History Scotland 2017 Robert the Bruce the Battle of Bannockburn

SAVE OFFLINE

ROBERT

THE BRUCE

& the Battle of Bannockburn

history SCOTLAND EXPERT GUIDE

L A E R E H T R E V DI S C O

G N I K W A O U TL p01 cover.indd 1

27/09/2017 10:59

ROBERT THE BRUCE

& the Battle of Bannockburn

For hundreds of years, historians have debated the sequence of

EDITORIAL

events that led Robert the Bruce

Editor: Rachel Bellerby

to a resounding victory at the

[email protected] ADMINISTRATION Warners Group Publications Fifth Floor, 31-32 Park Row, Leeds, LS1 5JD, United Kingdom. Publisher: Collette Smith Associate Publisher: Matthew Hill Senior Designer: Nathan Ward Advertising Manager: Sarah Hopton Marketing Manager: Lauren Beharrell CONTRIBUTORS Dr Alasdair Ross Fiona Watson Richard Tipping Professor Ted Cowan Dr Tony Pollard FIND OUT MORE ABOUT HISTORY SCOTLAND The History Scotland website is your number one online resource for Scottish history and archaeology, bringing you daily news and expert articles on Scottish heritage, history, archaeology and events. In addition to our extensive website, we also publish the renowned magazine History Scotland. Published six times a year, the magazine is written by a team with a passion for the past, and enjoyed by thousands of readers around the world. Find out more at www.historyscotland.com

history SCOTLAND JOIN THE HISTORY SCOTLAND COMMUNITY… Find out more about History Scotland magazine online at: www.historyscotland.com

battle of Bannockburn, which took place in Stirling in 1314. Despite the battle’s fame, and the fact that a visitor centre devoted to Bannockburn and its history welcomes many thousands of visitors each year, it is surprising how little is actually known about where and how the fighting took place. In this digital special, we present four special research articles which were commissioned for a souvenir edition of History Scotland, published for the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn. In these in-depth and absorbing studies, historians explore the run up to the battle, consider how environmental factors might have affected the outcome of the fighting, and discover how later historians understood the battle. Some 700 years after these events took place, the public appetite for information about the dramatic life of Robert the Bruce is so strong that Netflix has commissioned the feature film The Outlaw King, which will be screened in 2018. The movie will focus on one dramatic year in the Bruce’s life and whatever you think of the casting of Star Trek actor Chris Pine in the lead role, it will be interesting to see how the king’s struggle to regain control of Scotland is portrayed on screen. We hope that you enjoy this exploration of a momentous episode in Scotland’s history. Do join us on our Facebook and Twitter pages for daily history news, articles, events and discussions. Rachel Bellerby Editor

Sign up for our free e-newsletter to receive in-depth Scottish history news, expert articles and more. Sign up at: scot.sh/news-signup17

p02 flanel.indd 6

27/09/2017 10:40

ROBERT THE BRUCE

& the Battle of Bannockburn TAP the title to jump to the article

Netflix reveal details of The Outlaw King What really happened at the battle of Bannockburn? Preparing for battle - the run up to Bannockburn The search for the battle of Bannockburn – battlefield finds What did the Carse look like in 1314? The Bannockburn legacy: how historians have portrayed the battle

p02 flanel.indd 7

27/09/2017 10:40

OUTLAW KING A new feature film slated for release in 2018 promises to uncover the truth about a momentous year in the king’s life, which has become obscured by legend

T

he new Netflix production The Outlaw King, which looks at a key year in the life of Robert the Bruce, has begun principal photography in the UK. The ‘epic, period drama’ reunites director David Mackenzie with Chris Pine (pictured), who stars as Robert The Bruce, alongside Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Nocturnal Animals), Florence Pugh (Lady Macbeth), Tony Curran (“Sons of Anarchy”), Stephen Dillane (“Game of Thrones”) and Billy Howle (On Chesil Beach). Outlaw King takes place over the extraordinary year when Robert the Bruce fights to regain control having been crowned King of Scots, only to be defeated in

Chris Pine is playing Robert the Bruce in The Outlaw King (© Netflix)

a surprise attack and made an outlaw by the English king and his occupying forces. Outlaw King director David Mackenzie said: ‘I am so happy to have the opportunity to dig deep into the story of Robert the Bruce and to discover some of the truths that often get obscured by legend. ‘This is my sixth feature film shot in Scotland and autumn is my favourite time of year to shoot so I am excited to bring this film to light in the beautiful Scottish elements – come rain, shine, storm or snow. I am proud that our little Glasgow based production company, Sigma films, has been able to make this film and thank Netflix for letting us do it. ‘I am also delighted that Chris Pine, with whom I had a great time

on our last film, has joined our Scottish and international cast and crew including the excellent Aaron Taylor-Johnson and the exciting emerging talent of Florence Pugh and Billy Howle. I know Chris will bring intensity and flair to Robert the Bruce and his struggle to take back his country, being crowned King of Scots, then suffering a disastrous defeat and left on the run with just a handful of supporters only to claw his way, with bravery and cunning, back to victory. This was an early form of guerilla warfare against the might of a vastly bigger better resourced enemy and is one of the great comeback stories of history.’ The film is due to be released in 2018. To find out more, visit Netflix.com

www.historyscotland.com

BANNOCKBURN A decisive victory

The late Dr Alasdair Ross explores the background and significance of Robert the Bruce’s victory at Bannockburn in 1314, and questions why the exact chronology, location and details of the battle were soon forgotten by the generations which followed

T

he battle of Bannockburn, fought over two days in June 1314, still holds significance for Scots 700 years later. Mainly, this is because it stands out in the pre-1707 history of Scotland as one of the few instances when the Scots won a decisive victory over a much larger invading army, and the only one when they did so in the open field. Bannockburn was also only the second time in European history that an army consisting of mostly infantry won victory over a mounted host; it was a victory against the odds which gave Scotland valuable breathing space and a new dynasty. The battle was actually unwanted; until then, the Scots had avoided meeting the far larger and better equipped English armies in the open field and relied on guerrilla tactics for their successes. But we must never forget that since he knew an English army would try to relieve Stirling Castle in 1314, Bruce had a long time to prepare the ground of the battlefield beforehand. Victory confirmed the rule of Robert I in Scotland (if not in London or Rome) and set the foundations for an invasion of Ireland, a mooted rebellion in Wales, and the Bruce and Stewart dynasties. Even though some Scots deserted to the English side on the night before the first day’s battle, to contemporaries a victory for Bruce must have meant that God was on his side. He was no longer a usurper. Importantly, the battle of Bannockburn would remain present in the mind of Scots in the centuries that followed as an example of what could be done if people stood together; as proof that superior armies were not invincible, that ingenuity and tenacity could turn a seemingly hopeless situation into victory. For those reasons it is still annually commemorated and it has become part of Scottish national identity, an important

4

p04 what happened.indd 4

defining moment in our national history. Given all of this, it seems quite remarkable that even today we are still not quite sure about where all of the different elements of the battle were fought. Certain topographic markers, like the castle and the New Park, are known but the rest is fought over amongst commentators. Battlefield and war dead commemorations are relatively recent developments (at least in historical terms) and it is quite remarkable that by the time Archdeacon Barbour was writing The Brus in the 1370s, he felt confident enough to invent an entire extra division for the Scots army, led by the father of his patron, King Robert II. Does this indicate that only sixty years after the great victory the majority of people had already forgotten the salient points about the battle order across the two days? Why then should we be surprised that the precise locations of all of the different elements of the battle have also become lost? Despite these minor difficulties, the battle of Bannockburn remains a matter of pride – and hope – to those with an interest in our nation’s history and future. The National Trust for Scotland’s visitor centre stands close to the location of one element of the battle and it was rather sad to see how run down the old building had become over the years. The new centre looks brilliant and is visually attractive: the architects have done a great job in pulling it all together. To top it off, the new centre also features a 3D interactive suite where visitors can actually take part in the battle. Image: Andrew Milligan/PA

H I S TO RY SC OT LA ND - MAY / J U NE 2014

27/09/2017 10:41

www.historyscotland.com

A tangled web to weave

Unravelling the surrender agreement, May 1314 Fiona Watson charts the months running up to Bannockburn and asks whether King Robert deliberately led Edward II’s army to his chosen battle site, a place where he knew the English cavalry would struggle to fight

T

he battle of Bannockburn, like so much else about the reign of King Robert I, is a minefield of propaganda and misinformation. Much of what we think we know about this iconic episode in Scottish history is, sadly, quite untrue, and the main culprit for this is Archdeacon John Barbour, who wrote his epic poem The Bruce in the 1370s. Barbour had his own audience to satisfy and, despite his avowed interest in suthfastnes – truthfulness – was

p05 prepare.indd 6

quite happy to change things to suit himself. On other occasions, he just plain got things wrong. Unfortunately, Barbour’s poem was so popular and well-known in the Middle Ages that most Scottish chroniclers thereafter did not see the point in repeating the details of Bruce’s reign, noting: As Barbour tellis [in] Bruss buke, [As Barbour tells it in the Bruce book] Quhasa lykis it to luke [Whosoever likes in it to look] (Andrew of Wyntoun, Original Chronicle, lines 2689-90)

Robert the Bruce address his troops before Bannockburn, illustration from Cassell’s History of England by Edmund Leighton (1909)

Disentangling fact from fiction in this period has taken a remarkably long time and even now we must guard against having the wool pulled over our eyes. This is particularly true when it comes to Bannockburn, probably the most famous battle of the entire wars of independence and often regarded as the climax of Bruce’s reign. It was only in 1997, when Professor A.A.M. Duncan of Glasgow University published his edited version of The Bruce, that the Archdeacon’s account of one of the key aspects of the leadup to the conflict – Edward Bruce’s surrender agreement with Sir Philip Moubray, the commander of Stirling Castle – was shown to be more fiction than fact. The results of this particular tinkering with suthfastnes have

27/09/2017 10:42

St Kilda cult The lead up The to Bannockburn

been far-reaching, fundamentally altering the chronology of events and colouring our view of the why and the how of the whole Bannockburn campaign. But now that we are on far surer ground with what happened in the months and weeks leading up to the battle, there is yet another new scenario to consider; namely that, far from being bounced into an engagement by his brother’s rash decision to make a surrender agreement, King Robert in fact set a trap for the English, luring Edward II to the spot where the Scottish king intended – if conditions were right – to fight him in a set-piece battle on this one and only occasion.

A unique battle One of the most crucial aspects of any discussion about Bannockburn is its uniqueness. Obviously the fact that the Scots won the day is newsworthy in itself, but of far more importance is the almost complete lack of battle experience on King Robert’s curriculum vitae before and after 1314 (the

p05 prepare.indd 7

exceptions are Loudoun Hill against Aymer de Valence in 1307 and Inverurie against John Comyn, earl of Buchan in 1308. They were quite unlike Bannockburn in either scale or tactics). That makes it vital that we give due consideration to why exactly Bruce decided in 1314 to ditch a policy that had served him so well. Indeed, we can go further and say that it had, since William Wallace’s defeat at Falkirk way

An 18th-century copy of Barbour’s The Brus at the National Museum of Scotland. The section shown describes public reaction to the death of King Robert

on 21-24 October 1313. King Robert was now ready to make an audacious demand; that all those who still had not sworn homage and fealty to him should do so within one year or they would be deprived of all lands, tenements or any other title held within his kingdom. This considerably upped the ante in the war, not least since Edward II had so conspicuously failed to provide much in the way of

Having paid for armies deployed in the north in

seven out of the nine years between 1296 and 1304,

the English were mentally and financially exhausted back in 1298, been a policy that the Scots’ leadership as a whole had sensibly adopted in the face of vastly superior English cavalry and infantry armies. The answer to that begins with an assembly of Scotland’s magnates held at Dundee

either leadership or support for those Scots – never mind his own people – who could not countenance Bruce as king. These were, to crudely summarise a complicated issue, members and adherents of the Comyn family whose leader King Robert had so

27/09/2017 10:42

www.historyscotland.com

brutally murdered in 1306; those who could not stomach having an excommunicated murderer as king; friends and relatives of John Balliol, the former king who died in 1313, but whose son, Edward, now lived in France; and those Scots who had consistently fought on the English side since 1296. To be fair, it was not entirely King Edward’s fault. Having paid for armies deployed in the north in seven out of the nine years between 1296 and 1304, the English were mentally and financially exhausted and their monarch took on crippling debts when he inherited the throne from his father, Edward I, in 1307. Though the English nobility soon criticised their new king for, among many other things, effectively letting Scotland slip out of his control, they were far from eager to give him the taxation needed for a concerted attempt to wrest the northern kingdom back from Bruce. However, even if English armies were no longer being brought into the field, maintaining the status quo was still an expensive business, as those garrisons that continued to hold out against the Scottish king knew full well. Things – wage payments and provisioning most particularly – improved in 1310, when King Edward and his favourite, Piers Gaveston, came north with an army to avoid a showdown with the Lords Ordainers who sought to restrict royal expenditure and inappropriate friends. The anti-Bruce military position in Scotland was shored up, but there was little glory or honour to be won, for the simple reason that the enemy retreated before the English army, resolutely refusing to give battle. And once the royal entourage returned south in September 1311, the needs of King Edward’s men in Scotland returned to somewhere down the bottom of the pile. Meanwhile, Scottish raids on the north of England increased in reach and intensity, leaving many areas unable to pay what they owed to Edward’s government.

p05 prepare.indd 8

Isolated English Two years later, in 1313, those English commanders and their men stationed in the few remaining castles not captured by Bruce (confined now to Lothian and the Borders; Stirling, further west, was held for the English king by a Scot) became extremely jittery as the Scottish king and his highly effective mobile forces swept through the south-east, extorting payment from local communities to leave them alone just as they did across the border. Effectively isolated in a foreign land, these Englishmen did not know who to trust and, with wages and food in short supply, had little or no incentive to worry about the hearts and minds of those living in their castles’ hinterlands. But this had consequences and, probably

A depiction of King Robert from the 1878 publication The History of the Kingdom of Scotland… to the happy Union of both kingdoms… in 1602 by Richard Burton (N Crouch)

around the time that Bruce was giving his enemies a year to come to his peace, a series of petitions were sent to Edward II by two prominent local landowners, begging him to do something to stop the tyranny of his own officials inflicted on those who were supposedly on the same side. For once, King Edward was in a position to listen. After the judicial murder of Piers Gaveston in June 1312 by a small cohort of senior noblemen led by the earls of Warwick and Lancaster, England balanced precariously on the edge of civil war. However, in October 1313, the devastated king and his truculent nobility came to terms, for the moment at least. At the same time and just as importantly, Edward was able to negotiate a loan from Pope Clement V worth

27/09/2017 10:42

St Kilda cult The lead up The to Bannockburn

£25,000 sterling and a month later his nobles granted him a tax – the first he had managed to secure since 1309 – to be used to prosecute the war in Scotland. At the end of November 1313, a royal proclamation announced that an army was to muster at Berwick on 24 June 1314. In the nick of time,

Edward II as pictured in The History of the Kingdom of Scotland… to the happy Union of both kingdoms…in 1602 by Richard Burton (N Crouch) published in 1878

Scottish raids on the north of England increased in reach and intensity, leaving many areas unable to pay what they owed to Edward’s government after six years in which King Robert had faced very little in terms of a concerted opposition, the English king was finally intent on giving new heart to all those who wanted Bruce ousted and killed. Edward was about to take the initiative. Or so he thought. Whether or not King Robert expected, even desired, a reaction from the English to his October ultimatum – a high risk, all-ornothing strategy indeed, but one that he was surely capable of – he soon knew that he had got one. The Scots certainly did not sit back and wait for the English to arrive; this was shaping up to be a showdown, a test of both kings’ credibility as protectors of those currently in their faith, with an eye firmly on attracting the attention of those who were not.

castles were thrown to the ground, as was now usual, so that they could not be used against Bruce. With fortresses falling to King Robert right, left and centre, only Stirling and Berwick remained in the hands of the enemy. Perhaps because he had already failed to take the latter by surprise in December 1312 and it was situated on such a strategically commanding position so close to the border, Bruce now turned his personal attention on Stirling. If this castle could be forced to succumb, it would turn the screws on those Scots still not prepared to accept him as king and who were as much of a focus for this year’s activities as the castles themselves. Meanwhile, his brother Edward, who may

have been involved in the earlier sieges and, initially, at Stirling, took a force south into Cumbria in mid-April, ransacking there and even attacking Carlisle itself, most probably because of the lack of money forthcoming in northern England to pay the blackmail demanded by the Scots in return for truces. He returned to Stirling on 19 April 1314. At this point King Robert withdrew from the siege perhaps, it has been suggested (because of his conspicuous absence from the earlier sieges) due to ill health. About a month later, the deal was made with Sir Philip Moubray, commander of Stirling castle. This sequence of events makes it impossible to believe that Edward Bruce

Determined Bruce After the successful surprise attack on Linlithgow in September 1313, Bruce’s determination to reduce as many remaining castles as possible before the arrival of the English army continued in the first few months of 1314. James Douglas took the mighty fortress of Roxburgh on 28 February using rope ladders and the cover of darkness; news of this spurred on Thomas Randolph, already besieging Edinburgh, to adopt similar tactics to surprise that garrison two weeks later. Both

p05 prepare.indd 9

27/09/2017 10:42

www.historyscotland.com

difficult that his cavalry would not be able to penetrate it.

Timeline

21-24 October 1313 Scotland’s magnates assemble to hear King Robert’s demands that they pledge fealty to him November 1313 Edward II announces an army muster at Berwick for June 1314 Late March 1314 King Robert besieges Stirling Castle after Roxburgh and Edinburgh successfully taken 27 or 28 May 1314 King Edward receives news it has been agreed that Stirling will be handed to Scots if not relieved by midsummer 22 June 1314 The English leave Edinburgh for the final push to Stirling whilst Bruce and his men head off to block their approach to Stirling Castle 23 – 24 June 1314 The battle of Bannockburn

did not know exactly what he was doing and that his brother thought it was an appalling idea, when it so obviously played into King Robert’s hands. As of 23 December 1313, the English muster had been put forward to 10 June, which explains why a midsummer deadline was agreed for the relief of Stirling, since that would give King Edward’s army enough time to get there (in fact, on 26 February the English king decided to muster on 7 April, but this information clearly had not reached Stirling and in any case it did not happen). The pact between Edward Bruce and Sir Philip certainly did not prompt King Edward to take action; rather, it was agreed precisely because he was already intending

p05 prepare.indd 10

to come north. What it did do was ensure that the English army marched from Berwick to Stirling, a place that, as we shall see, was ideal, from Bruce’s point of view, for fighting a battle against cavalry. Sir Philip himself conveyed the news to King Edward, apparently reaching him on 2728 May when he was already in Northumberland. The English king was galvanised into action, sending desperate messages to his officials to expedite the muster, which was now specifically for the relief of Stirling Castle. King Edward also realised, not least thanks to his own experience of his father’s siege of Stirling in 1304, that he would urgently require footsoldiers, because the ground was so

Preparing for battle The Scottish army mustered in the great forest of the Torwood, which stretched from the river Carron near Falkirk to the Tor Burn just to the south of Plean. It is hard to tell when exactly they were told to be there, but it certainly seems that Edward Bruce and the rest of the Scottish commanders had been back in their own lands recruiting men, something they would not have been able to do if they were still besieging Stirling castle. Given that the Scots deployed a new tactic at Bannockburn – the mobile schiltrom – it is tempting to suggest that some degree of training took place in the weeks preceding the deadline. On 22 June, as the English were leaving Edinburgh on the last frantic leg of their journey to Stirling, Bruce and his men marched out of the Torwood and headed north-west into the New Park, which seems to have lain between the Bannockburn and St Ninian’s, south-east of Stirling itself. The clear intention was to block King Edward’s approach to Stirling Castle along the Roman Road. As a hunting reserve, likely equipped with deep ditches to prevent deer escaping, this Forest afforded the Scots protection from the English cavalry, who would be unable to charge at them there. Barbour’s assertion that Bruce then ordered his men to dig pits (pots), presumably in order to stop the English from approaching en masse and to prevent any of them from trying to go round the side, particularly from the south, is backed up by another, more contemporary source. Though Barbour also says that spikes were placed in the bottom of these pits and foliage on top to hide them from the English, it is far more likely that they were entirely visible, given that they were intended to keep Edward’s cavalry where Bruce wanted them. In case the message was not clear enough, the Scottish King then allowed Sir Philip

27/09/2017 10:42

St Kilda cult The lead up The to Bannockburn

Moubray to pass through Scottish lines and inform King Edward of exactly what he was up against (as well as the fact that the castle was now technically relieved). What is abundantly clear already is that, in stark contrast to 1310-11 and any other occasion when an English army came north, King Robert did not intend to slink away. As already outlined above, Bruce felt the need on this occasion – and this occasion only – to confront King Edward because of his own ultimatum.

Statue of King Robert at Bannockburn, first unveiled by the Queen in 1964 and restored in 2013 in preparation for the 700th anniversary

The Scots certainly did not sit back and wait for the English to arrive; this was shaping up to be a showdown Disappearing now would not do anything for his cause; indeed, it would underline the perception among those inclined to fight against him that he was ultimately no match for English military might, even when led by such an uninspiring commander as Edward II.

Robert’s reputation As early as 1309, King Robert had staked his reputation on his ability to rid Scotland of the English, claiming that ‘he has repaired such a damaged and forsaken kingdom by repelling injury with the sword.’ To persuade those who had most reason to doubt him, he needed to prove that categorically, to place himself in God’s hands; and the best – indeed, the only – place to do that was on the battlefield. Looking at it from the other side, not to engage King Edward and thereby giving him the opportunity to patch up English defences in south-east Scotland, if not further afield, would scarcely encourage anyone to come into his peace when the year ran out in October 1314. This would turn the whole ultimatum into a public relations disaster with considerable loss of face. It would also be very hard indeed to persuade those already at his peace that the war was likely to end within Scotland itself any time soon. This does not mean that Bruce had decided to fight a pitched battle. After the successes of the first day, when the Scottish king

p05 prepare.indd 11

defeated the English knight, Henry de Bohun, in single combat, his division repelled a charge by the English vanguard, and Sir Thomas Randolph’s schiltrom stopped a flanking manoeuvre by Sir Robert Clifford and Sir Henry Beaumont, he may well have been tempted to call it a day. Certainly discussions reported in a number of sources between King Robert and his nobles as to whether or not they should fight a battle during the night of 2324 June seem genuine enough. They knew what was at stake; that standing and fighting might well make a difference in such an interminable war of attrition. And so we must try to put out of our heads the fascinating, if somewhat incongruous, image of King Robert giving his younger brother a right, royal telling off for putting in place an agreement over Stirling Castle that gave Edward II the reason he needed to launch a large-scale invasion of Scotland. Instead, we have a far more straight-forward strategy evolving out of what, for Bruce, was a final push towards expelling his enemies from Scotland once and for all. With the illuminating benefit of hindsight, the beginning of the end for the English king and his army lay in the choice – by King Robert – of where they should fight, in a place that they all knew was going to be very difficult for cavalry. I have a sneaking suspicion that archdeacon Barbour would not be at all unhappy that we are finally able to recognise Robert Bruce as the architect of his great victory. right from the start. Fiona Watson is a historian, writer, and broadcaster.

27/09/2017 10:42

A CONFLICTED LANDSCAPE The archaeological search for the battle of Bannockburn

Filming the BBC’s The Quest for Bannockburn, presented by Tony Pollard and Neil Oliver

Tony Pollard discusses the paucity of finds on the sites traditionally associated with the battle of Bannockburn and explores what physical evidence of the fighting might still lay undiscovered

N

ot surprisingly, many people assume that the site of the battle of Bannockburn is marked by Pilkington’s striking statue of Robert the Bruce on his horse. The statue in fact marks the location of part of the Scottish army’s position prior to the battle, one that would have allowed Bruce to control the Roman road along which Edward II’s army approached Stirling. A major subject of debate among historians has been the location of the main battle, which took place on 24 June 1314, the day after initial encounters, which included the combat between Bruce and De Bohun. Several possible locations have been suggested for the main engagement, but only two of these merit serious consideration. The first is on the Carse, the broad expanse of flat ground which fringes the River Forth and accommodates the meandering course of the Bannock Burn. The second is on the high ground overlooking the Carse, sandwiched between the high point occupied by the statue and the ridgeline, which drops steeply down to the Carse, to the east (this area is sometimes referred to as the Dryfield). Given that it was fought 700 years ago we are fortunate to have a number of (near) contemporary accounts, though none of them appeared in the battle’s immediate aftermath. For instance, Barbour’s The Bruce, probably the best known of these, was not written until the 1370s. Nor are these accounts stuffed full of

p11 Archaeology.indd 12

topographic details for those wishing to use them as a means of tying down the battle’s location. What all the accounts do agree on is that Edward II’s army moved down onto the Carse to camp at the end of the first day’s encounters, which had gone in favour of the Scots. As Barbour puts it: They camped at night down in the Carse and prepared their arms for battle the following morning, and, because there were streams in the Carse they demolished houses and took the thatch to make bridges that they might pass. What is not clear is whether the English army then climbed back up onto the high ground the next morning to meet the Scots in battle on the ridge. This would certainly seem an unlikely move, given that Robert Bruce would not wish to throw away the advantage of high ground and sit back to allow the English to struggle back up the hill and move into battle array. More likely, Bruce would have put in an attack while the English were in disarray while regaining the high ground. On the other hand, one might use the argument that the Scots would give up the castle if the English got within three leagues of it as an example of Scottish chivalry and thus a precedent for giving the English an opportunity to take the field. This does not however fit with previous Bruce-led encounters, where preparation and guile gave the usually outnumbered Scots a fighting chance. This included the battle of Loudon Hill in 1307, where Robert Bruce

27/09/2017 10:43

Battlefield archaeology

Using the castle as a bait Bruce enticed the English into Scotland, where if the odds favoured him he would defeat them by any means available prevented the English heavy horse from deploying properly by digging pits across their path, something he went on to do again at Bannockburn (this might be one reason why Edward took his men onto the Carse at the end of day one). Perhaps though we need look no further than Barbour again to find the answer: …before daybreak they had bridged the streams (on the Carse) and moved onto the hard field on horseback. Surely this means that the ground on the other side of the streams was harder, where they camped and then fought the battle. Alternatively, could this mean that after crossing the Bannock Burn they climbed up onto the high ground? Yes, it is all rather frustrating. It has generally been assumed that the agreement to lift the siege on the arrival of the English army was made by Edward Bruce without the knowledge of his brother, but this seems unlikely. This writer for one believes that not only did Robert Bruce have full knowledge of the bargain but deliberately set it as a trap. Using the castle as bait Bruce enticed the English into Scotland, where if the odds favoured him he would defeat them by any means available. While on the subject of the agreement another question that one might ask is why was there a battle at all if Edward had fulfilled its terms? The reality is that Edward needed a victory to satisfy his detractors south of the border. Edward’s reign had been troubled by rebellion, in part brought about by his favouritism, and several magnates had refused to join him on the march north (a reason why his army was perhaps not quite as good as it could have been). Going to all the trouble and expense of putting together an army and then returning with nothing more than a symbolic victory would not play well among detractors who would eventually bring about his deposition and death in 1327. But when all is said and done, Edward fought because he had no option, it was the Scots who went on the offensive, but only after Robert Bruce had weighed the risk and decided he had the English at a disadvantage.

them actually Welsh, played a vital role in the Scottish Wars of Independence, making a key contribution to Wallace’s defeat at Falkirk and bringing about a series of English victories in the Second War of Independence. They might also have done so at Bannockburn had their effectiveness not been limited by an inability to deploy properly before being chased from the field by the Scottish cavalry under Keith. Any arrows shot during the battle are likely to have been picked up after the fighting and re-used – they were expensive to produce and their flights would make them obvious targets for recovery. It is only when gunpowder comes to dominate the battlefield that large quantities of artefacts are left to be recovered through metal detector survey. Musket balls were cheap to produce and not readily recoverable due to their small size. Mention has already been made of the discovery of the Bosworth battle site, and this was initially because lead cannon shot were recovered, as yet not a single arrowhead has been recovered from the site. An exception to the above comes from the site of the battle of Towton, fought in 1461, which has been the subject of various archaeological investigations, including those by Tim Sutherland and metal detectorist Simon Richardson. Over 100 arrowheads have been recovered from here, some of them perhaps having originated from bodies removed from temporary field graves for reburial not long after the battle was fought. The present author assisted in one metal detector survey which resulted in the recovery of around half a dozen arrowheads, which despite their heavily corroded condition could be identified as a particular type of late medieval head with brazed barbs. The presence of some of these in dead bodies would explain why they were not recovered for re-use after the battle (during which the Yorkists picked up the arrows shot at them by Excavating at Cambuskenneth Abbey

THE ARCHAEOLOGY One tool that can perhaps settle the debate over the battle’s location is battlefield archaeology, which has provided evidence for the location of a number of British battles, including the Battle of Bosworth (1485), where finds of cannon balls proved the true location to be around three kilometres from where it had long been claimed. However, with a battle as old as Bannockburn the chances of finding objects relating to the fight, such as arrowheads and pieces of armour, are greatly reduced. For one thing, iron will rust to almost nothing over time, especially in the repeatedly wet and then dry conditions prevailing on the Carse. There are other factors that militate against the recovery of medieval battle artefacts beyond their great age. One of these is related to the technology of warfare. English archers, many of

p11 Archaeology.indd 13

27/09/2017 10:43

Lancastrians and sent them back). Another reason is the excellent preservation conditions provided by the soils, which are dry and underlain by a bed of limestone, and alkaline rock that promotes preservation. Alas neither of these conditions exist at Bannockburn, where soils can be wet and generally acidic in character. Arrowheads aside, each and every metal object left on the battlefield would have had a value and over the days and weeks after the fighting the site would be stripped clean. Recent work on the 1632 Battle of Lutzen, site of the most intensive battlefield metal detector survey in Europe, by André Schurger has indicated that only 10% of the objects dropped during an early modern battlefield are left for archaeologists to recover, if this is so then the proportion for a medieval battle is more likely to be in the region of one to two percent. This depressing statistic may put many medieval battle sites outside of the range of what are by now wellestablished archaeological survey techniques.

NEW RESEARCH Despite these challenging circumstances, an archaeological project, carried out by the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology in partnership with GUARD Archaeology Ltd and sponsored by the National Trust for Scotland and the BBC, took place in 2012 and 2013 with the aim of settling the debate once and for all. This ambitious exercise saw metal detector surveys carried out across both the Carse and the high ground overlooking it. At the time of writing the survey is still underway but some interesting finds have been made, alas until fuller analysis has been undertaken they cannot be discussed here. Metal detecting was always going to be long shot with a 700-year-old battle, but battlefield archaeology has other weapons in its armoury and these have helped to shed important new light on our understanding of where the battle took place. A number of locations on the Carse were test pitted, with much of the work

taking place during a local community ‘Big Dig’ event (the project owes a huge debt to volunteers, including the metal detectorists). This exercise involved excavating small trenches through the topsoil down onto the subsoil beneath it, thus allowing for the recovery of any objects in the soil, and this time not just those made from metal. There was also a chance that this would expose any archaeological features, such as pits or hearths in the subsoil or even graves (see below for more on these). The small trial pits did not expose any graves but did result in the recovery of sherds of medieval pottery. These date roughly the time of the battle and provide the first archaeological evidence of human settlement on the Carse during the 14th century. One of

It is still possible to explore this landscape and get some idea of the terrain which influenced the battle the arguments against the battle being fought on the Carse is that it was little more than a peat bog in 1314. We now know that even though parts of the Carse would have been boggy it was occupied by settlements, with farming taking place (also suggested by Barbour’s reference to houses – above). As yet there has not been a concerted effort to locate mass graves at Bannockburn, perhaps through the use of various geophysical techniques. This would at the present time be a proverbial hunt for a needle in a haystack, as the landscape over which the battle was fought, and which would include lines of rout, is extensive and many human bodies can be disposed of in depressingly small holes in the ground. Medieval war graves are incredibly rare, and again

Tony Pollard and Neil Oliver with volunteers digging on the Carse

p11 Archaeology.indd 14

27/09/2017 10:43

Battlefield archaeology

of the English camp, even in the unlikely event that no other action took place on the Carse. One reason knowing the precise location is important is that only when we know this can we make moves to ensure the battlefield’s protection. This has long been a vexed issue at Bannockburn, where development on the outskirts of Stirling has led to much ground being given over to development – housing, factories, roads, railways, etc. Standing on the hill where Robert Bruce’s army waited for the arrival of the English it is very difficult to grasp the nature of the landscape in which the battle was fought, with houses blocking the view to the east in the direction of the Carse. It would be a shame if all that was left of the battlefield were street names such as Archers Avenue and Targe Wynd in the Broomridge housing development which has appeared at the foot of the ridge covered by Balquiderock Wood over the last fifteen years. Less than perfect as this picture is it could be worse. It is still possible to explore this landscape and get some idea of the terrain which influenced the battle, perhaps by walking along the banks of the Bannockburn, from where it cuts across the high ground to the south of the Visitor Centre to where it

Musket ball scars a round window on Cambuskenneh Abbey tower

we need to turn to the Wars of the Roses, some 200 years after Bannockburn, to find a confirmed example in the British Isles. In 1994 extension work on a house near the Towton battlefield exposed a pit containing the skeletons of 43 males. It was clear that these men had been killed during the rout that followed the battle. The bones bore clear evidence for violent death in the form of horrific injuries such as square holes punched into skulls by the beaks of war hammers and cuts made by sword blades. The absence of artefacts in the grave suggests that the bodies had been stripped naked before burial, which is again indicative of recycling on an almost industrial scale in the wake of battles. A notable exception to this comes from the medieval mass grave at Visby on the island of Gotland, Denmark, where a battle was fought in 1361. The skeletons in this grave still wore the armour in which they fought but there are good reasons for this. In the first instance the battle was fought in high summer and so the bodies would be in an advanced state of decay and so the prospect of removing armour from the dead was not a pleasant one. Perhaps more importantly the dead were from the militia forces from the town of Visby and so were wearing kit that was not exactly state of the art and therefore not desirable enough to merit the effort. Looking for graves at Bannockburn would be a daunting task but it may become a more attractive prospect if the present survey can give a better idea of where the battle was fought, with predictive modelling perhaps being used to identify possible locations.

THE LANDSCAPE TODAY Another question that might be asked here is: why does it matter that we know the exact site of the battle? Surely being confident that it was either fought on the Carse or on the high ground is enough? Well, to a degree it is, especially as both areas featured over the two days of encounters, with the Carse being the location

p11 Archaeology.indd 15

English archers, many of them actually Welsh, played a vital role in the Scottish Wars of Independence debouches onto the Carse across which it meanders. We will never be able to turn back the clock and experience the landscape exactly as it was in 1314 but there is one technique that allows us to get a very good impression of it, albeit in a virtual sense. Lidar (LIght Detection And Ranging) is a technique that uses lasers to accurately record the nature of the ground, producing a 3D computer model of the landscape. Survey using aircraft allows large tracts of landscape to be surveyed rapidly and thanks to the National Trust for Scotland’s new visitor centre, which allows people to refight the battle in a game based on a detailed model of the 1314 landscape, a Lidar survey was carried out across the area thought to accommodate the battlefield. The beauty of Lidar is that it allows us to remove recent features, to strip away modern development so that we can get back to a good approximation of the original landscape. Using this technique, it is possible to identify the most likely routes taken by Edward’s army

Edward I penny from Cambuskenneth

27/09/2017 10:43

down on to the Carse where he camped the night before the battle. While on the subject of Bannockburn it would be remiss not to give some space to an associated project, the investigation around Cambuskenneth Abbey, which occupies a tight meander of the River Forth on its north side, just under two kilometres to the east of Stirling Castle. This project was carried out alongside the Bannockburn project by the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology and GUARD Archaeology Ltd, this time sponsored by the Tread Right Foundation. The Abbey played a direct role in the battle, as it was here that Robert Bruce kept his baggage train, which was looted by the earl of Atholl, who was in the process of deserting from the Scottish army at the end of the first day’s action. A number of Bruce’s men were killed in this raid, which might imply a more general military role for the abbey site, which given the presence of a ditch or palisade cutting the abbey off from the outside world, as shown on Timothy Pont’s late 16th century map, would lend itself to defence, though the raid would suggest that it was not impregnable. It is possible that the abbey played a role in the Scottish siege of the castle, perhaps even serving as a headquarters complex from where the castle could be kept under observation by Edward Bruce’s forces. The abbey would continue its Bruce association when Robert held a parliament there in November of 1314, at which he disinherited those Scottish nobles who had sided with the English or refused to turn up to show their fealty, and in doing so helped sow the seeds of the Second War of Independence. Other than a silver penny of Edward I a metal detector survey of ground outside of the abbey complex failed to throw up evidence for events in 1314. What it did bring to light was a scatter of lead shot, which appears to relate to a military action in the 17th century. The presence of musket ball impact scars around the windows in the west side of the abbey tower would further suggest that

p11 Archaeology.indd 16

the abbey itself featured in this combat, for which at present we have no known written accounts. There are a number of possible actions from the mid 17th century to which this might be related, including the battle of Stirling, fought between the Kirk Party and the Engagers in 1648, during which time large bodies of troops from both sides were camped outside the town. So at Cambuskenneth Abbey we have a fight from 1314 for which we have written accounts but no archaeological evidence, and a 17th century fight for which we have archaeological evidence but no historical accounts. Such are the potentials and limitations of battlefield archaeology, but turning to Bannockburn again, what the action at the Abbey does emphasise is the scale of the landscape over which the actions of June 1314 took place, with the abbey being around 2.5 kilometres to the north of where the battle was fought. Closing on the battle and its two possible locations within the wider landscape of conflict, the investigation continues and at present the evidence might not definitively point to one site in favour of the other, but we are confident that the net is closing. For the English under Edward II Bannockburn was a battle lost, but hopefully for us it will ultimately be a battle found. Tony Pollard is Director of the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology and a senior lecturer in History/Archaeology at Glasgow University. For more information on Towton see: www.towton.org.uk

Further Reading The Bruce, John Barbour (translated by A.A.M. Duncan) (Edinburgh, 1997) Bannockburn 1314, Chris Brown (Stroud, 2008)

27/09/2017 10:43

Separate

fact from fiction

History Scotland is the world’s premier Scottish history magazine, brought to you by an expert team with a passion for the past Start your free 30-day free trial today at: http://scot.sh/HSXtrial p24 Behind Scenes.indd 7

01/09/2017 11:32

www.historyscotland.com

Bannockburn

what did the Carse look like in 1314? Richard Tipping uses scientific techniques to reconstruct the Carse as it would have appeared 700 years ago, exploring the plains on which the armies met, and discovering how this environment would have affected the outcome of the fighting The sources and their interpreters ‘thai herbryit thame that nycht Doune in the Kers’; ‘they came out on a plain fronting the Water of Forth’. So, respectively, did Barbour write around 1375 and Sir Thomas Gray in 1355. ‘They’ were the English. Barbour continued: ‘they behove to pass, unless they march beneath and go over the marsh’: ‘Bot gif that tha beneth us ga And our the marras pas,’ ‘in the Kers pulis war’, For most interpreters of the battle, these sources have directed attention to the Carse as the location for the battle itself on 24 June. These bleak flat plains of mud stretch eastward along the Forth, pointing home to the English, which few would reach, as Barbour stated ‘That of them ane full gret party Fled to the water of Forth, and thar The mast part of them drounit war’. So what did the Carse look like in 1314? Was it a marsh? Was all of it a marsh? If it was, why did Edward, with his cavalry, choose to seemingly disadvantage himself? Here are some elaborations on the same theme from modern interpreters: ‘the area [was] rather boggy’, ‘a heathery, stream-riven environment’, ‘flat wet meadows’ and peat’, ‘used for gathering peats for fuel’, with ‘deep peaty pools with crumbling, overhanging banks’, ‘as treacherous as quicksand’, ‘a perilous morass of soft, swampy earth’, a ‘tidal bog’, ‘studded by the polls and bisected by a myriad of small brooks

p16 Carse.indd 18

and water courses’ (Figure 1), ‘threaded with treacherous streams and marshes’, an ‘inhospitable landscape’, the Bannock Burn ‘a formidable obstruction’ cutting ‘high-banked channels and gorges through the Carseland’ (Figure 2). And what were the ‘pulis’? To some they were pools. To most since Geoffrey Barrow’s analysis in the 1960s they have become several or many ‘sluggish streams, some big, most of them little’, crossing the Carse, as Barrow equated the word ‘pulis’ to ‘Polles’ and then to ‘pow’ (as in Cockspow) rather than pool. How do we test or challenge these ideas? There can surely be no documentary sources undiscovered and unseen. Without these, interpretations from existing sources will just go round and round. But there is a way to get at these questions, untried before. This is to use science, collectively the historical sciences and techniques of environmental reconstruction. Exploring this was the purpose of a grant in 2013 provided by the Leverhulme Trust. Here we will try to reconstruct the Carse in 1314 from these new objective sources.

The appliance of science The sciences we need to draw on include geology, physical geography (or geomorphology as it is now called), soil science, and botany. Our sources are not dusty documents: they are sediments, layers of mud and peat which accumulate over time, rising higher year by year, time machines with chronologies unlocked by radiocarbon (14C) dating. The techniques work together, each informing others, as we will see. To understand the

1. The surface of the raised moss at Poldar Moss west of Stirling, one of the Flanders Mosses, being restored by Scottish Natural Heritage to its natural hydrological state, wet and with more pools of Sphagnum moss than heather-clad moorland

Carse 700 years ago we will need to understand what the Carse is made of, when and how it formed, how sea-level rose and fell over thousands of years, what the rivers and streams crossing the Carse looked like and how they changed over time. We need to know whether the Carse was ever covered in deep marsh, and if so, how much of it, and how deep, and what happened to make it all but disappear. The Carse today appears to be a featureless plain, dusty in summer, almost intractable mud in winter, until you get to know it. Then you see details. Figure 3 is a map of

2. A view along one of the deeper parts of the entrenched Bannock Burn at Skeoch showing the height of the 1st Level Carse surface above the burn. Where the Carse silt forms the river bank it is compact enough to form cliffs

27/09/2017 10:44

St Kilda cult The science The of Bannockburn

Sea levels and landscape change All three Carse surfaces formed the same way, which is why they superficially look the same. They are former salt marshes and mudflats. Diatoms, microscopic creatures sensitive to saltiness are found in the silt: they by-and-large indicate brackish-water. To explain the high altitude of the 1st Level surface we have to invoke a time in the past when sea level was much higher than now, as Scotland, moving about on the Earth’s viscous mantle, slowly rose as the ice sheets of the last glaciation melted. Ice sheets melted faster than Scotland rose and so for a time, until around 6,000 years ago, sea level was higher than now. After this there was no further ice sheet melting but

3. Geomorphological the area east of Stirling where – Carse surfaces are made of the same of the Carse somewhere – the battle is assumed stuff, silt. Only east of the River Cockspow 9.7 9.2 Devon 8.9 9.2 9.3 immediately eastABBEY to have been fought. The first thing and south of Fallin, on the 1st Level 9.4 10 CRAIG 9.1 10 of Stirling, where to recognise is that the Carse is surface, 9.0 is the monotony broken by 8.6 9.5 8.5 some assume the not one uniform surface. Modern patches 8.3 of 8.3 peat of different sizes at CAUSEWAYHEAD River7.6 battle was, showing farming has bulldozed the steep Craig Moss, South Cockspow and 9.7 8.6 5 9.4 9.2 Devon 8.9 ABBEY 7.7 9.2 9.4 9.3 8.4 7.4 CRAIG in white the high cliffs that10 would have separated 9.1 Wester Moss. 8.3 9.0 7.9 4.6 4.8 5.1surfaces. Across the Carse 8.6 ground above the different Crossing6.9the Carse are four 95 4.7 4.8 8.3 9.5 6.8 (Old Mine 8.3 6.9 Carse, the three there are four different surfaces at streams draining the high ground to AD Workings) River 7.6 6.1 6.9 5.5 9.7 8.6 9.4 9.2 Devon 7.0 furthest west are the 6.3 6.3 6.1 8.9 5.9 6.0 different carse different altitudes. We refer to these the south. The 9.2 7.7 9.3 9.4 8.4 1 6.7 5.8 6.9 7.0 5.99.1 6.4 5.6 0 6.0 7.4 8.3 5 7.4 9.0 surfaces (1-3) and as ‘levels’. The 1st levelR is Town and Pelstream Burns. East of 7.9 T H the highest 8.0 6.9 4.6 4.8 5.1 8.6 4.7 4.8 8.1 8.3 above sea-level (asl), 6.8 9.5 5.5 the breaks-of-slope around 12m the Bannock Burn, the Cocks Pow (Old 7.2 8.3Mine 6.9 7.0 6.1 Workings) 6.8high ground at Cowie. The 6.1 7.6 (degraded cliffs) the 2nd is between 8 and 10m asl rises on 6.9 River 5.8 5.5 7.3 9.4 9.77.0 9.2 7.0 6.3 CAMBUS7.4 Devon 5.9 9.2 7.7 6.3 6.1 8.9 5.5 9.3 6.0 6.7 9.4them, separating and the 3rd all Bannock Burn is the largest stream, 6.9 7.0 5.9 5.8 6.4 KENNETH 5.6 10 6.1 7.0 7.4 at 5.5-7m asl. Below 6.0 9.1 5 H 94 7.4 T 9.0 R is the fl6.9 5.5 8.0 areas of peat on the these oodplain of the Forth rising 9 km west of Bannockburn 6 4.8 5.1 6.9 8.6 4.7 4.8 8.1 6.5 3.7 4.6 5.5 Abbey 8.3 6.8 2.2 5 6.7 (Old Mine 7.2 6.3these streams/rivers 1st Level Ruins surface, at 3.7-5.1m asl. Some parts ofRthe village. All 6.9 8.3 7.0 2.3 2.2are Workings) 2.3 5.8 1 6.8 3.4 8.5 6.9 5 7.6 5.8 Bolfornought 7.3 1.7 several the floodplain ofRiver the floodplain have7.0 been claimed from deeply entrenched, often 3 6.3 6.1 5.9 7.4 CAMBUS- 6.0 7.7 8.5 6.7 1.9 Devon 6.9Bolfornought 5.9 5.8 9.2 8.9 4 KENNETH 6.0 7.0 2.1 7.0 ng 7.4 9.4 9.3 River Forth the sea by sea-walls. These surfaces metres below the Carse surfaces. H and areas T 7.4 T 8.3 i d s e 9.1 FORTHSIDE 9.5 R 8.0 9.0 6.9 6.9 8.1 6.5 3.7 of it now reclaimed, formed at different times, the Within these mini-gorges the streams (Waste 4.6 Abbey 2.2 8.6 6.7 6.8 R 7.2 Tip) 9.5 (Old Mine 6.3 8.3 7.0 Ruins 2.3 2.2 6.9 Workings) 8.3 2.3built the four entrenched highest being the oldest. The soil have all one small river terrace 5.8 on 6.8 8.5 6.9 3.4 Bolfornought 9.1 12.5 7.3 10.1 7.0 1.7 8.5 7.6 7.4 8.5 1.9 streams crossing the the Carse is uniform because all the 93 around 1.5m above the water level. 6.7 7.0 7.7 6.9Bolfornought 2.1 ng 7.0 8.3 Ti d e s 8.3 Stuarthall 7.49.5 7.4 TH Carse surfaces, key8.0 Stuarthall THSIDE R 6.9 96 6.5 3.7 Farm (Waste 8.1 6.9 11.3 2.2 7.6 9.7 6.7 Kerse 4.0 R 7.2 and11.3 others Tip) 9.5 localities 6.3 6.8 2.3 2.2 9.7 7.0 Mill 9.5 9.2 5 2.3 5.8 ABBEY 8.5 6.9 Bolfornought 6.8 3.4 10 mentioned in9.1 the text 8.8 7.3 10.1 1.7 CRAIG 8.5 6.9

96

10

9.7 map 9.5

FO

5

ri

5

River Devon

10

5

10

ER

5

ER

IV

R

5

5

IV

ri

p ary S

R

p ary S

5

FO

R

5

IV

ER

10

FO

5

10

5

f Ordin ark o rM ate hW Hig

f Ordin ark o rM ate hW Hig

f Ordin ark o rM ate hW Hig

p ary S

f Ordin ark o rM ate hW Hig

9.4 9.3

8.9

9.2 9.1

10 U R N 7.4 9.1 1.9 Crook B 9.0 Dykes Bolfornought 7.0 2.1 7.0 C K Limitn g 6.7 Cockspow 8.3Ditch 8.6 Ti d e s 6.9 7.0 Stuarthall 9.8 of 10.4 Stuarthall 8.3 9.5 8.5 10 7.4 8.3 6.9 HWMOST 8.3 Farm 8.0 (Waste 7.6 3 6.5 3.7 8.5 CAUSEWAYHEAD 5 4.0 6.7 rn Tip) 2.2 11.3R Kerse8.1 7.6 Bu 6.3 (Old Mine Mill 7.2 5 2.3 2.2 Dykes 8.6 5 m 9.4 7.9 12.3 a 2.3 5.8 e tr 7.7 Workings) 3.4 Pels rnought 9.1 12.2 8.88.4 11.3 10.4 8.5 6.8 12.7 1.7 7.4 8.3 FALLIN 9.1 Crook B U R N Dykes 1.9 12.5 7.4 7.9 C K Limitn 2.1 Redhall Cockspow 8.3Ditch gT 6.9 7.0 4.6 4.8 5.1 10.7 i d es Kersepatrick I of Stuarthall 10.4 9.8 Stuarthall 4.7 11.3 4.8 10 6.8 8.3 11.6 HWMOST (Old Mine Farm 7.6 11.6 8.5 (Waste 6.9 6.9 Workings) 5 4.0 rn 6.5 12.9 (Old Mine Tip) 11.6 Kill Knows Bu 6.1 2.2 6.9 6.7 (Old Mine Dykes Workings) 5.5 m 7.9 6.3 r ea 2.3 2.2 12.8 7.0 Workings) 6.3 5.9 6.0 11.3 12.2 8.8 2.3 5.8 South 6.3 6.1 10.4 6.7 8.5 6.9 7.0 5.9 5.8 6.4 5.6 6.0 9.1 Crook 11.9 FALLIN B U R N Dykes 12.5 1.7 5 Cockspow K H 7.4 C T 12.81.9 Redhall Cockspow R Ditch 8.3 8.0 2.1 ng 10.7 11.3 tuarthall 10.4 9.8Kersepatrick I 11.3 11.0 10 8.1 Ti d e s 8.311.6 11.6 5.5 11.6 8.5 7.6 7.2 5 4.0 7.0 WESTER 6.1 (Old Mine (Waste 11.6 Skeoch Kill Knows 6.8 Dykes Tip) 7.9 Workings) MOSS 5.8 7.3 12.9 12.8 11.9 11.3 CRAIG 7.0 7.4 12.2 South 8.8 CAMBUS5.5 12.9 MOSS FALLIN 11.9 7.0 9.1 Cockspow 12.5 12.96.1 KENNETH Dykes 12.8 10.7 Redhall Cockspow 12.7 Ditch 10.7 11.3 5.5 ick I 8.3 11.3 12.8 11.0 6.9 10 BANNOCKBURN 6.5 3.7 8.311.6 11.6 4.6 Abbey 11.6 2.2 5 6.7 R 8.5 6.3 5 (Old Mine RuinsWESTER 2.3 2.2 Skeoch Kill Knows 4.0 2.3 5.8 Workings) MOSS Dykes 8.5 5 7.9 3.4 Westerton III 12.9 Bolfornought 11.9 CRAIG 11.3 1.7 South 12.2 12.9 MOSS12.3 8.5 1.9 12.1 11.9 8.8 Cockspow 12.8 12.5 12.9 FALLIN 2.1 12.6 12.8Bolfornought ng 12.7 12.6 10.7 9.1 12.3 Ti d e s 12.7 8.3 9.5 10.7 11.3 11.3 ockspow 12.8 FORTHSIDE 12.6 11.0 1.6 (Waste 11.6 WESTER Tip) 9.5 (Old Mine 8.5 5 MOSS Workings) Westerton III 11.9 CRAIG 7.9 9.1 12.5 10.1 South 8.5 9 MOSS 12.3 12.1 .2 11.9 14 12.8 Cockspow 1st Level Floodplain 12.9 Break Slope C Site 12.6 of12.8 12.7 Building FALLIN 10.7 12.6 12.5 12.7 12.3 8.3 Stuarthall 12.8 12.6 11.3 Stuarthall R Reclaimed Land 2nd Level Contour (m) 10.7Height (m OD) 11.3 11.9 Levelled Farm 7.6 11.3 Meltwater channel Kerse 4.0 11.6 WESTER Ordnance Survey Fan 11.3 3rd Level Peat Mill (Old Mine MOSS 5 Grid Lines Westerton III CRAIG Workings) 12.3 8.8 12.1 MOSS South 12.8 9.1 Crook B U R N Dykes 1st Level Floodplain 12.6 12.8 Break of Slope Site 12.7 Building 12.6 10.7 Cockspow 12.3 C K Limit Cockspow Ditch 12.6 ofReclaimed Land 10.4 9.8 R 2nd Level Contour (m) elled Height (m OD) 10 11.3 8.3 HWMOST Meltwater channel 8.5 Ordnance Survey 5 rn Fan 3rduLevel t WESTER B Grid Lines (Old Mine Dykes m 7.9 12.3 a MOSS Westerton III e r t Workings) 11.3 Pels 12.2 10.4 12.7 1st Level Floodplain FALLIN Break Slope 12.1 12.8 uilding 12.6 of12.8 12.5 12.6 12.3 Redhall 10.7 12.6 R Reclaimed Land 10.7 2nd Level 11.3 Contour (m) Kersepatrick I 11.6 Meltwater channel 11.6 Ordnance Survey Fan 3rd Level 12.9 (Old Mine 11.6 Grid Lines Kill Knows Workings) 12.8 sterton III South 1st Level Floodplain Break of Slope 12.1 11.9 Cockspow 8 12.6 12.8 12.8 R Reclaimed Land 2nd Level Contour (m) 11.3 11.0 11.6 Ordnance Survey Fan 3rd Level WESTER Skeoch Grid Lines MOSS 12.9 11.9 CRAIG 12.9 MOSS 1st Level Floodplain 12.9 10.7 12.7 12.8 R Reclaimed Land 2nd Level BANNOCKBURN 5

10

5

C oc

k s p ow

10

B A N N O

5

95

10

i

5

5

10

B A N N O

5

pr ary S

5

FO

R

IV

C oc

ER

k s p ow

f Ordin ark o rM ate hW Hig

B A N N O

10

5

ri

10

p ary S

91

94

C oc

k s p ow

10

pr ary S

5

5

i

5

10

k s p ow

10

90 80

5

92

10

ri

8.3

82

C oc

81

83

84

85

93

85 84

84

B A N N O

83

84

10

82

10

83

85

84

92

10

82

10

5

10

81

5

10

10

84

84

85

91

Ordnance Survey Grid Lines

12.7

90 80

81 14

p16 Carse.indd 19

Westerton III

12.3

C Site

11.9 Levelled Height (m OD)

12.3

12.6

12.8

12.6 12.8

83

Building

12.1

12.6

82

10

3rd Level

84

85 84

k s p ow

84

C oc

83

84

Break of Slope

1st Level

Contour (m)

2nd Level

85 Floodplain

R

Reclaimed Land

27/09/2017 10:45

www.historyscotland.com

Scotland continued to rise (it still does). The effect of this was to make sea level appear, in a relative sense, to fall. The 1st Level surface was the first to be exposed to the air. Diatoms in the silt changed from brackish- to fresh-water. Salt marsh turned to grassland and then to wet woodland. Across the 1st Level surface flowed several streams, parallel to the Forth. They have been preserved because terrestrial peat started to accumulate over them, more-or-less everywhere on this impermeable silt before around 4,700 years ago. The patches of peat east of the Cockspow at Craig Moss and South Cockspow (Figure 3) date to this time. They were almost certainly joined at that time to Wester

p16 Carse.indd 20

Moss, which was much larger then than now. The 2nd and 3rd Level surfaces formed in later prehistory, but because peat has never been found on these, they are hard to date. The 2nd Level surface probably formed around 3,900 years ago. The 3rd Level is undated. Because of this, we have until now been unable to establish when the sea level fell after 4,700 years ago, but we now know at two sites, at Netherton near the Allan Water, west of Figure 3, and another at Bolfornought, when the floodplain, lower and younger than the 3rd Level, started to form. This was around 2,800-2,500 years ago, in the Iron Age.

4. Shallow former river channels crossing the 1st Level carse surface between the A91 on the left and the Cocks Pow to the right from LiDAR mapping

The surface of the floodplain rose perhaps 1.5m in height after the Iron Age. We get an extraordinary snapshot of what is probably the Bolfornought embayment in 1587 when the lands of Bolfournought are described as cum fluvio seu aqua de Forthe circumseptas [surrounded by the water of Forth]. Bolfornought is not today surrounded by the Forth but the estuary will then have filled the embayment east of the present farmhouse (Figure 3), swelling and surrounding the thin neck of land to its north. Sea level was thus close to what it is today much earlier than 1314. This has major significance for how we see the Carse in 1314. South of the Forth the lowest Carse surface, the 2nd Level, was still at least 4m above the Forth. This would not have been inundated by water from the Forth, possibly not even in extreme storm surges. Though large in area, this embayment was shallow and would not significantly have dissipated tidal flow into the Bannock Burn. More critical, however, the confluence of the two rivers was around one kilometre further up the Bannock Burn than at present. This would have the effect of pushing tides far up the Bannock Burn, not enough to overtop carse surfaces but perhaps sufficient to make the water deeper at each high tide much further up these streams than at present. Tidal inundation may have shaped the unusually wide tributaries along the Bannock Burn, though we cannot date their formation. Barbour perhaps describes the estuarine sediments thus formed, with ‘the Bannockburn, deep and full of mud, so that none could ride across it’. The first record of the name ‘ Boufernocht’ is from 1574. Perhaps the floor of the embayment could be farmed then. From pottery at an archaeological site in the middle of the embayment we might surmise that the Forth abandoned the embayment by creating an ox-bow lake, and the floodplain stopped forming, in the 16th century AD. The oldest trustworthy map, Roy’s Military Survey (1747-1755) suggests that the sea-walls were not there at that time.

27/09/2017 10:45

St Kilda cult The science The of Bannockburn

The ‘marras’ There is abundant evidence on the highest, 1st Level surface for a marsh even today. Wester Moss is a much-degraded and shrunken raised moss, a type of peat that was formerly very extensive on the carse west and east of Stirling. East of Wester Moss there are remnants still at Dunmore and until very recently at Letham. The broad dome of Wester Moss is still around 5m higher than the surrounding carse. The questions for historians have always been: was there peat in 1314? Where was it? How much? The original Wester Moss can be traced from 14C dates to Craig Moss and South Cockspow. Roy’s Survey of the mid-18th century AD shows the edge of the moss pretty much in the same place, though being destroyed by ‘moss lairds’ on its eastern side.

5. The patch of mud in front of houses in Earlshill Drive, Bannockburn which dates to around AD1400

On the Carse at Wester Moss, peat formed between 500 and 1400AD is missing… Someone in this period cut the peat: we do not know why

We hunted in particular along the Bannock Burn for peat. We found some lying in the burn itself, not where it formed. It turned out to be 9,600 years old. We cannot therefore prove that peat covered all of the 1st Level surface but we think it highly likely that it did. The preservation of the shallow dry channels on this surface might be because ploughs have until recently not scoured the ground surface. Only around Skeoch where the Bannock Burn reaches the Carse (Figure 3) do we think peat may not have formed. The evidence is circumstantial: 4,700 years ago the Bannock Burn near Skeoch seems to have found an old route, for a short distance across the carse; Skeoch is the only locality on the Carse where old cultivation traces can be seen on aerial photographs today; Skeoch estate, possibly but not certainly the part of the Carse, was agriculturally productive as early as 1328. There is no peat today on the 2nd

p16 Carse.indd 21

and 3rd Level surfaces. There is one locality where peat was described in the centuries after Bannockburn, and so probably there in the early 14th century AD, at Bandeath east of Fallin where General Roy mapped peat, and 16th-17th century AD documents attest to peat-cutting, though where is unknown.

The evolution of the drainage pattern If you look carefully on the carse, or if you can see it in very great detail from above, patterns of former streams reveal themselves. Figure 4 is a contour map of the highest carse surface between the A91 on the left and the Cocks Pow on the right. The contours at 1/2 metre intervals are depicted by shading: the yellow colours are higher, the green colours lower. An ancient drainage system is revealed. It must date to the time when sea level abandoned this surface, around 4,700 years ago. Its preservation from this time is extraordinary. We think that protection could only have occurred through the stream-courses being covered by peat like that at Wester Moss. Although only a small part of the 2nd Level surface is seen in Figure 4, we have never seen channels like this crossing this or younger surfaces. Perhaps peat was removed at an earlier time, allowing farming to obliterate channels, or peat was rare on these lower surfaces. There are other details in Figure 4. The Town, Pelstream and Bannock Burns, and the Cockspow are now deeply entrenched below the Carse surface. This too must have started when sea level began

to fall 4,700 years ago. Each subsequent period of sea level fall will have made these streams cut down even further, to their present depths, 3-4m in some places above the floor of the Bannock Burn and Cockspow. This is another reason why east-flowing streams are not present on the 2nd and 3rd Level surfaces: the only streams crossing these flowed north. The channels we see now, though they carry water, are in essence fossilised. Entrenchment has preserved a drainage pattern that was initiated almost 5,000 years ago. In addition to the four streams at present, there is evidence for only one north-flowing channel on the Carse surface, immediately east of the A91, on the west side of the Bannock Burn. So we can say that there have never been more than these five channels in the past, at least on the Carse itself, not the many sluggish pows that historians have sought. We can contribute in only small ways to the debate as to where Edward crossed the Bannock Burn, if he did. If his troops were to avoid the entrenched gorge they would have had to cross above Skeoch where a small, raised alluvial fan has formed (Figure 3). Because sediment from the Bannock and other burns was flushed onto this, its surface may have been drier or at least not peat-covered. However, by some good luck we had in reconnaissance, we cored a most uninspiring patch of mud in what used to be a natural gully on a new housing estate at the foot of Earlshill Drive in Bannockburn (Figures 3 and 5). We found

27/09/2017 10:45

www.historyscotland.com

almost 150cm of sediment, almost entirely of very coarse sand and fine-medium gravel, evidence for significant slope instability and intense soil erosion, dated to AD1400-1449. This gully flows into the Peterswell Burn, which flows into the Bannock Burn. This slurry may have made the crossing not that comfortable, recalling how Gray in c.1355 described the Bannock Burn on the carse as a ‘foul, deep, marshy stream’.

Archival evidence for settlement is intriguingly confined, except at Skeoch, to the 2nd and 3rd Level carse surfaces, and not to the highest and oldest surface, though documentary evidence this far back in time is limited to those documents of Cambuskenneth Abbey, founded on the 3rd Level carse surface c.1140 and whose interests were largely on the 2nd and 3rd Level carse surfaces. Polmaise north-west of Fallin

The Carse today appears to be a featureless plain, dusty in summer, almost intractable mud in winter, until you get to know it ‘Polles’ seems certainly to have been a contemporary name for the Carse south of the Forth. After the Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297 Scots lurked ‘in siluis latitabant iuxta polles’ (in the woods beside the Polles). In 1304 Edward I instructed the earls of March and Dunbar to ‘take up your abode about Donypas and about the Torres [Torwood] and the Polles, and about all those parts’ with their troops, to watch for the enemy, and in the same year Edward similarly instructed the Prince of Wales to watch ‘the Torres and the Polles’ and ‘the other parts near Stirling Castle. The most striking usage of Polles is one of the earliest records of the battle itself, which occurs in a Welsh source, the Peniarth 20 manuscript. But in all these, a great number of pows crossing the Carse is not implied.

Settlement and human activity on the Carse Palaeo-ecological analyses can take evidence for agricultural activity furthest back in time. At three localities south-west of the Carse, at Livilands on the Carse and at Balquidderock and Greenyards above the Carse (Figure 3), pollen analyses suggest a distinct agricultural expansion in the 6th century AD. On the Carse at Wester Moss, peat formed between 500 and 1400 is missing. Someone in this period cut the peat: we do not know why.

p16 Carse.indd 22

on the 2nd Level surface paid grain teinds in the early 13th century AD, in 1359 and regularly thereafter, as did Ovenlands and Goosecroft, probably on the 1st Level carse adjacent to Stirling. Fuleche/Bolfornought and perhaps Taylorton were agricultural assets about 1200 and in 1320. Edward I ordered castles to be built at Polmaise and on the northern side of the Forth in order to patrol surrounding country, probably not across extensive peat. Salt panning was a land use on carselands around Stirling before the mid-12th century AD and Robert I (Bruce) confirmed after 1314 the town of Stirling’s ancient rights to peats from the moss of Skeoch, east of the Bannock Burn. Ingramsland (now Crook: Figure 3) close to the break of slope between the 1st and 2nd Level surfaces was paying a royal rent in 1455. In this context, Bandeath seems a long way from Stirling, perhaps too far to have been cleared of peat for the town’s needs. We should not forget that Barbour followed his description of Edward’s descent onto the Carse by the phrase ‘And mak redy thar apparale’, nor of course that subsequently he stated that the ‘pulis’ had been bridged and ‘the host had all passed over … to occupy ‘the firm ground’: ‘Briggit the pulis, sa that tha War passit our evirilkane,

And the hard feld on hors has tane All redy for to gif battale’. As others have suggested, our palaeo-geography of the Carse would indicate that firm ground for battle lay on the north side of the 1st Level carse surface, hard against the Forth. The difficult part may have been in reaching it.

Conclusions It is probably dangerous to conclude anything about the battlefield at Bannockburn. There is a possibility that the battle was not on the Carse at all, but assuming it was we can at least revise some of the interpretative issues. Among these is the assumption that the Carse looked the same everywhere. The evolution of the four separate surfaces, and particular their different altitudes will have meant that the Carse was more fragmented than often assumed. We should re-think in part the difficulties of the terrain. Though by no means conclusively established, there are grounds for thinking that the highest carse surface was still mostly covered in peat. We should think, though, that the carse surfaces north of the Bannock Burn were not inimical to movement. The lower ground was more a route than a barrier. None of the carse surfaces were directly affected by tidal waters. The pows were not that many: perhaps ‘pulis’ does mean ‘pools’. There is evidence, however, that the Bannock and other burns were affected by tidal waters, depositing slippery mud, deepening the channels, changing their characters, the Bannock Burn ‘a great ditch ... into which the tide flows’, as the Lanercost Chronicle described it. Richard Tipping is Senior Lecturer in Biological and Environmental Sciences at Stirling University. The researchers engaged in the Leverhulme Trust project were in addition: Aden Beresford, John G Harrison, John McArthur, Stuart Morrison and Danny Paterson (Stirling University), Gordon Cook, Derek Hamilton and Nicola Russell (Glasgow University), Dmitri Mauquoy and Paul Ledger (Aberdeen University), Jason Jordan (Coventry University) and David Smith (Oxford University).

27/09/2017 10:45

DISCOVER THE FACTS BEHIND THE FICTION Download today http://scot.sh/HSoutland

p01 cover.indd 1

27/09/2017 11:00

www.historyscotland.com

The Bannockburn legacy From the unfortunate English poet forced to write about the Scottish victory in the immediate aftermath of the battle, to later writers who often wove myth and speculation into their accounts, historians and authors have viewed the battle of Bannockburn in many different ways over the centuries, as Ted Cowan reveals

[Bannockburn’s] more remote effects, in completely establishing the national independence of Scotland, afford a boundless field for speculation. - Walter Scott

I

n 1786 Robert Burns ‘said a fervent prayer for old Caledonia over the hole in a blue whinstone where Robert Bruce fixed his royal standard on the banks of Bannockburn’. The battle served Burns well. Reading its history sparked thoughts of the looks and feelings of the patriots in June 1314, warming him to ‘a pitch of enthusiasm on the theme of Liberty and Independence’, so inspiring the composition of ‘Scots Wha Hae’. The old tune to which his words were set, ‘Hey tutti taitie’, was traditionally believed to have accompanied Bruce’s troops at Bannockburn. The glorious struggle for freedom, wrote Burns, suggested comparisons with others of the same nature, ‘not quite so ancient’, a reference which has been explained as alluding to the French Revolution or the treason trials of the 1790s but more likely the American Revolution. Perhaps all of these resonances co-exist in what has become Scotland’s national anthem.

p21 Historiography.indd 18

Burns’s memorialist, Robert Heron of New Galloway, wrote A New History of Scotland from the earliest Times to the Æra of the Abolition of the Hereditary Jurisdictions of Subjects in Scotland in the year 1748 (Morisons of Perth, 5 vols 1794-99), a fascinating work which seems to have been almost completely forgotten. Heron was a genuine product of the Enlightenment, a polymath who wrote on numerous subjects, often to commission. He was steeped in Scottish literature, had absorbed every enlightenment publication worth reading, was a close associate of Ossian advocate Hugh Blair, as well as an editorial assistant on Sir John Sinclair’s Statistical Account of Scotland, and a self-confessed libertine. He was disappointed that the field of Bannockburn retained no conspicuous vestiges of the battle, in which ‘freedom spurned tyranny to the earth, and crushed his neck in the dust’. Nothing remained to show it was ‘once the scene of an engagement decisive of the fate of

27/09/2017 11:01

The St Kilda cult Bannockburn historiography

16th-century historian George Buchanan wrote of how victory over Edward II enabled Bruce (pictured) to supervise the reconstruction of Scotland

Scotland’, save for the stone that supported the royal standard. The Old Statistical Account (1790s) barely mentions the battle: the reporter was not keen on perpetuating memories of past conflicts – ‘the wisdom of history has consigned them to deserved oblivion’. The New Statistical Account (1840s) refers to ‘one of the most complete victories by the Scots over their oppressors’ but states that all the facts and ‘various controversies’ are so familiar as to render detailed description of the battle unnecessary. Both accounts refer to the Borestane as ‘the bored stone’, a large granite boulder with a central hole four inches in depth and diameter for the placing of a banner. The surviving fragments, representing the sole physical memorialisation of the most significant battle in Scottish history, were very belatedly gathered up for safekeeping as recently as 1960. Both reporters

p21 Historiography.indd 19

also assert that to commemorate Randolph’s achievement on the first day of battle two stones were erected in a field at Newhouse, surely a case of hindsight incorporating two existing standing stones into the battle topography. During the 19th-century almost all such megaliths were believed to commemorate battles or fallen warriors, or both. In 1841 it was stated that Randolphfield had been recently named suggesting that memorialisation of the battle still continued. It is likely that names such as Ingram’s Crook, supposedly inspired by the actions of Ingram de Umphraville and even Bloody Fould were part of the same process. There may be a parallel here with Dunsinnan where a number of toponyms associated with Macbeth appear for the first time in the OSA. There was a chapel at Skeok a mile below Bannockburn, listed as ‘near Bannockburn’ in Chalmers’ Caledonia, which might have

(previous page) Despite Bruce’s victory at Bannockburn, it is William Wallace who has gained more attention and admiration from historians

been expected to have received endowments following the victory although there is no record that it did so and the structure no longer exists. Elsewhere in this magazine Tony Pollard discusses the extremely disappointing archaeological yield from the site.

A COLOSSAL VICTORY Bannockburn’s legacy has been mentioned by every historian who has ever written on the subject. It was of course, without doubt, the greatest victory in Scottish history, as might have been predicted since it was fought on a particularly auspicious day, that of John the Baptist, one of Scotland’s favourite saints since he had baptised Andrew, ‘first-called’ of the disciples, who advised his brother Peter, of the coming of the Messiah. The battle was at once iconic because it was a colossal victory despite ferociously overwhelming odds and, since it was fought for the most sublime of causes, namely the defeat of a tyrannical invader in defence of king, country and community. After the Union of the Crowns in 1603 the magnificent original, William Lithgow, known as William the Wanderer who claimed to have travelled some 36,000 miles in his lifetime, had a device tattooed on his right arm with, on one side the lettering, ‘the never conquered Crowne of Scotland’ and on the other ‘the now inconquerable Crowne of England’. Bannockburn represented invincible corroboration of the legend that Scotland, specially favoured by God, had never been a conquered country, while the English had suffered the experience four times under the Romans, the AngloSaxons, the Danes and the French, euphemistically dubbed ‘Normans’ to spare their blushes. More practically, defeating the greatest military force in Europe gave the Scots a massive psychological boost. It was claimed that the English army marching north to Scotland was twenty leagues from end to end. The amount of booty salvaged from the field was valued

27/09/2017 11:01

www.historyscotland.com

17th-century traveller William Lithgow, whose arm was tattooed with the words ‘the never conquered Crowne of Scotland’ in tribute to the country’s unique status

at an unbelievable £3 million in 1874. Scotland was suddenly a place to be reckoned with, Bruce a warlord to be admired and his battle-hardened veterans to be envied and respected. Every year thereafter the elaborate celebrations of the Feast of John the Baptist, handily corresponding to Midsummer’s Day, would recall Bannockburn and the noble aspirations of freedom and independence. However it failed to deliver the great climactic blow which historians, novelists and film-makers have wished for ever since; peace was to prove distressingly elusive. As W. Mackay Mackenzie

p21 Historiography.indd 20

observed in his study of Bannockburn written for the centennial in 1914, ‘history is but a literary and political exercise; a mist of rhetoric has settled upon the field’. In the absence of physical remains the main memorials of Bannockburn are literary in the widest sense of the word, namely all written materials whether historical, rhetorical, imaginative, creative, factive or fictitious. That such activity commenced immediately is indicated by the story of the unfortunate William Baston, Carmelite friar and poet, who was attached to the English army in order to poetically commemorate a great English victory. When he

was captured the Scots insisted that he buy his freedom by eulogising their achievement. Many English historians doubt Baston’s actual presence at Bannockburn but the point is that the Scots craved immediate literary memorialisation of the battle. Baston wrote in Latin so the propagandist poem was presumably intended for circulation among the learned of Europe, through the media of the clergy. It has been remarked that the poem is more about death and destruction than it is about Bruce’s achievement but it tells the battle from the vanquished’s point of view. It also displays the time-honoured let-out of the loser. What is war about? ‘Weeping in my tent I lament the battles joined, /not knowing… which king is to blame for them’. Such uncertainties, we may suspect, would not have figured in celebration of an anticipated English victory. However he definitely catches something of the horrendous chaos of battle: One man slashes, one slays, one warns, one wounds, one is routed; One lurks, one swaggers, one shoves, one groans, one is worsted; One shrieks, one shrinks, one shakes, one shudders, one is roped; One picks, one cloaks, one plucks, one pokes, one is robbed. There is mounting hunger. Bodies and booty are rifled. There are other surviving contemporary Latin poems by Scots on the same victorious theme, including one by Bruce’s chancellor, Abbot Bernard of Arbroath, as well as an Irish and a Welsh prophecy thrown in to prove the victory was foretold. These are invaluable even for those historians who still are uncomfortably suspicious of literary sources and have not yet recognised that a single poem might be worth several pages of prose. The greatest poem of all is of course John Barbour’s lengthy The Bruce, composed in the mother tongue and warmly commended by Walter Bower Abbot of Inchcolm, compiler of Scotichronicon. All students of the Wars of Independence must rely to some extent on Barbour, hopefully consulting the masterly edition and translation by Professor

27/09/2017 11:01

The St Kilda cult Bannockburn historiography

Archie Duncan, a remarkable achievement in its own right. Barbour was intent upon showing how Robert Bruce recovered from his potentially disastrous murder of the Red Comyn, the concomitant excommunication, civil war with Comyn allies and defiance of the mighty Edward I, to become the victor at Bannockburn. He considered the achievement to be almost unparalleled even when compared with the heroes of the classical world and he obviously wrote it for his compatriots in their own language – Scots, whether read or declaimed, preserving the flame of independence for the commonalty. In the 16th century George Buchanan wrote of how Edward

Historian George Buchanan saw Bannockburn as a victory which humbled the English, whilst giving glory to Scotland

An internet search of Bannockburn indicates the obsession with so-called myth on the part of many commentators II was determined to extirpate a nation ‘often rebellious, and always unquiet, hostile and troublesome’. In his view the victory humbled the pride of the English and raised the Scots from the verge of despair. The victory conferred glory and wealth upon the Scots while enabling the liberation of captives. Bruce was now able to supervise the reconstruction of the kingdom. His continuing military strategy involved invasions of Ireland and England one fifth of which was said have been tributary to him. A failed offensive by the young Edward III led to a peace treaty of 24 June 1328 (the date surely was no coincidence?) in which Bruce’s kingship was recognised and the English renounced all claims of superiority over Scotland. His son David was to be married to Joan, sister of Edward III. According to tradition, in his will Bruce bequeathed three pieces of advice. His successors and their people should pay close attention to the Hebrides. Second, to avoid pitched battles with the English. Third, the Scots should avoid long periods of peaceful relations with their southern neighbours because such

p21 Historiography.indd 21

would lead to sloth, ‘voluptuous indulgence’ and a potentially fatal lack of battle readiness. So far as Buchanan was concerned, a man often deemed to be the enemy of monarchy, Bruce was among the greatest of kings.

THE WALLACE LEGACY Buchanan, however, like very many Scots, was even more impressed by William Wallace. It is truly remarkable that two such figures as Wallace and Bruce should have appeared in the same generation, two of the major heroes in the Scottish panoply. Yet it can be shown that Bruce the battle victor and restorer of the nation has never been as popular as Wallace the loser at Falkirk and victim of a savage execution at Smithfield. Just as Bruce had his poetic biographer in Barbour so Wallace was lionised in Blind Hary’s epic. Between 1508 and 1800 there were 37 printings of Hary’s Wallace compared with twelve of Barbour’s Bruce; twelve Wallaces appeared between 1700 and 1750 with only one Bruce in the same period. Similar ratios are found in chapbooks. Through time Wallace, the second son of a laird, was reconfigured as the man

from nowhere. As I have previously indicated almost every chronicler and historian from Fordun in the 14th century to popular writers around 1900 mentions a fictitious meeting on the banks of the Carron between Bruce and Wallace after the battle of Falkirk. When Bruce asks Wallace why he defies the might of Edward I and the advice of the Scottish nobility he is told that Wallace felt compelled to intervene when he saw the country leaderless through the inactivity of the nobility, and the Scots condemned to slavery and butchery. He continues: You, to whom ignominious slavery with security is dearer than honourable liberty with danger, embrace the fortune you so much admire. I, in the country which I have so often defended, shall live free, or freely side; nor shall my affection leave me but with my last breath. The contention is that each time this evocative passage was perused generation after generation of readers encountered on the one hand patriotic, selfless, folk worth, confronting on the other, the treacherous opportunism of the aristocracy. Wallace became the unimpeachable hero who would never compromise the integrity

27/09/2017 11:01

www.historyscotland.com

of the nation while Bruce was a vacillator, who, pursuing his own selfish ends, frequently changed sides. Historical criticism can prove such views erroneous but it does little to transform popular assumptions. Enlightenment historians generally took a rather dim view of the medieval period. William Robertson seems to have avoided mention of Bannockburn while David Hume

and virtue, as superior to all grandeur and authority, human or divine, The most sublime moralists of polished antiquity, the most penetrating and comprehensive minds among modern philosophers; have taught no moral principles more indisputably just, or more exalted, than those which were, in that epistle, asserted with deeply impassioned feelings, by an assembly of rude, illiterate, Scottish warriors.

Memorialisation of the site was probably inspired by the craze for monuments and plaques to commemorate Waterloo noted that it secured Scotland’s independence, confirmed Bruce on the throne, and represented the greatest-ever overthrow the English nation had experienced since the Conquest. Robert Heron, hitherto ignored among the ranks of Enlightenment historians, rejoiced in the Bannockburn triumph while enthusing about the letter to the pope of 1320, now known as the Declaration of Arbroath. The missive was deemed necessary because the great victory of 1314 had failed to elicit the desired positive response from Edward II or the pope. ‘Arbroath’ could thus be seen as a crucial part of the Bannockburn legacy. Heron undertook his Journey Through the Western Counties of Scotland in 1791 and 1792 in order to assess the impact or otherwise of enlightenment. His History was intended to illustrate Scottish improvement, progress and philosophical development through time and he was clearly smitten by the implications of ‘Arbroath’, made possible by the Bannockburn victory. The letter, he claimed, was proof that the Scots had conceived notions singularly liberal, clear, and correct. That epistle discovers its authors to have regarded the utility of social life, as the first principle of human virtue; and to have understood the laws of morality to be paramount to the dreams of superstition. It bespeaks a sense of the native freedom and independence of the human character, such as none but vigorous, ardent and enlightened minds could conceive. It expresses a persuasion of the omnipotence of truth

p21 Historiography.indd 22

BATTLE STRATEGY Lord Hailes in his Annals was among the first to attempt to make sense of the battle in terms of strategy and tactics. Following his example the battle has been re-fought dozens of times by various experts, acknowledged and self-appointed. Walter Scott largely plagiarised Hailes, while popularizing the battle in featuring Bannockburn as the climax to his poem The Lord of The Isles. Some of the most recent discussions have absorbed members of the Academic Advisory Panel for the new Bannockburn exhibit. An internet search of Bannockburn indicates the obsession with socalled myth on the part of many commentators. Myths, however must contain elements of truth. A better word would be invention, sometimes malicious and deliberate but often subconscious. All battles have to be mythologised to some extent if their memory is to survive and many much more recent than Bannockburn have undergone the process. The inspirational central myth of Bannockburn, the essential truth of the event, lies in its preservation of Scottish freedom and independence with a further concomitant of the potential for Scotland’s evolution as a nation. The modern ‘myth-makers’ are fabricators who create as many falsehoods and misconceptions as they attempt to demolish. The greatest folly of all is to pretend that an accurate reconstruction of the battle is possible because the evidence simply does not exist. It is a cliché that no one person ever has a

Sir Walter Scott featured Bannockburn as the climax to his poem The Lord of the Isles

complete picture of any battle. Given their ignorance of geography and topography very few of those present on 23 and 24 June, 1314 could have had any very firm grasp of their surroundings, obscured as they were by thousands of combatants, but they could be in no doubt about the result. Memorialisation of the site was probably inspired by the craze for monuments and plaques to commemorate Waterloo with which Bannockburn has been iconically compared. Monuments or plaques at Largs, Elderslie, Robroyston and Abbey Craig, to name but a few, all belong to the same generation. On 25 June, 1870 the Dunbarton and Stirling Oddfellows erected a 120-foot mast beside the Borestane. The Borestane field was saved for the nation by the 10th earl of Elgin in 1930 and presented to the National Trust two years later. The rotunda was built in 1962 and in 1964 the magnificent statue of Bruce by Pilkington Jackson was unveiled. It is now the icon most associated with the site. William Burns, an indefatigable backer of monuments and all things Scottish, describing Bannockburn in his two volume

27/09/2017 11:01

The St Kilda cult Bannockburn historiography

study of the Wars of Independence asked, ‘Where in all the wide world could have been found a field physically and morally so appropriate as the scene of a crowning battle for a nation’s freedom?’ Not all would agree. Transformation of the surrounding landscape since 1314 by agriculture, industrialisation, kilt-making factories and housing schemes has conspired to rob the site of its mystery. It does not invoke a thrill of excitement to match in any way the emotional response to the melancholy of Culloden. Scottish heritage and culture were unexpectedly given a boost when Edward VII succeeded Victoria in 1901. There was deep resentment of the numeral since, as the earl of Cassillis stated, the king’s correct title should have been Edward I of Scotland and of the United Kingdom. One Scottish response was the foundation of the Scottish Patriotic Association, which advocated the protection and promotion of all things Scottish. Cassillis’s speech of 1908 was somewhat rambling. Alexander II’s march to Dover led to the death of King John so securing to Englishmen the privileges in Magna Carta! Wallace and Bruce would have undoubtedly supported the Union of 1707 ‘on the terms of equality as we have now.’ The Scottish heroes did not fight because of hatred of the

p21 Historiography.indd 23

‘To every man (and soon he would mean every woman as well) the history of his native land must always be of pre-eminent interest and importance’

Almost six centuries after Bannockburn, the accession of King Edward VII caused resentment among those who felt his correct title should have been Edward I of Scotland and of the United Kingdom. This assertion led to the founding of causes such as the Scottish Patriotic Association

English but ‘because the Scots were being denied the ordinary rights of man’. In the period 1880 to 1907 four out of five prime ministers were Scots. In another speech elsewhere on ‘Scotland’s Day’ as 24 June, was becoming known, Sheriff James Ferguson claimed that Scottish patriotism was not antagonistic towards imperial patriotism. The true lesson of Scottish history was ‘proper pride in our achievements but no particular provincialism’. A perpetual source of irritation was the use of ‘England’ or ‘English’ for ‘British’ another subject about which Scots used to vent on Scotland’s Day; annual anniversary gatherings still take place at Bannockburn.

UNACCEPTABLE NEGLECT At the 1909 meeting the chairman called for the establishment of a Chair of Scottish History and Literature at the University of Glasgow. On the occasion of his inaugural lecture in 1892 Richard Lodge, holder of the first Chair of History at Glasgow, made a strong plea for the study of Scottish history. ‘To every man (and soon he would mean every woman as well) the history of his native land must always be of pre-eminent interest and importance’. He considered the neglect of Scottish history in schools unacceptable. When one of his English associates wrote to ask him how he coped with the ‘B’ battle, a reference to Bannockburn, Lodge replied that he avoided mentioning it, hopefully with tongue firmly in cheek rather than apprehension of spontaneous revolutionary activity in the hallowed halls of Gilmorehill! It was against a background of minor, and non-party political, cultural agitation that the campaign took place, swiftly recruiting the support of such bodies as the Scottish Patriotic Society, the St Andrew Society and the Burns Clubs among many others including the city of Glasgow. The money to endow the chair was raised through the patronage the Scottish National Exhibition of 1911. It attracted

9.3 million visitors. Thus the People’s Chair of Scottish History and Literature was democratically founded. There may not be another example anywhere in the world of a university chair about which there such a sense of public ownership. The battle of Bannockburn was won against great odds but the propaganda war was still to be won. The Declaration of Arbroath, six years later, included at least two inspirational and much admired ideas. It supplied the first articulation of the contractual theory of monarchy, better known today as the sovereignty of the people. Its signatories stated that ‘if ever Robert Bruce should submit us or our kingdom to the king of England or the English we will remove him and set up another better able to govern us in his place’. The Scottish monarchy was thus elective and the contract reciprocal. The document then went on to the famous passage, ‘For so long as a hundred of us remain alive we shall never surrender. It is not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting but for freedom alone which no honest person will lose but with life itself’. Herein is articulated the noble aspiration of individual and national freedom. In the 1990s first Canada and then the USA adopted the date of the Arbroath Declaration, 6 April, as Tartan Day. The label was unfortunate and the Americans were interested because of a so far unproven belief that their Declaration of Independence was somehow influenced by the Scottish precedent. But Tartan Day is now celebrated throughout the world. The reasons for recognising it may be wrong-headed, romantic, deluded, filopietistic or whatever, but Scots should be happy and humble that the concepts for which Bannockburn was fought now annually receive global recognition. That is truly an impressive legacy after 700 years. Ted Cowan is Emeritus Professor of Scottish History, University of Glasgow

27/09/2017 11:01

The online home of

Scottish history Your number one resource for Scottish history, heritage and archaeology Daily updates on the latest history news and archaeology discoveries Discover more about Scotland’s past with expert guides and blogs Listen to the popular History Scotland podcast …and so much more

Visit the online home of Scottish history at

www.historyscotland.com P21 Web advert.indd 1

01/09/2017 13:30