Wars and Conflicts permalink
The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 6th December 2008
I have long been interested in William Wallace, the Scottish National Hero, and the way that he won at Stirling Bridge and lost at Falkirk.
Unfortunately, I can not find a good account. Can any one try to explain what went so right for Wallace at Stirling Bridge and what went so wrong at Falkirk?
TasLink to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 2
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Sunday, 7th December 2008
Tas
My friend it could more or less be described in one word terrain.
At stirling bridge was it exactly that a long bridge or more or less causway leading over water and marchy terrain,wich meant that the english couldnt deploy propely couldnt use their bowmen and had to attack on a small front.Furthermore could the light scots infantry higlandmen attack by the march besides the bridge while the heavily armoured english would have drown.The scott tactic was probably not by Walace design but the earl of Murray who where mortaly wounded at this battle.A intresting what if is if Murray had survived could Scotlands history been different since Murray had a claim to the throne.
At Falkirk could the english deploy and have their bowmen shot the schiltrons to pieces.
I´m sure you will get a lenghty and learned answer from our Scot friends on this board,but basicly is it a matter of terrain.
Y friend
HasseLink to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 3
Posted by toffee142 (U12031649) on Sunday, 7th December 2008
Hi Tas,
Basically at Stirling, the English had to cross a bridge to engage the Scots. Wallace waited until a number of English had crossed and then attacked. The English army was cut in two. Those on the islet were slaughtered as the bridge was broken, those on the bank paniced and fled.
The English won at Falkirk because of tactics, terraine and no doubt the leadership of Edward I.
A good account of the Scottish Wars of Independance is 'Freedom's Sword' by Peter Traquair.Link to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 4
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 7th December 2008
Hi Hasse, dear friend, Hi Taffee,
Thank you for your analysis. I had expected that it all depended on the Generalship of Wallace. He is called Sir William Wallace. Did he get his knighthood from Edward I? Apparently he killed some Sheriff or some other English person and so was declared an outlaw.
When brought to London and tried for treason, he seems to have said, " I was never a subject of Edward, but of King Balliol, so how could I be a traitor to King Edward?"
His end was very unpleasant! Medieval punishments were very gory.
A very interesting character of history!
TasLink to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 5
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Monday, 8th December 2008
Tas
Wallace was knighted by Robert the Bruce.
When Alexander king of Scots did die diddnt he have any heirs but many put forward a claim to the throne,but no one was strong enough to take it.
So the Scots asked in Edward I as a "referee",he did chose Balliol,but the price was hard.Balliol had to agree to that Edward was his lord paramont.
In other words Baliol ruled by Edwards consent as some form of subking,at least in the eyes of the english.
So in english view was Wallace a traitor against his true overlord the king of England.From Scot view is it naturaly crystal clear since Edward wasnt king of Scots couldnt Wallace be an traitor but a freedom fighter brutally murdered.
So whitout Bannockburn,wouldnt Wallace be the national scotish hero of all times.
My personel view lays with the Scots in this question.
Y friend
HasseLink to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 6
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 8th December 2008
Thanks Hasse for clarifying all these questions for me. Of course you would know a lot because a lot of Scottish history is tied up with Scandinavia; the "Maid of Norway" and all that.
In Shakespeare's 'Macbeth,' it is "Sweno, Norway's King that Craves composition. Nor shall we deign him burial for his men until he disburses at St. Colme's inch, ten thousand dollars to our general use."
Nowadays, in this ecomonmy, yoou could not even buy a new car for $10,000.
How is the weather in your part of Sweden; I guess lots of cold and snow. Here in Georgia, it is general Sunny, although getting to be colder.
Liv Wohl, my dear friend, and take good care of yourself!
TasLink to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 7
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Monday, 8th December 2008
Tas
The maid of Norway was one of the claimants to the throne after Alexander,and the one that could have raised most men to her banner.The Norwegians,Orkneys and Caithness the last two where ruled by norse jarls altough nominaly vassals to the king of Scots.
Since I live in the southern parts of Sweden is it foggy and rainy today so the snow have melted away it will come back probably in the end of the week.Late november and december are the temprature just around zero so its a bit wishy washy.The cold usually came in late december to first half of march.Actually is the perfect winterweather around -5 C with snow it brightens up the landscape and it isnt quite so dangerous to be out driving.
Y friend
Hasse
PS Since you are an old Canadian can you enlight me on the circusperformance that seems to be going on in that parlament.Link to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 8
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 8th December 2008
My dear Hasse,
I now live in America and we Americans are very America-centric. We get no news even from our neighboring country Canada. The Canadians have had an election in the midst of the US election, but no one here knows anything about it.
I only found out about it by accident. It seems Harper was looking for a majority government but instead got a minority although he got a few more seats. Apparently the opposition is saying that he has not done enough, in times of this financial crisis, and are ready to defeat him in Parliament.
I think the Canadian economy has been run pretty well by all the various recent governments, and they should be sitting pretty.
Unfortunately, like with everyone else, their economy is very closely tied with America. I think Mr. Harper may lose the vote of confidence and then probably there will be another election. All this is very difficult to follow from here, Georgia, USA.
TasLink to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 9
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Monday, 8th December 2008
Brother Tas
About Canada I read that PM Harper did close the parlament and went to the governor of Canada(the queens man).Acording to the reports I read that their is around 80% chanse for a new election.
The current situation has been in our newspaper,and I still get the reports on how the world is faring at least the non classified parts.
Actually do I find it amusing that our newspaper probably have more reports from Canada and Latin America than yours,altough not surprised.We visit USA now and then since my wife whent to highschool in the US,and highly educated and intellegent americans has often a rather hazy knowledge of the world outside US,that includes quite a few of the american colueges I´ve met.
Why I asked you is that you are a man of the world and former Canadian with a keen mind.I get the cold facts but I dont know why a usualy well run country political speaking goes bananas when their is a crisis.Probably is it my intelect that isnt up to it since I never had and never will understand the mind of a politico,a womans is crystal clear as a comparision
.
Yours forever friend
HasseLink to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 10
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 9th December 2008
The scot tactic was probably not by Walace design but the earl of Murray who where mortaly wounded at this battle.A intresting what if is if Murray had survived could Scotlands history been different since Murray had a claim to the throne.Â
I've always felt that Moray was unfairly written out of the Scotiish national conciousness in favour of Wallace. And I'm equally convinced that it was his plan and not Wallace's which won at Stirling Bridge.
Murray/Moray wasn't the Earl though, just a common Sir.Link to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 11
Posted by Motherwell4 (U12035030) on Tuesday, 9th December 2008
Hi Tas et al
The army of wallace was mostly of infantry but its make up was both highland under Moray and lowlanders under wallace. The terrain as hasse has said was the main player. The bridge crossed the river, and curved in a loop on the right flank of the English. As hasse suggests they had to deploy in cramped conditions not really suited to their army (the same thing happened under Bruce on the second day of Bannockburn).
At this time the English were commanded by the earl of Surray and a Hugh Cressingham a tax collector for Edward I.
After the bridge ran a causeway through marshy ground and flooded pasture. The earl wanted to wait and appears to have been undermined by Hugh who was grumbling at the expense. In any event they sleapt on it with the earl meaning to attack at first light the next day. He must have liked his duvet cause he oversleapt. It appears that there were conflicting orders and little by little the English knights and men at arms crossed the bridge which was said to be two horses wide. The army split in half presented a welcome treat for the Scots with panache they moved off from the crag where they had formed up and attacked their foe. The welsh footman turned tail seeing the way it was going and swam the river. It is reported that the bridged collapsed. Hugh was killed though the earl is said to have made it safely back.
The Welsh were to get there own back at Falkirk. This time Edward I had come north himself. He had a huge army for the time 2,500 horse and about 12K of foot. On this occasion Wallace fell back . Indeed edward was about to return to England when he was advised that the scots were only 15 miles away. Wallace knew that his power was based on force of arms and had decided to fight. This seems a daft choice. Again the terrain was difficult for the English horse. The Scots flank was wooded. they were up hill and a burn (small river) and marshy ground stopped a frontal charge. Wallace had 4 Schiltrons (phalanx)some horse and some bowmen. These men though were levys and relativly untrained. The English on the other hand were well trained and on this occasion had Welsh bowmen and Gascony crossbowmen. The horse charged over the flanks and while they were ineffectual against the Schiltron they decimated the Scots bowmen. The Scots horse for what they were worth fled. The horsemen were then recalled by Edward and he sent the Bowmen in who decimated the Schiltrons.
The problem which wallace himself recognised was always the Bowmen. He just didn't have the troops to deal with them. His smaller army and the leval of training meant they had to be defensive. With the horse decimating his bowmen he had nothing to fight back with.
As far as killing someone and being oulawed, that is more to do with the poem of blind harry written some 150 years later. It is also legend that wallaces woman was killed and he sought out and gained revenge on the wrongdoers.Link to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 12
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 9th December 2008
Hi Motherwell,
Thank you for a brilliant account of both battles. I have a bit of a romantic approach to William Wallace. You helped me put it all in perspective. Thank you !
TasLink to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 13
Posted by Motherwell4 (U12035030) on Tuesday, 9th December 2008
Tas
No fear mate.
In the end wallace is a romantic figure. He was eventually declared outlaw by the Scottish nobles after the settlement with Edward I some 5 years after the battle of Falkirk.
He was taken to Westminster hall in Londion where he was tried. This was a show trial as being declared an outlaw he was already guilty. It was at this time that he replied having been charged with Treason that he was never a traitor as he had never sworn allegiance.
I suppose with that reply a legend was born. Pity it ended up being Mel Gibson....Link to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 14
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 13th December 2008
Tas
this is account of stirling that i wrote for another site, i will let you decide its merit or otherwise.
Stirling Bridge 11th September 1297AD
“During that year the treacherous Scots started a rebellionâ€
Walter of Guisborough
Priorto the Scottish Wars of Independence there was a period of relative peace and tranquillity between England and Scotland in the 13th century. Trade flourished and for over 50 years there was no war. But it was all to come to a crashing end, literally, when in 1286.Tthe Scottish king Alexander III, who had not long been married to his young second wife was out visiting his estates. As evening draw on he decidedto rush home to see his wife. His courtiers tried to pursuade him to sleep over and wait to the morning, but he refused to and rode off into the gathering gloom. Unfortunately though street lighting was sadly lacking in 13th C Scotland and he rode his horse straight over the side of a cliff which was rather sad for the horse and for Alexander as well. So Scotland had a vacancy for a new monarch but all was not yet lost for Alexander had a direct heir, his grandchild. What was not good was that grandchild was a 4 year old Norwegian princess, Margaret. Nothing sexist but 4 year old girls were not generally considered good material for leading armies and for dealing with turbulent lords, revolting peasants or sanctimonious bishops. Also Edward I, fresh from his conquest of Wales took a strong interest as to whom Margaret would marry but all were satisfied when it was agreed that Margaret would marry Edward’s I young son Edward of Caernarfon who would, on his father’s death rule England and Scotland as separate kingdoms just as James Stuart was later to do. Would this have worked given that Edward II turned out both to be one of the worst of the Plantaganet kings and his eventual wife, Isabella of France, ended up despatching him with a red hot poker? We shall never know for Margaret died on her way back from Norway. As a result Scotland now had no less than 13 different claimants to the throne. The two with the best claims were John Balliol and the grandfather of Robert Bruce, also confusing called Robert the Bruce. Both of these were actually descended from Anglo-Normans rather than from Celtic families. To avoid a civil war the Scottish aristocracy decided to call Edward I in to decide whom should be king. This as it turned out was rather like the hens calling in the local fox to decide who was to winner in an egg laying competition.
Edward decided in favour of Balliol, which Scots later claimed was because of him being the weaker character but in fact lawyers who have re-examined the evidence have concluded that Balliol did have the stronger claim and that Edward had decided correctly. But he demanded homage from Balliol and when, for example, a Scottish lord had a disagreement with Balliol he would often appeal directly to Edward who would overrule Balliol so undermining his authority. Edward then demanded that Balliol provide him with some troops to aid him in his war with France. But it was at that point that Balliol did the opposite and allied himself with France, the start of the Auld alliance against England. Edward immediately reacted and in 1296 invaded Scotland. Berwick, the most important city in Scotland, grown rich on the peaceful trade between the two countries suffered a brutal sacking, far worst than anything than Cromwell was to do in Ireland, and Berwick basically never recovered. Instead of the major city it was it become, what it is still today, a fairly minor port on the border. It was to also to change hands between the English and Scots no less than 13 times over the next 200 years and it is claimed to be still officially at war with Russia. This is supposed to be due to Berwick being listed separately on the declaration of war against Russia in 1854 but not in the peace treaty. I doubt though that President Putin is expecting an imminent attack.
The English army pressed on from Berwick and easily defeated the Scots at Dunbar. Balliol was taken prisoner and exiled off to estates in France where he was in fact to live very comfortably. The Scottish nobility including the Bruces now all fell over themselves to offer homage to Edward and Scotland was, to Edward’s view after his long war in Wales, conquered with contemptuous ease. Therefore when the elder Bruce suggested that Edward should make him king he dismissed the idea. This turned out to be a big mistake as Edward could have made Bruce king under Edward’s terms.
Edward returned to England leaving the rule of Scotland to Cressingham, the taxman, and the earl of Surrey, the military commander. But one person who had not given homage to Edward was William Wallace as he was to lowly and unimportant. What was Wallace like, well most of what is written about him was much later and in the form of Robin hood like legends but we can safely say that he was somewhat larger than Mel Gibson, did not have an Australian accent, did not wear either woad, which had been out of fashion for nearly a 1000 years, nor did he wear a kilt which was not to appear for 400 years, nor did he have an affair with the French Princess Isabella, as she would have been only about 5 years old at the time. What did though was in 1297, with others, start a revolt that soon had Scotland aflame.
Surrey and Cressingham moved to crush the revolt and the two armies met at Stirling Bridge. The battle was nothing like it was portrayed in Braveheart. The Scots were ensconced on a hill out of bowshot range overlooking the Stirling Bridge over the River Forth. Now only two knights could cross at a time and the land around the bridge was boggy making it difficult for the English to deploy. There was a ford where the English could have easily crossed and defeated the Scots as they did the Welsh at Orewin Bridge. If that had happened then there certainly would have been no film ‘Braveheart’ and perhaps Scotland would have been conquered. I have always dismissed Surrey as one of those boneheads who would not listen to advise and who refused to be delayed going down to the ford. However in an account I read recently it was pointed out that Surrey’s military record up to now had been pretty good but that he may not have been well and the person responsible for the decision to cross the bridge may have been Cressingham, if so it was a fatal error. Cressingham was contemptuous of the Scots and did not expect them to attack. And so the English started to cross by the bridge.
In some original accounts the English army is portrayed as crossing the bridge more than once but having to return because one or other English commander was not yet out of bed and ready to cross. Now of course this could have been a sort of try out for an early Monty Python sketch or one of Baldrick’s cunning plans to so reduce the Scottish army to such a state of total hysterics at these stupid English criss crossing over the river that they were unable to defend themselves, but I somehow doubt it. I was brought up on Colonel Alfred Higgen Burne and Inherent Military Probability and that tells me that, even assuming the Scots had not attacked the English when they first crossed the river they would certainly had done so when they tried to cross back. As far as I am concerned the English crossed the bridge once and while they were part of the way across, the Scots charged down and those English on that side of the river were cut to pieces. Cressingham was killed and his skin turned into a sword belt for Wallace. Surrey had only lost part of his force and still had more than enough men to hold Wallace but he panicked and abandoned Scotland and the North of England and did not stop running until he reached York.
In the film Braveheart, Wallace is portrayed as invading England, which he did, and also as capturing York, which he did not. In fact he got nowhere near York and did not capture any significant English towns. Also in the film the battle of Stirling Bridge is portrayed nothing like the actual battle and in particular there is no bridge to be seen. One great loss to the Scots as a result of the battle was the death of Andrew Moray who was actually as significant as Wallace in the Scottish revolt but has been forgotten about to a great extent because of his death.
The Scottish army as with the North Welsh consisted mainly of spearmen, the English army would have consisted of Knights, spearmen and archers. In wargaming terms the English archers are normally designated as ordinary bowmen rather than longbowmen but there is no real evidence that the English adopted the Welsh longbow, as popularly thought, rather it was a slow evolution with the English bow getting more powerful as the English yeomen practiced it more and so could draw a more powerful bow.
I can find no firm evidence for numbers at the battle except to say that the English army was probably considerably larger than the Scottish army but given that most of the English army was stuck on the other side of the river, this was largely academic. I would say that numbers would have been on both sides in the thousands rather than the tens of thousands or hundreds. If you Google on some Scottish websites you will get ridiculously large numbers for the English army.Link to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 15
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 13th December 2008
Thank you Tim, a truly delightful account of the entire battle. Now, do you have something equally authoritative about Falkirk and about how Wallace was captured?
best regards,
TasLink to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 16
Posted by Motherwell4 (U12035030) on Saturday, 20th December 2008
Tas
As far as I am aware despite the defeat at Falkirk Wallace stayed active as a guirella fighter. he was moving between friends and supporters. For 5 years or so things kept going both scotland and england wanted to resolve the issue and essentially the Scots had to accept that they were beat. edward wanted to stop spending money and resources on the Scottish problem. A term therefore was that wallace be handed over. this led tot he Scots declaring the once saviour as a outlaw.
The account of Wallaces capture differs between English and Scottish perspectives. The English have wallace captured whilst in bed. The Scots have him taking them all on in a big rammy as we call it. He was captured in a house in Glasgow.
Then transported to London where he underwent a show trial.
Hope you are swell and enjoying the festive season over the pond.Link to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 17
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 20th December 2008
Hi Motherwell,
So the ending in the Mel Gibson movie is concocted. He shows Robert the Bruce tricking Wallace into a meeting and letting the English capture him. No truth in that I guess.
Thanks for clearing up all these misconceptions, gained from Hollywood movies, and non-historic readings, about British/English/Scottish history.
A very Merry Christmas to you and a happy new year. With all my best wishes,
TasLink to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 18
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 21st December 2008
Oh hollywood! They always change facts to make a nice story!
Link to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 19
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 22nd December 2008
Hi Tas
i will get back to you on falkirk but the battle was nothing like that shown in the film.
best wishes
TimLink to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 20
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 22nd December 2008
E_Nikolaos_E,
Oh hollywood! They always change facts to make a nice story!Â
You noticed that, too, eh?Link to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 21
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 29th December 2008
Ti tas
this is my take on Falkirk that I wrote a while ago.
The following year after Stirling Edward led another invasion of Scotland. The numbers again from Scottish sources are again widely exaggerated. I would suggest that the English army was about 15,000 strong of which 2.500 were cavalry. The army also included a large number of Welsh ‘knifemen’ At first Wallace, who had been declared, in the absence of a Scottish king, Guardian of Scotland, wisely kept out of Edward’s way but then he heard that Edward’s army was short of supplies. This shortage led to the Welsh troops going on a drunken riot and they were attacked by English cavalry and about 80 of them killed. Wallace now decided to close in and attack Edward but this proved to be a grave error. Edward was not Surrey and immediately turned around and brought Wallace to battle at Falkirk.
Once again the battle was nothing like that portrayed in ‘Braveheart’ where amongst other events that never happened a force of Irish troops change sides and Edward’s archers fired on English and Scottish troops alike as they were engaged in hand to hand combat. Wallace was drawn up his army with his spearmen in four great circles, called schiltrons, a sort of early version of the British square. They were interspersed with archers with cavalry in reserve. In front of the army was a stream and marshland with forest at the rear. The Scottish army was probably made up of about 500 cavalry, 500 archers and 6 to 8000 spearmen. In ‘Braveheart’ the Scottish cavalry deserted the battle without striking a blow but in fact Scottish cavalry was always at a disadvantage when fighting the English in that they were not only normally outnumbered but there mounts were generally much smaller. When the English cavalry arrived on the battlefield they did not wait for the rest of the English army but charged around the marsh. They routed the Scottish cavalry and rode down the archers. They were, however, unable to break the Schiltrons.
Edward now brought up his archers who poured fire into the close ranks. The problem for Wallace, which he had failed to appreciate when he challenged Edward to a battle, was that if a Schiltron tried to charge the archers then they would have to break ranks so allowing cavalry to charge in. Instead the Scots stayed in their dense formation presenting easy targets to the archers until gaps appeared in the Schiltrons and English charged in and the Scottish army was destroyed. All this time the Welsh troops had been refusing to join in until it was obvious that the battle was won and then they joined in against the Scots with a vengeance. Wallace managed to escape but his prestige was destroyed. Wallace managed to escape with some of the spearmen into the nearby woodland but the Scottish army was effectively destroyed.
The war continued with generally the English doing better in summer and Scots doing better in the winter when most of the English went home because of the atrocious weather. But in 1303 Edward managed to keep his army in the field all winter and the Scots finally had had enough. It was not that they had warmed to Edward but they had just decided that being ruled by Edward was better than fighting him and so they submitted. Most lords such as, for example, Robert the Bruce only had to submit to Edward, some who had fought particularly hard against Edward had to surrender all their lands to Edward who would them give them back. But three Scots including Wallace, who laid down the guardianship after Falkirk, were only offered unconditional surrender. If Wallace had so surrendered to Edward then, such were the medieval rules, that Edward could not then have executed Wallace. Now it is an act of faith of Scots that Wallace always refused to submit. However, there is evidence that Wallace was prepared to submit to Edward but not unconditionally. Also after Wallace was captured and executed his land was given to one of the Bruces, but later when Bruce became king the records were amended as he did not want it to be shown that his family gained from Wallace’s demise.
regards
TimLink to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 22
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 30th December 2008
Hi Tim,
That was a great account of Falkirk! I really enjoyed reading it.
The use of Shiltorns by Wallace: Were they something Wallace had invented for that battle or had they been used in the past?
They seem to be the perfect answer for defence but do not offer much opportunity for attack, a bit like the defence line of Harold against William I at the Battle of Hastings.
Did the Scotsmen not have shields that they could cover their heads with to protect themselves from the arrows of the Edwards army?
A very interesting account of the Battle as are all accounts of battles from you.
Best regards,
TasLink to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 23
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 18th January 2009
Hi Tas
I do not know the origen of the Scottish Schiltron but they were clearly not used at Dunbar when edward I first invaded scotland.
Robert the Bruce was able to use them successfully in an offensive mode at Bannockburn.
the scottish spearmen, I belive, used the long spear with both hands; if they had shields I think they would have been quite small.
best wishes
TimLink to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
-
Message 24
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) ** on Thursday, 22nd January 2009
Oh hollywood! They always change facts to make a nice story!Â
Yep. More detail below:-
The Battle of Stirling Bridge is depicted in the 1995 film Braveheart. The director, Mel Gibson, however, chose not to depict the bridge at all in an attempt to make it more compelling cinematically. The film depicts the use of schiltrons to defeat cavalry in this battle; this was not a feature of the historical battle, but schiltrons were indeed used at the later Battle of Falkirk(From Wiki)Â
The latest Hollywood perversion of history can be seen in "Valkyrie", Tom Cruise's attempt to turn Claus Von Stauffenberg into a sort of uniformed, heel-clicking, version of Oscar Schindler, outraged by the slaughter of Jews.
Pure invention.Link to this forum: The Battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk
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.