How did Scotland managed to keep gathering armies?

[sleeperul]

Let me explain in the first War of Scottish independence Edward I beat them so hard destroying armies after armies of the Scots but the Scots managed to raise army after army after army to be massacred. Where did they get that much manpower? Then in the second war for for independece which was not long after the first one again army after army was massacred and yet they still managed to raise more troops.
Where do they got all those troops?

 

[Kovax]

The bigger question is not how they get them, but how they arm them. The numbers involved in any medieval or renaissance era army pales into insignificance compared to those of later industrialized nations that can support hundreds of thousands or millions of men in the field. Basically, the "destroyed" army might lose a couple thousand dead and badly injured, and the rest either fled or surrendered and had their weapons confiscated. It's not all that hard to replace 5000 men or less. The ability to gather enough weapons to equip the replacement troops could easily become an issue, however, and each army would most likely be of poorer quality than the last.

Edward had to either forage in hostile territory or supply his army at a distance, while the Scots could much more easily pull several thousand men out of the fields for a few days or weeks, each with a few days' rations in hand.

 

[sleeperul]

How many where is Scotland at that time they could just pull over several thousands of men time and time again after being massacred time and time and time again for decades.

 

[Kovax]

You have to remember that this is not modern warfare where you end up with a million casualties. Warfare was a comparatively SMALL affair between a few thousand men on each side. Even with the lower population density of the time, it only amounts to a tiny percentage of the male population. They make a LOT more of those every generation. Yes, it probably did put a noticeable dent in that population, but not enough to prevent them from gathering yet another army, and a lot of them were probably veterans of past battles. This is not video game warfare either, where thousands die and every "hero" gets dozens of kills. A few hundred total casualties, and the outmatched side ends up with a few men slipping away. Once it starts, it becomes "devil take the hindmost", and you either run or die. The victorious side's cavalry may run down and kill another couple of hundred from there. Not tens of thousands.

 

[Henry IX]

The clan system in Scotland also allows for a greater level of mobilisation than the feudal system in England. All males were required to fight for their clan lords and were expected to be armed (even if minimally) and trained. This is in contrast to England where the majority of the populous were actively disarmed and discouraged from training (although they could still be levied in a crisis).

The ability to gather enough weapons to equip the replacement troops could easily become an issue, however, and each army would most likely be of poorer quality than the last.

The Scots forces were largely based around two sources: the lowland nobility and their households and the clan lords and their clansmen. The lowland nobility were split in their support of Edward Longshanks but were largely rallied to Robert the Bruce's cause. Hence, the comparatively well equipped lowlands cavalry did not get destroyed in the battles against Edward I and were still present for the wars against his son.

The highlanders, on the other hand, were very poorly equipped (a shield and a spear for the majority with the odd one owning a sword). Hence, their equipment losses were replaceable.

The English, on the other hand, relied heavily on mercenary knights who were a limited commodity. A single significant defeat (such as Bannockburn) may have been sufficient to weaken the crown's ability to raise armies for conquest (as opposed to the short service feudal levy, which was best suited for defence). During the medieval period the defender has a huge advantage due to the impact of fortifications and the difficulty in keeping large armies in the field beyond a couple of weeks.

 

[Holmes]

Let me explain in the first War of Scottish independence Edward I beat them so hard destroying armies after armies of the Scots but the Scots managed to raise army after army after army to be massacred. Where did they get that much manpower? Then in the second war for for independece which was not long after the first one again army after army was massacred and yet they still managed to raise more troops.
Where do they got all those troops?

Arable land studies give scotland around a million population shortly after the wars of independence, typicaly Bruce put under c10,000 in the field at any point in time, so its not a surprise that a low military participation ratio was able to be replaced relatively quickly. Each summoned person had, from Scottish ordinances, to come with equipment based on his personal wealth, Bruce supplemented this with mil contracts to the Hanseatic league to arm/armour the poorer levies.