# Braveheart's Scotland



## Stuka1166 (Oct 19, 2006)

Greetings !

I saw an interesting show on the History Channel "Braveheart's Scotland"...A very interesting account of the life and times of Sir William Wallace. They explained the various battles between the English and the Scotts.

After the Scotts won the battle of Stirling in 1297...The English re-grouped under King Edward I and once again went into battle at Fulkirk in 1298 only this time, the English had a "new" weapon...The longbow !!

I am very interested in archery through the ages, yet I was surprised that the longbow was in Europe in 1298. I was under the impression, it was discovered and used before that time.

True or False ??

Thanks !!


----------



## Templar1305 (Oct 24, 2006)

The longbow is something like 8000 years old. It was popular among the Welsh from early on. However, other Celtic tribes such as the Scots and the Milsians (Irish) did not take to it. They fought with swords, spears and darts, along with shiltroons the super long spears.
Edward I was the guy who saw that the Longbow of the Welsh could be a devastating weapon to win wars with, however, from what I have read, and he instituted mandatory practice with it. 
If I had to geuss, I would say that some groups in Northern Europe felt the bow was not as chivalrous a weapon to fight with as say the sword or spear, which is why it was popular with some nations and not with others. 
For years the argument was that there was not suitable wood in Scotland and Ireland for bows. But even if that is so, it would not explain why nobody imported them. Many fine and even well known swords were made with German blades that had local hilts attached by cutlers in those days.


----------



## bsu_beginner (Feb 14, 2005)

another thing to remember was that the scots stayed out of range during stirling and only attacked half the english army under the earl of surrey. In modern warfare.. being combat ineffective is a 30% loss. So this was something to be beheld. They didn't need sciltrons as much at Sterling. Plus the earl of Surrey was a bumbling idiot who didn't realize that controlling your environement was important to. 

Actually, there was a huge market from spain on yew wood. most people don't realize that the trade map of the time looks much different then than it was today. And England has vested interests in the forests of Spain and France at the time (from Queen of Aquataine). They pretty much controlled that wood. 

What most people don't realize is that Edward the I had trained the English to play dirty. Look at some of the woodcuts of Froissart and you see a lot of backstabbing (literally). English won by playing dirty. Most romantics and courtiers of the time wouldn't do any of that. The bow is a dirty weapon. It means that rather than being macho and face to face... it meansthat you can reach out and touch someone before they can touch you. 

Another thing to remember: archers were yeomen. Serfs free. In a hierchal structure... they are likethe lower middle class. Scorned by the lower class for being rich and "free" from contracts with noblemen. Scorned by the upper class for being inferior. It was ok for people of the same social class to kill each other by whatever means nessisary. But it was no OK for members of a lower social class to slay members of an upper class. Caste system? yes. Its interesting to note that you can see countless situations where knights would rather have their throats slit to opponent squires than surrender to someone inferior. 

At the time, most of the Scots had sworn some oath of allegience to King Ballu (I know I got that wrong). He was a puppet king set up by Edward "Longshanks." So by default Scots swearing allegience to King of Scotland were swearing their allegiance to King of England. When William Wallace was tried. He was found guilty of a bunch of stuff (even the murder of nuns in surrey) but the one crime he was punished for (and yes, the king of England was POed so he wanted wallace to suffer) was the punishment of treason. The only thing wallace said in his trial was that he swore allegiance to the King of Scotland and not England. Didn't matter. 

It can be best said that in Edwards mind (the guy was a tyrant.. what else can I say?) scots were nothing but rebels and so he could use whatever means nessisary.


----------



## SirWilliam (Nov 4, 2004)

*Sir William*

I couldn't help but chime in here! Gee...wonder why? And yes...I am a Wallace traced back to Scotland and proud of it of course! Learned of Sir William when I was a little kid...looooong before Mel made him a household name! Always grew up loving the pipes and golf...great grandfather always said I had no choice but to love them! _Pro Libertate_!


----------



## niteshade (Feb 7, 2004)

thanks guys for the stories! i have always loved the stories of sir william wallace keep it going please.


----------



## bsu_beginner (Feb 14, 2005)

SirWilliam said:


> I couldn't help but chime in here! Gee...wonder why? And yes...I am a Wallace traced back to Scotland and proud of it of course! Learned of Sir William when I was a little kid...looooong before Mel made him a household name! Always grew up loving the pipes and golf...great grandfather always said I had no choice but to love them! _Pro Libertate_!


please tell me you also enjoy aque vitale. (waters of life).


----------



## BlackArrow (May 7, 2006)

Talking of longbows and battls between England and Scotland.

Last significant battle in which the "English" longbow was used as a primary weapon was Flodden Field on September 9th 1513. The battle was fought on the Northumbrian border , the English shot an arrow strom which broke the Scottish ranks and then charged. A rout ensued, Scottish casualties were said to be up to 10,000 (compared with 1,500 English), including nearly half the Scottish Peerage roll and the Scottish King James IV was fatally wounded by an arrow.

Although Henry VIII used the bow in a battle in France about the same time (Battle of the Spurs) the battle on the border between England and Scotland was in fact three weeks later, hence this long-term England-Scotland scrap also saw the last use of the longbow in this way.

Incidentally, I grew up on the Borders, in amongst the stories of the Reivers and Debatable lands, it wasn't just the kings and big guys who fought there all the time with bow and sword (and "Steel Bonnets"), romantic it may seem but it wasn't, both Scotland and England had reiving families (think clan organisation on BOTH sides of Border) and until the two countries were united under one ruler and a concerned effort was taken to stamp out the lawlessness it was the Iraq of it's day.

The term "bereaved" dates from the time of the Border Reivers for obvious reasons...


----------



## Templar1305 (Oct 24, 2006)

<<<<<At the time, most of the Scots had sworn some oath of allegience to King Ballu (I know I got that wrong). He was a puppet king set up by Edward "Longshanks." So by default Scots swearing allegience to King of Scotland were swearing their allegiance to King of England. >>>>

That was King John Balliol. For a time, Wallace had sworn fealty to him, mind you. Balliol was chosen as King by Edward I, aka Longshanks, when the Scottish nobles foolishly could not decide who to choose as King and Edward cunningly agreed to pick a king for them. He later maintained that by doing so the Scots admitted his suzerainty over them....
Bruce had problems with being chosen a king too.
First of all, he killed a man (Red John Comyn) in a churchyard with a dagger in what at least one modern pseudo historian claims could have been a pagan ritual and had been been excommunicated by the pope. Some have argued that Bruce was attempting to recreate a "Celtic" Scotland and may have seen older pagan beliefs as being something he could use to unify Scotland at a time when the church tended to side with the English over the Irish and the Scots. Notice he sent his brother into Ireland too, about that time. 
Note that when the Bruce finally whipped the English he had a bunch of excommunicated rebel Templars with him. 
The thing to remember about those days in the 14th century is that when you were excommunicated, you were truly beyond any help. Technically speaking it was just about a death sentance. At a time when there was no division between church and state an excommunicated person was giulty of both treason and heresy.


----------



## bsu_beginner (Feb 14, 2005)

Templar1305 said:


> <<<<<At the time, most of the Scots had sworn some oath of allegience to King Ballu (I know I got that wrong). He was a puppet king set up by Edward "Longshanks." So by default Scots swearing allegience to King of Scotland were swearing their allegiance to King of England. >>>>
> 
> That was King John Balliol. For a time, Wallace had sworn fealty to him, mind you. Balliol was chosen as King by Edward I, aka Longshanks, when the Scottish nobles foolishly could not decide who to choose as King and Edward cunningly agreed to pick a king for them. He later maintained that by doing so the Scots admitted his suzerainty over them....
> Bruce had problems with being chosen a king too.
> ...


thanks for chiming in on that. I didn't even know a lot of that and so thank you. I would think excommunication is worst than a death sentence. 

Bannockburn, right?


----------



## Blackland bh (May 30, 2006)

Our Idea of the longbow is way older than the 13th century of course, so your definately right in that assumption. The bow goes way back even to ancient Egypt. The English longbow was another later innovation of the bow. Much longer than the longbow we think of. It first proved its worth in a battle between knights and basically peasants armed with the bows. The knights were wiped out. Defeated by commoners with the weapons. Although they were not considered as honorable as hand to hand combat, their affectiveness couldn't be denied. They did have alot more range and stoping power of course being longer they could store a whole lot more energy in their limbs that were constructed from a stronger type of wood.


----------



## bsu_beginner (Feb 14, 2005)

An off-topic... about bruce and all the templars. That could explain why the Reformation did so well in Scotland. Scotland was on the fringes with a lot of excommunicated folks in power.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

some historical tidbits (As a boy, I was sick a bit from allergies and my mother-who taught medieval European history at the local university prior to her marriage-gave me many books on English history to read)

Edward the Second was a homosexual-his wife did not come to England until AFTER William Wallace was drawn and quartered.

Robert the Bruce's crushing destruction of Edward II's army at Bannockburn led to many rich English Nobles having to be ransomed back to the English. Edward's wife and her lover-Roger Mortimer decided to rid themselves of the inept Edward who died from a red hot poker in a rather sensitive place. Edward had managed to father a son-Edward the Third who was as good a king as his father was inept. He didn't take kindly to Mortimer who had not only killed his father but had caused the execution of many of Edward's allies such as the Despensers. Mortimer was ultimately executed for treason-some say he was merely hanged, others say he met a fate as bad as those he had killed himself.

Edward the III's son-the charismatic Black Prince-proved to be a good military leader at Crecy and other battles where English archers crushed the french. sadly he died and was the first prince of wales to not take the throne.

at Agincourt-the last of the big three archery battles against the french, the english archers suffered from dysentary. they went into battle naked from the waist down-an insult that perhaps caused the french to make an ill advised charge on the wet sloppy fields that favored the much lighter english cavalry and prevented the french crossbowmen from using their weapons effectively (wet crossbow strings stretched) The english archers also were reputed to dip their piles into the nastiness they were squirtingukey:


----------



## Templar1305 (Oct 24, 2006)

Several English kings realized the great value of the Archer from Edward I, to Edward III to Henry VIII.

By the time of Edward the III, the English army generally had something like three archers per infantryman. 
It was the key many of their military successes.

As respect for Archers in the military increased, so did heir pay, by the way. However the Crossbow being easier to train a man on, and the pistol eventually made the longbow "obsolete' for military purposes. ...
I personally don't think any weapon that can be utilized to kill is obsolete myself. So long as it is effective it may be "outdated" but never obsolete....


----------

