Talk:First War of Scottish Independence

I'm no expert on English and Scottish history, but I suggest someone double check the army numbers. 90 000 men is really an immense army in medieval terms Fornadan 17:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wallace the Martyr?

Once again I have to take issue with the 'Wallace the Martyr' thesis. I've edited out this section because the sentiments do not accord with the facts, and because it sits ill with what is a reasonably objective account of the first War of Independence. The cult of 'Wallace the Martyr' emerged-as these cults so often do-generations after the death of the man. It really only dates back to Blind Harry's late fifteenth century epic fantasy, which reveals much more about the politics and attitudes of his time than those of Wallace. There is not a scrap of evidence that the death of Wallace in 1305-horrible as it was-created additional problems for Edward, or that it had any real or lasting impact on Scotland. Sir John de Mentieth, the man who handed Wallace over to the English, far from being a pariah, was to become one of Robert Bruce's leading men. I have no wish to minimize Wallaces' achievments in 1297, but for some years before his death he was a figure of very little importance in the politics of Scotland. All history should proceed with care, and on the basis of fact and evidence, rather than draped in emotion, or viewed through the awful prism of films like Braveheart.

Rcpaterson 08:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that films often distort peoples fiew of History. For example nearly everyone believes the great Harry Houdini died in the chinese water chamber durring an escape act ( when truthfully he died of peritonitis in bed) In a popular movie about Houdini they showed him dieing in the chinese water chamber , which is most likely why so many believe this theory. Although the facts of the life and accomplishments of William Wallace will always remain blurry , since he lived so long ago and there is not much recorded evidence about his life here today, It is safe to say that he was obviously a man of great importance and a hero of the Scottish people. Even today there are still huge monuments standing in honour of William Wallace.

After i first watched the movie Braveheart (on DVD) i took a look at the special features. Mel Gibson explained in it that there was not much written about the life of William Wallace, so he had to rely on a lot of legends and folk tales surrounding the Scottish Hero. I recomment that people check the Braveheart page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart under Historical Accuracy to look over the obviouse things Mel Gibson changed or left out in his film. --Summer 19:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Armies

Here, as elsewhere, I've removed references to the alleged sizes of particular armies. The suggestion that Edward led 90,000 men at Falkirk is absurd; even a nation as strong as England did not have the capacity to raise, equip and feed a force anywhere near this size. The army that Edward II commanded at Bannockburn, one of the largest ever to enter Scotland, numbered roughly 20,000 men. As I have said elsewhere, it is important to treat the figures mentioned by medieval chronicles with considerable care. Rcpaterson 00:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Berwick-Massacre and Matters.

I am aware of no contemporary reaction-or shock waves- to the of the sack of Berwick on Scotland, and to describe it as 'genocide' is laughably out of place. As I have pointed out ad nauseum there is no place for emotive and highly inaccurate terminology in sober historical discourse. The sack of Berwick, terrible as it was, was in no way unusual for the time. The people in towns taken by assault could expect little mercy, either then or for centuries afterwards; and anyone seeking to match horror for horror might-or might not- care to examine Wallace's exploits in northern England after Stirling Bridge. Also the way the piece was written suggested something cold-blooded and malevolent on Edward's part; whereas in truth his soldiers gave way to their brutish passions until such time as he called a halt. Rcpaterson 02:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Truncated War

This article is actually quite hopeless. The First War of Independence did not end in 1306. Bannockburn appears here almost as an afterthought. Rcpaterson 04:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I'm having difficulty in seeing this article as NPOV. While sections are pro-Edward and others pro-Wallace or Pro-Bruce, so it is not partisan in one particular direction, a lot of the tone and language is inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. Iain1917 18:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Moray

This article downplays Moray's role considerably so I've added some text to redress the balance and show him for what he was, joint-commander of the Scots at Stirling Bridge. Jaygtee (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos

This article could benefit greatly from the addition of some images of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.82.109 (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

They didn't have cameras in the early 14th century.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This article needs serious work

What the original author of this article calls the "First War of Scottish Independence" was actually two wars, one that ended in 1304 with the surrender of John Comyn, Lord of Badenoch, and at the time sole Guardian of Scotland. It should really be split into two separate articles since there were really two entirely different wars.

The actual "Second War of Scottish Independence" didn't BEGIN until 1306, roughly a year-and-a-half later, when Robert the Bruce began his struggle for the crown, starting with killing the above-mentioned Comyn in a knife fight in a church, and it did not end until 1328. The battles and exploits that made Thomas Randolph, Edward Bruce, James "the Black" Douglas, and Robert himself famous across Europe, the Near East, and North Africa. The Battle of Bannockburn, the Declaration of Arbroath, and the treaty in 1328 have all been left out.

What Wikipedia names the Second War of Scottish Independence would truthfully be the "Third", if it were to be included under the heading "War of Scottish Independence". Wikipedia is the one and only place where have seen Edward Balliol's occupation of Scotland so named. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Name

I find the name a big problem. "War of Independence" usually means that the nation in question was occupied and struggling to gain its independence. See America, India, etc. If the nation is independent at the start of the war, and still independent at the end of the war, then...it's just a war! Otherwise you can call World War II the "War of British Independence", or "War of French Independence", or even "Second War of American Independence". Do we have references indicating that this is the most common name of the conflict? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

See where you're coming from, but I think the English armies did occupy Scotland as an invading force. There's not a whole lot about the background to the war in the article. I suppose if the country is occupied by a succession of foreign armies you could call it a war of Independence against a foreign ruler. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC))