Talk:First War of Scottish Independence

Untitled
I'm no expert on English and Scottish history, but I suggest someone double check the army numbers. 90 000 men is really an immense army in medieval terms Fornadan 17:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the 20,000 men for the Scots and 100,000 men for the English is quite accurate. This is the total manpower strength throughout the war and not the size of actual field armies. The largest army fielded for the Scots was around 7,000 for the Battle of Stirling and 22,000 men for the English at Bannockburn.

Wallace the Martyr?
Once again I have to take issue with the 'Wallace the Martyr' thesis. I've edited out this section because the sentiments do not accord with the facts, and because it sits ill with what is a reasonably objective account of the first War of Independence. The cult of 'Wallace the Martyr' emerged-as these cults so often do-generations after the death of the man. It really only dates back to Blind Harry's late fifteenth century epic fantasy, which reveals much more about the politics and attitudes of his time than those of Wallace. There is not a scrap of evidence that the death of Wallace in 1305-horrible as it was-created additional problems for Edward, or that it had any real or lasting impact on Scotland. Sir John de Mentieth, the man who handed Wallace over to the English, far from being a pariah, was to become one of Robert Bruce's leading men. I have no wish to minimize Wallaces' achievments in 1297, but for some years before his death he was a figure of very little importance in the politics of Scotland. All history should proceed with care, and on the basis of fact and evidence, rather than draped in emotion, or viewed through the awful prism of films like Braveheart.

Rcpaterson 08:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that films often distort peoples fiew of History. For example nearly everyone believes the great Harry Houdini died in the chinese water chamber durring an escape act ( when truthfully he died of peritonitis in bed) In a popular movie about Houdini they showed him dieing in the chinese water chamber, which is most likely why so many believe this theory. Although the facts of the life and accomplishments of William Wallace will always remain blurry, since he lived so long ago and there is not much recorded evidence about his life here today, It is safe to say that he was obviously a man of great importance and a hero of the Scottish people. Even today there are still huge monuments standing in honour of William Wallace.

After i first watched the movie Braveheart (on DVD) i took a look at the special features. Mel Gibson explained in it that there was not much written about the life of William Wallace, so he had to rely on a lot of legends and folk tales surrounding the Scottish Hero. I recomment that people check the Braveheart page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart under Historical Accuracy to look over the obviouse things Mel Gibson changed or left out in his film. --Summer 19:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Armies
Here, as elsewhere, I've removed references to the alleged sizes of particular armies. The suggestion that Edward led 90,000 men at Falkirk is absurd; even a nation as strong as England did not have the capacity to raise, equip and feed a force anywhere near this size. The army that Edward II commanded at Bannockburn, one of the largest ever to enter Scotland, numbered roughly 20,000 men. As I have said elsewhere, it is important to treat the figures mentioned by medieval chronicles with considerable care. Rcpaterson 00:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Berwick-Massacre and Matters.
I am aware of no contemporary reaction-or shock waves- to the of the sack of Berwick on Scotland, and to describe it as 'genocide' is laughably out of place. As I have pointed out ad nauseum  there is no place for emotive and highly inaccurate terminology in sober historical discourse. The sack of Berwick, terrible as it was, was in no way unusual for the time. The people in towns taken by assault could expect little mercy, either then or for centuries afterwards; and anyone seeking to match horror for horror might-or might not- care to examine Wallace's exploits in northern England after Stirling Bridge. Also the way the piece was written suggested something cold-blooded and malevolent on Edward's part; whereas in truth his soldiers gave way to their brutish passions until such time as he called a halt. Rcpaterson 02:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Truncated War
This article is actually quite hopeless. The First War of Independence did not end in 1306. Bannockburn appears here almost as an afterthought. Rcpaterson 04:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
I'm having difficulty in seeing this article as NPOV. While sections are pro-Edward and others pro-Wallace or Pro-Bruce, so it is not partisan in one particular direction, a lot of the tone and language is inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. Iain1917 18:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Moray
This article downplays Moray's role considerably so I've added some text to redress the balance and show him for what he was, joint-commander of the Scots at Stirling Bridge. Jaygtee (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Check out Dr Barron's 'Scottish Wars of Independence' and GWS Barrow's 'Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm' (The real authorities on this period - and some of the only literature based on primary material) . Andrew de Morays role was intitially greater than Wallaces!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.22.81.15 (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Photos
This article could benefit greatly from the addition of some images of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.82.109 (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They didn't have cameras in the early 14th century.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor did they in the late 13th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.22.81.15 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This article needs serious work
What the original author of this article calls the "First War of Scottish Independence" was actually two wars, one that ended in 1304 with the surrender of John Comyn, Lord of Badenoch, and at the time sole Guardian of Scotland. It should really be split into two separate articles since there were really two entirely different wars.

The actual "Second War of Scottish Independence" didn't BEGIN until 1306, roughly a year-and-a-half later, when Robert the Bruce began his struggle for the crown, starting with killing the above-mentioned Comyn in a knife fight in a church, and it did not end until 1328. The battles and exploits that made Thomas Randolph, Edward Bruce, James "the Black" Douglas, and Robert himself famous across Europe, the Near East, and North Africa. The Battle of Bannockburn, the Declaration of Arbroath, and the treaty in 1328 have all been left out.

What Wikipedia names the Second War of Scottish Independence would truthfully be the "Third", if it were to be included under the heading "War of Scottish Independence". Wikipedia is the one and only place where have seen Edward Balliol's occupation of Scotland so named. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Name
I find the name a big problem. "War of Independence" usually means that the nation in question was occupied and struggling to gain its independence. See America, India, etc. If the nation is independent at the start of the war, and still independent at the end of the war, then...it's just a war! Otherwise you can call World War II the "War of British Independence", or "War of French Independence", or even "Second War of American Independence". Do we have references indicating that this is the most common name of the conflict? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See where you're coming from, but I think the English armies did occupy Scotland as an invading force. There's not a whole lot about the background to the war in the article. I suppose if the country is occupied by a succession of foreign armies you could call it a war of Independence against a foreign ruler. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC))


 * References indicating this is the most common name of the conflict: 'Scottish Wars of Independence' Evan Barron, all the work by GWS Barrow. It has also been known as the Scottish Civil War due to the Balliol/Comyn - Bruce bickering of this period (See work of Michael Penman). Regardless, there are probably bigger things to worry about regarding this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.22.81.15 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. There's an even bigger problem. Exactly where was the Scots-English border at that time? Most of what is now Lowland Scotland was in fact then in England, so a lot of this 'invasion of Scotland' stuff was actually the English king moving his forces into northern England not Scotland. The eventual peace treaty gave Scotland its present boundary which included a huge swathe of northern England; so rather than a war of independece one might call it a war of imperial conquest by the Scots! Or rather not 'by the Scots' but by their Norman French aristocacy who were just as rapacious for land as the England's Norman French aristos. Another aspect of this is the role of the French with whom England was at war: the French were always keen to stir up trouble, and willing fund anyone in Scotland willing to have a go at England in order to draw off troops from France: nothing changes in politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.1.208 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Sinebot, with the best will in the world that is utter nonsense. The border was largely fixed by the outcome of the Battle of Carham long, long before Bannockburn and the area between the Tweed/Solway and the Forth/Clyde was never part of England - even Edward I did not actually try to make Scotland part of his English kingdom, but rather to keep it and administer it as a separate entity. A fair number of Scottish lords had French names but, since their ancestors had come to Scotland 200 years earlier and had married Scottish brides - as did their children, grandchildren etc, it's hardly valid to think of them as Norman or French =- the same applies to English lords of the period. Save for a couple of rather minor interventions/contributions in the 1380s the French were not really much given to taking much notice of Scotland at all, though from time to time both countries certainly co-operated to a degree - notably with a large Scottish army operational in France in the 1420s. Chris Brown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.209.243 (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Walter of Coventry (fl. 1290) wrote “The modern kings of Scotia count themselves as Frenchmen [i.e. Norman], in race, manners, language and culture; they keep only Frenchmen in their household and following, and have reduced the Scots [=Gaels north of the Forth] to utter servitude.

Much the same could be said of England.

What are today described as national wars between the English and the Scots are better described and understood as civil wars between Britain's Norman-French descended aristocracy. Even more confusingly the common people of what became Lowland Scotland described themselves as 'English'. The lowlands. part of the 'Angle-lands', had been home to Angles since the 7th century and had been thoroughly Anglo-Saxon at least since the Norman Conquest of the north led by the usurper King David on behalf of Henry I in the early 12th century. 'The Scots' were the Gaelic speaking peoples of the Highlands or 'Scotland Proper' as it was then known. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.111.241 (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Literally nobody ever refers or ever has referred to these fights as 'wars of Scottish independence.' The term relates solely to the agenda of a single political party in the present day, and to the ideology of certain American spectators. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First War of Scottish Independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004063959/http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/higherscottishhistory/warsofindependence/index.asp to http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/higherscottishhistory/warsofindependence/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The Dumfries spark
Under this section the following is stated:

"For some unknown motive, probably a desire to ruin his rival, Comyn revealed the conspiracy to Edward. Bruce was at the English court at this time and, after being forewarned, fled back to Scotland."

There is a lot of reason to be sceptical of this, and it seems to be Brucean propaganda. As far as I know, no betrayal of Bruce by Comyn has ever been proven to have taken place and this idea has its origin in 'The Brus', a poem from at least 70 least years after the events being alleged here and written with the objective of glorifying Robert the Bruce's kingship. The sources cited also seem to be dubious, primary and secondary level education sources which are probably borrowed from Scottish school teaching, which simplifies the Scottish Wars of Independence to portray Robert the Bruce as a hero of an independence movement rather than considering the complexities of the succession crisis that Scotland was facing. The Murder of John Comyn needs to be better explained here as being a politically motivated killing (either calculated or as a murder of passion - it is unclear why the killing actually took place), which helped to secure Bruce's claim on the throne.

Historical accurate heraldry
See MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Only historical flags and heraldry should be displayed in the infobox. Readers of this article will expect that each device is not only historical, but will also assume that each displayed device was actually borne by someone in the war. If we use a device without knowing its provenance—when it is first recorded; where it is first recorded; who is recorded to have borne it—we're only fooling ourselves and we're potentially misinforming readers.

It's not too difficult to determine the heraldry borne by fourteenth-century English and Scottish magnates. There are heaps of books available that list blazons from medieval armorials and describe seals attached to medieval charters. It's not so easy to come up examples of medieval Irish heraldry. Clan books and websites may associate coats of arms with Irish surnames, but that doesn't mean that these devices were borne in this war or that they even date to the Middle Ages.

It's because of this uncertainty that I've removed the Irish devices from the infobox. A couple days ago, User:HistoricallyAccurate reinserted the devices stating: "I have double checked the pages of each respective kingdom and the flags are not anachronistic.". I'm not sure how much double-checking was actually done, because none of the pages linked-to in that edit contain any information about the devices. Absolutely none.

I'm again removing the contested coats of arms and flags. I'm asking HistoricallyAccurate to please provide quotations from reliable sources that clearly show that these devices were borne by people who fought in the war. I'm asking HistoricallyAccurate to please not reinsert these devices into the article until they are verified as actually 'historically accurate' for this article.

--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh, thank you for letting me know. I apologize if I have made any mistakes. I was using the wikipedia articles for those kingdoms as sources. Lists of their monarchs show their heraldry over time, and I was using each piece of heraldry based on what their King's crest was at the time. However, I thank you for your explanation and I will refrain from reinserting the crests and flags until I can find a more reliable source. Otherwise, thank you for being the better person and calling me out, preventing an edit war. I respect that, and I respect you for it. If you ever need to bring something like this up to me, feel free. Thanks,

-User:HistoricallyAccurate —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * O'Domhnaill Tyrconnell Coat of Arms.svg

'Scotland lay defenseless'
Under 'From Falkirk to execution', the article asserts, 'Scotland lay defenseless,' which, for the benefit of Americans who wouldn't know, is not British spelling. Was the article written by Americans? Because that would explain a lot, including the obviously American and culturally imperialistic term 'War of Scottish Independence' by analogy with the American revolutionary war. None of the various bouts of aggressive unpleasantness in Great Britain has ever been known by any such name. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Lord paramount?
This article tells of how Edward I "insisted that all of the contenders recognise him as lord paramount." But, there is no explanation of what "lord paramount" means, why Edward insisted and why it is import for the history given in this article. The phrase is a link to Edward's personal page (via "Lord Paramount of Scotland", as it was ostensibly one of his titles), which also neglects to discuss or define the term. I did, however, find that Wikipedia has a page dedicated to the term "lord paramount" itself. It makes more sense to me to link the phrase to that page, especially considering that Edward's personal page is already linked to through this article's first mention of his name. I believe it would be most helpful to keep the link as I have altered it and, on the term's article, refer to Edward I as an example. Though I have a degree in Medieval Studies and would be glad to do this myself, I am not well versed enough in such specifics of English noble terminology that I feel I could do so correctly.Jyg (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Real name?
What do we traditionally call this war? Without the annoying Americanisation? 70.50.213.21 (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes me wonder what we call Americanisation without the annoying Anglicization Jyg (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
On the William Wallace page one can read the following: "They went on to conclude a treaty of mutual assistance with France—known in later years as the Auld Alliance. In retaliation for Scotland's treaty with France, Edward I invaded, storming Berwick-upon-Tweed and commencing the Wars of Scottish Independence."

Nothing about this seems to appear on the page on the First War of Scottish Independence, yet (if true) it clearly has important implications for Edward's motivation. Theeurocrat (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)