An idea about Flodden..

I've just been reading a biography of James IV, and it claims the battle of Flodden happened essentially by accident.

The Scots took up the position which had Surrey attacked head-on, the English would have got destroyed. Surrey, realising this took his army on the march on the evening of the 8th. This was spotted by the Scots who believed the English Army was retiring to a nearby village and thus never changed their position for the battle and the rest is history.

Now, what if the Scottish Council of War on the evening of the 8th had realised that the English Army was changing position and withdrew from the field back to Norham. With Henrys northern-most fortress in Scottish hands and a huge army on the border, how do you think this would have affected the war?
 
I don't know much about the actual battle and the situation on the ground, but I believe I can comment on some of the strategic implications of anything less than a crushing Scottish defeat at Flodden.

The war between England and Scotland was little more than a small part of the War of the League of Cambrai. Henry VIII was far more interested in fighting on the Continent with the Emperor against the French than fighting against the Scots. He had already won his victory at the Battle of the Spurs, whether he stays in France or is forced to return home to England probably does not change the outcome of war.

However, that does make it difficult for Scotland to make any significant gains. Even if Surrey's army was defeated, or forced to retreat, Henry would soon return from the continent with his best troops. Henry would not have a great deal of trouble paying his troops, while James would have difficulty keeping his men in the field because most of them, aside from his French allies were feudal levies.

France had goaded Scotland into making War against England, even though it was largely against that country's economic interests (they had not fought a war for almost eighty years at that point). If Scotland emerges from the War of the League of Cambrai intact, or makes minor gains, expect them to have another go at England when the next Italian War breaks out in five years. This would be a major effect: England would be less likely to fight on the continent if they had to worry about a credible threat to the North. There were five more Italian Wars over the next forty years, England was at least peripherally involved in all of them. That could very well men 3-4 more Anglo-Scottish Wars.

A surviving James IV would be very good for Scotland. Far less internal warfare, and at least a semblance of central government for the next twenty years, and possibly the next half century if his son can live to a reasonable age.

However, I would still expect Scotland to have a lot of internal turmoil when the Reformation finally makes inroads in that country. A strong monarchy might attempt to resist the Reformation like the Valois in France. Scotland's Church was not nearly as rich as England's, there would be far less incentive for the King of Scotland to move against the Church than in England or the German States.
 
In my TL Flodden is a less total defeat for Scotland, with James IV not dying during it. Scotland hasn't gained anything at the peace, however, at the expense of its old ally France, which should shape Franco-Scottish relations.
 
Surrey had to force a battle with the Scots because he was running out of beer!

This would have forced his army to start drinking the water which in those days would have seen a substantial proportion of his army go down with dysentery. Or if you'll pardon the expression the shits!;)

On the day an overconfident James IV was out manoeuvred by a more canny general. The fact that his spearmen were using imported pikes with which they'd had little time to become acquainted with whilst their English opponents were using their tried and trusted longbows and bills is also worthy of consideration.

On a personal note as a proud Yorkshire tyke well aware that expressions of Scottish national virility have traditionally meant burning our thatches I take a certain pleasure in the outcome of Flodden.
 
The fact that his spearmen were using imported pikes with which they'd had little time to become acquainted with whilst their English opponents were using their tried and trusted longbows and bills is also worthy of consideration.

According to "Henry Howard, the poet Earl of Surrey: a life", the pikes ended up dooming their Scottish users for other reasons. Pikesmen were ideal for withstanding cavalry charges, not close-range combat against infantry. See: http://books.google.com/books?id=7s...EwAzgU#v=onepage&q="Flodden" strategy&f=false

"Scots arrayed in the Almayns [Alemannian, German] manner, that is, with pikes or spears 16 or 18 feet long, Europe's latest weapon technology. ... The long German pikes were superb against horsemen, but hopeless against the English yeomen's short sword or 6-foot bill (a staff ending in a hook-shaped blade) that even penetrated body armour. "

...

"Soon the Scottish spearmen broke their close formations and turned to hand strokes for which their weapons were inadequate. Their horses became unmanageable. ... The English literally hacked the long pikes and then defenseless Scots to death."
---

An earlier point of departure might be the sudden death of the English general in the days preceding the battle. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey was already 70-years-old at the time and only survived his victory by eleven years. He already had health problems, gout, and "had to be carried in a litter during the Scottish campaign".

Surrey was seen as the definite leader for the troops in the Scottish front, because he had served as the King's lieutenant in the North between 1489 and 1499. He not only had the full trust of Henry VII, but was the man most experienced with dealing with the Scots.

Once he died, the army would be temporarily leaderless until either Henry VIII or regent Catherine of Aragon appointed a replacement. Henry is probably besieging Tournai at this point (the city fell in 23 September), while the heavily pregnant Catherine is heading for Buckingham (she arrived on 14 September). It might take quite a while for a new leader to be appointed.

The most likely replacements are:

*Thomas Howard the Younger (1473-1554). Heir to his father. In 1497, he won a knighthood for his distinguished military service against the Scots. He was appointed Lord High Admiral earlier in 1513. However it is Flodden which cemented his reputation as a military leader. He might have problems convincing others that he is ready to lead.

*Edmund Howard (c. 1478-1539). Marshal of the Horse (Cavalry Commander) of the English forces. Third son of Surrey, second surviving at the time. He lost three horses and was almost killed at Flodden. While arguably a competent soldier, he was never good at playing politics and newer won the favour of Henry VIII. That Henry eventually married one of his daughters came as a surprise.

*Thomas Dacre, 2nd Baron Dacre (1467-1525). Commander of the Border Lancers. Also Lord Warden of the Marches since 1509. He was the one currently responsible for the defense of the Anglo-Scottish border. He distinguished himself at Flodden, cementing his reputation as a soldier.

Squabbling among the three might weaken the English position.
 
An earlier point of departure might be the sudden death of the English general in the days preceding the battle. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey was already 70-years-old at the time and only survived his victory by eleven years. He already had health problems, gout, and "had to be carried in a litter during the Scottish campaign".

Surrey was seen as the definite leader for the troops in the Scottish front, because he had served as the King's lieutenant in the North between 1489 and 1499. He not only had the full trust of Henry VII, but was the man most experienced with dealing with the Scots.

In those days living past 40 was quite an achievement. Thomas Howard despite his medical problems appears to have been a tough old bird to have even reached 70, let alone living on for another 11! Luck can only account for so much longevity.
 
In those days living past 40 was quite an achievement. Thomas Howard despite his medical problems appears to have been a tough old bird to have even reached 70, let alone living on for another 11! Luck can only account for so much longevity.

If you got past the difficulty of childhood then living to 50 wasn't hard. Life expectancies were skewed by high infant and child mortality rates.
 
In those days living past 40 was quite an achievement. Thomas Howard despite his medical problems appears to have been a tough old bird to have even reached 70, let alone living on for another 11! Luck can only account for so much longevity.

Actually, that's a myth. People back then generally had lifespans comparable to ours...IF they survived to adulthood. The reason why the "average lifespan" of the time is so low is that infant and childhood mortality was very much higher than it is today, which skews the figures for the "average lifespan" downwards.
 
Top