The Battle of Largs and its aftermath

Originally the Norse came to Scotland only to plunder, but eventually they claimed lands and made settlements. From early in the 12th century, the Norse had claimed parts of western Scotland, especially north Ayrshire and Caithness, and the isles of the Hebrides. The nobles there swore fealty to the King of Norway. Early in the next century Scotland's King Alexander II began conquest of the mainland possessions of the Norse. He began negotiations for possession of the isles. When those negotiations failed, he set out to conquer them. However, he died of a fever on his way, leaving a seven-year-old son, Alexander III, as his heir.

Not surprisingly, all attempts at consolidating Scotland crashed to a halt, and the minority of King Alexander was as tumultuous as such usually are. Eventually, the young king reached his majority and threw off the rule of constant squabbling regents some of whom had gone so far as to kidnap him and his queen.

In 1263, the 22-year-old king determined to finish the job his father had started. He began negotiations by laying claim before Norway's King Haakon IV of Norway to the Hebredes and all the lands of mainland Scotland. The Norse king rejected the claim and the Scots invaded Skye to take it. Haakon gathered a large fleet believed to be as many as 200 longboats to invade Scotland, planning to take back western Scotland and firm their claim to the isles. Generally a longboat carried about 40 men, so this was a formidble invasion force, numbering in the thousands. King Alexander cannily sent friars as envoys possibly to try to reach an accord but more likely to merely delay the invasion while he gathered his own forces. Whichever the original intent, the invasion was delayed. When negotiations broke down, the Norse struck, first one arm of the fleet ravaging all around Loch Lomond, buring, killing and pillaging. That arm rejoined the main force. At Cumbraes, King Haakon poised to invade the mainland of Scotland.

The Scottish force had gathered in Ayr Castle under the leadership of the redoubtable Alexander Stewart of Dundonald, a crusader who brought the experience the young untried king needed. They gathered mainly mounted knights and men-at-arms supplimented by local foot infintry, armed with axes and bows. The negotiations had delayed the attack until autumn, but it is unlikely that the Scots counted on the Norse being battered by a storm. That was likely more luck than good planning, since even in autumn storms are not constant.

Either way, as the tremendous Norse fleet neared the coast a short distance north of Ayr, a storm hit. The Norse fleet was badly battered loosing several ships and the men they carried. But the fleet was still mostly intact and made landfall at Largs, possibly intending merely to repair their damaged ships. King Haakon came ashore and divided his force, with about 800 on the beach commanded by King Haakon, guarding their ships and a smaller division of 200 men commanded by Ogmond Crouchdance on a nearby mound.

Word was quickly carried to the Scottish leaders some 40 miles away. There is no record if King Alexander was with the army. I believe he must have been because he had reason to want to prove himself to his people, but there is no doubt that the actual commander was Stewart of Dundonald. They led their army north to defend the kingdom.

At the sight of the attacking Scots, Ogmond realised he was seriously outnubmered and feared he and his men would be cut off from the main Norse force, so he began an orderly retreat. The Scots met the retreat with a fierce charge that turned it into a chaotic route, many, perhaps even most, were slain as they ran. Seeing the slaughter going on, King Haakon ordered his men to retreat to the ships. In savage fighting, many Norse were slain as they fell back but the ships were effective makeshift fortresses. The Scots then pulled back to the mound from with the Norse had retreated.

The Norse made one last sortie and succeeded in pushing the Scots back from the mound. As night fell, there was no clear winner, but the Norse invasion had turned into a disaster. The next morning the Scots held back allowing the Norse to gather their dead and retreat. Although the results are referred to as inconclusive, there is no question that King Haakon retreated with a battered army no longer capable of invading Scotland. The right of the kingdom of Scotland to all of the mainland of Scotland was no longer in question and with King Haakon's death in Orkney, negotiations for transfer of the Hebredes to the kingdom of Scotland were renewed.

Thanks to the Battle of Largs and its aftermath by 1266 the map of Scotland for the first time would be very recognizable by any Scot. A strong and successful King Alexander III was in firm control of his own kingdom and the Scots free of the fear of invasion from the north.

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.