Why wasn't Scotland Conquered by England? - The First Scottish War of Independence 

Kijken Tom Brady

Hi

Hello. Please is it ok for you to share the tool used for making your maps? 😊 Thanks.

What the hell is that 1296 map ! , it couldn't be more inaccurate .

Why didn't the USA get involved? It does sound like their kind of conflict to profit

And why do many French names involved in the brawl

​@@Kevin-bl6lgThe USA didn't exist then you fool.

@@Kevin-bl6lgNormans, Bruce was a Norman-Gael

​@@Kevin-bl6lgthe U.S. didn't exist then.

They actually conquered a good amount of territory. But they couldn’t hold it due to supply lines and not enough roads for logistics. There was too much guerrilla warfare for the legions to handle so they abandoned Scotland and built a wall to establish a barrier to ward off attacks and warn others of the danger of the picts.

Wall*

Actually a wall not a war 🤓🤓🤓.

There were no scots then. just celtic tribes like the picts and gaels

@@aligedbrick they are predecessors to the Scots. Do not try to be like me.🤓🤓🤓

Thank you so much! Consider sharing :)

@@Knowledgiawill you do a video about the English taking over Ireland

The nation-state is a concept direct from God The Creator and the concept is fully revealed in the Bible from the times of Abraham the patriarch.

Glad it was helpful!

Until they eventually did, unlike the Irish who never gave up until they achieved independence and stayed that way.

​@@ranica47they divided Scotland with religion and turned Scot against Scot 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

​@ranica47 because they're better off. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all spend more than their gdps. Ireland would be thriving now instead of being a tax haven to foreign companies

Is that The Irish that lost how many of their own counties?

@@teddypicker8799 Not so! Government statistics going back to 1900 show that every year Scotland has contributed more to the Treasury than it receives. In the 20 years from 1999 to 2018 Scotland contributed (not counting oil revenues) £895,240,000,000 and received back (Barnett Formula) £511,499,799,000 leaving £383,740,201,000 at Westminster. “Scotland receives no net subsidy from the UK” Centre for Economic and Business Research “Scotland’s GDP per head is bigger than that of France” Financial Times. “Scotland’s Gross National Income is 13th highest in the world.” Centre for Public Policy Research

It depends, in 1603 the Scottish crown took over the English one in a personal union so...still the Scots "won". However I'd take what I said very loosely

@@chekiefloofderg4997The Scots didn’t win though. The power was still in England and by the time Britain was officially created through the acts of the Union the Stuarts were on the way out

@@sebe2255 oh no no, I'm not saying "the Scots won", far from it. England was the actual political centre in the british isles, undoubtedly. Besides, as you said, the Stuart ruled during a very tumultuous period, they never gained enough power not prestige to grant them enough safety thus...they have always been since the beginning on a descending spiral.

Technically England isn't independent from Scotland. It was the Scottish king who took over England and made the union

@@vatsal7640England was always the dominant power. And when the Kingdoms officially merged the Stuarts were already on the way out and about to be replaced by random Germans from Hannover

You know he was French, right?

stop fibbin

LOL

English * The Scots and English are both British. There's no British superiority struggle Infact ironically the English never once ever called ourselves British prior to 1707. Only the Welsh and Scottish did. The romans called Picts a ancestor people of the Scots as British. While the Saxons and Angles were considered German. So If we're technical the Scots are British not the English. But that's not the point. This wasn't a war of britishness. It's a Anglo-Scottish war. The native Celts of Scotland and the Germans of England. I mean technically Scotland is a clan society some Scottish clans are Anglo-Saxon not Celtic but they still celticized so it doesn't matter as they're not English but you get the point. People are under the misconception that Britishness = Englishness. Likely because England is the most influential and commandeered the title quite often. But in modern definition British is everyone in Britain. In 1707 onwards the son rule brittannia was written by a scot, many British Empire colonial scientists, soldiers, governors, and more we're also Scottish. The British English interchange is a common slip of the tongue.

Your the whitest Turk profile photo I have ever seen.

?? scots and english are both british lol

@@Exiyle what goddamn island do you think we live on?

@@noahtylerpritchett2682 was replying to that guy. not sure why foreigners think british means england lol

You can break your neck from falling of a horse... You clearly know fuck all about horseriding....

Fell off and down a cliff bank mate. The site is marked. Also very drunk

Nothings changed, it's the same families living off the peasants north & south of the border keeping the divide as disharmony suits the fuedal system

Excatly both us and England have been shafted for generations by the elite classes operating in London.

Usually the way the ambition and schemes of those in power sending ordinary people to their doom in order to keep them on their thrones. Note how the hatred between England and France began after the Norman conquest funnily enough we aren't told this in our potted school history for some reason

Ongoing, even to this day. Though in more subtle modern ways.

Oh and love how 75% of the comments are sugar coated word *hidden* Nobility must be running YT too.

well french were divided. wales took alot of energy and scotland needed the highlands to fall but the scot spy network was has to tame.

King Edward was amazing and won most of the battles. It was his kids that failed.

England lost the 100 Years war to a French-Scots alliance.

They had perfected longbow tactics by then. But during the Scottish wars of independence, they were still experimenting with it.

The English won far more battles in it's war with Scotland than they lost,, but you only hear about Scotland's two big victories these days

That really pissed me off, england has never been the whole island,

My blood was boiling when i saw that picture- wrong wrong wrong 😡🙏🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

One of your official nations?

Yeah, we officially belong to depekthegreat359. He is Lord Paramount of England

@@Pine_of_England LMAO

They did conquer though. The hills saved Scotland in alot of battles.

Found the American

Hollywood V's Reality

@@MASTERATCOD4 exactly bro. They didn't even have kilts during that period lol

Very Monty Python-esque 🤣

He did "disappear" in the movie though. Remember that scene where he assassinated a bunch of nobles after he was betrayed by his friend? Then afterwards he got captured and tortured in front of everyone.

Robert the Bruce was always the bigger hero.

No the Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707. This was during the “reign” of the last Stuart monarch. But Anne wasn’t a strong monarch, and she simply inherited because William of Orange and Mary II didn’t have kids. After Anne King George I of house of Hannover was asked to become king

@@sebe2255 there was the union crowns which you have forgotten. Which was in the 1600s. Not as strong as the 1700s union though

@@noahtylerpritchett2682 You said the UK though. Which was even later than 1707, that was 1801 when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created. 1707 is Great Britain and 1600 is just the personal union between Scotland and Ireland

@@sebe2255 I ultimately am trying to date when they were affectively one kingdom ruled. 1603, 1707 and 1801 are all good dates

The biggest traitor in our history he is rotting in hell

In Primary School we are taught this story and it goes “ If at first you don’t succeed, try try try again .” 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

You have to realise that they were all Black from Africa !!!

@@davidboon5906 my ancestors were actually gender neutral black trans,you bigot.

@@davidboon5906 back on your meds now david

No William Wallace was brave heart Robert the Bruce was the one who got Scotland it’s freedom yes however it was William Wallace who started the rebellion again in the first place with 0 connections to royalty Nobels or anything else he managed to claim back almost the entire country of Scotland without that Robert the Bruce wouldn’t have stood a chance of fighting for Scotlands freedom

I mean eventually it was and is til this day

And the Scots tried to invade England many many many many times and did so, I think outsiders view it like braveheart that it was a 1 way thing we were both fighting each other for centuries and centuries scotland was the same size as England back then too. England just over time won out in the power struggle

Firstly England never conquered Scotland so I have no Idea what you're talking about. Secondly, stop trying to come up with excuses as to why England got defeated by a kingdom that had far less people, land and resources. And finally, Scotland only invaded England in order to counter English forces terrorising the Scottish borders.@@flyinghigh2724

@@CFC-ur7np You need to look up your history mate . The Scot’s invaded England loads of times before the Scottish wars of independence

@@johnbaird4912The English were the first, though. It’s all online for you to search. Aethelstan, of England, was the first, if my memory serves me correctly.

Islamic freedom..😂😂

@@evinthomas3324 Keep dreaming!

yes I've heard. He's killed men by the thousands. And if he was here, he would shoot balls of fire from his eyes and bolts of lightening from his arse.

​@@theawesomeman9821he was killed by the English. Lost everything so a loser.

@@ABanRocksYet, his legacy still stands today. He’s still an inspiration to those who would see Scotland free.

@YerDa67 free lol. Scottish definitely gets more from UK than they contribute. Scottish also benefits heavily from the British Empire. Scottish wasn't the victims. They benefited from all of it and took advantage of other countries.

@@ABanRocks Ye sound like Longshanks himsalf. He banefatted teu. And ifhe hadnt, then he wull. And so wull yeu. In teim lad. In teim.

Give us the money back, you had of us an you can have the shithole,🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

'Their'

Free Alba!

Peace doesn't gain you land and resources

Ur a historian ?! 😂

​@@MagicButterz bingo. Need resources and men and land to be successful so why question it?

This is actually a good question. Sometimes wars cost more than they gain and it would have been better off for everyone if they hadn't been fought at all. I guess people start wars because they think they can win fast enough to gain more than they lose.

If you were a historian, you would understand that medieval Europe was a culture where peacetime was not a normal status for a society. Wartime was the norm.

That's a tough one Thomas eh.. hahahaha Thig ar latha.

Yes it did with the help of English rebel barons and the King of France and his army.

@@lordjazoijua94 alone

I mean you didn’t

@@Daniel-wy3tc i did today and also last week

the romans lost half the european land mass to muslims lmao

Well England rules all of Hadrian's wall, a few miles north of it

But 1st to rebellion against the English, he had so much determination I think

Have never heard such a load of bitter crap,, during the redcoat era, the British army was predominantly English, with lots of Irish, the Scots percentage never came near to its population percentage,,

I stand by every word of my comment which you have just underlined. Beyond that that, I never engage in a battle of wits with those I consider to be, frankly, unarmed.

@@michaelwakeford2336 you can stand were you like, your still talking nonsense,, if you can name one battle where the English have outnumbered a Scottish army 10 to 1 , I'll apologize, incedentley I can think of one where the Scots outnumbered the English 20 to 1 and the English won, we just don't make your ears bleed going on about it

If you had better literacy you would not misquote me. There again, I was educated at a partly MoD funded public school in England, called Wellington, where I was trained for staff college. I am not a young man, such as you are, so my knowledge is not going to hold a candle to yours but I spent a few years in battledress, so let’s just get that on the table. I grew up in a military family and have several brevets as a Scottish historian.I became one as my elder brother, a guards officer in The Household Division and also former Senior Lecture in history at Cambridge and several other eminent universities, aroused much of my interest in military history. My other brother was at Eton College before becoming an officer both in The Parachute Regiment and subsequently in The Royal Marines. My father, raised in Aberdeen, was an officer in the Royal Air Force air crew for Bomber Command and was knighted for his gallantry in WW2. So, you see, Mr Nash, I would have no comparable knowledge to you, and being in my 70s under a death sentence with cancer, I am really unable to spare you the many decades you would need in order to enrich me with your stupidity. I may know very little about Scotland and England compared to your academic eminence, history wise, but I do live in a 700 year old Scottish castle in the midst of over 1500 acres of quite breathtaking and extremely historic countryside up here. Try not to worry, though, as it genuinely saddens me in that I have little affection for an England that once loved. I have trendies memories of England in the 1950s to the 1990s but saw dark clouds coming and chose to return home. It might surprise you to know that many English people concur and have fled your magnificent dystopian country and are now assimilating up here successfully. Of course, had they your attitude they would probably find themselves taken back to the border and encouraged to rethink how much they want to leave and never return. Scotland is a welcoming nation for decent English people, which I am very proud to see. You might not fit in too easily, though. I am reasonable well known by the Prof Tony Pollard who could verify all this for you. Being that he is the most eminent and the World’s first ever professor of Battlefield Archeology my reference from him should perhaps suggest that I am not entirely unfamiliar with a tiny amount of military history, especially as my elder brother is well known as a former military intelligence officer. Had this not been mentioned with clearance nationally, I would not be able to mention it. Now that I have revealed a little about my background, I have never stated that a battle took place whereby a Scottish army was outnumbered 10-1 by an English army. I also require no apology from you as it will not serve the conversation well. To suggest such a thing, though, is without any basis of fact. As for a reversal of these odds, Halidon Hill comes to mind and is indeed a shameful example of poor leadership in the annals of Scottish military history. Unlike you, Mr Nash, I have never stooped to this absurd approach of treating the histories nor the politics of Scotland and England as if it was an acrimonious football match. My own interest is purely academic and in the last decade I have been successfully researching a very large battlefield that has been removed from academia, mischievously. The fact that an English army was absolutely routed on it is interesting to me from the po,itical point of view but the fact that over 10,000 were slain there does not excite me due to them being English invaders. The only thing that really matters to me is that the site is respected and that the absolute truth is made available to the satisfaction of academics, locals and history enthusiasts. The battle was in 1308 so, fortunately, no one will be mourning anyone. Your wild I’ll-considered statements are self-ridiculing are neither factual nor adroit in their construction. Apart from misquoting me spitefully, making it perfectly obvious that you are a young person and also a keyboard brave, sometimes referred to as a troll, so here are a few incredibly simple things you might consider. Obviously I do not expect you to consider anything from your elders, not that I really care about that as I am enjoying my last days in a magnificent home having had one heck of a life, though nothing that could compare with your own academic gravitas. The 10-1 ratio, if you read it without a preconception to distort it, never mentioned a battlefield, You invented that in order to twist my comment so that you could try and ridicule me. There are (loosely estimated,) approximately 10 times as many people living in England as there are in Scotland . Throughout history this has been roughly the case. Now you can scream as much abuse in the absence of academic facts as you wish but I have it on an impeccable source that over 50% of our armed forces in the UK are drawn from Scotland. To suggest that Scotland does not punch above it’s weight militarily is shamefully misinformed. Few servicemen, if any, that I ever known in England would ever dispute this, but, I know-I you will because your a mouthy young person and a keyboard warrior with a little excess of ego. I was young 50 years ago, I get that, it isn’t a crime. As regards the nonsense on red tunics, The New Model Army ( Note: Not The British Army, that did not exist in 1644, of course,) started the tradition after Sir Thomas Fairfax raised the funds to dress his troops from a gentleman in Rotterdam, named Manasseh Ben Israel, a Jewish war financier with his own consortium. There were several reasons that his money purchased a huge consignment of red fabric but the main reason was actually the price. Beyond the Zulu Wars in the 1880s the red tunics were phased out. In fact they were kept to this day, particularly for most of The Household Division when on Public Duties. Something I do know a teeny-weeny bit about. ‘so know we at least have this epoch of red tunics established, datewise. Battledress beyond the Zulu Wars was pretty much entirely khaki, a cloth that was first made for The War Office by a company called Fox in Somerset. I knew the factory quite well. So let’s just look at another absurd and infantile response that shows you up for precisely that which you are, 18th April, 1746, at Culloden Muir. A British army, known correctly as, The Prince’s Army, on the basis that they were lead by Prince William Augustus of Hanover, rightly remembered by English people of slightly more moral fibre than yourself and by Scots alike as, Butcher Cumberland, were entirely attired in red tunics. That army, was largely composed of Lowland Scots. Even more bizarrely, the opposition, known incorrectly as The Highland Army, was also largely made of Lowland Scots. Yes, there were were foreign units and even English soldiers on both sides but the fight is a dynastic struggle between two families and two largely Lowland armies. Even at Trafalgar on the 21st October 1805 there were proportionately more Scots, (Per capita,) present in Nelson’s fleet than there English. This can easily be verified as every single member of all the ship’s companies is mustered and available by application to The National Maritime Museum at Greenwich, London. I sincerely suggest you do some research beyond which I’d love to help you out but I just don’t have the time left in my life. You seem interested in the subject so throw the silly attitude away and engage with the subject like an adult and you might enjoy the upgrade. Have a nice life, I did. Goodbye! @@waynenash6008

@@michaelwakeford2336 I have to thank you for thinking I'm a young man,, I'm 56, and my education ended when I was 14, so I ever had your advantages in the education department, as for service, i served with the rgj, my father was a para, grandfather Berkshire reg, great grandfather was killed in a German in a German trench in 1917, the year after he received the mm, for bringing back a wounded Ruppert, also during a trench raid, he was a royal Warwick,, my point is both countries have proud military traditions and most families also,

Scotland is a nation of islands, not just the territory found on the island of GB.

The UK is an illegitimate state and has no right to exist.

and it's incredibly stupid that there are separatist elements in all the countries of the British Isles seeking independence when the whole world recognises the UK as a power house but with Independence all the others except England wouldn't be any good in the power rankings and look down upon all the great achievements of the Empire, all empires have sinned and every successful empire had to crush others in order to succeed that was the way the world worked but modern morals questioning history is stupid and should accept history as it is and be proud of it.

Thank you!

Your king (I almost said you but Jake you haven't done shit your a individual not a collective) your Stuart kings of Scotland literally unified England and Scotland in the 1600s.

aye they did but the Stuart’s aren’t the ruling family anymore, the king of my country is English not Scottish and the prime minister of my country is English not Scottish. We are a country that want different things from England and its time we become our own country once again

@@jakesmith5344 our king last I know is German.

@@jakesmith5344 The prime minister isn't even English, what are you on about? Also, Charles is more German and Scottish (his grandmother, The Queen Mother, was Scottish), than English.

@@morganwheeleryear1123 Precisely free England from Germany.Also that Scottish royal blood ws drowned by foreign royal blood.

Because they didn't consider it advantageous enough to make a difference. It's not just about ethnic closeness or common enemy.

@@joshygoldiem_j2799 would've distracted the English and overstretched the forces

Ireland wasn't a recognised kingdom during the Scottish wars of independence. Interestingly, after Bannockburn, Scotland & England waged a kind of proxy war in Ireland. Both sides had significant support from different Irish clans. In any case, England eventually won And king Robert thus lost, I believe all of his brothers campaigning against England. His last last brother died trying to seize the throne of Ireland - or died trying to remove the English from Ireland. (Depending on your perspective) But as said in the video, the Scottish-French alliance probably secured Scottish independence in the subsequent centuries.

Some Scots considered it but were not sure about the Irish Kingdoms loyalties, some were pro-english and others were anglo-irish normans

Oh and btw, they *did* reach out to France which was much more powerful than any of the above.

I read a review a few years ago that Star Wars was more historically accurate than Braveheart...

Watch outlaw king. It's much better

Your the boss of nothing though

You can’t even manage your own country ever mind the might of Scotland. Your country is in an absolute state, over run by the Empire’s People 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣, bet you wish you voted to stay 🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺

....

Never 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇪🇺

They were Scots prior to Norway annexing them. The time since their return is now as long as Norwegian rule.

There was settlements all over ireland, the vikings built ports but there was settlements there before they came. But to this day, the only cities in ireland is where they made ports. Dublin, belfast, derry, galway, limerick, Cork, waterford all due to vikings but then they got their ass beat outta there in the future years

@@brianoholain2035 Dublin was Norwegian for hundreds of years. The most famous battle in Ireland was Norwegians against Ireland. The most famous church in Ireland is located in Dublin built by Norwegians. The most famous person in Ireland is a Norwegian who is buried in the cathedral in Dublin. They did the DNA of Irish men and women, it turns out that most people who live in Ireland also have genes from the west coast of Norway. Being Irish means that Norwegians were never kicked out but became part of the Irish population.

Well the English did take his life and cut him into little bit. Then showed his body parts all over England.

@@ABanRocksthen lost later wars to the people William Wallace gave the opportunity to rise eventually gaining its own independence how ironic you stopped half way through the story and forgot about the later half were he got what he fought for lol

England made numerous attempts to subjugate scotland over the years and all of them failed. It wasn't through a lack of trying - they were just never able to pull it off.

The parliaments didn't unite peacfully. There were riots throughout Scotland, and the members who voted for union were bribed by the English parliament. "bought and sold for English gold" as the Bard put it.

sad fact is most scottish people dont know much of the history.. tho i supose it doesnt make much differacnce to modern life lol

Thats not Scotland and England. That's one Norman overlord, helping another Norman overlord.

Because kicking England out of Scotland is one thing. To march an army to London is another.