The Battle of Bannockburn, 1314

The numbers in my source are given as follows:

Scots (estimatd):
Mounted Men-at-Arms - 500
Pikemen - 9000

Total: 9500

English (estimated):
Mounted Men-at-Arms - 1000
Infantry (including archers) - 17,000

Total: 18,000

The British had the advantage of numbers, but the biggest factors in the Battle of Bannockburn were the use of pikemen and choice of battlefield

The Scots had the fortune of both. The Scots pick the location as an intercept point to prevent the marching English from relieving the castle at Stirling. The location they picked gave some high ground, and a marshy portion of land that would slow the English heavy cavalry. This ended up sandwhiching the cavalrymen between the advancing pikemen, and the English archers, which diminishes the abilities of both the horses and the archers.

A small contigent of archers tried to flank the Scottish schiltrons (pike squares) but were cut down my Robert the Bruce's cavalry reserve. The pikemen continued advancing, pushing the cavalry up against the English infantry, resulting in great confusion. The British line dissolved and largely fled.

Paraphrased from:
Dougherty, Martin. Battles of the Medieval World. Amber Books ltd. 2006

Originally posted by axeman Did Scots actually had pikemen units back then? I think that they( Scots ) were mostly spearmen and pike certainly wasn't in Scottish armament afaik.

Not pikemen so much as in the modern sense. Spearmen, but used in the general manner of a pike square would be my understanding.

Originally posted by Gundamor The scottish pikeman proved that infantry could stand up to heavy cavalry which would be seen again in future battles in Europe. .

Why do you call them [the English] British?

Me? Sometimes I just accidentally swap them. I just wrote a paper on the modern era, so everything was Britain rather than England. I just have to switch back to the Medieval mode, and remember that there is no Britain yet.

Agreed. England and Scotland united with the act of Union in 1707,whereas this battle had taken long time ago: 1314

British isn't a modern construct particularly. It's an ancient one.  It's perfectly OK to call the pre-Anglo-Saxon inhabitants 'Britons' and 'British': King Arthur may be fictitious, but he is a fictitious Briton, just as Boadicea is a real one.

Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Well, glce2003, it is wrong to refer to the English as "British" and then not refer to the Scots as "British" also. I don't think that British is useful during the Medieval Ages, because even though there was Britain, the island, it was not united. For example, I could say, the British(English) tried to conquer France during the Hundred Years War. The British(Welsh) provided longbowmen for the English. Yet, I could also say, the British(Scots) sent aid to the French during the Hundred Years War. The term should be used sparingly, for example, "The ancient British Celts", but when it involved the kingdoms of England or Scotland during the Middle Ages, it is much better and easier to use English and Scottish.

Edited by Quetzalcoatl - 28-Aug-2006 at 22:40

Originally posted by Dawn I think that perhaps Quetzalcoatl  you should not issue personnal insults to other members.

Edited by Quetzalcoatl - 29-Aug-2006 at 01:50

[/QUOTE]

Edited by gcle2003 - 29-Aug-2006 at 07:46