Talk:Battle of Flodden

message: While there is logic to this statement I fail to see why an unsourced opinion makes it into the article, simply stating that Scotland could not support an army of 30,000+ may have some validity but the fact of the matter is that, theoretically, it could have and there is no evidence to suggest it did not. Until a verified and respected historical source can be found I think this should be removed.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.89.234 (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 20,000 estimate

message: The Scottish reserve section mentions the Duke of Argyll, who was he? Archibald Campbell, 2nd Earl of Argyll, was present and died on the field. The Campbells were not made Dukes until the 18th century.
---------
The text suggests that Flodden "was a major milestone on the way to unifying the kingdoms of England and Scotland in 1707."
That statement seems counter-intuitive. One could just as glibly and irrelevantly claim that Flodden formed a fundamental plank in the revival of Scottish Nationalism in the late 20th century.
Pedant17 20:55, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
-----
The text briefly mentions that the Scots agreed to attack the English for the French. In fact, there existed a formal treaty between Scotland and France, since 1295, namely the Auld Alliance. dduck
-----
so "the Scottish reserve led by .... Archibald Campbell, 4th Earl of Argyll (c.1507-1558), who was to pay for this inaction with his head many years later, watched impassively as King James and his army was destroyed".  ??!!!
This seems rather harsh, given that Archibald Campbell (c.1507-1558) was only six at the time of the battle.
* The text claims that the Scottish army "dwindled" away, to only HALF its size! Due to what? Desertion? An attack of plague? Poor morale? Lack of confidence in the leadership, or in the "Auld Alliance"? There must be SOME story to an army losing half of its men. 129.24.95.222 15:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say due to a combination of all those factors. Keep in mind, the Scottish army that invaded England was essentially a Feudal force. Such armies were notoriously difficult to keep together for any sustained campaign.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

message: I've removed this section because-as previously indicated-the information given is wrong and misleading.  Argyll was killed in the course of the battle.  The first Campbell chief to be beheaded was the eigth earl in 1661.  The execution of Hume had absolutely nothing to do with his own part in the battle.
Rcpaterson 00:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argyll and Hume. 

message: In the battle chart there is a line "Also called the Battle of Branxton (Image created by Richard Hayton)".  There is no link to an image however.
--Dogfish 04:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it refers to the image directly above.  (Not a very well-written caption, in my opinion.) Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting... I get a link to another article directly above. --Dogfish 07:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Image..? 

message: I've expanded this article to give a much fuller account of one of the most important battles in Scottish history, and the largest ever fought on the borders.  It deserves a more detailed telling.  There are several points where I take issue with the previous version.  These are
NUMBERS.  The Scottish army was nowhere near '60000' strong, a number quite beyond the capacity of the Scottish state of the time to equip.  The number is difficult to determine with precision; but the best figure I can come up with is about 30000, making the two forces roughly equal in strength.  The English dead are calculated to be around 1500, not upwards to 4000.
MANOEUVRES.  I've given much more space to Surrey's manoeuvres because these are of crucial significance in understanding the brilliance-and completness-of his victory.
SCOTS ARTILLERY. Yes, the Scots artillerymen were poorly trained, but the real point is that the guns were too heavy and could not be deployed at a sufficiently sharp angle to fire into the English in the dead ground below Branxton.  In essence they fired over the heads of the enemy.
PIKEMEN.  Actually Scottish tactics had changed considerably since Bannockburn.  Although the divisions at Flodden gave the apperance of the traditional schiltron, they were organised, as I explained, in the contemporary landsknecht formations, which had a fearsome reputation on the Continent.  They were ,moreover, not armed with schiltron spears but European pikes, still in use well over a hundred years later.  The problem was that the Scots had probably not fully mastered the landsknecht technique, and the hilly country did not favour half-trained pikemen.
Rcpaterson 10:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Bloody Day. 

message: I think that this'll be removed. Brendandh 01:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And why, exactly?  The battle was part of the broader conflict, even if it was off to the side a bit. Kirill Lokshin 01:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmmm. Category:Italian wars?

message: Is there any evidence that this happened on any significant scale? Surely the point is that as a pike formation becomes disrupted, it becomes possible to close to shorter range; and at much less than 18 feet (and certainly at less than nine feet, where you essentially end up with a rather cumbersome staff), a pike becomes nearly useless. That was why they carried swords to use at close range as a backup weapon; it wouldn't have been necessary to lop the heads off the pikes. I'm also a bit dubious how easy that would have been in practice, with both the billman and the pikeman moving. If it had been easy to lop the head off a pike, they would have been much less formidable weapons. See, for example, the article on Zweihänder. Contemporary authorities found it implausible that you could cut the head off a pike with either a halberd or a two handed sword, which would have had as much (if not more) cutting power than a billhook. --Merlinme (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "lopping the heads off the pikes" 

message: "Flodden was essentially a victory of bill over pike." I'm always critical of such phrases. The battle was essentially a Scottish blunder rushing poorly trained recruits into battle with weapons that needed rigid training to be effective. With the same reasoning the Macedonian wars are cited for the superiority of Legions over Phalanxes although in all battles less than 50% of the troops were from Rome/Macedon fighting in their respective styles. Whenever one side does not employ the strengths of its weaponry it usually became the losing side.
Similarily there's mentioning of the effective use of longbows while it is mentioned they were pretty useless due to the weather earlier...
Sounds more like nostalgic dwelling than worthy facts. 84.154.28.225 (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also though the english side were useing something closer to Halberds rather than bills.©Geni 03:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essentially a victory.. 

message: Well, on this point, the English could have, if their resources were not committed at the battle of the Spurs, marched on to Edinburgh and Stirling and captured Margaret Tudor and James V at Linlithgow.Unoquha (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed they could. Scotland licked her wounds, but England certainly did not decisively follow up. Brendandh (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here we are left to believe that chivalry played its part, on both sides. Unoquha (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! Brendandh (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is irrelevant for discussing whether or not it was decisive. The definition on this Wiki is "The term decisive victory refers to a military victory in battle that definitively resolves the objective being fought over, ending one stage of the conflict and beginning another stage." The Objective in this case was not and *never was* the conquest of Scotland. The English were focusing on France, and their interests on the North Front amounted to repelling the Scottish invasion of their home territory to safeguard their campaign in France. Since this battle basically destroyed Scotland's ability to be a threat for decades and killed off huge swaths of its' leadership, it accomplished that. Which fitted the English goal of *neutralizing* Scotland as an ally of France and threat to Northern England perfectly. 75.36.165.139 (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the above user. England's goal here was not to conquer Scotland, or even to follow-up on the victory, but to defend its northern frontier and neutralise Scotland as a threat. Since the battle crippled Scotland for decades, allowing the English to concentrate fully on the French, it accomplished that goal decisively. Scotland's invasion was pretty half-hearted from the start, and only committed its forces to fulfil its commitments to France. Its intention was definitely to draw English troops away from the French. The battle most definitely fits the definition of a decisive victory, in that it definitively resolved the objective being fought over. I don't see why this is even being debated. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

text:  How is there any debate on this? The Scottish Army was comprehensively beaten, the flower of Scottish nobility lay dead on the field and the north of England had been successfully defended. Henry VIII had very specifically planned for this. It is a DECISIVE VICTORY in every sense of the term. Scotland had been removed as a threat. It's almost as if some people think this was the other way 'round with England invading Scotland and then not following up on the victory???   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.121.213 (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Not decisive victory

message: Could someone add in that Catherine o Aragon, at that time Queen Regent, rallied the English troops with a speach, and rode North with some of them(even while pregnant at the time) Im not sure were this could be added  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.79.248 (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Added ref to a letter mentioning reciept of coat, Brian Tuke to Richard Pace Wolsey's secretary CSP Milan, vol. 1, 408. In another letter to Pace, pp406-7, Tuke narrates a virulent anti-Scottish Flodden newsletter he sent to the 'schismatic king.' Unoquha (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CatherineCoul  

message: This article uses text from My Wound is Deep to which Wikipedia is not legally entitled, lacking proper licensing by the publisher. The bulk of text was added in this edit and this edit. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Rcpaterson for more information. Examples of some of the problematic text include ; ; ; ; ; ;  (p. 145); ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . I am heartily sorry to note that it seems the article will need to be rewritten to remove the text by this contributor, since he has verified that the publisher did not license its use. I am blanking the article accordingly and listing it at the copyright problems board. I hope that the contributors to this article will be able to help salvage it. Alternatively, it is possible to restore to a point before the introduction of this text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem

message: I'm not sure why this insistance on the longbow, but aside from all the mist eyed english nationalist historiography about the longbow, what period sources tell us is that the english army's archery did nearly nothing: the scots reached the lines and their armour was hardly affected at all. The bit about it being the last battle with effective use of the longbow is unsourced anyway. 216.252.76.72 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Had a look at Hall (1809), p.562 & p.564. He does have a sentence, which seems designed to praise the Scots personal armour (as an English chronicler would naturally be inclined to do) which says the Scots suffered under archery, but were unaffected, "except it hit them in some bare place." Hall has to backpeddle here, anticipating the forthcoming description of the body of James IV, with "diverse deadly wounds and in especial one with an arrow." Nevertheless, though it is clear there was a hail of English arrows at Flodden, I think you are quite right to challenge the article's statement about the importance of archery at Flodden & Pinkie (where William Patten (1548) illustrated the archer's positions) as unsourced.Unoquha (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longbow 

message: Any chance of limiting references for the Scottish casualty names to just one good source for each, and removing the page numbers from the display page? I would gladly do this myself, except I cannot understand the present system, or use it. I would say the record publications, ER, TA, RMS, RSS, though primary sources, should here be preferred over miscellaneous genealogical collections.Unoquha (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, for example presently there are two Cuthbert Homes of Fast Castle, when there was only one who died at FF. I think this section may need a clean up, especially considering the impending anniversary! Brendandh (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Flodden roll, references, over-referenced

message: Hi boys and girls, as you'll mostly all be aware, it is the 500th anniversary of the Battle of Flodden Field next month, the battle that marked the end of the medieval period for Scotland. Can I appeal to any other editors to help get this article up to Good article status. There is particularly a problem with the casualty list, which is over referenced, and duplicates certain characters. It would be nice to push for this, if in a small way, to commomerate those that fell in this fatal battle. Look forward to working on this. Brendandh (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of drive required here before next month 

message: In the Notable men who died section there appear to be multiple Earls of Rothes slain: two entries for William Leslie, 3rd Earl of Rothes, which can probably be combined, and one for George Leslie, 2nd Earl of Rothes. According to the latter's own wiki article he "died unmarried before March 1513, and was succeeded as Earl by his brother, William". Even if this is incorrect and they did both die at Flodden, unless the 2nd Earl died first and the 3rd Earl very briefly succeeded him before also perishing, some aspect needs correction here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Earls of Rothes 

message: I've done heavy pruning of the casualty list, but more is needed. I'm inclined to say only individuals in the following categories should even be considered for inclusion:
#Senior commanders
#Holders of state offices
#Senior nobles
The English should also be mentioned - if only in passing - were there any significant deaths on their side? The list of English knights also should go.
More seriously I've removed all referencing. When the final listing is established the referencing should be put back in, properly formatted...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this is way too much detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty lists 

message: This is why I abhor military history articles on Wikipedia. The nucleus of an English Army under the Earl of Surrey had been tasked with DEFENDING the North of England and rose to that challenge by swelling in size and marching to Flodden. After the defeat of James IV that task had been decisively accomplished and not only that it COMPLETELY removed the Scots as a threat for decades with most of their leading men dead including their KING for goodness sake!!!
Until I get a satisfactory explanation as to why this battle cannot be described as decisive, I will keep changing it. Or better yet provide a certified non-biased citation and reference.
So without providing a reference the article has been locked. I feel there is an agenda here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killercucumber (talk • contribs) 11:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You will need to obtain consensus for your proposed change. High quality sources would certainly help.  --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the problem here is the word decisive was removed without consensus. For some reason that got missed and then page patrollers thought the without-decisive version was the stable version and acted to protect it. Sources calling this victory decisive are legion:  and  are just a couple of examples of the sources a quick Google search throws up.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the above; can this not be remedied? Killercucumber (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Lodge simply uses the term "decisive" as an adjective, without any analysis of what made the battle decisive. As such, it's pretty much a literary device, no different from labelling the victory accidental, great, memorable, unexpected or extraordinary. Why should we choose "decisive" above any of these? The Scotsman, if it had actually called the victory decisive (it doesn't), demonstrates the difficulties surrounding the sourcing of "decisive". It's a newspaper, not a reliable source for military history generally, let alone this battle specifically. I imagine there are plenty more sources like it. The case for prefixing the result with "decisive" would be significantly stronger if it was supported by reliable, scholarly secondary sources that directly address this issue. Factotem (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that those sources exist, and are worth seeking out - to improve the body text of the article. I know the Flodden campaign is extensively covered in literature.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: DECISIVE VICTORY