WI:The battle of bannockburn was an english victory

Oh I didn't know we had to describe how the battle was won. Um sorry I don't know how to win medival. I just want to learn the outcome if this was a english victory

Given Edward II's level of competence - which seems to have been minimal - I'm not sure that a victory at Bannockburn was ever really possible.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
It might take Bruce basically slipping during the opening duel and dying messily.
Would that do it? Damage the morale of the Schiltroms?
 
It might take Bruce basically slipping during the opening duel and dying messily.
Would that do it? Damage the morale of the Schiltroms?

Not sure, yes Bruce was there king, but there was a lot of hope going into this battle, and whilst Bruce's death might damage that, it wouldn't completely destroy. PLus you have the fact that Edward II wouldn't know what to do with an advantage like that even if it gave him a lap dance and started grinding on him
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Oh I didn't know we had to describe how the battle was won. Um sorry I don't know how to win medival. I just want to learn the outcome if this was a english victory

You shouldn't have to really. To be honest I think these kinds of demands are a big problem on this board.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
You shouldn't have to really. To be honest I think these kinds of demands are a big problem on this board.
It does affect things. It's not necessary, per se, to explain exactly how - just, for example, is it a close victory or a crushing one.
Or does Robert the Bruce die.

If Robert survives things go very different than if he dies.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
It does affect things. It's not necessary, per se, to explain exactly how - just, for example, is it a close victory or a crushing one.
Or does Robert the Bruce die.

If Robert survives things go very different than if he dies.

If you are talking about conditions sure I agree with you. These days however, people are constantly demanding very plausible PODs, nitpicking on everything that's unlikely. Such determinism is suffocating discussion
 
If the English win the battle, they then have to decide whether to put the sweat in reclaiming all of the Scottish gains of the previous decade, or not bothering which would be another mons graupius, a tactical defeat that was expensive enough for the attacker that it becomes a strategic victory, even if a bloody and embarrassing one.

If the English embark on the reconquest of Scotland, that's going to be another long, bloody guerrilla war that is going to leave the lowlands and the north of England in enough of a mess that they may be essentially wasteland for another century or so.

It may also, by drawing attention away from Europe, butterfly the start of the hundred years' war, delaying it until after the impact of the black plague. How that plays out...answers on a timeline.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
If you are talking about conditions sure I agree with you. These days however, people are constantly demanding very plausible PODs, nitpicking on everything that's unlikely. Such determinism is suffocating discussion
I'd like to think I only do that kind of thing for a really difficult PoD. I agree with you that sometimes the historical determinism is overdone - for one thing usually people say "X does better" and never consider how maybe Y could do worse for that.
So, say, the Romans winning Carrhae is hard... but the Persians losing it is not so hard, they just need to miscalculate.
 
AAMOF...

...The English had archers but messed them about, so a Homildon Hill type victory is practicable. So is incorporating Scotland south of the 'Highland Line' into England. You need Edward 1 to die later and/or a coup or decision made to replace Edward's eldest with a Regent or more sensible general. So Edward 2 needs to be butterflied, essentially, or the victory is wasted.

Read '1066 and All That' for the butlers and the camp-stools...:D

Wasn't it Alfred the Great who burned the bannocks? The Bruce had this thing with spiders...
 
Top