Battle Story: Bannockburn 1314 E-Book

Dr Chris Brown

• Herausgeber: Spellmount
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013

Beschreibung

Bannockburn 1314 is the most celebrated battle between Scotland and England. A decisive victory for Robert Bruce, it secured for Scotland independence from England. It was the greatest defeat the English would suffer throughout the Middle Ages, and a huge personal humiliation for Edward II. Chris Brown's account recreates the campaign from the perspectives of both the Scots and English. If you want to know what happened and why read – Battle Story.

Leseprobe

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As ever, I am primarily indebted to my wife, Pat, who has borne the brunt of moaning, whingeing and frustration that is part and parcel of me writing a book, and to my editor at The History press, Jo De Vries, whose patience seemingly knows no bounds. I am also indebted to the various societies who have, from time to time, invited me to give presentations about this remarkable battle. I like to think that the many questions that I have been asked at such events have helped to make me more aware of the wide range of factors that forged the environment and influenced the processes that made things turn out the way they did. Finally, I am indebted to three kings: Edward I, Edward II and Robert I, as well as, of course, the people of fourteenth-century England and Scotland, without whom – as they say – none of this would have been possible.

CONTENTS

Title

Acknowledgements

List of Illustrations

Introduction

Timeline

Historical Background

The Armies

The Commanders

The Soldiers

The Tactics

Before the Battle

Edward II’s Forces

Robert I’s Forces

The Battlefield

After the Battle

The Legacy

Orders of Battle

Further Reading

Copyright

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Inchcolm Abbey, where – over 100 years after the event – Abbott Bower penned a highly colourful description of the battle.

2. A page from Sir Thomas Grey’s Scalacronica.

3. The coronation of Edward I. Edward only commanded one Scottish action in person, the Battle of Falkirk, 1298. His death in 1307 was a major blow to the fortunes of the English occupation forces, however the tide of the war had probably already started to turn in favour of the Scots.

4. A sixteenth-century English artwork, depicting a fictitious parliament of Edward I attended by Llewellyn, Prince of Wales and Alexander III. Artworks and forged documents were an important weapon in the propaganda arsenals of medieval kings: the ‘Dodgy Dossier’ is not a modern innovation.

5. John Balliol, from a Scottish amorial illuminated between 1581 and 1584. The king is surrounded by the broken symbols of his rule.

6. Illuminated capital from an English medieval document depicting a scene from the siege of Carlisle.

7. The obverse and reverse of the seal of Edward I.

8. Significant towns and castles in late medieval Scotland.

9. A silver penny of Robert I. Pennies of a given weight and purity of silver were known as ‘sterlings’ (a term that originated from Germany) and were acceptable right across Europe.

10. The Great Seal of Robert I.

11. The memorial of Angus Og, Lord of the Isles. Although he was a vital supporter of Robert I’s kingship from 1307 onward, it is not clear whether he was present at Bannockburn.

12. Detail from a Scottish grave effigy showing a fourteenth-century soldier with bascinet, padded jack and the ‘heater’-shaped shield typical of the period.

13. An assemblage of plate armour to protect the arm. Pieces as sophisticated as this one were still relatively rare in 1314 and would have been very much the province of the wealthy or of men who spent a large proportion of their time in military service.

14/15. A mail hauberk might be worn underneath a padded garment or on top of it. Opinion was divided about the relative effectiveness.

16. A re-enactor wearing the sort of brase and hose generally worn under clothing.

17. Closed helmets of this style were definitely old-fashioned by 1314, but were still serviceable and likely to have been passed on to the rank and file from better-equipped men-at-arms.

18. A selection of ordinary personal effects: a dagger, flint and steel, leather pouch, rosary and dice.

19. A man-at-arms and a spearman. The man-at-arms is wearing particularly extensive and heavy mail. By 1314 pieces of plate armour – particularly at the shoulder and elbow – were being added to supplement mail.

20. A chapel-de-fer or ‘iron hat’. These were widely used throughout northern and western Europe in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

21. It was possible, though a little difficult, to don mail unaided. Note the thickness of the padded garment under the mail.

22. A party of medieval spearmen would have looked rather like this, though the spears would have been a good deal longer.

23. A close-up of the same party of spearmen. Although individuals were responsible for the acquisition of their own equipment, there were well-understood minimum standards which had to be observed.

24. An archer bending his bow. Although a skilled archer could hit a man at 300 yards, the arrow was unlikely to inflict serious damage on even a lightly armoured man.

25. A typical fourteenth-century archer.

26. Very few soldiers would have had the luxury of a sophisticated tent like this one.

27. With their spear points presented to the enemy in a thick hedge, a schiltrom was virtually invulnerable to cavalry attacks.

28. Articulated armour for the legs and arms was becoming increasingly common by 1314. This re-enactor is mounted on a ‘covered’ or ‘barded’ horse, though in the fourteenth century the barding would have consisted of several layers of cloth to reduce the effectiveness of arrows and edged weapons.

29. Grave effigy of Sir Roger de Trumpington. This image dates from about 1280; by the time of Bannockburn the absence of any plate armour other than knee protection would have made the bearer look rather outdated, but would still have been acceptable as equipment for a man-at-arms

30. Looking south from the approximate position of King Robert’s division on the afternoon of 23 June.

31. The contemporary material indicates that the Scots moved down to the plain from higher ground in the New Park. They probably formed up in the area where the new Bannockburn High School stands.

32. Once the Scots had formed up they had to negotiate this steep slope before deploying on the plain.

33. A Scottish ‘birlinn’ or galley. Vessels like this were used extensively by Robert I in his campaigns on the west coast of Scotland. A number of barons and other landholders were obliged to provide manned warships like this for their ‘knight service’ rather than serving as mounted men-at-arms, though it was not uncommon for such men to serve in both capacities as required.

34. The Battle of Bannockburn as envisaged by Oman and Gardiner, though it bears very little resemblance to the contemporary source material.

35. The open farmland on which the main battle took place. Contrary to Victorian interpretations, all of the contemporary material makes it clear that the main engagement took place on firm ground, not among bogs and marshes.

36. The Bannock burn. The burn was probably rather wider in 1314, but even today it has a very soft and muddy floor which would be a considerable barrier to armoured men trying to escape the battlefield.

37. A view toward ‘The Entry’, where the Earls of Gloucester and Hereford made the first attack and where de Bohun was killed in a single combat with King Robert.

38. A well-equipped infantry man of the fourteenth century, with a chapel-de-fer helmet and two thin, padded garments, one under his mail and another over it.

39. The sole remaining building of Cambuskenneth Abbey. During the night of 23/24 June, the Earl of Athol mounted an attack on King Robert’s stores. Of the four actions of the battle, this is the only one of which the precise location can be identified without question.

40. A well-intentioned re-enactor in the tradition of Brigadoon meets Braveheart; however, neither kilts nor two-handed swords have any relevance to the fourteenth century.

41. The head of a battle-hammer allegedly recovered from Bannockburn battlefield.

42. Letter patent of John Balliol, acknowledging the feudal superiority of Edward I.

43. The seal of John Balliol.

44. The Pilkington Jackson statue of Robert I at the National Trust for Scotland’s Bannockburn Visitor Centre.

45. The nineteenth-century brass effigy of King Robert from his burial place at Dunfermline Abbey; in the 1330s the tombs of both King Robert and his queen – Elizabeth de Burgh – were destroyed by English troops.

INTRODUCTION

The Battle of Bannockburn has become the subject of a considerable range of romantic – and in some cases rather unromantic – mythologising. Quite why this should be the case is a bit of a mystery in itself; there is really very little of any importance that we do not know about this battle. The contemporary and near-contemporary source material is actually quite extensive and contains sufficient data to provide us with a reasonably coherent picture of the nature of the armies and of the course of the Battle of Bannockburn. As we would expect, the value of the record material is really limited to information about the political situation and some insight concerning enlistment, supplies and the progress to the battlefield; it offers us very little indeed about the battle itself beyond a basic outline of the progress of the engagements.

Overall there is surprisingly little contradiction between the different chronicle writers, though all of them must be used with caution: each of the authors had an agenda and not all narrative material is of equal value. Walter Bower’s Scotichronicon was not written until more than a century after Bannockburn; it is wildly inaccurate and virulently anti-English. On the other hand, Sir Thomas Grey, author of Scalacronica, was not present at the battle himself, but his father (also Thomas) was taken prisoner during the first day of the fighting. The author was able to consult Scottish accounts, which have not survived, whilst he was himself a prisoner of war of the Scots a generation later. Additionally, unlike all of the other chroniclers, Grey was a professional soldier who spent most of his career fighting in Scotland; he is by far the closest thing we have to an expert witness.

1. Inchcolm Abbey, where – over 100 years after the event – Abbott Bower penned a highly colourful description of the battle.

2. A page from Sir Thomas Grey’s Scalacronica.

NARRATIVEEVIDENCE

This is the collective term for all chronicle material. The monastic chronicle from Lanercost has a brief but useful account of the battle, which the writer tells us was given by an eyewitness who he knew personally and thought was a reliable person. Scalacronica was written by the son of a participant in the battle, Sir Thomas Grey. Both father and son were professional soldiers who spent a great deal of their careers in Scotland, and Thomas junior tells us that he had access to Scottish material (which has not survived) while he was a prisoner of the Scots more than twenty years after the battle.

All the narrative material is greatly enhanced if we examine the record material for the preceding twenty years or so. Pay rolls, horse valuations and other records can provide us with a better picture of the general military and social environment. Comprehending record evidence lets us understand the terms that the chroniclers use and failure to do so can lead us into serious errors. One example is the expression ‘esquire’. To most people it means a young man aspiring to knighthood, and if he fought at all it was with lighter armour and a lighter horse than his knightly associate. In the fourteenth century it simply meant a man-at-arms, usually a landholder, who was not a knight. He was armed and mounted to the same standard and his role in battle was identical; in any force of heavy cavalry only a handful – perhaps 10 or 15 per cent at most – were actually knights. Failure to understand this has led to the invention of whole units of lightly armed gentry cavalry that exist only in the minds of modern writers.

Seven hundred years on from the battle, it is hardly surprising that we do not have all the evidence and information that we should like. In the absence of the 1314 pay rolls and muster rolls (which we can assume were lost on the battlefield), we can only make an educated guess about the numbers involved. This is less of an issue than it might appear since we have so much material – particularly about English armies – from campaigns in the years before and after 1314, from which we can make useful deductions. Army strengths are a thorny issue at the best of times and not necessarily especially useful information: nobody really knows exactly how many men fought at Waterloo in 1815 or on the Somme in 1916, but that does not have a significant impact on our understanding of either event. What matters more than a precise headcount is our ability to see a campaign or a battle in the round. If we have a decent understanding of the relative size of the forces involved, the arms and other equipment, the administrative practices of the day, the social and cultural ethos of the communities, and, most importantly, an understanding of how tactical practice was applied to the lie of the land, we will be far better informed than if we merely know that 20,000 men met 10,000 men in battle somewhere in the vicinity of a particular geographic feature.

As with any other battle – or indeed any event at all – the conclusions we come to today should not be set in stone. There is very little chance that a previously unknown contemporary eyewitness account of Bannockburn will come to light 700 years on, but if it did, it might completely alter our perception of the battle, even if it did not actually contradict any of the material we have today. Alternatively, it might invalidate a lot of the material we have now, but not change our understanding of the sequence of events; it certainly could not change the general outcome of the fighting: the Scots won and the English lost.

RECORDMATERIAL

As the name implies, this is evidence that we can find in Crown and other records of the day. There are several collections of such material from the later medieval period which can be accessed relatively easily through the inter-library loan scheme, including Bain’s Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, Register of the Great Seal of Scotland and the Exchequer Rolls of Scotland.

There is a greater possibility that scholars might uncover record evidence that would help to further our understanding. It is generally assumed – and probably correctly – that all of the English administrative records were lost on the battlefield, but it is not absolutely impossible that copies of pay rolls or other material may come to light and give us another glimpse into the structure or articulation of the army.

We can be a little more hopeful in regard to archaeology. The techniques of battlefield archaeology and the quality of interpretation are developing rapidly. There are currently plans for a major survey of the potential battle sites at Bannockburn and we may see a major breakthrough over the next few years which may compel historians to re-evaluate all of the record and narrative material that we have relied on in the past. Unfortunately, the soil in the Stirling area is not conducive to preserving organic material such as wood, cloth or leather, and is wet enough that ferrous (iron) artefacts are likely to have crumbled to dust long ago. Even so, traces of extensive numbers of fire hearths and the recovery of copper and brass objects or silver coins may yet provide us with some fresh data. Given the nature of the soil, it seems unlikely that the remains of the combatants will have survived, though clearly there were a great number of them, but it is quite possible that developments in soil analysis, geophysics or in the analysis of aerial photography may help to improve our comprehension of the battle.

Equally, we should be hopeful that in addition to archaeology, improvements in scholarship may develop our picture of the fighting. Until recent times this has not been a happy tale. The popular view of Bannockburn – indeed, of medieval war generally – bears little resemblance to what we actually know about it, and the fault for this can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of scholars who, rather like the medieval chroniclers, have often had an agenda to pursue. Over a century ago, S.R. Gardiner and C.W.C. Oman (see Further Reading) developed a view of Bannockburn that fitted what they wanted to believe. They started with certain conclusions and accepted, enhanced or rejected – in some cases invented – evidence to suit those conclusions. Since that time many writers (including several who should have known better) have incorporated Oman or Gardiner’s views into their own work. To this day, a writer can, with impunity, declare that Bannockburn was fought in bogs and swamps. Although all of the contemporary material is very clear that this was not the case, the bogs and swamps have become part of the ‘received history’ of Scotland and England.

Oman and Gardiner sought to establish a rationale for the mystery of Edward II’s defeat, rather than searching for the roots of Robert I’s victory. In fact, there is nothing very mysterious about Bannockburn. If we give due attention to the record and narrative material, we find that the battle was really a very straightforward affair and well within the ‘norms’ of medieval warfare.