Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
An interesting and idiosyncratic approach, 21 Nov 2000
By A Customer
An interesting and indiosyncratic approach to the battle, with potted biographies of the major participants before descriptions of the military equipment and a discussion of what might have happened. It is spoiled by avoidable mistakes - such as James, Lord of Douglas is called William Douglas in the index and was never created an earl as the text states. The description of Edward I as 'A Good King' and Edward II as 'A Bad King', whilst being an easily understood shorthand do give the book a flippancy which sits uneasily with the period detail.
|
|
|
3 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
Oh dear!, 13 Jan 2006
It is difficult to know where to start with this book. ALthough Aryeh Nusbacher is unquestionably a fine classical scholar, his standards have- to say the least - slipped on this project. This is simply a re-hash of the very worst aspects of Victorian wishful thinking. A more rigorous approach to background reading would have been desirable - Nicholson's 'Scotland. The Later Middle Ages' or Grant's 'Independence and Nationhood' would have given Mr. Nusbacher some much-needed information relating to the nature of 14th-century Scottish society. Some aspects are simply irritating - the repeated use of the word 'tribesmen' to describe the Scottish troops from the West Highlands and Isles is patronising to the point of racism. Would he refer to Edward II's Yorkshire troops as tribesmen? If not, why not? The discussion of 'Schiltroms' makes it very clear that the author does not understand that the word does not imply any particular shape of formation, simply a body of spearmen. The contention that Edward II intended to form up his army according to the traditional English format of heavy cavalry formations interspersed with bodies of archers is interesting, though not based on any evidence; there was no traditional posture for English armies, indeed general engagements were such a rarity that it would be unlikley that such a thing would have developed before the adoption of the longbow as a major force on the battlefield. The first proper 'longbow' battle would not occur until 1332. Why, in any case, would Edward have formed up his troops for an advance on Stirling? The castle was still in English hands and the object of the exercise in mounting the campaign was the destruction of the Scottish army, not the relief of one castle, however important. Sadly Mr. Nusbacher has failed to make the best of the considerable amount of information to be derived from contemporary sources, nor does he seem to have consulted very much of the excellent range of academic work on medieval Scotland that has appeared over the last foorty years or so. The most unfortuante aspect of this book is that it derives a good deal of credibily from the fact that the author is a War Studies lecturer and will therefore probably be seen as a valid and useful analysis of the battle - which it ain't. The absence of this book from the shelves of Scotish medievalists should tell us everything we need to know about it. Although it is nthe best part of one hundred years old and had a number of significant defects, the best volume devoted to this battle continues to be Rev. MacKenzie's 'Battle of Bannockburn' but anyone with a serious interest should also refer to Professor Barrow's 'Robert the Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland', Professor Duncan's appreciation of the battle in his magnificent edition of Barbour's epic 'The Bruce' and Colm MacNamee's 'The Wars of the Bruces'. If there is a saving grace to this book then it must be the illustrations, many of which are excellent...as long as one ignores the 'daft guess' CGI diagrams. This is a sad, sad, sad piece of work and it seriously undermines the work of medielval scholars - one would be better off with a copy of 'The Beano'.
|
|
|
Too one sided., 3 April 2008
Of all the books I have read on the subject , this is the poorest because
it is an angicized view. Not surprising because the author has associations with a well known English officer training establishment. He implies the Scots army was a peasant army and that the Commanders had to dismount in order to prevent the "peasant army" scattering at the sight of the enemy.. This is patent nonsense. He never mentioned either that the Scots knights were amongst the greatest warriors in the whole of christiandom around the first quarter of the 14 th century, Bruce himself number 1. Knights such as Sir James Douglas, Sir Neil Campbell, Keith , Angus Og MacDonald , Edward Bruce , Earl of Murray, Sir Neil Boyd had more than 18 years battle hardened experience defending the realm against a brutal and barbaric enemy. In the final analysis , the battle was won by superior commanders fighting for the very survival of the Scottish nation and achieved a noble victory against a barbaric enemy.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
(4 customer reviews)
(
