week and a half, but as John Barbour states, a day was set, therefore everyone on the English(and Scot's probably) side had rough idea when the battle would be taking place and the day by which they had to gather at Berwick. If Persians could attack the Spartans with a equal or greater force of 100000 then why cant one of the greatest kingdoms in Europe do the same traveling a shorter distance in greener lands. --Linz2d (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a shred of evidence that Edward's army was the "largest ever assembled on British soil". England in 1314 was a relatively poor and backward country, and at a low economic ebb. Even in good times, English mediaeval armies rarely exceeded 20,000 men, and were usually much smaller. Edward 111, for example, (a strong and popular king) invaded France (FRANCE!) with between 5000 and 15,000 men, as did Henry V a century later. To maintain a large army (50,000+) in hostile territory requires a level of logistical sophistication which was not achieved in post-Roman Britain until the late eighteenth century. As for Bannockburn: the muster roles suggest a total force of 3000 knights and 17,000 followers (a plausible figure), but this would have been the manpower required to sustain the entire expedition, a proportion of which would have been deployed to secure strongpoints along the invasion route. To put this in perspective: in 1812 Napoleon required a total force of over 500,000 men to place an army of 60,000 men at the gates of Moscow. Common sense suggests that the English army probably fielded between 10,000 and 15,000 men at Bannockburn, a size which fits with the likely geography of the battlefield. These numbers are also consistent with the eventual outcome of the battle; i.e. a comprehensive defeat, but one in which there were 10 named deaths and 10 named hostages. By way of comparison: at Flodden, out of a Scottish army of 30,000, there were 44 named deaths and a similar number of high-ranking prisoners. Both were hard-fought conflicts of similar duration using not-dissimilar weapons and with similar (albeit reversed) outcomes. It seems likely that the respective sizes of the armies were of similar proportions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.199.236.88 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above. Housing and victualling 100,000 men would have needed vast resources, way bigger than anything England possessed in the Middle Ages. Also, most accounts agree that the English army arrived in its entirety on the afternoon before the battle; this alone tells you that the army was quite modest; armies of 100,000 take ages to arrive. Consider: two men abreast, walking one yard apart (pretty close) means that 100,000 men stretch for 50 kilometres, not including the horses, pack wagons and camp followers. Roads in Scotland were little more than tracks, so even two-abreast would be pushing it. Lucky to walk at 2 mph. To the best for of my knowledge, the first time Britain ever put 100,000 men in the field was in 1916. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.34.6 (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Numbers in info box
After a recent flurry of changes to the numbers in the info box, culminating in their replacement with references to a Braveheart website, I have bitten the bullet and produced an estimate range based on 8 books I have access to. I am aware that there are a number more of relevance that I don't have but hopefully these 8 give us a good sample of published estimates. I have then cited the numbers to published sources. These ranges also encompass the estimates given in the text, leading to greater consistency. I propose this to fellow editors as the methodology to use on this page - a referenced range in the info box to show uncertainty of historians' estimates and use the opportunity the text provides to make a best guess, with appropriate rationale. I hope this suggestion finds consensus to allow us to return to the stability required by the importance and quality scale of the article.Monstrelet (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Long Bow
The article claims the Scots long bows were made of yew, but were not inferior to the English bows. At the time, all long bows were made of yew, and were a Welsh weapon. The Normans saw the effectiveness and copied it. Yew when cured is a very springy and deformable timber that has high elasticity. Precisely what is needed for a bow. Modern long bows are usually made from laminated bamboo.203.220.105.67 (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all bows at this time were made of yew . Welsh bows were apparently made of elm (perhaps wych elm, was was used for bow making later in England).  Other woods were probably used, as they were earlier and later.   While the intention of the phrase about Scottish bows was to make clear the English didn't have a weapon superiority in this arm, whether we actually know that Scottish bows were of yew, I don't know.

The idea that the Normans adopted the Welsh longbow is one idea of the origins of the longbow which has entered popular history, not a fact. Many longbows are still made of yew and other hard woods.Monstrelet (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)