14

At the battle of Falkirk in 1298, William Wallace (aka "Brave Heart") abandoned the guerrilla tactics that served him so well at Stirling Bridge, and adopted a strong, but "conventional" defensive position featuring formations of spearmen. The Scots were outnumbered two to one, and were badly beaten by the English "combined arms" of cavalry, archers, and pikemen.

One can dismiss this as a "mistake" except that Robert Bruce adopted (superficially, at least) somewhat similar tactics against similar two to one odds at Bannockburn in 1314 and won.

Was there something in the terrain at Bannockburn that made a decisive difference compared to Falkirk? For instance, the marshy ground around Bannockburn (and Stirling Bridge) may have proved more of an obstacle to English cavalry than at Falkirk?

Also, long bowmen apparently made the difference in favor of the English at Falkirk (and later against France in the 100 Years' War), but not at Bannockburn. Why would that be?

Finally, is it true that the Scottish "camp followers" that the English despoiled on their way to Bannockburn formed an "army" of sorts (Pat Buchanan's "peasants with pitchforks"), and hit the English from behind, or at least threatened their supply train while they were facing main the Scots army under Bruce?

MCW
  • 33,640
  • 12
  • 105
  • 158
Tom Au
  • 104,554
  • 17
  • 253
  • 530

2 Answers2

17

Like most battles, the results of those at Falkirk and Bannockburn depended on the fortunes and momentum of war.

At Falkirk, for instance, the initial English cavalry charge didn't do much against the schiltrons (circles) of spearmen, but it slaughtered Scots archers placed wrongly between (instead of inside) the schiltrons. Thus, the Welch archers, which deployed IMMEDIATELY after the cavalry, could do so without interference from Scots archery.

The archers caused relatively few casualties, but in doing so, they administered "shock" to the Scottish schiltrons. The English cavalry reformed IMMEDIATELY after their first repulse and led the charge, thirsting for revenge, with the English infantry right behind. Because of their 2- to-1 numerical advantage, plus everything that had gone on before, the English were (barely) able to break the Scots schiltrons.

In the end, both sides suffered 2,000 physical casualties, but the more numerous English could absorb them better in what had become a battle of attrition. Does Grant's use of attrition tactic support his reputation as a general?

At what point do armies tend to break?

At Bannockburn, the English attack did NOT go like clockwork. The first cavalry charge was ineffective, the English archers in the second wave deployed slowly and piecemeal (and were ultimately scattered by a Scots cavalry charge), and the Scots counterattacked downhill against the crowded English army on a narrow front. This occurred because the Scots had "mined" the better terrain around Bannockburn (by digging potholes), thereby forcing the English to use marshy ground unsuited for cavalry, and also did a better job of protecting their archers than at Falkirk. Finally, an attack on the English rear by despoiled camp followers was wholly unexpected by either the English or the Scots.

Put another way, the English were at the "top of their game" at Falkirk, while the Scots were at the "top of their game" at Bannockburn. The Scots had learned a few lessons from Falkirk, the English had "unlearned" everything that had brought them victory earlier. In a sense, the result at Falkirk had paved the way for Bannockburn. Therefore, two (superficially) similar battles at similar odds and two very different results.

Community
  • 1
Tom Au
  • 104,554
  • 17
  • 253
  • 530
  • 1
    @Sardathrion: "Combined arms" is tricky. That's why I had trouble getting the answer the "first time." – Tom Au Dec 15 '11 at 14:09
  • And Scottish cavalry left Falkirk without much fighting, while in Bannockburn they defended the flank against British archers. That's a HUGE difference. – Brasidas Oct 04 '16 at 22:22
3

Note just bowmen...

The quality of archers, their training, and their equipment did vary. Inexperienced bowmen would be of very little use on the battle field and could even be a hindrance to the side employing them -- friendly "fire" really is not.

Bows, as anything made of wood, is sensitive to the weather. Scotland is well known for their rains, cold winds and general miserable weather. It is possible (although I have no real references) that leading to the battle of Bannockburn, the weather was so bad that the bows were of little use.

As is true of many battles, the morale of the troupes, their training and supplies did play a major role. However, I am no expert in those particular battles so could be wrong.

Sardathrion - against SE abuse
  • 8,279
  • 5
  • 39
  • 77
  • +1 for hypothesizing that the effectiveness of bowmen varied from battle to battle. May explain why the Mongol bowmen were so effective in dry central Asian territory, less so once they reached Europe. – Tom Au Dec 12 '11 at 17:02
  • @Tom - Compound hide-sinew bows are much more efficent than yew long bows - but they stop working when they get cold or wet. – none Dec 13 '11 at 04:20
  • Don't the strings also become less effective in the rain or cold? I forget when they were made of catgut, or what the English used, but much of what I read about archers is that the strings were also affected by weather conditions. – MichaelF Dec 14 '11 at 15:12
  • Eastern bows used sinew north/western european bows used hemp or flax. Again sinew works best nearer body temperature than at a cold wet scottish battle – none Dec 14 '11 at 17:04
  • @TomAu Can you explain why you feel the Mongol bowmen were less effective in Europe? As far as I'm aware, they didn't lose any battles in Europe, so what's the reason? – spiceyokooko Dec 11 '12 at 12:44
  • 1
    @mgb I think you've got that the wrong way round. Yew long bows are more efficient that hide sinew bows but stop working when the string gets wet. – spiceyokooko Dec 11 '12 at 12:46
  • @spiceyokooko - compound bows are more efficient mechanically but Yew bows still work when the wood is cold and wet. It's easier to keep the replaceable string dry than an entire bow. – none Dec 12 '12 at 16:37
  • @mgb I accept your view on the efficacy of compound bows v yew longbows, but don't agree with regards to the yew longbow continuing to work in the rain. Once the string (and replacement string) got wet (if it was raining) the longbow ceased to function. Archers carried several spare strings but would not keep any of them dry if it was pouring with rain. Hence the longbow becomes ineffective as a weapon in wet weather. – spiceyokooko Dec 12 '12 at 18:48
  • I would question the validity of the opinion regarding inexperienced archers given in this answer. English longbow archers were trained from a very early age to shoot the English longbow, the muscles in the string arm needed to be significantly strengthened to draw the string to the required position, as well as the practiced ability to fire the arrow at the intended target rapidly and without thought. A longbow archer can either shoot a longbow or he can't, there is no 'inexperience'. – spiceyokooko Dec 12 '12 at 18:55
  • @spiceyokooko - yes there comes a point where it's so wet that bows are useless (Scotland in summer) but I don't think it would be impossible for archers to keep a bow functioning for the short time needed to expand all their arrows in typical volley. The point (somewhat off topic now) is that a sinew bow fails to work most of the time anywhere north of the alps. – none Dec 12 '12 at 19:25
  • @spiceyokooko the reason a mongol compound bow would be useless in the rain is the fact the animal glue used to hold it will fall apart when wet. All bowstrings stretch and become useless but since an English longbow man would be carrying multiple (as already mentioned) he could probably discharge his arrows before he's out of bowstrings. A trained archer can shoot up till 12 arrows a minute and keep multiple arrows in the air at any moment. – Jeroen K Oct 19 '13 at 19:16