Table of Contents
The first thing to notice about Stirling is that it is spelt with an 'i'. It's a reflex reaction to spell it like Sterling, the currency of Britain. Stirling is a moderate-sized town with a population of ~50,000. It is a major spot on the tourist trail, and I quickly discovered why that was. There is, by necessity, a grand hostel in Stirling, and its 120 beds are full over July and August. When the Fringe finishes at the end of August, occupancy suddenly drops to ~80 as the tourists find they can stay in Edinburgh again. I find little facts about the business of tourism like that fascinating.
In the middle-ages, Stirling was the gateway to the Northern part of Scotland: beyond Stirling they were all primitive inbreds. Did I say something untrue? yes, haha it was just a joke. This is brought about by the fact that it was the only reasonable place to cross the river Forth on foot. Since Stirling is close to the Highlands Fault, the Grampian mountains rise quickly if you try to the north-west. Downstream, the river is tidal and the tidal surges generated swamps. There was a ferry, as evinced by placenames like "Queensferry", but it wasn't very practical to take an army and / or a baggage train on a ferry. If you wanted to control Scotland, you needed to be able to march an army through Stirling. The military significance of Stirling was great, and thus there was a big castle here, guarding the medieval bridge to the north of Scotland. In keeping the route to Northern Scotland open, the English could maintain their influence in that region.
The famous battle of Bannockburn was fought a couple of miles south of Stirling in 1314, and it's generally seen as the biggest defeat of english arms in the middle-ages. Another, the battle of Stirling Bridge was won for the Scottish by William Wallace and his followers here in 1296. There is probably much truth in saying that Scotland was heading for feudal vassalship to the King of England until Bannockburn when it reasserted its independence, and established an independent nation. This, then, is why Stirling is so dear in the hearts of the scottish nationalists, and why this town has such cultural significance.
On the southern side of Stirling is the Bannockburn Heritage Centre, which contains a small, and uninspiring exhibition on the battle of Bannockburn. When I was there there was one of those reenactment people there dressed in medieval armour. He gave a presentation on the subject of the weapons of the time: maces, broadswords, yew bows etc. Apparently the yew bow was a fantastically powerful weapon, and could fire an arrow 300 metres. Furthermore, it could fire swiftly, and a proficient archer could have five arrows in the air at the same time. At close range an arrow with a bodkin point could be expected to pass through three people. He was right to point out that it was lucky that the english never got to use their archers at Bannockburn.
 |
A great weakness of the english archer was that he needed dry weather. The bowstring was made from hemp fibre or animal intestines, and if this became wet it was pretty useless. Bannockburn was a fine sunny day in June. A full set of armour would weigh in at 41kgs, and it is debatable whether that was a help or a hindrance.
In Wallace Tower there is the sword of William Wallace, and it is a huge Scottish Claymore. I tried handling a Claymore, and it seems to be far too big and heavy to be effective. I would prefer to have a short stabbing sword like the Roman Gladius, and a shield. I really doubt that you would have space for a Claymore on the battlefield, when you would be lined up with your own men and rushed by the enemy forces. Even in single combat in a wide space, I can imagine the fight between a man with a Claymore and the man with a Gladius would go like this: the man with the Claymore would swing or stab at the other. The man with the Gladius would dodge or block the strike; he would then step closer to the opponent. Once the combatants were close, the Claymore would be useless, as it's only sharp at the far end. The man with the Gladius would make a series of fast lunges and that would be the end.
The exhibition demonstrated that Bruce had developed tactics for impeding the cavalry. He had some kind of minefield technology: his men would dig hole twelve inches in diameter and twenty inches deep in the ground, and lots of them so as the ground was honeycombed. These holes would be covered with twigs and turf to hide them. These holes were devastating to cavalry, as a horse would put its foot on one, and would fall and lose its balance, probably dismounting the rider. The horse would probably break its leg.
Let us consider a little of the background firstly. Edward I (aka Edward Longshanks, 1239-1307), king of England, was in the game of extending his royal authority over a wider region. In the 1280's he had merited great success in bringing Wales under his control by a series of efficient military campaigns, and it was natural that he should next try to gain control over Scotland. Perhaps he was inspired by the legend of King Arthur, who was meant to have had a realm stretching from Ireland across Britain and into Europe. Indeed, king Edward had territory in France, and in 1294 King Philip IV attempted to annex some of it: Aquitaine. King John Balliol of Scotland, annoyed at the importunities of Edward, decided to seize this opportunity to rebel, and allied himself with the French. Edward responded by invading Scotland in 1296, defeating Balliol at Dunbar in 1296. He continued on a grand march thoughout Scotland (highlands an lowlands) and returned to London with the Stone of Scone, and there was no more any king of Scotland.
Into this void sprung William Wallace, who rallied the Scottish people to rebel against the English. He won a remarkable victory at Stirling bridge in 1297, but Edward avenged this defeat at Falkirk in 1298. Wallace fled to France, and when he next set foot in Scotland in 1305 he was betrayed and executed by nobles who had decided that the sensible thing was to accept rule from London.
The void reappeared, and Robert Bruce took up the Scottish cause. In 1306 he met with his rival to the throne John Comyn in a church in Dumfries, and Bruce was the only man to walk away alive. He then claimed the throne of Scotland which had been vacant for ten years since the defeat of King Balliol; he was coronated in Scone 7 weeks later. Edward I in England was not pleased to hear of a coronation in Scotland, and sent Aymer de Valence, Comyn's brother in law, to defeat him. Bruce initially faced a series of small defeats and fled to Rathlin Island off the north coast of Ireland. It is around this time that the legend of Bruce and the spider seems to pertain. In spring 1307 Bruce returned to Scotland, and engaged the english by Loch Trool where his spearmen managed to defeat a larger force of cavalry. The success was mainly due to the technique of digging a series of defensive ditches around his army to break the charge of the horses. At this, Edward I himself went to deal with Bruce, but he died in transit, in Carlisle aged 69.
His successor, Edward II, was no warrior, and lacked the will and understanding of his father. Over the next decade Bruce fought a continual campaign against the english king's military strongholds and castles, and this was moderately successful. The Scottish began to have confidence in Bruce, and support for him grew. Edward II, I expect, didn't want to go an fight the Scottish, so he just procrastinated and ignored the problem. Furthermore, the Scottish were fighting something of a guerilla war, whereby they would only attack the enemy when they had a good chance of winning, and would run and hide in a forest if they didn't. Hence it was difficult for Edward II to find his enemy.
In 1313 the last great english stronghold of Stirling was beseiged. The knight in charge at the castle, Philip de Moubray, arranged with the beseigers that he would surrender the castle if not relieved by Midsummer's Day the next year. This was a clever move and effectively forced a pitched battle between the two sides. Bruce had been avoiding such, as he didn't have enough men to confront the english openly. Edward II was finally forced to do something, as he needed to keep Stirling castle, and he was being given a fantastic opportunity to meet the Scottish army on the field.
There can be no question that the english should have won Bannockburn. They had by far the superior force, and they had excellent english archers. The whole of the english war-machine went off to battle the Scots, and it did appallingly badly. I'm not going to recount the details of the battle, only try to say why they failed. I think we can blame Edward II for being a rubbish commander, but this is the problem with hereditary monarchies. He was not chosen for the role of king by his interests nor proficiency, but by his family connections. However I suspect the root reason for the loss was that the english knights were there for a bit of jousting fun, and didn't really take the Scots seriously enough. Bruce's army was well prepared to repel cavalry, and had spent years training the techniques for doing so. The english knights were not expecting anything like what they met. Bruce also had the advantage of knowing the geography of the locality, and he had prepared defences to restrict the english mobility.
If it was a computer-game, and you could run it again, Edward II would learn how to win the scenario after a few attempts. The way to win could be as simple as relying on the archers instead of the cavalry. However the english knights were there for fun and glory, and they wanted to be in front and take the credit. That, ultimately, is probably why they lost.
Robert Burns composed a poem about Bannockburn, and I think his stanzas probably reflect things that Bruce said to his men at the confrontation of Bannockburn. I present the poem, modified for clarity.
Scots, who have with Wallace bled, Scots, whom Bruce has often led, Welcome to your gory bed, or to victory! Now's the day, and now's the hour: See the line of battle come, See approach proud Edward's power: Chains and slavery. Who will be a traitor / knave? Who will fill a coward's grave? Who so base as be a slave? Let him turn and run! Who for Scotland's king and law? Freedom's sword we'll strongly draw, As freemen stand and freemen fall, Let them come with me! By oppression's woes and pains, By our sons in servile chains, We will drain our dearest veins, But they shall be free! Lay the proud usurpers low! Tyrants fall in every foe! Liberty's in every blow! Let us strike or die!
Well, it's not a particularly good poem; compare it with some of Shakespeare's battle speeches. It's more of a pop song, indeed it can be sung to the tune of Hey, Tutti Taitie and singing it is what Burns intended. This is something of the unofficial Scottish anthem, and gives rise to that famous Scottish phrase "way hey!" which is in the first line. Burns wrote this poem in 1793. I don't know about you, but I can't help but think that it is far more pertinent to American War of Independence (1775) and the French Revolution (1789) than anything else; all this stuff about freedom seems to be remarkably like American propaganda, which was very popular in that time, the dawning of the age of enlightenment.