Talk:Battle of Old Byland

Latest comment: 15 years ago by 86.166.178.156 in topic Figures

Figures edit

WHere DO these numbers come from? They do not seem to be derived from any contemorary chronicles and are mosty certainly gross exaggerations. It is very unlikely that ant Scottish medielval army amounted to 20,000 men, or any Englsih one to 48,000. CB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.178.156 (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. The numbers are complete and utter nonsense and are not based upon any reliable data. Mediaeval chroniclers used numbers in only the loosest sense, especially when writing long after the event, and to do little more than give some sense of dramatic scale. The battlefield at Old Byland could not possibly accomodate 80,000 men, nor could armies of such size have engaged in a simplistic battle such as is described. A more likely scale is that of the (fairly well-attested) "Battle of Boroughbridge" in which the forces numbered in the low thousands. The Royal Army in that instance numbered roughly 4000 men - and that was before the invasion of Scotland in which many will have died of disease or deserted - even allowing for subsequent reinforcements. As a supposedly authoratative dictionary, Wikipedia would do best describing both armies as "substantial", Scottish losses as "light" and English losses as "heavy".

Assessment comment edit

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of Old Byland/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.
  1. Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
  2. Switch existing references to use one of the {{Cite}} templates and combine
  3. Requires copy edit for WP:MOS
Keith D (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 23:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)