Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Roslin: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 81.152.110.125 - ""
No edit summary
Line 24: Line 24:
==It was not 30,000==
==It was not 30,000==
Supposedly it was 3 separate armies of 10,000 that converged <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/149.254.219.191|149.254.219.191]] ([[User talk:149.254.219.191|talk]]) 10:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> but there is no trace of these armies in the sources of the day.
Supposedly it was 3 separate armies of 10,000 that converged <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/149.254.219.191|149.254.219.191]] ([[User talk:149.254.219.191|talk]]) 10:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> but there is no trace of these armies in the sources of the day.
An editor has chosen to write an entry based entirely on Bower's completely fabricated account of the battle, written more than a century after the event. there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest a battle between enormouse armies, nor that William wallace was considered for the role of commander.I have,therefore, replaced that account with a short piece based on what we know from contemporary and near-contemporary evidence. If any material - other than Bower's - can be produced I would be very happy to see it included. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.152.110.125|81.152.110.125]] ([[User talk:81.152.110.125|talk]]) 11:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
An editor has chosen to write an entry based entirely on Bower's completely fabricated account of the battle, written more than a century after the event. there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest a battle between enormouse armies, nor that William wallace was considered for the role of commander.I have,therefore, replaced that account with a short piece based on what we know from contemporary and near-contemporary evidence. If any material - other than Bower's - can be produced I would be very happy to see it included. Chris Brown. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.152.110.125|81.152.110.125]] ([[User talk:81.152.110.125|talk]]) 11:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 11:33, 8 January 2010

30,000?

30,000 is the number given in the campaign box, yet the article says only a few hundred took part? I seriouly doubt that there were 30,000 troops sent by the English. The combined forces of Englan could not number 30,000.Tourskin 02:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC) You are absolutely right, very few medieval English armies were anything like as strong as 30,000. The English force seems to have been gathered from the garrison of Berwick and the gentry and aristocracy of N. England and such Scots as were in English allegiance - rather few in 1302-3. The account of a great battle with 30,000 English and 8,000 Scots is a complete fabrication and is totally contrary to all of the contemporary material. Likewise claims that command of the Scots passed to Sir John Comyn (or to Sinclair) because Sir WIlliam Wallace declined the post are unsupportable. John Comyn was the Guardian (regent) of Scotland for King John, a post that Wallace held in 1297-8.[reply]


It was not 30,000

Supposedly it was 3 separate armies of 10,000 that converged —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.219.191 (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC) but there is no trace of these armies in the sources of the day. An editor has chosen to write an entry based entirely on Bower's completely fabricated account of the battle, written more than a century after the event. there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest a battle between enormouse armies, nor that William wallace was considered for the role of commander.I have,therefore, replaced that account with a short piece based on what we know from contemporary and near-contemporary evidence. If any material - other than Bower's - can be produced I would be very happy to see it included. Chris Brown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.110.125 (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]