Talk:Battle of Halidon Hill

Annan not Arran

Balliol was defeated at Annan-not Arran-near the English border. Rcpaterson 05:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Dead at Halidon.

We cannot say with any certainty just how many men died at Halidon, and the fact that detailed figures are mentioned 'on several web sites' is not evidence. It should not need saying but it clearly does: fictions are in the habit of self-duplification. I must have read every contemporary source on this battle, one of which claims that the Scots lost 35,000 men, probably two or even three times the size of the army Douglas was able to put in the field. The figure of 14 dead for the English is suspiciously precise. All medieval chroniclers should be treated with caution, especially when it comes to the size of armies and battle casualties; but they should at least form the point of departure for informed discussion; not 'several web sites'. Rcpaterson 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again Mr. Paterson has made a useful and well-informed contribution. Chronicle acconts generally offer numnbers that were not intended to be taken literally - BArbour's estimantes of the armies at Bannockburn being a particularly clear example. CB.

Agreed. The casualties at Halidon Hill, as at most mediaeval battles, are largely speculative. English casualties would best be described as "unknown but light", and Scottish as "unknown but heavy". Wikipedia needs to show some consistency in this matter, particularly in the summary box. Discussion of contemporary and modern estimates might be appropriate in the full article, but these are inevitably personal assessments (which are often skewed by authorial bias) rather than actual data.

Were the Scots really "much stronger" than the British?

Introduction, second paragraph: "By mid-July, knowing Berwick was on the verge of surrender and aware they were much stronger than the English, the Scots attacked". Suggest "...believing they were much stronger", or perhaps "...knowing they had the numerical advantage". After all, the decisive defeat means it turns out they were not, in fact, "much stronger". I am simply unqualified to know what (if any) is the proper edit so I'm deferring. 108.26.143.223 (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The stronger force does not always win. The lead ("Introduction") is a summary of the main points of the article. Where the army sizes are discussed. A modern historian opines that the Scots had about 15,000 combatants and the English a lot fewer than 10,000, possibly being outnumbered two-to-one; possibly before detaching a large force to guard Berwick. This is all cited to reliable sources. To summarise this as the Scots being "aware they were much stronger than the English" seems reasonable. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)