
The Battle of Bannockburn, fought on 23 and 24 June 1314, stands as one of the most significant military victories in Scottish history. It marked a decisive turning point in the First War of Scottish Independence, as Robert the Bruce’s smaller army defeated the much larger force of Edward II of England. The victory not only preserved Scotland’s independence for a generation but also cemented Robert’s status as king. In recent decades, renewed archaeological work and forensic analysis have added fresh detail to our understanding of the battle and its landscape.

Background to the Conflict
Following the death of Edward I in 1307, Scotland’s struggle for sovereignty continued under his son, Edward II. Robert the Bruce, having seized the Scottish throne in 1306, had spent several years consolidating power and reclaiming castles from English control. By 1314, only a few strongholds remained in English hands, most notably Stirling Castle.
Stirling’s governor, Philip Mowbray, had agreed to surrender if no English relief force arrived by midsummer. Edward II marched north with an army estimated at over 15,000 men, including around 2,000 heavy cavalry and a large contingent of longbowmen. Bruce, commanding a force of roughly 6,000, prepared to intercept them near Bannockburn, a few miles south of Stirling.
The Battlefield and Terrain

The location was carefully chosen. The area around the Bannock Burn (a small stream) was wooded, marshy, and broken by ditches and soft ground, unsuited to massed cavalry charges. Bruce’s forces occupied ground near the New Park, a royal hunting forest, using the natural terrain to narrow the field of engagement.
Recent archaeological work, including surveys by the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology at the University of Glasgow, has confirmed that the likely site of the battle is slightly east of the traditional monument location. Finds such as arrowheads, horseshoe fragments, and evidence of pike shafts support contemporary accounts of a prolonged and brutal engagement on constrained ground.
Forces and Weaponry
Robert the Bruce’s army was composed primarily of infantry, with schiltron formations playing a central role. These were dense groups of spearmen, arranged to repel cavalry from all sides. Bruce had trained his men to use these formations not only defensively but also with offensive flexibility, allowing them to advance in tight cohesion.
Contemporary chronicler John Barbour, in The Brus, wrote of the schiltron’s effectiveness:
“Thar speris so stoutly styntit thai / That all the first frusching gan failye.”
The English army, by contrast, was built around its heavy cavalry, supported by longbowmen and infantry. However, their mobility was neutralised by the terrain. Cavalry charges became mired in the soft ground, and archers were poorly positioned due to the compressed battlefield and lack of coordination.
Bruce himself is recorded to have killed the English knight Henry de Bohun in single combat on the first day of the battle. According to The Scotichronicon,
“He met him right in the mid-course… and cleft his head to the teeth.”
While the story is often romanticised, it reflects Bruce’s presence at the front and his symbolic role in rallying the troops.
Types of Swords Likely Used
1. Arming Sword (Knightly Sword)
The most common type on both sides was the arming sword, a straight, double-edged, single-handed weapon measuring roughly 70 to 80 cm in blade length. These swords featured a cruciform guard and were designed for cutting and thrusting.
- Blade: Broad and tapering, capable of cutting through unarmoured or lightly armoured opponents.
- Grip: Designed for use with a shield, particularly a heater shield or buckler.
- Use in combat: Ideal for sidearms; knights and men-at-arms would draw them after their primary lance or polearm was lost or broken.
2. Great Sword (Two-Handed or Hand-and-a-Half)
While rarer at this date, early hand-and-a-half swords or war swords were beginning to emerge. These weapons allowed for greater leverage and power, particularly against plate or mail.
- Blade: Longer than an arming sword, often around 90 to 110 cm.
- Grip: Extended to allow occasional two-handed use.
- Use in combat: Favoured by dismounted knights or elite infantry, especially when facing tight enemy formations like schiltrons.
3. Falchion (Single-Edged Sword)
Less common but present, particularly among lower-ranking soldiers or mercenaries, was the falchion, a single-edged blade with a curved profile, often heavier and more brutal in appearance.
- Blade: Short and wide with a clipped point, delivering powerful chopping blows.
- Use in combat: Effective against lightly armoured targets and in close, chaotic fighting. Its presence is more likely among foot soldiers than nobles.
The Battle Unfolds

On 23 June, the English vanguard clashed with Bruce’s forward elements. It was during this initial engagement that de Bohun was slain. The full English army arrived later that day but camped in disarray, failing to properly secure their position.
On the morning of 24 June, Bruce launched a full assault using his schiltrons to push forward against the English centre. The English forces, hemmed in by geography, could not deploy effectively. The Scottish infantry advanced steadily, driving the enemy back toward the Bannock Burn. Panic spread through the English ranks, and many were killed while retreating across the stream. Edward II fled the field, narrowly escaping capture.
Contemporary Perspectives
The English chronicler Thomas Walsingham lamented the defeat as a disaster:
“Never before did such a host flee so shamefully from so few.”
Scottish sources, by contrast, saw it as divine favour. John of Fordun described it as
“a great miracle shown to the people of Scotland.”
Recent Archaeology and Findings

Modern archaeological efforts have focused not only on the main battlefield but also the surrounding landscape. Ground-penetrating radar and metal detecting surveys have located artefacts including arrowheads, iron weapon fragments, and cavalry equipment. Soil analysis suggests that the ground was indeed waterlogged in areas, corroborating accounts of English cavalry becoming bogged down.
A 2012 geophysical survey revealed linear features consistent with medieval roads and field boundaries, helping to refine models of troop movement. Finds recovered from the Torwood area suggest staging positions for Scottish troops, reinforcing the idea that Bruce controlled the ground well before the battle.
Legacy and Commemoration
Bannockburn became a cornerstone of Scottish national identity. The victory secured Robert the Bruce’s reign and paved the way for eventual recognition of Scottish independence in the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton in 1328. The battle is commemorated near Stirling with a heritage centre and the iconic equestrian statue of Bruce, unveiled in 1964.
The battlefield remains protected, though the precise location has been a subject of academic debate. Thanks to continued archaeological study, our picture of the battle has become clearer, moving beyond legend and into evidence-based understanding.
The Battle of Bannockburn has appeared only occasionally in modern film and television, and when it has, the portrayals tend to favour stylised drama over historical fidelity. Most depictions are limited, brief, or used symbolically rather than as reconstructions grounded in primary sources or archaeology.
Outlaw King (2018) – Directed by David Mackenzie
The most notable recent portrayal is in Outlaw King, Netflix’s historical drama focusing on Robert the Bruce. Although the film builds towards the conflict, it does not depict the Battle of Bannockburn itself. Instead, it concludes with the Battle of Loudoun Hill (1307), an earlier engagement where Bruce first demonstrated his use of terrain and schiltron tactics. This decision likely stemmed from narrative scope and budget, as portraying a battle of Bannockburn’s scale with full accuracy would have demanded considerable resources. Still, Outlaw King hints at what is to come, framing Bruce’s tactics at Loudoun Hill as a precursor to his later success.
The film’s portrayal of Bruce is grounded and political, with less interest in mythologising him as a warrior-king. However, the visual language leans heavily on gritty realism, with bloodied combat, claustrophobic camera work, and emphasis on terrain — all of which reflect scholarly interpretations of Bannockburn.
Braveheart (1995) – Directed by Mel Gibson
Braveheart famously ends with a voiceover reference to Bannockburn, suggesting that the spirit of William Wallace inspired the victory. While the film focuses on Wallace’s earlier revolt and his death in 1305, its final scene implies that Bannockburn followed directly as a spiritual continuation. Historically, this is misleading. Wallace was long dead, and Bruce had gone from occasional ally to rival to successor.
The film’s historical liberties are well known, and its reference to Bannockburn is no exception. It serves more as a dramatic conclusion than an attempt to engage with the reality of the battle.
Television and Documentary
There have been limited dramatized portrayals of Bannockburn on television. Most detailed treatments are found in historical documentaries rather than scripted drama. Programmes by the BBC and History Channel have examined the battle through re-enactments and archaeological evidence, often with input from scholars like Dr Tony Pollard. These versions focus more on schiltron tactics, the terrain’s role, and Bruce’s leadership, and while they lack the narrative grandeur of cinema, they offer a more credible account.
Lack of a Definitive Portrayal
Despite its importance, Bannockburn has yet to receive a large-scale cinematic treatment in the way that Hastings or Agincourt have. Part of the challenge lies in the nature of the conflict: close-quarters, infantry-heavy, with muddy terrain and slow advances. It does not lend itself easily to heroic individual combat or cinematic clarity. That said, the growing interest in grounded historical drama, as seen in The Last Kingdom or Kingdom of Heaven, suggests there is room for a future portrayal that does justice to both the tactics and the politics of the campaign.
The Battle of Bannockburn was more than a dramatic military upset. It was a masterclass in leadership, terrain use, and disciplined infantry tactics. Bruce did not win through brute force, but through patience, preparation, and control of the battlefield. As new archaeological findings continue to surface, they confirm the accounts of a chaotic, mud-churned fight that changed the course of British history.
Watch the documentary: