How important was the Battle of Bannockburn?

It was a valiant fight against overwhelming odds and few Scots can think of it without pride. King Robert surprised as he surveyed the battlefield by Sir Henry de Bohun and killing him with a single blow of his axe in single combat. Earl Thomas Randolph reproached by the king for having let 'a rose fall from his chaplet' and rushing to cut off the English attempt to reach Stirling, winning the first fight of the battle. It is hard to think of any battle with a more stirring story.

King Robert in single combat with Sir Henry de Bohun

In one way, of course, the Battle of Bannockburn was vitally important. It proved to Scots that they could defeat the English. In a way the many smaller skirmishes and attacks on English held castles had not proven that. The devastation to pride and self-respect was redeemed by an overwhelming victory, but what else did Bannockburn give Scotland?

It returned the Scottish prisoners who had suffered immensely at the hands of the English. Gallant Bishop Wishart came home, blind but still one of Scotland's greatest patriots, as did Christine de Brus who would later hold Kildrummy Castle against an English army untl her husband defeated them in the battle of Culblean, turning the tide of the Second War of Scottish Independence. It returned King Robert's wife and his daughter who would be the mother of the Stewart line of Kings, so their importance cannot be overlooked.

One of the results was the profit from the spoils of the battle and the ransoms. Thousands of men took a share of the spoils home with them to help rebuild the kingdom that had been despoiled and the government took a large share of the spoils and received some vast ransoms to continue the fight. 

As nation building, it was vital. As a battle, it had no real results other than the surrender of Stirling Castle because it did not do is end the war. I have seen mistaken comments such as that "It allowed Robert the Bruce to secure Scottish independence" which is simply not true. Neither England nor the Pope recognized Scottish independence until fourteen years later, years spent in constant warfare.

I think that makes it less important as a battle than many people believe. So in the next few weeks I am going to write about the lesser known battles which were essential to Scotland's development and survival. 

Scotland and the Knights Templar

First, I apologize for my several months' absence. I won't go into health issues, but there have been several. Happily, they were not life threatening but did give me a bit of a kicking. But enough about that. Back to the Knights Templar...

At the Council of Clermons in 1095, Pope Urban II called for the mobilization of Christians to invade the Levant and retake Jerusalem, which had been held by the Muslims since 638. This began the First Crusade. There was a huge reaction all across Europe. Some entire families joined in the vast army that marched for Constantinople. Much of the crusade was a horrific mess with thousands of crusaders dying of starvation at the siege of Antioch. The culmination was the attack on Jerusalem which combined bizarre fanaticism such as Peter Desiderius claiming to have a vision revealing that if they fasted and then marched barefoot around the city that Jerusalem would fall with interesting medieval strategy and viciousness. Of course, what took the city was when the leaders finally organized a concerted attack, including siege machines. They took Jerusalem in July 1099. Every contemporary chronicle states that the slaughter that followed was of nearly every man, woman, and child in the city. Later historians claim it was exaggerated. I suspect the people who were there knew what happened. And if anyone is astonished that the decades that followed were a quagmire of infighting between royal factions and often murderous intrigue, they need to take a look at the history of Europe.

It was in this state of affairs that the Knights Templar were established in 1118. Hughes de Payen with 8 companions took it upon themselves to found the Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon. De Payen proclaimed it their duty to protect the route to Jerusalem for Christian pilgrims. A decade later, they were officially accepted as a religious order. And this is an important point. Many people do not grasp that the Templars were exactly that: a religious order sworn to chastity and obedience. They were even forbidden to enter a home in which there was a woman to avoid temptation. (Always obeyed? Probably not always, but I would not exaggerate that. Certainly, the wild charges worshiping idols, devil worship, spitting on the cross, along with some less improbable homosexuality etc. were mostly nonsense made up by the French king to justify his destruction of the order.)

The Templars were very quickly introduced into Scotland. In 1124 Hughes de Payen visited Scotland and was received by King David I. King David made the Templars welcome, as did all kings across Europe. Their first preceptory, the land probably a gift from King David, was near Midlothian, and called Balantrodoch. A second preceptory was later established and much property across Scotland came into their hands. They certainly had lands in East Lothian, Falkirk, Midlothian and Glasgow. They had some status at the Scottish court as the head of the order in Scotland was the king's almoner (in charge of distributing alms to the poor), but that was not a particularly influential post. 

Temple Church, Midlothian 

The head of the Scottish preceptories were English members of the order, however, that does not mean that all knights at the preceptories were English. I have seen it claimed that there were no Scottish Knights Templar, but the idea that the Templars spend nearly two hundred years with a presence in Scotland and never gained a single member stretches credibility. It is in fact is false. Their main purpose was recruiting manpower for the defence of the Holy Land. It would have been a major failure had they not done so. However, Scotland had a small population so probably there were not many.

In 1302 a Scottish Templar called Richard Scoti was recorded as visiting the house of the Temple in Paris. In 1309, when Templars in England were being arrested for trial, one of the Templars arrested was Robert le Scot. Another Templar, Thomas Scot, managed to flee before he could be seized. Since only a very few Templar records survive in Scotland, how many others there may have been is impossible to know. As I mentioned, Scotland's relatively small population would probably make the number few.

Things changed drastically in 1296. The Knights Templar in Scotland under their English preceptor claimed they were subject to the master in England who was subject to the master in France. He in turn was subject to the master in Cyprus. So when active war broke out between England and Scotland, the Templars in Scotland along with the Scottish Hospitallers sided with England.

When in February 1306 Robert the Bruce, soon to be King of Scots, killed John Comyn in the chapel of Greyfriars Monastery, he was promptly excommunicated by the pope. This would of course even further cement the two military orders to the side of the English, but in France charges were already being discussed against the Templars. At first Pope Clement seemed to side with the Templars, dismissing the charges as false which most of them no doubt were. Certainly, King Philip of France was deeply in debt to the Templars. On Friday the 13th, 1307, King Philip ordered the arrest of scores of Templars in Paris. They were tortured and many confessed to the improbable charges. Eventually in November 1307 the pope gave into King Philip's pressure, ordering every king in Europe to arrest all Templars and seize their assets.  

However, Robert the Bruce was excommunicated and the kingdom of Scotland under interdict. The pope's writ did not run in Scotland. Scottish bishops had declared that because the pope had been deceived by the English that Scots could ignore the excommunication, which most did. Church life continued as it always had, at least in areas not conquered by the English.

What did that mean for Templars in Scotland? Well, much of Scotland was in English hands so several, including the English head of the Scottish preceptory, were arrested and tried in England. No Scots were arrested in Scotland which might mean that there were no Scottish Templars in Scotland at the time. A more likely explanation to my mind is that any Scottish Templars took advantage of the fact that Robert the Bruce was unlikely to arrest them. Although Bishop Lamberton could have held trials, no trials took place in Scotland.

In the meantime in Europe, especially France, those Templars not yet arrested were fleeing. There have always been rumors, both in Scotland and France, that some went to Scotland where neither the pope nor the French king could lay hands on them. True? It is certainly possible. It would be the only place they could possibly flee. 

Might some have fought at the Battle of Bannockburn? This is also a longstanding rumor. Again, that is possible, but they definitely did not fight as a separate division. The divisions that fought on the Scottish side are well known, but some individual Templars could have fought with one of the divisions which were led by King Robert, Edward de Bruce, Thomas Randolph, and and jointly by James Douglas and young Walter Stewart. 

In the rest of Europe, the leaders of the Templars met grisly ends. Grand Master Jacques de Molay retracted the confession that had been obtained under torture and was burnt at the stake, dying as he rained down curses on King Philip and Pope Clement. Geoffroi de Charney, Preceptor of Normandy, also repudiated his confession and was burnt at the stake.

Trials were held all across Europe except in Scotland, however, few former Templars other than their leaders were convicted. Most were eventually released (after a no doubt charming stay in a medieval dungeon) and assimilated into other orders, mainly the Knights Hospitaller.

The Scottish Knights Hospitaller after the Battle of Bannockburn decided they were not nearly as fond of the English as they had thought and shortly came into King Robert's peace. Were some of their members former Templars? I consider that very likely as they took in Templars in other kingdoms as well as receiving the Templar's properties. At any rate, the Hospitallers came to be a powerful presence in Scotland and influential in the Scottish royal court, free of being headed by an English master.

And is there Templar treasure hidden somewhere in Scotland? While I remain skeptical, it seems that much of the Templar riches were not accounted for, so it is not impossible.