Talk:Battle of Stirling Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • The summary box for this battle lists a different commander (I believe the leader of the English force that crossed the bridge) not John de Warrene. John de Warrene is listed as the commander in the article, proper. --Trithemius 02:10, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Construction of the bridge[edit]

The stone / wooden construction of the bridge at the time of the battle is not mentioned. This would have been the cause of its collapse.

Is it a Roman Bridge? (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Numbers of Troops and Cavalry[edit]

The numbers are disputed, however it is known the Scots were vastly outnumbered. In the initial engagement there could only have been a maximum of 500 Scots schiltron (spearmen) to have been effective and mobile. Omeganumber 23:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BeckenhamBear (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)=== Poor Quality ===Reply[reply]

This article is quite poor given the importance of the battle for Scottish History. - Colin MacDon:ald

3 years later and this article is still pathetic. No one with academic knowledge able to help? -Colin MacDonald —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have edited the article on the last section, not to change anything but in order to delete some fool's comment about mel gibson and some "sexual" jokes, obviously (at least i hope)it was meant to be "humoristic" but still inadequate and offensive. - Vincenzo Marino
This page is depressing. It's under continual attack by vandals to the extent that editing it is a waste of time. It needs to be updated, locked, and edited by contribution via this page.BeckenhamBear (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More Battle less Movie.[edit]

In complete agreement with the above comment I've now expanded this article to give a much fuller account of the Battle of Stirling Bridge, its course, its outcome and its historical significance. Rcpaterson 04:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is better suited to an SNP propaganda article than a supposedly reputable encyclopedia. Please stick to the facts. There are no eyewitness accounts or contemporaneous records of this battle. None. Not one. The main "evidence" is drawn from the chronicles of Walter of Guisborough, a notoriously inaccurate Yorkshire monk writing his "history" at a later date. For what it's worth, Walter describes the Scottish army as having 40,000 men versus the English 50,000 men, and that the English suffered 5,000 casualties - i.e. 10% of their army. All historians agree that these figures are wildly exaggerated, as indeed are all Walter's battle figures. There is no other "evidence"; everything else has come from the imagination of authors writing hundreds of years after the event. The most sensible contemporary account is provided by no lesser body than HISTORIC SCOTLAND (which curates the battle site and its associated artifacts). They have a website which is easily accessed and which Wikipedia would do well to examine. HISTORIC SCOTLAND concludes that the Scottish army probably numbered about 5,000 men and the English army about 6,000 men, and that English casualties may have numbered about 1,500 men. This fits with the low number of named casualties and named hostages, and the fact that Wallace did not engage with the remaining English force which was able to retire to Berwick without further significant loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"Wallace himself took enough to make a new sword belt."

This sounds quite apocryphal. What's the source?

  • According to the Hugh Cressingham article, this seems to be a legend of sorts with Cressingham's flaying of Scotland and its people being repaid with his actual flaying and death. So then did this really happen? Or is it just a popular legend surrounding the battle? 01:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it is documented. Fionnlaoch (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The photograph on this article is misleading, it displays the more modern bridge. The article would be better served with no image, or an image of the area where the relevant bridge stood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur with this opinion but as with so many other Wiki articles containing misleading information once this is pointed out to the author(s) they become terribly defensive and refuse to countenance any changes. Some truly become quite upset when it is pointed out that because their information is false their conclusions are just as inaccurate.

I am also surprised that this remark has stood for such a lenghty period, though. Not really my problem either - this internet board will share the same fate as many other bubblegum wrappers. It'll just take longer to lose credibility and, regrettably, all the effort spent in the creation and maintenance will be junked. Cheers - Semperlibre —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People keep changing the army sizes and numbers back to fit the "Braveheart narrative". Please can people be sensible. Historic Scotland curates the battlefield and lists the numbers as 5000 Scots, 6000 English and 1500 English casualties. This is surely the most authoritative source, and its data should be allowed to stand.