WI A more competent Edward II

As we all know, Edward the seconds reign was much less successful then his fathers, he lost the Scottish war of independence and saw alot of political instability in his reign. So the what if is simply, what if the rather disinterested and easily influenced Edward was more in the mold of his father? For the interests of balance I don't expect him to be quite as able as Edward I, but say we make him a bit of a better king then average, with at least some administrative and military power. What changes can we see? The Scottish war was still going strong, as resistance was continually quite strong. Is the struggle there winnable? And how would the English political scene look like with a king less easily influence by favorites?
 
If Bannockburn is an English victory - rather easy with tactical competence by Edward II and ideally less tired troops (Bruce has the same kind of force that lost at Falkirk)- then sooner or latter Scottish resistance will be crushed because the Scots actively into it will be dead or captured.

The political scene is going to be interesting, how it changes depends on who benefits from Edward having better judgment.

Its possible that Bannockburn never happens, depending on how vigorously Edward pursues the war - but the point still stands. Scotland is running on vapors and passion.
 
Even if Edward II had been a competent king it doesn't automatically follow that the Scottish/Bruce cause is doomed. Edward III was competent and he couldn't defeat the Scots twenty years later - it's all very well to say he got distracted by the prospect of the French throne but he wasn't making much headway before that stage. Sooner or later English barons are going to get tired of riding north to invade a country from which they gain very little material benefit.
 
Even if Edward II had been a competent king it doesn't automatically follow that the Scottish/Bruce cause is doomed. Edward III was competent and he couldn't defeat the Scots twenty years later - it's all very well to say he got distracted by the prospect of the French throne but he wasn't making much headway before that stage. Sooner or later English barons are going to get tired of riding north to invade a country from which they gain very little material benefit.

Twenty years later after his father has lost all of Longshanks's gains and the Scots have been fully independent for that period.

This is a very different situation than Edward II (here after Eddy, because...:D) continuing to keep up the pressure on Bruce successfully.

Sure, sooner or latter if victory isn't achieved and there's no benefit (I'm not sure about this part) the English barons are going to say "No. Screw you." to another invasion - but Eddy is within the period where he's more likely to get in trouble for making a humiliating (to England) peace than being like his dad.

JamesPhoenix said:
Yes and no. Sometimes a formidable man and woman in medieval times can be a good thing.

Edward just needs to dig deep and find his balls.

And a better brain. Bannockburn should have been like Falkirk. It wasn't because Edward had no tactical ability.
 
Never underestimate the willingness of the medieval nobility to ride off and crush some skulls. Not only did it earn them glory but quite often loot and the potential to offload second sons. I think it would take a long time before the English Barons stopped following a King they respected North to crush the "Scottish barbarians".
 
Never underestimate the willingness of the medieval nobility to ride off and crush some skulls. Not only did it earn them glory but quite often loot and the potential to offload second sons. I think it would take a long time before the English Barons stopped following a King they respected North to crush the "Scottish barbarians".

In fairness, even Longshanks had trouble with his vassals, but that was about money, rather than grinding.

...yes, grinding in this sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grind_(gaming) :D

You tell me that's not an appropriate metaphor. I dare you.
 
Twenty years later after his father has lost all of Longshanks's gains and the Scots have been fully independent for that period.

This is a very different situation than Edward II (here after Eddy, because...:D) continuing to keep up the pressure on Bruce successfully.

Sure, sooner or latter if victory isn't achieved and there's no benefit (I'm not sure about this part) the English barons are going to say "No. Screw you." to another invasion - but Eddy is within the period where he's more likely to get in trouble for making a humiliating (to England) peace than being like his dad.
Twenty years does make a difference, but if Edward II suddenly discovers balls and tactical ability in 1314, he still has to face the fact that Bruce has retaken control of most of the kingdom, and if Bruce loses control, his supporters are going to face the revenge of the Disinherited and the English. So the same factors are in play as in the 1330s. It wasn't the case that the English held most of Scotland before Bannockburn and they suddenly lost it all on the battlefield. Bannockburn was the culmination of seven years of successful guerrilla warfare. An awful lot of people have a lot to lose in Scotland if the English regain control.

Besides, if Edward II is competent then Bruce isn't even going to fight a pitched battle. He'll fight using scorched earth tactics - the English will be denied all means of sustenance once they cross the border - plus, given the Bruce destruction of major fortifications, they won't find anywhere to shelter either. The fact that Wallace lost Falkirk obscures the fact that Edward I's 1298 campaign in Scotland achieved very little. He didn't force the Scots to surrender and as soon as he left for home they re assumed control - indeed he was forced to return home because his barons were fed up. A feudal army can only stay in the field for so long - feudal tenants only have to give their lord 40 days of military service a year.
 
Twenty years does make a difference, but if Edward II suddenly discovers balls and tactical ability in 1314, he still has to face the fact that Bruce has retaken control of most of the kingdom, and if Bruce loses control, his supporters are going to face the revenge of the Disinherited and the English. So the same factors are in play as in the 1330s. It wasn't the case that the English held most of Scotland before Bannockburn and they suddenly lost it all on the battlefield. Bannockburn was the culmination of seven years of successful guerrilla warfare. An awful lot of people have a lot to lose in Scotland if the English regain control.

And an awful lot of people are in a position to lose it. I agree Bannockburn is a late point for Eddy to suddenly develop ability, though. Its just that if Stirling holds, Edward is in a much better position. Stirling is in a rather important position strategically if I remember my reading right.

Enough was lost to mean that the campaigns have to start all over again.

Besides, if Edward II is competent then Bruce isn't even going to fight a pitched battle. He'll fight using scorched earth tactics - the English will be denied all means of sustenance once they cross the border - plus, given the Bruce destruction of major fortifications, they won't find anywhere to shelter either. The fact that Wallace lost Falkirk obscures the fact that Edward I's 1298 campaign in Scotland achieved very little. He didn't force the Scots to surrender and as soon as he left for home they re assumed control - indeed he was forced to return home because his barons were fed up. A feudal army can only stay in the field for so long - feudal tenants only have to give their lord 40 days of military service a year.
Edward's 1298 campaign may have, but by his death, Scotland is looking less and less likely to retain its independence.

Robert was forced into a major battle because of his brother's folly OTL. What's to stop Edward Bruce from doing something similarly dumb here?

And of course, castle destruction also an easier time taking control of areas (without having to fight sieges). Laying waste to Scotland weakens Scotland as much as it hurts Eddy's logistics. Looking at this from the perspective of a peasant - a farmer, to be precise. Scots can't eat from fields laid waste either. Not that this means its a Bad Idea, just that it has some drawbacks.

I'm not saying Edward II is in a great position. But he has a fairly reasonable chance if he can keep up the pressure on Robert until something breaks.
 
Last edited:
The history of the Wars of Independence really doesn't suggest that the Scots were going to break anytime soon.

Afterall, between 1296 and 1305, despite constant military intrusions from England, what is noticeable is the very patchy nature of control that Edward I had. Between 1297 and 1304 his writ didn't run in Scotland beyond Lothian and the Borders. And this was under a competent military man. The rebellion was quelled briefly after 1304 but suddenly flared up again in 1306. Despite overwhelming defeats in 1306 and the capture and execution of many of his closest allies, Bruce didn't give in and eventually clawed back his losses.

What's noticeable is that the English could never afford to keep more than a few hundred men in Scotland at any one time, all of them in garrisons. Outside of the garrison towns, their writ didn't run, and any group of nobles that could muster a sufficiently large force could eventually overcome these isolated pockets. So how do the English keep control? They can't afford to maintain a large permanent garrison on Scottish soil - they don't have a standing army and any revenue that Scotland brings in is far outweighed by the cost of occupying it. Every so often the English kings can bring north a large army to suppress the rebellion, but they can't do that very often and it often doesn't do much - firstly because it has a tendency to be very expensive, secondly because feudal levies and knights outside of the royal household are only required to serve forty days in a year, and thirdly because the baronage aren't going to want to muster their menfolk and head away from their lands, leaving their women and rivals behind them, very often. Medieval nobles were violent but they only liked invading other countries with the prospect of material gain, which Scotland didn't really have.

With regards to scorched earth strategies, the Scots used them time and time again against the English - in any case, since so much of Scottish agricultural wealth was bound up in moveable livestock rather than crops, they could survive repeated burnings.

You might draw a comparison with Wales, but Wales is very close to the English heartlands, doesn't have very much depth and has a long border with England. Scotland has a rather short border, has bad communications and most of it is unreachable for any English army.

In essence the only way for the English to maintain control over Scotland is through the support of local nobles. But it's too late for that after 1309 because Bruce destroyed the power-base of the Comyns in the Herschip of Buchan. They could also try maintaining a puppet king (and indeed Bruce would probably have settled for this before he became Public Enemy No.1 for the English). This is probably their best option, but if said king decides he doesn't much want to be a puppet anymore, and is prepared to withdraw beyond the reach of English forces, then you're back to square one.

Scotland is basically beyond the control of the English in the Middle Ages. It's too troublesome, remote and poor for them to really try and hold it, or for it to be worth their while in doing so. A peaceful union is possible, but the chances of that were long gone by 1314.
 
The history of the Wars of Independence really doesn't suggest that the Scots were going to break anytime soon.

Afterall, between 1296 and 1305, despite constant military intrusions from England, what is noticeable is the very patchy nature of control that Edward I had. Between 1297 and 1304 his writ didn't run in Scotland beyond Lothian and the Borders. And this was under a competent military man. The rebellion was quelled briefly after 1304 but suddenly flared up again in 1306. Despite overwhelming defeats in 1306 and the capture and execution of many of his closest allies, Bruce didn't give in and eventually clawed back his losses.

And if those defeats had continued, how long until support for Bruce ceases? Scotland does not have the resources to continue indefinitely. Neither does England, but England is stronger.

I know more about the conflict from the military standpoint than political, so who/what says Longshanks's writ doesn't run in Scotland beyond Lothian and the borders?

What's noticeable is that the English could never afford to keep more than a few hundred men in Scotland at any one time, all of them in garrisons. Outside of the garrison towns, their writ didn't run, and any group of nobles that could muster a sufficiently large force could eventually overcome these isolated pockets. So how do the English keep control? They can't afford to maintain a large permanent garrison on Scottish soil - they don't have a standing army and any revenue that Scotland brings in is far outweighed by the cost of occupying it. Every so often the English kings can bring north a large army to suppress the rebellion, but they can't do that very often and it often doesn't do much - firstly because it has a tendency to be very expensive, secondly because feudal levies and knights outside of the royal household are only required to serve forty days in a year, and thirdly because the baronage aren't going to want to muster their menfolk and head away from their lands, leaving their women and rivals behind them, very often. Medieval nobles were violent but they only liked invading other countries with the prospect of material gain, which Scotland didn't really have.

With regards to scorched earth strategies, the Scots used them time and time again against the English - in any case, since so much of Scottish agricultural wealth was bound up in moveable livestock rather than crops, they could survive repeated burnings.
Wealth is one thing. Food is another. Inflicting widespread famine on Scotland to save it from the English is a dubious tradeoff.

I'm not saying scorched earth is worthless - as you said, it was used repeatedly and it worked - but its not perfect.

Would be interesting to see how strong the castles Robert took were compared to the castles Longshanks built in Wales, since those secured Wales pretty well even with minimal garrisons.

You might draw a comparison with Wales, but Wales is very close to the English heartlands, doesn't have very much depth and has a long border with England. Scotland has a rather short border, has bad communications and most of it is unreachable for any English army.
And how is it unreachable again? Are the Highlands further from an English controlled Lothian than a Scottish controlled Lothian?

In essence the only way for the English to maintain control over Scotland is through the support of local nobles. But it's too late for that after 1309 because Bruce destroyed the power-base of the Comyns in the Herschip of Buchan. They could also try maintaining a puppet king (and indeed Bruce would probably have settled for this before he became Public Enemy No.1 for the English). This is probably their best option, but if said king decides he doesn't much want to be a puppet anymore, and is prepared to withdraw beyond the reach of English forces, then you're back to square one.

Scotland is basically beyond the control of the English in the Middle Ages. It's too troublesome, remote and poor for them to really try and hold it, or for it to be worth their while in doing so. A peaceful union is possible, but the chances of that were long gone by 1314.
I notice how its assumed that the Scots will refuse to accept English rule no matter how many additional defeats are suffered and regardless of whether or not Bruce even lives - if Bruce dies (one way or another), who leads the rebellion? Who leads after them? And so on. The idea that the Scots can/will continue until they're all dead strains my suspension of disbelief. Saying that in writing and rhetoric is one thing. Actually doing that? Distinct maybe.

At some point, those leading a rebellion will be dead or locked up or both. That's what will break, if anything. And without leadership, what hope does the rebellion have?

I think the ability of Scotland to endure invasion after invasion after invasion is being overestimated. Will England be able to control Scotland absolutely? Probably not, even in the best case scenario the Highlands and Isles are going to be shaky - but its not as if those areas weren't problematic for Scotland's kings.

Also not entirely convinced that the Comyns are the only nobles who would cooperate with an English king. They might be the major anti-Bruce faction, but that's not enough.
 
Last edited:
And if those defeats had continued, how long until support for Bruce ceases? Scotland does not have the resources to continue indefinitely. Neither does England, but England is stronger.

I know more about the conflict from the military standpoint than political, so who/what says Longshanks's writ doesn't run in Scotland beyond Lothian and the borders?
You're never going to have an indefinate run of Scottish losses, just as you're not going to have an infinite run of victories - as I keep pointing out, the English can't maintain a large army on Scottish soil, and if they do not, then the Scots have the advantage of local superiority.

Sooner or later the English are going to lose interest, as they did. In theory, do the English have the resources to subjucate Scotland? Maybe. But the more the English spend on maintaining Scotland, the shakier their positions in France, Wales and Ireland becomes, not to mention the political situation at home.

Wealth is one thing. Food is another. Inflicting widespread famine on Scotland to save it from the English is a dubious tradeoff.

I'm not saying scorched earth is worthless - as you said, it was used repeatedly and it worked - but its not perfect.
Food is wealth. As most of Scotland is not arable, most of its agricultural wealth is composed of herds of cattle, goats and sheep - in other words, moveable food. The Scots destroyed what they couldn't take with them - and in any case, it would be a mistake to think that they burnt the entire country down. They only destroyed what was in the English line of advance. Since the English very rarely got beyond the Forth, the rich agricultural lands of Fife and Angus were hardly ever touched.

Would be interesting to see how strong the castles Robert took were compared to the castles Longshanks built in Wales, since those secured Wales pretty well even with minimal garrisons.
I don't know enough about Welsh castles to judge. Certainly Stirling, Edinburgh and Roxburgh castles were made of stone, and the first two were in very strong defensive positions. In any case, castle-building is a very expensive ploy and you need to have more control over the Scottish countryside than the English ever had.

And how is it unreachable again? Are the Highlands further from an English controlled Lothian than a Scottish controlled Lothian?
An English army invading Scotland musters at York, not Edinburgh, Newcastle or anywhere like that, because most of England's population and baronage are based in the South. Possession of Lothian is almost irrelevant, and was never entirely secure anyway. The supply lines needed to reinforce an army travelling through the Highlands are indefensible and very long, not to mention the cost of supplying such a force - logistics matter just as much to a medieval army as a modern one, and are actually much more difficult to maintain. Hence why very few medieval campaigns are of a length much longer than a summer, and hence why the English will find it very difficult to conquer Scotland - because they can't sustain a campaign year after year.

I notice how its assumed that the Scots will refuse to accept English rule no matter how many additional defeats are suffered and regardless of whether or not Bruce even lives - if Bruce dies (one way or another), who leads the rebellion? Who leads after them? And so on. The idea that the Scots can/will continue until they're all dead strains my suspension of disbelief. Saying that in writing and rhetoric is one thing. Actually doing that? Distinct maybe.

At some point, those leading a rebellion will be dead or locked up or both. That's what will break, if anything. And without leadership, what hope does the rebellion have?

I think the ability of Scotland to endure invasion after invasion after invasion is being overestimated. Will England be able to control Scotland absolutely? Probably not, even in the best case scenario the Highlands and Isles are going to be shaky - but its not as if those areas weren't problematic for Scotland's kings.

Also not entirely convinced that the Comyns are the only nobles who would cooperate with an English king. They might be the major anti-Bruce faction, but that's not enough.
Why do you assume that the English capacity, or more accurately, will to keep coming back at the Scots is much greater than Scottish capacity to resist? The English were only ever able to send large armies north of the border a couple of times in a decade. The more attention Edward II devotes to Scotland, the more restive his barons back home get. Every major Scottish campaign requires extra taxes. If they're not getting any return for that, why are they going to tolerate continual high level warfare in a poor land? They would bankrupt themselves eventually.

The Scots showed themselves able to keep going despite the loss of their leaders in both the First and Second Wars of Independence. At the beginning of the first, most of Scotland's natural leaders were locked away in England or serving with Edward in France. At the beginning of the second, almost all of the country's leaders were killed at Dupplin Muir and Halidon Hill - but their heirs, who were in some cases no more than teenagers, kept up the struggle. The notion that the English are going to be able to capture, kill or incapacitate everyone who is able of leading a rebellion doesn't stand up to the record of history.

At the end of the day, what does Edward II being competent change? He's able to win battles. So what? Most of Scotland was won for Robert Bruce without any actions larger than a few hundred men. In fact the Scottish strategy was to avoid pitched battles. He still has the same difficulty keeping his armies in the field that he, his father and his son had, he can't afford a prolonged, grinding campaign - and even if he wanted to, his barons wouldn't let him. The problem is that the Scots are fighting on home ground and the English aren't. The English lack the political will and the military ability in terms of logistics and mobilisation of manpower to actually conquer Scotland anything other than temporarily, unless the Scots just fold - which history suggests they won't do.
 
You're never going to have an indefinate run of Scottish losses, just as you're not going to have an infinite run of victories - as I keep pointing out, the English can't maintain a large army on Scottish soil, and if they do not, then the Scots have the advantage of local superiority.

And you overestimate the difficulty of doing so, and the ability of the Scots to keep resisting. Burning fields again and again, losing men again and again, is going to weaken Scotland.

Sooner or later the English are going to lose interest, as they did. In theory, do the English have the resources to subjucate Scotland? Maybe. But the more the English spend on maintaining Scotland, the shakier their positions in France, Wales and Ireland becomes, not to mention the political situation at home.
Sooner or latter the Scots are going to lose hope, if their wins keep being opposed by English wins and Edward II strengthens his hold on the country.

Obviously the English can't continue indefinitely, but what are they facing that means that what Edward I did is infeasible for his son, assuming junior is up to the task of pressuring Scotland?

Food is wealth. As most of Scotland is not arable, most of its agricultural wealth is composed of herds of cattle, goats and sheep - in other words, moveable food. The Scots destroyed what they couldn't take with them - and in any case, it would be a mistake to think that they burnt the entire country down. They only destroyed what was in the English line of advance. Since the English very rarely got beyond the Forth, the rich agricultural lands of Fife and Angus were hardly ever touched.
And if the English get to and beyond the Forth, then what?

If the English are able to hold the area short of the Forth, then what?

I don't know enough about Welsh castles to judge. Certainly Stirling, Edinburgh and Roxburgh castles were made of stone, and the first two were in very strong defensive positions. In any case, castle-building is a very expensive ploy and you need to have more control over the Scottish countryside than the English ever had.
More than they ever had when Bruce was in hiding on some island and inspiring the spider story?

An English army invading Scotland musters at York, not Edinburgh, Newcastle or anywhere like that, because most of England's population and baronage are based in the South. Possession of Lothian is almost irrelevant, and was never entirely secure anyway.
Very relevant for supply lines.

The supply lines needed to reinforce an army travelling through the Highlands are indefensible and very long, not to mention the cost of supplying such a force - logistics matter just as much to a medieval army as a modern one, and are actually much more difficult to maintain. Hence why very few medieval campaigns are of a length much longer than a summer, and hence why the English will find it very difficult to conquer Scotland - because they can't sustain a campaign year after year.
As for sustaining a campaign year after year: So what do you consider the campaigns Edward I launched?

Why do you assume that the English capacity, or more accurately, will to keep coming back at the Scots is much greater than Scottish capacity to resist? The English were only ever able to send large armies north of the border a couple of times in a decade. The more attention Edward II devotes to Scotland, the more restive his barons back home get. Every major Scottish campaign requires extra taxes. If they're not getting any return for that, why are they going to tolerate continual high level warfare in a poor land? They would bankrupt themselves eventually.
Because of the historical performance of Edward I vs. the Scots. You know, the Edward I that had suppressed (temporally) the rebellion by 1304? He didn't do that by bribing them to shut up long enough for him to claim victory and get out of there while the getting was good.

As for twice a decade:
Edward's initial invasion, deposing John Bailiol: 1296
Stirling Bridge: 1297
Falkirk: 1298

Other campaigns as well, but that ought to be enough to indicate that the English are doing much more than "twice a decade".

The Scots showed themselves able to keep going despite the loss of their leaders in both the First and Second Wars of Independence. At the beginning of the first, most of Scotland's natural leaders were locked away in England or serving with Edward in France. At the beginning of the second, almost all of the country's leaders were killed at Dupplin Muir and Halidon Hill - but their heirs, who were in some cases no more than teenagers, kept up the struggle. The notion that the English are going to be able to capture, kill or incapacitate everyone who is able of leading a rebellion doesn't stand up to the record of history.
The notion that the Scots are going to be able to keep coming up with more leaders doesn't stand up to reason, either. If the men leading the schiltrons at Bannockburn are killed, how many men are there to replace them?

Referring to that because those are the men who will be lost in successful campaigns by Edward II.

At the end of the day, what does Edward II being competent change? He's able to win battles. So what? Most of Scotland was won for Robert Bruce without any actions larger than a few hundred men. In fact the Scottish strategy was to avoid pitched battles. He still has the same difficulty keeping his armies in the field that he, his father and his son had, he can't afford a prolonged, grinding campaign - and even if he wanted to, his barons wouldn't let him.
He's able to win battles, retake areas the Scots temporally occupied, and send forces to control Scotland. The Scots avoiding pitched battles makes things more difficult, but not impossible.

The problem is that the Scots are fighting on home ground and the English aren't. The English lack the political will and the military ability in terms of logistics and mobilisation of manpower to actually conquer Scotland anything other than temporarily, unless the Scots just fold - which history suggests they won't do.
Because the Scots will resist to the death. They will continue fighting no matter how many nobles are killed. Kill the Bruces off? No problem. The Douglases? No problem. Stewarts? No problem. Etc, etc.

Are we really supposed to believe that the Scots are all fanatically dedicated to independence to the point that no matter how many defeats they suffer or how many leaders are killed that it won't matter?

I don't think its being suggested that the Scots just fold, just that their ability to keep going is finite.

A Scottish army so deep in the Highlands as to be hard to reach is also a Scottish army so deep in the Highlands as to not be much use in determining the fate of the Lowlands. Using "army" in the sense of "armed force able to cause trouble" - whether its a pitched battle force or a guerrilla force.

If this is true: http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/independence/summary/wars_part1_page3.html , Edward invading between 1307-1314 (as in, at some point between, not every year - though he can probably launch more than one invasion) would be a problem for Bruce's attempts to tear down castles and beat opponents.

Referring to the third to last paragraph - if Bruce's position is easier without that, logically his position would be harder with that.

Also, I have to wonder what kind of anti-guerrilla tactics are an option in the Middle Ages. Destroying villages is going to make angry Scots...oh wait the Scots already are angry.

This being said, I do think it seems like a poor use of, in a word, resources - men, money, good will, and royal time (time spent on Scottish campaigns is time not available for any other projects Edward II wants to see accomplished, just as manpower, money, and good will are used that could be used elsewhere).

Pity that there's no good alternate candidate to Bruce. Looking at this not so much as a puppet as a way to bog Bruce down establishing his claim.
 
Last edited:
God help those Scots if Edward II was the true inheritor of his father's will. While Scotland was never likely to be subdued totally - even if it's simply because the heartland of the highland clans and lands were far out of the reach of the English - they could be hammered into the ground many times and made to pay dearly for their insurrections.

Dear God! Imagine if Edward III turned out as OTL! Three Edwards with the ability and intent of squashing those who oppose them under their heels coming one after the other. Longshanks followed by a competant Edward II followed by the excellent Edward III, you'd have to be mad to oppose them!

That said, it'd come down to whether crushing the Scots was more important to them than keeping hold of their Continental lands cause the Valois' were definately trying to steal the Plantagenet lands.
 
I know more about the conflict from the military standpoint than political, so who/what says Longshanks's writ doesn't run in Scotland beyond Lothian and the borders?
It didn't but he made treaties with the Lordship of the Isles. Whether he would have honoured them is a different question.

At some point, those leading a rebellion will be dead or locked up or both. That's what will break, if anything. And without leadership, what hope does the rebellion have?
"Dead or locked or both?" If you're dead, why do you need to be locked up? In any event, even though I don't understand where you get the term "rebellion" from, you're wrong - it's a win or lose situation. You lose you (probably) but not always die, if you win, you win - the other guy doesn't.

I think the ability of Scotland to endure invasion after invasion after invasion is being overestimated. Will England be able to control Scotland absolutely? Probably not, even in the best case scenario the Highlands and Isles are going to be shaky - but its not as if those areas weren't problematic for Scotland's kings.
How could England control Scotland when the might of the Roman Empire couldn't?
 
It didn't but he made treaties with the Lordship of the Isles. Whether he would have honoured them is a different question.

And probably hard to answer.

"Dead or locked or both?" If you're dead, why do you need to be locked up? In any event, even though I don't understand where you get the term "rebellion" from, you're wrong - it's a win or lose situation. You lose you (probably) but not always die, if you win, you win - the other guy doesn't.
So that if a necromancer comes along you can't be raised from the dead.

Less snarkily, I was unclear. "If the leaders are dead, or locked up, or some are dead and the rest locked up" - as opposed to all dead or all locked up. Yes, my wording sucks.

As for rebellion, I'm using it because Edward had some level of suzerainty over Scotland - a legacy of the process that determined who would be king after Alexander the Sonless (Alexander III if I remember correctly, but I'm not confident I do) kicked the bucket.

As for it being a win or lose situation, not sure what you mean that conflicts my statement. I find it rather hard to believe that the average common Scot is going to be a threat to England's rule without some level of leadership. Not necessarily noble, but leadership nonetheless. No, this isn't a slur on the Scots - just that peasant uprisings have a nasty tendancy of failure, and if that's all this is, it would be hard to make it an exception. If the nobility, including knights, is behind England, or suppressed by England, there's a problem of finding anything to make it more than a peasant rising.

How could England control Scotland when the might of the Roman Empire couldn't?
Did the Romans try to hold Scotland over the long term, or did they decide "not worth bothering with"? There's a huge difference, and it seems to have been the latter.
 
Last edited:
Did the Romans try to hold Scotland over the long term, or did they decide "not worth bothering with"? There's a huge difference, and it seems to have been the latter.

Ahh yes. The Antonine Wall, which was historically made out of paper because the Romans weren't long-term enough to make it out of stone. Except they did.

Elfwine, the major problem with your arguments is not defending the part that England had the capacity to wage these wars. It clearly did. What it did not have the capacity to do was to hold Lothian during times of peace. They tried it, and they ran out of money to pay for the garrisons, and those garrisons were starved into submission by the Scots anyway. There was no point demanding Lothian in a peace deal because the English knew that as soon as war was declared Lothian would instantly rise up against them and all of a sudden they would be fighting a defensive war, not an offensive war, and that's not the way to fight Scotland.

To answer the question "who leads the Scots once Robert the Bruce is dead?" I would say the answer is "any of the branches of the Douglas family". I believe they had a claim to the throne, and besides, IIRC there were 12 claimants to the throne when John Balliol and Robert the Bruce came to the fore, so there's hardly a lack of future candidates. There's enough men there to preclude the chance of them all dropping down dead and conveniently leaving Scotland leaderless.

To answer the question "what happens if England gets beyond the Forth?" the answer is "their supply lines gets horrendously overstretched". They tried it once, getting as far as Aberdeen. They didn't dare leave the coastal road because their supply lines would get instantly cut there, and they had to keep a fleet of, IIRC 27 ships off the coast constantly to feed them supplies. This, and keeping Aberdeen castle garrisoned afterwards, cost an incredible amount of money and essentially bankrupted England.
 
Elfwine, the major problem with your arguments is not defending the part that England had the capacity to wage these wars. It clearly did. What it did not have the capacity to do was to hold Lothian during times of peace. They tried it, and they ran out of money to pay for the garrisons, and those garrisons were starved into submission by the Scots anyway. There was no point demanding Lothian in a peace deal because the English knew that as soon as war was declared Lothian would instantly rise up against them and all of a sudden they would be fighting a defensive war, not an offensive war, and that's not the way to fight Scotland.

What times of peace are we referring to here?

And why are they running out of money to pay the garrisons? Is this in Edward II's time, or Edward I's? (Or Edward III and beyond, for that matter)

And again, why are we assuming the Scots will fight and fight and fight and fight and fight and fight and never give up?

Obviously Scotland is a tenacious country and crushing resistance would take a lot of effort - but how much more can the Scots offer in 1307?

To answer the question "who leads the Scots once Robert the Bruce is dead?" I would say the answer is "any of the branches of the Douglas family". I believe they had a claim to the throne, and besides, IIRC there were 12 claimants to the throne when John Balliol and Robert the Bruce came to the fore, so there's hardly a lack of future candidates. There's enough men there to preclude the chance of them all dropping down dead and conveniently leaving Scotland leaderless.

And of course, they're all going to say "yes, fighting England is a great idea" forever.

Its not as if every single Scots noble is part of the independence faction.

I'm not sure if the Douglases have a claim to the throne - at this point, "a claim" gets...um...foggy. Not illegitimate, but it becomes increasingly removed. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but makes it hard (speaking for myself) to tell how broadly "some claim" extends.

If wiki is right (if its not, someone correct me - I'm using it in absence of something else handy, will amend it if/when said something is found).

Italicized comments in small font are my observations.


  1. Floris V, Count of Holland, son of William II, Count of Holland, son of Floris IV, Count of Holland, son of William I, Count of Holland, son of Floris III, Count of Holland by his wife Ada, daughter of Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, son of King David I. He and his son are dead (without further males), this line is no longer relevant.
  2. Patrick Dunbar, 7th Earl of Dunbar, son of Patrick, 6th Earl of Dunbar, son of Patrick, 5th Earl of Dunbar, son of Patrick, 4th Earl of Dunbar by his wife Ada, natural daughter of King William the Lion. His other claim was as the agnate of the House of Dunkeld, being (a) the closest agnate, and (b) a candidate based on tanistry of agnates of the house where Alexander III belonged to. He descended, in an allegedly legitimate unbroken male line, from a younger brother of King Duncan I of Scotland (who allegedly also was a younger son of Bethóc, the male line being that of Lords of Dunbar, originally Earls of Northumbria, later Earls of Dunbar (see Earl of March). His son became recognized as the Earl of Scottish March. Also, an additional claim in his favour was that made by his wife, Marjory, daughter of Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan, allegedly descended from King Donald III. Dead, son seems to have been leaning toward England in this period (1307-1314)
  3. William de Vesci, Baron de Vesci, son of William de Vesci, son of Eustace de Vesci by his wife Margaret, natural daughter of King William the Lion.
  4. William de Ros, 2nd Baron de Ros, son of Robert de Ros, 1st Baron de Ros, son of William de Ros, of Hamlake, son of Robert de Ros by his wife Isabella, natural daughter of King William the Lion.
  5. Robert de Pinkeney, son of Henry de Pinkeney by his wife Alicia, daughter of John Lindesay by his wife Marjorie, an alleged natural daughter of Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, son of King David I.
  6. Nicholas de Soules, son of William II de Soules by his wife Ermengarde, daughter of Alan Durward by his wife Marjorie, natural daughter of King Alexander II.
  7. Patrick Galithly, son of Henry Galithly, natural son of King William the Lion.
  8. Roger de Mandeville, son of ... de Mandeville by his wife Agatha, daughter of Robert Wardone by his wife Aufrica, daughter of William de Say who was son of Aufrica, natural daughter of King William the Lion. No useful information for any of 3-8.
  9. John Comyn, Lord of Badenoch, son of John Comyn, son of Richard Comyn, son of William Comyn, son of Richard Comyn by his wife Hextilda, daughter of Uchtred of Tynedale by his wife Bethoc, daughter of King Donald Bane. Disposed of by Robert the Bruce.
  10. John Hastings, 2nd Baron Hastings, son of John Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings, son of Henry de Hastings by his wife Ada, fourth daughter of David, Earl of Huntingdon, son of Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, son of King David I. English noble, bad claim to begin with.
  11. John Balliol, son of John Balliol by his wife Devorguilla, daughter of Alan, Lord of Galloway by his wife Margaret, eldest daughter of David, Earl of Huntingdon, son of Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, son of King David I. He pleaded primogeniture in legitimate, cognatic line.
  12. Robert de Brus, 5th Lord of Annandale, son of Robert de Brus, 4th Lord of Annandale by his wife Isabella, second daughter of David, Earl of Huntingdon, son of Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, son of King David I. This Robert Bruce was Regent of Scotland sometime during minority of King and was occasionally recognized as a Tanist of the Scottish Throne. In the succession dispute, he pleaded tanistry and proximity in degree of kinship to the deceased King. Grandfather of the Bruce whose death we're discussing.
  13. Eric II, King of Norway, father of Queen Margaret I and son-in-law of King Alexander III. Not really an issue.

So if all of this is true, that leaves...who? I'm presuming no one who felt they had some claim would have failed to show up if someone with as shaky a claim as Hastings is coming in. Not to mention that if Robert's supporters are further decimated as well as disposing of Robert, the core of the resistance's leadership will be be gone. Are nobles that previously didn't care very strongly OTL going to join in a scenario where by 1310 yet another half dozen independent-minded lords are disposed of? :rolleyes:

And rebelling when Edward turns his back would require at least some faith that doing so will not meet that fate, just as continuing to resist him sending campaigns like his father did would.

To answer the question "what happens if England gets beyond the Forth?" the answer is "their supply lines gets horrendously overstretched". They tried it once, getting as far as Aberdeen. They didn't dare leave the coastal road because their supply lines would get instantly cut there, and they had to keep a fleet of, IIRC 27 ships off the coast constantly to feed them supplies. This, and keeping Aberdeen castle garrisoned afterwards, cost an incredible amount of money and essentially bankrupted England.

Would love to hear more about this. Not just in regards to this argument on Edward II, but just in regards to the general issue of the wars from Longshanks on. And of course, why can't the English live off the land? Scorched earth tactics or not, the Scots have to live too.

No rush, mind. Just that the logistics element of the Highlands seems to be a major pain in the neck - whether for Scottish kings trying to enforce their authority or English kings trying to conquer Scotland.
 

Stephen

Banned
Isnt it obviouse why the Scots are all willing to fight to the death to avoid English rule. Its through inspriational speeches like:"THE FREEEEDOOOM... to be ruled and taxed by this set of Norman decended French speaking aristocrats instead of that set of Norman decended French speaking aristocrats."

Or maybe the local leaders will just side with whichever faction looks like its going to win in the end who knows. Although I suppose some medieval people did take quite strong views on which family tree had right to what land.
 
Top