Talk:Battle of Falkirk

-

Wally?
I found two instances of Wally, I'm assuming someone did this as a prank. I changed Wally's to Wallace's and Wally to Wallace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.4.81 (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I hate to be critical about other people's work, but to be frank this is a very poor account of the battle of Falkirk, which seems to draw its chief inspiration from Braveheart. The analysis of the cavalry battle verges on the ridiculous. My editing has eliminated the worst errors, but I believe this whole piece requires substantial rewriting. Might I suggest that articles of this kind are written in future by people who have a working knowledge of the elements of medieval warfare. Rcpaterson 23:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * Given that allegedly in Medevial battles-the loser was judged to have the one with the most casualities-Wallace's 1/3 casualites killed {2,000?} matched Edward Infantry losses of {2,000}-and that Wallace's "army" was still 2/3 alive of 6,000 (Half deserted and half remained with Wallace}-the "English victory" could be looked upon as half "pyrrhic victory" and as half Draw-Edward had killed or driven away many of the Scots-yet he had to retreat from Scotland-aparently his only sensible option-and had not destroyed Wallace's forces.


 * In modern terms, we might describe this as a tactical victory for the English (they were left in command of the field), but a strategic victory for the Scots (the invading English army was rendered incapable by the action and had to abandon its campaign). --146.109.240.242 09:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)'

I agree the victory wasn't nearly as total as Edward wanted it, but this was the last time Wallace fought a direct battle against the English so I don't think it would count as a pyrrhic victory, because it permanently removed a major opponent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohran (talk • contribs) 14:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Casualty Figures" in this article are entirely speculative and not supported by the (very little) contemporary evidence. English casualty figures of "5000" (i.e. very heavy and comparable to French losses at Agincourt) are almost certainly wrong. Losses of this scale are only sustained when armies experience a total collapse; moreover no contemporary commentator suggests that the English had much difficulty in overcoming the Scots at Falkirk. I suggest that Scottish casualties should be recorded as "heavy but unknown" and English casualties should be recorded as "unknown". Boring but correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Formating problem in the battle section
The images cover up part of the text. I tried to edit it to fix this, but reverted my own useless edit back to the last version that was saved by someone else (IP 86.148.192.211). Perhaps someone else can do a better job that I did. Twfowler (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
Currently the infobox states that Edward led "28,700" troops, while the text suggests considerably fewer than that at 14,000 (2,000 horses and 12,000 infantry), a number consistent with this source., which is discusses the issue in more detail in the attached Pdf. Clearly the exact figures are not known, and chrinicles of the time exaggerated the numbers on both sides. Paul B (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, I mean it says that Edward had over 10,000 Welsh infantry! At it's largest, the united Welsh army in Wales was never as large as 10,000 (see Battle of Crug Mawr and Battle of Orewin Bridge) and this includes cavalry. Also the Welsh armies had suffered heavy casualties following the 1282-83 wars and it's unlikely that the English could have hired this many so soon after such a devastating war. Although the English had also suffered heavy casualties in the war, it was easier for them to recruit more men due to their larger population and resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.196.50 (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Please can people stop putting in fictitous army sizes and casualty figures for which there is no contemporaneous evidence. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of facts. Just because some romantic author, several hundred years ago, conjured up a number to suit his particular polemic, doesn't make it a fact. If nobody knows the actual numbers (and nobody does) the article should list them as "unknown".

Treacherous Comyns?
Going by the text on the Comyns page and the desire to be more encyclopedic anyway, I have edited the text which describes Comyns as having 'treacherously' withdrawn his cavalry. Would Comyns have been made a Guardian after the Battle if he had been so obviously treacherous? As it says further up in the Discussion, the main accounts are likely to be biassed anyway and I find the evidence that suggests the horse would have been no match for the English horse compelling. IceDragon64 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Braveheart
This seems to be a very POV account of the battle inspired by the film Braveheart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.36.114 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Falkirk (1298) → Battle of Falkirk — Where we only have 2 meanings of a title the margin of notability does not need to be very great to decide that one is the primary meaning. The 1298 battle is one of the two major battles fought by William Wallace, it featured in the film Braveheart. The 1746 battle is not quite so well known, less important in the 1745 rebellion than Prestonpans or Culloden, it should be treated as a hatnote. PatGallacher (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment isn't that an argument for a dab page, if the two are close in notability, then neither should be primary, resulting in a dab page. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I think the argument is that the 1746 battle is nowhere near as well known as the 1298 version.  In any case, shouldn't the second battle really be at Battle of Falkirk Muir?  Skinsmoke (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Battle of Falkirk Muir which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Battle
I guess Wallace didn't train enough men RehanArif (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Falkirk memorial
There's a photo of the monument (to this battle) - but there's no mention of it in the text … should there be? At the head of the page, the co-ordinates given for this battle are 55°59′15″N 3°45′41″W - but under Possible battle sites the text states that "the site of the battle is uncertain", and lists three possibilities; to which of these do the co-ordinates refer? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Callender/Callendar Wood/s
Possible battle sites mentions "south of Callendar Woods (as depicted in the diagrams above)" - but the diagrams have "Callend e r Wood", and the caption of the final photograph is "South edge of Callendar Wood". Is it possible to get consistency? The sign by Forestry Commission Scotland has "Callendar Wood", though the sign erected by FCS and the Falkirk Community Trust shows "Callendar Woods". Does anyone know if the plural is correct, or the singular? In any case, the two diagrams of the battle need correction to show "Callendar". Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)