[104] Fœdera, N. E. vol. i. 872
[105] In this explanation of the term, the writer finds himself at variance with the opinion of Mr Tytler, who says, “schiltron” seems to denote nothing more than a compact body of men. As this restricted meaning of the expression appears to have been adopted on the authority of Hemingford, who says, “qui quidem circuli Schiltronis vocabantur,” it is to be inferred that he has not examined the term with his accustomed accuracy. Schiltron is, without doubt, compounded of the two Saxon words “scheld” and “roun.” When a general, in giving the word of command, called out “Scheltron” to any portion of his army, they would have as little difficulty in understanding him, as a modern battalion would if ordered to “form square.” It may also be observed, that by placing their shields together, they derived considerable advantage, being thereby enabled to form with greater celerity; and when once in order, a more impenetrable figure could not be presented to the attack of an enemy. That this is the ancient meaning of the word, is evident from the manner it is used by old chroniclers. Hearne, in his Glossary to Peter Langtoft, thus explains “Schelde,” shield, target, buckler, protection, government. “Sheltron,” shelter, covering, or rather shiltrons, or round battailes. The expression, therefore, in Hemingford, of “circuli schiltronis,” only shows that a man, even in a learned language, may utter an absurdity.
In order to render the schiltron formidable in offensive warfare, it was necessary to have the centre occupied with archers, who, enclosed within the barrier of the spearmen, could ply their deadly shafts in comparative security. That this was part of the plan of Wallace to supply his deficiency in cavalry at the battle of Falkirk, is highly probable. By this measure, neither the superiority of the enemy in this formidable description of force, nor the desertion of the Scottish cavalry, would have been so severely felt. That this arrangement did not take place, was very likely owing to the pertinacity of Steward, who commanded the archers, and rashly exposed himself and those under him to the overwhelming charges of the heavy armed squadrons of the English. This obstinacy on the part of the knight of Bonkill, affords a very natural solution of the feud between him and Wallace. Had the archers been in the centre of the schiltrons, they could have returned the murderous discharge of their enemies’ missiles with corresponding effect, and have eventually produced a more favourable termination to the operations of the day.
[106] To The Bruce and The Wallace, vol. ii. Edin. 1820, 4to.
Transcribers’ Notes
Variations in punctuation, spelling, and hyphenation have been retained except as noted below.
Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced quotation marks have been retained except as noted below.
Some poems were preceded by a double-quotation mark and followed by a single-quotation mark. Those closing single marks have been changed to doubles.
Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines have been retained.
Primary footnotes have been placed into a single ascending sequence and are identified by number. Footnotes to footnotes have been placed into a single ascending sequence and are identified by letter.