History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedReclaiming the Edwards?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2009 at 02:23
The suggestion wasn't mine--it's mentioned in numerous places. There are a number of reasons for the belief. He came from nowhere.  No one knew who his parents were but he was immediately given a high position with Edward's court--a court where position was solely determined by birth. That's suspicious of its own without the other. For all we know, the erasure was removing an error--more likely than that he erased something to make an error. And Botetourt was almost certainly born before Edward was married when there were many rumors about his having affairs. Talk about over-defensive--especially since as much as I dislike him, I pointed out that he had a reputation for chasteness. LOL

As vicious as he was to any country he thought he could find an excuse to conquer, he had a to some degree a good side when it came to his personal life and ruling England.

As for those "recalcitrant vassals", they were fighting against a liege lord who had sworn oaths to not interfere in their affairs and to respect the rights and traditions of the Scots. He had made the oaths dishonestly with every intention of breaking them. He was an oathbreaker. They had every right even by medieval standards to repudiate and fight against such a liege lord.  Oaths of vassalage went two ways. A vassal RECEIVED oaths as well as giving them. You want to tell me he hadn't broken those oaths? Not once have you denied it because you can't.

I mean it didn't just HAPPEN that he had rebellious vassals in every country he came in contact with. He found an excuse of any kind to either pretend they were in rebellion or to force them into rebellion. That was the only reason for the absolutely absurd demands he made upon Baliol--demands as I have pointed out repeatedly were in complete contradiction to anything the Scots had agreed to.

And when he deposed Baliol and seized Scotland by force of arms--the only word for that is conquest.


Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

JRScotia`s suggestion that Edward sired a bastard called John Botetourt is based solely on his name being written over an erasure in a genealogical table in a Hailes Abbey chronicle. It seems to be an error by a scribe. There is nothing in John Botetourt`s subsequent career to suggest that he was Edward`s illegitimate son. Indeed there is nothing in Edward`s character to suggest infidelity. He was, after all, deeply devoted to his queen, Eleanor. 
 
Bod enquires why Edward didn`t attempt to conquer Scotland before Wales. It wasn`t a case of conquering anywhere. Edward regarded his military activity in both countries as the punishment of recalcitrant vassals who had revolted against their liege lord.


Edited by JRScotia - 23-May-2009 at 04:54
Saor Alba
Back to Top
bod View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 25-Apr-2009
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 24
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bod Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2009 at 11:41
Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

Spent all his money? Not that any Scot ever noticed. You might want to re-read Scottish history on that. The campaign in Wales unfortunately did not reduce his coffers. If any campaigns helped the Scots, it was his campaigns in France. That said, I agree about Wales. What was done can only be classed as a tragedy of huge proportions--the near destruction of a nation and its culture.
[/QUOTE]

Edward spent a huge amount of money on his Welsh campaigns Acording to John E. Morris in "The Welsh wars of Edward I"  The cost of the 1282/83 war against Llywelyn ap Gruffydd was 98,000. This figure does not include all the money he spent on his first Welsh war 1276/77. or Madoc's war,1294/95 or the cost of Edwards castle building. A huge amount of money in 1200 terms

Things were very different in the Scotish wars, he was falling out with his Barrons over taxation. Lords such as Humphery Bohum and Roger Bigod withheld their forces in protest against Edwards financial demands.

This was also due to his wars in France, but if events had been difefrent and had invaded Scotland first, who knows?

You seem to forget the Edward I did fail in Scotland he caused a grest deal of damage I know but he did fail.

Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2008
Location: Mercia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2009 at 15:50
King Edward was not an oathbreaker. On 2 January 1293, at Newcastle, John Balliol annulled all the provisions made at the Treaty of Northampton and payed homage to Edward. The English king broke no oath.
 
To summarize the events of the "Great Cause".
 
All the main competitors - John Balliol, John Hastings and Robert Bruce - had accepted Edwards claim to overlordship over Scotland. Indeed it is instructive to learn that the Scottish "hero" Bruce in a letter tried to flatter Edward by appealing to him "as his sovereign lord and emperor". The same Bruce who was a scheming, greedy opportunist, and later an usurper. A man who was guilty of judicious murder to achieve his aim.
 
When Balliol and later Bruce revolted, Edward as overlord was in law punishing recalitrant vassals, and he consequently declalred the realm of Scotland forfeit. If, JRScotia, you want to blame anyone for inviting the "lion" into the Scottish fold, then blame the weak John Balliol for failing to stand up to Edward, and  blame the scheming Bruce. Edward behaved in the circumstances as any medieval king would have done. He is only a "monster" in the mythology of English hating Scots.
 
Edwardus Primus Scotorum Malleus hic est, 1308. Pactum Serva.
 
 
From Woden sprang all our royal kin.
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2009 at 16:27
It would have been rather hard for the "Scottish Hero Bruce" to have done that since HE was not the claimant. The competitor in the "Great Cause" was Robert Bruce, 5th Lord of Annandale who was the GRANDFATHER of the future Robert Bruce King of the Scots. Bruce came into his titles at the resignation of both his father and grandfather that year and made a quick exit to Ireland to avoid the entire issue of swearing fealty to Baliol. And they never agreed to unlimited overlordship. There were limitations on what they agreed to. Unlimited overlordship was simply NEVER agreed to by the Scots until they were under the English heel with a sword at their throats--no one voluntarily gave overlordship without getting something in return. Get your history straight.

The very title given to him shows the hatred and distruction intended for Scotland.

There was never any doubt that Edward Longshanks (or Hammer of the Scots if you please, a title you are PROUD of? Shocked ) was Bruce's overlord for the substantial lands the Bruce's held in England. They refused and never did swear fealty to John Baliol for their Scottish holdings having considered him a USURPER from the first. Bruce couldn't usurp a throne that was rightfully his. Not a single Bruce ever swore fealty to John Baliol. 

You bet Robert Bruce schemed. He schemed almost every day for the first part of his adult life and then fought every day of the rest of it to get rid of the rapacious English who outnumbered the Scots 10 to 1 and had every intention of seeing that the Scots never had another day of liberty.  He signed secret agreements with (and was betrayed by) John, the Red Comyn who agreed to give up any claim to the Scottish throne to Bruce and with the great William Lamberton the Bishop of St. Andrews.

And he ultimately drove the English from our land. The man wha won our liberty! 


Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

King Edward was not an oathbreaker. On 2 January 1293, at Newcastle, John Balliol annulled all the provisions made at the Treaty of Northampton and payed homage to Edward. The English king broke no oath.
 
To summarize the events of the "Great Cause".
 
All the main competitors - John Balliol, John Hastings and Robert Bruce - had accepted Edwards claim to overlordship over Scotland. Indeed it is instructive to learn that the Scottish "hero" Bruce in a letter tried to flatter Edward by appealing to him "as his sovereign lord and emperor". The same Bruce who was a scheming, greedy opportunist, and later an usurper. A man who was guilty of judicious murder to achieve his aim.
 
When Balliol and later Bruce revolted, Edward as overlord was in law punishing recalitrant vassals, and he consequently declalred the realm of Scotland forfeit. If, JRScotia, you want to blame anyone for inviting the "lion" into the Scottish fold, then blame the weak John Balliol for failing to stand up to Edward, and  blame the scheming Bruce. Edward behaved in the circumstances as any medieval king would have done. He is only a "monster" in the mythology of English hating Scots.
 
Edwardus Primus Scotorum Malleus hic est, 1308. Pactum Serva.
 
 


Edited by JRScotia - 23-May-2009 at 17:38
Saor Alba
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2009 at 16:45
Originally posted by bod bod wrote:


Edward spent a huge amount of money on his Welsh campaigns Acording to John E. Morris in "The Welsh wars of Edward I"  The cost of the 1282/83 war against Llywelyn ap Gruffydd was 98,000. This figure does not include all the money he spent on his first Welsh war 1276/77. or Madoc's war,1294/95 or the cost of Edwards castle building. A huge amount of money in 1200 terms

Things were very different in the Scotish wars, he was falling out with his Barrons over taxation. Lords such as Humphery Bohum and Roger Bigod withheld their forces in protest against Edwards financial demands.

This was also due to his wars in France, but if events had been difefrent and had invaded Scotland first, who knows?

You seem to forget the Edward I did fail in Scotland he caused a grest deal of damage I know but he did fail.



The English failed in Scotland but ultimately it was Edward Longshank's SON who failed and not him. There's never a  day when Scots forget that Robert Bruce drove the English from Scotland. (LOL Schemer that he was--mostly with a war axe in hand. Wink )

However, the failure was not for lack of funds and you forget that the Welsh campaigns were ten years previous to the beginning of the Scottish campaigns.

Also several times the English brought some of the largest and best equipped armies to have ever been seen at the time into Scotland in the attempt to complete the conquest. For instance, in the bombardment of Stirling Castle he used the most advanced siege equipment ever built, refusing at first to accept their surrender so he could experiment with the pieces to see how well they worked continuing the bombardment against a helpless garrison. (Again, virtually unheard of in medieval warfare)

There was a simple reason why he didn't invade Scotland first. In 1282, Scotland had a strong king who was well able to defend the kingdom and certainly would have done so. He waited until it was without head and helpless to attack it.

Again, even in medieval days, not seen as honorable behavior as was strongly pointed out in the Declaration of Arbroath.



Edited by JRScotia - 23-May-2009 at 17:15
Saor Alba
Back to Top
bod View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 25-Apr-2009
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 24
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bod Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2009 at 17:30
Edward II was fairly useless but he was left in an imposible situation, two wars going badly without the backing of his Barrons (The men with the money). 

Edward I  may have had the funds to conquer Scotland but he did not have the resorses to finish the job off like he did in Wales. 

I know why the campaign against Scotland happend when it did.Smile It is Just a what if Question. One of the questions that can never be answerd.


Edited by bod - 23-May-2009 at 17:32
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2009 at 17:42
I agree that he went in with some serious problems.

But that didn't stop the English from fielding a huge and extremely well-equipped army at Bannockburn. I can understand perhaps wanting put it down to something else, but it was the Scottish leadership that achieved the English defeat. It wasn't lack of funds that ultimately defeated them.

Edit: I ask "what if" questions myself. What if Moray hadn't died so soon after King Robert? What if the King hadn't sent James Lord of Douglas on a romantic quest with his heart? What if Scotland hadn't been suddenly left without every great leader and a child king by 1332? It makes one weep.




Edited by JRScotia - 23-May-2009 at 17:46
Saor Alba
Back to Top
bod View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 25-Apr-2009
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 24
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bod Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2009 at 18:06
Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

 But that didn't stop the English from fielding a huge and extremely well-equipped army at Bannockburn. I can understand perhaps wanting put it down to something else, but it was the Scottish leadership that achieved the English defeat. It wasn't lack of funds that ultimately defeated them.


I know that Bannockburn was a Great Scotish victory, I'm as much a fan of Bruce as I am of Edward I (They are just very intersting people). However if Edward had the same resources that he had at the begining of his reign, Bannockburn may never even have happend.

Thank goodnes that it did happen, because Scotland recovered it's cultural identity unlike Wales. 
Back to Top
Huscarl View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 02-Mar-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Huscarl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2009 at 18:38
Anglo-Scottish bitter rambling and endless theory....borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring...Cry
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2009 at 19:28
Originally posted by bod bod wrote:


I know that Bannockburn was a Great Scotish victory, I'm as much a fan of Bruce as I am of Edward I (They are just very intersting people). However if Edward had the same resources that he had at the begining of his reign, Bannockburn may never even have happend.

Thank goodnes that it did happen, because Scotland recovered it's cultural identity unlike Wales. 


I don't think I can agree, Bod. I don't see what else the English could have done to suppress the country. They had it well and truly owned and Robert Bruce totally defeated. It was only through utter stubbornness on his part and that of his handful of followers and a willingness to embrace secret (or guerrilla, if you prefer) warfare  that Bruce won.  Experience has shown that a large and powerful army doesn't necessarily defeat a native guerrilla insurgency as was shown both to France and the US in Viet Nam.

I simply never saw a lack of resources as a big factor.

But I think there you put your finger on the extreme bitterness of many people toward Edward Longshanks (who I will give you was an interesting man). He not only declared himself overlord but absorbed countries into his own and destroyed their cultures in order to suppress them. Doing things like seizing the Stone of Destiny and the Rood of St. Margaret showed that his intent was to destroy the Scots as a people as he had previously done (at least in large extent) to Wales.

As far as Scotland and who was its king and overlord, it comes down to this:

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

All free men have not only the right but the duty to defend freedom and no baronial oath supersedes either the right or the duty.



Edited by JRScotia - 23-May-2009 at 20:05
Saor Alba
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2008
Location: Mercia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2009 at 20:48
The famous inscription Edwardus Primus Scotorum Malleus hic est, 1308. Pactum Serva was most likely added to Edward I`s tomb in the sixteenth century, probably by an admirer.
 
One thing we can almost be sure of: Had Edward I lived a little longer then Bruce`s head would have joined Wallace`s on London Bridge. Edward`s great victory at Falkirk 1208 shows that he had developed into a sound tactician, deploying the famous English archers in large numbers for the first time. Lucky for the usurper Bruce that Edward died at Burgh-by-Sands on 7 July 1307.
 
At his funeral his old friend, Anthony Bek quoted from the Book of Maccabees: "In his acts he was like a lion, and like a lion`s whelp roaring for its prey". A fitting epitaph for this remarkable and redoubtable English king.    
From Woden sprang all our royal kin.
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2009 at 21:38
Perhaps, Wulfstan. Or perhaps not.

Robert Bruce, the rightful King of the Scots, had learned a thing or two himself, and Edward had never had to fight a guerrilla war before. Archers don't help much if the enemy doesn't cooperate by meeting you on the field. Winning such a war on somebody else's territory is a WHOLE lot easier said than done, however much you outnumber them and however much more money and arms you have than they do.

Just ask a few people who've fought that kind of war.

As for whether having a king who is nothing more than a predator seeking prey is a good thing or not may well be open to debate.  I'll agree with Bishop Bek in this case. That is, indeed, what Edward I of England was.

Edit: The complaints of the English to the Pope of the unfairness of the Scots in refusing to meet them on the field are worth reading if only for a good chuckle.

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

The famous inscription Edwardus Primus Scotorum Malleus hic est, 1308. Pactum Serva was most likely added to Edward I`s tomb in the sixteenth century, probably by an admirer.
 
One thing we can almost be sure of: Had Edward I lived a little longer then Bruce`s head would have joined Wallace`s on London Bridge. Edward`s great victory at Falkirk 1208 shows that he had developed into a sound tactician, deploying the famous English archers in large numbers for the first time. Lucky for the usurper Bruce that Edward died at Burgh-by-Sands on 7 July 1307.
 
At his funeral his old friend, Anthony Bek quoted from the Book of Maccabees: "In his acts he was like a lion, and like a lion`s whelp roaring for its prey". A fitting epitaph for this remarkable and redoubtable English king.    


Edited by JRScotia - 24-May-2009 at 18:07
Saor Alba
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2009 at 15:58
I'm always somewhat interested in the distinction drawn here between 'Scots' and 'English'. When Hadrian's Wall was built it perhaps marked a racial divide, but by, say, the millenium both sides of the border were Anglo-Saxon.
 
How come the Gaelic Scots never wanted independence from the Anglo-Saxon (and Norman) Scots? Or did they?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2009 at 17:46
Edit: Let me clarify what I was saying, which was a bit too casually phrased to be accurate.

After 1034 when Donnchadd I inherited Alba, Scotland came into existence largely as it is today except for a few portions such as the Isles and Sutherland which were still owned by the Norse. And there was a substantial input of Norse blood and constant intermarriage with the Norse which people tend to forget. But after that I know of no pressure for any kind of independence. They tended to be that way by nature but that didn't mean they wanted out of the kingdom. Try bossing the MacRauries around lol

It was a nation made up of a wide  mix of tribes (Gaels, Picts, Normans, Saxons, and Norse) just as Scotland is now made up of an even wider variety.  (Racial is really the wrong word but a hard one to avoid)

Now at one time some of the Isles claimed some degree of independence and the MacDonalds referred to themselves as princes of the Isles. The Orkneys continued to be owned by Norway. But that was never really an issue in the mainland. They were Scots and didn't care to be anything but Scots.

The distinction between Scots and English was not and is not a racial one but a national one.

Edit: There was a strong tendency in the Highlands for their loyalty to be to their own leaders. (I don't want to get into the over-romanticised notion of clan but the fact is that that's the best word for their organization at that point) Their leaders gave their loyalty to the king and FAMILY was a huge deal. Of course, the highlands continued to be mostly Gaelic until the Highland Clearances, but although highlanders and lowlanders didn't much like each other, especially on the level of nobility they simply had too many ties to split.

For instance one of the things that did save Robert Bruce was the fact that Christina of the Isles (who was titular head of the MacRauries at that point) was a sister-in-law. And good luck to the English king getting to him in her holdings.

That is why Bruce having killed John Comyn was a big deal--he had a lot of blood kin--powerful kin. They didn't use the phrase blood feud but that's largely what it was. (My own point-of-view is that Comyn deserved to be killed. He had betrayed Bruce to what would have been his death) There was very little more important in Scotland, both highlands and lowlands, than who your family was and Gaels, Picts, Normans, Saxons, and Norse all intermarried. For example Bruce's own mother was of the old Gaelic stock which is how he got the Earldom of Carrick. 




Edited by JRScotia - 27-May-2009 at 06:56
Saor Alba
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2009 at 18:57
Thanks
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2008
Location: Mercia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2009 at 19:46
JRscotia:
 
You wrote that Edward I never had fought a guerrilla war. Well, he did fight one, and a successful one in northern Wales. It`s debatable whether he would have needed to fight an irregular type of war in Scotland, because I doubt if all the Scottish nobles would have supported Bruce. Would Edward have tried a subtle approach and tried to play one noble off against another? He did to some extent use this method in Wales. 
From Woden sprang all our royal kin.
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2009 at 19:56
I don't recall the Welsh war ever having been truly guerrilla but I'm not going to argue that point since I don't feel like looking it up and I would have to. If the Welsh used a scorched earth policy I don't remember it for example nor have I seen it referenced in reading about the history of guerrilla warfare.

Bruce didn't need all of the Scottish nobles supporting him to fight a guerrilla war, obviously, since they didn't in the one he fought. You were the one who pointed out that the Comyns opposed him.  (Nor in Viet Nam, for example, did the Viet Cong need all the officials supporting them. This is  misunderstanding of the nature of guerrilla warfare) Any followers who had stuck with Bruce after Methven and Dail-Righ were highly unlikely to be "played off" against each other. It was a small and highly devoted band who were with him to the death along with relatives like the MacRauries. And you have to bring in the factor that Edward "raised the dragon banner" (war with no quarter) after Bruce's coronation which had not been rescinded upon his death--makes playing people off a bit difficult when you immediately execute them.

It was a pretty simple strategy. You avoid any large battles, use the terrain as a weapon when you have to fight, use scorched earth to deny the enemy supplies and destroy castles every chance you get to deny them to your enemy.

John Barbour states clearly that James Douglas had set up a spy network ("James of Douglas, all that tide, Had spies out on ilka side" which line he repeated at least three times at different places)

And like it or not the populace, given the chance, supported Robert Bruce which is essential in a guerrilla war (different from needing the support of all nobles). From a letter written by someone on the English from before Edward's death (translated by GWS Barrow in Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland): "I hear Robert de Bruce never had the goodwill of his own followers  or the people so much with him as now. It appears that God is with him for he has destroyed King Edward's power both among the English and the Scots".  And from the Lanercost Chronicle (hardly pro-Scottish) at about the same time also prior to Edward's death: "Despite the fearful vengeance inflicted upon the Scots who adhered to Bruce the number of those to willing strengthen him in his Kingship increased daily".

It had worked once he returned to the mainland from the Isles (except for the one disastrous landing of his brothers) and may well have continued to work. Obviously, even before Edward I died, Bruce had gained considerable strength. When the English brought their army into Scotland, Bruce's reaction was simply to break up his army until they left.

However, there's no way that I know of to test our theories, so probably I'll believe what I believe and you'll believe what you believe and never the twain shall meet.

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

JRscotia:
 
You wrote that Edward I never had fought a guerrilla war. Well, he did fight one, and a successful one in northern Wales. It`s debatable whether he would have needed to fight an irregular type of war in Scotland, because I doubt if all the Scottish nobles would have supported Bruce. Would Edward have tried a subtle approach and tried to play one noble off against another? He did to some extent use this method in Wales. 


Edited by JRScotia - 28-May-2009 at 14:58
Saor Alba
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.