The Bruce
his friends “held him in small account because he was a bastard,”
and because his succession to the estates was disputed (_Acts Parl.
Scot._, i., p. 194; _The Wallace and Bruce_, pp. 154-5). Mr. Brown’s
contention, therefore, is that the statement in the text could not
have been penned by Barbour in 1375, and that it is not due to him,
but to his redactor. The reasoning is not all conclusive; against the
plain statement of Barbour there is only an assumption on Fraser’s
part, and inferences on the part of Mr. Brown which are not necessarily
contained in his premisses. Archibald was, no doubt, only a child when
his father was killed; but he became Lord of Galloway in 1369, and Earl
of Wigtown in 1372. What was there to prevent his erecting a tomb for
his distinguished father, except a delicacy of feeling on the side of
the “legitimates,” which is rather modern than late mediæval? Archibald
bought his earldom, built and endowed a hospital near Dumfries, erected
Thrieve Castle, and had extensive lands in various parts of Scotland,
so that he must have been a man of considerable wealth, besides being,
as Warden, the most important figure on the Border. Who or what was
then to prevent him honouring the congenial memory of his great father
before 1375-6?
600 _Melros._ _Cf._ note on 191-2.
604 _And held the pure weill to warrand._ _I.e._, “And carefully
guarded or looked after the interests of the poor.”
609 _poysonyt was he._ Moray died at Musselburgh, July 20, 1332. Fordun
says nothing of poisoning (_Gesta Annalia_, cxlvi.). But there appears
to have been a popular story to this effect, to which, later, was added
the detail that his poisoner was an English monk (_Scotichr._, ii.,
lib. xiii., ch. xix.). Moray died of the stone from which he suffered
towards the close of his life; the rest Hailes considered “a silly
popular tale” (_Annals_, vol. iii., App. 2).
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
THE SITE OF THE BATTLE OF BANNOCKBURN
It will be noticed that the conception of this battle, alike as to
position and tactics, elaborated in the notes in strict conformity
with Barbour, differs entirely from that now universally accepted. The
engagements of the first day (Sunday) were the outcome of attempts
to clear the two paths of approach to Stirling--that through the New
Park, and the other on the level below St. Ninians. Both failed,
and the means by which their failure was brought about determined
the operations of the following day (Monday). This main engagement,
however, it has been hitherto held, took place on the banks of the
Burn, below or in the neighbourhood of Brock’s Brae, with the Burn
separating the forces. This is pure misconception. There can be no
doubt that the battle was fought on a position roughly at right angles
to this--on “the playne,” “the hard feld,” or level ground east of
St. Ninians, reaching back into the angle formed by the Forth and the
Bannock. The main data for such a conclusion are these: (1) The English
passed the night on the Carse, having crossed the Bannock; (2) the
Scots _attacked_ early next morning, and to do this “tuk the playne,”
leaving their camp-followers in the Park, so that they astonished the
English by their audacity; (3) in the rout many English were drowned
in the Forth and in the Bannock; (4) Edward II., unable to get away,
fled to the castle; (5) so did many of his men, as the castle “_wes
ner_.” These facts, fully substantiated from both sides, are wholly
inconsistent with a site of battle south of St. Ninians, and fix its
position between the Forth and the Bannock. Barbour’s “pools” are the
“polles” in which, according to Hemingburgh,[57] the English baggage was
bogged and captured after the battle of Stirling Bridge. The English
and French (and Irish) chroniclers invariably speak of the battle as
that of “Stirling,” and Trokelowe calls it the Battle of _Bannockmoor_.
For a full discussion of the matter, see my paper on “The Real
Bannockburn” in _Proceedings of the Glasgow Archæological Society_,
1908-1909.
[57] Vol. ii., p. 140.
APPENDIX B
BRUCE’S SPEECH AT BANNOCKBURN
BOOK XII. 210-327
It is the privilege of early historians to equip their leading
personages with speeches, and in its pertinent, practical character
the speech here provided for King Robert is a good example of such--so
good, indeed, as to suggest the probability that Barbour is working up
some transmitted material. There is on record another speech attributed
to Bruce, which formed part of a Latin poem on Bannockburn by Abbot
Bernard of Arbroath, Bruce’s Chancellor, portions of which are quoted
in the _Scotichronicon_.[58] This speech consists of twenty-five
hexameter lines, and is a rhetorical flourish on Scottish liberty,
the miseries inflicted by the English on the country, and the hapless
condition of “mother Church,” closing in strains of ecclesiastical
exhortation. Moreover, it immediately precedes the opening of the
battle, while Barbour’s version is of the evening before. In the latter
a special interest attaches to lines 263-268 and 303-317, which may
be compared with the following extracts from a speech by Alexander
the Great in _The Vowes_, one of the three romances which make up the
Scottish _Buik of Alexander_, the translation of which from the French
was probably the work of Barbour himself.[59] Alexander says:
“Be thay assailyeit hardely,
And encountered egerly,
The formest cumis ye sall se,
The hindmest sall abased be.
* * * * *
Forthy I pray ilk man that he
Nocht covetous na yarnand be,
To tak na ryches that thay wald,
Bot wyn of deidly fais the fald;
Fra thay be winnin all wit ye weill
The gudis are ouris ever ilk deill;
And I quyteclame yow utrely
Baith gold and silver halely,
And all the riches that thaires is,
The honour will I have I wis.”[60]
[58] Lib. xii., chap. xxi.
[59] See Appendix E.
[60] P. 318.
To the same purport as these latter lines is a portion of a subsequent
address;[61] and lines 325, 334 find a similar parallel in:
“Thus armit all the nicht thay lay,
Quhile on the morne that it was day.”[62]
Of the cardinal sentiment in the speech, the origin is probably to be
found in the familiar story of the Maccabees, referred to more than
once in _The Bruce_. Judas Maccabeus was one of the typical heroes of
French romance, and had one metrical romance, at least, devoted to his
career. And in 1 Maccabees, chap. iv., we have:
“17. (Judas) said to the people, Be not greedy of the spoils, inasmuch
as there is a battle before us.
“18. And Gorgias and his host are here by us in the mountain; but stand
ye now against our enemies, and overcome them, and after this ye may
boldly take the spoils.”[63]
[61] P. 339.
[62] P. 350, lines 12, 13.
[63] _Cf._ also Neilson on _The Real “Scots Wha Hae”_ in _Scottish
Antiquary_, vol. xiv., No. 53, July, 1899.
APPENDIX C
THE NUMBERS AT BANNOCKBURN
ENGLISH: _One hundred thousand men and ma._
SCOTS: _Thretty thousand, and sum deill mare._
These figures have given rise to much discussion, without any very
certain result. Yet official data are not wanting--sufficient, at
least, to check what is only another example of the wild conjectures
of mediæval chroniclers when dealing with numbers. Hemingburgh gives
Wallace at Falkirk “about three hundred thousand men”[64]--rather more,
probably, than the whole male population of Scotland. We need not be
surprised, then, at how all such estimates shrink in the cold light of
Exchequer figures.
[64] II. p. 180.
Edward II. summoned all owing him military service,[65] which
corroborates the statement of the author of the _Vita Edw. Sec._ that
“the King exacted from all the service due,”[66] as well as that of
Barbour--“of England hale the chivalry.” The Earls of Lancaster,
Warenne, Arundel, and Warwick did not attend, for a particular reason,
but sent their contingents.[67] Now, by Mr. Round’s calculations, the
whole number of knights’ fees in England did not exceed 5,000;[68] Mr.
Morris raises the figure to something short of 7,000.[69] The important
point is, however, that in practice the assessment was only a nominal
or conventional one. Thus Gloucester, with 455 fees, was assessed at
ten knights.[70] Including all grades of horsemen, Mr. Morris puts
“the maximum of the cavalry arm” at “about 8,000”; but, all things
considered, no such number could ever take the field.[71] Edward I. had
summoned his full feudal array (_omnes sui fideles_) for the Falkirk
campaign, and Hemingburgh says that, when counted, it came to 3,000 men
on armoured horses (Barbour’s “helit hors”), and more than 4,000 on
unarmoured horses--say, roughly, 7,000 in all.[72] Mr. Morris, however,
by a generous calculation from the rolls, arrives at 2,400 as the
highest possible figure.[73] Now, it is to be noted that the author of
the _Vita Edw. Sec._, while lauding the size and magnificence of the
host that went to Bannockburn, gives 2,000 men-at-arms as apparently
the total of the cavalry, since he simply adds “a considerable body
of footmen.”[74] On the whole, 3,000 to 4,000 English horse is a
higher limit for Bannockburn, when we consider all the difficulties
of sufficient armour, remounts, and forage. Mr. Morris thinks 10,000
“impossible,” though he is here calculating on yards of frontage on a
site where the battle was not fought.[75] About 7,000 is Mr. Round’s
free estimate, adopting Hemingburgh’s figure for Falkirk.[76] Bain
accepts Barbour’s 3,000 heavy horsemen, and suggests 10,000 light
horse, but proceeds on no data.[77] Mr. Oman calculates that “three
thousand ‘equites coperti,’ men-at-arms on barded horses,” means,
probably, 10,000 for the whole cavalry,[78] but this traverses his
Falkirk figures. England never put, nor could maintain, on the field
such a mounted force, to say nothing of the difficulty of handling and
manœuvring it.
[65] _Fœdera_, iii., p. 464, etc.
[66] P. 201.
[67] _Vita Edw._, p. 201.
[68] _Feudal England_, p. 292.
[69] _The Welsh Wars of Edward I._, p. 41.
[70] _Welsh Wars_, p. 59.
[71] _Ibid._, pp. 81, 82.
[72] II. p. 173.
[73] _Welsh Wars_, p. 292.
[74] _Peditum turba copiosa_, p. 201.
[75] _Engl. Hist. Rev._, vol. xiv., p. 133. _Cf._ Appendix A.
[76] _Bannockburn_ in _The Commune of London_, p. 298.
[77] _Calendar_, iii., p. xxi.
[78] _Art of War_, p. 575 note.
For the foot we have, fortunately, exact figures in the
_Fœdera_[79]--21,540 men all told, which would include the archers.
Only the northern counties--but not all--and Wales are drawn upon, as
those of the south would be for a French campaign.[80] Such had been
the practice of Edward I., whose levies from the northern counties
and Wales ranged from 29,400 foot in 1297 to 12,000 in 1301.[81] Mr.
Morris contends that not till 1322 were infantry drawn from all England
for a Scottish campaign (_as cited_), but in this he is wrong. It was
done by a special vote of Parliament, and according to a prescribed
form, as early as March, 1316, when every township, with some special
exceptions, furnished one soldier,[82] and again in 1318.[83] These are
clearly new and special arrangements, and there is thus no reason to
believe that the list in _Fœdera_, etc., is not complete, as Mr. Oman
suggests, adding, accordingly, a southern contingent of about 30,000
men, though he doubts if “the extreme South” sent its full muster.[84]
This is quite gratuitous. Lord Hailes, too, contended that the official
records are imperfect, and that the numbers given by Barbour “are
within the limits of probability.”[85] Bain’s authoritative reply is
that, “as a rule, the writs were always enrolled, and the Patent Rolls