10/09/2026
Well we weren't going to post about Flodden 1513 (and now we're a day late and onto the the anniversary of The Battle of Pinkie Cleugh 1547).
So why weren't we going to post about it?
Well we like jousting and tournaments. To often the 'medieval'* (and renaissance*) world is presented as constant warfare and we're trying to move away from that.
Also King James IV is often only mentioned to talk about him dying at Flodden. One of Scotlands' greatest Kings. You'll hear alot more about the amazing things he did over the next year as we prepare for The Wild Knight and Black Lady Festival next year, culminating in The Tournament of The Wild Knight of The Black Lady on the 15-18th July.
But back to Flodden- we've seen a few myths posted and it seems prudent to offer some alternatives.
So first up-
"James allowed the English army to redeploy as he wanted to be chivalrous".
It's a story, and one that was popular in the late 19thC and early 20thC when 'chivalry' was seen as something to ridicule. The idea that "they could have won if they had ignored this chivalrous nonsense" may have sat well.
We do know that the English army had local troops who likely knew the ground very well.
"James foolishly fought in the front and advancing into arrow fire, trying to be seen as chivalrous".
James had previously offered combat to Surrey on a previous campaign. Surrey saw the much younger, fitter, James, an experienced tournament competitor, and declined the offer.
So years later James now has another chance of his single combat. He supposedly reaches in "a spears length from Surrey". He most likely would have defeated his aged opponent which may have been a devastating blow to the English. So was it really that foolish?
Further more, the Scots were attempting to fight in "the Alemain style" of swift advancing pike blocks. The difference they had made was putting their heavily armoured troops to the front. In hindsight we can see how this slowed the formation, negating it's advantage. But one can imagine how King James might see how their new updated armour would protect the back ranks and hope that their fitness would negate the weight of the armour.
Artillery- "the Scots guns were too heavy to be effective".
We often talk about Flodden as if that was the only reason the Scots had made the journey. This forgets that it was a campaign they were fighting. And up until Flodden it was a very successful one, with castles falling to the Scots. The guns brought would have been great for sieges. So perhaps they had prioritised siege artillery over field artillery (this should not take away from the skill of the English artillery crews though).
Command- "Flodden was lost by James' mistakes".
Easy to say in hindsight. Perhaps more accurate to say it was won by Surrey's skill and some poor luck and unfortunate circumstances for the Scots.
We should remember that in the past James had successfully raided England with a large army and outmanoeuvred the English army sent to stop him. He was not a naive commander but every commander make mistakes (look at George Washington's battlefield career). Unfortunately when commanders make mistakes people die.
So, in conclusion James IV deserves better than simply being remembered for dying.
Keep your eyes on our socials for more amazing James IV facts
