In my defens God me defend - A Scottish History

They already had longbows in Scotland at the time (as they did in Ireland and and England). The Welsh innovation was the use of massed archers as a sort of area denial weapon.


Not pikes - the schiltroms were armed with heavy 7 or 8 foot battle spears and short swords, axes and long daggers. Unlike a pike, these battle spears were balanced by counterweight on butt-end which could also be used as a weapon.

The reason the Scots only had light cavalry was because they only had small horses. To mount heavy cavalry you needed very big horses on the general physique of Clydesales and Shires. These were not available in Scotland....

Thats interesting stuff there :) thanks I will take it into account

Subscribed! :D

This looks quite interesting. I once wrote a small ASB TL called 1397 about the Scots having their own version of the Thirteen Colonies, so this interests me. :)

That's really interesting about the kilts. Learn something all the time on here.

Aye! I only meant the Kilts comment as a joke, and now we have all learnt some very important lessons :D

Are you referring to the Scottish independence movement, or the Welsh? You seem to have a decent enough grasp of the former, is why I ask. AFAIK the Welsh seemed to have been pretty subjugated at this point in time by Longshanks (he went so far as to appoint his son as Prince of Wales). There seemed to have been a pretty big, though unsuccessful, rebellion led by Madog ap Llywelyn in 1294 in response to that, along with another in 1316 led by Llywelyn Bren (before he was backstabbed by Hugh Despenser in OTL).

Yes I did mean the welsh :) thanks for this, it is very useful.

--

To the rest of you who have posted comments or subscribed or even just read, thank you! I have recieved far much support than I expected already and hope i can do at least half decent timelime. Please keep up with the comments and criticisms so that i can make this as good as possible. If I dont give a direct reply, im sorry, but I do read what all of you write and i do take it into account :)
 

[ PLEASE READ ----> Looking back at this, I realise that this is unrealistic. All you need to know is that Scotland managed to rout the English out of Scotland in these 2 battles. :) 28/12/2011 ]


January to April - The Battle of Skelkirk and The Battle of Cumnock

The opening stages of the war were fought entirely in Scottish lands, which was to be expected. The English Northern Army began by thrusting forward in two areas, hoping to grab as much territory as possible before news of the invasion began. Luckily for the Scots, who had decided to remain as a single, large force, therefore only able to engage the English one army at a time, the Western English army ended up being held up by an outpost near lockerbie. The Easter Army meanwhile, marched towards Falkirk, in the hopes of cutting Scotland in two, before meetign with the Western Army.

But the Scottish army, already on the march due to earlier warnings, were already two steps ahead of the english. By using a flanking maneuver and getting behind the Eastern English Army, the Scots managed to force the English into battle by cutting their supply lines. Half the Scots army positioned at the base of a hill nearby Skelkirk and waited, fortifying their position in anticipation, as the other half hid behind the hill. The cavalry were put visibly on the top of the hill, ready to give the appearance of a retreat.

When the English army arrived on the field, they found themselves at the bottom of a hill with supplies quickly withering away. The options were either attack, or ask for terms. Ralph Dacre, 1st Baron Dacre, leading the army, saw the Scots cavalry apparently rout from the battle and decided that he would be able to win the engagement with a cavalry charge.

After that, well, all hell broke lose. (Watch here for an accurate description: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdlL65LD6I4&feature=related For those who dont look, its the scene from Braveheart where they defeat a cavalry charge with pikes at the battle of Stirling.)

With the English's heavy cavalry defeated, Dacre was forced to send in the infantry, leaving his archers unprotected, as well as needing to advance to be in range of the main Scottish force. The Scots, now finished with the cavalry at the base of the hill, once again formed up and awaited the English infantry charge.

As the infantry advanced, the Scottish longbows finally got their debut. Their sustained fire kept the English advance at a snails pace, and allowed time for the final piece of the trap to fall into place. As the English army reached the Scottish line and began to engage, the other half of the main Scottish force charged down from the hill, bolstering the line and forcing a general english retreat. But at the same time, the cavalry who the English had thought retreated, had flanked them, and charged them from the rear.

Surrounded, tired and utterly defeated, Dacre surrendered. Over 1000 of his men were now dead or dying. He, and the nobles in his force, were taken into captivity while the Scots set about killing or routing the commoners left behind.

--

The Battle of Cumnock was a much tougher affair. Apart from the earlier hinderences from the border outposts, they had rampaged around western Scotland virtually unopposed, burning and looting as they went. They recieved news of the battle of Skelkirk and were prepared for the Scottish Army when it arrived, finding a good position near Cumnock, where forests protected their flanks.

Unable to pull off a flanking maneuver, the Scots were forced to revert to the highland charge, brutally and repeatedly slamming into the English line over two days. Eventually, on the evening the the second day, the English broke, forcing the commander of their force, Henry de Percy, 2nd Baron Percy, to come to terms. He agreed to go into custody in return to the safe passage home of his troops. This was accepted.

[Sorry its such bad quality guys, been very busy but wanted to get an update for you. As per usual commenters and critics are welcome. :) The map shown below is a rough guide and is only there to give you a rough idea of general movements. :)]

Opening phases of 2nd war.png
 
Last edited:
So let me make sure I'm following here.

1) Dacre gets in a position where he can't retreat, because the Scots are...on top of a hill. I'm missing something here.

2) The cavalry charge is repulsed. Fair enough. Although why Dacre's idea of how to defeat the Scots involves "send in the cavalry, Bannockburn proved nothing" is a little strange, so is Edward II's performance there.

3) If the Scots are at the base of the hill, they'll be charging into the English force, yes? Including the fire of the English (or Welsh, but I'm using "English" to cover "the kingdom of England and the areas the king dominates") longbowmen.

4) I don't know how big the armies at this field are, but a couple hundred longbowmen aren't a terribly intimidating force. Especially a couple hundred green longbowmen.

5) Speaking of English longbowmen: http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/215909.html

6) I'm left to assume Dacre was really stupid for this to happen. Seriously, his army should be better than this - better positioned and better used.

Even allowing for "at the bottom of a hill" to begin with.

7) I do not want to imagine how badly that would work vs. an English army with sufficient massed archery support. I really don't. Add in the fact longbowmen in melee are scary, and this should be a crushing Scottish defeat, not another win.
 
I'm convinced that you want to make the English look incompetant? Especially considering that at this time, they are at their superior medieval peak. Scotland was mediocre at best.
 
I'm convinced that you want to make the English look incompetant? Especially considering that at this time, they are at their superior medieval peak. Scotland was mediocre at best.

Halidon Hill comes to mind.

Doing better than OTL and the English doing worse, definitely possible.

But its not going to be easy or immediate.
 
Do you mind giving a source for that (underlined)? I'm not saying its untrue, but I'd love to know where to read more.
I'd love to, but I can't remember where I read it, it could have been Lanercost, Walter of Guisborough (why can't the English spell "burgh" properly?) or the Scotichronichon. I have seen replicas in various museums.

January to April - The Battle of Skelkirk and The Battle of Cumnock
Minor nitpick here - it's not Skelkirk, it's Selkirk.
When the English army arrived on the field, they found themselves at the bottom of a hill with supplies quickly withering away. The options were either attack, or ask for terms. Ralph Dacre, 1st Baron Dacre, leading the army, saw the Scots cavalry apparently rout from the battle and decided that he would be able to win the engagement with a cavalry charge.
Only an idiot would order heavy cavalry to charge uphill and Dacre, being himself a Borderer knew better than to do that. Very not convinced.
Unable to pull off a flanking maneuver, the Scots were forced to revert to the highland charge, brutally and repeatedly slamming into the English line over two days.
Why would Lowland Scots use the highland charge? Even if it had existed at the time, it wasn't a suitable tactic for a schiltrom.
 
I'm convinced that you want to make the English look incompetant? Especially considering that at this time, they are at their superior medieval peak. Scotland was mediocre at best.
Yes, and that was how they managed to beat the crap out of the best military machine in Europe. Frequently.
 
Ouch. Yeah. Sorry bout that guys. Im hardly a military expert. I will from now on leave details of battles to the bare minimum :)
 
But it's by no means been a fixed historical thing: in the 1790s, the Lord Provost of Edinburgh called egalitarian radicalism 'an evil spirit from John Bull'. We were supposed to be too pious and loyal for English-type revolutionism.

On the other hand, there was a United Scotsmen society, and London was certainly worried. But the Government saw conspiracies everywhere during the French Revolution.
 
On the other hand, there was a United Scotsmen society, and London was certainly worried. But the Government saw conspiracies everywhere during the French Revolution.

Oh, there was definitely as much capacity for a violent revolt to happen here as in England. It is, as you say, hard to know how widespread anti-government plots and paramilitaries were, since the government exaggerated to justify its authoritarian measures and the revolutionists exaggerated because The People of Scotland Stand Behind Me (ah, so that's why we can't see them! och a'm chist gettin oaf the stage the noo a'm chist gaun). But 1820 showed that they ere no illusion, and the Scottish tradition of political rioting was every bit as long and glorious as the English. The 'evil spirit from John Bull' remark was made about the worryingly political character of the annual King's Birthday riot around 1793, IIRC.

The actual United Scotsmen themselves, as far as I can remember, were like the proportionately even smaller United Englishmen composed in large part of Irish expatriates and a few local admirers and looked on warily by the mainstream radicals (if you'll pardon the phrase) who at that early juncture were still mostly reformers and moral-force advocates. It was partly the government's extremely harsh measures against them that drove more people into the less well-documented but probably much larger radical underground of the middle 1790s.

Thing is that in terms of identities this was a time when nobody thought that Scots were more egalitarian than English by nature or tradition. The reactionaries in Scotland, as we've seen, thought that radicalism was an English disease; and in 1832 they would wail that the Great Reform was (like everything they didn't like from 1750 to 1850) a violation of the true spirit of 1707, which had left alone a franchise even smaller than the English one. (That the Scottish franchise was still smaller after 1832 by a significant margin doesn't seem to have consoled.)

And the revolutionaries in Scotland - partly thanks to such rhetoric, partly as an extension of the Whiggish tendency to hijack English history (Magna Carta got much more air-play than Arbroath in the 18th century), and perhaps partly because of the substantial anti-Scottish strand in the English revolutionary tradition, mostly shared in the fashion for Anglo-Saxonism. Burns was an exception, which was why he was so quickly transformed into an establishment figure by Scott.
 
To expand a bit about the Highland charge: that one's a case of newer than they think. Charging and shouting is, of course, a very ancient tactic, but the particular iteration being discussed was invented, I think, by Montrose to deal with his particular situation: lots of reasonably enthusiastic troops, not much formal training, equipment, or time.

In the same wars plenty of Highlanders fighting in the various Covenanting armies served as ordinary pike-and-shot infantry, like the MacLeans at Inverkeithing or, indeed, Montrose' Campbell enemies.

Yes, and that was how they managed to beat the crap out of the best military machine in Europe. Frequently.

Let's not romanticise: we won the wars by superior strategic thinking (Robert the Bruce may have been a bastard, but destroying all those castles was a visionary gambit), bloody-mindedness, and being Far Too Far; but we lost far more big set-piece battles than we won.

Bannockburn was important mainly for the effect it had within Scotland: it didn't end the war with England. If this was a war to be decided in decisive battles, we'd have lost in, oh, 1296.
 
Let's not romanticise: we won the wars by superior strategic thinking (Robert the Bruce may have been a bastard, but destroying all those castles was a visionary gambit), bloody-mindedness, and being Far Too Far; but we lost far more big set-piece battles than we won.
I wasn't romanticising, I was going on results. Between 1297 (Stirling Bridge) and the Treaty of Northampton (1328), there were something like 20 battles between Scotland and England. England won at Falkirk, Hepperew, Stirling and Methven. They lost the rest, hence my use of the word frequently.
 
Decided i'm going to continue with this, but leave alot of details out of battles so that we dont got bogged down :)

Going to head into the part of the war where everything goes sour for the scots
 
[OOC: Here we go again. Sorry if the quality is poor. I lost all my notes for this part of the write up so i'm probably missing a lot of stuff i meant to include. This is split into two sections. Britain, and France.]

French gains and Scottish Loss - The Second War of Scottish independence continued

The British Isles (Part 1 of 2)

After the early victories at the Battle of Selkirk and the Battle of Cumnock, Scottish morale was high. It was decided by the King, David II, that they had been given an opportunity that would not come again in a long time. He ordered the immediate advance into England, down the west coast where they could raid and pillage as they went before turning east and laying siege to York.

In late april, only a couple of weeks after the battle of Cumnock, the first Scottish troops began to pour into northern England. Their advance was impeded by a near constant rain but they still had the opportunity to advance all the way down to Walton-on-the-Hill, within a month, pillaging and stealing and stealing as they went.

It was at Walton that they found a surprise. In the month it had taken to reach Walton, English reserves from the South, bolstered by Irish conscripts and Welsh bowmen, had assembled and made their way to counter the Scottish invasion. Now the Scots, being advanced on from the North East, East and South, found that they had far over extended their supply lines, and were in trouble.

For two days the Scots tried to avoid battle, marching north as fast as possible. But they soon realised there would be no escape, and a battle was coming. Their march ended in the ruins of Lancaster, a town they had pillaged only days earlier, and they prepared for battle. Supplies were seriously low, having been cut off by the English, but spirits were high.

On May 4th, the battle of Lancaster took place. The large Scottish force and the equally large English army were similar and size, but on their home ground, and with a good line of supply, the English won decisively, killing many Scots and forcing the David and his Nobles to flee back home.

The English counter attack into Scotland was swift and merciless. The lowlands were quickly occupied, and King Edward of England, enraged by the Scottish's earlier pillaging of northern England, ordered that the same happen to them. Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, Glasgow and pretty much every Scottish town and city not protected by the grampians, was looted and burnt. There was much resistance, and many fierce skirmishes as peasants tried to protect their homes, with mixed success, but the King and his nobles had all but disappeared into the highlands, and the lowlands burnt.

--

Meanwhile, in France

In the early years of the war, Edward III allied with the nobles of the Low Countries and the burghers of Flanders, but after two campaigns where nothing was achieved, the alliance fell apart in 1340. The payments of subsidies to the German princes and the costs of maintaining an army abroad dragged the English government into bankruptcy, heavily damaging Edward’s prestige. At sea, France enjoyed supremacy for some time, through the use of Genoese ships and crews. Several towns on the English coast were sacked, some repeatedly. This caused fear and disruption along the English coast. There was a constant fear during this part of the war that the French would invade. France's sea power led to economic disruptions in England as it cut down on the wool trade to Flanders and the wine trade from Gascony. However, while attempting to hinder the English army from landing, the French fleet was almost completely destroyed in the Battle of Sluys. After this, England was able to dominate the English Channel for the rest of the war, preventing French invasions of England.

The French King, Phillip, decided not to focus on territory at first, but the destruction of English armies at any cost. He called up a grand host, forcing himself into bankruptsy, seeing that this could be the time to push the English off of the continent. With much of the English army forced to fight in Scotland, the English presence on the continent was small, and Phillip managed to take Guyenne, the Duchy of Gascony and England's other french posessions, by late 1333, after long and costly campaigns ending with the sieges of Calais and Bordeaux. Navarre, an ally of England, was able to hold against the French and remained independent of them.

Until the end of the war, the English would continue to try and invade France to regain it's lost possessions, but to no avail. Their inability to defeat France before it could fully commit to the war was it's undoing. Though there were continual raids and blockades till the end of the war, all attempts to invade France after 1333 ended in eventual failure.

--

But the war was not finished yet. There is much more to say on Scotland...
 
[OOC: A rather rushed but hopefully understandable end to the war :) As per usual, please give constructive criticism :) ]
A final act and the end of war - The Second War of Scottish independence continued

The British Isles (Part 2 of 2)

June 1328

The Lowlands of Scotland were burning. Every settlement found by the English was given the treatment that the Scots gave the north of England. Thousands upon thousands died, not just from direct conflict, but from lack of any supplies, disease and everything else that comes from having lost everything. With a trail of fire behind them, the English advanced north into the Grampians, tasting victory. They began to get bogged down by the weather, and when the supply lines began to stretch, the advance turned into a craw.


Meanwhile, King David and his few remaining nobles, hidden in the highlands, plotted a final, desperate act before surrender. It would be a 3 stage plan. Firstly, a hit and run style warfare would be used to hold up the English armies in Scotland, while trying to attack supply trains and ruin their morale. With most of the nobles and clan leaders dead, the King appointed an established soldier, a Mr Kyle Poultry, to lead the conflict there. He, and small force of skilled soldiers from all over Scotland headed south on what would probably be a suicide mission.

The next stage of the plan was more of a terror tactic. A large number of men were found, and each was given a location in the Kingdom of England to attack. Namely, with fire. The objective was simply to burn as much of England's territories as possible to the ground. The larger the target, the more men sent there. Around 5 men (in the smallest cases) would head to their target, then once having caused as much damage as possible, move on to secondary targets, as well as trying to stir up the local population if possible (especially in Wales and Ireland). Soon, scores of angry Scotsmen, with nothing but a few weeks supply of food, made their individual ways south, so as to avoid capture or detection.

The third and final stage of the plan would simply be a final push south with whatever forces could be rounded up, hopefully pushing the English to the border so that a peace treaty could be signed.

The following events were described be French minstrel Eric De'Leaux, who had evacuated to the highlands with a group of Scottish families:

"As we sat huddled around the meagre fire, trying to ration out our last scraps of food, our ears picked up a crescendo of cheers and bagpipes. We headed towards the sounds of joy and were told of reports of fires and much destruction in London, Northumberland, Oxford, Norwich, Nottingham, Bristol, even Dublin! We had assumed it was an act of God. Of course at the time we had no idea that this whole chain of events had actually come from his representative, King David. As the day drew on, more people drew to the area, including men of high standing, and many soldiers. It is said that even the King himself was nearby. An announcement was made that those able to fight would be heading south to finally push the English scum from the lowlands. Of course I was apprehensive, but did not shy from the opportunity. I had not fought before, but I had just as much reason to hate the English as any Scotsman did. As far as any of us knew, France was burning. There had been no news for months.

After any spare supplies and weapons were handed out and swapped, our merry band marched down to our fates. To the final battle for Scotland."

The plan had gone well. The hit and run tactics had managed to draw much attention from the English, and they became a top priority. Pretty much all of the guerilla fighters were killed or captured, but they had given the second group enough time to make their ways south to their targets. As no set time had been given as to when to start the destruction, the northern cities burnt first. Fires started in abandoned barns, taverns, barracks and the wooden houses of the poor, quickly spreading and consuming cities within hours. As it became clear that the Scottish were to blame, messengers were sent south to warn London and other cities. When the messengers reached their targets, all they found was what they had left, fire. They were too late. Nearly every major settlement in England was to be touched by the great fires.

Many of the Scottish 'agents' were caught and executed, and only a few managed to escape back north. But the damage had been done. Supplies to the English army abruptly stopped, as did their advance in the highlands. On June 19th, 1328, a tired, ragged army of Scotsmen would take on a tired, ragged army of Englishmen at the Battle of Invernahoven. Losses were heavy on both sides but the English soon realised that the war was over. The commander of their army called for terms, and after a short conversation with David II, gave his word to leave Scotland with has army and not return.

A few days later, a courier from the King of England reached David II, asking for terms. A meeting was held at York, with representatives from England, France and Scotland. There terms were short and simple:

Edward III of England would recognise David II as King of Scotland, and relinquish any claims on Scotland. He would also recognise the French conquests on the continent, as well as any claims to the throne.

As the terms were signed, peace finally came to the 3 tired nations. Now would be the time to rebuild and reorganise the mess that was called the Kingdom of Scotland.
 
Top