Help support TMP


"James III and the Second Battle of Bannockburn " Topic


3 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Medieval Media Message Board


Areas of Interest

Medieval

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset

Field of Glory


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Book Review


Featured Movie Review


703 hits since 22 May 2015
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0122 May 2015 12:54 p.m. PST

"Everyone knows the Battle of Bannockburn, fought in 1314 between the Scots and the English. The Second Battle of Bannockburn isn't so well known – it was renamed, in fact, in 1655, perhaps to avoid confusion with its more celebrated predecessor. Known today as ‘The Battle of Sauchieburn,' it was fought in more or less the same location as its more illustrious predecessor. But that's where the similarity ends. The Second Battle of Bannockburn took place on the 11th June, 1488, and it was fought not between the Scots and their Auld Enemy England, but by two Scots armies fighting – on the one side – for the reigning King James III and on the other for his son and heir Prince James, Duke of Rothesay.

The details of the battle are unclear, though it seems to have been as much a series of small-scale skirmishes as an organised engagement, but its consequences were grave nonetheless. By its end the reigning King of Scots was dead and his army routed, leaving his son to succeed to the throne unchallenged.

The Battle of Sauchieburn tends to be overlooked, perhaps on account of the qualities of the young man who gained most from it. Prince James, Duke of Rothesay went on to become one of Scotland's finest medieval kings: James IV. Though he's often remembered as much for his untimely and unfortunate demise at Flodden (along with around 10,000 of his men), the positive impact James had upon his nation cannot be underestimated. He promoted Renaissance flair throughout his kingdom: a keen patron of the arts and sciences, he was a cultured and intelligent prince who longed to dazzle on a European stage, and to a certain extent he succeeded, with buildings like Linlithgow Palace rivaling contemporary equivalents across Europe…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Legbiter22 May 2015 3:09 p.m. PST

Sorry, Comrade, but that's Rot. James IV was a total Bleeped text and not just because he was a parricide. He absolutely RUINED our country, including cutting down all our trees to make his fleet, and left us with the stark choice of [a] become French Satellite [which we did] or become English Province [which we also did, later]. Luckily for us, it turned out being England's Province was a pretty dam' fine deal.

jedburgh22 May 2015 6:32 p.m. PST

Well well- if things keep going as they are we wo.t be Englands province for long we might just vote on keeping the foxhunting ban as well – to curb the natural bloodlust that seems to have returned with recent events.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.