Why did William Wallace lose while Robert Bruce won?

score:17

Accepted answer

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.

Upvote: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.

More post

Search Posts

Related post