Talk:Sack of Berwick (1296)

Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America
I'm sorry but is this being used as a reputable source for the Siege of Berwick? Good grief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.66.138 (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well Whitewashed
This article should receive the award for best whitewashed article ever. Great effort seems to have been made to minimize the description of the rapes and murders of thousands. Abductive (reasoning) 10:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the slaughter was so notorious this became part of the battle cry of the Scottish war of independence and was a primary contributor to that war being fought and not a settlement being negotiated. It has macro-historical importance, how is it not referenced and described in some detail here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrover999 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Equally, the comments above should go in the 'brainwashed' category. The account of the sack of Berwick given by medieval propagandists such as Walter Bower, Andrew Wyntoun et al should be taken as just that - propaganda. The actual contemporary records of the state show that there was no such general massacre of the citizenry; for instance, plenty of the citizens of Berwick survived and later petitioned Edward I (usually successfully) for the return of their goods and property. There is no evidence that the sack of Berwick became a 'battle cry' for Scottish independence, and the Scottish magnates seem to have conveniently forgotten it when they negotiated a settlement with Edward in 1304-5.

Comment by Anonymous, This article does seem a little denierist, there was no need for Berwick to totally be the war cry for indepdence as there were many oppressions going on elsewhere, also, the fact some Berwickers survived, does not stop there having been a massacre, just look at most genocides, there are always some survivors, who want their stuff back, look at the Armenians, and more, and also the fact the Scottish magnates were accepting a deal in in the 1300s, is not rare in war either, look at defeated forces the world over, requesting peace when defeated, the fact the Scots won in 1314, shows this was just something people sometimes do. The idea of rubbishing Bower and Wyntoun as "propaganda", is laughable if you ignoire their comments who do you listen to, and if your claim is, only listen to the view of a certain side, then that is frightening, There was certainly a sacking of the city, and to deny this, is horrifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.238.109 (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Who I listen to, apart from fifteenth century propagandists with a massive axe to grind? Um, how about contemporary evidence? Proper historiography? Archaeology? Professional standards of historical research and empirical data? That sort of thing?

For that matter, if you wish to talk of atrocities committed during these wars, shall we take a closer look at what the Bruces got up to? Does the Harrying of Buchan mean anything to you? The slaughter and devastation they committed in Galloway? The massacre of defenceless citizenry at Dundalk in Ireland? Or does none of that matter, because Robert de Bruce is a Scottish national hero and therefore his victims don't count? NEW Comment, By all means take a closer look at what the Bruces got up to in your words, but that statement in itself shows a slant, a thorough political slant, as if genocide denialism, is acceptable if the side you are denying committed atrocities can also claim the other side committed them. The fact is, the main story of this battle was the brutal slaughter of innocent civilians, to deny it just as you dont want to admit it as you support one of the sides is shameful. It seems to me the most polemicist form of history, to look at a Medieval massacre and deny it purely as you did not like the side of the people who were massacred. They were people just like you and me, and they deserve respect whether you have some dislike of the Scots, the Bruces or whatever, just remember we are all human, it does not matter if we are English, Scottish, a Bruce, whatever you are, or anything, we live in one world now, and we should all get along, and have sorrow for the wrong of yesterday, and not have some sick competition of denying massacres just as you dont like the innocent human beings who were killed in those massacres being on a different side to whom you support or love.

Article title
The article title is "Capture of Berwick", but the infobox calls it the "Siege of Berwick" and the intro has it as the "Massacre of Berwick". What is the most common name of this event as per the sources? — howcheng  {chat} 00:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)