Edward II: The battle of Bannockburn, and why Edward II was NOT a coward (guest post)

Edward II: The battle of Bannockburn, and why Edward II was NOT a coward (guest post)



Very good perspective of the battle.

Cinema and romance novels have a lot to answer for in the way we judge this period, especially around the subject of loyalties, nationalism etc. The modern layman rarely grasps the complex family and lines of homage in the feudal system and pretty much always sellotapes modern ideas on the period. This isn't new - Walter Scott was doing it 200 years ago and you only have to look at Victorian architecture. The problem is that the same Victorian approach still effects the way that history is taught especially at schools and on the common-or-garden digital TV channels....(Professor MacScr0tum of the University of East Gristead banging on about his latest theory about the Turin Shroud etc etc.) Only yesterday I read in amazement in a national curriculum approved history book for young teens - "The 10 battles that changed the world) that Jacobites were Scots who wanted a Stuart King and that Culloden was a battle between Scots and English rather than a battle of Scots and English (not to mention French, Irish and Welsh as well). If school text books are getting this fundemental misinterpretation of the political situation in the 1700s in Great Britain then what hope do we have? (BTW Culloden wasn't one of the top 10, it was a 'Best of the Rest' (Best? a bloody battle???) and more Scots fought on the government side on the day than English troops).



I think you get the realities of combat of the period pretty right, John Keegan in his book The Face of Battle does an excellent job of dispelling the Hollywood nonsense, his description of the conditions at Agincourt and what motivates different types of armies makes interesting reading.



Which brings us to Bruce. A Guerrilla fighter, Bruce and his men had been brutalised by years of armed struggle in a war where bloody atrocities were carried out by both sides (Bruce's name is still mud int the North East of Scotland where he massacred much of the population).  Gloucester and de Bohn would have struggled as young knights brought up with the idea of chivalry to cope with the reality of war. Here they were up against battle hardened, well trained killers. Bruce's army was effectively a professional infantry force of very experienced fighters. Unless the horse were able to deploy and the archers able to dominate then in the type of battle that resulted, ie a brutal infantry contest then the English were doomed from the start. Their mercenaries and feudal levies would have been no match for the experienced Scottish spearmen. Edward's dad had understood this at Falkirk and had used archers to devastate the schiltrons before mopping up.



Which brings me to why I think that Edward lost the battle.



Bruce, never wanted an open pitched battle against the English, he had fought in enough English armies to understand the devastating power of the mounted knight. By all accounts he was furious with his brother for forcing the issue by his agreement with the garrison at Stirling castle. By any reckoning of the time, the English army should have triumphed.



I think the battle was lost before Edward had even sent for the muster.  I don't think any modern serious historian doubts Edward's personal courage for a minute however, he was fatally flawed as a leader and it was this break down in leadership that cost the battle and eventually Edward his throne. Hosts of the period depended on the feudal structure to efficiently transmit command, this was fatally damaged the moment the great magnates refused to join the army. Not only did this create issues in the command structure but it also effectively undermined Edward's authority. This wouldn't have been helped by his inability to work from pleasure! His barons had already revolted once against Gaveston, a situation that Edward brought around himself by his inconsistent treatment of subordinates.



We know that he had experienced generals in the English army, Sir Ingram, Pembroke etc. Leaders who not only had fought the Scots but some of whom were Scots. Now it is highly unlikely that a clever strategy supported by tactics that would work had not been decided on long before the campaign. My argument is that there was a fatal break down in leadership between the king and some of his commanders, the well documented row with Gloucester is amble evidence of this - could you imagine a him speaking to Edward I, Robert or Edward III like that? Why did Gloucester think he could argue with his anointed King, in public? The recorded conversations between Sir Ingram and Edward (if they ever happened) show a commander out of touch with events.



You don't have to be an incompetent fool to get into this situation, there are plenty of examples from history and in day to day life where leadership issues can destroy the best preparation, Edward failed to act ruthlessly in enforcing his authority and was inconsistent in his largesse.



He was also desperately unlucky in having to face a man who was probably the most experienced and effective warlord of his generation. By all accounts, pyhsically intimidating, battle hardened, cynical, utterly ruthless and brutalised by war, Robert was able to inspire the common people to view themselves ad a nation rather than as a feu. This is one of the earliest examples of this idea of nationality in late medieval Europe and certainly since the days of Harold Godwinson.