Elenkus Publishing Ltd


Bannockburn Revealed | Bannockburn Proved  | The Bannockburn Years | The Bute Witches | THE CATHEDRAL  | Articles |  Maps | A BUTE CRUCIFIXION | Lectures | AN ARGYLL HONOUR KILLING | Proofs   | Contact us  | Home

 

The word 'elenchus' refers to logical argument. The most famous practitioner of elenchus was Socrates, the Greek philosopher who sought to reveal the truth by questioning the arguments of the so called 'great men' of his time. Hence the publishing imprint: ELENKUS. It is apt, because most of the publications are concerned with discovering the solution of difficult problems.

Reviews

'You should get a doctorate from every university in Scotland for this.' Irvine Smith, Advocate and Sheriff

'William Scott's work is the best piece of research on history---not just Bannockburn---of that period that I ever encountered.' Roger Graham, The Greenock Telegraph.

'This book, like its predecessor, Bannockburn Revealed, is the result of dedicated, exhaustive and patient research and, for one reader at least, settles the vexed question of the site of the Battle of Bannockburn.' Irvine Smith, Advocate and Sheriff

'I found Mr Scott's account quite fascinating...As regards the site of the battle, he demonstrates conclusively that it must have been the Carse of Balquhiderock...Indeed, he demonstrates that [the Dryfield] would have been impossible. Patrick Cadell, historian, ex Keeper of the Records of Scotland. In Scottish Local History, Spring 2006.

'William Scott brings to this sequel to his previous book, "Bannockburn Revealed"...his further reasoned consideration of the subject, attacked with the thoroughness and cold logic one would associate with a consummate mathematician. As a classical scholar and student of Ancient History I particularly appreciate his evaluation of evidence, sifting the dross from the gold. He has challenged the historical establishment and in so doing has ruffled many a feather. I would put him on a par with the young Michael Ventris whose work on the decipherment of Linear B confounded the Classical establishment of his time. Hopefully, William Scott will in the end gain the same acceptance.' Tom McCallum MA Hons(Classics) St Andrews.

'There are two reasons why Bannockburn Proved is one of the great publications of the early 21st century. The first is the combination of historical scholarship and painstaking on the ground investigation which shows clearly the true site of the battle, and how the Scots achieved such a notable victory in 1314. The second is that the author has found himself, in a modern context, engaged in the same kind of opposition that faced King Robert, in the guise of a coalition of intellectuals and town councillors who now find their superiority challenged and overthrown by a man who understands the battleground.' Rev Jock Stein, Minister and Theological Publisher.'

'Thank you for Bannockburn Revealed. It is quite a while since I felt overwhelmed by a book especially non fiction. A whole week- end was wiped out for me-- engrossed in reading and map referencing, with the occasional twenty-minute trip out in the car to check out this landmark or that. Perhaps it was the enthusiasm of the style; maybe the pace and the very compelling argument. Certainly I found myself delighted by your invaluable met-analytical approach. it's a storming piece of work. Thank you.' Dr David Simpson, Stirling.

'The starting point is a close consideration of all the original sources, all of which are printed together, in full, for the first time. This gives you a full opportunity to read them all and form your own views. This in itself is sufficient justification for buying the book. From the book you will learn that there were not four schiltroms but three and why Barbour chose to invent the fourth. You will learn that there was no Scottish cavalry charge, sweeping away the English archers, because none of them fought mounted. There was no heroic appearance by the Small Folk, waving their laundry in banners.; and even had they appeared where they are supposed to have done, no one on the battlefield would have seen them. And. most surprising of all, the basis on which the size of the Scottish army has been computed is wholly falacious. Mr Scott, has, I believe, definitively established that the main action took place in the Carse of Balquhiderock. He has reached this compelling conclusion as a result of an in-depth study of old maps and photographs of the area, particularly a map prepared in 1750 by General Roy and a team of cartographers who, individually, went on to great distinction...All this is combined with an unrivalled knowledge of the ground. The many photographs of the area will leave you in no doubt that the maps you have seen in other books are, at best simplistic, and underestimate its complexity. This is an excellent book which I whole-heartedly recommend. ' Christopher Jackson, ex Principal Crown Prosecutor, Review of Bannockburn Revealed in Slingshot no 230.

'I do believe that the battle area lay undiscovered for nearly seven centuries until William Scott walked the ground, year in year out, for nearly a decade! He alone has studied this ground in minute detail making many remarkable discoveries in the process and I am convinced no one else has ever done this. I believe that no one else has made such an exhaustive study of the eyewitness accounts and other important works associated with this event. His book is quite unique in that he applied scientific principles in his endeavour to find out what really happened. This turns out to be far more astounding than the account I was taught at school. All the Scots, including Robert the Bruce, on the day of the main battle, walked to their glory! Not one Scots was on horseback! They walked up to the English camp in the early morning, made their presence known, and as the song says, 'sent them home to think again.'

'How did they do this? All is made clear in Bannockburn Revealed, a book of truly amazing scholarship, the first scientific history book I've ever come across. The facts, the evidence, are all presented with great clarity and one is compelled to accept that here is the truth because everything fits into place and makes sense. Sadly, what is truly astonishing, is that this book has not been properly read, understood or accepted by any historians from the academic community. These so called guardians of our national heritage, either through apathy or arrogance, have undoubtedly put one of our greatest national monuments, the battlefield itself, at risk. Their lack of commitment towards upholding what has proved to be the truth is likely to lead to a desecration of the battle site for commercial gain. Donald Morrison, 2004.

'In Bannockburn Proved William Scott has taken the molecular level to the atomic. Every minute detail has been re-examined raising the status of this book to a scientifically tested proof for all time. The medieval battle maps alone are outstanding documents justified by exhaustive scientific investigation. This proof was obtained after nearly two decades of hard labour. No ivory towers here but an intense examination of every square inch of the battle ground. No odd reference to an ancient map but a close scrutiny of all maps ancient and modern. No sporadic quote from an occasional source but a thorough searching of all the sources. No skimming of a few works relating to this event. In the process every strand of evidence has been teased out. Having intensely studied W. Scott's work for many years I have to conclude that unlike many discoveries in mathematics, physics, medecine, astronomy, genetics etc, this work is not a theory but is the absolute truth simply because no other facts will ever be discovered which will discredit this truth. What a wonderful challenge for all the academic historians from every Scottish university to dissect this work and try to find fault with it. They will find none and will only conclude that W. Scott should be appropriately recognised and applauded for his achievement..... Donald Morrison, 2006.

'My involvement with W. Scott's work led me to undertake the construction of 3D model of the battle area based on his maps in Bannockburn Revealed, which forced me to focus on the Roy maps. Mr Scott has been examining every line and mark on the maps for almost two decades and I am convinced that he is in a class of his own with regard to Roy's maps. I concluded that Mr Scott had confirmed, one hundred percent, everything of importance on the ground by an exhaustive study of the Roy maps supported by other useful maps of the area.' Donald Morrison, 2006

The books listed above (and the others not yet published) have several original characteristics. When the book is a novel, characters are invented to enable the solution to emerge after conflicts of ideas. The Bannockburn Years set out to discover arguments pro and con Scottish Independence. The characters argue about this throughout the book and four arguments were found which settle the issue. In addition, a lot of original work on the history of the battle and the war of Independence made its way into the narrative. The ideas of archery and the site of the battle and the tactics were original. Because some eminent historians pooh-poohed these ideas because of the form; a novel, and not a dry as dust history; and assumed the original sources had not been consulted, it was decided to take on the matter: to investigtate the battle thoroughly. Their writings had been studied and rejected. This deeper investigation took a decade and resulted in the production of two books on Bannockburn which are unlikely ever to be surprassed. Why? Because these books include every relevant source, analysed in ways no historian ever thought of doing before. Because 2.5 years were spent investigating the battle area, to a level of understanding never imagined possible before. The outcome is sets of maps of the battle area and the battle which are the first fully justified maps of the battle ever produced. Indeed, no one before ever thought of justifying the maps in their books, which is why they are so full of errors. If you can't draw the map of the area: its streams, woods, hills, bogs, fords and bridges, you cannot understand the battle. What you have to do is understand every change in the terrain since 1314 and then you can draw the map of 1314 from the set of all the maps relevant. This has taken hundreds of whole days spent at the battle-area in pursuit of answers to questions, often just a few questions, as well as hundreds of days spent with all the old and new maps of the area. In addition, another novel procedure, the books Bannockburn Revealed and Bannockburn Proved, are full of arguments and these are rated for their logical compulsion. Many of the arguments discovered are absolutely compelling: they demolish the scatter- brained ideas that have lasted centuries in the heads of our stupid historians, such as The Scottish Cavalry Charge which defeated thousands of English archers (as if it was possible!) and the Small Folk on a distant hill waving sheets, who terrified the English so much that they fled. None of the many excellent English sources say this! They uniformly deny it! And they all agree on what happened. And what did happen is far more wonderful than this rubbish about Scottish cavalry charges and Small Folk..

The hallmark of all previous studies by historians of this great battle is stupidity! It never occurred to them to question the daft imaginings and inventions of people like Archdeacon John Barbour. And laziness, that too. Proving something like this requires work and historians do not like to get their feet dirty in bog and mire, day after day, understanding the terrain. They are happier in their ivory towers. And yet, they are not even competent therein: our most eminent historians are guilty of errors in dealing with written sources so appalling that a child could understand them.

Eg1. Relying on a summary in English, and failing to translate the original document! -Professor Duncan, in 'War of the Scots,' a paper in TransRHS p150, VIth series II and Barbour's Bruce, edited Duncan p404, Bk 11 lines 1-6 in which Duncan argues that the truce at Stirling was signed only 3 months before the battle. In fact, had he translated in full the letter summarised in Bain's Calendar of Documents Vol 3 p66, he would have discovered that Edward II knew about the forthcoming battle of June 1314 on 28th November 1313 and had known about it for some time previously.The full translation is included in Bannockburn Revealed p117/8 where copies of the original documents appear. Barbour was right in this then: the battle was fought after a truce of a full year.

Eg2. 'None of our three best early chronicled sources, the Life of Edward the Second, the Lanercost Chronicle and the Scalacronica, refers to the battle by name; even Barbour.. does not give it a name himself. ' -Prof Barrow, p215, Robert Bruce & The Community of the Realm..In fact, three out of four refer to the battle by name and, if he had known the name of the stream, so would the fourth. The cover of Bannockburn Revealed contains a copy of a folio from the origiinal version of Scalacronica where the word 'Bannockburn' can be clearly seen. Inside, copies of folios from Lanercost where the word appears three times, are shown. These are small signs of different, far greater errors by these people.

 

 


From this publisher you will learn the truth about the Battle of Bannockburn. How? Why is this different? Because in these books you will find all the relevant sources, translated and analysed, every relevant map and many original maps of the battle area never seen before, made after years of careful, painstaking investigation. What happened at the battle and exactly where it happened is now completely determined for all time. Why has the history community not announced this as settled? Because of arrogance, prejudice, laziness, stupidity and especially vanity, for some of its most eminent members have committed childish errors and seek to evade the damage to their reputations. These are exposed in the books very carefully and precisely as befits a scientific investigation: first clear up the mistakes, remove the dross, and then the truth can be revealed. And the truth is far more wonderful than any of the inventions still current which have been handed down the generations without decent examination. This research means that the battle area, which has already been built upon and is under constant threat of more building, can be preserved. Of course, financial interests who wish to build on it do not want this to be known. That is what you, the reader, the patriotic reader, must now act to resolve. Another reason for the lack of announcement is that since the result is very important the academics whose colours were nailed to masts now blown down do not wish to yield. Of course you doubt the truth of this. Why has no one before ever thought of assembling all the written reports of the battle, translating them all from Latin, French or Scots, and then analysing them all in one book? Bannockburn Revealed is the first book to do this. It is the first book with fully justified maps [no other book has ever justified its map] and the first book in which every material source is printed. That these are clearly the best ways to proceed to uncover the truth should convince any intelligent reader that this is the definitive research. The historian who remains silent about this work should realise that he will have to come out of hiding at some time. The longer he leaves it, the more obvious it will be that his silence is morally disreputable. Bannockburn Revealed was published in 2000, 7 years ago. Historians for whom its findings are inconvenient have tried to bury it, the usual response of the mediocre. Usually, when a new advance takes place in a subject, the world has to wait for its great names to die off before it can receive acceptance. Too old and ossified to be capable of seeing with a fresh eye, they prohibit the dissemination of the advance, partly because having a fixed view they are no longer open-minded and will not take the trouble to examine a deeper truth than they were ever able to see for themselves when young, but partly it is embarrassment at their own shallow scholarship and mistakes. In this case, there is not time for the old men to die off. The battlefield is under threat right now. In a year or two, the battle area will be changed beyond preservation, by financial interests which care not a fig for the historical truth and glory in the dispute and dithering of the history names whom the public, unwisely, believe to be the authorities here. Moreover, because a few old men want to hide the advance, the same old rubbish continues to be taught in our schools and universities. Had these people any real regard for the truth they would have admitted their errors, shown 7 years ago and rewritten their books. By denying this, they deny students the superior scholarship and the public, who do not know any better, are forced to continue to believe falsehood. And yet the truth, the truth discovered here after a decade of virtually full time labour, is inspiring. The Scots of 1314 were men of genius not just big men with big swords.

Bannockburn Revealed contains all the sources and many procedures new to this subject which make so many aspects of the battle blindingly clear. Example: contrary to the beliefs of historians for centuries, there was no cavalry charge of Scots and no Small Folk. These are shown to be false. As soon as you line up all the relevant written reports the truth is absolutely clear. Bannockburn Proved completes the work by including even better original maps of the battle area which took a year and half to make, full time, and which, like the others, are fully justified maps. This is the first time maps have been produced which are justified. All the other maps in other books have no justification and that is because the need for them was never seen. Hence they are full of errors: streams in the wrong place, no bogs or woods, whole towns where there was barely a house 4 centuries later. If you cannot draw the map of 1314 of course you cannot understand the battle. The terrain is vitally important in understanding the battle and it takes not days but years to understand the changes which have taken place in the centuries since. Remove them and you have a very good estimate of the ground in 1314. In this case, the ground, is especially important. Bannockburn Proved contains not one proof that the battle was fought in the Carse but 8, one of them a single sentence which any historian of the past or present will think himself accursed not to have seen. The final proof shows that no appreciable amount of archaelogical or other evidence in the future would make the slightest difference to the certainty of the conclusion. A sign of the depth of the work is that it has been shown in an elementary mathematical appendix to be very nearly certain that the number of people living within the 6 square miles of the battle area in 1314 was fewer than 300.

 

Counter Stats
insurance leads
insurance leads Counter