"Braveheart" battle question

I was watching Braveheart and I had a question about the battle scenes. I dont see how the battlefields like at Falkirk were decided? Why did the armies meet right there? I mean its almost like both sides agreed ahead of time to meet on some big field, have the leaders try and negotiate a settlement, and if that doesnt work they have the battle. Kind of like a football match.

I thought battles happen either by accident - 2 armies happen to hit at one point. Or one side chooses to make a stand in one spot and the other must fight there.

Now I'm no expert on that era so could anyone help me?
 
Oh, dear...

Mel Gibson made a mess of 'Braveheart' - woad was 500 years too late, tartan 500 years too early, according to an Elder of the Kirk. For Heaven's sake don't rely on that rubbishy film for any historical facts.

Going to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk_(1298)

Here's the quote :-

In early July the march northwards began. Things did not go well. William Wallace, now Guardian of Scotland, had ordered a scorched earth policy, denying the invaders fresh supplies. The Scots gave ground, drawing the English ever deeper into barren and hostile territory. Edward's own supply fleet was delayed by bad weather, and when the army reached central Scotland it was close to starvation. The Welsh infantry in particular were badly demoralised. While the army was encamped at Temple Liston, near Edinburgh, they erupted in a drunken riot that was broken up by the English cavalry, who killed 80 Welshmen. Edward faced the prospect of the kind of ignominious retreat that became a regular feature of his son's campaigns in the succeeding reign. As he was on the point of falling back on Edinburgh he received intelligence that Wallace had taken up position in the wood of Callendar near Falkirk, only thirteen miles away, ready to pursue the retreating English. Edward was delighted: As God lives... they need not pursue me, for I will meet them this day.

Edward was looking to bring Wallace to battle, Wallace had chosen ground that seemed to give his schiltrons the advantage. So Wallace had a choice, Edward didn't, but had to retreat to Carlisle despite winning the battle, because his army needed to be fed. Wallace lost some of his key supporters, so he was also both winning (no Edward) and losing (less support).

I suggest you research some key battles; most are a mixture of choice and opportunity.
 
First of all, Bravehearts display of the forces, battlefields and tactics used during these wars is EXTREMELY unhistorical.

Field battles were very rare overall during this era, but they did happen now and then, when one side decided that they could not allow the enemy side to remain where it was (usually conducting a siege).

Scouts and skirmishers, often light cavalry, would meet first. Once both sides are aware of where the enemy is, both concentrate their forces. Foraging parties are called back, scouts and skirmishers as well, and camp is made with the army concentrated. In the morning, camp is broken and the army moves in combat columns towards the enemy's known position. Scouts are sent out to determine the enemy's actions. In case of larger battles, this phase could take several days, as both sides tried to take the high ground or hold strategic points and manouvre themselves into better positions, or catch their enemy off guard. Smaller battles could happen between sub-units of the army here, triggering both sides to rush to the aid of their subunits.

Once both armie's main force were close, both armies would form from columns to battlelines and march that way until within direct spotting of each other. In many cases negotiations then took place, if not, or after, both armies started skrimishing and manouvering in the battle, and then combat was joined.

Why did it happen in fields? Because no sane commander would try to march his army through forests or other rugged terrain. The men would lose formation, he would lose contacts with his sub-units and would not be able to see where the enemy was, or his own units. One marched in the best terrain possible, which was the open field, and drew up battle there because that was where one would meet the enemy, that were also marching in the open.
 
That said at this point battle was largely optional. Unless you were facing a Mongol Horse Archer Army or had another force cutting you off from behind you would almost certainly be able to break contact and retreat.
 
Consider that Robert the Bruce is remembered as the great hero who finally assured Scottish freedom and then consider how pathetic his character is in the film.
 
Consider that Robert the Bruce is remembered as the great hero who finally assured Scottish freedom and then consider how pathetic his character is in the film.

Well - Robert the Bruce really was a pretty pathetic character. His heroic memory is largely undeserved. A reasonably skilled politician and warleader, but hardly an admirable person. He killed the rightful king, supported the English against "his" country when it suited his purposes and betrayed his liegelord when that seemed opportune. He won, which makes it all right, I guess. Imagine how he'd be remembered - even by Scots nationalist romantics - if he'd lost.
 
Bruce didn't kill his king - he killed John Comyn, a relative of King John but someone with a far weaker claim to the throne than Bruce himself. I don't agree that Bruce either deserves to be stripped of his heroic status or be deemed pathetic. The fact that he was an astute and impressive enough figure to rally most of the nation behind him against the dominant power on the British mainland, and then lead them to victory against overwhelming odds, suggests that he was neither pathetic nor unheroic - and indeed his magnanimosity before and after Bannockburn towards his former Scottish enemies suggests a man devoid of bitterness - in other words someone with a fairly healthy and generous character. He even forgave the Earl of Ross, who handed members of his family over to the English to be executed and imprisoned!

As for claims of Bruce being inconsistent, he had his own family's position to think of. Had he been like Wallace and refused ever to side with Edward he would have ended up like Wallace - with his head on a stick upon London Bridge. Bruce was no worse than almost every other political figure in Scotland at that time - a conscience was something that very few Scots could afford at that time. The fact that he was able to manouvere his way to the throne and securing Scottish independence is sufficient justification to excuse his admitted lack of political consistency in my view. A hero who fails is little use to anybody.

With regards to Bruce betraying his liege lord, the prospect of John Balliol ever coming back to rule Scotland was by 1306 a dead letter - and by the record of his reign it is Balliol who if anything deserves the description of 'pathetic'. If you're referring to Edward I as his feudal superior, I'm not sure that betraying an oath made under some degree of compulsion to a man who conquered another nation by force is necessarily a bad thing.
 
I'm with Lord Douglas here, Bruce was pragmatic, competent, and successful, three traits which deem it impossible to call him pathetic. And besides, betraying Edward Longshanks is something to be commended. :p

Makes me wonder why they decided to make Braveheart about William Wallace at all. Why not make it about the winner and have a happier and more triumphant ending? I also have to wonder they made William Wallace 2 feet shorter and a peasant...
 
Bruce didn't kill his king - he killed John Comyn, a relative of King John but someone with a far weaker claim to the throne than Bruce himself. I don't agree that Bruce either deserves to be stripped of his heroic status or be deemed pathetic. The fact that he was an astute and impressive enough figure to rally most of the nation behind him against the dominant power on the British mainland, and then lead them to victory against overwhelming odds, suggests that he was neither pathetic nor unheroic - and indeed his magnanimosity before and after Bannockburn towards his former Scottish enemies suggests a man devoid of bitterness - in other words someone with a fairly healthy and generous character. He even forgave the Earl of Ross, who handed members of his family over to the English to be executed and imprisoned!

As for claims of Bruce being inconsistent, he had his own family's position to think of. Had he been like Wallace and refused ever to side with Edward he would have ended up like Wallace - with his head on a stick upon London Bridge. Bruce was no worse than almost every other political figure in Scotland at that time - a conscience was something that very few Scots could afford at that time. The fact that he was able to manouvere his way to the throne and securing Scottish independence is sufficient justification to excuse his admitted lack of political consistency in my view. A hero who fails is little use to anybody.

With regards to Bruce betraying his liege lord, the prospect of John Balliol ever coming back to rule Scotland was by 1306 a dead letter - and by the record of his reign it is Balliol who if anything deserves the description of 'pathetic'. If you're referring to Edward I as his feudal superior, I'm not sure that betraying an oath made under some degree of compulsion to a man who conquered another nation by force is necessarily a bad thing.

Balliol managed to stave off a civil war... so he was not "pathetic", he had inherited a very bad situation to begin with, coupled with the fact that he not been raised for politics being a younger son. The truth is that after what happened in Stacathro would have been enough for most men to call it a day.

As for Bruce, his lack of support for Wallace at Falkirk shows he was much more about his own personal fortune then for Scotland. The murder of John Comyn probably helped to damage the case for Scottish Independence, due to Bruce's excommunication. As for Bruce's oath to Edward it should be said that the Bruce family were one of the first to swear alligiance at Norham...

As for his healthy character... the fact that it took Buchan more than 80 years to come back to a sustainable population level shows he was quite happy to massacre those he saw as opponents... including all the people who lived in the land with them... there is a reason why Comyn is a name almost forgotten in Buchan these days.:(
 
Well there's also a reason why Comyn is a name more or less forgotten in Buchan today, and that's because they changed it to 'Cumming'. ;) The Herschip of Buchan was probably a necessity given the immovable opposition of Comyn/Balliol kindred to Bruce - he needed to break their powerbase permanently. Whether the removal of the Comyns was overall positive is perhaps another matter - it removed a stabilising influence in the north of Scotland and created a power vaccuum - but from the viewpoint of the Bruce party it was essential in order that they could unite the country behind the Bruce dynasty. In any case Robert made provision for the north of the country after the downfall of the Comyns, it was only later on in the fourteenth century that this really fell apart. That's also why I disagree with you about the murder of John Comyn. The presence of an overmighty rival to Bruce on the patriotic side would have been intolerable, and Robert I would have had to take action to neutralise the Comyn threat eventually. Besides there was no guarantee that the Comyns would remain upon Bruce's side.

In any case there are doubts over Bruce's motives for killing the Red Comyn - the idea that it was premeditated is only one theory, there is a possibility that Comyn had already betrayed Bruce to Edward I, another is that Bruce simply lost his temper.

The Comyns were not brought into Bruce's peace because they showed no desire to do so. Of the rest of Bruce's enemies, even those who had been consistently opposed to his claim to the throne - such as the Earls of Fife, Dunbar, Mar and Ross - were accepted back at court with their lands intact, in the cases of Fife and Mar over a decade after Bannockburn. Maybe you could argue that Bruce needed their support and thus had no other choice, and you'd probably be right - but the fact that he was willing to recognise this and act upon it still makes him a pretty good ruler by any standard.

There's no doubt that Balliol inherited a bad situation, but as you say yourself he was not up to the job at all. In 1294 he was deprived of power by the nobility and clergy - by his own Balliol and Comyn kinsmen - and effectively made a figurehead for the council that approved an alliance with France and shook off allegiance to the English. I'd say this makes him a fairly weak and rather pitiful figure, and while he was vilified by Bruce propaganda in the next century, that he was effectively deposed by his nobility speaks volumes about his ability as a king.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that the actions of the Bruce family in the early stages of the Wars of Independence were hardly patriotic, especially those of Robert I's grandfather, but Robert himself has a reasonable record prior to taking the throne - he didn't oppose Wallace at Falkirk, he wasn't there because he was governing the South West of the country for the 'patriotic' cause. In any case I doubt many contemporaries would particularly have marked him and his family down for switching sides: preserving the interests of your family was seen as your first priority as a nobleman, and national identity was a sketchy concept in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century anyway, especially if you owned substantial lands in Ulster and England as well as Scotland like Bruce.

The actions of Bruce as King of Scots do mark him down as heroic - look at his two years on the run from Edward I after his seemingly conclusive defeat at Methven, building up the loyalist cause rather than running off to Ireland or Norway and never being seen again; look at his skill in defeating the English through Fabian tactics and a pitched battle in which Edward II had an overwhelming superiority in manpower and weaponry; look at his statesmanship in managing to reunite warring factions and gaining recognition of Scotland as an independent and fully sovereign nation on the European stage (even from the Pope in the end, who granted Bruce the full rights of anointment and coronation at the close of his life, thereby elevating Scotland to the relatively select rank of recognised European kingdoms); look at his efforts after Bannockburn to come to an agreement with England guaranteeing full Scottish independence and permanent peace (btw the fact that Scotland was able to pay Edward III £20,000 sterling, an absolutely staggering amount of money then, within two or three years in the period immediately after Bruce's death in 1329 is a good indicator of how well Bruce governed the country). Heroism is somewhat subjective, but I'd argue that regardless of whether you view the outcome of the Wars of Independence positively or not, Bruce fulfills most of the criteria.
 
The actions of Bruce as King of Scots do mark him down as heroic - look at his two years on the run from Edward I after his seemingly conclusive defeat at Methven, building up the loyalist cause rather than running off to Ireland or Norway and never being seen again; look at his skill in defeating the English through Fabian tactics and a pitched battle in which Edward II had an overwhelming superiority in manpower and weaponry
Running off Edward II is no big deal as he was not a patch on his old man. defeating Edward I required luck that Bruce had in spades. Luck that Wallace was not completely reamed earlier; Stirling Bridge should have been an English victory but they blew it. Luck that Edward I died before he could finish Scotland off. Luck that there was not the money for the English to build the planned Caernarvon type super castles that the Scots would have had a devil of a job taking.

This is not to knock Bruce's skill, but without luck southern Scotland could be easily been another Wales.
 
What was it that Napoleon said about lucky generals?;) I accept what you say but the Scots had their fair share of bad luck too - the series of events leading up to the Wars of Independence, with the deaths of Alexander III's two sons in adulthood without bearing children, his own completely accidental demise leaving only a young granddaughter as heir, with her subsequently dying, and having on the English throne a monarch of unparalleled ability and ruthlessness just when the Scottish crown fell vacant is a pretty hefty chain of bad luck.
 
Well there's also a reason why Comyn is a name more or less forgotten in Buchan today, and that's because they changed it to 'Cumming'. ;) The Herschip of Buchan was probably a necessity given the immovable opposition of Comyn/Balliol kindred to Bruce - he needed to break their powerbase permanently. Whether the removal of the Comyns was overall positive is perhaps another matter - it removed a stabilising influence in the north of Scotland and created a power vaccuum - but from the viewpoint of the Bruce party it was essential in order that they could unite the country behind the Bruce dynasty. In any case Robert made provision for the north of the country after the downfall of the Comyns, it was only later on in the fourteenth century that this really fell apart. That's also why I disagree with you about the murder of John Comyn. The presence of an overmighty rival to Bruce on the patriotic side would have been intolerable, and Robert I would have had to take action to neutralise the Comyn threat eventually. Besides there was no guarantee that the Comyns would remain upon Bruce's side.

In any case there are doubts over Bruce's motives for killing the Red Comyn - the idea that it was premeditated is only one theory, there is a possibility that Comyn had already betrayed Bruce to Edward I, another is that Bruce simply lost his temper.

The Comyns were not brought into Bruce's peace because they showed no desire to do so. Of the rest of Bruce's enemies, even those who had been consistently opposed to his claim to the throne - such as the Earls of Fife, Dunbar, Mar and Ross - were accepted back at court with their lands intact, in the cases of Fife and Mar over a decade after Bannockburn. Maybe you could argue that Bruce needed their support and thus had no other choice, and you'd probably be right - but the fact that he was willing to recognise this and act upon it still makes him a pretty good ruler by any standard.

There's no doubt that Balliol inherited a bad situation, but as you say yourself he was not up to the job at all. In 1294 he was deprived of power by the nobility and clergy - by his own Balliol and Comyn kinsmen - and effectively made a figurehead for the council that approved an alliance with France and shook off allegiance to the English. I'd say this makes him a fairly weak and rather pitiful figure, and while he was vilified by Bruce propaganda in the next century, that he was effectively deposed by his nobility speaks volumes about his ability as a king.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that the actions of the Bruce family in the early stages of the Wars of Independence were hardly patriotic, especially those of Robert I's grandfather, but Robert himself has a reasonable record prior to taking the throne - he didn't oppose Wallace at Falkirk, he wasn't there because he was governing the South West of the country for the 'patriotic' cause. In any case I doubt many contemporaries would particularly have marked him and his family down for switching sides: preserving the interests of your family was seen as your first priority as a nobleman, and national identity was a sketchy concept in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century anyway, especially if you owned substantial lands in Ulster and England as well as Scotland like Bruce.

The actions of Bruce as King of Scots do mark him down as heroic - look at his two years on the run from Edward I after his seemingly conclusive defeat at Methven, building up the loyalist cause rather than running off to Ireland or Norway and never being seen again; look at his skill in defeating the English through Fabian tactics and a pitched battle in which Edward II had an overwhelming superiority in manpower and weaponry; look at his statesmanship in managing to reunite warring factions and gaining recognition of Scotland as an independent and fully sovereign nation on the European stage (even from the Pope in the end, who granted Bruce the full rights of anointment and coronation at the close of his life, thereby elevating Scotland to the relatively select rank of recognised European kingdoms); look at his efforts after Bannockburn to come to an agreement with England guaranteeing full Scottish independence and permanent peace (btw the fact that Scotland was able to pay Edward III £20,000 sterling, an absolutely staggering amount of money then, within two or three years in the period immediately after Bruce's death in 1329 is a good indicator of how well Bruce governed the country). Heroism is somewhat subjective, but I'd argue that regardless of whether you view the outcome of the Wars of Independence positively or not, Bruce fulfills most of the criteria.

Well a lot of the £20000 came from Bannockburn, as for tatics while I agree he was good at what he did... I'm sure Falkirk showed to him (and the rest of the nobles) that Scotland can not win a fight with England on an open field. As for the murder of John Comyn personally I would say that Bruce did it due to an argument as he would have known the consquences of such an action and would probably have not wanted them to happen (which they did). However I still view his treatment of the Comyn's as vile as he never even attempted to negotiate properly with them (that we know about). Regarding Balliol, yes he was pretty sad... but still he did try his best and looking at some of the Kings Scotland has had since his time he was not the worst...

In Conclusion to that mismatch of sentences, while I do admire Bruce's success, I would say that I still don't like his methods... and if you want a hero for that time I would go with Bishop Wishart... as he went through a lot for Scotland.

By the way, is there any chance you could have a look at my timeline... somebody who is as knowledgable as you on this subject giving criticism would be greatly appreciated. :)
 
having on the English throne a monarch of unparalleled ability and ruthlessness just when the Scottish crown fell vacant is a pretty hefty chain of bad luck.
Exactly. Whilst Edward might have made a bid to seize Scotland as he had Wales, the vacuum on the throne was an open invitation for him and he was not going to pick the strongest candidate, hence Baliol over Comyn and Bruce. Of course if Wallace and Moray had not been so "awkward", Bruce or no Bruce he could have eaten up the south and held it.
 
Well Balliol actually had the strongest legal claim - Bruce's cry for pre-eminence was rather shaky under feudal law, if not under Celtic traditions. But it was certainly convenient for Edward that the man with the strongest claim to the throne wasn't in himself an impressive character.

British Scotsman, I will take a look at it and see if I can come up with anything constructive!
 
Top