Battle Stack: The Battle of Bannockburn tactics 

It would have been nice to hear about the schiltrons. The Scottish hedgehog formation for their pikes prevented cavalry attacking from any direction, but was unusual in that extensive training allowed it to manoeuvre in any direction, unlike most pike formations which were mainly defensive. This is why the English were surprised to see the Scots advance as they usually sat back and defended, especially against greater numbers. By advancing they trapped the English between the two streams and on boggy ground, where they could not use their greater numbers and knights effectively.

Very nice explanation. Good old Bruce knew his strategy and the result was great. Gotta admire them Scots.

Thanks for a short and informative video on the strategic elements of the battle

Graphics are effective. Keep up the fine work! Thank you!

I must have watched this 100 times

Nicely done. I like these. This is the second one i have seen

Great job, love your other videos. Keep up the great work

The problems with this persistent version of events starts with the position of the Scots forces in the first engagement described. The burn shown here and referred to here as the bannock burn today, is where the Scots had their defensive line. This is a known fact. Remnants of wooden stakes driven into the north bank are confirmed finds. The English cavalry were stopped there, they did not cross that burn, much less cross back over it. The obvious question is, why does the archaeological evidence conflict with contemporary accounts by both sides? The usual answer given when that question is asked is, that the chroniclers made a mistake. Crossings of the Bannock, the main evidence relating to where the cavalry camped, are summarily dismissed as wrong, in relation to the first engagement. At the same time, they are taken as gospel, to locate where the cavalry must have camped. You can't have it both ways, but this is exactly what has been going on and leads to persistent attempts like this, to locate the Scottish line, where there is archaeological proof that it was not at the first engagement. That burn is a natural defensive position that only an incompetent would leave the enemy free to cross unhindered and you would dig your south and pits in front of it, not north and behind it. There was a bog on the west flank and a steep ravine on the east. It was not possible to be flanked there and it is ludicrous to suggest the Scots would ignore the value of that narrow defendable position. The English did not cross that burn. In fact that burn was one of two tributary burns that joined together down on the carse. That is a provable fact. The one referred to in this video, flows down through the great ravine. The other has been altered and diverted by human activity so much over hundreds of years, that it barely exists today. It ran a couple of hundred yards south of the one known as the Bannock today and flowed right through the settlement of Bannockburn on high ground. It also develops into a smaller but still formidable ravine, before dropping down to join up with the other tributary, about a hundred yards out on the carse. Which one was principally known as the Bannock burn in 1314? Hundreds of years before dams, weirs and culverts were constructed, to increase the flow of one, to power mills at the expense of the other. Is it acceptable to just say the chroniclers got it wrong? Or is it more likely that hundreds of years later, the significance of the burns to the locals had changed with the advent of water powered local industry. Is the possibility that that the later significance of the burn that powered prosperity, led to that one being referred to as the Bannock where it was not in 1314? Were the chroniclers right, but we refuse to consider that the burn they referred to as the Bannock in 1314, is not the one we call the Bannock today? I put this to a historian who has much to say on these events. I will not name that person, but the answer I got was this. "Everybody knows that's the Bannock. It's got a sign on it telling you." Indeed it has. Put up around 1973 when they opened the M9 motorway. The less said about that example of academic empirical proof the better and to be fair, what I am proposing is a theory that fits with history accounts, not proof. It follows accounts of crossings of the Bannock to try and locate where the cavalry really camped and were overwhelmed. So where? Here is what I propose. The English cavalry did cross the burn known as the Bannock at that time. The south tributary. They then encountered the pits before meeting the Scots defensive line at the north tributary. There is an aerial photograph showing many circles in that area lodged at the Stirling council archives. It is ignored, because it is on the "wrong" side of the burn the English were supposed to have crossed. Failing to penetrate the Scots line at the north tributary, the English cavalry crossed back over the south tributary and headed east. They then crossed that burn again and camped. Not on the carse. Not on the dryfield site in the woods north of the great ravine. They crossed just before the south tributary starts to develop into a steep ravine and camped on the high natural promontory between the great ravine to the north and the smaller ravine to the south. The smaller being the famed "evil ditch" Edward had to escape over, because the Scots blocked the way to the original crossing point when battle was engaged. Unlike the carse, there is a small mound where English archers could have belatedly formed up. It is on the south side of the smaller ravine and is known today as Ochilmount. The burn itself is now a mere trickle and is known as Peter's well, despite the fact the water does not flow from a well. The area as it was in 1314, was the worst natural trap for cavalry imaginable, forced to fight on foot and cut off from supporting foot and archers down on the carse, until it was too late. Even today, when you look at it, there is no mystery as to why the English cavalry were doomed there and Edward had to break out and flee. There you have it. I have proposed the outrageous. That the battle of Bannockburn, was actually fought in Bannockburn, mere yards from the settlement. The rest was a prolonged rout down on the carse, after the king fled through his own troops to the castle, where he was refused entry. The truth is that the battle was not fought in one place. The cavalry were overwhelmed high up followed by a rout of demoralized fleeing troops down on the carse. The English cavalry did cross the Bannock three times before they camped. The burn they knew as the Bannock in 1314, not the one we call the Bannock today. I cannot prove it and no one will dig there. Only sites north of the north tributary will be considered. A location entirely based, on references to crossing a burn that twice, did not and could not have happened. I would point out that these videos are made in good faith, but the premise they stand on does not hold up.

Great work!

Excellent video about a fascinating period of history.

Very Well done!!!

I grew up in india, in a tea plantation and one of them was called Bannockburn which I used to visit. Very pleased to learn the origins of the name.

ive watched this like 50 times lol i love this guys

Underrated work

good work

It needs to be appointed that Robert the Bruce attempted to avoid any open conflict with the english at any cost. He relied more on guerilla tactics, which were exetremely succesful for a longer period. But something happened that made the battle at Bannockburn unavoidable for Robert.

Just discovered this channel. It's like bazbattles but with aoe2 graphics hehe. It's awesome I'm gonna subscribe.

Great Background Music!

Early realisation that horses were of limited use against pikes, and the importance of archers?

Join the Scottish Revolution Freedom must be won by blood

"At the end of the battle, the English army lost about 3000 soldiers, but The Scots only lost about a 100. This was a victory for the Scottish." Can we truly be shore of that?

learnt loads there

One of the knights in the defeated English army was so humiliated by the retreat; after having escorted Edward to safety, said to the king, "I have never fled from battle, nor will I now". He turned around and suicide charged into the Scots.

Fair play to the bruce.... from Ireland. Smart enough to get a dagger past your guard old man 😎

I thought the Knights Templar were at this battle?

amamzing

I always wondered how the smaller Scot army inflicted such heavy casualties on the English. They got wrecked.

Bruce's victory had in it the seeds of Scotland's downfall: the union of the crowns which quickly favoured England.

Had balls,great story

Had an ancestor get dehorsed on the first day; and wanting to prove he wasn't a chump, charged straight into a pike formation and was promptly re-dehorsed and killed on the second day. Poor guy was only 23, too bad he didn't grow up with a PC and Total War.

ALBA GU BRATH!!

FLODDEN next please. .

None would get home expect those protecting the king and nobles who could pay .. in total including baggage train their might have been 40,000 / 50,000 dead trying to get back to england .. the baggage train would be attacked on the roman road ,, we tend to forget it was not just fighting me who accompany a army on its campaign .. most would die in the fourth trying to escape or in the Bannockburn .. it gets wider the closer you are to the fourth and deep sandy silt banks as it was tidal .. 100s of dead horses and men and woman running scared .. the english brought a poet with them to document the victory that never happened . The welsh archers would taken prisoner and would be killed that night on day two in front of stirling castle .. only the clergy were spared or noble men who would be ransomed to their family's . this was a clear message to the english and their king .. brutal times ...

Damn, Edward the 2nd was certainly not Edward the 1st

The English army was much bigger than that. It was around 20,000. 3,000 cavalry.

This is Crecy for the English if they where the French.

it amazes me that a full-blown attack army, which, could change history with the benefit of hindsight, had numbers of 13,000 men or 20,000 men or whatever, would, in today's world, just be an average footie game's attendance, give or take a few

hello

STOP CHARGING AGAINST PIKE!

So nothing like Braveheart then

Do the Alamo

Then England began to use longbows in masse.

Background music is to loud....

The music makes it hard to concentrate on the narration.

It would be incorrect to say that Scotland was conquered by the English before Bannockburn. Occupied, yes. Conquered, no. Scotland was actually conquered by England politically after the Act of Union in 1707.

nice job Scots. I think you should be independent. greetings from Canada

Was Bruce bothered about being recognised by the English as anything? Seems like by that point their recognition was only something that suited their own aspirations

If the English had a more unified force they might have one.

They wouldn’t have beat Edward’s Fatha.

This was not so much an English defeat as an humiliating disaster. The Scots have been just as tough fighting with the English as against them. Wasn't Robert the Bruce the fellow who saw the spider in the cave succeeding at spinning its web? Or is that just a bit of homespun yarn?

The figures for the losses are completely wrong of course th Scots lost and casualties were closer to 2000, The English losses and casualties between 3000 and 4000. The English lost - but giving out these sort of ludicrous battle losses if just being deliberately deceptive and BattleStack knows it!

Battle never happened...when the English spotted the knights templar lining up with the Scots they fled...the Scots chased and cut them down..

England had more than the scots and still lost😂🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 enjoy the new film guys robert the bruce

Scotland was never conquered.