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  

Bannockburn Proved

This book gives several levels of proof of the central questions about the battle: where it took place and how the victory was achieved. The success of this research will be shown immediately in 3 brief paragraphs.

1. For centuries it has been believed by the history community that about 6,000 Scots defeated 20,000 English. This I have demolished:

The least population of Scotland, Prof Barrow's, in 1314, is 400,000. This means there were 200,000 men and 200,000 women. Half of the men were too young or too old to fight: under 15 or over 45, say. This means there were about 100,000 Scotsmen of fighting age in 1314. If only 6,000 Scots fought in the battle, where were the other 94,000 Scotsmen of fighting age that day?

This is called the Charisma-Population Argument. A leader with the charisma of Robert Bruce should have been able to field far more than 6,000 men. In fact, the written reports of the battle tell of a Scottish army which was far larger. 15,000 Scots are likely. Bannockburn Revealed contains several compelling arguments to show this. Notice that some believe that the population of Scotland in 1314 was a million. If so, there were 500,000 males, meaning 250,000 men of fighting age. The above question then becomes: if only 6,000 fought at Bannockburn where were the other 244.000 Scots?

2. In the 7 centuries seince the battle was fought, no historian ever thought of assembling, translating and printing all the relevant written reports in one book. This happened for the first time in Bannockburn Revealed [BR]. In addition, each written report was investigated for its date of writing and its reliability, a novel procedure. Up to now, historians picked any quotation they liked to argue the case they wished to make. In 2001, for example, Dr Fiona Watson of Stirling university, in her report for Stirling Council [on p21] cited a source, The Chronicle of Melsa written in the 15th century and another source by Habbakuk Bisset in the 17th century, as if these people could know anything about the battle of 1314. Worse, the quotations given were a single phrase of a handful of words. That is, the source did not know enough to say anything more. When all the relevant written sources are printed and analysed what happened at the battle is blindingly obvious. The results will soon be seen in this website.

3. Without a good map of the entire battle area, the battle cannot be understood. The maps in Bannockburn Revealed [BR] took over a year to make. These were made by using General William Roy's maps of c1750 and excising the changes since 1314. But the most important aspect of these maps is that they were justified. The first time maps of this battle were ever justified. And it took 100 pages to do it properly. Roy had about fifty people employed to help him make his maps and close study for many years has shown the maps he made of the Stirlingshire area to be brilliant. They were not however, triangulated, a process unknown in these islands at that time. Therefore, in the second book, Bannockburn Proved [BP], Roy's beautifully and accurately drawn bogs around the battle area were carefully transposed onto the earliest OS map, the first to be triangulated. In addition, a further justification of 25,000 words was included with further insights about the terrain, each one of them a gem which had to be discovered after many visits to the site. Note that Roy was a Fellow of the Royal Society and won its highest award. He and 4 others in the map project became generals, the ablest men of the age then. Roy's maps of Stirlingshire are so detailed that gap sites in the villages are shown, houses set back from the site line, hedges and streams and hills and above all woodland. Hardly any books on this subject have ever shown the woodland. And yet the area was and still is full of woodland, a vital matter when a battle is to be understood,

The importance of a good map can be shown easily. Prof Barrow drew the Pelstream as if it were a rivulet a foot deep and a foot wide and starting from east of St Ninians, not realising its true course. It starts on Gillies Hill far to the west in 9 springs and etched out for itself a 100 yd wide channel, 100 feet deep from which, before the Town Burn was formed, it debouched straight out into the carseland, forming the northern boundary of the Carse of Balquhiderock. The southern is the Bannock Burn. In 2001, Fiona Watson, who works within a few miles of the Carse, drew the Pelstream emerging out of the ground like a rabbit out of hat. Neither of them understood the battle because they could not draw the streams. It never occurred to either to justify their maps and if they had they would have seen their errors--maybe! But worse! Neither of them noticed Balquhiderock Wood or the other woods which still surround the Dryfield of Balquhiderock and have surrounded it from time immemorial. Nobody ever cut Balquhiderock Wood because it was too much trouble and no advantage on a mainly steep north slope.

Why have Barrow, Duncan, Watson, Brown et al made so many mistakes and fouled up our history? Partly because they devoted too little time to the task. Barrow said in writing that he had walked over the battle area for two days. Watson's ignorance is more remarkable. How she learned nothing from Barrow's map made 40 years earlier or Christison's which is better than either is a deep mystery, an error- one of many so childish it beggars belief. However, this research did have the advantage of time. A full decade, full time, has been spent on this. Academics do not have this advantage. They have classes to teach, papers to mark, reputations to promote and salaries to earn. This research was performed with a total disregard for cost or time or effort and nothing else was done during it, all normal work suspended until its completion. Merely making the improved maps of the battle area in BP took a full year and a half, with innumerable additional visits to the battle area to resolve puzzles in the maps and the terrain. The maps were changed a great many times, every relevant map old and new being consulted repeatedly. No wonder this research is far better than what went before. The reason why this work is not more celebrated is that: the above historians have made many simple mistakes they will not own up to and want buried, not exposed; they do not understand this work because they are unwilling or incapable of the necessary effort- even though a dozen very able people, (some of them historians and lawyers) have made this effort and been completely convinced by it; since they could not prove this themselves it is easy to assume it cannot be done; but a lot of it is plain ignorance and stupidity. Barrow, in writing, believes there was no woodland in the entire area in 1314, apart from the New Park, despite the fact that there has been woodland in many places for centuries shown on every map worth the name and still to be seen today in places where it is still not worthwhile to cut down the thousands of trees.

Some will cavil at this attack. It is necessary! Because of their failure of scholarship- which continues!-the battlefield, the true battlefield- is under constant threat of building. Of course all their old rubbish continues to be the received wisdom in universities. Truth and our heritage is being lost because of their failures. They care more for their reputations than anything else. This is why this work does not get reviewed in the main journals. It will be said that work that is self published does not deserve a review. Nonsense! This publishing was no act of vanity. It was a duty and took all that remained of my savings at the time. The fact that so many good minds have confirmed its findings and praised them as already seen, cries out for a review. The patriotic reader here has a duty to advance this cause. It is common for new ideas--and here there are new procedures, a new scientific way of dealing with these problems-- to have to wait until all the stupid old people in charge die off. In this case, there isn't the time! If we wait for this the battle area will be under concrete.

Now let us begin with a one sentence proof that the battle took place in the Carse of Balquhiderock. It will be followed by several quotations from the written sources which clarify it for the non expert.

The main Battle of Bannockburn took place in the Carse of Balquhiderock because the Scots, who held the Dryfield of Balquhiderock, attacked at dawn the English---who had camped the night before in the Carse of Balquhiderock---IN THEIR CAMP!

Please Note: The book is being retypeset and should be reprinted within the year at an affordable price. Meantime it is not available

Please email elenkus@yahoo.com if you are having problems buying the book. Or phone 01700505439 or mobile 07842404268 or write to G/L 23 Argyle Pl, Rothesay, Bute, PA20 0BA

CONTENTS A Rough A4 Sketch showing the principal named features in the Bannockburn Area in 1314 is provided loose. This will define some areas of importance, in a rough way, and enable some older maps to be more accessible. This should be kept handy at all times, especially in the beginning. Exact boundaries will become clear from the text. A very accurate estimate of the area in 1314 in colour is given in the frontispiece, with details of its construction in the appendix.

MAPS: This book comes with 4 A3 size maps included loose within the book covers in order that larger maps than usual can be used for the convenience of the reader who should spread two of them around himself and refer to them continually. These are: The Roy maps joined [RMJ] which gives the map of the area in 1750 and the OS map of the area made in 1860, known here as OS [1860], published 1865. The relevant part of the Pont Map of Stirlingshire is also enclosed for information. As the text shows, it is of no value in this subject. The map by Jefferys can be left until required by the text. Details from many other maps are given within the book in the plates section to prove particular points.

The Useless maps:

The maps in the Report for Stirling Council:

Map 1. See page 4/5

Map 2 See page 4/5

Map 3: The Pont 'map' of Stirlingshire, enclosed separately as an A3, the relevant part. (Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland)

PLATES: The Useful maps

The Two Maps of Stirlingshire by General Roy c1750:

Plate 5: Roy West.

Plate 14: Roy East.

These two Roy maps have been cropped and expanded to show the immediate area of interest and joined together to make an A3 map known as Roy Maps Joined, abbreviated to RMJ. This is the most useful map and should be referred to repeatedly. However, the original Roy maps, uncropped, reveal features which are occasionally useful. Please use a magnifier with them. In any case, RMJ itself needs to be capable of being checked by referring to the maps from which it came. The process of making RMJ can therefore be repeated by anyone with sufficient skill.