Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

James IV of Scotland, a King who led his men in battle

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post
    Yes you would know far more of Scottish history then myself, thanks for the correction on the King of Scots point.

    (My bold)

    It's 'than' not 'then'

    Will you be putting forward James Graham next?

    Paul
    ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
    All human ills he can subdue,
    Or with a bauble or medal
    Can win mans heart for you;
    And many a blessing know to stew
    To make a megloamaniac bright;
    Give honour to the dainty Corse,
    The Pixie is a little shite.

    Comment


    • #17
      The Stewarts were mainly an utter shower.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by jf42 View Post
        The Stewarts were mainly an utter shower.
        Yes, but I don't need you to say it. James IV was actually a good king, both able and popular, who compares well with many monarchs. Pity he's a bit of an oak in a swamp.

        Robert I and Alexander III led from the front (as did many Scottish kings, good and bad), Alexander II died on campaign, David II was captured, James III was murdered after a battle, and James V was vilified for not leading the Scots at Solway Moss.

        Scotland's main problem is that we never run from a fight, even when we should. This makes victory costly, and defeat disastrous.
        Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

        Comment


        • #19
          One problem in Scot history is the Kings did not wield a lot of political power. The Clans could be compared to street gangs at times. It took a special kind of leader to lead them anywhere. Even in a popular war, many clans did not follow the King and often fought on the other side.

          The Lowlanders often fought for the English, especially in English Invasions. The Lowlanders were famous for their Light Cavalry. The Lowlanders were frequently raided from the Highlands and were always looking to get a bit of loot! When the Scots invaded England, if course the Lowlanders went along! There were lots of English Raiding Families that were enemies of the local Lowland clans. When they got enough loot these Lowlanders went home!

          Pruitt
          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
            One problem in Scot history is the Kings did not wield a lot of political power. The Clans could be compared to street gangs at times. It took a special kind of leader to lead them anywhere. Even in a popular war, many clans did not follow the King and often fought on the other side.

            The Lowlanders often fought for the English, especially in English Invasions. The Lowlanders were famous for their Light Cavalry. The Lowlanders were frequently raided from the Highlands and were always looking to get a bit of loot! When the Scots invaded England, if course the Lowlanders went along! There were lots of English Raiding Families that were enemies of the local Lowland clans. When they got enough loot these Lowlanders went home!

            Pruitt
            Generalise much?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by the ace View Post
              Yes, but I don't need you to say it.
              Ah, the only Scot in the village.

              Robert I, Alexander III, Alexander II, David II- may have had their virtues but none were of the Stewart dynasty.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by jf42 View Post
                Ah, the only Scot in the village.

                Robert I, Alexander III, Alexander II, David II- may have had their virtues but none were of the Stewart dynasty.
                David II was worse, he was the son and successor of Robert I - and almost destroyed everything his father had built.
                Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                  The Clans could be compared to street gangs at times. It took a special kind of leader to lead them anywhere. Even in a popular war, many clans did not follow the King and often fought on the other side.

                  If Sir Walter Scott, Robert Louis Stevenson and other writers of that ilk are to be believed it was not unknown for the highland nobles to play both sides, especially in times of rebellion or civil war with one son being despatched to support the rebels and one remaining loyal to the king. That way whatever the outcome the estates stayed with the family. The whole basis of Stevenson's novel The Master of Ballantrae is this principle.
                  Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                  Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Getting slightly closer to the time period more than one Lord of the Isles conspired with the English during the various Anglo Scottish wars. The Isles saw themselves as an independent kingdom in their own right and resented the Stewart overlords.
                    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                      The Scots did have cannon and more of them, they just used them badly. They also had more men. James was beaten by a better commander.

                      His body was taken to London, was embalmed and put in Sheen Abby but lost in the Reformation..
                      No he wasn't. He was beat by his sense of chivalry and overconfidence. He first position was virtually impregnable and the English appealed to his chivalry to fight on a more level field.

                      His army's center and right wing of lowlanders were initially winning the battle but then crowded in the mud. Only the left win of highland men retreated intact.

                      The ironic thing is the English commander only had enough supplies for a couple days before he would have to disband his army.


                      War is a funny thing.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                        Getting slightly closer to the time period more than one Lord of the Isles conspired with the English during the various Anglo Scottish wars. The Isles saw themselves as an independent kingdom in their own right and resented the Stewart overlords.
                        True, but it was also the Lord of the Isles timely intervention at Dalry (the unfortunately named, "Field of the King," which saved the life of Robert I, and prevented the extinction of the Royal Army - the attackers were not English, but Highland clans loyal to the Comyn family). The two allies wouldn't meet again until Bannockburn.

                        As to the, "Second string," English army at Flodden - it's only fair to point out that Scotland's population has remained fairly steady, at around a tenth that of England. Surrey came close to matching James IV's numbers, while a larger army was with Henry VIII in France. James had practically stripped Scotland of able-bodied men for the campaign, with the subsequent economic and manpower crisis that left Scotland on the brink of disaster.

                        The cheers of victory in Paris a little later, found no echo in Edinburgh.
                        Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Legionnaire66 View Post
                          No he wasn't. He was beat by his sense of chivalry and overconfidence. He first position was virtually impregnable and the English appealed to his chivalry to fight on a more level field.

                          His army's center and right wing of lowlanders were initially winning the battle but then crowded in the mud. Only the left win of highland men retreated intact.

                          The ironic thing is the English commander only had enough supplies for a couple days before he would have to disband his army.


                          War is a funny thing.
                          Being overconfident and giving up a strong position for no gain are not signs of being a good commander....Besides he was encouraged to give up his position because Surrey manoeuvred to cut off James’s line of retreat forcing James to attack.

                          While more English rescources were committed to the French campaign I suspect that Surrey was a better commander than Henry himself. It is interesting that the command of the English army was given to Surrey and the Howards. They had been prominent Yorkists during the Wars of the Roses and Henry was known to be paranoid about a Yorkist revival.
                          Last edited by Surrey; 08 Dec 17, 18:21.
                          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_...gue_of_Cambrai

                            The English seem to have done reasonably well in their actions on the continent as well. Winning the Battle of the Spurs and taking Tournai.
                            The war does seem rather confusing however as the participants kept changing sides.
                            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                              The war does seem rather confusing however as the participants kept changing sides.
                              A common feature of European wars right up to the early 19th century. Some countries seem to have specialised at one time or another with canny switching between coalitions which is how little Brandenburg grew into mighty Prussia. The doyen's of this were the House of Savoy as no matter which coalition they were part of at the beginning of a war they always ended up in the winning one at the end and slowly but surely increased their territorial holdings until eventually they got Italy (and one might say they still tried something similar in WW2)
                              Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                              Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X