Return the Wallace Safe Conduct

[aNonnyMoose]

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make a formal loan request to the National Archive at Kew to return the Wallace Safe Conduct to Scotland under a permanent loan agreement.

Petition to return the Wallace Safe Conduct

[wullie m]

Another item that should come home is James IV's sword, taken at Flodden which is in the College of Heralds in London, it means nothing to them but a great deal to Scotland, a defeat for James but it's his descendants that sit on the British throne not Henry VIII.
wullie m.

[ANDY-J3]

I can agree with the return of Wallace's safe conduct as he was a national hero who sacrificed himself for his country but as regards James IV's sword the English are welcome to it. Flodden was only fought because of his own vanity and his death led to a chain of events that brought about the end of Scotland's independence. He wasn't a national hero so I don't see any point in commemorating him.

[wullie m]

Of course he was a national hero, the best of the Stewart kings, his marriage not his death brought about the end of Scotland's independence. The French alliance was the cause of his demise, and Henry VIII's obsession with regaining France. His generalship was a bit faulty, Flodden should have been an away win.
wullie m.

[ANDY-J3]

I just think 10 000 Scottish lives were a high price to pay for his romantic and chivalric ideals. The French Queen asked him to be "her knight" so they obviously had some awareness of his eccentric mindset and he rose to the bait. Flodden was destined to be a defeat before it began - the Scots were using long pikes and the English were using halberds which were a far more practical and deadly weapon in a melee battle. Also a King fighting in the front rank of his troops was a rare event in the renaissance - that was a throwback to the middle ages- and by risking his life he risked bringing about disaster for Scotland which is exactly what happened.

[wullie m]

Ah if only history was that simple, chivalry & romance had nothing to do with it, James's options were very limited. The Auld Alliance required either partner to come to the aid of the other in event of English aggression. Henry VIII followed the foreign policy of his ancestors in their claim to the throne of France, (prohibited by Salic Law) and invaded French territory, Scotland was expected to invade England in turn. The Scots strategy was to cross the border, trail their coat and draw the English to battle. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, pikemen were cutting edge at the time and used very successfully by the Swiss, they were still being used 150 years later in the Civil War. Our artillery was far superior to that of the English, and the Scots army occupied an entrenched position on a hill. James gave away his advantages by attacking their army, which had got between him and Scotland, The rest is history. Henry had little success from his Flodden victory despite Scottish losses. The "real politik" of the time was England's campaign to become Europe's superpower, and France & Scotland's exertions to prevent this, the latter was ultimately successful despite England's successes (Agincourt, Crecy etc') and Scottish armies in the 15th cent' generally fought England on French soil. England, in addition, could never bring her whole strength to bear in France as the North had to be kept back in case of Scottish invasion. Henry's daughter Mary lost Calais, the last English foothold in France, so ended centuries of bloodshed & expense. Their kings persisted with this preposterous claim well into the 18th cent'. Had England been successful it would have been the end for both Scotland & France and also, strangely enough, for England, for European/World history would have been very different and as the greater draws the lesser, as happened when James VI inherited the English throne, so the English court would have moved to Paris and the French language predominated. We could be communicating in French right now!
wullie m.

[ANDY-J3]

As usual you have a superficial grasp of historical events which you probably glean from websites such as Wikipedia, without any depth of real understanding. Using pikemen in the "Swiss" or "German" method as it was known was only succesful because it made use of professional mercenaries with strict military discipline and a phalanx of pikes was only effective if it maintained cohesion which is why Swiss and German pikeman took an oath to kill anyone within their ranks who showed any hint of cowardice. The Scottish army at Flodden however wasn't composed of professional troops which is why the nobility got slaughtered in large numbers- they had to be in the front ranks making sure that the undisciplined rabble of footmen maintained some degree of discipline. As regards Scottish strategy there wasn't one - why were they at Flodden? What would they have gained if they won? They would have marched back over the border and waited for the English to exact some revenge. Forget about the auld alliance- no Scottish King was ever obliged to sacrifice the lives of his subjects and the security of his kingdom to aid the French and only a fool would have gambled everything on such a pointless venture. I stand by my original assertion- defeat at Flodden was the catalyst for the demise of Scotland as an independent nation and the King who took Scotland to war was not a national hero. Even "Bell the cat" one of the King's most loyal followers recognised that the batle was a mistake and told James IV before the battle "Let us go back....we will have the Tweed behind us and Scottish soil once more under our feet. There let us await them." A shrewd King who cared about his subjects and country rather than his ego would have followed that advice.