What if the Scottish Nobles had Supported William Wallace at the Battle of Falkirk

[Nytram01]

One would like to know - given the utter lack of success (until the longbowmen had done their deadly work) of the English cavalry why the nobles would regard it as lost from the beginning.

I mean, let's take Bannockburn - Bruce is facing odds longer than Wallace did (by the information I know), with a similar army to Wallace's, and yet the nobles didn't run there.

Does Morris give numbers for the two armies?

Morris writes that Longshanks' army was "almost" 26,000 infantry and "as many as" 3,000 cavalry (Page 310), though I cannot see numbers given for the Scots.

The reason given that the Scottish nobles thought the battle lost early on was in my last post - that the sheer numbers of the English army made them lose hope - but equally the way the battle played out means that the Scottish cavalry would not have had much success if they stuck around anyway.

And the English cavalry were only unsuccessful in attacking the Schiltrons, they destroyed the Scottish archers early on and menaced the Schtirons from the Scottish flanks, keeping them hemmed in. In all, they played a vital role in the victory.

Also the English leadership during Falkirk was far superior to that at Bannockburn and the same in reverse is can be said of the Scots.

 

[Elfwine]

Morris writes that Longshanks' army was "almost" 26,000 infantry and "as many as" 3,000 cavalry (Page 310), though I cannot see numbers given for the Scots.

The reason given that the Scottish nobles thought the battle lost early on was in my last post - that the sheer numbers of the English army made them lose hope - but equally the way the battle played out means that the Scottish cavalry would not have had much success if they stuck around anyway.

And yet they didn't regard the numbers at Bannockburn as overwhelming. That's why I find it dubious that it was numbers alone at work here.

And the English cavalry were only unsuccessful in attacking the Schiltrons, they destroyed the Scottish archers early on and menaced the Schtirons from the Scottish flanks, keeping them hemmed in. In all, they played a vital role in the victory.

Also the English leadership during Falkirk was far superior to that at Bannockburn and the same in reverse is can be said of the Scots.

But their destruction of the archers might have been interfered with had the cavalry actually tried to fight.

Agreed on the leadership of the English, I'm not sure what more Wallace could have done when the cavalry is refusing to fight.

Not familiar enough with the fine details to know why the archers were slaughtered while the schilitrons still stood, but that doesn't speak well of him here, I admit.

 

[Derek Pullem]

What would have happened if the Scottish Nobles had helped William Wallace at the Battle of Falkirk? Please mention the short-term effects, such the battle and after the battle, and long-term effects, like Robert the Bruce becoming king

They would have died like the archers as they were heavily outnumbered, out armoured and out horsed.

If John Comyn and Robert the Bruce died then it is possible there wouldn't have been an independent Scotland for much longer. If Bruce survived and Comyn didn't then Bruce's reputation would be much enhanced -he would probably replace Wallace as sole Guardian - which may either mean that Edward would really try to eliminate him or Bruce may come to the throne without the inconvienient stains of treason, cowardice and murder on his reputation.

If Bruce died and Comyn survived then Comyn may replace Bruce in Scots mythology as the saviour of Scotland unless you believe that Bruce and Bruce only could lead a rebellion.

 

[Derek Pullem]

And yet they didn't regard the numbers at Bannockburn as overwhelming. That's why I find it dubious that it was numbers alone at work here.



But their destruction of the archers might have been interfered with had the cavalry actually tried to fight.

Agreed on the leadership of the English, I'm not sure what more Wallace could have done when the cavalry is refusing to fight.

Not familiar enough with the fine details to know why the archers were slaughtered while the schilitrons still stood, but that doesn't speak well of him here, I admit.

The Schiltrons were very poorly trained and essentially immobile. Wallace did not dare to allow them to move from the "hedgehog" style formations
which meant the archers were effectively isolated. In essence Wallace's only hope was for Edward's cavalry to impale themselves on the Schiltron's spears as they were to do at Bannockburn. But at bannockburn the Schiltrons were trained to fight and move. And Edward II is no Edward I!

 

[Romanus696]

English lost at Bannockburn because the Scots had Templars knights

 

[Space Oddity]

Yeah but Herodotus is hardly considered a trustworthy source (or known that well beyond being "one of the first historians"). People actually watched 300.

Actually, Herodotus records the 'million man' army figure as what people believe, and what the Persians reported--and then notes that he doesn't buy it himself, as such an army would have been impossible to supply.

Things like this are one reason why Herdotus' reputation, after years of diminishing into almost nothing, has been reviving of late.

 

[Elfwine]

The Schiltrons were very poorly trained and essentially immobile. Wallace did not dare to allow them to move from the "hedgehog" style formations
which meant the archers were effectively isolated. In essence Wallace's only hope was for Edward's cavalry to impale themselves on the Schiltron's spears as they were to do at Bannockburn. But at bannockburn the Schiltrons were trained to fight and move. And Edward II is no Edward I!

Would like to see elaboration on that.

Not saying you're wrong, just looking for more than you posted.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Would like to see elaboration on that.

Not saying you're wrong, just looking for more than you posted.

Caldwell, DH 2012, 'Scottish Spearmen, 1298–1314: An Answer to Cavalry', War In History, 19, 3, pp. 267-289, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 17 October 2012.

Guisborough describes how his spearmen were
placed in four circular formations, their spears thrusting out obliquely in all directions.
These formations are normally now called schiltrums, although the term often used in
contemporary Latin sources is turma.
According to the Annales Angliae et Scotiae,
possibly the work of William Rishanger, Wallace constructed a fence between his army
and the English. It was of long stakes fixed in the ground and bound together with ropes

The sense of both of these sources is that these were stationary, fortified
units that were not going to take the offensive. The archers were placed in the spaces
between the formations, with the cavalry positioned behind.
Wallace’s lack of confidence in the readiness of his army for battle is all too clear.
Since he could not trust his formations of spearmen to manoeuvre successfully on the
battlefield without disintegrating, he was obliged to resort to the expedient of forming
them as stationary units hemmed in by a fence of spears.

Although the spearmen withstood the attacks of the English cavalry for some time, they got little support from their
own horse and archers, the former having precipitately fled, and the archers having been
mowed down. This left the field free for King Edward to bring up his archers and crossbowmen to rain missiles onto the Scottish foot. It was only a matter of time before there
were not enough men in the formations to fill the gaps, and the English cavalry could ride
in and wreak a terrible slaughter.

 

[Elfwine]

Thanks.

(filler)

 

[usertron2020]

Other fun things people think happened thanks to Hollywood.

1. There was a guy called Maximus who killed Emperor Commodus.
2. The Roman Senators were champions of the people and democracy.
3. The Persians literally assaulted Greece with a million men.
4. The British army had a policy of burning people alive in churches.
5. The Samurai were nothing but noble warriors who were defending Japan's ancient heritage rather than their own wealth.
6. Japanese soldiers in WWII were mindless drones subserviant to the Emperor's Hive Mind.
7. Scots do, have and always will wear kilts.
8. Cortez fought the Mayans for some reason.
9. Actually Mel Gibson is responsible for most of these...

1) If Maximus was a palace slave/poisoner

2) Their OWN people, and Republicanism practiced as an Oligarchy

3) Well, if you mean every adult male in the Persian Empire, and count them as military "REMFs", whereever they might be

4) If you count irregular Tory Militia as "British", and the people being burned were irregular Patriot Militia doing the same thing to their opposite numbers

5) I suppose there were a few True Believers like that, especially if they were fighting off Spanish influence

6) There were plenty of mindless drones subsumed in the perverted version of the Code of Bushido (as it was interpreted by WWII). But they tended to be NCOs, junior and middle-ranked commissioned officers. The country was a military dictatorship, and the Army was a government by assassination by this time.

7) I don't think Scottish women do, ever did, or ever will wear them. For obvious reasons.

8) ???

9) An Australian, and we get tarred with his brush. YES, I know he was born here, but he spent enough of his formative years in Oz that we can tar the Aussies with HIS brush!

 

[eliphas8]

5) I suppose there were a few True Believers like that, especially if they were fighting off Spanish influence

Or japanophiles unable to accept that all the talk of noble enlightened warriors was mostly lies covering up a group of murderous armed thugs (remarkably akin to european knights in that way).

 

[St. Andrew]

1) If Maximus was a palace slave/poisoner

2) Their OWN people, and Republicanism practiced as an Oligarchy

3) Well, if you mean every adult male in the Persian Empire, and count them as military "REMFs", whereever they might be

4) If you count irregular Tory Militia as "British", and the people being burned were irregular Patriot Militia doing the same thing to their opposite numbers

5) I suppose there were a few True Believers like that, especially if they were fighting off Spanish influence

6) There were plenty of mindless drones subsumed in the perverted version of the Code of Bushido (as it was interpreted by WWII). But they tended to be NCOs, junior and middle-ranked commissioned officers. The country was a military dictatorship, and the Army was a government by assassination by this time.

7) I don't think Scottish women do, ever did, or ever will wear them. For obvious reasons.

8) ???

9) An Australian, and we get tarred with his brush. YES, I know he was born here, but he spent enough of his formative years in Oz that we can tar the Aussies with HIS brush!

Sorry, Mel Gibson has always considered himself an American. You will just have to take your tarring with good grace.

 

[UrbanRedneck]

In Braveheart the Irish switch sides. Did that really happen?

 

[usertron2020]

Sorry, Mel Gibson has always considered himself an American. You will just have to take your tarring with good grace.

I don't care if he has always considered himself a Bophuthatswanan! How old was he before he finally dropped the last of his Oz accent? His "Patriot" travesty reads like a history of English Army atrocities committed in Ireland in the Middle Ages, or the 20th century Nazi SS, not anything that occurred in the American Revolutionary War between the British Regulars and the American civilian populace.

I'll accept a good tarring alright. But only because of the number of Americans who have gone to see his "Hazy History" movies. It's still on Australia'a head that they didn't shuffle him off back to America to face the Draft, so he could get sent to Vietnam and...

 

[Elfwine]

I don't care if he has always considered himself a Bophuthatswanan! How old was he before he finally dropped the last of his Oz accent? His "Patriot" travesty reads like a history of English Army atrocities committed in Ireland in the Middle Ages, or the 20th century Nazi SS, not anything that occurred in the American Revolutionary War between the British Regulars and the American civilian populace.

I'll accept a good tarring alright. But only because of the number of Americans who have gone to see his "Hazy History" movies. It's still on Australia'a head that they didn't shuffle him off back to America to face the Draft, so he could get sent to Vietnam and...

And relevant to this thread, Braveheart has such gems as Stirling Bridge not involving a bridge for reasons that if I literally facepalmed as hard as I'm doing in my head, I'd drive bone splinters into my brain.

There's something to be said - to a point - for telling a movie as a rippin' good story and a legend instead of strictly historical, but Braveheart was less "William Wallace: History taken up to 12." and more "Man, Mel Gibson as an Inspiring Leader is almost as unbelievable as his accent.".


UrbanRedneck: I don't even know if there was a significant contingent of Irishmen at Falkirk. English control of Ireland at this point was tenuous at best.

 

[usertron2020]

In Braveheart the Irish switch sides. Did that really happen?

Uh, considering that BOTH the Irish AND the Scots were dressed, armed, and wore the makeup of Ancient Picts (pre-Roman Times to 1000 AD), I wouldn't worry about any sense of accuracy in that movie. If Edward Longshanks had been facing an army of Picts, he would have gone through them like a harvester. Bad enough that he had William Wallace molesting a ten year old Isabella of France and impregnating her (???) PERVERT!!

 

[usertron2020]

And relevant to this thread, Braveheart has such gems as Stirling Bridge not involving a bridge for reasons that if I literally facepalmed as hard as I'm doing in my head, I'd drive bone splinters into my brain.

There's something to be said - to a point - for telling a movie as a rippin' good story and a legend instead of strictly historical, but Braveheart was less "William Wallace: History taken up to 12." and more "Man, Mel Gibson as an Inspiring Leader is almost as unbelievable as his accent.".

NOTHING is that unbelievable, beyond conspiracy theories.

Imagine trying to fake a Scottish accent while desperately trying to maintain a baseline American nasal twang so your true Aussie lilt doesn't break through! No wonder he had such a fierce expression on his face. Juggling three different accents in his head while memorizing his lines, keeping to his key light positions, and while doing this not falling off his horse or accidently hacking some poor extra's arm off!

Don't forget what Rick Moranis did (as Dark Helmet) to that poor stagehand!

 

[Elfwine]

NOTHING is that unbelievable, beyond conspiracy theories.

Imagine trying to fake a Scottish accent while desperately trying to maintain a baseline American nasal twang so your true Aussie lilt doesn't break through! No wonder he had such a fierce expression on his face. Juggling three different accents in his head while memorizing his lines, keeping to his key light positions, and while doing this not falling off his horse or accidently hacking some poor extra's arm off!

And yet "fierce" is not in a way that actually works for this movie.

It's more like trying sound like Darth Vader by coming off like you have a bad cold than Wallace being a Grim Man.

Don't forget what Rick Moranis did (as Dark Helmet) to that poor stagehand!

Do I want to ask?

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

NOTHING is that unbelievable, beyond conspiracy theories.

Imagine trying to fake a Scottish accent while desperately trying to maintain a baseline American nasal twang so your true Aussie lilt doesn't break through! No wonder he had such a fierce expression on his face. Juggling three different accents in his head while memorizing his lines, keeping to his key light positions, and while doing this not falling off his horse or accidently hacking some poor extra's arm off!

Don't forget what Rick Moranis did (as Dark Helmet) to that poor stagehand!

DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH AUSSIES?

 

[Nytram01]

In Braveheart the Irish switch sides. Did that really happen?

No. The Irish fought for Edward under the command of the English nobles who ruled Ireland in exchange for large sums of money, pardon from any crimes they had commited and the waving of any outstanding debts to the crown. If thye had switched sides those generous terms would have been void and the Anglo-Irish Magnates would have been punished.