Home > Razvoj družbe > Chris Brown: William Wallace, The Man and The Myth

Chris Brown: William Wallace, The Man and The Myth

William Wallace, Knight of Scotland

Professors Geoffrey Barrow, Ranald Nicholson and Archibald Duncan, very much the architects of current thinking relating to Scotland in the later Middle Ages.

By the close of the thirteenth century the unification of Britain had become the most significant political issue in both England and Scotland. This matter was driven chiefly by Edward I’s personal ambition.

Wallace was, to medieval English observer, a barrier to the settlement of the Scottish problem.

If one great barrier to British unification through English expansionism in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was disinterest in the project among the English, the great barrier to unification after 1296 was the determination of enough Scots, enough of the time, that there should be no unification at all.

Of noble kin: the society of William Wallace

Wallace was a member of the nobility, minor and obscure nobility perhaps, but nobility nonetheless.

Most of the temporal magnates held their property from the king in exchange for a variety of judicial and administrative obligations and military service.

The bulk of the large armies raised by the Scots through out the Wars of Independence would be drawn from wealthier classes of men.

Wallace and Murray raised considerable forces for Stirling Bridge and Wallace army at Falkirk seems to have been a strong one. But the rule was that the Scots tended to avoid major formal confrontation.

What was the motivation for Scots to fight? Social unrest. Maybe. Nationalism, most probably. In Europe nationalism was considered after Napoleon war. In Scotland and England it was already present in thirteenth century.

In England, the conquest of 1066 allowed William the Conqueror to apportion property as he saw fit. In Scotland the situation was rather more complicated – feudal tenures were introduced piecemeal, each grant made on its own terms.

Sir Malcom Wallace’s status as a ‘vassal’ of the Stewart was hardly servile and certainly not dishonorable.

Military service obligation for land was additional to the service owed by all the adult males of Scotland. Known as ‘Scottish’ or ‘Common Army’ service.

In 1318 Robert I laid down a scale of arms according to income.

In 1153 there were sixteen burghs in Scotland, at the close of the reign of William I, there were nearly forty, and more than fifty by 1300.

Trade was strong in burghs. Import, spice industry and especially arms and armour trade. But before War of Independence, the size of arms trade was not high.

In 1296 the last Scottish military operations was annexation of the Isle of Man, some twenty years previously.

The Scottish nobility of the thirteenth and fourteenth century were essentially a class of rentier landlords with military and legal obligations and the Wallace family was a small part of that class.

Wallace power was achieved through military leadership. When he lost, so did his authority. Maybe this would be different if the Murray would not die after Stirling Bridge.

The roots of the war

Through the reigns of Alexander II and Alexander III, Scotland and England had enjoyed a stable and generally peaceful relationship.

Alexander III’s heir was his granddaughter, Margaret. Her mother was from Norway. She died coming from Norway and the council of Guardians (originally set up to rule in the name of Margaret) approached Edward I.

Edward I choose John Baliol and not Robert Bruce (grandfather of the Robert Bruce that would later become King).

Edward I thought that Baliol would be more manageable, but he pushed him to far and he started his defiance in 1295, working together with France. That caused invasion of Scotland from Edward I. His army advanced on Berwick. They also won and destroy the Dunbar Castle and moved to Edinburgh.

After military wins, Edward I turned to France and fight there. He never really fully annex Scotland.

Robert Bruce first fought with English, but in 1297 he crossed to the Scottish side.

Wallace was committed to Baliol dynasty. He counted on his reward if he would win kingdom back for Baliol’s.

From gangster to governor

 William Wallace history before his military rise is almost invisible.

Wallace military genius can be questioned. He was a great leader of man, but he only fought two big battles, one which he won – Stirling Bridge and one that he lost – Falkirk.

Wallace first act was a murder of sheriff of Lanark.

In 1297 Wallace combined his army with that of Andrew Murray.

The English army strong part were archers. The first English army to focus on archers was the one lead by Edward Balliol and Henry Beaumont in 1332. But already at Bannockburn they had 3 to 4.000 archer in 15 to 20.00 man’s army.

The Battle of Stirling Bridge

Edward could not lead his army to Scotland in 1297.

The noble revolt led by Bruce, Wishart and the Stewart fizzle out in negotiations at Irvine.

The geographical location of Stirling has made it a focus for military activity throughout recorded history. As the first point at which the Forth could be easily crossed, possession of Stirling, or control of the bridge, gave a great deal of control over access to Scotland north of the Forth.

The English army was led by the Earl of Surrey and Hugh Cressingham.

Edward inherited authority, whereas Wallace and Murray had to acquire it, and in August 1297 their status as leaders was completely dependent on maintaining the military initiative.

According to Walter of Guisborough the English army initiated two premature crossing of the bridge before the battle proper began.

It was the geography of the battlefield, one narrow bridge and very small part of land on which English army step when crossing the bridge, offer Wallace and his army a chance to win much bigger army.

The biggest Scottish lost was Murray, who died few days after the battle due to wounds from the battle. Cressingham was also dead.

Wallace become the Guardian. He became politician. There are some letters from Wallace and Murray to German merchants at Hamburg and Lubeck.

The Lothian community was one part of Scotland that Wallace was not able to bring back for King John. They were content with English administration.

From victory to ignominy

If Stirling Bridge gave Wallace power, it also gave him responsibility. He was not the king, but he did have the authority. In the winter of 1297, he led his army into England. He was there for five week, but no serious attempts were made.

In England Edward I came back from Flanders in March 1298 and he started to put together much bigger army which he would lead. He had 2.000 men-at-arms and over 10.000 people.

He arrived in York on 16 May 1298.

There is no evidence that Wallace had any intention of actually confronting Edward. But at one moment he was at Falkirk, south of River Forth, only few kilometers away from Edward.

The Scottish cavalry only had 200 man. They abandoned the fight. Wallace also fled the field. Wallace resigned the Guardianship. Edward went back to England. In the summer of 1298 John Comyn, Lord of Badenoch and Earl of Buchan and Robert Bruce, Early of Carrick were waiting for Wallace to meet a disaster. They were willing to take up where Wallace left off.

Exile and defiance

Wallace left Scotland at some point in the late summer or autumn of 1299. He went to France.

John Comyn and Rober Bruce became Guardians.

By 1303 Wallace was back to Scotland.

The vital castle of Stirling was in the Scottish hands until after the Strathord agreement of 1304.

The capture of Wallace at Glasgow in 1305 by Sir John Menteith can hardly have come as a surprise to anyone, including, perhaps especially, Wallace himself.

The point of trial was to show power of Edward, and to show that the Scottish war was at an end. His head was displayed on London Bridge, his parts send to Newcastle, Berwick, Perth and Stirling.

But what was it all for

Edward I was able to manipulate the various claimants to the Scottish crown in the Great Cause of 1291-92 into accepting him as their feudal superior. He bet on Balliol. But he pushed him too far. In the first years of rebellion, the Guardianship was about restoration of Balliol line, not about recovery of Scottish independence.

Bruce might be prepared to fight under the Balliol banner as a vehicle for his own career ambitions, but not if the return of King John was to become a reality.

Nationalism was a force in medieval Scotland and was one of the issues for which the Scots fought between 1297 and 1304.

Wallace early success was based on a ‘popular movement with a measure of social discontent in its make-up’.

The early death of Murray made him an impeccable patriot. Wallace death made him a hero. Bruce and Comyn intentions were more egoistic.

The Guardianship fought for King John, but King Robert benefited from it.

Edward I wanted Scotland annexation. To maybe provide for his personal estate, separated from England and to recruit more soldiers and re-deploy its forces from north to Flanders and Europe.

Death and immortality

There is a danger in writing history for the cinema or stage. The needs of the narrative do not always coincide with the parameters of recorded history.

Although the English language was well established throughout most of southern and eastern Scotland, Gaelic was still the first – and only – language of a very great proportion of Scots throughout the rest of the country.

Barbour’s Bruce, which was unquestionably written for a noble audience, was written little more than fifty years after the events it portrays.

Without military tenure there would have been very few Scottish men-at-arms in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and without them there would have been very little prospect of success for the cause of Scottish independence.

If the magnates were less than constant in their support of Scottish kingship at all, let alone the kingship of John I or Robert I, the same applied to the rest of Scottish society.

Wallace relationship with the church was more important after the battle of Stirling Bridge. After that battle he also gain some acceptability.

For the win at Stirling Bridge, Murray army was also an important factor. Wallace would not win without it.

Wallace was a politician. But his politics was based on military activities. He was a violent man.

You may also like
Fitzroy Maclean: Scotland

Leave a Reply