Название: The Handy Military History Answer Book
Автор: Samuel Willard Crompton
Издательство: Ingram
Жанр: Прочая образовательная литература
Серия: The Handy Answer Book Series
isbn: 9781578595501
isbn:
Not surprisingly, the countries that enjoyed the most success during this period, roughly 1300–1425, were those that emphasized upward mobility. Little Switzerland exerted a power beyond its borders, thanks to its mercenary soldiers, and medium-sized Scotland, which had so long been bullied by its large southern neighbor, won its independence. Then, too, the Flemings of present-day Belgium gained quasi-independence from both the Holy Roman Empire and the French monarchy. And most of this was accomplished by spears, rather than swords, and by common soldiers in the ranks rather than glittering knights on horseback.
What was the first battle that indicated the success of the new techniques?
The Flemings revolted against French rule at the beginning of the fourteenth century, and a major army of French knights rode north to punish the rebels. At the Battle of Courtrai in 1302, the Flemings met the French with infantry massed in blocks, carrying pikes. Some of the pikes were metal, but far more were of wood, spliced and then hacked from trees. The French made a typical, medieval attack, expecting to rout the rebels, and instead were routed themselves, both by the speed and ferocity of the Flemish infantry. Had the French possessed archers, they might have succeeded; instead, they sustained a bloody defeat. France did make an adjustment, having some of its men train with the Genoese crossbow, but even this weapon was “heavy” and slow: it released perhaps one round every two minutes. What they really needed was something “lighter” and faster, and they did not find it for a long time to come.
Where was the second place the military revolution showed itself?
The people of that time, of course, did not call it a revolution. They were interested in survival and in fending off the attacks of their foes. And the Scots, who had a long history of military failure, were among the first to seize on the new opportunities.
Scotland was a kingdom, but it had been subject to England for almost half a century. English suzerainty had been established by winning over many of the Scottish nobles, men who owned land on both sides of the border. England’s King Edward I (ruled 1272–1307)—sometimes known as “Longshanks”—was the architect of the English policy, which resulted in Scotland being a vassal country. Edward I pressed his gains so strongly, however, that a backlash resulted, leading to the Anglo-Scottish Wars.
Who was William Wallace? Was he as important as he is portrayed in the movie Braveheart?
Released to the cinema in 1995, Braveheart was an outstanding film in terms of dramatic tension; it also contains some of the best scenes of medieval warfare ever filmed. William Wallace was indeed real, but his origins were not as humble as those shown in the film. He was a “hedge knight,” meaning he possessed little land, and he was outraged over the brutal means England used to subdue Scotland. Wallace, therefore, started the rebellion that escalated in the middle part of the last decade of the thirteenth century.
What Braveheart shows very well is the discrepancy between the English and Scottish military forces. England had a powerful combination of heavy cavalry, solid infantry, and mobile archers, all of which had gained in strength and knowledge during the English wars with Wales. Scotland, by contrast, had a sprinkling of nobles—whose horses lacked armor—atop a ragged combination of individual fighters. Everything suggested England would win, and that was how the wars began, with solid English victories. Motivation and morale—which are not precisely the same—always play roles in military actions, however, and the Scots found their inspiration in William Wallace.
Was there ever a scene quite as amazing—and terrifying—as the one shown in Braveheart, where the Scots used wooden pikes to impale the enemy’s horses?
The element of surprise that day was not nearly as dramatic as is shown in the film, but yes, the Scots—lacking heavy cavalry of their own—formed solid groups of men known as shiltrons. Resembling the ancient Greek phalanx, the shiltron was a blocklike group of pikemen that could repel its foes.
William Wallace was the Scottish hero par excellance, but it was Robert the Bruce who won the final battle for Scottish independence. In 1314, Robert and his Scots won the Battle of Bannockburn over King Edward II, ensuring that Scotland would be free.
Did William Wallace end up “dead,” as he was warned in the film Braveheart?
Yes. Wallace won an outstanding victory at the Battle of Falkirk in 1296, but he was bested the next year at Falkirk. Resigning his post as defender of Scotland, Wallace played a hit-and-run, hide-and-seek war against the English for several years before being captured. He was brought to London, given a show trial, and then executed in the most gruesome method imaginable. His head was stuck atop London Bridge as a warning to other traitors. The movement that began with Wallace continued, however, under the leadership of Robert the Bruce.
Was Robert the Bruce as conflicted, and sometimes as cowardly, a figure as depicted in Braveheart?
Some of the scenes in Braveheart have seldom been surpassed in their depiction of medieval warcraft. One of these takes place when William Wallace, badly defeated at Falkirk, pursues King Edward I’s party from the battlefield. One knight turns back to fight Wallace, and in the ensuing scrape, Wallace prevails and eventually pulls off the other man’s helmet to find that he is a Scot in disguise, none other than Robert the Bruce. The epic treachery of Robert the Bruce should be rewarded with a swift death—this is what nearly all the viewers declare—but Wallace spares his life and staggers away from the battlefield, marveling that Scots could fight and betray each other in this manner.
Robert the Bruce was a slippery character. He did fight with King Edward I at Falkirk and only later was he converted completely to the idea of full Scottish independence. Several years later, the Bruce was involved in an assassination, and he struck the final, deadly blow. There is little to love in the man who later came to stand for Scottish freedom. But there was strength in the man, as well, as he showed a real capacity for growth. Crowned by the Scottish nobles, he fought the English long after both William Wallace and Edward I were dead.
”The Trial of William Wallace” as depicted in the 1909 edition of Cassell’s History of England. The trial was just for show; there was no way the rebellious Scotsman was going to escape his execution.
How did the final struggle come about?
King Edward II—son of the one called “Longshanks”—was not a military man in the tradition of his father, but he was a wily, even cunning, opponent. In the spring of 1314, Edward II summoned all the English lords to provide a muster for the king’s advance into Scotland; this was to be the single largest of all the border invasions.
Robert the Bruce knew that the English were coming, and by mid-June, he had about 7,000 men in position on the north side of the River Forth, hidden and protected by a rugged section of land called the Bannock, sometimes referred to as the Bannockburn. The Bruce knew he was outnumbered by more than two to one; even worse was the fact that the English had perhaps 2,500 heavy horses. The Scots had perhaps 500 horsemen, but almost none of them possessed the equipage—or even the sheer weight—of their cavalry opponents. In archers, too, the English had a marked superiority. The Bruce had to rely, therefore, on native skill and a measure of luck.
What was the most dramatic moment of the Battle of Bannockburn?
On СКАЧАТЬ