MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Robin the Wallace to Pay the Hood (British History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As the Scots expected that the chief brunt of the war would fall upon Berwick, Douglas, the regent, threw a strong garrison into that place, under the command of Sir William Keith, and he himself assembled a great army on the frontiers, ready to penetrate into England as soon as Edward should have invested that place.

What could go wrong?

The English army was less numerous, but better supplied with arms and provisions, and retained in stricter discipline; and the king, notwithstanding the valiant defence made by Keith, had in two months reduced the garrison to extremities, and had obliged them to capitulate: they engaged to surrender, if they were not relieved within a few days by their countrymen.

A frequent stipulation of medieval sieges. It seemed Edward allowed the messenger out to deliver the message.

This intelligence being conveyed to the Scottish army, which was preparing to invade Northumberland, changed their plan of operations, and engaged them to advance towards Berwick, and attempt the relief of that important fortress.

I thought that was the whole purpose of the plan. But the Scots promptly changed it.

Douglas, who had ever purposed to decline a pitched battle, in which he was sensible of the enemy’s superiority, and who intended to have drawn out the war by small skirmishes, and by mutually ravaging each other’s country, was forced, by the impatience of his troops, to put the fate of the kingdom upon the event of one day.

The rank and file were anxious to die rather than get rich quick invading England.

He attacked the English at Halidown Hill, a little north of Berwick; and though his heavy-armed cavalry dismounted, in order to render the action more steady and desperate, they were received with such valor by Edward, and were so galled by the English archers, that they were soon thrown into disorder and on the fall of Douglas, their general, were totally routed.

How predictable. The follow-up was equally predictable.

The whole army fled in confusion, and the English, but much more the Irish, gave little quarter in the pursuit: all the nobles of chief distinction were either slain or taken prisoners: near thirty thousand of the Scots fell in the action; while the loss of the English amounted only to one knight, one esquire, and thirteen private soldiers; an inequality almost incredible.

He said it, I didn't. It may be incredible but that's what the sources say. The sources modern historians are relying on.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I'll shurrup about Hume's History of England (unless I come across something else) but it illustrates something profound about the study of history. There are three types:

1. When there are too many sources and writing history is a matter of selection.
2. When there are too few sources and writing history is a matter of stretching.
3. When there are no sources and writing history is a matter of inventing sources.

In broad terms this applies respectively to

1. Modern history
2. Medieval history
3. Classical history.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Jump to:  
Page 4 of 4

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group