WI Robert Bruce is killed in Battle of Bannockburn in 1314?

In 23 June 1314 during the battle of Bannockburn Henry de Bohun nephew of the Earl of Hereford, was riding ahead of his companions when he caught sight of the King Robert Bruce of the Scots. De Bohun lowered his lance and began a charge that carried him to lasting fame. King Robert was mounted on a small palfrey and armed only with a battle-axe.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bannockburn#cite_note-17He had no armour on. As de Bohun's great war-horse thundered towards him, he stood his ground, watched with mounting anxiety by his own army. With the Englishman only feet away, Bruce turned aside, stood in his stirrups and hit the knight so hard with his axe that he split his helmet and head in two. This small incident became in a larger sense a symbol of the war itself: the one side heavily armed but lacking agility; the other highly mobile and open to opportunity. Rebuked by his commanders for the enormous risk he had taken, the king only expressed regret that he had broken the shaft of his axe.
WI King Robert Bruce was killed that day by de Bohun? Who gets the Scottish throne then? Does his death marks the end of Scottish indepence? Or Scotland remains nominally independent and Baliols return to the throne under the overlordship of the English King? What do u think?
 
wow, Bruce was one hardcore guy.

Sadly, my knowledge on the subject is limited to the 'Braveheart' movie; and I know that's as historically accurate as Apocalypto.
 
In 23 June 1314 during the battle of Bannockburn Henry de Bohun nephew of the Earl of Hereford, was riding ahead of his companions when he caught sight of the King Robert Bruce of the Scots. De Bohun lowered his lance and began a charge that carried him to lasting fame. King Robert was mounted on a small palfrey and armed only with a battle-axe.He had no armour on. As de Bohun's great war-horse thundered towards him, he stood his ground, watched with mounting anxiety by his own army. With the Englishman only feet away, Bruce turned aside, stood in his stirrups and hit the knight so hard with his axe that he split his helmet and head in two. This small incident became in a larger sense a symbol of the war itself: the one side heavily armed but lacking agility; the other highly mobile and open to opportunity. Rebuked by his commanders for the enormous risk he had taken, the king only expressed regret that he had broken the shaft of his axe.
WI King Robert Bruce was killed that day by de Bohun? Who gets the Scottish throne then? Does his death marks the end of Scottish indepence? Or Scotland remains nominally independent and Baliols return to the throne under the overlordship of the English King? What do u think?

Robert's younger brother, Edward Bruce, the Earl of Carrick, would be the next in line. In 1315 OTL, Edward led an army to Ireland and was elected High King of Ireland, and ruled there until his death in 1318 during the Battle of Faughart.
 
I'm not completely sure that even with Robert the Bruce's death, the English can still win Bannockburn. The OP never specified that they do, so it's still up in the air. Yes, the death of Bruce would be a major blow to Scottish morale and generalship, but he had still chosen better positions from which to fight a battle and was in a position from which he could easily withdraw his army if the battle went against him. His commanders might do just that upon his death, but if they decide to stay nonetheless they still have another advantage besides terrain; the English are led by their king Edward II. In addition to being tired and in low spirits, they were commanded by a weak ruler with none of the sense of tactical competence his father had.
 
Robert's younger brother, Edward Bruce, the Earl of Carrick, would be the next in line. In 1315 OTL, Edward led an army to Ireland and was elected High King of Ireland, and ruled there until his death in 1318 during the Battle of Faughart.

With their King dead and defeated in Bannockburn the Scots would be on the run by Edward II... Edward Bruce must work really hard if he wants to face Edward II in battle... I see Edward II entering Scotland triumphant and claiming the crown for himself (if i remember correctly he had a claim of his own through Edward I) or impose John Baliol (assuming he doesnt die exiled in France) or if he is dead his son Edward as puppet King of the Scots...
 
Again, you assume the English can still win Bannockburn, which is still not very likely. Bruce may be dead, but Edward II hasn't gotten any smarter nor has the terrain morphed. If the Scottish commanders resolve to stand their ground they still have a great chance, and even if they miraculously started to lost it is not the end of Scotland for Bruce did not plan on risking everything in one battle. The army could easily withdraw and escape the English to fight again another day if need be.
 
Again, you assume the English can still win Bannockburn, which is still not very likely. Bruce may be dead, but Edward II hasn't gotten any smarter nor has the terrain morphed. If the Scottish commanders resolve to stand their ground they still have a great chance, and even if they miraculously started to lost it is not the end of Scotland for Bruce did not plan on risking everything in one battle. The army could easily withdraw and escape the English to fight again another day if need be.

True... But although his Generals Moray, Keith Douglas and his brother Edward could choose to stay and fight the rest of his army consisted of foot soldiers and farmers would have sustained a severe morale blow and propably would desert... Thats why i believe that Robert's lieutenants would have chosen a tactical retreat instead of fighting... Edward's II army was ill disciplined and in bad shape too but an army with a zero morale is useless even if it is bigger than the opponent's army...
 
How about Edward Bruce retreating to Ireland and manipulating his election as High King of Ireland and then returning to Scotland with an Irish army claiming his late brother's Crown?
 
Top