Great video as always mate - I wonder how similar or different things looked that day in terms of the landscape. Assuming the wood was more vast back then and can picture the thousands and thousands of people ready to do battle there.. will need to go a walk with you around there mate
@@paulmuir2184 some of it very much the same, others understandably changed, but with topographical skills and insights much can be made to make it very comprehensible. Definitely let’s arrange a date Paul!
To defend the 1000 yards, eventually narrowing it to approximately 830, they would have been at least 10-15 men deep. The 2 outer divisions were slightly ahead of the centre division, commanded by Bruce at the front, so they would have drawn the charging knights right into that envelope. After 2-3 charged the sources say they were jammed together and there was no movement for a while. Also most of the infantry could not get into the fight because the leading division was in the way.
@@markporter-thechurchhistor6784 That was the plan. Until the rout took place many of the English infantry couldn’t get into the fight at all. Then once the ranks broke it would have been mass panic as they tried to cross the Bannockburn and also with some heading out towards the Forth. I don’t know if you have ever walked along the river Forth, but it is wide, deep, daunting, and with strong currents where the tide flows. The deepest part of the Bannockburn I’ve encountered in heavy rain is near the great bend where it can easily be 10-12 foot deep, and considering how muddy the banks of it would have been at the time with that large force crossing the day before and then attempting to recross in panic.
@@markporter-thechurchhistor6784 you are thinking of Firth of Forth near Edinburgh with its bridge. The river Forth here is a serpent like river snaking its way around Stirling.
@@topshottamani The only modern day sources who say so have taken Barbour’s estimate of 100,000 English and 30,000 Scots, which they dismiss, and have simply narrowed down the odds of 3/4-1. The majority of the sources mention no disparity in number, quite the opposite. The Vita tells us the Scot’s were prepared with a great force of armed men. Vita: Robert Bruce led how whole army out from the wood, about forty thousand men he brought…and split them into three divisions.’ Trokelowe mentions the cavalry charge as if into a dense forest… The Scots had to defend a distance of just under 1000 yards, that means at least 20 deep lines of pikes to stop the cavalry charge otherwise the lines would have been demolished. When you go to the Battlesite, look and walk the distance between the 2 waters, you will see just how large an area and how many men it would take to halt the successive charges in piecemeal. If there were 2500-3000 heavy cavalry, with each rider and horse weighing approx 1 ton in full armour, there are at least 15,000 plus Scot’s footmen on the field. One must measure velocity and force. No mention of small numbers. Lanercost- ‘Scots assembled in all their strength…’ ‘The English charge the Scots as if into a dense forest…’ Trokelowe- ‘ The Scots attacked and dense battle array…’ Baker- ‘Stood in very solid fashion in ordered ranks.’ None of which refer to a small army or one that is smaller than the English. When comparing sources it is importantly that they are all written and translate in one volume. You will find this only in the book Bannockburn Revealed by W Scott.
Another belter . :)
@@adrianbay1496 glad you enjoyed that brother!
Hey man, the Carmichael castle is near Lanark, do you think any of the Carmichael clan took part in any of those battles?
I do, and it begs some research!
I do, and it begs some research!
Great video as always mate - I wonder how similar or different things looked that day in terms of the landscape. Assuming the wood was more vast back then and can picture the thousands and thousands of people ready to do battle there.. will need to go a walk with you around there mate
@@paulmuir2184 some of it very much the same, others understandably changed, but with topographical skills and insights much can be made to make it very comprehensible.
Definitely let’s arrange a date Paul!
Did the Scottish army use a system of squares to defend against a cavalry charge or just a front line of pikemen? Ps.another great video pal👍
To defend the 1000 yards, eventually narrowing it to approximately 830, they would have been at least 10-15 men deep.
The 2 outer divisions were slightly ahead of the centre division, commanded by Bruce at the front, so they would have drawn the charging knights right into that envelope. After 2-3 charged the sources say they were jammed together and there was no movement for a while. Also most of the infantry could not get into the fight because the leading division was in the way.
@@robertthebruce-geniusofban647 sounds like they were jammed in like sardines 👍👍
@@markporter-thechurchhistor6784 That was the plan. Until the rout took place many of the English infantry couldn’t get into the fight at all.
Then once the ranks broke it would have been mass panic as they tried to cross the Bannockburn and also with some heading out towards the Forth. I don’t know if you have ever walked along the river Forth, but it is wide, deep, daunting, and with strong currents where the tide flows.
The deepest part of the Bannockburn I’ve encountered in heavy rain is near the great bend where it can easily be 10-12 foot deep, and considering how muddy the banks of it would have been at the time with that large force crossing the day before and then attempting to recross in panic.
@@robertthebruce-geniusofban647 think I might have driven across it one time.Is that the fourth of fifth?
@@markporter-thechurchhistor6784 you are thinking of Firth of Forth near Edinburgh with its bridge.
The river Forth here is a serpent like river snaking its way around Stirling.
I believe the English were forced to pop home for a cup of tea and a biscuit and then to think again.
They would certainly have been parched after a hard ride homewards with Douglas in pursuit to harass them.
How many Scots were there fighting? You said 20,000 but the sources say 6 to 7 thousand.. Which one is it?
@@topshottamani The only modern day sources who say so have taken Barbour’s estimate of 100,000 English and 30,000 Scots, which they dismiss, and have simply narrowed down the odds of 3/4-1.
The majority of the sources mention no disparity in number, quite the opposite.
The Vita tells us the Scot’s were prepared with a great force of armed men.
Vita: Robert Bruce led how whole army out from the wood, about forty thousand men he brought…and split them into three divisions.’
Trokelowe mentions the cavalry charge as if into a dense forest…
The Scots had to defend a distance of just under 1000 yards, that means at least 20 deep lines of pikes to stop the cavalry charge otherwise the lines would have been demolished.
When you go to the Battlesite, look and walk the distance between the 2 waters, you will see just how large an area and how many men it would take to halt the successive charges in piecemeal.
If there were 2500-3000 heavy cavalry, with each rider and horse weighing approx 1 ton in full armour, there are at least 15,000 plus Scot’s footmen on the field.
One must measure velocity and force.
No mention of small numbers.
Lanercost- ‘Scots assembled in all their strength…’
‘The English charge the Scots as if into a dense forest…’
Trokelowe- ‘ The Scots attacked and dense battle array…’
Baker- ‘Stood in very solid fashion in ordered ranks.’
None of which refer to a small army or one that is smaller than the English. When comparing sources it is importantly that they are all written and translate in one volume. You will find this only in the book Bannockburn Revealed by W Scott.
Scots*
Wheres your freedom 😅
My cry?
Your not very bright go be negative somewhere else