tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post4586497132344219035..comments2024-03-14T05:56:44.390+00:00Comments on Edward II: Chicken or Brave-Hearted? The Future Edward II at War, 1300-06 (Guest Post)Kathryn Warnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-48298526141932055252017-03-19T19:15:23.572+00:002017-03-19T19:15:23.572+00:00Jerry Bennet...
It was actually the night before w...Jerry Bennet...<br />It was actually the night before when Gloucester and some others recommended that the army should rest for a day. That would have been wise IF they would have had time which they did not have. Also medieval armies usually began to disperse at once when they paused.<br /><br />The clashes of the first day made it clear that there would be fight the very next day so it was not realistic either to expect that the English would have a days rest. Unfortunately for Gloucester Edward asked if he was a coward which did cause his death the next morning.<br /><br />But you brought up the point which I have been wondering too: what happened to all of the other noble men and officers who should have had the capacity to create some cohesion to the English efforts? Were where they and what they did? We do know that most of them rode to the battle for personal glory so I wonder if it was the same thing which caused the French disaster at Agincourt??<br /><br />A knight was not a normal soldier. He was above the rabble and there were also mystical elements in it, so often ignored these days. That is why the Third knight in the whole Chirstendom Gilles D'Argentan did sometimes drop wars and participated to jousts and competitions instead for higher glory and personal reputation, and he also rode to his death at Bannockburn too because his personal honor. He rode alone against the schiltron of Edward Bruce once the king was safe. He did it because his personal honor would not let him run from any battlefield, he said. sami parkkonennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-42431305422704636782017-03-19T12:39:12.516+00:002017-03-19T12:39:12.516+00:00I completely agree with you. I carry no torch for ...I completely agree with you. I carry no torch for Roger Mortimer. If anything his Irish experience should have warned him of the dangers inherent in that campaign. The attempt by the Hainault and English knights to emulate the Scots and chase them across the fells above the Allen valleys was pretty disastrous and showed just how much the Scots were masters of the north Pennines.<br /><br />Six years later at Halidon Hill, the young Edward III showed that he had learned from his father's errors, while Archibald Douglas completely mis-interpreted Bruce's use of schiltrons. The result was a triumph for English archers, the first since Falkirk thirty five years before. Another Douglas would make the same mistake at Homildon in 1402. But archery would soon be surpassed by gunpowder, as the earl of Shrewsbury found to his cost at Castillon. To judge from the number of bows and arrows recovered from the wreak of the Mary Rose, Henry VIII still had to learn that lesson fully a hundred years later!<br /><br />Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and immediate hindsight can change both the nature and outcome of a war or a campaign overnight. I think all the main Scottish leaders had the ability to learn swiftly, but the same did not apply to the English commanders, including Roger Mortimer. Jerry Bennettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-85594371908850619782017-03-19T05:41:40.428+00:002017-03-19T05:41:40.428+00:00And the mighty Roger Mortimer, who we're so of...And the mighty Roger Mortimer, who we're so often told was a wonderful military leader, couldn't defeat Bruce's army in 1327 either, and nearly got Edward III captured. Utter humiliation. Apparently he wasn't able to learn from 20 years of Edward II's mistakes either.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-30087649884080956612017-03-18T21:14:46.207+00:002017-03-18T21:14:46.207+00:00You are right Kathryn, hindsight is a wonderful th...You are right Kathryn, hindsight is a wonderful thing. When I made those comments I was not considering the Bannockburn campaign so much as Edwards actions in 1319 and 1322. I consider the latter year to be particularly disastrous.<br /><br />I also agree with Sami that Edward was not solely to blame for Bannockburn, and that the actions of those under him contributed to the defeat. But I want to know why that happened. Edward had at least two commanders with him - Pembroke and Clifford - who had a mass of experience in fighting in Scotland. They would surely have advised him to set guard pickets. If they didn't, why not? <br /><br />Correct me if I am wrong on this, but I believe that on the second morning of the battle the earl of Gloucester advised Edward to let their men rest before confronting Bruce, and that he was not only over-ruled but accused of cowardice as well. That led to his futile attack on the Scots before the rest of the English army was fully ready to support him. I suspect Gloucester had a good point, but why did no-one else support him? What was the atmosphere like among the English leaders? Was there too much internal tension or jealousy, or fear of so angering the king that men who were experienced commanders in their own right kept their true opinions to themselves? No-one will ever know for sure, but we can all make assumptions. That accusation of cowardice - if true - just seems so plumb wrong.<br /><br />Perhaps I am judging Edward by modern day standards, but there is too much in the military side of his reign where things went awry that should never have done so. Why besiege Berwick without bringing siege engines with you? Why claim to be attempting to trap the Scots after Myton by basing yourself in an abbey at Morpeth, leaving James Douglas fifty miles of largely unguarded border to ease his retreat? Hexham would have been a far more sensible base. That is not me being an armchair general - that comes from looking at a map.<br /><br />Arrogance was the prerogative of a mediaeval lord, but it needed that lord to be aware that it had its limits. I do not think Edward was aware enough, and that led to so many of the problems of his reign, and not just military ones. Neither was it exclusive to Edward, as I think Thomas of Lancaster was just as bad and others not much better. But Edward fell out with too many people, not just earls or lords but bishops as well. That would have left many others reluctant to speak out, particularly if they were also scared of upsetting his favourites. <br /><br />To be a successful king, or any other sort of leader, you had to be willing to listen to many other people, encourage them to say what they thought and pick their brains for the best ideas. You also had to create an environment where everyone knew that such was acceptable. I don't think that ever happened around Edward II, with ultimately disastrous consequences. <br /><br />I have seen comments elsewhere on this blog about how Edward was so unlucky to be up against a brilliant commander like Robert Bruce. But Bruce was far from invincible, as Pembroke proved at Methven. Bruce was humble enough to learn from his mistakes. Sadly that seemed not to apply to Edward. <br /><br />Perhaps my judgement was too harsh, particularly as I can see a similar climate of fear evolving in our two main political parties at the present time. What was that about "the more things change, the more they stay the same?"<br /><br /> Jerry Bennettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-89165786644178341262017-03-18T09:46:09.217+00:002017-03-18T09:46:09.217+00:00Yes, the 'arrogant' and 'useless' ...Yes, the 'arrogant' and 'useless' and 'clueless' comments struck me as a bit harsh too. Easy to be an armchair general 700 years later, I suppose.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-25018107347573630332017-03-18T09:04:56.742+00:002017-03-18T09:04:56.742+00:00Actually Edward II specifically asked for more inf...Actually Edward II specifically asked for more infantry for Bannockburn campaign just because he said that cavalry would not be the best against the Scots (Michael Prestwick, Armies and Warfare in Middle Ages, Yale University Press 1996). He is the first king of England to acknowledge that infantry made up of commoners is more vital than cavalry of noble men on the record. <br /><br />Unfortunately he did not get support from most of the barons, all of whom had accused him of cowardice and egged him to go to war in Scotland (earl of Lancaster is the prime example, he was also absent from Bannockburn). They failed him too. Or betrayed, or what ever word one wants to use. Had they been there, they might have been able to give somekind of command structure to the army. Or not. We must remember that Lancaster himself failed at Boroughbridge himself despite having superior number of men. <br /><br />Edward also fought bravely personally but failed as a commander. That being said, in Bannockburn the battle was started by younger knights at the day one when Bruce famously killed Henry de Bohun. Not one of the knights who clashed with Scottish schiltrons how ever informed their superiors or the king that these schiltrons not only changed formation but also moved unlike the ones under the command of William Wallace. This was fatal mistake.<br /><br />The first sign that the English were unprepared came the very next morning. No one called alarm when the Scots appeared from the woods to the low land. Where were the guards? Why no one shouted the alarm or raised the call to arms? The king was woken up and told that the Scots are coming and he went to look at them in amazement. The famous praying scene displayed and it was only then that the king himself raised the alarm and call to arms. Where were the guards and sergeants? Where were the vinetars and other officers? The king had to call his army to arms. Big failure too by the guards and lower ranking officers.<br /><br />The final day the battle was also started by young earl of Gloucester and sir Robert Clifford, who had failed to defeat the Scotts previous day, as well as sir John Comyn, who had personal vendetta against Bruce, and sir Edward Mauley, all of whom died in the first cavalry charge. So Edward was not the first to do so but never the less joined in.<br /><br />Edward should have stayed behind and direct the troops, but as we know, he dove in head over heels and fought like a mad man, loosing one horse from under him and going back with a new one, BUT during his absence no one, Not One noble man, gave any orders nor directed the troops. Not one. So there was no one to lead them on. This was a failure of Edward but also of all those other noble men who were supposed to lead the men in his absence.<br /><br />I think the biggest strategic mistake Edward made was to move his superior army over the Bannockburn to the carse. In front of him, just below the hills on the west, there was dry flat lands, the battlefield they imagined to be, but behind was the wet lands which were a trap for twenty thousand men. It was also a trap because the Pellstream on the north side and Bannockburn on the south. Edward probably thought that those would protect his flanks but they also placed his army into a pocket. Once Bruce came out and began to push on, the English army was trapped in a huge mass of men, horses and wagons and tents and no where to go. <br /><br />But then again: why no one said the night before that moving the army during the darkness over the Bannockburn to the carse was a bad idea? Not one lord or noble man protested or said it is a bad move. Not one. On the contrary, everyone worked very hard to do so, from lords to footmen. <br /><br />Yes, Edward was not a good king, he was not a top notch commander at all, but his underlings were not either. They all failed at Bannockburn and lost it all despite personal bravery displayed.sami parkkonennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-16026765270519043872017-03-16T15:54:18.405+00:002017-03-16T15:54:18.405+00:00After Edward Longshanks died, I believe Robert Bru...After Edward Longshanks died, I believe Robert Bruce claimed that although he respected the old king, he had no fear of the new one. I have been trying to find that reference without success for the last two days. Is it another piece of historical fiction, or did Bruce see something in the young Prince Edward in the 1305 campaign that does not come through clearly in history?<br /><br />I fully support the statement that Edward was personally brave, but I also wonder if he was also arrogant and foolhardy. Those latter traits would have been restrained while his father was alive and he had veterans like Lincoln and Pembroke around him, but once his father was dead he threw off any previous restrictions. At Bannockburn it was said that he saw the Scots kneeling in prayer on the morning of the second day, and claimed they were already kneeling in supplication to him. This was despite the reverses suffered the previous afternoon by Hereford and Robert Clifford. There is a deal of difference between bravery and common sense, and his decision to attack the Scots across the Bannockburn salt marshes was disastrous. Bruce knew what he was doing in that type of terrain but Edward was clueless.<br /><br />Warfare was beginning to change at that time, but most European leaders were unaware of it. When Edward Longshanks had triumphed over Simon de Montfort he had done so in what was then the conventional manner, using mounted knights and men-at-arms. His early victory over the Scots at Dunbar reinforced that message. But once the mounted knight was fighting in terrain that didn't favour him, he was at the mercy of a skilled foot-soldier. William Wallace had shown that at Stirling Bridge, and in 1302 the foot-soldiers of the Flemish towns destroyed the pride of French chivalry in the battle of the Golden Spurs. The terrain on which the French were fighting them seems rather similar to Bannockburn in some respects. Fifteen months after Bannockburn the army of Leopold I of Austria was destroyed by the citizen militias of Uri and Schwyz in the confines of the Morgarten Pass. <br /><br />The key to success in such circumstances was to think clearly and use the countryside to your advantage, and the Scots had four men who could do exactly that in Wallace, Bruce, Douglas and Moray. The English leaders on the other hand were all steeped in convention. They would have done well at the battle of Evesham, but tactics had moved on from then. Only Andrew Harclay showed any hint of originality - what in these modern days is called the ability to "think outside the box" - and he was too far down the pecking order to have any influence on Edward.<br /><br />The English had two great advantages over the Scots, superior mounted men-at-arms and better archers. Use them well, and the Scots could be beaten. I don't think Edward was "luckless in war" as Lanercost claimed. Just clueless! At Byland he asked his army to assemble on top of Blackhow Moor in countryside that was too steep for heavy horses and too wooded for mass archery. What on earth was he thinking? The outcome of that battle - headlong flight around the east riding of Yorkshire with the Scots chasing him like a hunted fox was surely the basis for Lanercost's withering accusation. <br /><br />He was brave, but hadn't the nous to confront Bruce effectively, and he was too arrogant to realise just how useless he really was. Neither did he have anyone around him who could advise him otherwise. Jerry Bennettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-13432470416532606202017-03-14T13:49:50.668+00:002017-03-14T13:49:50.668+00:00Thank you for such an interesting post. I'm a ...Thank you for such an interesting post. I'm a newcomer to this blog and I have to confess that I'm finding Edward II to be a mass of contradictions so far. I'm looking forward to learning more.April Mundayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147194554101708169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-51527210962389731732017-03-12T22:34:50.939+00:002017-03-12T22:34:50.939+00:00True, he may have not had enough money to pay for ...True, he may have not had enough money to pay for thousands of men.sami parkkonennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-25943615494360374712017-03-12T15:03:41.985+00:002017-03-12T15:03:41.985+00:00Sami, true, but Edward II inherited an empty treas...Sami, true, but Edward II inherited an empty treasury due to his father's wars. Did he ever overcome that sufficiently to field paid armies?chris yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07556240635442613879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-30014927022965074942017-03-12T11:29:32.642+00:002017-03-12T11:29:32.642+00:00Great stuff! I have always wondered how much the a...Great stuff! I have always wondered how much the advisors, or lack of advice, contributed to the later failure? From what I have found out, in many cases, such as in Bannockburn, many of those magnates and lords who had egged Edward II to go to Scotland, did not follow him and/or did not send their full force to the army but the least minimum amount of men allowed by the rules and laws of the realm if at all. In one case one baron sent in a one man who shot a one arrow once he saw enemies at all and then came back, because the agreement between the crown and this lord could be interpreted this way (Michael Prestwick, Armies and Warfare in Middle Ages, Yale University Press 1996). <br /><br />One thing which certainly contributed to the failures of king Edward II's later military failures was his reliance on feudal summons. Armies of 1314, 1322 and 1327 were summoned thus and all failed. Edward I had relied more on paid soldiers and had paid even to his lords and their hosts, and so did Edward III and he was successful. <br /><br />Just to give examples how feudal summosn were going down, Piers Gaveston owed no more than three knights as the earl of Cornwall but his predecessor had owned fifteen. Earl of Warrick owned six and a half knights (what is a half knight??) in 1277 and five in 1310. Out of 200 tenants-in-chiefs in 1310 only a dozen served personally. Even in 1282 one man appeared on muster, ate his bacon and departed. Also, feudal summons were for 40 days only in most cases. sami parkkonennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-81961487303671094222017-03-11T20:19:48.279+00:002017-03-11T20:19:48.279+00:00Really enjoyed this article - thank you.Really enjoyed this article - thank you.Anerjehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16305237339979790391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-62696632022475484452017-03-11T17:20:18.543+00:002017-03-11T17:20:18.543+00:00Esther, a good question. I wonder if one of those ...Esther, a good question. I wonder if one of those mentors might have been the aforesaid Earl of Carrick, who was clearly (at least later) a brilliant and imaginative general who knew exactly how to make the most of the terrain he was fighting on.chris yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07556240635442613879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-39307881720542897262017-03-11T14:55:36.718+00:002017-03-11T14:55:36.718+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11461699491172314613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-55846560376038872382017-03-11T09:38:23.019+00:002017-03-11T09:38:23.019+00:00Thank you for the kind comments on my post, much a...Thank you for the kind comments on my post, much appreciated. For Joseph Harris - the entry regarding the siege of Kildrummy, from Volume 2 of the Calendar of Documents for Scotland, is repeated below:<br /><br />[1306.] 1828. Charges to be laid before Pope Clement [V.] against Eobert<br />Aug. (?) Wischart bishop of Glasgow, who swore fealty to the K. six times.<br />pp.*!i4'o-35'o.<br />[Chapter House {Scots Documents), Portfolio 4, No. 2.]<br />Sept. 13. 1829. [No names.] The writer begs a protection for John de<br />Corbrigg', who is with Sir William de Rue keeper of the bishopric of<br />Glasgow. ' Semper valeatis in Christo.' Informs his correspondent<br />that the castle of Kildrummy was lately taken by the Prince(?). And<br />that the Prince and the other English magnates in Scotland have taken<br />the Earl of Carrick's brother. Sir Robert de Boyt, Sir Alexander(?) de<br />Lindeseye, and other traitors, and many knights and others. ' Semper<br />valeatis in Christo.' Written at Milbrugg', 13th September. [CJiancery<br />Miscellaneous Portfolios, No, |;^.]Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15729919131874484021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-48976010706604365442017-03-11T04:28:56.345+00:002017-03-11T04:28:56.345+00:00Hi, another wonderful article as always :)
I was ...Hi, another wonderful article as always :) <br />I was just wondering if there is any where I can find more information about the 1306 siege of Kildrummy Castle, it is important for a project of mine but I can find precious little info about it online. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11461699491172314613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-23276267299496853282017-03-10T19:23:34.027+00:002017-03-10T19:23:34.027+00:00Great post! I wonder what happened to the advisor...Great post! I wonder what happened to the advisors that Edward I appointed to advise the then-prince. After all, the facts of Bannockburn show that Edward II wasn't chicken, but the string of disasters sure show that something happened to his competence.<br /><br />EstherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-5896863161628163732017-03-10T19:11:45.288+00:002017-03-10T19:11:45.288+00:00Well, that's all very enlightening and thank y...Well, that's all very enlightening and thank you for the post and your guest's interesting information.<br /><br />My view is this: poor Edward's reputation really has been abysmally biased towards the 'weak, effeminate, lacking-in-character' personality portrayed in countless books, films and other media. My opinion is that, in these bygone days, clerks/monks/upper classes were the only literate ones in the realm and therefore only a minority were able to record for posterity THEIR views of occurrences in the kingdom, so, if said persons were feeling aggrieved their words stood. I realise that what I am saying is in contradiction to Edward being deposed as he was unpopular towards the end of his reign, but my point is that few were in a position to actually document that he was a fairly decent fellow with flaws but it all went horribly wrong and he may have taken appalling advice which led to the downfall.<br /><br />All very simplistic I know, but it is endearing to know that for records sake, he wasn't a shrivelling coward; fearsome of war (important in those days); and did have some remarkably kind, generous and funny characteristics (which you have pointed out Kathryn in other posts).<br /><br />As always in history, it's just a terrible shame that more documents don't survive to be analysed and discussed. I met someone a few weeks ago who was adamant that Edward was a totally useless, nasty hysteric - I calmly advised him to look at this site and books about his life and possible survival. I do like Edward so wanted to defend him. AmandaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com