Reclaiming the Edwards?

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in the factor that Edward "raised the dragon banner" (war with no quarter) after Bruce's coronation which had not been rescinded upon his death--makes playing people off a bit difficult when you immediately execute them.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 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

Thanks

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.

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.

Anglo-Scottish bitter rambling and endless theory....borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring...

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

Originally posted by bod 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. )

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

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.

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 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

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.

And I still think the English should return what they took. It will be interesting to see what happens the day the English show up in Edinburgh and say they want the Stone of Destiny back for an English coronation. Personally, I get less excited about that since I have serious doubts that it IS the Stone of Destiny. But since the English think it is, I say don't let them have it.
 

Originally posted by bod Originally posted by JRScotia You'll get no argument here. What he did in Wales was at least as bad, possibly worse, than what he did in Scotland. I just happen to be a Scot so I'm more knowledgeable about his actions there. Originally posted by Eigon It wasn't just Scotland (or Gascony, or other continental forays).  My reasons for disliking Edward I are for what he did to the Welsh - specifically hanging, drawing and quartering Prince Dafydd for 'rebellion'.  This was a man he'd played with when they were both children!  And while Dafydd could be infuriating - nobody is that infuriating! He's also blamed for killing all the bards of Wales (get rid of all the intellectuals to subjugate the country) though I think this is an exaggeration.  He certainly took the Welsh crown (reputed to be that of Arthur) and a large gold cross with a piece of the True Cross embedded in it, which was part of the royal regalia of Gwynedd.  That ended up in St George's Chapel Windsor, where there are still pictures of it, though the cross itself was later melted down.   It was fortunate for Scotland that Edward I spent all his money subjugating Wales before he turned his attention to Scotland. I wonder what would have happened if he had attempted to conquer  Scotland before Wales? Britain could have become a very different place.  I do belive that what he did to Welsh culture was a tragedy.

Edited by JRScotia - 22-May-2009 at 16:51