Wars and Conflicts permalink
Bloodiest Battle
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
Battle of Athelstanford.
In 832 AD a Pictish army led by King Angus Mac Fergus, King of Alba and another army under Eochaidh, King of Dalriada were fighting an english force in Lothian. The winner would have the control of that area.
The Scots and Picts joined forces to win the day and killed the english king Athelstan. This is a battle that is on a par with the usual hyped battles of Hastings and Stamford Bridge.
This battle ensured that Scotland would be a separate entity from england. -
Message 2
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
I may be wrong but wasn't Athelstaneford? If so, I think this battle was fought because the Picts and Scots were fleeing after a raid into Northumbria but were trapped and so had to turn and fight. Angus prayed for help and claimed that the clouds formed a cross against a blue sky - hence the Scottish saltire as national flag from then on.
-
Message 3
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) ** on Thursday, 11th May 2006
LOL ;-D
-
Message 4
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
I never heard that they were fleeing. I read that the english invaded and wee defeated. Similar to the battle of Nechtansmere. It was fought over the Lothians. However it happened, the result was the most important thing. This happened at a time when Scotland was not one country but made up of Britons of Strathclyde, Scots, Picts and Angles. There ware also Vikings in the far north and possibly still Frisians in the south. Dumfries was founded by them and means fortress of the Frisians.
-
Message 5
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
Thats the shortest thread youve ever wrote. Well done. This is indeed the above said battle, although what happened before is disputed on both sides.
The outcome is not. A major british battle, no doubt. -
Message 6
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
Greendoctoor, Check this link which I have just found. It also mentions the fleeing part, which I am sure I read a long time ago.
I largely agree with your point on the make up of the inhabitants of Scotland, although I have never heard of the Friesian element. suggests Dumfries came from the Gaelic for Fortress and Forest.
As for Nechtansmere, though, your geography is wrong. It was fought at what is now Dunnichen, near Forfar. I have always wondered why it is not celebrated in Scotland, but probably because it was a Pictish victory and the Scots didn't like to advertise that. Also, it shows how far north the Angles came. I would agree that, in terms of its long term impact, it was a very important battle. -
Message 7
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
The outcome of the battle would have been control of Lothian and southern scotland, this is the most important land that thy would have been after.
Shire of Dumfries: Uncertain - perhaps Fort of the Frisians (Frisian is of uncertain origin but is thought to mean curly, as in curly hair) or Dun-phris (fort of the thicket), or Druim Phris (ridge of the thicket).
In the book - The Age of Arthur, it supports the Frisian claim but I have also heard the gaelic argument. -
Message 8
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Friday, 12th May 2006
Was this was the battle that brought the English areas down to the Tweed under Scots yoke of oppression?
Agree with you that Nechtansmere is a massively underplayed battle.
TonyG: Fascinated by what you were saying about Nechtansmere, I know Strathmore quite well but didn't know that a site had been proposed. I'd be very grateful of any sources or links.
Won't be able to reply for a couple of days though, off to the Cup Final in a mo'. -
Message 9
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 12th May 2006
Green Doc
This is a serious question and not intended as a wind up.
The scots are as is generally known good soldiers and better warriors.
So with that in mind. What would you say were the main reasons why England eventually won?
I am genuinely curious, its something that has bugged me off and on for some years. -
Message 10
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Friday, 12th May 2006
It was James VI of Scotland who effectively united the crowns by becoming James I of England, so there's an argument that England didn't really win.
By the time of Culloden (1746) muskets are becoming more powerful especially with the addition of bayonets. Charge a line of muskets while you have only claymores and pitchforks and your only hope is that they run.
Population size must have a part - currently 50 Million in England and 8 Million in Scotland, give or take a few and probably a similar ratio through history.
Also, the Scottish tribes were infrequently united - the English would use the Lowland clans against those of the Highlands. -
Message 11
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Friday, 12th May 2006
In what way did England eventually win?
Most of Scotland south of the Forth & Clyde was once dominated &, to some degree, settled by Northumbrian Angles, but ended up part of Scotland.
Once the border had settled down, England under Edward I tried to conquer Scotland & failed.
In 1603 the King of Scots inherited the throne of England.
The consensual Union of 1707 didn't involve any fighting. -
Message 12
Posted by gumption78 (U2800277) on Friday, 12th May 2006
If you follow the bloodline back as far as Henry I of England you have the blood of Alfred the Great and even Charlemagne swilling around in the veins of James I of England (VI of Scotland). So, an Anglo-Norman-Frankish triumph rather than English or Scottish!
Oh, and it actually gets even better when you consider James' wife, Anne of Denmark. -
Message 13
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 12th May 2006
QUOTE < TonyG: Fascinated by what you were saying about Nechtansmere, I know Strathmore quite well but didn't know that a site had been proposed. I'd be very grateful of any sources or links.? QUOTE
Mr Pedant,
Check this link.
-
Message 14
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 12th May 2006
As for who won, I'm sure either side could claim victory depending on what criteria you use. However, the kingdoms of Fortiu and later Alba was traditionally based around Strathearn and Angus, and what s now central Scotland was the southern periphery of their influence.
Dunfermline in Fife was a later "capital" as the kingdom expanded. In Scotland, we don't advertise the fact too loud that the Angles actually controlled Lothian and Edinburgh. I think this is the same reasin Nechtansmere is barely ever mentioned. Nationalistic pride.
Edinburgh became the capital as it was nearer the border with the Scots' most powerful neighbour so the king had to be reasonably close to be able to react to any threat, or indeed friendly embassy. The influence of contact with the English and, of course, Queen Margaret, are why English became the dominant language in southern Scotland.
So Scotland could claim to have "won" the territory south of the Forth by the 10th century. However, at various times, the Scots also ruled what is now Cumbria and lost it.
I'm not sure either side "won". -
Message 15
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Saturday, 13th May 2006
I think neither side won, it was intermittant warfare for hundreds of years. The English regard the Scots as good warrior but if you lok at the history of England, they have been pretty tough as well, starting with the Anglo Saxons invading Britain.
I cant see that england eventually won, Culloden after all, involved more Scots on the British side. Scotland avoided the fate of Wales and Ireland by having one King who was too powerful to remove. It was basically stalemate.
With the growth of the English empire, the Scots got left behind with no access to international trade. The only options left open to them were to start their own empire, go with the French or throw their luck in with the English. Being protestant countries, they probably didnt rust the French.
If anything, money was the deciding factor. -
Message 16
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 13th May 2006
"Battle of Athelstanford.
In 832 AD a Pictish army led by King Angus Mac Fergus, King of Alba and another army under Eochaidh, King of Dalriada were fighting an english force in Lothian. The winner would have the control of that area.
The Scots and Picts joined forces to win the day and killed the english king Athelstan. This is a battle that is on a par with the usual hyped battles of Hastings and Stamford Bridge.
This battle ensured that Scotland would be a separate entity from england."
What is the actual original sourse evidence that this was an important battle rather than just a border skirmish like Otterburn?
The most powerful English kingdom at this time was Wessex under Egbert and the Northumbrians had alreay submitted to him at Dore. Northumbria, as far as I am aware, had ceased to be the main power in the North after Nechtansmere and in and the kingdom was to collapse in 86 following there defeat by the vikings at York in 866. The Pictish kingdom was to collapse under viking attack even earlier. I find it hard to believe that Northumbria, I assume Athelstan must be the king of Northumbria, was in a position to seriously threaten the Scottish and Pictish kingdoms. -
Message 17
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 13th May 2006
In what way did England eventually win?
Most of Scotland south of the Forth & Clyde was once dominated &, to some degree, settled by Northumbrian Angles, but ended up part of Scotland.
Once the border had settled down, England under Edward I tried to conquer Scotland & failed.
In 1603 the King of Scots inherited the throne of England.
The consensual Union of 1707 didn't involve any fighting
Darkkitten
it could be said the the Actof Union was an economic take over. Scotland was effectively bankcrupt after Darien and England paid off the debt. Scotland was a much poorer country, letters from New Model Army soldiers after the Cromwellian conquest of Scotaland clearly show that they were shocked at how poor Scotland was.
I would have said that both sides got a good deal out of the Act of Union. Scots were to pay a major part in the development of the British Empire but they would not have been able to do it without English warships and English finance. England already had an empire in 1707 and would have continued to do so but i doubt that it would have been as great without the Scots. -
Message 18
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Saturday, 13th May 2006
Tim,
I'd say Scotland was bailed out rather than taken over, & that the kingdom wasn't quite bankrupt after Darien as taxes were still being raised & spent - this was suspended in protest at the original terms of the Act of Union, which didn't include giving Scotland access to imperial trade.
I don't believe Scotland would ever have been able to develop a significant empire on her own either. -
Message 19
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Saturday, 13th May 2006
Various books. Depends on who wrote the books. I dont think a battle involving the Scots and Picts on the same side, who hated each other could have been a skirmish. But we dont really know. The Scottish sources do regard it as a major battle. The number of people who fought at Hastings was not as large as many other battles.
-
Message 20
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 14th May 2006
"Various books. Depends on who wrote the books. I dont think a battle involving the Scots and Picts on the same side, who hated each other could have been a skirmish. But we dont really know. The Scottish sources do regard it as a major battle. The number of people who fought at Hastings was not as large as many other battles."
"Various books" is a bit vague. The discriptions are to my mind a bit too detailed to be from other than medieveil, rather than early medievil chronicles. As far as I am aware there are no Scottish and no Pictish chronicles from the period and so the battle would have had to be first recorded in either English, Irish or welsh annals; or perhaps even a viking Saga. The Anglo-saxon chronicle does not mention it but then it was not that interested in the North of Britain at that period. Simeon of Durham covers the North but I do not have the pages for that time period to check.
I still fail to see that Northumbria could have serious threatened the Scottish or Pictish kingdoms at that time, it did not even have the strength to stand up to Wessex. the Scots survived the 934 ravaging by Athestan and Brunanburh, I see no reason why they should not have survived a defeat in 832. Now nechansmere could have been different as if the Northumbrians had been intent on destroying the Pictish kingdom then it could have ended up with Northumbria controlling all of North Britain. But then I still think we would have ended up with two main kingdoms in these Isles its just one would have been called Northumbria rather than Scotland and it might have been down to the humber; but then in another alternative history the North British kingdom could have been Pictland.
North Britain in the early medievil period was a bewildering pattern of alliances involving the Picts, Scots, Northumbrians and Britons; I see no great significance in the Scots and Picts being allied.
I agree with you that there have been more bloody battles than Hastings; numbers at Towton 1461 were between 40,000 and 70,000 and at Flodden about 50,000. There are reliable numbers for Brunanburh but given that the coalition army consisted of at least Scots (including Picts?), Britons and Norse Irish it must have been substancial and presumably the English army would have been as large.
David I’s army was described as consisting of “Normans, Germans, English, Northumbrians and Cumbrians, men of Teviotdale and Lothian, Glaswegians and (also) Scots.“ -
Message 21
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Sunday, 14th May 2006
Are the 50 000 figure of Flodden not jsut a bit of over exageration. There wasnt even that number of Scots in the battle. A large number of Scottish soldiers were put into slavery in other countries after.
-
Message 22
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 15th May 2006
The number 50,000 is about 25,000 either side and is fairly reliable. There are some accounts that put the Scottish force much higher but I doubt if they are correct.
As far as I can see the title 'the bloodiest battle' refers to Roslin Glen 1303 but I would question the accuracy of the numbers involved. In an account I read of the Scottish wars of Independence written by a Scot it was not included as a significant battle and none of the books I have at home seem to list it though they do include Stirling, Falkirk and Bannockburn.
I am even more suspect of this Athelstan bridge battle as the kings as this period were
• Dál Riata - Óengus, King of Dalriada (820–834)
• East Anglia1 - Æthelstan, King of East Anglia (826–839)
• England - Egbert of Wessex, Bretwalda (802–839)
•
• Mercia - Wiglaf, King of Mercia (830–840)
• Northumbria1 - Eanred, King of Northumbria (810–841)
• Picts - Óengus (II), King of the Picts (820–834)
• Strathclyde - Arthgal f Dyfnwal, King of Strathclyde (816–872)
• Wales - Merfyn Frych ap Gwriad, King of Gwynedd (825–844)
The only Athelstan was king of East Anglia and would hardly have been invading the North.
There was an Athelstan who did invade and ravage Scotland but he was Grandson of Alfred the Great and king of the English the year was 934 AD and he was not defeated by anyone. -
Message 23
Posted by FunHouse (U2427853) on Monday, 15th May 2006
A very good programme on Â鶹ԼÅÄ 1 last night about Hannibal and the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage described the Battle of Cannae in 216BC as the bloodiest single (battle) day in history when 50,000 Romans were slaughtered.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.