William Wallace, Robert the Bruce and 1314
- Thread starter Jammy
- Start date
Scotland would eventually remain independent, as long as the rebels fight on. It would make it last a bit longer, but simply put the English could not afford to keep Scotland down. They were not defeated ultimately by our great prowess in arms, but by the fact that we forced them to spend so much money on pacification that they eventually had to withdraw. In an age when armies were mostly mercenary companies, why else would the English be knocked out by just one defeat?
Bannockburn was quite similar to Agincourt in many respects. Superior force gets stuck in the mud and cut to bits by better led army.
The Bruce certainly ensured that a trap could be set on the site by digging ditches etc. He was also prepared to cut and run the second things went sour.
More crucial to the battle, he was supported by several Scottish nobles that had put aside their feuding and general in-fighting to make a stand with their King. If Robert loses at Bannockburn (he's outnumbered almost 3.5:1), expect the nobles to depose him if he's not captured or killed in battle. Scotland remains in anarchy for the next few decades as rival families battle for the right to rule.
Edward would now have two choices - he can either recapture Scotland town by town, castle by castle or let the nobles continue killing each other and perhaps exhaust most of the claimants to the throne so that they have no choice but to swear fealty to England.
Edward also has political problems at home, not least with the Earl of Lancaster. A decisive victory in Scotland will give Edward enough clout to have Lancaster executed for treason and allow him to weather any storm that might come his way.
The King's main problem was that he relied too much on favourites. Sexual orientation aside, he didn't have his father's knack for making friends on his terms and allowed himself to be strong-armed and bullied. Isabella would still probably be swayed over to Roger Mortimer and ally herself with him and Edward will still end up being deposed as he can't be relied upon not to make the same alliances as in OTL. However, the situation in Scotland will be rather different and successive nobles might make more of an attempt to integrate Scotland into England - possibly through an earlier personal union as Edward Longshanks attempted with Margaret, Maid of Norway.
The Bruce certainly ensured that a trap could be set on the site by digging ditches etc. He was also prepared to cut and run the second things went sour.
More crucial to the battle, he was supported by several Scottish nobles that had put aside their feuding and general in-fighting to make a stand with their King. If Robert loses at Bannockburn (he's outnumbered almost 3.5:1), expect the nobles to depose him if he's not captured or killed in battle. Scotland remains in anarchy for the next few decades as rival families battle for the right to rule.
Edward would now have two choices - he can either recapture Scotland town by town, castle by castle or let the nobles continue killing each other and perhaps exhaust most of the claimants to the throne so that they have no choice but to swear fealty to England.
Edward also has political problems at home, not least with the Earl of Lancaster. A decisive victory in Scotland will give Edward enough clout to have Lancaster executed for treason and allow him to weather any storm that might come his way.
The King's main problem was that he relied too much on favourites. Sexual orientation aside, he didn't have his father's knack for making friends on his terms and allowed himself to be strong-armed and bullied. Isabella would still probably be swayed over to Roger Mortimer and ally herself with him and Edward will still end up being deposed as he can't be relied upon not to make the same alliances as in OTL. However, the situation in Scotland will be rather different and successive nobles might make more of an attempt to integrate Scotland into England - possibly through an earlier personal union as Edward Longshanks attempted with Margaret, Maid of Norway.
For the English to hold Scotland they would need the sort of supercastle like Caernarvon that finished off Welsh independence. In fact Edward I planned to build three of them in the Firth of Forth. However he did not have the time or the money so the project never went ahead.
Without supercastles to contend with, the Bruce and his successors can grind down the English by taking one castle or town at a time. The Bruce did it once. It could be done again.
The supercastles change the game. They are supplied by sea which the English controlled. They act as beachheads for operations against rebels (ie the Scots). They provide protection for the walled town built at their foot, Conway being a Welsh example.
For Edward II to do what his father did not, he is going to have to sort out his political problems, which Ijofa has laid out above. Given that he was less than half the man Longshanks was, I doubt that he could have done it. So no cash, no supercastles.
Without supercastles to contend with, the Bruce and his successors can grind down the English by taking one castle or town at a time. The Bruce did it once. It could be done again.
The supercastles change the game. They are supplied by sea which the English controlled. They act as beachheads for operations against rebels (ie the Scots). They provide protection for the walled town built at their foot, Conway being a Welsh example.
For Edward II to do what his father did not, he is going to have to sort out his political problems, which Ijofa has laid out above. Given that he was less than half the man Longshanks was, I doubt that he could have done it. So no cash, no supercastles.
going off topic a bit, I found the end of Braveheart to be rather dumb, in that it implied that the Scots and English were there at Bannockburn because it was thought that Robert was going to swear fealty to the new king.... AFAIK, both sides went there looking for a fight....
It wasn't just the end that was a bit dumb! The fact that the Battle of Stirling Bridge had no bridge in it... The idea that Bannockburn consisted of a crazy charge to get back Wallace's sword... That film did more damage to understanding of Scottish medieval history in two hours than thousands of third-rate history teachers have managed over the last fifty years.
Xen
Banned
The movie was fun but historically inaccurate, however it did inspire me to learn more of Scottish history.
Edward I did not die shortly before (or after) Wallace, he died several years later, then as mentioned the Battle of Sterling Bridge was missing the bridge and the French Princess was having a sexual affair with Wallace when in reality she was like 5 at the time so....
Edward I did not die shortly before (or after) Wallace, he died several years later, then as mentioned the Battle of Sterling Bridge was missing the bridge and the French Princess was having a sexual affair with Wallace when in reality she was like 5 at the time so....
If the Bruce loses at Bannockburn to Edward II then he will be either killed on the battle field or executed as a traitor to the crown.
Scotland would remain its own soveriegn state with John Comyn, son of John 'the Red' Comyn, in place as King of Scots ((assuming he survives the battle if the Bruce loses)) but as a close allie to England. John Comyn was taken to England after the murder of his father ((on the Bruces orders)) and raised by one of Longshanks trusted knights.
Comyn would probably dispose of all Scottish nobles who supported the Bruce and fought against supporters of his father in the Scottish Civil war and replace them with his own trusted men.
He would likely be a willing allie to the English but in doing so it could raise problems for him from the Scots that he ruled.
Scotland would remain its own soveriegn state with John Comyn, son of John 'the Red' Comyn, in place as King of Scots ((assuming he survives the battle if the Bruce loses)) but as a close allie to England. John Comyn was taken to England after the murder of his father ((on the Bruces orders)) and raised by one of Longshanks trusted knights.
Comyn would probably dispose of all Scottish nobles who supported the Bruce and fought against supporters of his father in the Scottish Civil war and replace them with his own trusted men.
He would likely be a willing allie to the English but in doing so it could raise problems for him from the Scots that he ruled.
Something worthwhile came out of a Hollywood movie. Congratulations.Isabella was married to Edward when she was 12.
Longshanks also had a habit of liquidating villages and towns - if Edward sends his new favourites, the Despenser family who have lots of money as well as a ruthless streak, Scotland could be kept in line through intimidation for a while - it depends whether the Despensers attack the peasantry or the local nobles.
Longshanks also had a habit of liquidating villages and towns - if Edward sends his new favourites, the Despenser family who have lots of money as well as a ruthless streak, Scotland could be kept in line through intimidation for a while - it depends whether the Despensers attack the peasantry or the local nobles.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Edward II would have made a good start towards going down in history as an effective king. You never know, he could end up being a hero to the future
Was not Stirling Castle the equivalent of Caernarvon ? Wasn't it to Stirling that Edward was ridden after the battle was lost ? My memory is a bit vague, I have to admit, but this is my impression
If Bruce is dead, the victory is far more effective than if he survives and lives to try and rally forces. I certainly don't see that execution by his own side is a given for surviving defeat, though he is going to lose a lot of support, especially from fair-weather friends.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Was not Stirling Castle the equivalent of Caernarvon ? Wasn't it to Stirling that Edward was ridden after the battle was lost ? My memory is a bit vague, I have to admit, but this is my impression
If Bruce is dead, the victory is far more effective than if he survives and lives to try and rally forces. I certainly don't see that execution by his own side is a given for surviving defeat, though he is going to lose a lot of support, especially from fair-weather friends.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
If Battle of Bannockburn was lost and Robert Bruce ended up dead (either in the battlefield or in the hands of English) i guess that then Edward II would have imposed a puppet King for Scotland and rule the Scots through him just as his father Edward I did with John Baliol...
Yes. Having visited both I would agree with that. In fact, it is reputed to be on the most defensive place in the British Isles. Its importance was that before the land around it was drained, it controlled the main road between north and south Scotland.
Its biggest weakness is that it can not be supplied by sea because it is too far inland. The Welsh supercastles were deliberately built on the coast because the English had naval superiority around the British Isles and that is why Longshanks wanted his Firth of Forth castles.
I'm not sure that would work. Edward I sacked Berwick in 1296, massacring the 20,000 inhabitants - at the time it was the third biggest city in Britain. In the wake of this, a widespread campaign of resistance started. Massacring people has rarely served to keep a population passive - it did not work for Edward I and it wouldn't have worked for Edward II.
It is next to the river Forth, so supplies could still have been brought in by water. I think before effective cannonry it would have been difficult for a besieging force to stop this. The Scots rebels had no navy to speak of.
EDIT: Stirling may be more impressive than Caernarfon - it isn't so well built, but it is on top of a rock, giving it a defensive position second to none. I think Harlech may have been similar, and Bamburgh comes close.