Talk:First War of Scottish Independence

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

message: Once again I have to take issue with the 'Wallace the Martyr' thesis.  I've edited out this section because the sentiments do not accord with the facts, and because it sits ill with what is a reasonably objective account of the first War of Independence.  The cult of 'Wallace the Martyr' emerged-as these cults so often do-generations after the death of the man.  It really only dates back to Blind Harry's late fifteenth century epic fantasy, which reveals much more about the politics and attitudes of his time than those of Wallace.  There is not a scrap of evidence that the death of Wallace in 1305-horrible as it was-created additional problems for Edward, or that it had any real or lasting impact on Scotland.   Sir John de Mentieth, the man who handed Wallace over to the English, far from being a pariah, was to become one of Robert Bruce's leading men.  I have no wish to minimize Wallaces' achievments in 1297, but for some years before his death he was a figure of very little importance in the politics of Scotland.  All history should proceed with care, and on the basis of fact and evidence, rather than draped in emotion, or viewed through the awful prism of films like Braveheart.
Rcpaterson 08:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wallace the Martyr? 

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

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

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

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

message: This article downplays Moray's role considerably so I've added some text to redress the balance and show him for what he was, joint-commander of the Scots at Stirling Bridge. Jaygtee (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check out Dr Barron's 'Scottish Wars of Independence' and GWS Barrow's 'Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm' (The real authorities on this period - and some of the only literature based on primary material) . Andrew de Morays role was intitially greater than Wallaces!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.22.81.15 (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Andrew Moray

message: This article could benefit greatly from the addition of some images of the war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.82.109 (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They didn't have cameras in the early 14th century.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nor did they in the late 13th.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.22.81.15 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: What the original author of this article calls the "First War of Scottish Independence" was actually two wars, one that ended in 1304 with the surrender of John Comyn, Lord of Badenoch, and at the time sole Guardian of Scotland.  It should really be split into two separate articles since there were really two entirely different wars.
The actual "Second War of Scottish Independence" didn't BEGIN until 1306, roughly a year-and-a-half later, when Robert the Bruce began his struggle for the crown, starting with killing the above-mentioned Comyn in a knife fight in a church, and it did not end until 1328.  The battles and exploits that made Thomas Randolph, Edward Bruce, James "the Black" Douglas, and Robert himself famous across Europe, the Near East, and North Africa.  The Battle of Bannockburn, the Declaration of Arbroath, and the treaty in 1328 have all been left out.
What Wikipedia names the Second War of Scottish Independence would truthfully be the "Third", if it were to be included under the heading "War of Scottish Independence".  Wikipedia is the one and only place where have seen Edward Balliol's occupation of Scotland so named. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs serious work

message: I find the name a big problem. "War of Independence" usually means that the nation in question was occupied and struggling to gain its independence. See America, India, etc. If the nation is independent at the start of the war, and still independent at the end of the war, then...it's just a war! Otherwise you can call World War II the "War of British Independence", or "War of French Independence", or even "Second War of American Independence". Do we have references indicating that this is the most common name of the conflict? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See where you're coming from, but I think the English armies did occupy Scotland as an invading force. There's not a whole lot about the background to the war in the article. I suppose if the country is occupied by a succession of foreign armies you could call it a war of Independence against a foreign ruler. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  References indicating this is the most common name of the conflict: 'Scottish Wars of Independence' Evan Barron, all the work by GWS Barrow. It has also been known as the Scottish Civil War due to the Balliol/Comyn - Bruce bickering of this period (See work of Michael Penman). Regardless, there are probably bigger things to worry about regarding this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.22.81.15 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Name 

message: Substituted at 15:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on First War of Scottish Independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004063959/http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/higherscottishhistory/warsofindependence/index.asp to http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/higherscottishhistory/warsofindependence/index.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Only historical flags and heraldry should be displayed in the infobox. Readers of this article will expect that each device is not only historical, but will also assume that each displayed device was actually borne by someone in the war. If we use a device without knowing its provenance—when it is first recorded; where it is first recorded; who is recorded to have borne it—we're only fooling ourselves and we're potentially misinforming readers.
It's not too difficult to determine the heraldry borne by fourteenth-century English and Scottish magnates. There are heaps of books available that list blazons from medieval armorials and describe seals attached to medieval charters. It's not so easy to come up examples of medieval Irish heraldry. Clan books and websites may associate coats of arms with Irish surnames, but that doesn't mean that these devices were borne in this war or that they even date to the Middle Ages.
It's because of this uncertainty that I've removed the Irish devices from the infobox. A couple days ago, User:HistoricallyAccurate reinserted the devices stating: "I have double checked the pages of each respective kingdom and the flags are not anachronistic.". I'm not sure how much double-checking was actually done, because none of the pages linked-to in that edit contain any information about the devices. Absolutely none.
I'm again removing the contested coats of arms and flags. I'm asking HistoricallyAccurate to please provide quotations from reliable sources that clearly show that these devices were borne by people who fought in the war. I'm asking HistoricallyAccurate to please not reinsert these devices into the article until they are verified as actually 'historically accurate' for this article.
--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical accurate heraldry 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Under 'From Falkirk to execution', the article asserts, 'Scotland lay defenseless,' which, for the benefit of Americans who wouldn't know, is not British spelling. Was the article written by Americans? Because that would explain a lot, including the obviously American and culturally imperialistic term 'War of Scottish Independence' by analogy with the American revolutionary war. None of the various bouts of aggressive unpleasantness in Great Britain has ever been known by any such name. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Scotland lay defenseless' 

message: This article tells of how Edward I "insisted that all of the contenders recognise him as lord paramount."  But, there is no explanation of what "lord paramount" means, why Edward insisted and why it is import for the history given in this article.  The phrase is a link to Edward's personal page (via "Lord Paramount of Scotland", as it was ostensibly one of his titles), which also neglects to discuss or define the term. I did, however, find that Wikipedia has a page dedicated to the term "lord paramount" itself. It makes more sense to me to link the phrase to that page, especially considering that Edward's personal page is already linked to through this article's first mention of his name. I believe it would be most helpful to keep the link as I have altered it and, on the term's article, refer to Edward I as an example. Though I have a degree in Medieval Studies and would be glad to do this myself, I am not well versed enough in such specifics of English noble terminology that I feel I could do so correctly.Jyg (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord paramount?  

message: What do we traditionally call this war? Without the annoying Americanisation? 70.50.213.21 (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes me wonder what we call Americanisation without the annoying Anglicization Jyg (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real name? 

message: On the William Wallace page one can read the following: "They went on to conclude a treaty of mutual assistance with France—known in later years as the Auld Alliance. In retaliation for Scotland's treaty with France, Edward I invaded, storming Berwick-upon-Tweed and commencing the Wars of Scottish Independence."
Nothing about this seems to appear on the page on the First War of Scottish Independence, yet (if true) it clearly has important implications for Edward's motivation. Theeurocrat (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies